How to pitch your script: 10 tips from Marten Rabarts

DearCinema organized an interactive session with international script consultant Marten Rabarts on “How to pitch your script at international platforms” on March 8 in Mumbai.
For those who couldn’t attend the session, here are 10 takeaways from it:

1.

For European co-producers, co-producing with India is not about the money. You have more money in India than we have in Europe, from private sources. The kind of money we have available in Europe for Indian filmmakers  is cultural subsidy or soft money. European producers co-produce with India because they want to develop their own infrastructure or build relationships with India.

2.

What you get by working with a really experienced and culturally sensitive co-producer is knowledge of that market outside of your own country. A co-producer can work with you creatively to fine-tune the project that makes it viable for the international market.

3.

You don’t want to work with a producer who will de-Indianize the project or erode its authenticity and cultural specificity which is its greatest asset that the international market is looking for. So you have to really get to know your producer, you have to see their previous work, same as they want to see your previous work, before you commit to each other.

4.

An energy is building under the idea of Indian independent cinema. You have got a certain currency for a period of time. What does it mean? It means that all the festivals and sales agents are casting a very strong gaze on you. What the market needs is a flow of Indian independent cinema, so it can’t be just the films of Anurag Kashyap. Diversity is the reigning identity of the new Indian cinema.

5.

You need sales agents to place your content in the market outside the Indian subcontinent. You don’t know the international network of distributors who are great at distributing your kind of work. You don’t know if that distributor is the right one for your film because within any territory there are a stack of distributors. You don’t know what a good deal is. When a sales agent comes on board, you license them to sell your property. Then they start to promote your film at festivals. If sales agents have good relationship with a distributor, they can sell your film purely on trust. Distributors don’t trust filmmakers directly with deliverables and contracts.

6.

Never send out your script too early to either producers or sales agents. Take expert opinion on it before you are ready to show it to the world. If you put out an underdeveloped script, they won’t give you another chance.

7.

Never pitch anything that you can email. You are wasting everyone’s time. What you pitch, face to face, is your passion. What does the film mean to you? Where does it come from? You are pitching ‘why’ the film, not ‘what’ the film.

8.

Set up the main conflict of the main character. Pick an important scene from the film and describe it visually and cinematically. Always tell the ending when you are pitching your project.

9.

To show your previous work or some visual material to support the project is a good idea. But show something that is really polished. Don’t just throw something together overnight. Also, don’t overload people with information.

10.

Know who you are meeting with. Know what their needs are. Know what they have done before. Read the industry guides. What they have worked on before is an important piece of information, it will tell you what their taste is.

INDIE HEAD RUSH: By (Q)aushiq Mukherjee

There cannot be a definition for independence, whether it is Individualistic, collective or cinematic. Independence is entirely contextual in a postmodern world. What is critical therefore, is to understand where we stand in terms of history of cinema to be able to begin looking at what constitutes the truest spirit of the indie.
The Indian Indie could be mapped back to the beginning, as it always has been, anywhere in the world. Before the potential of cinematic commerce was discovered, individuals, or artists, driven by passion, made films. Since then, every now and then, independent films raised their defiant heads and challenged norms, sometimes even moulding, or changing them altogether. The last time it happened was in the late sixties and seventies. This particular movement, a continuity of the cinematic and political revolution around the world, had its foundation strongly hinged on ideals. An exalted feeling of following a path of truth, challenging impure tendencies, a sense of black and white, inspired the artists.
The word challenge may be the key to deconstruct indie cinema. Perhaps the only way that a film could claim that it’s indeed an independent film is when it challenges, provokes and engages.

The word challenge may be the key to deconstruct indie cinema. Perhaps the only way that a film could claim that it’s indeed an independent film is when it challenges, provokes and engages.

But indie as a concept is quite postmodern. Because never before was cinema this accessible. Never was it a pure art form. Cinema was largely an elite game, available only to those with resources or high technical education, kind of like flying a plane. It involved large cameras, large crews, large egos, and had to be larger than life. Unlike any other art form, cinema could not be made alone, unlike painting, writing, dancing, or making music. To get beyond this hurdle, filmmakers strived to make cinema more and more buxom, injecting doses of adrenaline and pumping money into individual shots. They wanted to strike awe and a respectful fear into the hearts of the hapless audience. And they did. Goggle eyes, people around the world watched those helicopters sweeping down and those bridges exploding. They still do.
Independence in cinema, or in life in general, is linked to money. And this is why now is a good time to be a pedestrian filmmaker. Now, it is possible to be an Indie, simply because it is cheap. We all know of the digital explosion, and the rise of consumer/amateur cinema. With the correct amount of information and research, anyone could, hypothetically, shoot a film. Finally, cinema was free. And now emerged the true question. What film do you make?
India has suddenly realized that there could be this other way to make films. In the throes of this revelation, DSLRs are flying off the shelf, and a mother is cautiously putting on her lipstick as the nervous son shifts around the curtains for the correct light on the bed, his DSLR hanging in his left hand nervously, like a cigarette on Godard’s lips. What could possibly come out of this experiment? We can only wait and watch. Meanwhile, let us keep on experimenting the ways to go about in the quagmire of digital real estate, trying to hunt for those details that will make the true Indie get made.
Indie cinema is not only about telling a story. That’s not the job of cinema, though it has been relegated to that job by the ever-turning wheels of industry. It is an experiential form, working with more than one dimension. Stories are the basis of cinema, but the way one tells the story makes it cinema. Form, therefore, plays a major character in this set up. Technique is crucial. It’s the thing that sets it free. To free oneself from the burdens of classic moviemaking, careful scrutiny and knowledge of the technology is unavoidable. And since this technology is transient, unlike analog, one has to be on that ball. I am not insinuating that the genius indie filmmaker is a geek, but usually it turns out that way.
About money, there’s really nothing to say. Subversion is the only mantra for a pedestrian filmmaker. And the greatest joy of all is in subverting economy. Frequently I feel that knowing how much you can spend and then crafting the exercise of production is the best way. You also need money to bring a film out, and if one is looking at the entire process as subversive, the distribution should also be looked at in the same way. Progressive distribution and new media are the obvious answers, but the first thing is to prepare the indie crew to deliver faithfully. Faith is the most important ingredient of the mix. Faith on challenging, on deconstructing, and on cinema.
Time is non linear. So is indie cinema.

