Some Thoughts on the Fly Fishing Film Tour
- This topic has 21 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated Apr 1, 2010 at 5:00 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey guys –
Lauren and I attended the Fly Fishing Film Tour event here in Atlanta last night (along with board member Andrew Wright). We saw several of you there and I was also pleased to see that not a few of you got shoutouts or appeared in the actual films. I’ve seen most of the videos before, since I’ve been to the Drake film contest every year out in Denver, but usually that’s like watching movies on mute since the crowd is so loud.
I haven’t seen a genuine critique on the net anywhere yet and I think it’s something the filmmakers themselves would value, so here goes.
To me, the most noticeable thing that all but one or two of these films lacked was a definable narrative arc. Movie-making is a lot like writing a magazine article, in a sense. Even with all the cool shots, fish takes, and exciting music, you still need to tell a story to keep an audience engaged. What a few of these films were for the most part was closer to a music video, or in some cases just a collage of footage like you’d see at a TU banquet.
That’s not necessarily bad, but there’s an attention span limit on music videos that seems to be about 5 minutes long (that has certainly worked out for MTV). At the Drake contest, there’s a 5 minute limit. Out there, narrative movies suffer because you can’t tell a complete story in 5 minutes very easily. But the overall effect is much more consistent between movies, because when a filmmaker has only 5 minutes, he can focus on his best stuff and get to the point. So even though it’s like watching MTV, all of the videos are fairly equal and all of them are fairly good.
The Film Tour has no time limit, per se, and therein lies the weakness. I thought one film in particular was clearly the best movie in the mix: Metalhead, which was AEG’s latest offering, had a coherent plot, some funny moments, and it pulled the classic writer’s trick of setting you up to think no fish would be caught, then paying off at the end with lots of great fish shots. (I’ve done the same thing in destination articles). Most importantly, Metalhead had a story arc. It wasn’t redundant or repetitive and it kept the audience’s attention.
Other filmmakers have successfully done that in the past (Running Down the Man, etc., whose creators are noticeably absent from this year’s Tour) so it’s not like AEG has a monopoly on storytelling. But that leads to another point. When the first Drake contest went down, even though it was announced and released on short notice, there was a backlog of quality films that formed the core of that year’s releases. Since then, there’s been a diluting effect, presumably due to the need to ‘feed the beast.’ Filmmakers who maybe ought to spend 2-3 years on a project to put together a really great piece end up releasing a quick job in just one year (in order to keep their name in the mix), but the results are not as good. Consequently, in my opinion, the films are getting weaker overall rather than stronger (with some exceptions).
So, several of the movies really wound up being more akin to either History Channel-style documentaries (complete with droning narrators and goofy graphics, leaving the audience wondering why they should really care about this shop or that guide), or almost instructional how-to videos (which have been in fly fishing forever and just are not quite appropriate for the Film Tour format).
I personally enjoyed the Carolina Redfish piece because it felt authentically Southern and it showed me some fishing I might legitimately do. It got a warm reception in Atlanta as should be expected. But from a strict filmmaking perspective, it was one of the movies I don’t really think should have been in the show. It might have been more appropriate for like a club-level presentation (it really was the most specifically how-to movie among the mix). Its one redeeming feature was the monologue from the guy who discussed not having to worry about his truck being repossessed while fishing; that felt real and was the highlight of the movie.
Among the Warren Miller-style adventure documentaries (which have been the bread-and-butter of the whole fly fishing film industry since the beginning), I thought the Indo-Pacific permit fishing video submitted by the Australian guys was the clear winner. I don’t remember the title but it was solid. Those guys had a legitimately excellent fishery to highlight: lots of big, active fish that deserved being on film; great footage and a tight story to the extent that a story was necessary. My one knock against it was that it was pretty derivative of Running Down the Man (and without that film’s humor).
Meanwhile, many of the other “adventure” movies felt more like they were being forced; smaller fish or at least unremarkable fish were treated like they were worthy of excitement (which they really weren’t) by filmmakers who basically seemed to want to be on the bandwagon but didn’t have the expertise or travel budgets to get to where the fishing is really good.
That kind of half-effort has a secondary effect: people don’t like to be manipulated. When the fish are legitimately huge and the action is legitimately exciting, there’s no need to get the audience amped up; they already are. But when the fishing is only so-so, no amount of chest-pumping or exciting soundtracking is going to excite the audience. And you run the risk of creating a suspension-of-disbelief moment where the audience kind of goes “Wait a minute…” When such a film is followed by one with legitimately huge fish, the over-reaching film just looks pale in comparison. If I were a film-maker, rather than submit a film based on footage of mediocre fishing, I’d hold off, shoot more, and wait until I had something really excellent to put up. With excellent material, even if the technical aspects aren’t as nice, you can still make a really great film.
