Green light for Sustainable film making

With all the hullabaloo about going green for a better future and thinking about film making and the waste that goes with that I thought I would dwell for a short time and diverge from my usual rhetoric into the sphere of “sustainable film making”.

Now sustainable film making to me means being able to make films again. Alas, this is not what is meant with sustainable film making. It has plenty to do with the bottom line but not in the way that you would imagine. And this kind of film making could in reality actually change the world!

Just for quick (as my German friend would say) I want to talk about Saachi&Saachi. The global commercial agency monolith has started a sub-company called Saatchi S. The first office opened in San Fransisco headed by ex-Sierra club president Adam Werbach. The company runs less like an agency and more like a consultancy. They basically employ brand strategists, scientists and psychologists who in turn talk to the biggest corporates on the globe (Is Wal-Mart going green?) in order to change them from inside out to becoming a fully “green” company…

I mention this little tit-bit to show the impact and commercialization of “sustainability”. It is real and it is here. We cant deny anymore that we should all do something about saving our little blue planet. The way that we have interpreted that is by recycling, consuming less and ultimately just being more considerate. If Wal-Mart can and is doing it then why the hell on my little short films can’t I get my sh together…! Of coarse I can and it’s actaully quite easy.

By having a brainstorm session with someone you will quickly see how easy it is to make a green production. I know that a couple of studio films have recently decided to “go green” and have used solar power to run offices, donated trees to offset carbon adn even built low-cost housing from discarded building material.

I cant wait for my next film to try this concept. I’m even considering getting a full time person on board for the entire time thinking and improving as the shoot progresses and then actually calculating my (hopeful) savings. Consider for a moment, no purchase of disposable cups, no water bottles, savings on generators by minimizing light and heat usage.

So, this from the Code for Best Practices site here are the basic ideas:

ONE: Calculation
PRINCIPLE: Know how much energy we are actually using.

TWO: Consumption
PRINCIPLE: Lower overall carbon debt and environmental impact by using less.

THREE: Travel
PRINCIPLE: Reduce the carbon debt created through travel.

FOUR: Compensation
PRINCIPLE: Since we cannot completely eliminate our footprint, we should compensate for it through organizations that offer a carbon reduction equal to our carbon production.

As a producer this is exciting to me because I get to play with the dynamics of actual on set principals. On set has a lot to do with customs, hierarchy and “this is the way we do it” attitude. But since the globe is in dire straits who’s going to argue, don’t you want to save the world?!!

Enjoy this new time of experimenting and finding new cool ways to run sets and make films sustainably. You might be quite surprised if it helps your bottom line and then really does make it sustainable film making!

Links:

The Daily Green
Center for Social Media
Environmental film fest
Greens Speak TV
Sundance Channel Green


Indie and the Internet

For those interested in this topic here’s another article about indie film and the internet relationship. Having been written last year, some of the stats may have changed. The idea and the people behind it are still there though and that’s the point. On a note, I found this article on WIRED. I find this great because film is again so intertwined with tech that making a film has garnered another dimension. That’s all.

The process is very different from using the Web to sell theater tickets or even DVDs. “Companies always wonder why they don’t see more tangible results” from using social networking or viral videos to promote traditional films, he said. “It’s because you are asking people who live their entire life online to then leave their computer, go out of the house, go to a theater, and buy a ticket.”

Dentler and C.R.M. recognize that the tipping point for online film consumption hasn’t been reached yet, though they anticipate rapid growth soon. (In this, they’re not alone. The Web video site Jaman boldly, if somewhat self-servingly, predicts that the online video distribution business worldwide will grow to $12 billion a year by 2012 from the current $2 billion.)

It is certainly being utilized, but primarily by younger consumers, college kids or recent college graduates,” Dentler said. “I think Christmas 2008 is going to be an incredibly big season for the acceptance and the accessibility of a lot of this material and a lot of this hardware because giant HD televisions are going to have this capability programmed in.”

Read Full Article


Mumblecore example for SA filmmakers

In our little South African film industry we keep having philosophical arguments about moneyVStimeVSquality. We have an obsession with trying to make Holly-wood-esque films but only have 10% of their budgets, if we’re lucky that is. I understand the schism and it is one that is driven toward making quality films and thus argumentatively being able to make money back on them. This is all fair and well, however, I think we sometimes start at the end not considering the history of our American counterparts…

We mostly call ourselves indie filmmakers, and yes we are because there are no studios to make us hired help. The history of indie film makers is a long and treacherous one and long and treacherous is not what I have experienced in CPT or JHB. There aren’t film makers making a rough movie with no cash and then showing it in garages and small theaters all over the city. I dont hear of some crazy director taking three actors to make a dark film in a dangerous place. To be honest, when I do they are normally referred to as weird…which to me is weird.

This is the point of indie film making. To push and then break conventions. To make films that we think could make an impact, taking an idea from conception all the way through to exhibition (in an empty parking lot on a makeshift screen run off car batteries). Forgetting that feeling that it wont sell, or asking what am I going to do with it when its done… In many ways we are spoiled to thinking that being an indie means that you wright a script or treatment then find funding and Voilà, film in bag. According to film history this is lucky, not prerequisite.

Referring back to the US and the way a film society builds there I found out more regarding “new” for lack of better word genre Mumblecore.
Wiki

Mumblecore is an American independent film movement that arose in the early 2000s. It is primarily characterized by ultra-low budget production (often employing digital video cameras), focus on personal relationships between twenty-somethings, improvised scripts, and non-professional actors. Filmmakers in this genre include Lynn Shelton, Andrew Bujalski, Mark Duplass, Jay Duplass, Aaron Katz, Joe Swanberg, Todd Rohal and Ry Russo-Young.

At the end of the day these films are about some young adults talking about arb stuff and dealing with life, vaguely. There was no audience that asked them to make these films, no investor specifying genre, just a feeling, then an idea for a script and, to the point, a movie. What makes it great is that it then becomes something people do. Now nine years after the “inception” of “bedhead cinema”, one of these films is opening SXSW film fest.

