A Rape Culture?

Is your behavior and public image more important than your work? Much of the draw to a film can be attributed to the persons who made them or the stories behind how they were made, like the DVD extras or the crowdfunding videos. It's important to think about because, for example, if you apply to Sundance I have no doubt they are looking at how well you come off in all those public interviews they do with filmmakers. It's not fair that this should have anything to do with your work. But it does.

Stephanie Palmer has some great advice on giving a five minute pitch. One thing she says that is most important is that you must be able to answer lots of questions about your project. Of course she's talking about pitching to producers or distributors, not the general public. But when you do a film about sex issues, and you get questions about what was it like to do the sex scenes, I can understand how Nymph()manic actor Shia LaBeouf and director Lars Von Trier tend to shy away or even walk out of press conferences. The public can get pretty base.

Distributors look for filmmakers willing to go out and promote their films. So from development to distribution you may need to embrace that. That can mean making public appearances at festivals, and talking to people and reporters. That stuff is not as fun as working. But it seems to be part of what it takes to sell movies. Although there are some who get creative with it and find a way to not actually do all that much promotion while doing it. A great way to do that is to be controversial, like Shia LaBeouf's bagged head,  Joaquin Phoenix's "retirement, "or David Lynch's cow. Not that those are all necessarily publicity stunts.

Getting into personal lives, while sometimes even more of a draw, is a sticky situation. One Tweeter stated that making a comment on Woody Allen these days is like walking into an airplane propeller. It gets out of hand to the point where commenters become a lynch mob. With Allen, for many people, it becomes almost impossible to remain detached. Blue Jasmine is a wonderful script with a wonderful cast. I can't ignore that because of some lynch mob mentality regardless of how justified it might be (as if a lynch mob could be justified).

In response to the latest media circus there is an interesting Daily Beast article by Robert B. Weide,  The Woody Allen Allegations: Not so Fast, the Farrow article on Vanity Fair, Mama Mia , and then there's Aaron Bady in The New Inquiry, Woody Allen's Good Name, that states that perhaps we live in a "rape culture."  Then there's The Wrap with Woody Allen May Not Be Talking, But His PR Offensive Is Heating Up.
Some of the most interesting stuff is in the comments sections of these articles. Many people are taking this media circus very seriously. In Weide's piece alone, there is so much material here, you might consider writing a screenplay based on it.

Weide is an Emmy winning and Oscar nominated director who produced and directed a PBS special, Woody Allen: A Documentary, and also supervised and consulted on the brief clip montage for the recent Golden Globes telecast, when Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement (and while Mia Farrow was happily watching the latest episode of Girls although she also gave permission for Weide to use clips of her in Allen's movie for that award ceremony) (and while Woody, according to Weide, was watching football playoffs or whatever sports thing he's into). He  makes some excellent points, starting with these ten facts, that would seem to negate the entire issue, and write it off as a vengeful ploy by the Farrows to hurt Allen's career. Though Allen appears to be somewhat oblivious and could care less about awards anyway.

1. Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.
2. Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.
3. Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.
4. Woody and Mia were married. False.
5. Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.
6. Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.
7. Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.
8. Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations. False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or ’72.)
9. Soon-Yi was borderline retarded. Ha! She’s smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.
10. Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride. Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia’s own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly “had his eye on her” from the time she was a child.

Aaron Bady is a post-doctoral fellow
at the University of Texas,
teaching African literature.
He writes the blog zunguzungu.

Mr. Bady writes in part:

  ....The damnably difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. One of them must be saying something that is not true. But “he said, she said” doesn’t resolve to “let’s start by assuming she’s lying,” except in a rape culture, and if you are presuming his innocence by presuming her mendacity, you are rape cultured. It works both ways, or should: if one of them has to be lying for the other to be telling the truth, then presuming the innocence of one produces a presumption of the other’s guilt. And Woody Allen cannot be presumed to be innocent of molesting a child unless she is presumed to be lying to us. His presumption of innocence can only be built on the presumption that her words have no credibility, independent of other (real) evidence, which is to say, the presumption that her words are not evidence. If you want to vigorously claim ignorance–to assert that we can never know what happened, in that attic–then you must ground that lack of knowledge in the presumption that what she has said doesn’t count, and we cannot believe her story. .... more

