CLOVERFIELD Spoilers - The Marketing Tease

CLOVERFIELD is the title of the exciting new film from producer J. J. Abrams (LOST, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3). Abrams and company has done an incredible marketing job on this film, and indie filmmakers everywhere should duly take note.

Whether the modern monster movie is your type of film or not, a little web research will reveal how to market a cheap-looking (HD video) film so that everyone will be talking about it. There are two trailers available online, one being a "teaser" and the second being more polished (which, if you look closely, has also been reshot in some places -- Rob's entrance into his farewell party -- and in other places upgraded with special effects -- compare the two versions of the statue-of-liberty-severed-heads that come tumbling down a deserted Manhattan thoroughfare).

The first trailer was released with no title, only a release date and the recognizable name of J. J. Abrams. All we have to look at, in terms of visuals are some sloppy-looking homemade party video footage. The real genre intentions of the film set in when a minor earthquake seems to shake the apartment. The partygoers rush out onto the roof to witness not-so-distant skyscrapers exploding into flame. The fact that the film takes place at night adds to mystery of "the attack".

We are left with a stylistic wink to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, but on a grander scale. The acting is more convincing, the set pieces more spectacular. The presentation of the trailer (and promise of the film, seemingly) is that these are real events happening to your average 20-somethings, with completely unsubtle references to 9/11, but they are presented in a horror context, so we are ready to be shocked, horrified, and occasionally mocking of the poor characters involved in this scenario.

This film is becoming popular from word of mouth. Lack of information in the teaser trailer led people to rush to the web and discuss. Speculation and rumor has taken over at this point. You can't buy marketing like that. If this film makes more money than Abrams' recent MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 3, and with no-name actors in the leads, then CLOVERFIELD will be a real marketing coup -- and it doesn't have that far to go ($181 Million in box office minus $150 Million dollar budget equals $31 Million).

I haven't seen budget estimates of CLOVERFIELD, but with no A-list talent and shot on HD, it can't have been too expensive. The special effects will be considerable, one presumes, but in time-tested H.P. Lovecraft fashion, the dangerous "monster" or "monsters" seem to be kept as a backdrop in the trailer, a frightening presence in the distance. All we witness is their destruction. It's not a guy in a rubber mask running around with a hatchet.

If you're thinking, "Oh, the only way they got all this word of mouth was by showing a trailer in a movie theater, which costs millions of dollars and is something out of my reach," think again. The marketing campaign for this film appears to be based on BLAIR WITCH as well. That film, as you recall, had no money and started a viral web buzz just by encouraging people to think there was a real Blair witch and that the film was a documentary. THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT cost $25,000 and grossed $248 million worldwide. Creativity can beat cash any day of the week. (Robert Rodriguez has made a career out of trying to be intensely creative, flashy, and provocative, but all-the-while cheap, making even his modestly performing films very profitable.)

So soon, we'll see what happens in CLOVERFIELD, or what the title even means. On 01-18-08, we'll all finally find out if MUPPETS TAKE MANHATTAN continues to be the most frightening New York monster movie ever made.

Breaking the Bank: Film School Tuition 2007-8 and How To Beat It

Egads! Film school costs are up again, costing as much as the average American's take-home salary for a whole year. The numbers for a top west-coast and a top east-coast film program:

New York University, Tisch School of the Arts (NYU) Tuition and Fees (Per Semester)

• Full-time Tuition, 12-18 point flat rate, per term: $17,397
• Nonreturnable Registration and Services Fee: $943
• Film Production Lab and Insurance Fee: $448
• Cinema Studies Projection Fee (per point): $12.25
• Photo Lab and Insurance Fee: $310

University of Southern California, (USC) Tuition and Fees (Per 2 Semesters)

Based on the 2007-2008 academic year, the following are estimated two-semester costs at USC for a full-time undergraduate (taking 12-18 units each semester) living in university housing:

• $35,212 Tuition
• $598 Mandatory fees
• $10,858 Room and board
• $750 Books and supplies
• $1,600 Personal and Miscellaneous
• $580 Transportation
• $49,598 Total (add $144 for your very first semester at USC orientation fee)

If your funds are liquid and these costs are not a problem, by all means consider going. If you are stretching your budget to the limit and considering going into heavy student loan debt, proceed with caution. I have a friend who has been out of film school for ten years and is still drowning in student loan debt.

Consider: What else could I do with $50,000 per year that would give me practical film experience? Make movies. Some possibilities:

Buy a $3500 HD video camera and shoot short films with friends. Have them chip in for the time they use the camera.

Buy a $3500 or better HD video camera and $10,000 worth of fancy, fancy lights (you could get a serious lighting kit for this amount of money) and then post on Craigslist, etc., that you will rent the equipment out to students. Suddenly, you've created your own film school!

Rent a camera and lights and shoot a short video and your budget can be under $1000.

ULTIMATE CHALLENGE: Buy a camera and rent or buy lights and shoot a feature film. This will immediately give you a better education than film any $150,000 film school education because in most film schools, you will NEVER make a feature film. If you work on a feature at some point while in school, odds are it will NOT be directed by, written by, or edited by you. So, if in three years time, you shoot three $50,000 feature films, you are far beyond the film school pack in terms of practical experience (even if it's mostly by trial and error) and film ownership (you will own your films). And you will have just as many filmic friends as you would have made in film school, but these will be actual HARD WORKING people who want to make movies, not just students trying to make a passing grade.

Am I oversimplifying this? Not really. I've done both -- gone to school and worked on indie film sets. I personally think the current cost of three or four year film programs is ridiculous and exclusive. It doesn't have to be that way.

If you really want a taste of film school and some technical experience in an educational setting, I would suggest the more condensed & pocketbook friendly film programs (like summer film classes or adult education programs). Then follow up one of these programs by making a few films with the people you met in these programs. In the end, you'll have a lot more money to play with when you make your own films.