So I’m thinking to myself. We have film makers like Jon Barker (Bunnychow) and Elan Gamaker(Search for a South African Husband) who have reached moderate success with their films, yet they are the only two film makers that jump to mind. There should be tons of films being showcased and watched on a monthly basis. Just by numbers: Film schools graduate about 100 kids a year, AFDA is now already in its 13 or 15 year…the film industry is FULL of budding filmo’s with nothing better to do than do what they paid 100k to learn how to do.

I want to be part of a film society that is not afraid of taking risks regarding content or making plans. We need to breed a culture of film making if we all want to be film makers. Right now we are service junkies and while this pays the bills it sure as hell doesn’t satisfy our reason for waking up in the morning…

We should consider what we wanted when we said “when I grow up I want to make movies”. Look at film history in the context’s that we like to adore, and then consider your own environment and what is possible for you. Our film society needs to grow together. Film makers and film watchers should support one another, even it means only rocking up for the exhibition (in an empty building with a single wall painted white for the projection and a bucket of beers in the corner) and giving some constructive critisism.

This way, in a decade, well have our own style of film making and many more films being made every year…

More people doing stuff
Off The Shelf
Inspired Minority


More on Free

From the Wall Street Journal, here is an article about free economics. A great FREE article I may add…

Excerpt

* FEBRUARY 2, 2009

In a battered economy, free goods and services online are more attractive than ever. So how can the suppliers make a business model out of nothing?

What about the oldest trick in the book: actually charging people for your goods and services? This is where the real innovation will flourish in a down economy. It’s now time for entrepreneurs to innovate, not just with new products, but new business models.

Take Tapulous, the creator of Tap Tap Revenge, a popular music game program for the iPhone. As in Guitar Hero or Rock Band, notes stream down the screen and you have to hit them on the beat. Millions of people have tried the free version, and a sizable fraction of them were ready and willing to pay when Tapulous offered paid versions built around specific bands, such as Weezer and Nine Inch Nails, along with add-on songs. (The Wall Street Journal is pursuing a strategy of blending free and paid content on its Web site.)

Read full article


Online principals - Free(dom) and community

When I think back to the internet in my formative years I remember how happy I was that I could get so much for free. Obviously because back then I was a kid and had no money but also because the idea of “nothing comes for free” was challenged. Sure my mom paid for the bandwidth which meant I was only allowed to be online after eight in the evening until seven the next morning because that was super-cheap time, but these costs where tiny. This lead me to become a night owl over week-ends and even some week days spending every second I could online. Yahoo searching strange things, joining weird chat rooms where I had to lie and click on the “I am over 18” button and download patches and freeware for my desktop. The net was a world where no-one could stop my imagination and everyone was experimenting with this new tool.

Since then two things have really become fundamental pillars for the internet. The constant push in boundaries for usage and most importantly the ecenomics of the free. Free-conomics is something we all have come to expect when on the net. From Bit-torrent to joining social networks and groups, reading blogs and news all for free. If it is not free we simply change the URL and go looking somewhere else, for now…

This economic model of the free is an interesting one because for the first time in our economically driven world this system favors the consumer 100%. So mush in fact has become free that if you wanted to you could run a small business free of most office overheads. Buy a little Netbook (not quite a laptop but costs about 10% of the price), use Linux OS (free), install skype (free), get a Google account to use Google docs (free) or download the Sunsysytems Openoffce (free) which looks exaclty like microsoft office. This personal package is a very small look into what is available in the realms of free business apps.

Here is a video and an article going over some free business apps.
Read
Watch

Ok so the thing is that this freedom is driving business to a stand still. If it’s all free then there is no profit. The New York Times has changes its model from an all free one and many publications will follow. The idea is that if you like the sample enough you will purchase the entire product. I think that is a fair assumption. I would prefer to read an in depth, well researched article on the financial crisis than a vague opinion from a popular blogger. Albeit for now I can still find that free in depth article with a little bit of searching…

So to the movies. The thing is that there are so many ways of making a film these days. You can find funding before you start writing or filming (traditional financing method) or shoot a promo and then pitch on it, or crowd surf and aggregate audiences…the list and combinations go on for a loong time. How does this trend toward free/purchase help you or me? I think psychologically the user will slowly warm up to the idea of paying for top content. Our mission is to get them interested in our films for free so that they will be willing to buy it when it is done and being distributed. Once you have your whole idea in front of you, i.e. your story, marketing campaign and idea of what budget you have in your pocket, coming up with a practical working free-conomics model is like building a puzzle.

The beauty is there is no right or wrong and anything is possible. Your model will be completely dependent on which resources you have available. If you can a build a site for free start there, maybe something on you-tube to create numbers, the list goes on. Ideally you would want to give away as much as possible and keep the golden nuggets that will make your money back or create alternative cash flow. Just to add, if you are able to make it all free and build a large, active online audience you can leverage that to an investor. Your audience is equivalent to bums on seats which means income…

All onliners are looking for the best (free) thing. Something they can Digg or Tweet or become a fan of. The primary motives for online usage is still community and freedom. Build a smart model around these principals and so much is possible.


Bulldog to bad dog - Racehesky may be turning on Icahn..

Dr. Mark Rachesky, former wunderkind of Icahn in the 90’s and now CEO of MHR (19.2% share in LGF) may not be the ally Icahn thought him to be. In the case of Lionsgate, Rachesky followed suit when Icahn doubled his stock giving the impression, at least to the press, that the two may be in cahoots to make a move on LGF. However, latest news may tell a different tale.

March 19
Dealbook

Is Carl C. Icahn’s former investment chief turning against him as the activist investor seeks to increase his influence over Lions Gate? With Mr. Icahn threatening to mount a proxy battle against the film studio, Lions Gate may be turning to its largest shareholder, MHR Fund Management, run by a former Icahn lieutenant, Mark Rachesky, for help, BusinessWeek says.

MHR, which holds just under 20 percent of the Hollywood studio, said in an S.E.C. filing that in “recent days” it had held “preliminary” talks with the studio about the possibility of adding an MHR nominee to its board. The announcement comes as Lions Gate prepares to its defense against a possible fight with Mr. Icahn. Reuters reported Wednesday that Lions Gate had hired an advisory team, including the investment bank Morgan Stanley and the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, to help it fend off the moves by the activist investor.