There is a wonderful analysis of the whole thing in the more than 200 comments to that post. Here are a few:

Sarah Horrocks says:

....Maybe we should stop having courts of public opinion and stop acting like we’re all lawyers and judges, and start listening to people’s pain rather than spending all of our time mobbing up on matters where we may not have all of the important information.
It is entirely possible to give Dylan Farrow the space to speak, and to listen to what she has to say with empathy, without also forming a lynch mob. We’re not judges, jurors, or executioners. Let’s try just being people, yeah?

Michael Delaney says:

I love the logic: he probably did it though who can be sure etc. What’s next? The Witch Trials. Throw him in the water and if Woody floats he did it and if he drowns .

David says:

I can both believe that what she is saying may (may) not be true and that she is not lying nor being malicious. We’re talking about a childhood memory, and not one that is recent or fresh in the alleged victim’s mind. I absolutely believe that she believes what she wrote happened. And I have no idea if it did.

Robert Salazar says:

I really wanted to read this, but I’m sorry to say that I could not finish.
You didn’t provide any context for me to dive into and develop a foundation for your article. Your assumption is that I’ll know what Woody Allen “did,” and that misplaced assumption is bad writing technique/disinterest in developing readership. Obviously I can read between the lines and deduce, but that’s not good enough.

Fatima says:

“The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong.”
Oh. Okay?

Sheesh. This entire column is literally claiming that facts don’t matter, because rape culture. It also ignores the very plausible idea that everyone in this believes what they are saying, and that no one actively lying. What I read is that Dylan’s story (amid a messy divorce) kept changing was one of the reasons this was not brought to trial. Testimony of children as evidence is notoriously unreliable and has lead to wrongful convictions — but, wait, do you even care? From what you write, no.

It’s one thing to be a creep and date a 19 year old, but another to suddenly be a pedophile (you don’t seem to know what the word means or its pathology — look it up). I prefer to live in a society where such a leap at least gets to be questioned (and yes, defended!), without some hectoring column piece telling me that saying “we don’t know” is “silencing” the victim or calling her a liar (it’s worth noting that her open letter has been printed in every major publication).

You are so certain in your entire world-view that looking at evidence is secondary. Nothing is case-by-case since all subscribe to a black-and-white rape culture view of the world, so I guess I can understand why you look down at the entire legal system or evidence in general. Unfortunately it makes for terribly unconvincing columns, undercuts your credibility and is obnoxiously self-serving.

Matt says:

....I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but my very tiny leaning toward presuming innocence is not at all due to rape culture or assuming her lying. I have no idea what to think. I know, because I’ve studied the topic, that memories created through suggestion (especially in childhood) are a big problem in these cases, both sexual abuse and in more general cases of trauma. But at the same time, you can’t assume that’s what is happening or happened, because it strips the individual of their agency. Many people have been abused. Many secretly. Many in ways that have no corroborating evidence.

This case was investigated at the time and the investigative team either found that he didn’t do it or that there was no evidence (I can’t tell which based on reports, they’re conflicting). If there was going to be a way to show his guilt, that would have been the time. But they didn't.

Which doesn’t prove he’s innocent. And it doesn’t prove she’s mistaken or that she is lying. It just leaves a massive question mark that I have no idea what to do with. Everyone wants to pick a side but I feel like there is no way to pick one without making judgments about the other side that we can’t reasonably make.

And there is something to be said for the continued victimization of an individual who was assaulted, and then must watch their attacker go without punishment, or even be celebrated. But at the same time, the horror of having one’s legacy destroyed by an untrue accusation, potentially ruining one’s career and the way people look at you as a human being can’t be discounted.

Potentially worsening the pain of an innocent victim, taken advantage of by a figure of authority and celebrated by the world, versus potentially ripping down the life of ANYONE over a nasty dispute created in a bitter divorce, putting the scarlet letter of “child rapist” on their chest, is not a decision any one should every have to make.

