What is going on in this world when everyone agrees that something is totally f*cked but no one with power appears to be doing anything substantial to improve it?  Are there secret plansof a new cultural infrastructure hatching and its creators are just not sharing them with us?  I wish!

What is being said in the studios’ inner sanctums or the hallways of the NEA or across the desks at the various foundations, support organizations, and unions that all have a vested interest in the cinematic culture?  Not much I am afraid.

Do they know something we don’t know?  I don’t think so.

Is our film industry and culture better than we expect — because it better be or we all are just fiddling away as our love burns down through the ground.  I confess, I’d bet a whole lot more on the latter.

What’s got me in this lather you wonder?

Surely you know by know that this last week our celluloid heroes Speilberg and Lucas added their names to the lists that include Soderbergh, Puttnam, and Thomas – all of them stating that major changes in the film industry’s business model are needed.   Lynda Obst too has proclaimed “Hollywood completely broken“. And of course you have yours truly chirping away in my coal mine for an overly long time now.

Frankly, I wonder why those giants have been so slow to sound the alarm.  I gave my first speech on this topic close to five years ago. Not that I am bragging, but I think we can qualify there is a consensus on the subject.  Is the sky falling when Spielberg says it is? Yes, most definetly I say – because many many others have said it also.  And that is precisely why I get really upset now.

I thought that history was supposed to be a story about how when things go wrong, people do something to improve the situation (or at least try). I particularly think that in a world where wealth is concentrated in so few hands, some of the more fortunate would take a leadership role and take the talk out for a walk of commitment. Isn’t there a requirement that responsibility go hand in hand with privilege?  Or is the lack thereof related to how we let this great inequality of ours not just fester but infect us for the next near eternity?

People have been noticing something is wrong for a very long time now; some have even done things to start to improve things, but when you are a leader and you notice devastating practices occurring and you don’t build a ladder to get us out of our mass grave, you are guilty of making that grave a hell of a lot deeper — if not quite guilty of forging the bullets that may put us finally to rest.

How do we ALL move from talk to action? Or if we want to move a wee bit faster: how do we get those with power to actually do something?  Standing on an electronic soap box does not do much or even sitting and yakking on a physical stage, even when the trades carry you out across the planet.

Unfortunately, I also am not sure that the non-profit world can move quick enough to stop the downfall of cinema (as we know it). It takes a tremendous amount of money, focus, and energy to run a general film support organization, and not everyone can share the same sense of urgency.  I get tremendous inspiration from the work of many people, some I work with, others I conspire with, and But we are not organized. And Hollywood is not well represented as a force for positive change.

Nontheless, even without Hollywood’s help, I do think we have made a bit of progress.  Sundance, the IFP, FIND, and other indie support organizations (like SFFS) have opened up the art form to a wide swath of storytellers. Russ Collins and the Art House Convergence are making community theaters an incredible force in a very diverse culture.  The various tech start ups from the crowdfunders to the theatrical-on-demanders to the latest and greatest of discovery tools, transcoders, aggregators, and analytic & impact measurers show it really could get a whole lot better.  The improvements tech has brought to the creative and production process are huge.  From a creative perspective, there has never been a better time to be a filmmaker, and I am incredibly hopeful the same can soon be said from a business perspective — if we don’t go down in flames first because we have not all done our share to lift us so we can truly soar.

We all have to ask ourselves “Are we doing enough?” Sure Hollywood and pop culture have endured bigger changes before, as Russ Collins has pointed out so eloquently – but I would argue this time it is different.  We have had close to thirty years of industrial evolution, with growing access and supportive infrastructure.  We have watched everyone – the audiences, the creators, the middlemen, the exhibitors, the culture — benefit and some even prosper. But all of that is now in jeopardy.  And if it IS close to over, will we be able to say we fought back, that we tried hard enough to stop the flood?

Sure we see some change but the evolution is still too slow.  We may be doomed if we don’t get others to also take action. I really don’t know what more can be done — unless those giants start to really step in and confess: I LOVE CINEMA AND I WANT A DIVERSE AND AMBITIOUS CULTURE THAT IS FRESH AND ORIGINAL, SUPPORTING & RESPECTING ITS CREATORS.  You know that movie NETWORK?  I want that classic “stick-your-neck-out-and-yell” scene with a bit of a dialogue change…

Because let’s face it: even with these big giant giants speaking up now, none of us are expecting any of them — or those like them — to take much action, and that is really, really sad. I would love to be proven wrong.  And I love that they are speaking up.  I hope that is just the start, or the start of the start; if you say the problem is still outside of you, can you say you’ve actually seen the problem?  We have to first face that the problem is us.

Unified action is needed and it must come from our leaders if we are going to jumpstart change in any significant way.  But then again, if folks don’t care, particularly our leaders, maybe I am on a fool’s errand…

I guess it should not be a big surprise that no one wants to really save the film business.  We certainly know that climate change will destroy the planet and we are doing very little about it.  We know that corporate funding and corruption has destroyed democracy in America and we doing very little about it.  Our education system fails our kids.  Our financial system furthers the wealth divide.  Civil liberties are restricted. Our government now routinely spies on us. Our food supply is contaminated beyond repair.  Really, do we expect someone to do something for the Arts? So what if our cultural future is at risk… We pale in comparison to other giant problems we are doing very little about.

I confess, I still do expect all of us who are vested in and committed to this film thing, all of us who clearly do it for the love and not for the money, to also recognize that the film business and culture can not continue as usual.  It’s just that there is that gulf between thought and expression. It is colossal. We don’t really do enough.  Who among us, really — and not just those Hollywood leaders with significant bank accounts and influence – can say they are working to save the culture they love? I am afraid that making another good movie and putting it through a damaged system is adding fuel to the fire at this point.

And I am so tired of talking about the need for change. And hearing these stronger voices join the chorus now, I start to get ill.  The song is not a rallying cry but more of elegy. Something about the tune makes me think we have already passed crisis point.  I was hoping when the big voices joined it would be for a rousing marching tune that would encourage the good fight.

Can we get people to act on what really matters? When we talk about how the system is broken or a paradigm shift occuring, are we recognizing what is truly afoot. It is not just about the occasionally crappy content.  It is not just about the studio business model, the loss of DVD, the need for shorter windows, the transition to digital projection, or reliance on MBAs in the studio circles. Yes, those are some problems in the film business, but we need to look at the big picture.

If we look at the film biz just as the Hollywood biz, then we have no way to develop new talent or tell stories that appeal only to mass markets. If we look at creative expression as only for the market, we lose a sense of purpose and individuality. If new artists can only come from the ranks of the financially privileged then we get a uniform voice of creation (and worse).  If we don’t make sure that both creators and their supportors directly benefit financially from the work they create, then we won’t have enough capital at play or any encouragement to innovate. If we only encourage people to come together in our community theaters around vfx-drunk shoot-em-ups, we lose the ability of cinema to help show us all what we can aspire to as a culture.

Thirty years of independent cinema has brought us an incredible group of well-developed storytellers. Fifteen years of technical innovation has reduced all barriers of entry. We have a tremendous opportunity in front of us, but we also stand on the brink of a great constriction.  Yes an implosion looms, but the fall out won’t just be Hollywood, but the real losers will be lovers of ambitious and diverse cinema. Hollywood may have, as Soderbergh stated, gotten out of that racket, but those still on the front lines are about to be nuked.

I could go on, but I have been going on and on for five years now.  I want some action — not on the screen, but in the boardrooms, union halls, and on social media pages.  It’s the embrace of the amateur we truly need, the desire to have a world where people can afford to do for the love of doing, where people gather for the pleasure of sharing, for the recognition of how close we are no matter how different we may be.

Let’s be frank.  It’s great that our Hollywood leaders are speaking some of the truth now, but we have already heard so many experts speak up on this damn paradigm shift. Have we gone deaf?  Grown immune to the tunes of struggle and pain?

Am I wrong to assume we really just don’t care?  Should we JUST LET IT BURN!!!?  I have been willing to help. Maybe you have too. I have summoned many allies. And maybe you have too, and yet, together we are feeling alone.  The gods have agreed but few have taken heed.  Yes, I have seen some others take action. I feel I have given enough and yet I am still willing to give even more. But, here we stand, with the experts all declaring THE END…

Where can we look and see the actions and not just the words? Without the actions, no one is going to say “Hey, they are going to make a difference.  They might save it for the rest of us. I want to give them a hand.”  When does that time start?  Can we afford to wait any longer?

We need something equivalent to The Giving Pledge in Hollywood just to keep cinema alive. Or The X Prize to keep indie alive. Even if we had just a few true “leaders” step forward, I would gladly give all my labor to make sure my effort is not just the good fight but an inevitable victory.

Infrastructure rebuilding is not a fast or glamorous process.  And it will never get done with just words.  Now that Hollywood has spoken up, can they also take action? Can we get organized?  Can we acknowledge the power and beauty of individual stories told from the heart by those that do for the love, recognizing the privilege and responsibility that come with the opportunity?