And BusinessWeek reported Thursday that Lions Gate had been trying to build closer ties with MHR and Mr. Rachesky, as well. Furthermore, the magazine said, citing those with knowledge of the investors’ actions, Mr. Icahn and Mr. Rachesky have both talked with Lions Gate recently and have not always appeared to be in sync, or even close to one another.

I love when a good twist in the tale!

Previous:
Icahn and the Lion
Icahn prepares a Lions share


Company of friends

So you want to start a company. Yes, good idea. Not only that, but you want to run it with your best mate. Sound good…to you.

Friends have bled and died for each other. They have been betrayed and made up again. Friends have shared girls/boys, under ware, rooms, booze, family, ideas and road trips. Not much can get between friends, that is true. There are however some instances where friends should not necessary be together. One of those examples is business. When it comes to money and power friendship seems to take a neat third position and very soon your best friend is a lying fake who has done nothing but suck up you energy to promote himself and take the profit!

In other words, be careful. I have attached a link to a good story about this topic and also some use full tips when considering venture like this. Personally, I started a company called “Big Eyed Deer” with three friends and in the end, although very amicable, we struggled to make it a BUSINESS. To come up with a business model we could all agree on or decide what the vision for the company was. Even though it was fantastic to hang with my friends all day and run a “company” in the long run it was not sustainable. Our friendship was more important than the company. We are all still very good friends which may have not been the case we pursued “Big Eyed Deer”.

Some things to consider before starting “Best Mate Inc”

*  Make your agreements explicit so that you don’t break implicit promises
* Detail your agreements so that your promises are clear
* Don’t be afraid of discussing negative scenarios, so that you don’t add the stress of misunderstanding to already bad situations
* Write things down so you’ll remember
* Don’t make things work at all costs, so that you don’t spend the next years living with a deal that’s not acceptable to you
* Don’t assume things will get better with time, so you’re not surprised when they don’t

For more reading on this topic and an in-depth account visit:

DanielTenner


Icahn prepares a Lions share

LGF is putting together a board of “A” league players before Icahn puts in his tender to buy up LGF debt.

The mitts are coming off as both sides prepare for the inevitable clash. LGF is calling Icahn a distraction to business and I am sure they wish that this whole debacle could just go away.They are definitely prepping themselves for the worst which includes changing board members, changing business tactics and ultimately changing their CEO… Icahn is still busy with some serious strategy play as he is keen on pushing the September scheduled Board meeting earlier to make a play.
Either way, this game is far from over and the outcome is very unclear.

Read more:
Niki Finke
Icahn and the Lion


Internet 1000 faster

Oh Yes…

I arrived in Denmark on Sunday and picked up a free english newspaper called “The Copenhagen Post”. Almost on the back page I saw a little title about the internet. Coincedently I was having a semi-drunk conversation with Bill, a rocketscientist living in Boldock about new technology of sending information packages along optical cables using photons (light carrier). This way there is no friction and the information is sent at lightspeed…as oppose to using elctrodes along cables which invarably heat up and can only take x amount of information.

So here is the article of the Copenhagen site. In the print edition the speed comparison is made by example of downloading 80DVD’s in 1 second or a 4.4 kilometer bookshelf flying past in 1 second…sexy!

Danish scientists have discovered how to make the internet 1000 times faster

An IT discovery at a Danish university has the potential to dramatically cut the time it takes to send and receive files over the internet by using light technology, the scientific journal Nature reported on Thursday.

Some 13 scientists from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) are involved in the project which will increase the speed of the internet 1000 times by using laser light and an optic modulator made of silicon. The idea is to send information to and from a computer by using an electric field to create a light-signal.

In stead of going to a video-store people will be logging on to online video-stores. Here visitors will be able to receive movies instantaneously with the click of a button, said Rune Shim Jacobsen, one of the scientists who developed the method.

US computer companies Intel and IBM have also been doing research along the same lines as the Danes - finding methods to use light in a microchip.

In order for the project to be put into use, it will be necessary to run optical fibre cables to computer users. But according to Jacobsen, optical cables are inexpensive and easy to install.

CphPost


Icahn and the Lion

Over the last couple of months starting October 2008 financier, corporate raider, and private equity investor Carl Icahn has incrementally been buying a bigger stake in Lionsgate Films. When the market crashed in September 2008 the Hyenas came to feast and Icahn was quoted in saying that Lionsgate is undervalued stock. He quickly dove in and doubled his initial stock in LGF from 4.1% to 9.6% in October.

So that you know…LGF is a mini-major studio and is probably best known for their gore fest SAW collection. These films have kept the company going so far, well that and their phenomenal film library with nearly 12,000 titles (8000 TV shows and 4000 films). These titles include hits like Dirty Dancing, Reservoir Dogs, Terminator 2, Basic Instinct, Total Recall, The Blair Witch Project, the Saw franchise, Crash, Monster’s Ball, and the smash television series Weeds. This library generates more than $250m a year in recurring revenue. The positive cash flow of approximately $100m also covers the $90m a year in overheads and creates a stable platform for the company to focus on their core business.

It all went quiet for a while over the holiday season and then in February, BAM!Mark Rachesky buys 1.7m shares giving him a total of 17% stake in LGF. What is the point of this transaction you may ask…? The point is Rachesky is known to be Icahn’s “protege” in the fierce and feisty finance world. He worked for Ichan from 1990 - 1996 and the two are known compadre’s. From this position it seemed as if Icahn was maneuvering to take more control of the management of LGF and cause some stir as he did at Time Warner not to long ago. For the record, that did not end completely in Icahn’s favor. Link

January 2009 Icahn starts talks with LGF about including some board members of his request. These talks continue while the press try and figure out his next move might be including perhaps the sale of LGF. Icahn raises some issues about LGF’s financial state and it’s management that do not sit to well with CEO Jon Feltheimer. Icahn reiterates that he thinks LGF is undervalued and could be making better profit by spending money more wisely and specifically to core business. Feltheimer had recently purchased TV Guide (a TV Network which Feltheimer sais falls into LGF long term strategy of broadening LGF business) which Icahn said was “reckless”.