My last comment would be that many of the videos were simply too long. The last video on Everglades snook fishing should have been about 1/3rd as long as it was. One or two big snook, a little narration, shots of camp and the boats running; you have a winning film. But when you stretch or repeat each segment and really have no coherent narrative beyond ‘we caught these fish,’ then you lose the audience. I think this film would have been great at 5 minutes long; at 15 minutes, it was too much and lost my interest.
The Tour itself was well-organized and well-run. I thought the audience banter before the video segments fell a little flat; if the tour organizers are going to do that, they need to hire a legitimate pitchman (like a Conway Bowman or a Frank Smethurst) with public speaking experience to pull it off. The organizers are all nice guys, but some things really do need to be left to a professional, especially at $12-15 a ticket.
Overall, though, we had a great time and I’d recommend it to any angler.
Zach
Question Zack, based on your description of the event it sounds like full length films were shown and not just “trailers,” true?
Kurt –
These were not really trailers; they were sort of short documentaries ranging from about 1 minute to about 20 minutes at the long end.
I guess by full length films I meant “completed” or “entire” films presented as such, as in done, as the film maker envisioned.
Question Zack, based on your description of the event it sounds like full length films were shown and not just “trailers,” true?
One of my beefs with the last two film tours I went to was that there were no full length, completed films, just trailers for films due out some time in the future or ones you had to purchase.
I’ve been to two of these now including the current version and I have to say that’s the basic deal-e-o, unfortunately. And like Zach is saying, I’d really like to see more beginning to end narratives no matter how long. And some full length films (they showed about a third of the ubiquitous ‘Once in a Blue Moon’ NZ mouse fishing video without explaining that it’s not the whole thing) and not so much ‘hook-up set to music’ mtv style stuff would be better IMHO.
I read your review Zach, and i definitely agree with things and disagree with some things, i dont know about this though
“I thought the audience banter before the video segments fell a little flat; if the tour organizers are going to do that, they need to hire a legitimate pitchman (like a Conway Bowman or a Frank Smethurst) with public speaking experience to pull it off.
Hey Paul –
You’re right, and I wasn’t trying to trash Thad, because he is clearly bringing a ton of skills to the table in terms of organizing (not to mention producing the best movie in the event).
Wife and I went to the showing in Nashville, was plenty of brew flowing around the venue, plus a quality microbrewery just a couple hundred feet away.
We enjoyed it, didn’t go with any expectations, just a night out on a “date”.
Metalhead was my favorite.
Just got done watching my copy of Metalhead, and must say pretty disappointed with all the hype I have been hearing about it. I thought it was a decent film, but it just didn’t do much for me, and I am a steelheader.
-Mike
I am wrapping up a few loose ends and then driving down for the Charleston, SC F3T show tonight. Looking forward to it.
Mike…that is too bad about Metalhead. Do you think that maybe we’re “porned” out with all the big fish footage everywhere? Or were you disappointed in the film for other reasons?
Zach, glad you did the review…its good to see.
I just thought i would throw in my opinion, thats why your board is a good one.
PaulI am wrapping up a few loose ends and then driving down for the Charleston, SC F3T show tonight. Looking forward to it.
Mike…that is too bad about Metalhead. Do you think that maybe we’re “porned” out with all the big fish footage everywhere? Or were you disappointed in the film for other reasons?
Mike – one more question, do you have a pulse?
Mike…that is too bad about Metalhead. Do you think that maybe we’re “porned” out with all the big fish footage everywhere? Or were you disappointed in the film for other reasons?
I just really never got into the film. I didn’t feel like I was “porned” out, there were a few nice fish, but have seen a lot bigger, even in the GL. I really lost interest when I saw indicators on the two-handers and fishing egg patterns.
And, yes I still have a pulse.
Glad some of you are getting a chance to see the film tour as it rolls through your area!
I had never been to anything like this before, and I had a great time! Cool footage, nice to see the fly fishing community out together, and always great to be able to support the local shop and guys like Paul who work hard to put these things together and get them to the ATL. (And how often does a woman get the opportunity to see the line to the men’s room snaking into the lobby while there is no line to the ladies’ room? That alone was worth the price of admission. 😉 )
Was every minute of every film necessary? No. Could things have been done differently? Sure. But you could say that about nearly any event, whether it is inside the fly fishing industry or outside of it. Zach, Andrew, and I all had fun, and I absolutely plan to attend the next one. 🙂
Lauren
Isn’t in inevitable that the fly fishing movie makers are learning to make movies/documentaries and will make mistakes?
Let’s hope the era of ‘how to fly fish’ videos from the past will evolve to a much higher level.
It’s a small world so don’t expect BBC’s nature documentary with Attenborough quality but it’s certainly a huge step from where we come from.Besides great shots a good story build-up is as Zach said what makes a good movie.
Lauren, I remember when THE movie ‘A river runs through it’ came to The Netherlands many years ago.
I went to see the movie with a couple of friends of mine and one of the wife of my buddies.
I think the whole cinema was filled with about a dozen people.
It was amazing seeing the Montana sky line in glorious wide screen.The movie didn’t last long in the cinema. I think only one week.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.