But make no mistake, the court of public opinion may not have the power to take away a persons freedom, but it does have the power to destroy the life a person has spent their entire life working for. There IS a responsibility there, because our willingness to damn him matters a great deal for an individual who spends their life on the public stag.

I don’t know what happened back then, and I don’t think most people ever will. Passing judgment on either side is a game of assumptions, and a game I’m personally unwilling to play, given the stakes. But if I say that he deserves no awards, should be marked in any way other than “accused,” that is a judgment. She may struggle with his face in the news receiving praise, but at the very least that does not necessitate judgment of her. It is a judgment of the deficiencies in our ability to punish the wicked and protect the innocent.

That is my view and thought process, though I know many have one that is less nuanced and more influenced by rape culture. I just want to make it known that that’s not the only way to arrive at this conclusion.

Bob Westal says:

Actually, it’s not THAT okay to assume Woody Allen is a child molester (far from proven) as well as something of a gigantic creep when it comes to his personal life. (Pretty much proven.) if the writer is wrong because there is also a third possibility which this writer fails to entertain.

It’s entirely possible — indeed, it’s probably the most likely scenario — that every single person involved in this case (Woody, Mia, Dylan, etc.) is telling the exact truth as they know it to be. This writer lacks either the knowledge or the imagination to realize just how slippery a thing reality really can be.

If this all seems too weird, just try reading about the McMartin Pre-school, watching “Rashomon” or reading “A Passage to India.” It is not rape culture to suggest that memories of sexual crimes can’t be induced, it’s just reality that we all need to live with.
Also, since we’re talking about rape culture, what are we to make of Mia’s continued defense of Roman Polanski, who very definitely did drug and molest a 14 year old girl?

Andy says:

 So because this (violence against women) happens, he’s probably guilty, because, like statistics, and stuff – the establishment of mens rea, actus reas, and attendant circumstances be damned, according to this writer. Yes, men are more likely to commit these crimes, but statistical likelihood doesn’t provide us the evidence that HE did THIS crime. Statistical likelihood is NOT evidence, no matter how you spin it.

I say, perhaps we live in an anarchy of media profit driven consent. We no longer need any government. Occupy had it right. Aaron Bady concurs. Our troops die in vain for nothing. If there ever was a rape culture it is the US military. Our country reveres the military for what they do and who they are. If you have a problem with a rape culture, you have a problem with the US. To try someone in the media is anarchy in the worst possible sense of witch hunts, gang violence, or lynch mobs.

Rape culture? I can’t imagine a more biased phrase. Have you read Manufacturing Consent, Mr. Bady? Your terminology manufactures consent that Allen is guilty, regardless of any facts, history, or anything. Just right here in your post you convict him with two words. Genius. You could have had a great career with Hitler or G.W. Bush. Or did you Mr. Texan? Oh gee did I make an unfair assumption there?

There is a huge fallacy in your logic. You allow no gray areas. For you it’s either black or white, even though you admit you can’t possibly know for sure, nor can anyone.

What does it matter? Why must we decide what happened, who is guilty, or who is innocent? We are not a court of law. The justice system is obviously flawed. But it is all we have. Without it we are a lynch mob. Do you have a white pointy hat?

If Farrow has a case she can write a book, make a film, get rich, show Woody as she wants show him to the world. Ruin his career. Oh wait. She already has. Incarceration is barbarous and not necessarily the worst punishment.

Does she have an agent? Are the film rights available?

Exclusive: Mia Farrow and Eight of Her Children
Speak Out on Their Lives, Frank Sinatra,
and the Scandals They’ve Endured

By convicting Woody Allen in the court of public lynch mob opinion, we say our troops fight and die in vain for a way of life not worth fighting for. This is the epitome of being un-American. Not that it’s a bad thing. But do you who hunt witches admit to that? Because that’s what and who you are. You’re anarchists. You believe in handling things outside of government, and unlike Occupy, with no law and no rule to refer to. You are above the law. In your world due process is ignored and media profit driven emotion rules our lives. If your ideals prevail, we are no longer civilized. Not that we are civilized anyway, considering the pandering media circus every other month.

