Truly Free Film

Good-looking* Films Shot On The Red Camera

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:05:00 +0000

Of course, not being on this list does not mean, the film is not good-looking. The only criteria here was that I harvested the suggestions from my twitter and facebook feeds, and I knew of the movie (*not actually that I saw the movie).

I needed this list and really appreciate everyone putting it together (so damn quickly too). I place it here assuming others too will need it.

Antichrist

Bronson

Butterfly Effect 3

Che

Crooked Lane

District 9

Easier With Practice

The Exploding Girl

The Girlfriend Experience

The Informant!

The Knowing

The Red Riding Trilogy

The Social Network

Tree Of Life

Van Diemen's Land

It's sort of interesting how widely diverse the films are both in terms of content and in terms of budget.

Ten* Filmmakers I Would Crowd Fund*

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:14:00 +0000

In celebration of Arin Crumley & Keiran Masterton's success using Kickstarter to fund development of OpenIndie.com, I thought I would launch my annual grants. Or rather my annual promise of grants. Money! $ For Films! Free!*

If any of the following filmmakers had a crowd funding page for their next film (provided the film was $300K neg.cost or less), I would donate some money to get it made. And I would encourage others to do so.

Who would you fund?

I know there are more than ten* I could have listed, but I thought this was a good start, and you have to draw the line somewhere. Plus, being an indie film producer in a land that does not demonstrate that it values what I do, I don't have enough cash to go beyond this list! And even still, my contribution would not be significant financially; it would be more of a vote of support in hopes that others would be encourage to support the culture they want. I would give in order to become part of their team, to hear what they are up to, to get updates.

I listed artists who have are all early in their careers -- but have already directed a feature. I listed filmmakers whom I was confident could deliver a whole lot for a little. I listed filmmakers whom I am not already involved with.

Yet before I gave to any of these filmmakers, I would want to see a commitment to building audiences PRIOR to filming -- say a pledge to not commence until they had collected 5000 unique fans. I would want to know that they had a plan to market and release their film that went beyond bringing it to festivals and hoping for the best. I would want to know that they would set up an e-commerce site on their websites -- and that they had a website (which they refreshed with regular content). And of course I wouldn't transfer the money until they had reached their goal in pledges. Then I would gladly give money to them to get that next film made (and not ask for anything in return other than the satisfaction of having helped).

The State Of The Media World Right NOW

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:22:00 +0000

Brian Newman tells it like it is. Listen up.

Okay, so image quality is crap, but just let it play and go look at something on Flickr.

The Five -- No, SIX -- Pillars of Cinema -- Take It Back!

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:05:00 +0000

The video of my Power To The Pixel key note speech is now up. Watch me read! Watch my hand juggle invisible balls! Listen to how my nose vibrates! If you wait until next week, there will be seven pillars!

I think we'll be able to embed in another two weeks. But...

Is This What You Mean By "Indie"?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:39:00 +0000

Deadline Hollywood published a great list of the "Indie" Box Office. I think this underscores why I was looking for some new nomenclature when I started this blog.

TOP 20 INDEPENDENTLY FINANCED FILMS
Weekend of October 23–25, 2009
Exclusive To Deadline Hollywood

TITLE, DISTRIB, COMPANY, WKD BOX OFFICE, SCREENS/AVERAGE, CUME

1. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (Par/IM Global) $21.1M [1,945/$10,850] $61.5M
2. SAW VI (Lionsgate) $14.1M [3,036/$4,650]
3. LAW ABIDING CITIZEN (Overture) $12.4M [2,890/$4,292] $40.0M
4. ASTRO BOY (Summit/Imagi) $6.7M [3,014/$2,224] $6.7M
5. A SERIOUS MAN (Focus) $1.0M [176/$6,211] $3.1M
6. GOOD HAIR (Roadside Attractions) $945K [466/$2,030] $2.8M
7. CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY (Overture) $726K [636/$1,142] $12.9M
8. WHIP IT (Fox Searchlight/Mandate) $466K [435/$1,071] $12.2M
9. AN EDUCATION (SPC/BBC/Odyssey) $367K [31/$11,851] $940K
10. COCO AVANT CHANEL (SPC/Canal+) $272K [63/$4,321] $1.7M
11. NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU (Vivendi) $230K [110/$2,092] $747K
12. FAME (MGM/Lakeshore) $212K [445/$477] $22.0M
13. BRIGHT STAR (Apparition/TVA) $212K [209/$1,015] $3.9M
14. TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE** (Warner/New Line) $203K [284/$718] $62.8M
15. I CAN DO BAD ALL BY MYSELF (Lionsgate) $178K [273/$655] $51.6M
16. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (Weinstein/Uni) $176K [206/$857] $119.3M
17. DISTRICT 9 (Sony/QED) $148K [232/$638] $115.5M
18. 5150, RUE DES ORMES (Alliance Films) $107K [55/$1,955] $787K
19. MORE THAN A GAME (Lionsgate) $99K [107/$929] $749K
20. THE SEPTEMBER ISSUE (Roadside0 $89K [61/$1,469] $3.4M

** A New Line production distributed through Warner Brothers.

Wanted: A Home For A Truly Free Film Celebration

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:23:00 +0000

Taking a page from Roger Ebert, it would be wonderful to find an academic institution who would like to sponsor a one week (five days? a long weekend?) celebration of Truly Free Film (not the blog but the culture that is).

Imagine five or maybe ten filmmakers coming to your campus discussing what they did right and what they did wrong. Imagine a couple of seasoned pros joining them and speaking of how they have survived and prospered, what they do to transform their good work into the great. Imagine a handful of tech experts singing the song of innovation, helping us all to recognize the new model. There would be practical workshops, brainstorming sessions, fascinating discussions and of course, the movies, the movies would screen for your quality-starved eyes.

Picture this group of independent thinkers, all joining together in their search for answers and solutions.

Consider the energy that would come from those actively engaged in the creation of ambitious film and the efforts to reboot an apparatus that could support such work. Relish the satisfaction that one would bask in knowing that your community would have a truer firmer handle on the difficulties and the pleasures one encounters in the commitment to creating and delivering film art to audiences.

Now I don't have it planned, or any speakers booked, but we need a wine bottle if we are going to stomp on some grapes (well, okay, not the best metaphor). There are going to be great films going to the festivals this year, with no place to go afterwards. There are great films already made, looking to screen further. The new model is being unearthed but folks need to talk further. We'll need some help pulling it together for sure, but first we need a home with some money to spend.

I just thought it would make some sense to put it out there. Maybe you had some ideas or suggestions.

The Slow Drip Of Change: A Post From The Past

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:03:00 +0000

In 1995 I wrote an article for Filmmaker Magazine entitled "Indie Film Is Dead". If you are looking at the surface and what is being reported these days, it's pretty depressing how little things have changed. That slow drip has finally accumulated into a pool of chaos.

I can understand why people are nervous. However, I have been meeting with people from the tech side of things a lot lately. Things are going to change. Or rather keep changing. We are in The Period Of Disruption now. Folks are raising their hands to be the guides to Total Salvation. I won't fool myself into thinking it's that easy. It seems to me that budgets will have to drop significantly in order to justify experimenting with the new tools. Which means fees will drop. Which means that those with experience may sit this period out. Which means that quality will drop. Which means that audiences will drop. But wait, doesn't PARANORMAL ACTIVITY prove all that wrong?! Will the solution be genre films on a tiny budget?