Dang, and this was going to be a short post…Tweet

Gary Meyer wrote: I do not like to be a doom and gloom guy but I think there are big changes afoot for commercial cinemas, but not the scenario predicted here.  Steven Spielberg Predicts ‘Implosion’ of Film Industry

·         The foreign film Art House / college movie society / Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll generation saves Hollywood world of the late 50s, 60s and on into the mid-70s;

·         The Indie Cinema / Burgeoning Home Video / Hollywood Summer Blockbuster world of the late-70s, 80s and 90s;

·         The DIY-Mumblecore -Funny or Die / Pirate ethos / Digital Transition / Netflix queue / Hollywood Comic Book-Remake world of the early 21^st century. 

·         The Post-WWII-Early Baby Boomer generation seems to think the 60s youth reinvention of Hollywood is the halcyon era – folks like Robert Redford, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola.

·         The mid-to-late Baby Boomers and early GenXers appear to think that the Sundance/Miramax/New Line-Fine Line / Video Store / Indie Film Paradise of the 80s and 90s are the halcyon days – folks like Steven Soderbergh, Spike Lee, Quentin Tarantino, Jim Jarmusch, Kevin Smith. 

·         Probably folks like the Duplass Brothers, Greta Gerwig, Debra Granik, Benh Zeitlin , the Funny Or Die guys and gals and other filmmakers finding success in the current era will look back at the tweny-00s as a halcyon era of celluloid dreams found during the digital transition. An era that provided limitless YouTube possibilities, when the number of community-based, mission-driven Art Houses cinemas were growing (due to the Art House Convergence!) and everyone had the ability to earn a post graduate motion picture education at Netflix U. 

Tweet

Filmmaker Andrew Einspruch recently attended the Australian International Documentary Conference and wrote a series of articles for the event, which he’s graciously allowed us to reprint here. These articles originally appeared in Screen Hub, the daily online newspaper for Australian film and television professionals.

“You learn the most when you have a success,” said Marcus Gillezeau of Firelight Productions. That’s because you find out what exactly you signed away and what you held onto in your contracts back in the beginning. He also said that there are only two times that people read their contracts – when something fails (so they can get out of it) or when something does well (so they can figure out how to get some of the money).

Gillezeau should know. His company is riding the success of Storm Surfers 3D, a feature film that follows on from their previous Storm Surfers TV series. As the award statues cluster on the mantle, more and more people want to get in on the action. He has become something of a self-made expert on ancillary rights, and shared some of that knowledge in a session at this year’s Australian International Documentary Conference.

Gillezeau started by putting this clause up on the screen:

All rights in all media now known or that may be invented in the future in all territories including the universe… and it’s territories and colonies… in-perpetuity.

Sound familiar? That phrase, or its moral equivalent, is in pretty much any contract you are asked to sign (like with your distributor). It is the starting point for most agreements. The assumption is generally that you are going to surrender all these rights to the person taking on your doco, with known and unknown exploitation potential.

Gillezeau said he turns this around up front. He starts by asserting that he, the producer, controls all the rights to everything using exactly that kind of language that he is usually asked to sign. “I say, ‘I control all of this.’ Then I ask, ‘Now, what do you actually want?’” he said. “You tell me what you can afford, and we’ll work from there. What exactly are you investing in? What do you really want and why do you want it? What do you really need? And if I do give it to you, what are you going to do with it?”

Ancillary rights, roughly put, is all the other stuff that is beyond the primary TV show or film. If you have ever seen a stuffed toy, spin-off book, or soundtrack album – those things are covered by ancillary rights. Gillezeau listed a number of things that can fall into ancillary rights, including:

1. Sequels and spin-offs. TV series, movies, and live events If you went to the Top Gear Live Show, you helped the Top Gear guys exploit this right.

1. Substantially similar subject matter . Be careful here. Someone might try to stop you from making something that should be within your right to do. Gillezeau said someone once tried to include a clause that said he could not make another surf movie.

1. All-media rights (digital products)

1. Home entertainment. This would include DVD, Blu-ray, video on demand and download to own.

1. Closed circuit, airline, hotel and other windows .

1. Web rights . This includes webisodes, making-of featurettes, the website, and e-trade.

1. Over the Top (OTT) . Direct to TV’s through manufacturers like Samsung.

1. Games . These can be for various platforms.

1. Apps . Again, on various platforms.

1. Trademarks .

1. Publishing. Print books and e-books.

1. Merchandising. All the merch, from T-shirts to toys, and beyond.

And you definitely want to protect these ancillary rights. How? A good place to start is to train yourself to read every clause in every contract. The main terms for the program or film are usually pretty straight forward, along the lines of you are buying the property for this many years and this many limited runs – that sort of thing.

It is the other stuff that gets tricky. You have to watch out for catch-all phrases in particular. It is common for the other side to put these in, and you have to parse exactly what their implications are. Gillezeau said that one American contract tried to sneak in a catch-all phrase that assigned them exclusive rights to all their webisodes. Besides overstepping what Gillezeau was willing to part with, other agreements already in place prevented him from even offering that kind of exclusivity. Another example was a phrase that meant the other party could put the thing onto Samsung TVs, and they weren’t responsible if that meant it was shown in someone else’s territory, violating other agreements.

So be very careful.

Another thing Gillezeau does is use the Definitions part of the contract to spell things out. He always has two clear definitions in there, one for Primary Property and one for All Media Rights.

He then carefully specifies what is what in those two categories, especially the latter. The All Media Rights definition details exactly everything that is going to be made when the show is being made (the game, the app, the book, the web site, etc.). The implication being that if it is not covered in that definition, it is not part of the All Media Rights covered by the contract.

Gillezeau said he makes sure there are very tight timeframes for things like options. Some contracts allow 180 days for a response to an option, and then a counter-offer may trigger another period of 180 days. Gillezeau limits that period to 30 days, tops, with 24 hours maximum (not seven days) to get back to him with a response to a final offer, plus language that says if no response is received, it is deemed approval. You don’t want an opportunity with someone else to get missed because someone with an option has the chance to drag things out. Like it or not, a broadcaster or distributor may want to encumber your property to protect something they have going on elsewhere.

That speed can be crucial. If the buzz on your product is skyrocketing, you have to be able to act. Toys, for example, take six months from concept to being on the shelf, which means Christmas toys have to be underway in May. You don’t want protracted negotiations to scuttle your chance to strike while the iron is hot.
Other things he keeps tight are performance and reporting clauses. If the reports are not timely, or the other party is not meeting their performance requirements, these clauses give you an out, letting you pursue other avenues.

You also want to protect your right to actually make the show. Contracts often have clauses that let the other party fire you. Gillezeau says he doesn’t accept those.
Gillezeau said he tries to set up clear ground rules for engagement. For example, he tells people is negotiating with that they must tell him up front what the deal-breakers are. Otherwise you are wasting time.

Your bargaining strength in all of this depends, of course, on how badly the other side wants what you have. The more they want it, the stronger your position with haggling over ancillaries.

You should also brainstorm what possibilities there are for your ancillary rights, then test those ideas for feasibility and viability. Gillezeau said to do a SWOT analysis on them to see what is likely to work. You probably aren’t going to have stuffed toys for Go Back to Where You Came From. But ancillary opportunities may not be obvious. A documentary about the author of Mary Poppins spawned a $90 million feature film. That’s a serious spin-off.

Gillezeau also said you should map all of your territories. He keeps a spreadsheet for each property that lists all the territories and what rights have been sold or retained in each, and whether they are exclusive or non-exclusive. That way, if an opportunity comes up, you know whether or not rights are there for you to grant in that location.

Rest assured that people will offer you bad deals. And why not? if they can get you to sign something that works in their favour, they may as well try. Gillezeau talked about one contract that offered a 50-50 revenue share for being able to show his YouTube clips on their channel. It looked good on the surface. But the contract that arrived said it was an exclusive deal. Oh, and the share was not on gross, but on net. And the company could charge expenses against the gross without any cap and with no definition of what expenses were allowed. Plus it was a French company, and a clause said that they would have to deposit 60% of the money they were supposed to remit with the French government until a particular form was filled out and lodged in a particular way. “This sort of stuff happens over and over,” said Gillezeau.

One interesting tip that Gillezeau made was using the Producer Offset to your advantage when creating material covered by some of the ancillary rights. If you create things like webisodes, making-of videos, apps, the web site – all of those sorts of things while you are making the primary product, then the costs of those items can be included in the producer offset budget. However, if you go back to make them once the product is done, you can’t qualify those materials for the government offset support.

Ancillary rights are a clearly a huge topic, but for the right property, they are a gold mine in the waiting.

 Andrew Einspruch is a producer with Wild Pure Heart Productions . His current project is the low budget feature film The Farmer.Tweet

Today many marketers are making twice as much money on Pinterest as they are on Facebook.   Does that mean that for you–my filmmaker and artist readers–Pinterest is worth twice as much of your precious time?   Yes, and there’s a simple reason.

All the big social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram have struggled to translate their large numbers into revenue.  Eventually, the costs to simply keep in operation get so astronomical that they throw up their hands in despair–and the only answer they can come up with is advertising.

On the other hand, the ability to market and promote is built into Pinterest’s DNA.   Pinterest is a colossally effective store that is as fun and addictive as “Angry Birds.”   Like that thing you’re looking at?  Click.  Buy.   It’s Google search on steroids.