I don’t say he is innocent, she is innocent, he is guilty or she is guilty. I don’t know. I don’t care. Not that I don’t care about rape. I do. But I don’t care about things I can never know. It is an exercise in futility. Would I care if it were my daughter. Yes. So what? My daughter is not part of this. This is someone else’s daughter. It’s up to her and her family and friends to take care of her. Not me, and especially not many times removed through the consent manufactured media.

Mr. Bady's problem is not with Woody Allen. It’s not with any Farrow. It’s not even with the media or people who side one way or another. Though maybe it's the fact that he can't comprehend there may be infinite sides. There are as many sides to this story as there are people's ways to tell it.

You never met them have you? You never sat down with either one and looked into their eyes to see if you felt they were lying or not.And just as it is not in our place to go into people homes and lives and cross examine what goes on there. neither is it our place to pass judgement on Allen, Farrow or anyone involved here, except possibly our government.

There is no Roger Corman

Money: The Root of the Problem

We tend to think of making art as picking up a tool and just doing it, which is an ideal. That can work in painting or writing. But film is a whole different thing. or is it? You can pick up a camera and start shooting. The problem there is that the complexity of film will bring you to a point where you find out you aren't prepared. Perhaps you get into editing and find the lighting isn't working or an actor doesn't fit. So the next time you take more care with casting and getting a good DP and a good grip. That's basically the process of leaning to make films.

David Lynch

However, even highly experienced and seasoned directors and producers complain about the distribution end of things. They can't earn enough money with their films to move on to the next one. Directors like Lynch, Spielberg, Soderberg or Coppola have made statements to this effect. If they can't do it, what are your chances? We're missing an element from the start that we can never get right, and that is knowing what is required to make the film sell.

Roger Corman

It's too bad we just can't all collaborate with professional courtesy on each others films instead of paying each others rates. That's what we did in film school. Some of us carry that over into the business world. In the heyday of Coppola coming out of UCLA joined by Lucas and film school colleagues at USC, those guys had it down. Although Roger Corman was around to give them salaries. Since then a lot of film school grads try to emulate that model. But like a bad marriage, you find out your former classmates aren't right for you. And then there's the fact that we can't really get by in this world without money. To fund a film before you pick up that paint brush, you need a lot of money.

Even huge studios with business and marketing expertise cannot be assured of seeing a film production break even. But we all know all this. We know that no one knows anything. And so we make wine on the side or cut an ear off or die penniless.

The Solution

What we need to do is get the money worked out before we pick up the paint brush. That means we have to make art that will sell. The key to this is the word "art" not the word "sell." The art has to have a mass appeal. We will sell it for only a $2 to $8 rental or maybe a $5 to $25 purchase. We have to sell a huge volume to make out. We can't just make a movie that appeals to ourselves or even a circle of 10,000 like minded people. We need to appeal to half a million or more.

Alternatively we could sell at higher prices. Assuming an audience of 10,000 people will buy our film, we need to sell copies at $100 each to cover a $1 million budget. $50 for a $500K budget and so on. At $5 each we can cover a $50K budget. But only if 10,000 spend $5 each to see our film. And at that budget we get paid nothing. What does it cost a cast and crew to live? Maybe $20K each at the poverty level. You get it.

Obviously we need that half a million people to want to buy our movie. Though government subsidies or grants could work too, except there are 500,000 filmmakers in the world. We'd have to end war to do that.

The number one reason why you can't make a living at this in this world is because you don't make movies that attract a half million people. But that's just the tip of the iceberg, because attracting them is a whole science in itself, which is why we need distributors to market films.

Distribution and Marketing

Sex sells: Marketing image of Sharon Stone in

Joe Eszterhas' Basic Instinct

You may not need to know how to attract a half million people if you can figure out how to attract the right distributors and investors. But they will think they know how to attract the half million and they will look for elements in your film that do that. There are a lot of distributors and investors with varying ideas on what will sell. There are a lot who will sign a deal and you'll never see a penny. You need a film that will make them agree to your terms that give you enough money to cover your costs, and in advance of going into production.