Anyway, here's that dose of 1995:

The marketplace is nasty and brutal, remembering only the latest successes and never forgetting its failures. It allows no room for taste beyond the mainstream. Truly unique films cannot get screens, let alone hold them for more than a week or two. There is virtually no American audience for art films, political films, or non-narrative films. The specialized distributors have morphed into mass marketers, not niche market suppliers. Monopolistic business practices drive most corporate strategies.
Whether we view ourselves as producers, directors or moviegoers, our options are limited by the structure of the industry, and if we do not act soon, we will lose our ability to choose the films we want to make and see.
Sure, the trade papers may paint a rosy picture for the future of indie film. New outlets and delivery systems proliferate daily. New revenue streams emerge with reassuring regularity. The audience for "specialized" films is at an all-time high. Every month another studio posts a press release about their new specialty division. Every city has a film festival. Film school enrollment is booming.
But the real news has been quietly taking place in those back room corporate board strategy sessions. Anti-trust laws are a thing of the past. Today’s new media giants are embracing the independent film but as a marketing concept only; every day they bring more and more of the production, distribution and exhibition apparatus under their control. Although we celebrate our independent "spirit," the logic of the studio film – its range of political and social concerns, its marketing dictates, and even its narrative aesthetic – is slowly colonizing our consciousness. The screens are controlled by the studios and sooner or later every filmmaker winds up working for the studios.
We all must get real and face the facts: independent filmmakers are currently standing on a precipice. It’s jump or get pushed. We are overdependent on the Hollywood studios and their far reaching apparatus. If we want Indie Film to survive into the next millenium, if we want it to expand our artistic horizons, we must start to grow truly self-sufficient.
In order to recognize the desperate situation we currently find ourselves in, all one has to do is take a look at the current state of the industry and it’s different arms, and try to imagine one thing: Where does that truly unique first feature without an accessible marketing hook fit in?

YOU CAN FORGET ABOUT A DISTRIBUTION DEAL
Acquisitions are driven by marketability, and marketability alone. Art has no value. Sure a film has to be "good" to be picked up, but what does a distributor truly look for when it acquires a film? Uniqueness of vision? Independent spirit? Discipline? A controlled or unique aesthetic? Try again. Like their Hollywood counterparts, the first item on their menu is a marketable concept, one they already know how to package. They look for the promise of fun, albeit intelligent fun. God forbid, a film breaks new ground – if it does, it better do so while still satisfying other proven commercial desires – otherwise no one will know how to market it. In the current marketplace, fewer and fewer distributors will take a risk on a great film if its marketing potential is not immediately identifiable.
The major specialty distributors only seek films they believe can gross $2 million at the US box office. There is no small acquisition anymore. When a distributor offers a minimum guarantee of $300,000, they are essentially stating that they believe the film will gross over $2 million at the box office (the MG is nothing more than an advance against future profits – the size of the advance is in direct correlation to a distributor’s conservative estimate of the film’s future revenues). If the distributor is strong enough to demand (and collect) 50% of the gross from the exhibitors and spends no more than a minimal $700,000 prints and advertising investment, then it can recoup the advance. Forget about the days when an independent film was applauded for reaching the $1 million mark. Now it’s $2 million or bust.
The "Big Little" distributors have a surplus of films; they don’t want yours (particularly if it’s an art film). Miramax doesn’t even try to hide the fact that they have over 40 films on the shelf – they promote it. If one of the larger specialty distribs were to pick your film up today, you’d be waiting a year for your premiere. Granted, some of the wait has to do with the mechanics of publicity, but you can’t get around the surplus of good films available for acquisition. With such a backlog, there’s tremendous pressure to get everything but the big money makers off the screens and the shelf sitter up and out (but only for the minimum time required under that pesky video output deal, of course).
Acquisitions has become a presale and production game. There’s no room for your beautful little hand-crafted film gem (please close the door when you leave). Face it, distributors know what they want and they are tired of waiting for the indie sector to come up with it. As the big little distributors move fully into a production game they have a lot more money at stake. The coming disaster is easy to anticipate. How many films like House of the Spirits, Even Cowgirls Get The Blues, and The Perez Family can these companies afford to make before they go under? Unlike a Hollywood hit, an art film smash will rarely replenish the corporate coffers enough to compensate for a string of failures. This trend towards production is not only going to destroy companies, but it will also restrict anything but the surefire hits from getting picked up.
Small distributors are doomed to failure. The options are limited to begin with and they are only going to get smaller and more limited. The little distributors lack the muscle to book good screens, let alone hold them beyond a two-week engagement. And these microdistributors are overextended. As many great films do not get picked up by The Biggies, the small companies can acquire a year’s supply of product for a song. Temptation is too great a force, and they inevitably pick up too many films, fail to properly capitalize their release campaigns, and, with little invested in each film, quickly drop those films that don’t immediately perform.
The distribution business is actually a game of collections. It’s one thing to get a booking, but quite a different thing to get paid in full. Outside of the calendar house exhibitors, one can’t bank on an exhibitor returning more than their automatic 25% payout. The rest is up to "negotiation" and "settlement". Yeah, right. "Let’s see what other films you have up your sleeve next month and maybe then we can pay you what we owe."

SALES AND REVENUE: THERE’S NO WAY YOUR FILM WILL EVER MAKE MONEY ANYWAY
Filmmakers are always last in line for the revenues. When sales agents, producers’ reps, exhibitors, distributors, and all the various distribution, marketing, and publicity costs come off the top, can you really hope to have anything left? Hollywood spends $17 million on the average publicizing a film. In the specialized market, you can anticipate $300,000 in P&A for every $1 million a distributor hopes to gross until $3 million and how many specialized films do better than that in a given year? Do you really expect to see a bloody red cent?
There are not enough specialty ancillary distributors to create the competition needed for there to be a fair market value set and paid for acquisitions. You can dream all you want about the Sundance Channel and Independent Film Channel getting into a bidding war for your film. Even with Cinemax’s Vanguard series in the mix, current licensing fees won’t even pay for a minor P&A campaign. In the home video arena, the big indies go Chapter 11 on an annual basis. What does that leave you? Pay per view? Video on demand? Unfortunately, Shannon Tweed and Lorenzo Llamas are worth more viewers than a calvacade of festival accolades, particularly on a rainy night.
Indie film is forced to look overseas for its revenues. It’s been the rule that Jarmusch and Hartley turn more wickets in Paris than they do in all of the US It was once the norm that when you licensed your film to a distributor, you could expect half the budget from the US deal. Current wisdom would place it closer to 30%. Indie films typically make their money by licensing rights to the major foreign territories. But the bad news is that foreign distribution options are narrowing.
The trade press made a big deal about Miramax’s recent "output" deals with foreign distributors. New Line towed a similar line, handing off their product to select distributors territory by territory. The premium foreign sales agents all have their favorite buyers, and those not included within the circle have little hope of acquiring any product from these agents. The true foreign indie distribs are thus being shut off from their former suppliers. If the foreign indie distribs bite the bullet and pay the amount the large sales agents demand for the big titles, they won’t have the money to pay for your film anyway.
The real catch-22 though is the foreign market’s reliance on a US deal to drive advances. If your American Indie effort failed to ignite the screens stateside, expect lackluster advances when the time comes to sell overseas. Without the right US deal, you’re going to be hard pressed to squeeze a healthy return on foreign soil too.
Backend is bullshit. Go ahead, name the films that paid overages from domestic distributors to their producers. The distributor has to be able to collect from the exhibitor if you are ever going to see something. If exhibitors are only paying 25% of the gate now, regardless of whether or not they’ve agreed to more, and the distributor is taking 30% off the top of that, you can only expect 16% of gross theatrical revenue to return to the producer – before the deduction for publicity and print costs the distrib is piling on. With licensing fees for the ancillary markets so low, the only hope of an indie film turning a profit is having nothing to recoup to begin with. With backend being nonexistent, you better get your money upfront – but then again no one’s going to give you money upfront unless everyone is willing to.
You better be ready to dedicate the next ten years to that one film if you want to get what is owed to you. A film’s revenue life is usually close to ten years. If you want to make sure you’re not getting ripped off, you better examine those statements carefully. You better be prepared to look at how many admissions you got at every theater in every territory. You better keep track of video release dates and shipments in each territory and what channel puts it out for broadcast. Don’t lose those publicity stills because every three months or so some distributor will need them, regardless of how many times you’ve given them to your sales agent. It doesn’t matter how many territories accepted your video transfer, somewhere it won’t be up to snuff.

DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING: IF YOU THINK PEOPLE WILL EVER SEE YOUR MOVIE, STOP DREAMING.
Platform releasing is becoming a dead language. Gone are the days when a distributor would work a film one city at a time. All the big little distributors look for 200 print releases now and it costs to blitz. An idiosyncratic film that doesn’t hit a clearly definable demographic can’t legitimize the cost of hitting the top 50 markets simultaneously. However, in an oversaturated market, platform releasing is an impossible strategy. Platform releasing was based on the concept of word of mouth being able to compensate for less costly marketing campaigns. But word of mouth requires a film to be able to hold a screen and takes time, five weeks or so, to kick in. To hold a screen that long these days, you have to be turning the wickets pretty consistently from day one. When October Films released Mike Leigh’s Life is Sweet, its eighth week grosses were the highest. But today, if a microdistributor’s little sleeper is doing $9,000 a screen at the six-plex in its third week while the Miramax flick is hovering below the nut, say, at $6,500, who is the concerned booker going to drop? Your film or the one by the guys who’ve got the new Tarantino coming out?
Distributors still believe that independent film is entirely review driven. If the New York and the LA press don’t support it, you better pray Mr. Ebert wants to make a campaign of it. There is no second chance. Sure, they’ll publicize a film to its "core" audience, but in most distributors’ minds, "core" is defined by skin color and sexual orientation, and aren’t we all just a wee bit more complex than that?
Film criticism is at an all-time low, but distributors still rely on it.Somewhere along the line someone decided that reviews are nothing more than publicity. We’ve long been recognized as a nation of sound bites and pull quotes. The critic’s job is now simply to synopsize the plot and let ’em know whether it’s five stars or just four this time around. And distributors of art films won’t spend money unless these critics proclaim it a sure fire hit. If the lead reviewer doesn’t get your film because you are trying to do something new or maybe because he was hungry and cranky, you can see your ad shrink before your eyes. If the distributor took the risk on your little gem because they thought they could platform it, and that reviewer you dissed way back when remembers you now, kiss a multiple city playdate goodbye.
Distributors will not push a picture if they don’t have a lot of money riding on it. The reason you want a distributor to put up a hefty advance isn’t because of the money, but because it’s your only hope the film will get the push it needs. All of the big little companies can afford to take a $200K loss; it ain’t pretty but they can keep doing it if they have the hope of a cash cow by year’s end. This problem gets truly serious when all the distributors can have their pick of the majority of Sundance alumuni with no money down.
They are right when they tell you that indie films are sold on the back of the director (and they’re willing to break it). If you direct an indie film, you better be prepared to publicize it for the next year and a half. That next feature can just go on hold for all anyone else cares. If the distributor has any money they are going to spend it to put you on the road. All the press will be about you, not the film. You’ll be talking the film up in your nightmares (and then some if you are a first timer). You need to get in the papers to get the audience in their seats. And an article is a hell of a lot cheaper than an ad. The real rub is audiences could care less about the director. Features on film directors only preach to the converted. And the killer is that all this publicity sets the filmmaker up for a fall. Second time around, critics love to skewer last year’s discovery. Nevertheless no one’s come up with a cheaper, easier or more thoughtful way to get publicity for an indie film.

DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE: YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO SELL YOUR SOUL AND YOUR CHILDREN TO GET YOUR FILM FINANCED.
Industry financing options are diminishing. Miramax still finances edgy projects by directors without names perpetually set in bold type – but then you’ve got to wait until Harvey figures out who’s the right one to star in it. There once was a day that New Line/Fine Line did too, but those days now seem long gone. American Playhouse is now a severed arm of PBS, and it’s got to get a grip on films that could do boffo box too. (To add further bruises to brutal injuries, the financing scheme they engineered had it’s legs chopped out from under them with the recent demise of Goldwyn, their cherry-picked distributor).
Public funding options are all but non-existent. The NEA has abandoned film. They’ve abolished the AFI grant. The government and the politicos alike have stated very clearly that they do not feel film has any cultural worth and is solely a commercial pursuit best handled by the private sector. Never mind that the average taxpayer’s allocation to the arts is only about $2.47. You can kiss that chump change goodbye now and with it all the voices in the niches.
The "filmmaker-friendly" studio-backed production shingles rarely yield much fruit. The development and acquisition execs would rather keep their jobs than risk their necks on your little labor of love. Here’s the story:
The worst thing that can happen to a development or acquisitions exec is for a film they passed on to become a hit. They get fired for less. Consequently, expect them to take reasonable precautions. If they are going to pass on a film, they are going to make sure that everyone knows they have passed. They’ll pass loud and often – whatever is needed to taint the product and make sure no one else will ever make that film.
The next worst thing is to acquire a film that someone else passed on and for it to flop. Consequently, the smart exec won’t pick up a project that’s already been passed on by another entity. The only film they can truly support is one that already has a groundswell of support or one that nobody has seen.
If a film they champion fails, even telemarketing positions will start to look sweet. If a company develops a project, everyone’s a genius until the film’s released. And then only the numbers tell the truth.
So what’s a poor old executive to do? 1) Try only for films that everyone else wants. 2) Avoid films that don’t resemble previous hits. 3) Do like everyone else because they can’t fire you for imitating your colleagues. 4) Pray that nothing you develop ever gets made and the finished films you acquire gather moss on the shelf.
Finishing funds are designed to exploit filmmakers’ desperation. It may seem nice that such funds exist to bail out films in need, but under most of their current incarnations they exploit and encourage filmmakers’ desperation. Since filmmakers just want to be able to finish the film, the funders usually play fire sale, taking advantage of filmmakers’ ignorance and desire.
Filmmakers are not blameless here. With every tale of success these funds help furnish, fiscal irresponsibility is encouraged. All a new filmmaker wants to do is shoot film and shoot film soon. Never mind that the long drawn out process of financing often helps a filmmaker consider and reconsider the script and ultimately make a better film, these kids have just gotta shoot. If they have the money to get it in the can (and the investors that will let them), they usually are willing to shoot now and worry about paying for post later. The price they pay is that they are already over the barrel before they have a finished film to show. Unwittingly, desperation creates a buyers’ market and ownership soon is lost, but what other financing options are there?
Financing small films through presales is too costly and time consuming.It’s virtually impossible to finance a first feature through presales, but it can be done. Usually it requires casting names, but it can be done on the strength of the creative team alone, but then you better have a serious body of work and it might take a good three years or so. This time lag may well serve to distance all creative elements from the material at hand, but the real suck is the cost. Presales are contracts that have to be converted into money and that process ain’t cheap. It also means a completion bond at a minimum of 3% of budget. It means interest payments on the loan and high legal bills besides. When all is said and done you can watch at least 20% of the budget being spent on the money. You might as well give away the rights to Italy instead.
There’s no support system or infrastructure to speak of. The IFPs & Sundance are the lone beacons but even these not-for-profit groups are reliant on corporate dollars from the distributors for survival. Given this fact, can they really fulfill our need for a true ombudsman for the independents? But where are the alternatives?
The film industry, like all others, mystifies by design. All industries create their own vernacular, keeping the have-nots clouded in confusion. Variety takes this talent to an art form. The neophyte needs a class in how to read the trades, let alone understand them. Where is the information when you need it? Whether it’s a rolodex or a financial chart, good luck in getting up-to-date info. The industry promotes a paranoia and close-to-the-chest confidentiality in all its’ parishioners, whispering that if you don’t leap in, you’ll be out forever.
Film schools produce directors and not producers. Conspiracy theories, as comforting as the are, can stretch only so far, but it is curious how embraced and weaved into the industry the film schools are, yet how limited their curriculum is. By ignoring the business aspects of an art form driven by commerce and promoting "auteurs" and "masters of light," the film schools assure that there is a constant and overabundant supply of lambs trotting towards the slaughterhouse. USC’s Peter Stark Program shapes producers for the studio system, but there’s no academic institution seeking to prepare indie producer wannabes for the outside world. Of course one could easily say, as independent producer Jim Stark has quipped, "It doesn’t make sense to educate people to go into a business that they are bound to lose money in!"