On Facebook you battle every day for people’s engagement.   On Twitter you fight through each minute for people’s fleeting attention.  On Pinterest you build.   Depending on who you are, I believe it’s a more productive use of your time to begin constructing something that will be of real value in the future than working  frantically on something you have no clue how it’s helping you today.   Let me ask a question: Do you know exactly how you’re tweeting and posting is helping you reach your objectives?   If the answer is no, I say get building on PInterest and Google+.   If the answer is yes, then you are the kind of influencer who can get a huge head start on another network.  It’s an opportunity you shouldn’t miss.

I say get building.   What do get when you build a Pinterest page?

You build a home.   A home for links to all the external content you want to send people to:  your website, email sign-up sheet, YouTube or Vimeo channels, even other social media.  Much more usefully, you can also direct them to more specific things, like a single blog post or video.

I’ve made a graphic that links to a John Hughes post I wrote years ago for my “My Life as a Blog” website, which got a lot of interest at the time.  This old post would be as forgotten as yesterday’s papers if not for Pinterest and other social media.   As it gets passed around to other Pinterest boards like “John Hughes” or “80’s Film Directors,” my writing will be discovered by people who may repin it and possibly even share it on Facebook or Twitter.  If they like one memoir, they might like another one in the “My Life as a Movie Publicist” board.

Also note that the John Hughes graphic has “reidrosefelt.com” on it.   Wherever any of my original content goes, it will always be linked to my site.   This is one way to direct people from your Pinterest page to your external content.  Here are three others:

1) Link on your page description.   The website you give in your profile becomes a displayed link in your profile.

2) In your description of a specific picture.   If you put a web address into your description, it’s also a link.

Pinterest is wary of hyperlinks, because they don’t want spam, so it’s possible that this functionality may end someday.   I leave it to you whether or not you want to take advantage of this particular feature.  But certainly don’t put a shortened URL, such as a bit.ly, put the actual URL for your site and you should be okay.

3) Include Hyperlinks in your graphics.

When you When you upload an image on Pinterest, by default it will not include a hyperlink.  But you can add links, which will take readers to your site.

Here’s how to do it:

Hover over your image and you’ll see the Edit button.

Click on it for this screen and type the URL into the “Source” blank.

It’s best to give a clear description of what the user will see when they click, because there are unfortunately  a lot of Pinterest links that take users to not very nice places, possibly even into malware.  Pinterest is working on this, but it will always be a good idea to build a trusting relationship with your readers by telling  them what they’ll get when they link.

I showed you in previous posts why every filmmaker and artist needs to have a Pinterest board, and  how a popular Pinterest board can get you listed #1 on a Google search, but that still leaves the question of  how you can make your own Pinterest page into a success.

The answer to this question is the same one as for all social media sites:  Create (and find) interesting content.

For our purposes Pinterest is a search engine for what its members like the most.   Therefore, the key to winning  Pinterest’s heart is in that little rectangle box in the top left of the page with the magnifying glass with the word “search” in it.

It would seem logical that if you put together a board that was unique  or at least of higher quality than similar boards, you’d eventually be discovered in Pinterest.  Make a lot of them and you build a popular page.

Unfortunately there’s a hitch, and it’s a big one:  Pinterest has a screwy search engine that  doesn’t follow the hard-and-fast rules about searches and tagging.

I’ll get into the weird glitches in Pinterest search and offer suggestions on how to overcome them in my next blog post.

Reid Rosefelt coaches filmmakers in how to market their films using Facebook, and lectures frequently on the topic.  His credits as a film publicist include “Stranger Than Paradise,”  “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” and “Precious.”

Blog: reidrosefelt.com

facebook.com/reidrosefeltmarketingTweet

I remember reading someplace that a good story often just falls into your lap fully formed. Now I don’t want to speculate over whether my story is a good one or not, that conjecture is now in the capable hands of film going audiences everywhere, so you can make your own decision, but that’s how it came to me – fully formed. However it still took four years to shape into a script that anyone was willing to finance.

I was stretched out on my couch testing a new theory that perhaps sitting with hunched shoulders and bleeding eyeballs in front of my computer was what was stopping that elusive story from falling… and there it was… I remembered a vaguely told story about a man who went missing in South East Asia while holidaying with his partner and another couple. Tragically, in that true-life story the man was never found again. I was horribly fascinated by the loss and responsibility those left behind might feel and the mystery of what had happened to him. I linked that with a story I already had in my mind about a couple who would fight to keep their relationship together even after the worst kind of betrayal and suddenly I knew I had the skeleton of a feature film.

Excited, I rushed into where my husband, Kieran Darcy-Smith was sitting in front of his computer, his own eyeballs bleeding, and quickly pitched him the idea. Kieran was looking for his first feature to direct. He had made a number of successful short films and had spent the ten years previous writing a film called ‘Powderworks’. It was a powerful script and had a prominent Australian producer attached but because he hadn’t directed a feature before and it had a 10mil budget he was finding it impossible to get financed.* He was toying with new ideas with lower budgets, but knowing how long it took to write a script he was finding it difficult to settle on an idea. He encouraged me to write my pitch into a treatment.

I’d spent a lot of time writing but I was – and still am – an actress so I was always really kind of hoping the phone would just ring and whisk me off to some fabulous job that would pay me well and prevent me from having to endure the hard slog of writing. Sometimes the phone did ring and sometimes it didn’t but I could tell that I’d be waiting a lifetime or more for the job that I really wanted – the one that would change my life. It had become a cliché amongst Sydney actresses that there weren’t any good jobs for women, that we were all being wasted on cardboard cut-out girlfriends and wives. I was sick of hearing it. I was sick of saying it. The time had come to write myself something decent.

Within a month I had the treatment and I clearly remember the moment Kieran said to me, ‘I think this is the one’. Good collaborations are a strange and elusive thing, they can make a project or destroy it and if either Kieran or I had been different people perhaps we would have thought twice about embarking on such a journey together. Would our marriage last? But who ever really thinks about how long it will all take? And lucky for us sharing total immersion in a creative project was exactly the kind of thing we were both hungry for.

I don’t really even remember what the writing process involved. Mainly just sitting at our computers getting the job done, but I do remember that we talked about the film ALL THE TIME and that suited us both just fine. Being a couple we had each other’s undivided attention as a well as a short hand to blow off the more insanely stupid of each other’s ideas. Making dinner we talked about the film, washing up we talked about the film, driving in the car etc – you get the picture. A fly on the wall would have been bored to death!

We all know that film is an all-consuming thing. That’s why I love it. When you are in production the cast and crew become your family and the story takes over real life. Sadly I’ve seen relationships break up when only one half of a couple is swept away by a film or a burgeoning career. For Kieran and I it has been a bonding gift to share our first feature film: I was there when he directed the very first scene of his first feature. He was intensely watching the playback for every second of the first lead I ever played in a feature. No one had seen me at my rawest moments as much as he had and he pushed me to bring all of that to my character Alice. And then when it came to the awards season in Australia the award our film, Wish You Were Here, won most consistently was that for ‘Best Screenplay’. The part we’d collaborated on, the part that had taken up most of the whole crazy journey.

And we’d do it all again in a heartbeat.

I hope you can get out and see Wish You Were Here – it’s currently screening at select cinemas around the country.

Felicity Price

Co-writer, Actress, Wish You Were Here

* ‘Powderworks’ has since been rewritten and set in the US. It is now called ‘Memorial Day’, produced by Angie Fielder (Wish You Were Here), executive produced by Ted Hope.

Tweet

To make the positive aspects of the rare occur more frequently, I have spent a long time trying to define the qualities that make for better film for myself.  It is a process I think everyone should go through if they are or want to be in the film business — or really any creative practice. With aesthetics and processes defined, we have a back stop for when things don’t go as well as we hoped– we know what we are aiming for before we see it.  With check lists we can think through in a mannered fashion what is we knew better when the shit was not hitting the fan.  Call it the practical approach to delivering what others might call magic.

But making magic does not end with making lists of what you love.  You need to put more into your bag of tricks if you want good fortune to stick.

Magicians are only as good as their accomplices.  Magic tricks work on account of distraction, and it is the assistant that always earns the necessary glance. In short, there is no question we can’t do it alone.  Whether it is the ambition to make better films or build a better film infrastructure, it will take an army of villages to get even a little bit further down the path. We need to fortify ourselves to protect and advance what it is we hold dear. Our world resists change even more than it is defined by it.  To take something further, you must hurl yourself into the vortex time and time and time again.  One day, after many crash landings, we find the wings really work.  You need back up and comrades because none of us have the stamina fully required.

The reasons we need each other are too numerous for me to even try to list.  Today, though, my head is lodged in the wall of how do we make it better.  I have found it helpful when we can’t find the proper path, to go to the desired result and work the way back.  You’ve cheated on those mazes before, haven’t you?  If so, you know what I am talking about. And that leads me to reverse engineering serendipity, that’s the practical approach to magic.  How do we lift this world or that one higher? Examine where you want to end, see what it takes to get there, and then start again, carrying that path with you with each new step.

The answer to so many questions is find the right collaborator.  If that is the goal, what actions can we take to increase our odds?  We are in a world that is noisy and overrun, full of distractions and bad advice.  How can we make our way through this maze to find our goal?

Let’s look at the problem of today from another way… The only logical response to this world of grand abundance of quality films is for today’s artists to be ubiquitous and prolific.  The only way to manage this is to become radically collaborative.  You need a team.  You need to part of a community.

You need to find new allies faster.  You need to encourage them to come to you.  And you need to be able to recognize them when they arrive. You need to open yourself to finding your own Nirvan.