Jump forward to March and the talks crumble. Feltheimer calls a stand still on the talks saying that although he is happy to listen to stock holders ideas his loyatly is toward shareholders.

Santa Monica, CA, and Vancouver, BC, March 11, 2009 — Lions Gate Entertainment Corp confirmed today that it has ended discussions with Carl Icahn about potentially adding his designees to the Lionsgate Board of Directors.

Lionsgate Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jon Feltheimer and Vice Chairman Michael Burns said, “Lionsgate has a strong track record of successful growth over the past nine years and is committed to building value for its shareholders. We are always open to hearing the ideas of our shareholders and exploring ways to incorporate them. Over the past three weeks, our Board of Directors has been in discussions with Mr. Icahn to consider how we could accommodate some of his requests, including the possible appointment of his designees to the Board of Directors. However, the Board ultimately concluded that it could not meet his requests and continue to serve the best interests of all of our shareholders, which is our number one priority.”

On March 13 Icahn offers to buy $325m of LGF debt. This will allow him to flex more board power and he may turn this debt into LGF shares. Icahn has made it clear that he is not interested in selling LGF in the current climate but this move is deliberate and clear to put pressure on management for board seats.

Icahn has not finished with LGF and this little “mellow” drama has not reached it’s final episode in this season.

carl_icahnshades.jpg lionsgate6bf2d9fbe702845bdb5597c8645c745d.jpg

For more reading:

Dealbook
Nikki Finke


Producers and the love of art…(pt 3/3)

Here is the last installment of Ted Hope’s “Producers and investment” piece. His closing paragraph is quite personal to him ad I enjoyed that he shared what his future vision is for his career.

Each movie requires outreach into the aforementioned communities and careful discussion with them to build the audience for the film. My partners and I are lucky in that we have been able to make quite a few films; with each film we forge new relationships with theatre owners, bookers, journalists, festival programmers, and audiences. Each new project asks us to reinvest the relationships we’ve previously developed. I have no money to invest in my film projects, but I have my history, and personally, I find that priceless.

My experience and my relationships are my capital — the investment I make in every project I do. To miss that part of the equation is to forget that cinema is an ONGOING dialogue with the audience. It is not a single movie, although with each one we hope to lift that conversation up to a new level of passion, thoughtfulness, and aspiration. Each project we take on requires a considerable investment, one in which the profit will be likely be cultural at best, one in which the profit is still going to leave me wondering how to afford to take on the next movie, although with each new project I will be richer in terms of experience, and hopefully relationships too.

As a producer, we don’t look to make one film or five. I have made close to sixty films now and look to make at least the same amount going forward. Each of these films is a new start up, a new company, and a new product that requires I invest all the profits from my prior work into it — albeit not financial profit, but the good will that I have built. With each new film I take on, it all is put to risk; my collaborators could jeopardize it all. As I wade through this hazard filled swamp, I have my own ambitions too: I am constantly trying to improve my craft and expand my resources. I grow from working in all genres and budget levels. I grow from working with the new team we assemble for each project. Each director helps me see the world afresh, to recognize that there is no template for creation. And that is my personal profit.

I have mostly made what are called Art Films, but I hope to also make what some will call crass commercial crap. And I hope to continue to make what some will prefer to call pretentious arty farty wank. I hope to make works of truth and honesty and beauty. I want to make the populist crowd pleaser and the radical revolutionary call to arms. In each my investment will come from the alliances that were built on the prior journeys, the swarms of energy from the many, the donations of the devoted and delighted. If I can invest in a film, it will because of the investment in me that others have made. This is one Ponzi scheme that I think benefits not just those that play in it, but those that sit on the sidelines too.


Producers and the love of art…(pt 2/3)

Walker’s question of why producers don’t invest in their movies brings us back to the perennial problem that most people think that producing is just about raising the money. The first film that I raised the financing for was Hal Hartley’s FLIRT, even though I had already produced about ten films by then. Producing has always been about making the best movie possible and making sure that the audience for it, sees it. The money part of the equation is just the steps needed to get to the making part.

It seems like until the late ‘80’s producing was solely the province of the wealthy and privileged. Up until then it also seemed like those that could pursue producing in this country, had to do it the Hollywood way; which meant that if you succeeded presumably you quickly became more wealthy and privileged. Producing will never be a secure profession in America, but it is open to those who are willing to work at it and have something to offer, not just the wealthy and privileged.

I don’t have money to offer, and never expect to, but my partners and I do make considerable investments in all our films. When we consider taking on a new project, we anticipate it will be a three-year commitment at the very least. Although we have had projects like AMERICAN SPLENDOR that only go through a few drafts (and go on to get nominated for the Academy Award), we also figure that each project will have a minimum of fifteen drafts. Some have forty or more. Each draft represent reading time, discussion, notes, and generally a fair amount of emotion. The scripts themselves require research through books, websites, and other movies, more time, more energy, and more thought. Even AMERICAN SPLENDOR was something that I had spent years developing before I brought to the writers, having already shot footage on Harvey & Joyce, secured the Letterman tapes, committed to a hybrid structure, and decided on the central theme of the project. When Bob & Shari walked into the office they were like a dream come true, the perfect peg to fill the hole: a couple who had written bio pics and made docs on off-center pop culture.

A producer gets no glory for the films they create and make. A producer’s name is rarely recalled for the work that others have enjoyed. A producer is the one that each side looks to for solutions, and thus one that has to sacrifice to bring satisfaction. When the film works, it has no bearing for the producer on future rewards, as it will the actors, directors, and writers. When things go well for a producer, it means more people seek them out, more people expect them to pick up the tab. The producers I know are creative collaborators who put their heart and soul into their projects, but never achieve the ownership that might lift their savings into real levels of security.