Film Going Is A Necessary & Political Act: Woodstock Trailblazer Acceptance Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:50:00 +0000

Last month's acceptance speech has been up online for a few weeks, but I just discovered it. Check it out, you can play it in the background as you wash the dishes, maybe even do a little dance to it.

But if you are going to just watch/listen to part of it, please check out part three.

Unfortunately, it gets cut off before you get to hear me thank my wife Vanessa, whom I wouldn't do any of this without her love and support.

Answers Needed: Top Fulfillment Companies

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:29:00 +0000

If you want to distribute your own DVDs, who should you use?

The Yes Men use theconneXtion.com.

Who else is out there and what do you like about them (or not)

Win A Week Run In LA For Your Film

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:24:00 +0000

The WorkBook Project – Discovery and Distribution Award is part of an initiative to provide tangible options for those working in film, music, games, design and software to fund, create, distribute and sustain.

Born from a desire to share information and resources, the WBP Award strives to create an environment where the results of the various awarded projects are provided back to the community as a whole. This transparency around what works and what doesn’t is how creators will be able to flourish in a constantly changing media landscape. At the same time the sharing of resources and information helps to prime a community of creators in ways that will assist them and their prospective audiences in discovering and distributing the media that matters most to them.

Read all about it here.

What's The Future Of Film Look Like?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:12:00 +0000

I don't have that answer and I will leave it to the others (at least for today) as so many are offering options:

Francis Ford Coppola has got his opinion (and it sure got a lot of comments when I posted it to Facebook).
The New Yorker ran a funny piece on the state of publishing that read a bit like Scott Macauley's Letter From The Near Future.
Power To The Pixel just delivered three awesome days of discussions of new forms (Check out their recommended reading).
Arin Crumley and Jamie King have some interesting solutions.
The industry can't figure out formats yet again.
the change social media has delivered is pretty astounding.

Each day I have been experiencing and encountering new ideas and new practices; All of it is pretty damn thrilling. So what if we are racing forward even if we don't know where we are going. I am loving it.

Like I said, I don't know, but I do believe that some of these tools will change some things significantly.

You-Centric: The Future of Browsing from Carsonified on Vimeo.

That's Aza Raskin from Mozilla. And this is an attempt to explain Google Wave:

What are the other five tools that will make sure tomorrow does not look like today that I should be posting about?

Invest In The Yes Men (To Save Indie Film & Trash Global Capitalism)!

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:13:00 +0000

I got an email from those merry pranksters. I was inspired by the cut of their jib and sent them some money.

They have asked for everyone's help in order to get their relevant lunacy to seen:

A labor of love to produce, and distributed in a unique partnership with Shadow Distribution (The Lost Boys of Sudan, The Weather Underground), The Yes Men Fix the World hits corporate America where it hurts, and has huge potential as a public education piece and a powerful rallying cry for progressive activists and organizers. Unfortunately after a hugely successful opening weekend in New York, and inquiries from new theaters across the country, the film's marketing and outreach budget (never much to begin with) is almost completely tapped out! There is no budget for the 10-15 new film prints ($1200 each) that theaters want, nor for the basic advertising (another $15,000 at least) to make the film work in each major market, and in smaller cities too.
The Yes Men need your help to get the film out to cities and towns large and small across the land, where the hope is to reproduce the kind of raucous, people-powered reactions that have been typical of screenings in New York. Here's how you can do that:
One: You can loan money to their distribution and audience engagement effort, to be paid back when proceeds from the retail DVD start rolling in next year. To take this route, please email invest@theyesmen.org.
Two: They're putting Survivaballs up for adoption. For just $1,000, you will become the proud parent of the world's stupidest costume. The Survivaball you own will be deployed in direct-action protest all across America, and then in December will go to Copenhagen to push world leaders to do something smart about climate change. To adopt your own active ball, please email adoptaball@theyesmen.org.
Three: You can buy a film print ($1200) and loan it until the theatrical run is finished. To help out this way, please write invest@theyesmen.org.
AND you can also just donate money, or buy posters, t-shirts, Reggie candles, etc. here.

The DailyKos had a good post on them here.

Reuters Reports: Cinema Is Changing

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:43:00 +0000

Just spreading the word...

And just to be clear, the Daniel Johnston iPhone game has nothing to do with the movie other than being on the same subject. It's just a good illustration of the things that can slowly lead audiences to find new work, or to rejoice in it long after the lights have gone on.

What is VODO?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:22:00 +0000

Jamie King's VODO has launched. You should definitely check it out and participate.

VODO is trying to help solve three problems:

(1) How do we get works (texts, films, music) distributed efficiently and widely using current Peer to Peer technologies?

(2) How do we market these works that can rival mainstream media?

(3) How can we help creators distributing through P2P systems with developing a sustainable, or even profitable, practice?

Take Back What Is Already Yours: "Best Practices" For A Complete Cinema

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:00:00 +0000

I am in London to deliver the key note speech at Power To The Pixel. This is that speech.

POWER TO THE PIXEL:
Take Back What Has Always Been Yours
10/14/09
London

Cinema is a driving force in my life. I don’t want it to leave us, nor do I want to have to leave it behind; it’s provided me with hope and inspiration, and an incredibly fulfilling livelihood. It is also a one hundred year old industry, and, in my opinion, damn close to both a perfect art form and a perfect entertainment, but is also one whose applicability to our lives and livelihoods must now be completely reevaluated.

Cinema, in its current concept and execution, is both derived from and depending on a world that we’ve passed by.
• It is no longer is the most complete & representative art form for the world that we inhabit.
• It no longer mirrors how we currently live in the world.
• Cinema is now a rarefied pleasure requiring us to conform to a location-centric, abbreviated, passive experience that is nothing like the world we engage with day to day.