And the thing is you don’t have time to waste.  You need to get started on the next before you even know what it is.  You need to learn to conspire with those you have not met.  You need to begin to do this so the magic can start forming ahead of you joining in.  It is a world of wonderful things and all of it needs your help.  You have not been cloned but you are not alone.  Maybe you already started doing all this without yet realizing it. The team of collaborators and co-conspirators has already gathered, but they know you have the necessary information to get this good thing started.  Find them faster.  Get it started.  Time is wasting.

Tweet

Previously: Dough Ray Me

Crystal Ball

I thought I’d use this post to think about the future and some of the trends that will affect films & filmmakers, particularly in the video-on-demand space. I don’t want to sound like the pompous visionary. I’m not a visionary and I have no crystal ball —  merely informed opinion. This is not what WILL happen, but what I think may happen. And much of what follows may be stating the obvious.

Languages & Territories

The part of the future that gets me most excited is the global market. And I don’t mean just Europe and Asia. There are 7+ billion people on the planet. Right now most don’t have access to movies. Or at least not your movies. Early last year — just before we started KinoNation — I was working in a poor, village in a remote part of Africa, on the border of Mauritania and Mali. Despite extreme poverty and isolation, most of these rural subsistence farmers and their families had cellphones. OK, they were somewhat outdated Nokia flip-phones. But very soon they’ll have smartphones and tablets — and African entrepreneurs will realise that indie films are the best and simplest movies to license…as long as they’re available in the local lingua-franca. In Mauritania and Mali that’s French. And there’ll be a similar content explosion throughout the developing world. My conclusion is that producers must seriously — and properly — plan for multi-country and multi-language distribution. Back in the 1930’s, movies were routinely shot in a dozen languages. That is, the director would sequence 12 groups of actors — each speaking a different language — for each scene he shot — same movie, same set, same script, different words. Hard work, but very efficient. At least until sound dubbing technology made that process obsolete. We could learn a great deal from this story.

VoD & DVD

Video-on-demand will continue to expand as DVD sales decline. Is it a zero-sum game? Probably not, but it’s complex. Per unit rentals or sales via VoD tend to be lower dollar amounts than for DVD. But the ubiquity of multiple devices to consume VoD will mean consumers watch more movies each month than they watched on DVD. This is slightly self-serving, but the takeaway is that you should get your film on as many digital and cable VoD platforms as you can, in as many languages and countries as you can afford. That’s what KinoNation is built for.

Seamless Devices

It’ll be common to commence watching a film in the evening on a connected TV, then watch a little more of that film on your phone while you ride the subway, then finish viewing on a tablet during a coffee break at work. Fragmented? Yes, but more films will be watched.

Movie Theaters

Prints delivered to movie theaters will be history. Theaters will be able to program and show movies on the fly, based on the aggregate demand of the audience. e.g. a dozen pals show up at the cinema and ask to watch Pulp Fiction…and within minutes it’s on that afternoon’s roster. This type of disruption is being led by Tugg, who have combined the best aspects of Groupon with the shared community experience of going to a theater to watch a film the group is passionate about. Tugg are building an incredible business based on packing theaters during off-peak days & times, and providing indie filmmakers with a viable path to a profitable theatrical release.

Home Theaters

A big chunk of consumers — perhaps more than half by 2018 — will have what can be described as a home theater. The combination of really big screen, plus surround sound, plus seating — that we imagine the movie mogul watching with his cronies. These are mini-movie theaters — and there will be millions of them. This trend will radically compress the difference between “going to a movie” and “let’s rent a film tonight.” It’s game changing because it allows that movie theater experience of big screen, big sound and big audience to be scaled up from thousands of venues to millions of homes

Free

There will be lots more models for people to watch films for free. Or rather, without spending cash. We’re already there with Hulu. It’s the conventional TV quid-pro-que: view some ads and you can have this content without paying. HitBliss is another disruptor: watch ads and do other stuff online to “earn” the cash to rent a film. They’re growing fast, and there’ll be others. Bottom line: more people will see your film and you’ll make more money.

Discovery

There will be one or two big winners in the “VoD Program Guide” space — and they’ll make a ton of money. From the 1950’s, TV Guide Magazine dominated the TV listings business, until News Corp bought them for $3+ billion. Then they were disrupted by Gemstar in the 90’s with the ascendancy of the Electronic Program Guide (EPG). Then the two companies merged to form the ill-fated Gemstar-TV Guide.  Now there’s a new battle to dominate the listings space…this time for video-on-demand. No one wants to search Netflix for a film (which probably won’t be there) and then search Amazon, and then iTunes…and so on. Everyone wants a one-stop service that lists every outlet that has the movie you want, with price and terms. The players now include FlickList (co-founded by Ted Hope), CaniStream.it, GoWatchIt, OV Guide and (in the UK) FindAnyFilm. Expect a winner to emerge and dominate.

Next Up: Post # 30: (scheduled for Tues June 25th)

Roger Jackson is a producer and the co-founder of film distribution start-up KinoNation. He was Vice President, Content for digital film pioneer iFilm.com and has produced short films in Los Angeles, documentaries in Darfur, Palestine and Bangladesh, a reality series for VH1 and one rather bad movie for FuelTV. You can reach him at roger@kinonation.com.

Tweet

Filmmaker Andrew Einspruch recently attended the Australian International Documentary Conference and wrote a series of articles for the event, which he’s graciously allowed us to reprint here. These articles originally appeared in Screen Hub, the daily online newspaper for Australian film and television professionals.

Film distribution is broken. Ask any producer who has ever felt that the amount they get for their work seems paltry compared to what others are making. For that matter, Peter Broderick has been saying this for years at SPAA Fringe.

There are lots of online film distribution platforms duking it out in the nascent VoD space. From the behemoths like iTunes and Amazon Instant to YouTube and Vimeo, to any number of small players trying to carve out a spot in the world. Andy Green’s Distrify is one of the ones actually making it work.

Green held an intimate session at this year’s Australian International Documentary Conference called Future Rights Model, and talked about how they built the platform. He’d been a filmmaker and experienced first-hand the frustration of getting stuff out into the world. For example, one distributor, when asked about making DVDs available for one of his titles, told Green, “It’s a small film. I’m busy.”

With that particular project, he wrested the rights back from the distributor, then tried putting the movie up as a BitTorrent, with a link for people to donate or buy the DVD. They had 600,000 downloads, and no more than 50 people who kicked in a few dollars. Plus, someone took the film, chopped off the credits, put their own credits on there, and put out the film as their own work. “I didn’t realise you could steal a film that was out there for free,” said Green. A disaster.

So he built Distrify.

Distrify has some simple, yet powerful ideas behind it:

1. It uses a player that can be embedded anywhere, from your web site to Facebook to where ever. Green said they were the first company to offer video on demand on Facebook (although only just).

1. The player is the point of sale. It lets someone watch the film where they are right now. No clicking through to somewhere else.

1. You can set up a rental price and/or a download to own price.

1. People can watch the trailer in the player, then choose to watch the film if they want.

1. It has an affiliate model built in. Anyone who shares your video gets a 10% clip of any sales.

1. The combination of the above two things helps decrease piracy, turning potential enemies into advocates.

1. The filmmaker controls everything – the pricing, any geoblocking, all the marketing. Distrify is really just the platform. It is still up to you to make it work.

1. The filmmaker has access to all data instantly. Information appears more or less like a bank statement. Between GPS and IP information, you can know exactly where in the world your audience is. So if you see that suddenly your are popular in Gibraltar, you can use that to try to create more buzz there.

1. Central to self-distribution is knowing who your customers are. Distrify gives you access to your customer emails, which lets you responsibly communicate with them.

Here’s an example of what the embedded player looks like. This one is for Terry Gilliam’s film The Wholly Family.

The revenue split is simple: 65% goes to the rights holder (that is, the filmmaker or whoever owns the rights). That compares pretty favourably to the 70% you get from iTunes, for example. Distrify takes 25%. And 10% goes to the person who embedded it (that’s the affiliate part).You can offer the affiliates more, to provide them more incentive, but that is the base starting structure.

Distrify currently has about 2,500 films of all types available. 45% are documentaries, and another 20% are in the lesbian/gay category. They reckon they have more lesbian dramas than any other company in the world – not by design, but they think it is because other platforms, like iTunes, don’t have a lesbian or gay subcategory. The embedded player gave people with that particular interest a chance to post films that were of interest to them.

Nigerian “Nollywood” films, like Uche Jombo’s film Damage, have also done incredibly well on the platform.

Green’s company has been agile enough to respond to consumer demand. For example, they added Mexican’ pesos as a currency simply because they could and because someone asked. Amazon won’t take payments in pesos, but this Scottish company will.

Green says he thinks that the true nature of the Internet is one of a village. He was trying to create a mechanism where people could hang over their back fences, chat to each other, and make recommendations – a mechanism that facilitated discussion. He is confident he has succeeded.

If you choose to use Distrify, perhaps that village will talk about your film, and help you prosper along the way.