The demands on a producer don’t change due to their limited finances however. Each project is also a relationship, or rather several. The filmmakers, investors, and collaborators all have real needs and need thoughtful attention. The forays that we make to investors, cast, crew, distributors, critics, and fans all depend on different relationships that we have put considerable time and effort into. If we are going to survive, theses other relationships will need to extend far past the singular film. How well we service these relationships will directly reflect what fruit we can bring to subsequent projects. Each new film is a risk, where all this historic good will, this capital we have raised, is tested and re-valued.
(to be continued…)
Posted on Trulyfreefilm by Ted Hope


Africa wants Hollywood glory

My last article for today from another source, I promise.
What it reminded me of was conversations I have had with film makers in South Africa that generally included these sentences:
“Africa has a unique voice and lots of talent but no money or distribution.”
“If we get Hollywood interested in our films and ‘crack’ the US audience our films will make profit”
“First world industries are stealing our stories and we either shouldn’t allow them OR step up and make them better because its important for the films honesty.”
Criticism toward the person who made the film but does not belong to that ethnicity about being authentic….

These are a few sentences I have often heard film makers use in conversation at parties or talking about African films and recently they are starting to feel stale. Maybe I will look into these themes more and write a bit about them to be able to add some relevant insights into why we feel this way toward our industry, our films and the big ‘Ol Hollywood.

I got thinking about this again after reading this article:

Ouagadougou - The African equivalent of an Oscar - the Golden Stallion of ennenga - has been awarded to a film about Ethiopia’s bloodthirsty past. But for now, Hollywood acclaim remains far out of reach for most African filmmakers showing at the Fespaco festival in Burkina Faso last week.

Directors and producers on the continent contend with tight financing, few editing facilities and sometimes impossible distribution hurdles, as cinemas continent-wide close down.

We in the Diaspora really need to start working with people in Africa,” said Nigeria-born US-based filmmaker Chike Nwoffiah, whose film was selected for the competition. “Co-production can bring together funds, location, equipment and expertise. Together we have the connections and the network to launch blockbuster films.”

Potential of developing world films

The winner at this year’s 40th pan-African Fespaco film festival in Ouagadougou, Teza, took 14 years to make, even with the benefit of support from director Haile Gerima’s US-based production company, German co-production and French donor backing.

Movie buffs have also been directed to the potential of developing world films, following the success of Slumdog Millionaire, a feel good film about young slum-dwellers in India and directed by Briton Danny Boyle. It swept the board at this year’s Oscars, winning best film and best director in addition to 6 other awards, and has taken more than $200m at the box-office worldwide.

Disney also recently struck a deal with a Bollywood film company to produce an animated Hindi-language film set in India.

Lots of people have been asking why Slumdog Millionaire got an Oscar, but not Teza,” the winning film’s associate producer and director’s sister Selome Gerima told Reuters after winning. “This film has got a lot of prizes and it is definitely good enough.”

That’s not to say African movies can’t make it - South African film Tsotsi (Thief) won an Oscar for best foreign language film in 2006, but many critics say Hollywood’s embrace of the movie, about gangsters and poverty in a Johannesburg township, reinforces negative stereotypes about the continent.

Speed and showmanship

Hollywood …. makes Africans into pimps, whores and drugged-up cops,” said South African director Zola Maseko, who four years ago came first at Fespaco for his stirring drama Drum, about a black journalist who campaigned against apartheid. “We have to be careful about how to look at Slumdog. I’m quite concerned that a film about India is made by a Western director,” he said.

African films have often been criticised for nurturing a slow French-influenced desert village feel, lacking the speed and showmanship necessary for films to do well amid the action-packed dramas of Hollywood.

I don’t see why we shouldn’t have our own Slumdog Millionaire one day,” said Tendeka Matatu, producer of Jerusalema, an edgy, fast-paced South African film about Johannesburg gangsters which won 3 awards at Fespaco, including best editing. “We put a lot of time and effort into the technical aspects of the film. We wanted it to be so fine that even if people didn’t like the story, they couldn’t fault the look,” he said.

Whatever their style and pace, African films don’t lack fans at home.

In Burkina Faso’s sweltering capital Ouagadougou, local cinema lovers queued well into the night, streaming back from 3 entry points at cinema hall Cine Burkina, for the chance to see Fespaco’s winning film on the big screen.

The question is whether Americans would be prepared to do the same for an African-made film.

It’s going to be very difficult for one of my films to find Hollywood backing,” said Maseko. “But then again, Americans have just voted in Barack Obama, so perhaps they are more ready to see Africa through African eyes.”

  • Reuters

PS. Bang Bang Club is scheduled to shoot in May ‘09. Canadian production, South African Story, next Oscar by international crew??!!


Producers and the love of art…

During my perusing I found this piece on Trulyfreefilms written by producer Ted Hope. It’s the first of three parts so keep checking in for further reading.

Recently on my TrulyFreeFilms blog, Michael Walker of Pangofilms asked why more producers don’t invest in their own movies.

This question first assumes that there are producers who could even afford to consider this possibility. Right now, when it comes to financial matters, I don’t know of any producers that aren’t first and foremost concerned about their immediate survival (even the concern of long term survival now looks like a luxury). The business once supported prolific quality producers with overhead deals, but those days are now dead and gone. A financial investment in a movie is not something most producers can afford.

I have made financial investments in my films, but mostly in terms of bridge loans and never with any reward for it. Usually the director didn’t even know I was doing it. And once I got burned and came very close to watching it spiral and thus losing a great deal more as a result. I have also “invested” in filmmakers I believed in, whether to help them complete their movie, or just to survive, but never in a structure that had expectation for financial reward — more as a friend or family member would. But generally, the reason why, as a Producer, I haven’t invested financially in my projects, is because I, like most producers, can’t afford to. Sad to break it to you, but Indie Film producing is not a lucrative profession. We don’t do it for the money honey.

To be frank, I think investing in films is counter to what a producer should be doing. Investors generally are looking for a financial return, albeit one that contributes something to the culture too. A director is trying to make their movie. A producer has to balance these multiple interests. One of the most difficult things about producing is making sure all collaborators share a common agenda. As much as folks claim to be on the same page, their behavior frequently betrays this goal. The director and the financier both need to know the producer is looking out for their diverse interests.