We must also recognize that there is no workable present day business model to support the current mode of cinema, other than one built on the exclusionary practice of isolated control of the funding, marketing, distribution, and exhibition systems. We know the model for financing and distribution -- and by extension, also creation -- is now running on fumes.
• How long can the controlling studio model survive when the wall of control has already come done and the people -- now embracing that they are both audiences and creators -- have recognized the power they truly have and will unlikely ever surrender that power again?
• How long can a business based on library assets survive when everything that has been digitized has also been copied and can now be spread with a touch of a button – and every time it is stopped, it is only to reappear somewhere else.

Sure, these are big problems before us, but being here, joining in the conversation today, is truly exciting because we are here to define and develop that new art form, one that in turn can spawn it’s supportive business model.
This can be done.
This will be done.
And whether we call it cross-platform, transmedia, or just good old “cinema”, we will do it.

In re-building our representative art form to truly demonstrate how we live, we will also develop a business model specifically for it:
• One founded on access and transparency,
• One where the rewards come from the work rendered and not the control maintained.
This is the hope has brought us together and it is this hope that will truly move us forward.

We not only all get to participate in this reinvention of cinema, but we all HAVE to participate in it. Things have changed:
• Previously creators couldn't – or perhaps wouldn’t -- truly participate in the whole of cinema .

If we as creators redefine cinema as its complete whole -- if we take back what has always been ours -- cinema will no longer be the same art form it was 100 years ago, nor will we have the same film industry that we do today. Yet, to think forward, we have to look backwards and recognize cinema for what it truly is and stop naming a part of it as the whole.
• Cinema is not just the narrative component.
• Cinema is the entire process;
• it is the dialogue that goes on between the audience and the content.
• It is the experience that resonates long after the lights have been turned on.

Cinema is supported by six pillars and until now creators truly only participated in two of them: content and production.
Content, being made up of sound, image, time, and narrative has had more than enough for a singular author to content themselves with.
Production, until twenty years or so ago, generally meant creators had to work for someone else because the cost of production was so excessive (that they weren’t able to afford it on their own). The economic barrier to personally produce what you conceive has now virtually disappeared.
For the last two decades Independent filmmakers mistakenly perceived it as some sort of victory that they had the opportunity to participate in the first two pillars, but in settling for dominion of these two, we haven’t seen the forest for the trees.

When we look at the great woods that surround us now, we should recognize that we have not just the possibility, but also the necessity, to participate in the other four pillars of cinema:
discovery,
promotion,
participation,
&
presentation

We must embrace this opportunity to engage in these aspects or we will lose it.
Those in control of the financing & distribution apparatus have historically limited the creative team’s full involvement to only content & production. For if they "grant" direct access to the consumer, the audience, or the fan, they will also reduce their own control of the gate, of the choices, & of the rewards.

Control, be it through:
• limited supply to the audience,
• the access to capital to the creators,
• and the marketing, distribution and exhibition apparatus
has kept access to all six pillars distanced from those that actually generate the stories, and as result no where near the full potential that we have in us.

With our new access and involvement, that power
to create,
to access,
to spread, and
to appreciate
is going to be owned by each and every one of us.

In denying the creative class access to those other four pillars of cinema, our Industry also inhibited the narrative form from expanding beyond a linear structure and its delivery from migrating from a singular platform. Yet, the creative side somehow not just readily accepted, but also propagated ,the myth that this is how it was supposed to be. For 100 years, we embraced a short sighted vision of what cinema -- it’s creation and appreciation – is .

When considering the audience’s actual experience of cinema, the creative class has embraced a false and unnecessary demarcation
• between art & commerce,
• between content & marketing, and
• between creator and audience.

Marketing & Narrative each influence each other. Each can be used together to effectively shape our perception and knowledge of the events we intend to consume.
• Isn't "discovery" the first point in the narrative chain?
• Isn't "promotion" about the point of impact for the audience's "discovery" and its subsequent resonance?

Cinema, and its business, changes with our acceptance of the whole definition of our work.
The “sell” is part of our creation; we enter our stories by the path the piper of marketing paves in front of us. We react not just by our own instincts, but also in accordance with what is happening around us, what our contemporaries are experiencing too. If we stop being cynical about the “marketing” aspects and use them to shape our narratives -- and make sure that the narrative also shapes those points of impact we call marketing -- our stories will have more influence, depth and resonance, by the sheer fact that they are now more complete, carried from our moment of discovery, reinforced through moments of resonance, and represented by the objects we surround ourselves with.

By shedding the false construct of a line between the form and its delivery, we transform our art form.
• By extending the narrative in the direction of what once was called marketing or business, cinema itself is no longer a line, but a sphere -- a full world and no longer just a slice of life.
• By removing the constrictions of the where and when we encounter cinema, it becomes a greater influence on our lives.
• By spreading the opportunities we have to engage, both back and forth, across multiple platforms, cinema is no longer an impulsive location-centric activity, but an ever-present and consistent choice.
• By changing from a monologue to a dialogue with our audiences, we return ownership to the commons and gain back loyalty in exchange.

As storytellers we have been trained to think predominately in the form of the feature length narrative; it is the byproduct of our tunnel vision, of our acceptance of a limited definition of cinema restricted to singular aspects of a far more rich communal experience. For our art form and our business to both reflect the realities of the world we are now living in we have to embrace a new set of “best practices” for the narrative form, solutions that attract new audiences, experiments that can lead to new business models.

We have to erase the division between content and marketing, between art and commerce, between creation, presentation, and appreciation. As creators, entrepreneurs, and audiences we have to leap into the whole of cinema, abandon the trees, and enter the forests. I don’t have an answer yet, but I suspect that the list of what we all need to embrace will include aspects of all six pillars of cinema and not just the two we have aligned ourselves with. In the days ahead the “best practices” for engagement in the six pillars of cinema will become clearer, but some things are already evident, and by no means is what I have to offer is a comprehensive list, but I do think that if my future collaborators entered my offices, already armed with the following considerations, the solutions to some of the struggles we have in our industry currently would feel far more evident.

So with regard to:

CONTENT & ITS CREATION:
• Expand the narrative -- along a thematic premise -- from just a feature format to also include multiple short form works, that can be used to seed, coralle, and bridge audiences from one work to the next.
• Create storyworld instructions that will allow others to also enter and participate in the narrative. This guide will describe what rules must be followed in the creation of characters and their actions.
• Open the narrative and erase the end, or rather give multiple opportunities for endings, as audiences want to re-engage in new and different ways at different times.
• Open the narrative and offer alternative points of view, so that the experience no longer is single character-centric.
• Consider opportunities for off-line discussions and individual customization to re-enter and even influence the narrative.
o Should characters, in addition to audiences, comment on the choice creators make?
o Where can user-generated modifications enter the narrative later on?
ß Beyond story & character, can audience-generated image-overlays play a role in the experience?
• Shed the notion that is distancing for an audience to have characters played by different actors.
o as the great works of both Shakespeare and Dr. Who demonstrate, we can derive pleasure from witnessing the interpretation of a role by many performers.
ß Even within a singular narrative
• Embrace collaboration; there is so much work to be done, a singular author can not build the entire world.
o Where can the crowd provide material in an organic way that will enhance their relationship to central work?
o Be willing to just think wildly at times.
ß Have a collaborative brainstorming session with like minded storytellers on how to expand the narrative.
• Is there a way that multiple people could collaborate around this idea?
• Are supporting characters worthy of their own stories, own experiences, own environments?
• Could alternate futures and alternate paths be sketched out now?