Tweet

By Sherry B. OrtnerIt is a major point of the post-feminism literature that younger women find second-wave feminism irrelevant to today’s world, a world in which virtually all occupations are open to women, in which women—like the studio heads noted earlier—have been very visibly successful in many endeavors, and in which many men have been sensitized to the need for egalitarian relations between the sexes. Moreover, in this view, younger women see second-wave feminists as having more or less abandoned an interest in attractive femininity in the pursuit of gender equality; younger women reject this de-feminization and refuse to identify with the older feminist generation and often with the very term feminism.

The generational friction between second-wave feminists and younger women is the recognizable subtext of at least one very successful film, An Education (Lone Scherfig, 2009). The film tells the story of a very bright young woman in secondary school, Jenny, who is poised to go to Oxford but meets an exciting older man, David, and decides to drop out of school. As she had been an excellent student, her teacher, Miss Stubbs, tries to dissuade her from dropping out, but Jenny is determined to pursue this new life. Miss Stubbs embodies both the views and the look of a (stereotypic) second-wave feminist woman in the guise of the classic ‘‘spinster.’’ She is unmarried; she is also portrayed as physically plain, not so much through her natural looks (which are not unattractive) as through the way she puts herself together (skinned-back hair, no makeup, old-fashioned glasses). She and Jenny have a number of arguments over Jenny’s decision, and throughout their arguments Jenny contrasts the life of sensual pleasure (good food, music, trips to Paris) she is having with David with the ‘‘boring’’ and ‘‘dead’’ life of Miss Stubbs and other women (e.g., her school’s headmistress) who have chosen a professional career and/or the life of the mind.

Jenny represents another version of the Pretty Woman/Sex and the City anxieties of older feminists for the younger generation of women. And indeed there are surely many young women around who see the world as Jenny (temporarily) does, who think sexism is a minor issue and feminists are killjoys. But my conversations with younger-generation women in the film world (both studio and independent) revealed that most were acutely aware of ongoing issues of sexism. They may not be politically active, but as against the charges of ‘‘post-feminism,’’ they certainly do not see the issues of feminism as over. I will suggest that this contradiction or disjuncture between awareness and (in)action may be relevant for understanding some of the films.

I interviewed only one woman who denied that there were continuing issues of sexism in the contemporary movie industry. This woman, Irene Nesbitt, was an independent producer who produced Hollywood studio-oriented films. Irene insisted that she had never experienced sexual harassment, discrimination, or exclusion. She also insisted that the rise to power of female executives in the studios, discussed earlier, marked the end of an earlier era of sexism in Hollywood.

IN: You know, I’ll have to say, the truth of the matter is, I think sexism is not very rampant in the movie business.

SBO: It’s not?

IN: I don’t think so. I think Hollywood has actually one of the most impressive lists of women in power. There are a lot of studio heads who are women, I mean way more than the average in the Fortune 500. . . . In terms of power and decision-making, I think it’s actually remarkably not sexist. (Interview, July 6, 2006)

But virtually all other critical observers of the Hollywood gender scene see it differently. Producer Lynda Obst (whom we met in the previous chapter reflecting ironically on how she coos to her agent ‘‘like a cheerleader’’) emphasized women’s exclusion from the inner circles of Hollywood: ‘‘You can argue that being a member of the studio-head club makes you a member of the old boys’ club, but Dawn Steel would tell you differently. A woman can rise to the top of the corporate hierarchy here, but the boys’ club remains just that: the Boys’ Club’’ (Obst 1996: 193). Journalist Rachel Abramowitz wrote about the pragmatic acceptance by women of the pervasive sexism of the industry: ‘‘Discussing sexism, indeed sexual harassment, in Hollywood was a little like discussing the fact that the sea was blue. It was just a fact of nature, keenly noted but largely accepted as the cost of doing business’’ (2000: xiv).

The pragmatic attitude Abramowitz points to does seem to be quite widespread and much more central to women’s avoidance of the feminism label than any blanket rejection of feminism as a critique of the culture. People in both Hollywood and the independent film scene do not like to be seen as whining about anything, including sexism. For example, one (female) producer launched an angry tirade about a difficult (female) agent, describing the agent as a woman ‘‘who wanted to join the big swinging dick club.’’ She turned to me at the end of the tirade and said, ‘‘Let’s have a meeting and I will give you all the dirt about gender in this game’’ (field notes, February 9, 2007). But when we met, she more or less denied that she had invited me to have that conversation and deflected any attempt to engage the subject (field notes, April 14, 2007).

These examples aside, many young women whom I interviewed were quite frank—and quite critical—about their encounters with sexism in the course of doing business. One young executive at a major studio said,‘‘Gender is a big issue actually. I mean, it is a boy’s world, especially at my particular studio. There are some studios that are run by women—Amy Pascal at Sony and Stacy Snider at Universal—but my studio is very male orientated and we [women] all really feel that. . . . I feel like I am being hazed at a fraternity’’ (interview, January 10, 2006).

She went on to say, ‘‘They decide that teenage boys see the most movies and so they make movies for teenage boys. So it makes sense to have boys, essentially large [boys] running the studios’’ (interview, January 10, 2006).

One young independent filmmaker recounted the following experience of a meeting in which she was trying to raise money from an investor:

It was kind of horrible. He ordered a three-course meal and then he ordered dessert at the end and he kept doing this thing where he would take my spoon and put ice cream on it and then hand me the spoon, like trying to feed me. . . . The ice cream he ordered came with a dish of toppings, and he took a cherry and held it in front of my mouth and said I’ve always wanted to do this to a woman. (Interview, April 4, 2006)

In addition, when this filmmaker told this story to her (female) producer, the producer said she had had identical experiences:

She started telling me stories about her meetings with private investors, and how it was the same thing. She was working with a female director at the time, and they had a meeting with investors where the entire time it felt like a double date and they weren’t being taken seriously. At the end of dinner the investors wrote a check so at least something came out of that. But it was very degrading. (Interview, April 4, 2006)

For yet another example, a young independent screenwriter and producer talked about a very unpleasant job that she held for a while. The workplace was chaotic and the boss seemed to be corrupt. In addition, the men in the office were always telling dirty jokes and looking at magazines with nude women. She had a kind of political awakening: ‘‘That was the first time where I ever had a boss where I felt sexually harassed and I felt considered inferior because of my sex. I felt suddenly this huge empathy for every woman in the world who deals with that on a regular basis. I mean one way or another that’s reality for most women in the rest of the world’’ (interview, May 15, 2006).

Above excerpted from Sherry B Ortner’s Not Hollywood. Copyright Duke University Press, 2013

www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=49300

Sherry B. Ortner is Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at UCLA. She is the author of numerous books including New Jersey Dreaming: Capital, Culture, and the Class of ’58 and Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject.

Tweet

I certainly have done my share of list making, be it Best Practices for today, or what is currently wrong with the film biz.  I think such lists can save us — provided we are willing to not just behave passively but heed the call to action. And I am not alone standing on my soap box.  But if things are clearly broken why is change within the film biz not more evident?

Allow me to start with a list of what once where ten factors, and continues to grow…  Some of these will be well recognized by loyal readers of this blog. I have to write them down and share them just for my sanity.  Evolution has always been too slow a process for my taste.  Doesn’t it feel like sometimes your head may pop because of the pace of things and those around you?  And I am not saying anything is moving too fast from my taste…