You can go with conventional wisdom with the right marketable script, probably about a contract killer, or a serial rapist, and with a name cast. Or maybe you could prove that people want to see your film by signing them up with your own marketing campaign, like crowdfunding or social networks. If you have an email list of half a million people who are engaged in your project, and if you can prove that to a distributor, you can probably sign the right deal to get your film funded. 

The sellout

Does that mean you have to compromise your art? Maybe. But isn't it more of an artistic challenge to attract an audience? Wouldn't that prove to people and yourself that you are talented on many levels? Isn't that the key to sustaining a career as a film artist?

All those other technical details about how to go about producing, funding, distribution deals, budgeting, collaboration and so on, are important. But the audience is the top priority. Even without distributors you can sell directly if you have an audience. You need to be in a place where distributors need your film more than you need them. If you're not there you have to keep making films to learn how to get there. Try and try again. It's not the seventies. You aren't Coppola. There is no Roger Corman.

Indie movies that sell have these elements. Scorsese,  Coppola. Lynch and the Coens make indie films that sell along with some that don't. They are in a place where I'd want to be as an indie filmmaker.  

But there's always yet another Sundance movie made for a fortune that no one will buy and no one wants to see except the guys that made it and their small following. Those indie films make money for festivals, equipment manufacturers, and even the cast and crew. $3 billion is spent annually on by filmmakers who rarely ever make a sustainable career of it.  The trick is to make movies that make the filmmaker a living, not everyone else.

NOT ANOTHER SUNDANCE MOVIE
A Tastes Funny Original Trailer

Written by: Molly Fite, Susan Mandel, John Ott, Autumn Proemm & Chris Punsalan
Directed by: Chris Punsalan
Photographed by: Chris Punsalan & Stephen Mader tastesfunny.net

Starring: Molly Fite, Dan Banas, Todd McClintock, Samantha McLoughlin & Lucy McLoughlin.

4K: The New HD

If you aren't shooting in 4K (aka Ultra HD or UHD), you're two years late. In two years from now any film you shot in HD will be as obsolete as the stuff you shot in SD. But don't take my word for it, and expect that within a few weeks or sooner, there will be new advances announced. Keep tabs on 4K news here. 4K is just slightly smaller than digital cinema resolution (6% smaller at 3,840 × 2,160 pixels, 256 pixels less wide) to accommodate the TV 16:9 standard as opposed to cinema's 17:9. Purists will be annoyed (although 1080 HD is also 16:9).

Could 4K become the new near-first run releasing window (instead of VOD), just as theatrical once was before Day and Date, Ultra-VOD, VOD, and digital platforms became the rage? With 4K Blu-ray, disks become very attractive, versus buffering HD streaming or cable.

 YouTube is already streaming in 4K. Yes, you have to have the hardware and software to see it. So you might want to think about this before your next TV screen, hard drive, or computer purchase. But it's not that expensive and you can bet it will come down by 50% to 80% in the next two years. Right now most 4K screens are over 50 inches and start around $3K. A player, currently required is around $600. But with the advent of 4K Blu-ray within a year or so, hard drive players will not be required and 4K Blu-ray players under $200 might be the norm.

Most NLE (non-linear editing) software vendors offer 4K and 6K editing capability. A high end iMac computer editing system with 32GB of RAM is around $3K. You can get a Sony Handicam for $5K, or the RED One (from $7K) and for 6K there's the RED Epic, and these are standard equipment for many indie DPs. You can have a well furnished 4K production camera and editing outfit for well under $25K, including a 50 inch plus 4K TV. It wasn't too long ago that the 4K TVs alone were well over that. Be advised that you should research well any 4K purchase. There are some dubious or bogus deals out there like a $700 4K TV. Some cameras have a 4K sensor. But that doesn't necessarily translate to a 4K sized image. Look for "Ultra-HD" and check resolution, battery life, and storage capacity specs.

 4K is not viable as a consumer option right now (in January 2014). But by December this will be obsolete news. The Blu-ray specs are being updated to provide for 4K Blu-ray. The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) has confirmed it will have spces sometime in 2014.