PRODUCTION:
• Record data and provide access to it every step of the way. Show how fans how it is done. Pull back the curtain and let others see the mystery.
o Record the recording.
o Let the crew broadcast and comment.
• Recognize cast, crew, & vendors as our work’s initial community. Bring them into the discussion.

DISCOVERY:
• Provide many points across many platforms for discovery by audiences.
o This can come from websites and blogs, video content, or games.
o Trailers, clips, and posters are the most traditional way, but even in these arenas there is still much room for expansion and innovation.
ß These introduction mechanisms can be used not just for the whole, but also for each step in the process and narrative.
• Provide the audience with the proper context for appreciation.
o This usually comes from providing some ongoing curatorial services for audiences to understand how it fits in the entertainment and cultural chains.
ß If you like x, then you will also like y.
ß Provide other cultural artifacts for comparison.
ß Curate and show what else you love.
• Brainstorm participatory opportunities:
o What are the gaming structures inherent to the narrative?
ß Are there a missions and obstacles that your characters face that could be mirrored in a basic game environment?
ß Can players interact in a gaming world via the appropriation of character traits that the story origninates?

PARTICIPATION
• Provide multiple areas of participation on a casual level.
o What aspect of the story would be a fun application or widget that is spreadable?
o Does story development, trivia, or gaming warrant prizes, cookies, or contest provisions?
• Offer different points of access for audience participation on a creative story level.
o Design characters that can travel into other creators’ hands.
o Iconic costumes or behavior alleviate the need for spector actor identification and thus increases spreadability.
o Totemic props, dressing, & design allow story environments to permeate the boundaries of our real world as fans appropriate such objects and display them.
• Provide fans the opportunity to create on the same lines as the story’s originators.
o Allow for remixing and reposting. Alternate POVs and approaches to the material make for a richer experience for the hard-core.
o examine how some narratives encourage fan fiction -- for isn't this something every storyteller wants: the fan-fiction user/creator to become also the advertiser/promoter.
• Accept that audiences like to both be directed and to participate;
o both the truly active and the somewhat passive experiences are pleasurable.
o It is up to us to show how this duality can be enabled.
• Demonstrate to audiences how they can participate more with (and in) our stories.
o Instead of defining ourselves as the creator, we should accept ourselves as enablers.

PROMOTION
• Offer different points of access for audience participation on a fan/appreciation level.
o Let them in on the details of how and why. Where and when and on what was it shot? The details should be built into all data you deliver.
o What themes within the narrative allow for aggregation on single subject websites?
ß I.e. “If only there was a man who could…”,
ß “The worst day at the worst job is when…”
• Provide insight into the process. Allow audiences to get to know the creators. Build a friends & family fan-base.
• Offer (and reward) fans opportunities to create and thus aggregate different promotional tools
o Posters & trailers
o Fan fiction
• Build referral activities into the narrative and engagement processes.
• Provide individual curators with unique opportunities throughout the process.

PRESENTATION
• Make presentation (exhibition)an event.
o Add a live social component.
ß Know your fans in advance.
o Make it something that is a once-in-a-lifetime event.
• Provide opportunity for deeper appreciation.
o Furnish study notes and
o moderate discussions that allow the content to more fully resonate with audiences.
• Keep the experience alive long after the work has ended.
o Provided totemic items (aka merchandising)
o How can fans demonstrate their passion?

I can’t say if I got the order or organization of this right. I certainly know that the list is nowhere near complete. And I know there is no template for creation, no template for production, nor for any of the six pillars. Yet although there may be no template, there are “best practices”. I hope I have given some fuel to the thought of what those may be.

For in taking control of what has always been ours, for embracing what is the whole and not just the part of cinema, we, both the original creators and the engaged audiences, together expand the potential for narrative, for cinema, and for appreciation. This is the mission before us. This is our mandate and this is why I am excited to get to discuss this with all of you in the days ahead. Our industry has a great opportunity before us. I hope we can truly take advantage of it.

Thank you.

The talk has subsequently gotten some coverage in the press.

Screen International

Filmmaker Magazine Blog

Power To The Pixel

Jawbone.tv

TheWrap.com

Adventureland: What We Wanted From The Script

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:12:00 +0000

Part 3 (of 3) of the NY Film Academy Discussion on Greg Mottola's ADVENTURELAND is predominately on the script and what we wanted to do with it. Towards the very end I get around to talking about a new micro-budget culture that is emerging and the hopes I have for it.

Response To An Open Letter From FilmUtopia's Clive Davies-Frayne

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:56:00 +0000

Clive Davies-Frayne, bugged by my endorsement of Scott Macauley's brilliant, slightly-tongue-in-cheek, letter from the future, took the time on his Filmutopia site, to write an open letter to me.

I love how conversations can grow and flourish these days, across borders, opening our minds to different perspectives and greater understandings. I am a big believer that this sort of discussion is the way that solutions are found. Although I know I won't be able to make a habit of answering such open letters, but since Clive got this started I thought I would keep the ball up in the air a bit. Clive asked the following question (and a few more), and I will do my best to answer.

Is distribution really the biggest problem facing the independent movie sector?

I don't really subscribe to the all-or-nothing approach, but distribution, and it's cousins the marketplace and marketing, are definitely among the issues. The indie sector has flourished over the last twenty or so years. These movies weren't being seen previously although they still got made. We've watched their box office, and the expectation there of, soar. The folks who distribute mainstream indie product have gotten incredibly skilled at their job at getting the word out about the films they select. But the filmmakers themselves have only recently started taking responsibility for some of this task.

Building all filmmaker's skills at marketing and publicity is certainly one of the tasks before the community these days. If you ask me this should be an equal emphasis and film schools and advocacy/support organizations. It's interesting that there are many labs for content creation but none on marketing and distribution. If the last decade in indie film was about the demystification of the development, production, and sales process, then this next period will hopefully do the same for discovery, promotion, presentation, and appreciation.

Getting the word out about non-mainstream or mass market indie work is a huge problem in the industry. If you are a true indie film lover and want to know what is new and good, where do you go? All these films show up at film festivals all over the country, but are soon forgotten. Newspapers don't cover them. How do you know where to even learn more about them? I started a website called HammerToNail to do something about it. There, filmmakers write about the films they love. We don't publish the negative reviews because there are enough haters already out there. I personally don't publish reviews because I have too much on my plate already and it is not where I think I can be most effective.

I do think it is crucial we all take a big hand in getting good work seen and spoken about. I encourage audiences to do this regularly. I encourage all filmmakers to take on the role of curator. I started a screening series with my partner Anne Carey and the good folks at Goldcrest in NYC. We have screened over twenty films this year. We send out about 1000 invites to these screenings to "influential media types" where we write a personal letter explaining why we admire the film. The theater only sits about 60 so it doesn't compromise box office potential but builds the base of early adopters. I generally run the Q&A afterwards. AFTERSCHOOL was one such film that we screened which later got a small theatrical release. I sent an email blast to 120 NYC directors asking them to support each other and this film specifically and agree to run Q&As nightly at the theater to build an audience; I conducted one Q&A myself. We all have to band together to get the word out if great work is to flourish.

Screening series and review blogs are extension of the work I have done on film juries and mentorship programs. I do as much of these as I can. It is exhausting and a big time commitment. I enjoy each of these a great deal. I wish I could do more of it but I am still trying to figure out how to earn a decent living. It's interesting that when I do such things in other countries, there is often government support, but here it is always pro bono. It becomes a time management issue where I often have decide where I am getting paid (it never is substantial enough to say "one for me, one for them").