1. The Endowment Effect: As both behavior economics and psychology has long shown, we overvalue what we already own.  This holds true to our processes as well as our objects.  We are rightfully afraid to throw the baby out with the bath water, but we have a great difficulty examining the true value of what we already possess — and generally think it has more value than it does.
2. Hyperbolic Discounting: “temporal myopia causes clarity to decrease with distance, but it applies to our perception of the future rather than of our sense of sight. Instead of inspiring caution, our brains’ typical response to this uncertainty is to sharply reduce the importance of the future in our decision-making, an effect known as hyperbolic discounting. Consequences which occur at a later time, good or bad, tend to have a lot less bearing on our choices the more distantly they fall in the future… even when one’s life is at stake.”  We are always willing to take less if it comes now, than to wait later for a bigger reward.  And that’s idiotic.  We dig ourselves into a hole that begins to look like a grave.  The present is past, or at least our ability to benefit more from it.  Our happiness can increase by providing for the future.
3. Creative people are the best liars — even to ourselves. “We make decisions towards what we want to do and reverse-engineer them towards what we believe the right thing to do is.” Regarding some recent experiments, “Intelligence,” it turned out, wasn’t correlated with dishonesty — but creativity, which we already know is all about connecting things, was.”  Intentionally or not, we fool ourselves into thinking we are doing the right thing.
4. “Base rate neglect is the tendency for people to mistakenly judge the likelihood of a situation by not taking into account all relevant data.”  We think we know what we are talking about , but let’s not forget what William Goldman told us.  We are all prone to bad judgements, even when we think we have the power to “blink“.
5. The Film Business is about keeping your job.  This is true for any industry for that matter.  People are loath to do what may risk their employment.  It’s self preservation.  So even if we recognize that virtually the entire business is predicated on concepts (like scarcity of product, control of that product through centralized distribution, the ability to focus mass market audiences on that product) that no longer apply, why risk the paycheck?
6. Living in the Dream Factory, we get infected by our imagination. The Availability Heuristic applies to our imagination as much as it does anything.  If we picture it, we think the probability of it is more likely — which is not true and should not influence our decisions, but it does. “Our tendency to overestimate the dangers of terrorism, crime and severe weather can cause us to live in unwarranted fear and take unnecessary precautions. Our bias to underestimate the dangers of common diseases can lead us to have undesirable dietary habits, to avoid medical exams and to be noncompliant with prescription drug regimens.”  The Film Biz is a culture that worships success; we think it will come more often than it will.  We end up striving for that more.  We imagine failure as a bad thing and grow to fear it more than we should.
7. People only change when the pain the of the present outweighs the fear of the future.  And we have grown accustomed of the future taking too long to arrive.  We were promised jetpacks.
8. We misread the Long Tail as a cause for help, when it is actually a Power Law graph, where “a small number of outcomes have dramatically higher values than the remaining population” — and thus a cause for alarm.  The few having most and the many having little has always been true in the Film Biz where a few movies, stars, and players, have most of the audience, money, and deals.  The thing is that social media and greater interconnectivity only reinforce this; they don’t rebalance as some of us once dreamed.  We may have more options than ever before, but we pay attention to less as more and more people parrot what is already being said.  This too is a logical response to the tsunami of new that crushes the long tail before anyone can grab hold.  When so much is available and always rushing towards us, we listen more to the familiar. The rich get richer and a diet of less but bigger movies with more familiarity and saturation keeps the studios keep on keeping on.
9. The film business is one of navel gazing and  ego-centric focus. The film biz does not think outside of itself, be it studio or indie. To quote Chris Dorr, we “use the “film” hammer to pound the nail, when we need to find a new hammer”.
10. We are followers who like to be led.  And our leaders are not walking the path to change.  They will continue to repeat the past “success” even if many of the factors that should govern their decison-making process have changed.  Unfortunately our tendency to follow infects us with the March Hare perception where we learn “to like what we get” and not demand to get what we like.
11. The principal agent problem, whereby generally everyone looks out for themselves.  Sure this governs most interactions, but the film biz has it’s own twist on it, because the industry has so little trust to begin with.  We know they are trying to make money on us, but we undermine being able to act on this because we think the other side has a power we don’t.  This used to be true as information was fiercely protected, but now we see most of it in one form of the other.  Once someone has a made several films and paid attention, they generally can know what goes on.  Sure there are always secrets to be revealed (Cats bark!), but what do they have that you don’t have?  Relationships, check, but beyond that, what is it?  But the problem remains, as long as someone is driven by power or money, they can’t advance the cause.  There is no golden hand when it comes to culture, or really even enterprise.  In terms of the film biz, those days are over.  To lift your boat, you must raise the tide. (Thanks to Christropher Petzel for this).
12. The only people who will ever change will be those that want to change.  If you have ever been with a partner who is a depressive or a habitual anything and tried to do something about it, you know the fallacy of this technique.  Surround yourself with people of superior character, dedicated to truth and honesty and growth.  Unfortunately, that’s a bit hard in the film business! (but maybe you can be fortunate to find it in your personal life).

What did I leave off?

Tweet

The need for greater transparency, access, education, and community in film investment circles is only now being generally recognized in the film industry.  For over a century, the powerful kept close hold on the financial side of things, limiting access between creators and supporters.  This required always paying a visit to the representative, regardless of whether you were looking for projects or hunting for money. When the access to funders and creators is an open flow, the power will have changed, and with it, the work that gets financed (as well as the artists who generate it) will begin to look considerably different than what we have today.

In case you are wondering… yes, that is a very good thing.

It is very difficult to innovate when the powerful seek to repeat, consciously or not, what has worked before, hiring those that replicate them, incentivized to maintain the status quo.  You end up with a creative culture that just regurgitates what has been served before.  Business structures influence the art that gets produced, particularly when it is capital intensive.  But there is a wave building, and it’s power to change is phenomenal.

Let’s look at the seeds and see if we can project what the forest will be.

We have crowd funding and that has certainly enabled many artists to launch new projects and aggregate audiences in the process — but for the most part, the scale of things on crowd funding platforms does not allow for established film professionals to rely on it as a primary source of funding for feature length projects (although it certainly can be relied on to foster engagement — provided you deliver the rewards that is).  We have also been witnessing the first dip of the celebrity culture toe into the crowd funding waters, and with it a ripple and wake of effects ranging from new users of the platform to fear of diminished or ill-placed resources.

I look at crowdfunding in general and Kickstarter in particular as an audience aggregation platform for those whole love independent culture. The folks gathered here are not generally people with significant means, but people who do believe a share of their earnings should go back into the system that drives the things they love and appreciate. It is the first indication  of a wonderful transformation: from fans being supporters to actual patrons.  And it has been a game changer — and with it, it points to the potential of an even greater change.

What would happen if a large group of diverse funders entered the independent culture generation sector?  You know what I mean?  What would happen if we had new money in indie film (or any other cultural strand) that wasn’t stupid money, money that worked together to further the culture and the business prospects?  Money that was equally committed to making sure that the creators and their supporters (i.e. them!) were the direct financial beneficiaries of their work? Money that was sustainable and did not get out after a film or two, win or lose, but had a long term portfolio approach?

We have already seen this happen, right?  We are living in the greatest generation gap the world has ever seen.  The difference between digital natives and the old fogies like most of you and me is beyond a giant chasm.  We will never understand.  I personally find that wonderful, and I thank VC culture, primarily the aka Silicon Valley. Smart money, through it’s investment in technology, has brought about tremendous societal change.

Film would be a better investment if we changes both the whom and the how the capital was utilized.  A greater more diversified community of artists would be getting their work made is a mover diverse group of investors entered film culture.  More people would see films.  The audiences’ experience with film — their engagement — would improve if we could change who our investors are, what they demand, and how they think about what film actually is.  The world would be a better place.

Now, what would it take for that to occur?  Well, that brings us back to the beginning of this post and what could happen if we had greater transparency, access, education, and community in the investment side of the film biz.

That’s part of my mission.  Stay tuned.Tweet

Filmmaker Andrew Einspruch recently attended the Australian International Documentary Conference and wrote a series of articles for the event, which he’s graciously allowed us to reprint here. These articles originally appeared in Screen Hub, the daily online newspaper for Australian film and television professionals.

Cathy Henkel is a producer, director, academic and researcher. She brings all of those skills to bear on her documentary projects, and recently has been looking into what it takes to navigate an independent path as a filmmaker. In a session called Riding the Freedom Streams at this year`s Australian International Documentary Conference (AIDC), she invited documentary makers to brave the waters of a freer path.

Starting off with her nautical theme, Henkel said that you have to decide what kind of vessel you want your business to be.

One option is to wade into the main stream, the province of vessels she called the Good Ship Enterprise. The AIDC is primarily devoted to established and wannabe Enterprise ships. These businesses get their money from three main sources: broadcast pre-sales and distribution advances, government (grants or investments), and the Producer Offset. They are larger businesses with larger staff and larger overheads, and they have worked out how to get deals with the broadcasters and distributors, whose pre-sales and advances are needed to trigger government money.

How does one grow into an Enterprise ship? By persisting with mainstream activities. You get to know the broadcasters and distributors, and learn how to pitch to them effectively. You do what it takes to establish a track record, or you do what the agencies tell you to do if you don’t have one – team up with someone who does. You go to conferences. You pitch at pitch forums (which requires bullet-proof, well-developed concepts). And you tantalise them with your compelling documentary, where you have unique access to a particular world, out of which you can harvest a unique story.

But Enterprise ships become “servants to their funding masters,” as Henkel put it. They may get the business, but they get locked into the rigidity of timeslots, the need to keep their output up, and a loss of freedom in terms of style and format. The distributors they partner with want all rights deals, which means those Enterprise ships can’t plan their own release strategies, and have little hope for additional returns. The government funds they depend on come with strings attached, and it is easy for a project to bog down in contracting and administration. The result can be cash-flow problems, or projects that simply die because they are time critical, and the wheels of progress turn too slowly.

Still want to go that route? Yes? Then go for it. Just know that the river can only accommodate a handful of Enterprise ships. The competition is fierce, and you are likely to smack into what Henkel called a log jam. The simple fact is it is harder and harder for newcomers to crack into the mainstream business. The gatekeepers are harder to get to, and the money they pass out is shrinking. And it’s not like the established Enterprise ships are likely to toss you a rope and help tow you into safe, profitable water.

Then again, you might want to find a path that avoids the log jam. That is what Henkel has been doing for her own projects, and is the opportunity open to the many, more nimble players. She represented those smaller businesses as kayaks, and said they had four “freedom streams” that could provide finance.
Those freedom streams include:

• Private investment. This source of funds expects their money back, with interest. You have to pitch your project in terms of return on investment. But if they come on board, then the agreements can be done much faster, and the money can flow in quickly. They tend to leave you alone to make the project you want to make. Plus, the investors become your allies, and can open doors to audiences you would not otherwise reach.

• Grants and philanthropy. Henkel called this “the sweetest finance of all”. Unlike private investors, there is no expectation that you will return their money in any form. It is a grant, which means the producers part of the project equity is higher. You can route the money through the Documentary Australia Foundation, which can benefit the giver with a tax deduction. Charitable givers are looking for returns in the form of social capital and social good. Like investors, they tend not to exert creative influence. You do, however, need to tend the relationship, so they know their money is spent well and they are getting a favourable result. They, too, can be advocates andhelp you reach a broader audience.