Producers have a fiscal responsibility to their movie, but it is not their only responsibility. I am surprised that a director would want a producer who by way of their investment was declaring the fiscal responsibility their primary one. I would be surprised that investors would want to go forward without someone to balance their needs with that of the director’s. How would such an investor ever get a great film? Unfortunately, a film’s financial success is dependent on far many things beyond the quality of the script, so even if the producer who developed it had infinitely deep pockets, the intersection of art and commerce would create an imbalance of power. Movies thankfully will never just be about these interests; it is the blend that really makes each film find new heights.


YouTube blocks music videos for UK

Google unable to renew license with PRS
Taken from Variety

LONDON. Google Inc. said Monday it will block U.K. users from watching music videos on its popular video-sharing site YouTube after negotiations with Britain’s music royalty-collecting body broke down.

Google said it would begin blocking British users starting Monday night. The Internet titan said it knew the move would cause “significant disappointment.” But it said its hand was forced by PRS for Music, which it said is asking for royalties that would cause Google to lose money every time a video was played on YouTube.

Our previous license from PRS for Music has expired, and we’ve been unable so far to come to an agreement to renew it on terms that are economically sustainable for us,” Google said in a statement. Until a solution is found, it added, “we will be blocking premium music videos in the U.K. that have been supplied or claimed by record labels.”

PRS for Music, which collects money on behalf of writers and publishers worldwide, said it was outraged by Google’s move.

Google has told us they are taking this step because they wish to pay significantly less than at present to the writers of the music on which their service relies, despite the massive increase in YouTube viewing,” the group said in a statement.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS


Film Finance

I really want to have more articles on this topic as I think it’s the most important for Indy Film makers and also I feel mostly unexplored. Although a bit dated (8 months old) here’s an article on what Tax Credits are and a bit on South African rebates.

The article mentions Thomas Allen Harris and I was, quite incidentally, in his office on Thursday where we had a great talk about film making, culture and our shared passion for South Africa. His latest film is titled “Through a lens Darkly” and looks at the “role of photography, since its rudimentary beginnings in the 1840s, in shaping the identity, aspirations, and social emergence of African Americans from slavery to the present.” To find out more about this filmmaker go to his site.

To the point however, the DTI is offering amazing rebates at the moment and as film makers we should understand what that means for us.

Read This Article!

And in March, the South African government announced location incentives to attract big-budget overseas projects produced by foreign-owned companies. The Location Film and Television Production Incentive offers a 15% rebate to foreign-owned productions that spend at least 12 million rand ($1.5 million) in the country.


Cars, Karate and Kangaroos

mad_max_poster_1.jpg
What happened before the Aussie film industry found its feet? A slew of charmingly amateurish B-movies with blood, crocs, vomit and out-of-control foreign stars, finds Damon Wise…

Why!? What!? How!? Where!? For 100 astounding minutes the breakneck documentary Not Quite Hollywood mounts a staggering assault on your common sense. Tracing the rise and fall of Australian exploitation cinema from the early-70s to the late-80s, Mark Hartley’s breathless expose accelerates from one trashy revelation to the next in a film that features explosions, gore, breasts, blood, kung fu, BMX bikes, murderers in ice-cream vans, lesbian sex, devil worship, disco dancing, killer crocodiles, werewolves, car crashes, projectile vomiting - and US porn star John Holmes. This is a story in which Dennis Hopper being declared dead by alcohol poisoning isn’t even a big deal, a film that makes you wonder: why were these freaks allowed near a movie set? What the hell were they thinking? How on earth did they get away with it? And where, oh, where, can you see those insane movies?

Split into three parts, it begins with the self-explanatory Ockers, Knockers, Pubes And Tubes, in which the origins of the Australian sex comedy are explored. These films go way beyond bawdy, with the likes of Stork (1971), Alvin Purple (1973) and Felicity (1979). When Barry Humphries declares that “homophobia and racism can be charming, delightful, essential”, he’s only half-joking, and in the various vomit scenes shown, one can only marvel at his special recipe - a mix of corn soup, pea soup, fruit salad, potato salad and a couple of shreds of tomato.

There are comments here as to how and why the Oz film industry behaved in this way, mostly to do with censorship and cultural identity. Quentin Tarantino, an early convert, notes that most of these films didn’t get any attention even after the new wave of Australian cinema hit US cinemas in the late-70s. “The Aussie genre films weren’t being touted as Aussie films [in America],” he recalls. “I didn’t know they were Aussie genre films until I bought my ticket and [the actors] opened their mouths.” But with no time to dwell on them, Not Quite Hollywood is on to chapter two: Comatose Killers And Outback Chillers. This is where the blood spills and more female flesh is sliced and diced than in some of the most famously misogynistic Italian slashers of the period.

By now, the offscreen sagas are starting to creep in, notably on 1981’s Roadgames - Rear Window on a motorway! - which raised hackles by importing two US stars (Stacy Keach and Jamie Lee Curtis) and infuriated its producers with its ballooning schedule (after only five days filming, they were four days behind). This leads us nicely to the jaw-dropping finale, High-Octane Disasters And Kung Fu Masters, in which the making-of tales eclipse the spills onscreen. 1974 biker flick Stone makes Hunter S Thompson’s travels with the Hells Angels look like Michael Palin’s Pole To Pole; the insanity of Dennis Hopper on Philippe Mora’s Mad Dog Morgan (1976) is a cautionary tale of mixing method acting with rum and coke (the drug, not the drink); and in today’s anodyne age, isn’t it refreshing to hear Man From Hong Kong star Yu Wang described as “horrible”?

This is where Not Quite Hollywood really comes into its own. Even if you’ve heard horror stories from Bollywood, Nollywood, or any other ‘wood where health and safety issues aren’t high on the agenda, you still won’t believe what these guys were prepared to do in the name of entertainment. Live ammo, illegal car chases, setting fire to ageing Hollywood stars - the Oz film industry did it all, in a series of films that became wilder and weirder, culminating in the berserk survivalist shockers Turkey Shoot (1982) and Dead End Drive-In (1986). And in with these you’ll be surprised to find the original Mad Max (1979), a lurid drama that proved to be as lawless behind the camera as the post-apocalyptic future it depicted.