My journey as an independent filmmaker: Shonali Bose

DearCinema brings to you a few voices that define the Indie scene in India today, ruminating over what independent cinema means to them. Straight from the horse’s mouth. Following the eloquent Q [Indie Head Rush: By (Q)aushiq Mukherjee], in the second in the series, Shonali Bose who directed the national award winning film Amu and won the Sundance Institute– Mahindra Global Filmmaking Award 2012 writes about the compromises she refused to make while treading the indie tightrope.

I taught for a year at the New York Film Academy in Los Angeles. And this is what I told my students. Be very sure, be very committed, be very passionate about your films – otherwise choose another line of work. It’s one of the toughest professions in the world!
What does it mean to be an independent filmmaker whether in LA or in Bombay?
To my mind, it’s being a writer-director or filmmaker who does not compromise. It’s being a filmmaker who will tell the story they want to tell and cast it the way they want to cast and use music/songs as they see fit – and not according to the diktat of producers/financiers/studios.
It took me 3 years to raise money for my debut film Amu. No one wanted to touch it because it was on the most taboo issue – the 84 genocide (euphemistically called riots) in the capital city.  It’s not that I did not get any financial offers – but I refused to compromise creatively or politically. One offer was to have songs in the film. But for me as a director they wouldn’t work. Amu was a tight narrative drama – which would have been weakened by breaking into songs. My current film has 5 songs. It’s not about a blanket attitude about songs. It’s what the script and story and style demand.
The second offer was to take a leading male star. I refused point blank. The male lead in Amu, Kabir, was actually second to the female protagonist (much in the way heroines are second to heroes in almost all Hindi films). The central journey and quest belonged to the female protagonist. She could not be shadowed by a male star. And finally – to take out all references to the government organizing the attacks. Over my dead body! I would rather not make the film than make these compromises. So I stuck to my guns and raised the money dollar by dollar retaining complete creative and political control.

Still from Amu

When I finished the final mix of Amu and had the first print – it was such a sense of achievement. The film was exactly how I wanted it to be and truly an independent film. Just as I was going to uncork the champagne a filmmaker friend said – not so soon – the battle has only just begun. Finishing the film is the least of it – it’s releasing it! And how true that was. This is the other big problem with indie films – they do not come with guaranteed distribution and release dates like studio films do. At that time – in 2004 – multiplexes were only just coming in. This is a phenomenon which has made it possible for small films to get theatrical release. But even before this step – is another hurdle and that is the censor board. And maybe this hurdle is the same for all filmmakers – independent or otherwise.  All I know is that Amu – which has no sex or violence was given an “A” certificate – because the board said “why should young people know a history that is better buried or forgotten” – when mainstream hindi films filled with violence and lewd dances which I certainly wouldn’t want my children to watch – were getting a “U.” Completely politically motivated “A” certificate essentially assured that the film cannot be seen by the majority of audiences – as it can never release on television.
The final hurdle was P&A budget (prints and advertising). Shringar agreed to release the film because they really liked it themselves but they didn’t have faith in Indian audiences. They were not willing to spend anything on it! With utmost difficulty I raised 10 lakhs and released 7 prints. We could only do 3 cities at a time. And yet in the 3 theaters in each city it ran houseful for 3 months. For me, as an independent filmmaker – I saw with my own eyes the responses of audiences to the film. They welcomed a piece of good cinema. But financiers and distributors don’t have faith in our audiences. They will only put in P&A if there’s a star.
My next script Margarita, with a straw – may have received one of the most prestigious awards in the world – that too for a script – but its still an uphill battle to raise money for it. I already turned down a huge studio because they said they would fund it if an A list bollywood star played the lead. But the role of the 18 year old female protagonist is such that a Kareena or Priyanka (who I would be happy to cast in some other film or role) don’t fit it. And again I refuse to make that compromise.
Of course there is progress because you have Aamir backing unconventional films (and hats off to him for that) and Anurag being recognized and given the respect long due to him from financiers and distributors and Dibakar making his kind of cinema…..but these are too few and far between. It’s not that we lack the talent to shine on the world stage of cinema like Iran does. It’s that good quality cinema sans stars still doesn’t get the backing it deserves.

The Indian Independent Film Industry: Where Do We Go Now?