I maintain another blog called TheseAreThoseThings. It is a curatorial blog where I talk about the films, music, and other things I love. I wish I could do more of this but man am I busy. I try to bring more attention to the things I love, particularly to the things that I feel might be overlooked. I could use some more help on this. You might be right though Clive; beyond these blogs, screening series, and Q&As, perhaps there is more that I could do in general to promote other people's work. I would like to be more efficient and successful at getting the word out. I look forward to any suggestions people have about how to do this.

It's true that we need much more discussion on what makes work good or at least better. I wrote up a 32 part article called "Qualities Of Better Film" on a column called "Let's Make Better Films" on HammerToNail. It was a lot of work and some folks found it helpful. I admit I was disappointed that it didn't generate more discussion. I develop a great number of projects. I have probably produced more films by first time directors than anyone else; it's more work focusing on new directors and new writers and is not as financially rewarding as other approaches. I do it because I love new voices and new approaches. Four of our scripts have been nominated for Oscars. I think this is both because we know when to push harder to get something "right" and because we also know when to leave well enough alone. Suffice it to say though we usually go through thirty or so drafts on a script. In the years I spend developing a project I don't get paid; I do it on faith that we will get to where we need and others will recognize the necessity of getting the work made.

Ultimately, I think what generates good work is simply making better work. I have been involved in over 60 films. I think they are pretty good. At times I fight so hard to make them better (in my opinion) or make sure they get seen, I damage some relationships in the process. I know this is not good for my "business" but I think it is good for the business over all. Getting movies made and getting them out to the audiences doesn't come from anything other than good and thorough work. I started with no connections or any money or any real knowledge, but I did have a great love of cinema and I took both an appreciative and critical approach. I work hard to make sure I am inspired about work in general today as I was when I started. I hope to make another 60 or so films, and to both make them better and to work better. I think that labor will have a greater effect than anything I can ever say.

As I said before, I helped found HammerToNail. The work that has been done there has not been seen as widely as it deserves, but it has been very inspiring to me. Generally traveling the film festivals and viewing the submissions that come into my company (did I say we get over 3000 annually), I find three or four directors that I think will develop substantial bodies of work. Due to the filtering the HammerToNail crew did for all of us, last year I recognized at least eighteen new directors (from America alone)whose work I will follow their every move of. Good work is being made and talked about, you just need to work hard to find it and use the right tools. Spreading the word about those tools seems to be what people need most right now.

Regarding self-distribution and whether it makes sense for films of certain budgets, you are right in saying that it doesn't. But I do believe it could. The point is that the model is just now being built and it is the entire communities responsibility to build it. There has always been a self-defeating attitude amongst certain creators that they can't get involved in the business or promotion. It is an absolute necessity that they do in my opinion. I have always approached budgets as something the market sets. We don't have government support for the arts in my country so I have not had the luxury of any other way of thinking. To design a film that requires a cost that can't be recouped is irresponsible and generally will have a devastating effect on all of us. We need to rebuild the model from the bottom up. We have to design our work for a price that justifies experimentation. When we find success, we can then build on top of it.

There's a lot more to be said on all these topics. I am glad you found THE SAVAGES and I will certainly check out the film you recommend. I wish I had time to keep on writing but I have to surrender my computer to my nine year old son who wants to tell his friends about what he's learned in the last 24 hours about Bakugan and the Lego mini-fig he just customized. And besides I have some scripts to read and some movies to make a bit better. Thanks for the letter and the discussion. I do think we can solve all this working together, provided we get a little help from some friends.

Adventureland: Working With The Team

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:11:00 +0000

Pt 2 (of 3) of my NY Film Academy discussion on Adventureland. Mostly about the release, and what it was like about working with the various cast and crew. There is a fair amount on working in the studio system, at least what little I know about it...

One Day Crash Course In The New Distribution & Marketing

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:30:00 +0000

Saturday November 7th in LA Scott Kirsner & Peter Broderick lead what looks to be a mindblowing overview of the how-to in hybrid distribution. Order tickets here:

http://distributionu.eventbrite.com/

This one-day course will reveal the techniques successful filmmakers are using to:

• Design customized distribution strategies

• Harness the Internet and social media to launch their projects

• Reach core audiences directly

• Maximize revenue from multiple distribution channels

• Build a fan base to support your future work

The Long Path To Directing: Adventureland

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:06:00 +0000

I just noticed that a discussion I did on ADVENTURELAND at the NY Film Academy has been put on YouTube.

Part One is on hard it is not to give up hope in yourself when others are still not taking notice.

Change The "Indie" Model -- OpenIndie Launches

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:36:00 +0000

I just donated $100 via KickStarter to get OpenIndie off the ground. I think this is a great idea.

Read about it on IndieWire or go directly to the KickStarter site to get the details and join.

Woodstock Film Festival Trailblazer Acceptance Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:00:00 +0000

I am receiving an award tonight. This is my acceptance speech.

WOODSTOCK TRAILBLAZER AWARD SPEECH

10/2/09

I’m honored to be invited to join all of you at this great celebration of film, music, and community. I want to truly thank Meira, Laurent, and Nikki and all of the volunteers and sponsors who make this festival – and all festivals -- happen. We wouldn’t have events like this without you. Thank you.

Can you imagine this world of ours without evens like this one, without films like the ones being screened here? I can, and of course you all can, because we have all lived when we were without – and we know it could very easily happen again.

I’ve been called many things in my life, but tonight I am being called a “Trailblazer”. I work really hard and have been really fortunate and because of those two things I have had the privilege of making about 60 films with some of the greatest directors of our time and I have dreams of making at least that many more with even better filmmakers with even more engaged audiences in the years ahead.

My drive to get so much done comes from being able to remember when I didn’t have the opportunities that I do now, opportunities not just to make such work, but even just to see such movies – and particularly to discuss such films, to participate in that incredible thing when a shared experience brings people closer together. My drive comes from not wanting that opportunity to be missed by others or myself.

I like to think that tonight’s honor partially comes from my commitment to truth, both in terms of content and in terms of process, my commitment to emotional and experiential truth, to the presentation of our complex reality and desires, to the portrayal of our world in such a way that we aren’t diminished or denigrated or spoken down to but instead are portrayed in ways that recognize s the expansive nature and deep community that truly defines all of us.

But lately, when people talk to me about “trailblazing” -- and well, don't they always...! – It’s not because of the work I’ve done in the past, the films I’ve made, or any innovations I have been part of – it’s because of what I am doing right now when I haven’t been able to make movies. It’s about what I have been doing because I am afraid we might lose this glorious and diverse and ambitious film culture – a community that has blossomed over the last two decades both here in Woodstock and all over the globe. We might lose both that community and the opportunity to evolve it into a true force for social change if we don’t all start to act in new ways.

People think of film as an art form, movies as an entertainment. An independent producer from an earlier era, Walter Wanger, spoke of movies as ambassadors, cultural ambassadors. In my experience I’ve felt movies are more like community organizers. (And I should note that I was one, and in fact, I once almost very happily worked for ACORN, but that's another story...) A movie’s ability to:

Bring us together

Expand our horizons

Encourage our dreams

Recognize our commonalities

Motivate our actions

Ignite our passions, and

Unite us as a community

is unrivaled. But it is also a power that is all too rarely unleashed. I am so inspired by the potential now before us. I don’t want us to squander it.

I want to ask you all to do something. Imagine the world you’d like, or at least imagine this world being closer to something you like. Look at these simple tools we have before us: films, the Internet, and you. Please recognize what you can now do with them, the power that they contain.