Though it draws an artificial line between the “proper” Australian cinema of the time and its bastard siblings - local hero Peter Weir crossed this divide before and after his milestone 1975 movie Picnic At Hanging Rock, with sci-fi/horror The Cars That Ate Paris (1974), re-edited for US release as The Cars That Eat People, and supernatural thriller The Last Wave (1977) - Not Quite Hollywood is still a refreshing reminder that a thriving B-movie culture is necessary for the survival of the mainstream. And while many of the names here will be unknown to most, there are some incredible moments of familiarity. Foremost is a clip from 1983 kids’ caper BMX Bandits and its freckly, frizzy-haired, buck-toothed teenage heroine: the one, the only, Nicole Mary Kidman.

Not Quite Hollywood is out on Friday and on DVD 30 Mar

Taken from Guardian.co.uk


District 9. What its all about by /Film

humansonly.jpg
District 9 stars South African talent Jason Cope and Sharlto Copley and is directed by S.A.ex-pat Neill Blomkamp. The film used a lot of Johannesburg crew and everyone on that set was super enthusiastic about the project. Here is a full article on what is District 9 by taking an extensive look at the viral campaign.

Last summer at the 2008 San Diego Comic Con, the convention center was peppered with random, cryptic signs such as the one pictured here, which featured variations on the phrase “For Humans Only.” The signs were bizarre, eye-catching, and kind of adorable, with their strange-looking alien figures and their copy warning against non-existent aliens who were supposedly trying to invade our territory.

Since then, we’ve learned that the signs were part of an elaborate viral campaign for director Neill Blomkamp’s newest film, District 9. For the uninitiated, Blomkamp was a protégé of director Peter Jackson, and was positioned to be the director of a film based on Bungie’s Halo franchise (that deal subsequently fell apart). Blomkamp has shown much talent in his short films and commercials, but many wondered if he was ready for a big-budget sci-fi thriller. Hit the jump for an extensive look at the viral campaign for Blomkamp’s District 9, and what it reveals about the movie.

Read full article

Posted on Friday, March 6th, 2009
By David Chen


Burma finds distibution home

At Sundance this year I had the fortunate pleasure of seeing an incredible documentary about the VJ’s (Video Journalists) in Burma who where getting news video out into the world under extreme circumstances, the film is called Burma VJ
If you don’t know yet, Burma is a Iron Clad state run by the military. No video is allowed to be taken, there is no such thing as free speech and if you are thought to be against the state you simply disappear. This is real. When the Monks from Burma, who are most respected as its is a Buddhist country, came to stand against the government the military stepped in. Hundreds of Monks disappeared, students rallied and where shot dead and no news crews where allowed in the country. The only way that the world could find out about what was going on was through a handful of journalists inside Burma.

They are guerrilla to the max. With little hand held cameras and a single satellite feed, they would shoot footage during the riots, gather information, smuggle tapes and then send it to a base in Europe. Their footage sparked outrage across the globe as many of you will know because you belong to social groups in protest of the massacre.

The film itself is a compilation of actual footage shot during the uprising and re-enactments that allow you to follow the story of one of these journalists. It is, to say the least, a gripping tale of bravery. Having to deal with insurmountable cruelty and injustice the Burma VJ’s have one calling - to contribute to the freedom of Burma.

Armed with small handy cams undercover Video Journalists in Burma keep up the flow of news from their closed country. Going beyond the occasional news clip from Burma, acclaimed director Anders Østergaard, brings us close to the video journalists who deliver the footage. Though risking torture and life in jail, courageous young citizens of Burma live the essence of journalism as they insist on keeping up the flow of news from their closed country. The Burma VJs stop at nothing to make their reportages from the streets of Rangoon.

Anders is a soft spoken man who has a long history in documentary. He had originally wanted to make a personal story about one of the characters but the topic of Burma and the Monks was just to important to sideline. In the end you have a story that pulls you into the characters and also a topic so unbelievable it feels strange to think that it is real.

Burma won the Editing award at Sundance and also two awards at the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA). It was just a matter of time before it would find a distribution home. Finally it has…Oscilloscope Laboratories based in New York. The company now has theatrical and non-theatrical rights with DVD’s to be release in 2010. The first exhibition will be in July while HBO holds the broadcast rights.


Rehash.Remix.Revise

I wrote a post that included some philosophy about our Remix culture, this was never published because it got boring.instead:

I say our culture because we are the digital generation and this generation is creating new culture every day. The truth is though that our new culture is being disrupted and blocked by license/copyright holders, albeit sometimes for fair reason. However, after reading Lawrence Lessig’s ‘Remix’ I am convinced that the next decade is going to bring some major cultural shifts and the battle for new culture has only started.

This post is about a documentary that is being made in Canada called RIP: Remix Manifesto’ which underpins and brings to life all these issues and stories. Director Bret Gaylor is the creator of Opensourcecinema.org and traveled the world in order to create and investigate a Remix Manifesto. The snippets that I’ve seen are great. Entertaining, interesting and most importantly very relevant to anyone who uses the internet and participates in digital, so ya, everyone. There are already remix’s of the film by EclecticMethod which are awesome!

I am so happy he has made this doccie because is brings the topic into the space where most of the dissension is taking place, the net. When you visit the site you are cordially invited to contribute to this film by remixing it, adding music tracks and uploading your own video to be put into the film. This is not an invite that comes along everyday and will hopefully draw some interesting contributions. The film is licensed under Creative Commons and it will stay that way so your additions are safe in the public domain but may and hopefully will be mashed sooner or later. RiP talks to, amongst many others, Girl Talk about his experience in mashing music and becoming famous for it. Girl Talk has just brought out another CD and states on his MySpace “pay as much as you like for it”. It smells of Radiohead but without the marketing machine behind it he is a complete different beast.

Check out the site, add something, read ‘Remix’, listen to some Girl Talk and see what and where our digital culture is going and how much is at stake.

http://dev.osc.clients.raincitydev.com/shanghai-record-110-seconds“/> video platform video management video solutions free video player

Story is Dead.

Scott Brown from WIRED mag wrote a fantastically entertaining piece on why ‘Hollywood Story’ is DEAD. It revolves around a new story format he calls the ‘Brown Ziggurat’.