There is something in the air in Bombay, everyone’s talking about it. Sometimes it feels very real, and at other times it feels more like Yeti- the mystical creature somewhere in the foothills of the Himalayas, many of have seen his footprints in the snow, no one seems to have met the guy or lived to tell the tale. It was pre-maturely named the Hindi new wave by festival directors in the West. It was expected to arrive sometime in 2009, just after Slumdog Millionaire, the Slumdog effect, but it did not quite materialize then. The following years, 2010 and 2011 were good years for Indian Indies with some travelling to major film festivals and even pulling in good numbers in the local box office. Yes, something’s definitely in the air, the water has pulled back and exposed all the artifacts on the sea floor- shells, fish carcasses, water bottles, rocks, even Ganesh idols that refused to melt, etc., people have walked in and are eyeing all these things with curiosity and this big Hindi New Wave is expected to come and sweep them off of their feet anytime now. But guess what; it’s not coming anytime soon, because unlike tsunamis, film movements take time to mature and bear fruit, a set of visionaries and the convergence of fortuitous events turn it into an industry, an ecosystem that can only develop organically.
It brought a smile to my lips recently when I saw a screenwriting class advertised, to be held in New York City, ‘the craft with an eye to the Indian Independent Film World’, it’s like selling Yeti t-shirts in all sizes, including triple XL  – Yeti’s own size! But it’s a good thing; it means that the Yeti that is the Indian Independent Film has left his footprints in the snow again recently. People will come out and sell Yeti mugs, t-shirts, mouse pads shaped like footprints in the snow. But more importantly, the explorers, the visionaries may just find Yeti now, now that they have one more clue. When that happens, the real Indian Independent Film Movement will become an Industry.
The conflict of the modern and the traditional that defines our lives more and more everyday and the angst that comes from it will spur stories and storytellers. There will be the quintessential Indian Independent Films one day; they will be a true reflection of the idea of India and the Indian life at this moment in time, and there will be people lining up to watch them as well, either in dedicated indie film venues or on their i-pads. But it’s not going to be easy to get there, not as easy as selling Yeti Foot Print Shaped Mouse Pads.
To build and sustain a viable Independent Film Industry in India we need an ecosystem. This ecosystem of studios/financers, production houses, filmmakers with truly independent voices, talent development programs, festivals with real curatorial authority, dedicated venues for indie film/exhibitors, independent film press to solely review indie films and only report on specialty film box office, and most importantly – organizations and institutions dedicated to audience building – The audience that will buy the tickets/ DVDs/ downloads/ merchandise/ what have you, and pump the monies into this ecosystem.

…this big Hindi New Wave is expected to come and sweep them off of their feet anytime now. But guess what; it’s not coming anytime soon, because unlike tsunamis, film movements take time to mature and bear fruit, a set of visionaries and the convergence of fortuitous events turn it into an industry, an ecosystem that can only develop organically.