• Corporate sponsorship/investment. Companies can come on board as an investor, providing cash or in-kind services. In that case, they expect their money back down the track. Alternatively, they can sponsor your film with cash or in-kind, which means they don’t expect a direct financial return. The third option is where a service provider agrees to re-invest part of their fee in the project. Facilities deals often take this form. In all cases, though, they want some kind of product recognition or acknowledgement. Plus, you have to make sure you don’t have so much of this that it jeopardises your producer offset.

• Crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is people making glorified gifts, which means they do not expect a financial return. Like charitable grants, the money becomes part of the producer’s equity, and it is not encumbered with creative strings. It flows in at a predictable time. Just know that crowdfunding is hard work to do well, and you have to make sure that the goodies you offer don’t make the exercise unprofitable.

Being a freedom stream rider is very hands-on for the producer. You have to be temperamentally suited to sticking with your project for years, and doing all the things that otherwise a distributor or sales agent might do. Henkel, for example, has a documentary coming out in in the second half of 2013 called Rise of the Eco-Warriors . She expects that project to significantly occupy her for the bulk of 2014 as well.

That’s because distribution is a big deal, and getting your doco out into the world is what it is all about.

Henkel cited the spiritual godfather of SPAA Fringe, Peter Broderick, who has been preaching a gospel of alternative distribution for years. As a producer, you can access audiences anywhere in the world, using online platforms. You can gather a personal audience who you can take with you from project to project. If you distribute yourself, then the money comes to you, and you can implement a distribution strategy that suits you and your project. Plus, no one will care about your documentary more than you. You can translate that passion into a greater chance of success.

The term Henkel and Broderick use is “hybrid distribution”, which she said involves “Self-management of distribution and direct sales to audiences, combined with selective release of rights to third party distributors such as DVD distributors, TV channels, VOD companies, educational distributors, and online outlets.” She emphasised that it was not about doing it all yourself. Rather, you carefully choose partners who help you – but the producer keeps control. This contrasts directly with a traditional arrangement with distributors, where the producer hands over the product, and more or less waves goodbye.

Just know that doling out small bundles of rights to a variety of partners means the producer has to do more deal-making, sign more contracts, and put up with the additional hassles involved.

A key benefit of this hybrid approach is your direct connection to the audience. In the old model, the producer had no idea who was watching the doco, because that information stayed with the distributor or exhibitor. But direct distribution lets you know who bought your film. As Broderick says, you convert your fans from customers to patrons. They can become active advocates for your work. Many filmmakers, Henkel included, say that one of the best aspects of crowdfunding is that it lets you raise the profile of the project, test whether an audience is going to respond to it, and helps you tap a pool of people who want you and your film to succeed.

In the end, Henkel said the choice is yours. One choice is, “Partnering with the big companies, going the Enterprise way, increasing overheads and trading off freedom for the existing TV pre-sales, old world distribution offers and government funding,” she said. “Or you can combine the four freedom streams with the three traditional stream and experimenting with Hybrid distribution. And have fun along the way.

“The freedom streams are not an easy option. But they offer more control over your own destiny, better returns if you succeed, and more creative freedom.”
Henkel was clear which direction she prefers. She said she did not yet know if this path was sustainable. But even if it wasn`t, she knew that what she learned would help her do it differently in the future.

Andrew Einspruch is a producer with Wild Pure Heart Productions . His current project is the low budget feature film The Farmer.Tweet

I would argue that most scripts don’t become films because the people behind them aren’t willing to face reality and do what is necessary to get them made. The dream of the knight sweeping down and rescuing them for their beauty/wisdom/talent/genius is a toxic poison.  Wishing for privilege, wishing for good fortune, these dreams get in the way of recognizing the hard work that can often get things done.  

Okay, money, connections, talent — they all have a great deal to do with success, but it is also a state of mind that is needed to make things real. Much of that mindset is preparation.  Some of it is process.  And some is that heady cocktail where action and philosophy mix.  You want to get your movie made? Change how you are thinking, and then change your actions.

WARNING: The myth of hard work earning just rewards is equally false and debilitating, but if you want to change your outcomes, preparation is probably the key influencer.

Here’s my list for today of ten short cuts to production.

1. The best way to raise a budget is to cut it in half. Know how low you can go, and stop hesitating.  It will be easier next time when you have this one to show.
2. Build a body of work.  Make it clear you are a generative person.  If you consistently create, everyone will believe you will get it done.  Even better of course is to make work consistently of quality.  You create atmosphere where the industry will actually fear your next work will be even better and you will compel them to join up with you.
3. A movie comes together in one way and one way only; it may be more bumpy ride than perfect storm, but you have to recognize it when it is in front of you.  If you have 50% of the budget and you know how to make it for that, make it for that.  If you have an actor who helps get it funded and they want to do it and you don’t think it is a compromise, then what are you waiting for. I have had several movies die because I thought I could do better than I could.
4. Put yourself in the investors’ shoes.  Think of what they would want to hear or see.  Don’t let them look foolish to their friends or the world.  Treat investors as your partners.  Give them what they need to close the deal — and to look smart in doing so.  If you think they may want something, you better have that ready to give.
5. Make the film seem as inevitable as possible.  Do EVERYTHING possible to help them visualize your movie happening (which is very different from visualizing your movie). Create realistic business plans.  Create image books.  Create extensive cast lists.  Select locations.  Run budget alternatives. Build a website. Aggregate your audience.  Demonstrate a proof of principal. Do anything that helps people visualize the film.  And of course the easiest time to raise money is when you are in production (but this is very very dangerous).
6. Build a coalition of support around your project before introducing it to heavy hitters.  You want a “yes” from as many people as you can regardless of whether they can get the movie made or not.  Set the table for the meal you want to serve.  The truth will bubble up.
7. People want most what they can’t have.  Manufacture desire for your project before you go out with it.  Once the package is complete, spend a good month speaking about it before sending it out, just telling people you are almost done with it. Denial feeds desire.  A road block makes you want to journey to the other side.
8. Build an environment of authentic urgency around your project.  People act when they need to act.  Why do they have to make a decision on yours now?
9. Be more than a filmmaker.  Start with being a member of a community.  What do you provide people?  Why will they want to help you?  Your good acts will inspire others and lead them to action.
10. Make it easy for people to know who you are.  Movies are stressful situation but they aren’t surgery.  Your team needs to know you won’t crack under pressure.  They need to know you can be depended on for a good long time.  They need to know that it will be enjoyable or at least rewarding to be around you for such an extended period.  Help them understand that.

Any other suggestions you’d like to add to the list?

Tweet

As a busy filmmaker or visual artist, you may feel you’re already spending too much time on Facebook and Twitter, and the last thing you need is to start soaking up your time with another social media platform.   I understand that completely, but I’m going to show you how Pinterest can help you even if you don’t really use it.

In case you haven’t heard, Pinterest is a new and increasingly popular social media website that allows you to “pin” images and videos to virtual pinboards that you create, organized around themes.  You can either upload your own creations, bring them in from other websites, or “repin” them from other Pinterest users.

A recent survey found that Pinterest is only one percent behind Twitter, up from twelve percent in August 2012 to fifteen percent in February.  It skews very heavily female at this point, but that may shift as more people use it.

Here’s the top of a Pinterest Page made by Italian designer Paolo Casti. He has over fifty boards, mostly on design-related topics like Car Design, Music Design, Product Design, Extreme Design, etc.

Looking through the boards, you get a sense of Casti’s taste, personality and style, and you also discover beautiful things, which is why Pinterest has proven to be such an effective site for shopping.   It’s only after you get down to the bottom that Casti puts in the board below, which shows that he has created a video wall and other signage at the Venice airport.

It’s a completely new way for an artist like Casti to introduce himself to an international audience:  here  are the things that influenced me, my inspiration, my taste, my home, my entire way of looking at the world… now look at what I’ve created.   I never would have discovered Casti if we hadn’t been brought together by Pinterest when he repinned something from one of my boards.

As I said, even if you have no intention of spending time on PInterest, you can utilize it to assemble a home for all the material you’ve created for your art.  You can make a board for each of your films, or for different categories from a single film.   An artist might organize a page on his or her gallery shows, and playwrights and directors could organize it by plays.  Each board has its own URL.  A click on any picture will either display a larger version of the image or take you to any website that you’d like the user to go to.

If you already have a website for your film, this could be a wonderful supplement.  In my opinion it is better than most websites because you don’t have to click around drop-down menus to see what’s in it, something that very few people do.   Perhaps you have separate websites for some of your films, but not for your whole career.  If you don’t have a website, you can make a nice mobile friendly one as a supplement to your actual website.   If you don’t have a website, there are great free tools like Strikingly  where you can quickly build a stunning, mobile-optimized site, and then link to your Pinterest boards or pages.

To illustrate the possibilities, I decided to create a sample Pinterest page from a 27-minute 16mm silly comedy I wrote and directed in 2003 called “Tiger: His Fall & Rise,” which starred Thomas Jay Ryan (“Henry Fool”) and the late Adrienne Shelly.  Set in the forties, shot in black and white Super 16mm, “Tiger” was a lavishly over-produced film noir musical about a singing rubber frog, with sets, costumes, original songs, dance numbers, and an amazing cast.

To set up the page, I logged out of my personal Pinterest account and went to pinterest.com.

As I needed a distinct email address, I had already created tigerhisfallandrise@gmail.com.     I put up the picture of my star, Tiger the Frog, and I was good to go.