The Mymax is not a lame old Freytag climax but a hot Escher mess of narrative possibilities suggested by you, the audience. With a mere click of your handset (and a charge of 99 cents), you furnish a Youclusion(tm) to your liking. This is how McClane somehow ends up defeating terrorists—and winning American Idol—with his ultrasonic melisma. McClane and Holly then celebrate by making a sex tape. (Awww!)

This article will definitely start you thinking along the right paths for marketing and future storytelling avenues!

Read Full Article
Scott Brown on Why Hollywood Needs a New Model for Storytelling
By Scott Brown 01.19.09


Disney Rental?

Disney Looks At Online Video Rental Service

Still more news from the Deutsche Bank 17th Annual Media And Telecommunications Conference: Bob Iger said Walt Disney Co is considering creating a subscription-based online movie and TV rental service from the company’s huge video library. It could be an online Disney video club that mails DVDs or downloads video files to members.

By Nikki Finke on Tue, Mar 3rd, 2009 at 05:32PM


Block Busted

As the recession sets in the edges start frying. Block Buster, your local Video/DVD rental store, has been having tough times with Netflix the online giant taking over the rental market. This just off the Wall Street Journal as Block Buster crumbles and may soon fall.

Shares of the video-rental chain had dropped 77% after a published report said the company was looking into such a possibility.

Blockbuster has hired the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to assist it in ongoing financing efforts, according to Blockbuster spokeswoman Karen Raskopf. The Dallas-based company has said it has the cash to fund debt through 2009 if necessary, but is trying to secure refinancing to make a debt payment due in August, Raskopf said.

BBI (0.22, 0.74, 77.1%) shares were down 74 cents at 22 cents before trading on the shares was halted. The stock already has fallen 93% in the past year.

Read Full Article


This is YouTube Tops

I posted a “how-to” for those who want to become famous on YouTube a couple of days ago. Today I found this site which is VERY simple and has the 99 most watched YouTube videos listed..in no particular order. If you are interested in what the world really is watching just click.

And if anyone can answer me this…what is it with the babies?!!


Watch’em - Larry Gordon

On the 6th of March, Watchmen, the most epic graphic novel of all will premier in the US. The film has cost about $130mil with A-list producer Larry Gordon (Die Hard, Predator, Hellboy) spearheading the project. The reason I post this article is just to show that Sh*t happens.

Gordon is now in a battle with Warner Bros whom he (Gordon) will have to pay major litigation costs to. Warner Bros had to pay the Fox Network a couple of Million Dolla when the rights for Watchmen where not cleared properly. Warner held Gordon responsible for the uhm, oversight and now it may hurt real bad.OUCH

Thank God the movie wasn’t held back until after the mess was cleared because I can’t wait to be in a cinema seat to watch this film!

Read Full Story
Warner Bros. and producer Larry Gordon will wait to discuss who’s to blame for Fox lawsuit
By Matthew Belloni

watchmen-happy-face.jpg

Your Tube…Getting it

Scenario: You’ve just filmed actors (your friends) in a comedy-skit and your strategy is to upload the skit to YouTube and then get famous. Your video is under three minutes, it is actually funny and you’ve even tagged Leo De Caprio to get a bigger audience. Before you tell your dad to piss off and start packing for LA check the stats and then go back upstairs to check the hits on your masterpiece. Oh, none…except for the five you hit to check if the video is working.

With 65000 videos being uploaded daily and generally the most popular being sleeping cats and farting fatties it should come as no surprise that your intellectual, quirky, self deprecating comedy goes unwatched. Tisk, tisk. In order to create a successful video campaign here are three tips that may help.

1) Being funny is a good start.

Being funny in the first couple of seconds is the challenge. Mostly videos that stimulate immediately go onto becoming popular. Considering the amount of videos You Tube audiences watch they have become quite savvy in deciding the content they want to see, hence the sleeping kitten and singing baby “phenomenon”.
Another simple but effective example is the “will it blend” select. Blendtec from Utah started by posting a clip of their blender discombobulating a rotisserie chicken, a McDonalds Extra Value meal, a bag of marbles and a rake. Shortly after Digg.com picked up the piece and within a week the video had more than 5 million hits.

Blendtec now has a regular segment “Will It Blend” on You Tube and their videos have been viewed more than 200 million times. Blendtec VP George Wright said very aptly ” We’re not creating commercials, we’re making videos people want to watch”. And that’s the point….

2) Aggregate an audience.

I’ve touched on this previously on Read/Write in that online is all about a following and somewhat dedicated audience. This is not a short process. It takes diligence and time. By writing on blogs that may share your view or like your content you may gain some audience. Don’t be that person though. You know, that person that spams someone’s blog page all in CAPITOLSWATCH THIS AWESOME VIDEOCOS IT’S AWESOME!!!!!!” that sucks. Community is important, be a voice that contributes not just overwhelms. It’s much better to have a group of people that know you voice. They will ultimately help you in finding your audience by linking to your clip or posting it themselves or mailing it onto others. If you have a clip already and you don’t know the blogger post it and ask them to watch it. If you do this a couple of times over on various blogs you may get lucky….

3) Optimize the search.

Entering all the info when uploading i.e. clear title, description and key words are the basics. As the old saying goes, get the basics down. They are important, they will help your audience find you.
There are tools such as Youtube Analytics that shows you how your video is being found and who is watching it. There are mixed responses to this tech but I’m an optimist and any tech to help on the on-line sphere is happily welcomed. If you find that people from England watch your video the most, add England as a keyword for further searches.

Some “Tubers” have focused on ‘piggy backing’. Basically hitching a ride on an already popular video. You can do this by responding to specific popular videos. A great example of this is a video highlighting a glitch in an Electronic Arts’ video game that appeared to show a pixelated Tiger Woods walking on water. In response, the gamemaker posted a video that showed the real Tiger Woods literally walking on water.
This should give you a kick start to your video watch-count. It has happened that responses become more popular than original video so keep that in mind.

Since Youtube is now also paying their selected video-creators it may not be a bad career start. Make something that people want to see, find an audience and keep your information updated and precise..sounds simple enough.

Good luck to all, and may the Tube be with you.

Categories


Archives