But before we come to that, what exactly is an Indie film?
Indie in the West is a non-studio funded film, or a film with bold themes or one that goes into unchartered territory, is truly experimental, etc. There will be 3 or 4 definitions of an ‘Indie Film’ in the West. In India, it is more complex. “How complex is your complexity?” put that on a t-shirt. “India – our complexity will boggle your complexity’s mind” put that on the back.  In India, there are as many definitions of Indie film as our Gods have hands and our demons have heads. The definition of ‘Indie Film’ depends on the person you ask – some will say it is a film without songs, other like to say an Indie film is an ‘issue based film’ which could mean anything from ‘it is a bad script where all the subtext  – the aforementioned issue, is summarized in scrolling text or voiceover at the end’ to ‘a film without songs’, other definitions doing the rounds are an Indie Film is a festival film/at times black and white for good measure/ made by so and so/ starring this, that or the other/etc. etc.. Among audiences an unspoken consensus seems to have emerged – “an Indie film is a low budget film with no stars that may or may not have songs peppered in its narrative, it is likely that it will be slow-paced, it may deal with a current affair, and it will surely have a beginning, middle and end. “
A highly scientific poll of my family, friends and neighbors generated this last definition. I am skeptical about everything usually, including and not limited to Elvis’s passing, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that this definition is accurate. Why is this dangerous to our very existence as filmmakers or players in the Indie World? It is simple really; our audience has a very broad and loopy definition of our product. By audience I don’t mean foreign film festival audiences, I mean the local audience that is our Bimbo bread and Amul butter. The audience that decides whether we get to buy real diapers for our kids or just pretend to be eco-friendly and use hand washed cloth diapers over and over.
This broad and loopy definition results in too many films being clubbed into the ‘Indie film’ category. If the audience thinks every low budget, non-song, slow paced, issue based feature is an ‘Indie film’; we are developing our audiences with a good ‘Indie Film’ and killing it with the 10 bad ones that will follow until the next good one comes along. We will go 1 step ahead, 2 steps back, and no prizes for guessing where we will end up. We will end up hand washing cloth diapers.
Why does the Indian audience have such a broad and loopy definition of the Indian Indie film? Because there are not enough tastemakers, curators, festivals with real curatorial authority, reviewers, gurus, filmmakers, etc. telling the audience what an ‘Indie Film’ really is. It may be low budget or medium budget, may or may not have stars, stripes or songs in it. But it is essentially a good story well told, that asks questions rather than gives answers, and for that reason it will live in your conscience long after you have left the theater. Hence you must purchase the ticket and provide us with our bimbo bread, amul butter and real diapers. Indie in India has very little to do with its funding model, it is content with an independent spirit. The difference between the Bollywood film and the Indian Indie is just that – the quintessential Bollywood musical gives the audience what they expect, and the Indian Indie ideally gives them what they least expect but hopefully want. The other difference is that the Bollywood apparatus like a true industry is very good at defining its product, hence making it ‘commercial’, and the Indian Indie World is not. If I don’t tell you what it is that I am selling to you, why would you buy it from me? Therefore, when you tell someone in Bombay that you are a filmmaker, the first question they ask it – “Commercial or Indie?” The obvious implications being that the Indian Indie film is not a commercial enterprise, and yes you can marry my daughter but only over my grave.
So what does this indie ecosystem need to look like? No matter who we are in this ecosystem – studios/financers, production houses, filmmakers with truly independent voices, talent development programs, festivals, venues for indie film, independent film press, organizations and institutions dedicated to audience building…we have work to do. Currently, our Indie ecosystem works much like our cities – Everyone cleans and jazzes up their own home while ignoring the common spaces that bind our lives together.
What we don’t have & need…
1.       Festivals with real curatorial authority, or just festivals with distinct and unique personalities – Film festivals that matter have a vision, and a visionary helmer, a person who sets the tone, and makes sure that the bouquet of films that the festival is going to offer up to the festival audience that year is going to collectively say something about their World and reality at that moment in time. Coherence. That is what draws audiences in and over time makes the festival relevant to the local audience and a real curatorial authority. The mark of quality or aura that these festivals with real curatorial authority provide films and filmmakers, what if we had a festival like that in India?
Indian filmmakers have a common gripe – a film that went to Oberhausen, Tribeca, Rotterdam, Fribourg and other premier film festivals, but they have no clue what would be a fitting festival for the film in India. I know that the film is a strange and funny take on life, so festivals like Rotterdam and Oberhausen that encourage unique perspectives and weird views of the World we live in are good platforms for it, but what are the unique personalities of our local film festivals?
Many of our local festivals are trying to bring the hottest films on the festival circuit to India, have great panels and master classes, and a great international guest list. But few are trying to develop their own unique personality and curatorial style, to make sure all these films collectively say something to our local audience. Our homegrown SXSW/ Sundance/ Tribeca with an independent spirit and a platform that would help Indian Indie filmmakers unlock and access our own local audiences.
2.       Savvy indie film marketers – I saw a film on a flight a few months ago called “Rocket Singh – Salesman of the Year”. It was deftly written, well directed, the performances were great, and overall in my humble opinion no less than ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ – another slice of life film that took the American Indie World by storm a few years ago. It is a big Indian studio film with a big star, but it had a true independent spirit in that it was a reflection of our times and moral conflicts, a good story well told where there were no stock characters, no villains but real people with real conflicts. If that film had fared well at the Indian box office, it would have done more for Indian Indie film than many ‘Indie Films’.  Perhaps it should have been positioned as an Indian Indie that can cross over. Had it crossed over to western audiences and then come back to India with accolades, it would have done better business? I don’t know, but it’s worth speculating. The example I am using is subjective of course, I like this film, others may not, but surely we all agree we need good marketers who can take a good story well told and sell it to a relevant subset of our own audience.