Isn’t it time that we all act? The economy is the toilet, corporations are in control, the gates and access are closing down, but we still have these three things – film, Internet, and community – and I still believe they can change the world.

For the past year I have been striving to set the example of what I am speaking about. One year ago, I used the Internet only for emails and to read newspapers for free. I had never blogged, twittered, been on a social network.

Now I have several blogs, am completely wired, and have thousands of friends and followers who feed me with hope, information, and knowledge. I have hundreds of NEW friends who now work with me building at truly free film culture that is diverse, vibrant, and open to all, a culture driven by participation on all sides, and united in its mission to get good work seen, appreciated and utilized by audiences who choose and act, ones that don’t surrender on impulse to the diet of mediocre drivel that is forced fed to us by what is euphemistically called our entertainment industry.

There is constant chatter by these lucky ones who have “jobs” in the film industry about crisis, but I don’t see a crisis in the same way they do. I see a golden age blooming with more great artists than ever before pushing and pulling the work they love to a deeply engaged and participatory audience.

And that is what I am really here to do tonight: to ask you – this incredible and legendary community – to go one step further, to take the love and appreciation you have for ambitious and humanist cinema, to use the skills you have for community building, to use these tools we all have available to us, and to simply spread the love further out into the world.

Our culture is under siege by the very apparatus that currently delivers this culture to us. But is an easy thing to change. Our fear of the future may still out weigh the pain of the present when it comes to culture, but the price is too high for us to continue to wait.

Write, blog, post, and twitter about the things you enjoy and the reasons why. Become the filter and curator for your family and friends. Don’t allow superficial responses to deeply considered work to permeate further. Don’t wait for the things you want and appreciate to come to you; there is a vibrant community of filmmakers out there eager to bring their work directly to you and discuss it via Skype or iChat or that good old face to face with whatever group you organize. Just reach out! The pleasure that the Woodstock Film Festival brings you each fall can extend through out the year.

Our "indie film" trail has now come to a crossroads. The road to the summit will not be cut by filmmakers alone, but equally drawn by the audience that recognizes how vital a diverse culture truly is.

· We won’t unlock the full potential for narrative unless we break the wall between art and commerce, the project and its marketing, and as artists engage not just in content and production, but also in discovery, promotion, and appreciation.

· We won’t have artists who can afford to create and engage unless we compensate them fully and shed this notion that content should be free but we should pay huge fortunes for the hardware that stores them.

· We won’t have a way to access and offer truly independent work if we don’t have a free and open Internet – true net neutrality.

· We won’t be able to find the unique and personal work, if we don’t all take on the responsibility of curating for our family and friends.

· We won’t have an exhibition industry if we don’t make a point of getting out of homes and sitting together in the dark to enjoy movies on the big screen.

· We won’t have that exhibition industry if we don’t just simply stop showing movies but instead return to putting on a real show.

· We won’t have anyone but the rich making movies in this country if we don’t have affordable education and health care.

Wherever we sit we have to accept the responsibility to promote, enhance, and participate in the culture -- and the apparatus that delivers it – that we want, and to expand the community that already understands this. It means all of us regularly discussing all of these things I raised. Sure, it is a great pleasure to see and talk about films, but it is also now very much a political act and a necessary act.

We all must engage in this way on a regular basis. Lend a hand. Take those five minutes in the morning and those ten at night and spread the good word: there is great work out there and you have seen it. Don’t settle for cats playing the piano, kids speaking at high speeds, or robots battling each other. Demand more.

I stand here tonight because no one likes to hike alone. I know you are all trailblazers and it will take many roads to find our way out of the woods and to that mountaintop. But this mountain is scalable and it is climbable in a very… big… way –- a way that is going to continue to change our world in wonderful and wondrous ways.

---------xxxxxxxxxxxx----------

This piece has now been picked up by a few other spots. I truly appreciate the support:

Tribeca Film Festival

Film News Briefs

And referenced here:

Indiewire: Is there a doctor in the house?

Another Day, Another Radio Show

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:56:00 +0000

Musicians put out a new song every day, don't they? Well, I am sure some do.

Well, I have another recording now available if you did not get enough of them last week. It may be a tad stale, as the interview was given before my Woodstock speech, but I still think it will taste good.

http://readme.readmedia.com/news/show/WAMCs-the-Roundtable-Broadcasts-Live-from-the-10th-Annual-Woodstock-Film-Festival/959138

WAMC: WFF - Ted Hope - Honorary Trailblazer Award Winner (2009-10-02)

Shared via AddThis

1+1=2 How To Get Distribution For Your Film

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:22:00 +0000

Okay, this isn't the only answer, and I don't have the energy to do a comprehensive list, yet... but as I sorted through my various AM emails, a saw a common theme in two of them.

One: A B-Side email blast reminded me that Todd Sklar's Range Life Fall NW Tour kicked off last weekend. I have found Todd's taking-it-to-the-people traveling film fest in a van truly exciting. If I could do that list of exciting developments in the truly free ring this would be one of those things. I for one was particularly intrigued to see that MYSTERY TEAM was one of the films in the tour.

Two: In an overview of Brit DIY for The Guardian today, the UK DIY hit MORRIS is compared with other unseen DIY films and it is pointed out:

What saved Morris was a trip to the countryside: they organised a tour around the village halls of south-west England, where their film became a word-of-mouth hit. That allowed its makers to bypass the distributors and go straight to the exhibitors. Morris was finally picked up by the Picturehouse cinema chain, which agreed to roll it out on wider release, beginning last week.

It makes me wonder what would happen if a filmmaker, either on their own or working with a grassroots community film organizer, acted immediately after hearing they were invited to a major festival to book their film in small community non-theatrical venues without waiting for that never-to-arrive distribution offer -- you know: instead, take it directly to the people and prove the film's playability. In fact, as Todd has shown such playability with his own film BOX ELDER, even without that major festival acceptance.

The math here adds up: Know your audience. Bring the film to that right audience. Don't subscribe to a passive discovery process. You are the fuel. Light a match.

Additional Note: via Facebook, director Tom Quinn informed us:

"We just booked a week-long theatrical run in Philadelphia through Landmark for The New Year Parade and are going to see how that community-based release works for us. Will keep you posted!"

Change The "Indie" Model -- Claim It For Yourself!

noreply@blogger.com (Ted Hope) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:11:00 +0000

You probably already read how Anne Thompson suggested the specialized film companies move into the niche business. Me, I hope the mini-majors stay exactly where they are, and some of the great minds and visionary capital I have been speaking to recently claim the true niche as their own instead.

That said, there is a logic to what Anne suggests. There also some great comments to her post.

I felt real solidarity with what we have been discussing from Mark Lipsky:

There *is* a new model and it’s online. One of the primary problems moving forward is that Anne (until this column) and her colleagues in the media have continued to blindly promote the myth that Weinstein and Miramax and Focus and Searchlight have anything at all to do with independent film. In this column and at long last, Anne asks the most relevant question to come out of the trade media in years: What if the future is about more narrow-niche movies…?” Bingo. The future for what’s left of the genuinely independent film community will remain bleak until it can win back the indie film label, rebuild the indie film community, re-educate film-goers and the media about independent film and then spread the gospel to the hundreds and thousands of independent-minded filmmakers out there who don’t even try because they think they have to raise millions of dollars and cast Brad Pitt in order to succeed.

But read Anne's post and check out the comments for yourself.