For many reasons, including the fact that the original sound was lost, “Tiger: His Fall & Rise” was never completed and only exists as a copy made off of an Avid.   Despite this, it was projected a few times, including once at the old Pioneer theatre in New York.  That was it for “Tiger” until a few years ago when I had the idea of making a ten minute version for YouTube.  I wrote a new script, put together a few clips, unused takes, and new material, but my concept involved reshooting, green screen, etc., and I abandoned it. However, once I made those clips I never wanted the original “Tiger” to be shown again, because they were closer to the spirit of the film I wanted to make.  I had dreamed of something that mixed the deadpan idiocy of “Airplane” and the comic violence of a Tex Avery cartoon.  It didn’t work out but it’s fair to say that people did enjoy the songs I wrote for it.

I made a board for these remixed clips.  While digging around I found some funny outtakes of Adrienne stuffing her face with Chinese food.

They amused me, so I put them together and included them.  It was interesting to make DVD-type materials for a film that is never going to make it to DVD.  But from the perspective of Adrienne being a beloved and talented person who is no longer with us, they are worth watching, and I would never have found them if I wasn’t going through this exercise for this blog post.   I also put in a Christopher Guest-style “Making of” film that was made by my friend Jose Casado and actress Jessica Jolly.  Again, the improvisation by Jessica, Tom Ryan, Adrienne Shelly, and others are really funny, and deserve a better fate than sitting on my hard drive gathering dust.

Most of the stills for “Tiger” were shot by Richard Sylvarnes, who is a respected filmmaker (“The Cloud of Unknowing,” “H.C.E,” “Last Words of Dutch Schultz”), musician and artist, who I met because he shoots the stills for Hal Hartley’s movies.  His photographs are one of the few records of what it actually looked like to be on the set.  Now that I’ve begun this project, I am going to go through the binders of Richard’s work and will scan some more of them.

I had already set up a tribute page to Adrienne on my personal page, which is an ongoing project.  She was my best friend for many years, and it makes me happy to make a record of what she was like as an actress and director by assembling photos, posters and trailers.  What I was surprised to discover by making this Pinterest page was that there was a lot of surprising Adrienne Shelly-related material floating through the web: video tributes, art, Tumblr  montages, even a song.

I started a board for Tom Ryan.  It was nice to revisit the stills for “Henry Fool,” a film I publicized, but it was even more fun to see him in a still with Tilda Swinton and dressed up in costumes for all the theatre work he’s done.   It’s going to be a pleasure to build this up.   He is a great actor and deserves something like this.   As I demonstrated in this post, this is something people will find when they search for him online.

For my “Reviews” board, I could only locate a single one, from Film Threat, stuffed away in a filing cabinet, and I put it up with a user review from IMDb.  When I find more, I’ll add them.  I uploaded a graphic of the review I made in PicMonkey  and linked to the site, by clicking edit and putting in the source URL.

I went on to create three other boards for my page: “Influences,” “Black and White Films” and “Singing Frogs.”  There will be more.  You don’t have to create additional boards like this, of course, but unlike your website, which people will only seek out if they want to, being an active user of Pinterest will lead people to your page.

If nothing else, my “Tiger: His Fall & Rise” Pinterest page is a place where my friends, relatives and people who worked on the film can visit and enjoy.  And as I have shown, the process of putting it together has been an interesting journey that has excavated a lot of interesting stuff from my hard drives.  Now that I’ve started this, I’ll keep creating videos from the detritus of “Tiger,” and if the response is good enough, maybe I’ll make that YouTube video someday.

Reid Rosefelt coaches filmmakers in how to market their films using Facebook, and lectures frequently on the topic.  His credits as a film publicist include “Stranger Than Paradise,”  “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” and “Precious.”

Blog: reidrosefelt.com

facebook.com/reidrosefeltmarketing

Tweet

Previously: London Calling

Who Pays What?

At the recent Artist to Entrepreneur (A2E) summit at the SF Film festival, a frequently asked questions from filmmakers was “How much can I expect to make from VoD?” The question was greeted with stony silence, mostly because the data just isn’t out there in a meaningful, predictive way. That is, there aren’t enough proxies. A proxy for your film would be a film in the same genre, similar level of name talent, similar marketing budget — and perhaps comparable subject matter for documentaries. In short, a film with much the same chances in the market. That’s a proxy, and they just don’t exist. Or rather, the data isn’t being made public. Why? It’s not a nefarious conspiracy, it’s simply because no one has an incentive to release this data — and anyway there’s no much of it to begin with. So I thought it would be useful to shed what light I can on how much you might expect to make from various types of VoD outlets — ad supported, subscription, transactional, etc. The BIG caveat here is that KinoNation is just getting started, we’re only delivering films to a handful of “beta test” outlets, and so far films have only been live for a month or so — not nearly enough to make revenue predictions.

Ad Supported Revenue

As a filmmaker it may be mildly irritating to have multiple :30 sec TV spots before, during & after your feature film. But it definitely generates income. Hulu is one of our beta-test partners, and so we already have some good data from the dozen or so KinoNation films that are live on Hulu — and we’re adding more every day now. Likewise with Swiss-based Viewster. So what are the revenue factors here? In simple terms, it’s the number of ads served before/during/after your films, multiplied by the price of the ad. In reality, ads are sold to various agencies at different rates. So you may have a :30 sec spot in your film on Hulu for BMW, at a CPM (cost per thousand) of $23. And also a Tide spot at a CPM of $19. Plus there may be 9 ad “slots” in your film, but insufficient demand at the moment it’s playing to fill those slots, so 2 of the 7 go un-monetized. Hulu suggests an ad slot every 8-12 mins. Which is why in the KinoNation metadata, we have a section for ad breaks where the filmmaker defines — with timecode down to the frame — where the ads are inserted. Much better viewing experience if the ads don’t interrupt a scene. So what does this mean if you have a film on Hulu?  Let’s say it gets watched a modest 200 times each day. By “watched” I mean someone starts watching it — they don’t necessarily finish watching it. In fact, the average time watched may be the most critical metric — not just in revenue terms, but in raw “how engaging is my film?” terms. If they bail (on average) after 20 minutes, you have a problem. If they bail on average after 50 minutes you make a LOT more cash. Remember, it’s all about averages — the reality is that some people watch to the end, some bail within the first 5 mins — and most are in between. Anyway, 200 times a day means your film “sells” around 1000 ads. So at a CPM of $20, your film has just made twenty bucks. Which you share 50:50 with the outlet. So you made $10 today. And then KinoNation take 20%. You’re left with $8. Doesn’t seem like much. But that’s $3000 a year from one of many VoD platforms, and my #’s are actually uber-conservative. If you successfully promote your film you can make way more. Meanwhile, with Viewster in Europe we’re seeing a lower CPM — around 5 or 6 Euros. Not surprising — less mature market, less premium outlet. But, every view of your film on every outlet is incremental revenue. That’s why you need to be on dozens of outlets.

Subscription VoD Revenue

There’s a little more dough in SVOD, I think, because you’re not a slave to ad rates and CPMs. SVOD means the user is paying a flat monthly (Netflix & Hulu Plus) or annual (Amazon Prime) fee. Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus are part of our beta test, so I can provide some numbers. Amazon Prime is their $79 a year subscription to get free shipping. But it also gives the subscriber free access to Amazon Prime videos. KinoNation filmmakers can select Amazon Instant and/or Amazon prime. Most select both, which is probably wise. Prime pays 10 cents per movie played. So when a thousand people watch your film on Prime, you make $100, less 20% to KinoNation. Again, it’s not big money, but the math starts to work for you because of the tens of millions of Amazon users, multiplied by month after month. It’s better with Hulu Plus. They pay 18.5 cents per view (defined as a minimum of six minutes.) So a thousand views grosses you $185. Not bad.

Transactional Revenue

Transactional VoD (TVOD) is radically different in psychological terms — the viewers has to pay a flat fee for your film. With most VoD outlets (but not all) you can set the rental price, or at least a price band. It’s typically $3-6 per rental, for 48 hrs. You get 70% via iTunes, or 50% via almost everyone else. More on this in future posts — right now we don’t have any data.

Data/Reporting/Accounting

All this leads me to talk briefly about one of KinoNation’s fattest challenges: how to consolidate financial reporting from dozens of VoD outlets — and then credibly report those numbers to filmmakers. Frankly, it’s a total nightmare of disparate data, formats, sources. Some outlets report monthly, most report quarterly. Some send a detailed breakdown in near real-time, some email us a spreadsheet 4 times a year and expect us to figure it out. What we’re building is a system that consolidates, reports as soon as we know, and pays filmmakers as soon as we have the money, probably via PayPal. Big software engineering job, and of course in the short term we’re focused on just getting films transcoded and delivered to outlets. But we’ll get there, and in the meantime we’ll do manual accounting and payments — so don’t worry, you’ll get paid!

Next Up: Post # 29: The Vision Thing

Roger Jackson is a producer and the co-founder of film distribution start-up KinoNation. He was Vice President, Content for digital film pioneer iFilm.com and has produced short films in Los Angeles, documentaries in Darfur, Palestine and Bangladesh, a reality series for VH1 and one rather bad movie for FuelTV. You can reach him at roger@kinonation.com.
Tweet