3.       Dedicated venues – It is very heartening to see many screening series and organizations trying to build up our film culture. Sundance’s Film Forward program recently came to India, and PVR theater chain’s Rare initiative gets talked about as well. But the key missing piece in this whole ecosystem is the dedicated venues for Indie Film. Where do I go to buy my ‘Khosla Ka Ghosla’ mug, my DEV D hip flask, and DVD set of the Apu Trilogy that is on sale during the Ray retrospective? In a city like Bombay with real estate going through the roof, a dedicated venue may not be viable, but in smaller towns? In Indore, Pune, Bangalore, Hyderabad, others? The IFC Center in New York is perhaps not raking in the moolah for IFC but it provides their films with a much-valued theatrical release, and it’s a space through which they nurture their audience. It’s not possible to monetize a community of film lovers without giving them their go to places to commune – become a community and grow.
4.       Development – As a writer your only currency is time, you have nothing else really. You have clear choices to make: should you work on that unauthorized or authorized remake some has offered you, should you write dialogues for someone else’s picture (in India the dialogue writer is often different from the screenwriter, because screenplays are written in English, dialogues in Hindi/other local language), or should you toil away at a story that has been nagging at you to come on the page? Should you distill this story through your life experiences and risk the effort to come up with a good story well told? But wait a minute, you have bills to pay, bread to buy, maybe even butter. Stories are like buses. When the story bus hits you, you have to put it down on paper and give it the love, the attention, the toil, and the compulsion it deserves. If you don’t, the bus takes off, looking for another storyteller. Do this enough times, and this is every Bombay writer’s biggest fear – the God given receptors you have to observe the human behavior around you and bring it to your stories will dim, that story bus will stop coming if you let it go enough times. Talent is not democratic. Very few have it. So why don’t we have mechanisms in place to protect those who do?
The concept of ‘development’ does not exist in the jargon of most producers and studios in India.  But what if it did?
Who we don’t have enough of…
1.       Uncompromising storytellers, uncompromising reviewers, and an uncompromising audience – How many times have we heard or read this – “that was good for an Indian film” or “I went with low expectations so I liked it” or someone gave me this gem recently “even though it was clearly a rip off it had a very Indian spin to it”. If we don’t hold each-other accountable for lazy writing and unbridled stealing then we deserve the subpar content that is served up to us.
Slowly, a set of mainstream reviewers, portals and independent blogs are gaining traction: dearcinema.com, longlivecinema.com are among the sites that are dedicated to the Indian Indie and not only provide a place to commune but also try to keep everyone honest.
2.       A personal connection to our stories – Enough said. This was a big year for India at Cannes, we had 4 Indian Films in various sections and festival side-bars. The World wants more, and we should want more from ourselves.
3.       Producers who can navigate international markets and the festival landscape – Why is this important to create our own local ecosystem of Indie film? If our stories travel to international markets, and our films travel to international film festivals and have major sales agents on board that can sell them in international territories. That flushes dollars back into our indie ecosystem, the monies that will sustain this ecosystem. It also helps to set up co-productions wherein foreign producers who have produced content for the World markets come on board as creative stakeholders. It helps to raise the bar on content, and enhance the universal core of our stories. How many people can this story talk to? 1 billion? 6 billion? In the future, the future Mr. Gittes, the film will have a longer long tail, it will be consumed on multiple platforms long after what we now know as windows (Theatrical, Satellite, TV, Hotels & Planes, DVD, everything broadband) are exhausted. Films that will make full use of this longer long tail will be stories with a strong universal core, stories that can speak to 6 billion because the creative team – writer, director, producers, and actors were able to go deep and find something that everyone can hang their hat on.
4. Talent Development Programs – While this is the most obvious need in any industry, it is the hardest one to nail.  We need more Talent Development Programs for writers and directors devoid of the usual suspects. We need many more safe places for writers to develop their craft.  A talent development program for nurturing savvy producers in navigating co-productions and alternative funding and distribution models is perhaps an even more critical need of the hour.
The arrival of Sundance in India via Mahindra is great step ahead to shine the light on and to nurture writers. The National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) has been visionary with the NFDC- Binger Screenwriters lab, now in its fifth year and the Film Bazaar. Both the lab and the Film Bazaar have become launch pads into the international markets for projects with a universal take on the Indian experience. The Film Bazaar attracts programmers from the major film festivals and all the major sales agents and showcases Indian Indie projects like they have not been showcased yet.
5. Visionaries & disruptors – People in the creative process and in every step of the journey of the film that question why we do what we do in the way we do it.
What does an alternative distribution model look like in a country with a billion people and the most rapidly growing middle class in the World? And the fastest growing cell phone market in the World? Can a piece of the specialty film business in India be a volumes business? And more questions even more interesting than these. The thing about visionaries and disruptors is that they don’t always know the answers but they have the exposure and receptors to ask the right questions. You cannot track Yeti down without asking questions.
6.       Audience building initiatives – In this entire ecosystem of the future Indian Indie film business, the people/person/entity/organization that may own the biggest piece of pie, is the one that invests in audience building today. The one that helps to gather, collect, nurture the audience under a virtual or physical roof will likely also be the one to monetize them effectively.
Where do we go now…
There are overlaps of course throughout this value chain that goes from writers to exhibitors. For example, most Financers in India are also Producers. And the curators and tastemakers are not just festivals but also the press and Indie stalwarts who tweet, but no single part of this ecosystem can exist for too long without the others being alive and well. There is the potential for huge rewards throughout the Indian Indie value chain but it is clear that all the links need to function if we want to expand our local audiences and tell our stories to the World.
India is in flux. And it’s not an organized and controlled flux akin to China, it is leaps and hops, spurts and bursts, backwards and forwards. It is a screenplay with the most erratic pacing, and us – the characters that live the screenplay that is India, have seen the biggest scams, the biggest income gaps, the biggest dreams and the biggest nightmares come alive all at once. Attitudes and tastes are evolving fast. What is a taboo today won’t be one 6 months or a year from now. You can’t write this stuff and yet we must. The Indian Indie film World has the unique privilege to document our society at a time like no other, to not only commune with each other but also commune with our audience. To tell them that we don’t know how to deal with this stuff either, but here’s a story about it, we are all in this together.

Ashim Ahluwalia debunks 12 rules of filmmaking

Rule 1: You need to have a bound script
Screenplay formats were designed for the Hollywood studio system. It’s actually meant for script readers who have to go through hundreds of scripts, that’s why they have invented this format.
The real script is worth worrying about. It’s without the formatting – one in which you write whatever you want to write. It’s the one that includes your own notes about atmosphere, colour and mood.
Write a “bound” script to raise money but the real thing should be a mess – notes, pictures, whatever. Godard wrote Breathless on the back of a paper napkin.

There is always an emphasis on safer films like rom-coms, films like you have seen before. But if you’re going to start like that, it’s never going to rise above the surface. Nobody is going to notice you. So throw this rule out and startle the spectator.

Rule 2:  Your screenplay should have Three Acts
Go to a Hollywood movie and check when the first explosion comes in – it will be around 10 minutes, the next one will be roughly around 20 minutes and in thirty minutes you will have some cliffhanger feeling because that’s the end of Act one. The thing works like clockwork which means every film works the same way.
The funny thing about the three-act structure is that it’s not a story structure at all. We don’t know why it became the norm; it just seems simple enough to follow. It particularly worked for simpler commercial films. But you can’t find it in our mythology. The Ramayana or the Mahabharata do not follow a three-act structure. The great stories of the past don’t have a three-act structure, so why is it being applied to screenplays?
The Greeks had no structure, they had plays with one act. The Romans had five acts. Japanese cinema sometimes has seven acts. So why are we stuck at three acts?
Sometimes you have a story that needs a certain ending and digression. Fuck the structure, do it the way you want to do. The key is to keep it engaging and to have enough plot points to move the story forward so that the momentum doesn’t get flat. But how you do it is really upto you.
Rule 3: Your film should have a clear meaning that everybody understands
People will ask you what your film is about, what is the theme, what is the subject?
You don’t need to summarize your film in one keyword. It’s not a pamphlet. It’s not an AV.  It’s a film.
It’s usually the producers who ask you to tell your story in one line. If that were the case, then there would be no films by masters like Tarkovsky especially The Mirror which is his best film. How do you describe that film in one line?
You would only have films propelled by action; that’s why all Hollywood and Bollywood films are propelled by action. You won’t have films which are ephemeral, like dreams for example.
Rule 4: You need to give people what they want
This is an abstract statement because nobody really knows what they want. People are really confused about their wants. This idea of giving them what they want is very dangerous for filmmakers. The moment you start thinking this way, you start second guessing your audience.
I think one of the most beautiful things in filmmaking is to not give people what they want. You make what you want to make.
Rule 5: You should cast known faces to get money and distribution
Unless you’re making a blockbuster or casting one of the five most famous people in the country, you’re not going to get money or distribution because of your actors. What you may get, on the contrary, is a headache from dealing with someone who is very difficult and frustrated because (s)he is not an “A” list star.
You’re very grateful that they have come to do your movie. They are taking your money anyway. You’re giving them a big chunk of your budget that you’re not going to recover. And they won’t let you do what you want because they don’t like their side profile, for example, or they might not like the way they look in a certain scene.
What’s going to happen is a conflict of interest and I’ve seen that with a lot of young filmmakers who want to cast a known face who is not a star. They think that their first film will gain more momentum because of that actor. But that actor doesn’t let them make the film they want to make, nor does (s)he bring any money.
Rule 6: You need to be a popular, universally-liked filmmaker
You really don’t have to cry if your film is not a blockbuster. Neither was Orson Welles’ Citizen Kanes. Breathless was also a commercial flop. So was Antonioni’s L’avventura, Coppola’s The Conversation, or any film by Werner Herzog.
Let’s ask another question – where are the blockbusters from 1975 or 1985, does anyone care? Let’s be honest – nobody is talking about the director of Kick.
The question of popularity is a very complex question. What’s popular now might be forgotten two weeks later. What’s completely written off today may be studied fifty years later. So when you think about popularity, think about a bigger shelf life.
Rule 7: You need to get all the finance in one go
If you really care to make your film, especially with digital today, you have no excuses. You got your cast right; you’ve got your locations. If you wait for all the money, you will never make your film.
Mumbai is full of producers who can fund your film but it’s a very dangerous situation to have a single producer especially if you’re making your first film. They can easily hijack your project. I strongly suggest – don’t think about the finance as a single chunk, think about it as pieces.
Rule 8: You need to have a certain degree of organization on shoot by making story boards, shoot boards etc.
I don’t think this is necessary unless you’re making a VFX film on a green screen. The reality is that filmmaking resists planning. There is a beautiful quote by Orson Welles that says – A real director presides over accidents. It needs to be understood that filmmaking is not a science. So if you try to make something and it fucks up, don’t be frustrated. Be open to accidents – what is in front of your eyes might be a hundred times more beautiful that what you have sat and imagined in your room.
Don’t think of planning, think of structure. Let those beautiful accidents make their way into the structure. Lose the script but remember that spontaneous aesthetics demands rigorous discipline.
Rule 9: You need to have a consistent style
Not true. You don’t need a consistent style. A lot of filmmakers blur the boundaries between documentary and fiction, between different genres.
I come from a school where I love the idea of collapsing fiction and documentary. My first film John and Jane was set in a call centre. It was about real people who work in a call centre but I decided not to make a film about life in a call centre as a traditional documentary. I decided that this scenario of people working at night with a fake American accent reminds me of the kind of sci-fi films I used to watch as a kid where corporations would implant a chip in someone’s brain. So I thought it would be very interesting to merge a call centre film with a sci-fi dystopian film about the future. You don’t have to follow genre traditions. Genres can merge and collapse and interesting things can come out of them.
Rule 10: There is only one way to shoot a scene
There seems to be a certain accepted grammar of filmmaking, like when two people talk you show shot and countershot. You start with a long shot and cut to a close up. While making a film don’t just presume that things are shot in a certain prescribed way – establishing shot has to be in a certain way, a romantic shot has to be in a certain way. There is no one way of making a film. You can do it in so many different ways.
Rule 11: You need people to take on definitive roles on the set
The idea that you should have people with defined roles as ADs or art directors is absurd. It’s the industry way of thinking about filmmaking. Wong Kar Wai’s art director is also his editor. Using people in multiple roles makes the process much more interesting.
Rule 12: You shouldn’t startle the spectator too much
There is always an emphasis on safer films like rom-coms, films like you have seen before. But if you’re going to start like that, it’s never going to rise above the surface. Nobody is going to notice you. So throw this rule out and startle the spectator.

Your face reveals your health problems

You can spot your health problems in the mirror. Here's how to combat them

Lines on the forehead: This may indicate digestive issues.
Fix it: They can be combated by drinking warm water mixed with lemon juice first thing every morning.

Ageing lines: Ageing lines around the mouth is mostly caused by smoking
Fix it: The effects can be lessened by regularly applying lip balm.

Itchy ears: Itchy ears are often the sign of an allergy or low tolerance. Psoriasis and eczema here are signs that the person is depleted in vitamin D.
Fix it: Ten minutes with the arms and face exposed will give the body vital sunshine and plenty of vitamin D.

Pimples on the forehead: This could indicate internal symptoms of problems with the liver and stomach congestion.
Fix it: Drink plenty of water to flush out any toxins. You should also eat more liver-friendly foods, such as leafy green vegetables. Cut out processed foods and caffeine.

Dark circles under eyes: Dark circles that persist despite regular, restful and sufficient sleep may be a result of food intolerances.
Fix it: Sufferers should remove dairy and wheat from their diet and see if the dark circles lighten. Another culprit is alcohol — even in moderate amounts, this can cause dark circles.

Acne around jawline: Oestrogen is a friend to our skin, suppressing sebaceous activity. But when levels reduce as women get older, skin lacks lustre and you may experience acne cysts deep in the dermis and commonly found on the jawline and hairline.
Fix it: Try eating apricots, shiitake mushrooms, sweet potatoes, and mangoes as they all contain vitamin A to normalise the production and life cycle of skin cells.

Acne on the jawline: Acne may result from eating lots of dairy, sugar and refined foods, such as burgers, chips, crisps and fizzy drinks.
Fix it: Eat more fresh foods and replace fizzy drinks with water to flush out toxins. Ensure the affected areas are cleansed thoroughly.

Pronounced frown line: A pronounced frown line between the eyes shows the liver is under pressure. Environmental and emotional factors, or an allergy to foods can also cause the problem.
Fix it: Try gently massaging the brow area with circular moves.

Dark patches: These can be caused by medication or illness. Age spots, on the other hand, may be the body's way of ridding itself of toxins.
Fix it: Eat fresh foods, drink more water and apply a small amount of castor oil on to existing age spots.

Dry lips: Dry lips show possible internal dehydration, vitamin B and iron deficiency.
Fix it: Check with your GP and drink plenty of water.

50 Oscar snubs that surprised us

Shame, the Steve McQueen sex-addiction drama was not among the nominees in any major category for the 2012 Oscars - a big surprise, given the critical accolades for the director and star Michael Fassbender in an emotionally raw performance.




George Clooney's Ides of March, Ryan Gosling-starrer Drive and David Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo have been snubbed too. But this isn't the first time that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Movies has left out well-deserved films out of the nominee list. We rewind to some of the choices that have surprised fans and critics the world over.





Traffic

Which year? 2000

Lost to: Gladiator

The 2000 Oscar show was arguably one of the tightest races in the history of the awards. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon rolled in international praise. Steven Soderbergh scored an impressive feat with Erin Brockovich and Traffic. Our odds were on Traffic taking home the win, but Soderbergh's double-noms may have split the vote on that tip. So Traffic settled for the Best Director win and the Academy gave an Oscar to the Russell Crowe swords-and-sandals epic.



It's a wonderful life

Which year? 1946

Lost to: The Best Years of our Lives

This vintage Christmas classic was nominated for five Oscars (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Editing, and Best Sound Recording), but didn't win a single one. Yet, it went on to become the No. 1 most inspiring film of all time according to the American Film Institute.



The Truman Show

Which year? 1998

Lost to: Shakespeare In Love

Not only was this Jim Carrey-starrer the most underrated film of the year, it was completely overlooked by the Academy, which favoured a tepid Elizabethan romance.



The Pianist

Which year? 2002

Lost to: Chicago

The Pianist earned Roman Polanski the Oscar for Best Director and Adrien Brody the Best Actor award. Chicago only nabbed Best Supporting Actress for Catherine Zeta-Jones. However, in the year after 9/11, the Academy was bound to side with the more comforting film when it came time to decide Best Picture. So, Chicago, a high energy musical about women on Death Row who ride their infamy to successful showbiz careers, took home the statue while The Pianist, a stark account of starvation and hard-won survival during the Holocaust, got shoved aside. Rude.



True Grit

Which year? 2011

Lost to: The King's Speech

Nominated for 10 awards, Joel and Ethan Coen's remake of the Oscar-winning 1969 Western came up totally empty-handed on the big night. By the time this film was released, critics had already anointed The Social Network and The King's Speech.



Citizen Kane

Which year? 1941

Lost out to: How Green Was My Valley

You'll find this Orson Welles film at the top - or in the Top 10 - of every film critic's 'All-Time Greatest Movies' list. Many attributed this major snub to the fact that it was strongly based on the life of the very powerful and infuriated Randolph Hearst. And critical accolades didn't matter when this award was given out: On Oscar night, Citizen Kane was booed each of the nine times it was announced for an award.



Pulp Fiction

Which year? 1994

Lost to: Forrest Gump

Robert Zemeckis' politically conservative epic is a pleasant-enough travelogue through the life of Forrest Gump, but, in hindsight, its saccharine take on nostalgia does not hold up as well as Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. The movie changed the way people thought about moviemaking; it inspired legions of film students to write only in meta, pop-culture references. And last time we checked, Gump's lasting contributions was "My mama said..." quotes.



Fargo

Which year? 1996

Lost to: The English Patient

A brilliant offering from the Coen Brothers that wonderfully merges black comedy with elements of suspense and humorous horror, Fargo is one of those films that you can't help but revisit. The English Patient, which beat Fargo to the Best Pic gong, happens to be the polar opposite. Released to a plethora of accolades, the film screamed of Oscar: lavish cinematography of epic scale and a grand, overstated narrative. While the former isn't entirely awful, Fargo offers a unique edge to its narrative that allows it to leave a firm impression on viewers: something that the former doesn't.





The Shawshank Redemption

Which year? 1994

Lost to: Forrest Gump

The Shawshank Redemption's reputation has grown in the ensuing years due to Frank Darabont's brilliant adaptation of author Stephen King's source material and for memorable performances by Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman.



The Usual Suspects

Which year? 1995

Lost to: Braveheart

This crime movie invoked the same sensation that Reservoir Dogs did - the feeling that you've just watched an instant crime classic.



Goodfellas

Which year? 1990

Lost to: Dances With Wolves

Goodfellas is such a great gangster flick that it has spawned several imitations, but when it came down to crunch time, Martin Scorsese lost out to Kevin Costner for Dances with Wolves.



Gosford Park

Which year? 2001

Lost to: A Beautiful Mind

Robert Altman took a witty and absorbing look at the foibles of the British class system in this intelligent murder mystery set in the early '30s. Altman picked up a directing and Best Picture nod, and both Helen Mirren and Maggie Smith got a nod in the Supporting Actress category. However, only Julian Fellowes' script won a statuette, and the Academy chose to give gold to a boring Ron Howard movie.



Taxi Driver

Which year? 1976

Lost to: Rocky

How Taxi Driver didn't win the Best Picture statuette is a mystery we'll never solve! Can anyone honestly say that Rocky is a better film than Martin Scorsese's gritty, disturbing neo-noir film? With a narrative that undertakes the issue of loneliness and isolation within the big city and the droves of scum that inhabit it, this Robert De Niro-starrer is emotive and disturbing on many levels.



North By Northwest

Which year? 1959

Lost to: Ben Hur

Alfred Hitchcock was once again snubbed by the Academy when arguably his best movie failed to get a Best Picture nomination.



Raging Bull

Which year? 1980

Lost to: Ordinary People

Some argue that snubbing Raging Bull was in response to Taxi Driver providing inspiration for an attempt on President Ronald Reagan's life. Others say that Ordinary People got gold because Robert Redford (it was his directorial debut) was more popular with voters than Scorsese at the time, hence the Oscar going to Redford's attempt. Regardless of the "why", revisionists would now give the Oscar to Raging Bull, as 32 years later Scorsese's masterpiece continues to pack audiences for screenings.





Apocalypse Now

Which year? 1979

Lost to: Kramer vs. Kramer

1979 saw the year that praised the awkwardness of divorce more than the atrocities of evil on the battlefield of Vietnam. Francis Ford Coppola received no recognition for this film whatsoever, even after losing his mind to make it over the course of over five years.





The Graduate

Which year? 1967

Lost to: In The Heat of the Night

A drama of crime and racism in a small town, In the Heat of the Night took the honours over this ground-breaking Dustin Hoffman-starrer.



Bonnie And Clyde

Which year? 1967

Lost to: In The Heat of the Night

Producer-actor Warren Beatty had to convince Warner Bros. to finance this film, which went on to become the studio's second-highest grosser. It also caused major controversy by redefining violence in cinema and casting its criminal protagonists as sympathetic anti-heroes.





Alfie

Which year? 1966

Lost to: A Man For All Seasons

Michael Caine's first starring role was a foray into dramatic irony, scripted by Bill Naughton from his novel and play. The historical drama of one courageous man standing up against King Henry VIII's desire for a divorce is a fine film, but A Man For All Seasons beat out the superior Alfie.





The Color Purple

Which year? 1985

Lost to: Out of Africa

Despite a whopping 11 nominations, Steven Spielberg's film that covers various dark themes like racism, abuse, lesbianism and incest found little favour with the Academy. Another major letdown was Geraldine Page (The Trip to Bountiful) winning Best Actress over Whoopi Goldberg.



The Elephant Man

Which year? 1980

Lost to: Ordinary People

Agreed, actor John Hurt and director David Lynch aren't Oscar favourites - but this cult film didn't win a single Oscar that year.





All The President's Men

Which year? 1976

Lost to: Rocky

As enjoyable as Rocky is, the Academy could have picked a more worthy winner from all the other choices in 1977 - including All the President's Men, Bound for Glory and Network.



The Postman Always Rings Twice

Which year? 1946

Lost to: The Best Years of Our Lives

While The Best Years of Our Lives is touching, it has slipped from the public conscience and is probably only viewed on film courses. However, Postman... is superb film noir.



Dr. Strangelove

Which year? 1964

Lost to: My Fair Lady

Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove is a film that was ahead of its time, in turns thrilling and vital. My Fair Lady? Not so much, though Audrey Hepburn does her best to salvage the situation.





Brokeback Mountain

Which year? 2005

Lost to: Crashl.a. confidential

Which year? 1997

Lost to: Titanic

"I do think it was a bit of a joke that L.A. Confidential got beaten by Titanic 15 years ago," Guy Pearce recently told a website. "I just kind of went, ugh, all right, okay." And so did we. Titanic was being praised as a spectacle even though it has been proven that any spectacle without good storytelling is only impressive until the next spectacle comes along. L.A. Confidential on the other hand is as fresh and watchable in 2012 as it was then.

Never had gay cowboys been talked about so much in cinema until Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain broke barriers and box-office records in 2005. As actor Jack Nicholson was about to announce the winner, no one was even holding their breath; it was practically a given. But Nicholson said Crash instead, and a collective gasp went around the mountain.





The Crowd

Which year? 1928

Lost to: Wings

Legendary director King Vidor lost as Best Director and the film lost to Wings, but is still considered one of the greatest silent films ever made. The story about the day-to-day problems of a working-class family during the Jazz Age in the big city, lost to a weaker film about World War I fighter pilots.





Pulp Fiction

Which year? 1994

Lost to: Forrest Gump

Robert Zemeckis' politically conservative epic is a pleasant-enough travelogue through the life of Forrest Gump, but, in hindsight, its saccharine take on nostalgia does not hold up as well as Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. The movie changed the way people thought about moviemaking; it inspired legions of film students to write only in meta, pop-culture references. And last time we checked, Gump's lasting contributions was "My mama said..." quotes.



A Clockwork Orange

Which year? 1971

Lost to: The French Connection

Gregory Peck threatened to resign his post as President of the Motion Picture Academy if this dark Kubrick picture was to win Best Film, giving some insight into what the more conservative members of the Academy thought about the picture.





Citizen Kane

Which year? 1941

Lost out to: How Green Was My Valley

You'll find this Orson Welles film at the top - or in the Top 10 - of every film critic's 'All-Time Greatest Movies' list. Many attributed this major snub to the fact that it was strongly based on the life of the very powerful and infuriated Randolph Hearst. And critical accolades didn't matter when this award was given out: On Oscar night, Citizen Kane was booed each of the nine times it was announced for an award.