4K laptop screens are available and phones will soon be too. Though it makes little sense to me to look at a 4K screen so small. You'd need a magnifying glass to see the detail present. That's also probably the reason why most 4K TVs are over 50 inches.

Manufactures are touting 85 inch screens to take advantage of the detail. That's a wall of screen. It is truly a home theater resolution (less 6%). Streaming 4K over the internet or cable will not likely be viable for most consumers for a while. That means there may be a long window of 4K Blu-ray as the only affordable consumer alternative for 4K. That would leave cable, streaming, and digital downloads in the dust. It could mean a return to theaters and a return to Blu-ray players and disks. It also reduces the threat of piracy if people are interested in 4K quality. 4K at around 100GB of Blu-ray disk space is a lot harder to copy than a 4GB DVD or 2GB SD download. With people wanting to see the new 4K stuff, lower res copies will be even less in demand. If filmmakers require contract terms to distribute only in 4K they might more easily corner 4K Blu-ray markets for their films. This may help to eliminate the problem of the thousands of indie films competing for exposure on digital platforms like iTunes or Vudu. People looking for the quality of 4K will have less places to look and less films to choose from. The 4K films might indicate a commitment to quality from the filmmakers.

Read more here on the details of broadcasting 4K. Consideration is being given to different compression protocols such as H-264 or H-265. Regardless, it will happen one way or another. This gives time for filmmakers to get 4K productions underway and indicates the lag window offering 4K Blu-ray is very likely:

....It could be possible to fit two UHD channels in a 45Mbps mux or transponder stream - and that’s using H.264 compression; H.265 is anticipated to do better still - the paper’s author, Pierre Larbier, CTO of French video compression technology firm Ateme, suggested 13Mbps may be sufficient for a 4K broadcast. A live test transmission set up specially for CES by US broadcaster Sinclair used 27Mbps over DVB-T2 to deliver 4K images to the Samsung stand, using the H.265 codec.

And this from Richard Wingard on Nexfilx, CEO, Hastings predictions for 4K streaming:

In order to achieve the compression necessary to stream 4K, either the picture quality will be degraded or a new compression standard will be needed. HEVC is still new, and the results are not fully settled yet on how it will perform on general video. It is claimed that HEVC is twice as efficient as H.264 (the best currently-fielded video codec), but 4K video frames are four times as large as 1080p frames. Even granting the claimed HEVC performance (no sure thing), this makes Hastings’ claim that 4K videos will be able to be streamed at 15 Mbps (a bitrate where H.264 struggles with some current 1080p videos) dubious at best. Additionally, a new encoding standard means new decoders on the back-end.

Net neutrality may become less of a threat, at least to indie film distributors and it might even help if people are forced to find 4K titles on 4K Blu-ray instead of easily downloading them digitally.

YouTube's VP9 may make their platform as viable as 4k Blu-ray. But will ISP (internet service providers) companies handle the bandwidth? Even now when I watch an HD title on Vudu there are occasional interruptions for buffering. It feels like an 8 track player from the 60s. I don't have a lot of confidence in 4K working that well on your internet or cable based platforms for a while. But a 4K Blu-ray disk in your home player sounds like a pretty likely option that will be affordable within a year or two. To me, as a filmmaker, that means my next film had better be shot in 4K resolution.

One filmmaker says he needs 30TB of drive space to edit in 4K. That's about $3K of hard drives. Would going back to 35mm make more sense? I don't think so. There have also been online discussions about needing proxy files to edit 4K in lesser size formats. But are these valid (and for how long) or are they products of industries looking to thwart 4K filmmaking? 4K is a threat to online digital platforms and cable companies. Investments will have to be made to keep up. But technology has an unstoppable momentum, especially considering the players from China and Japan that are moving up the timeline as noted in Filmmaker Magazine.

A few years back a study projected that two million 4K units would be shipping worldwide in 2017. But a recent study projected seven million units in 2016. The result of this change? Changes in the projection of sales to China, which is becoming a big player in the 4K market. China is projected to buy more 4K TVs than North America in the coming years.

TechRadar describes 4K like this:

4K Ultra High Definition is actually a derivation of the 4K digital cinema standard. However while your local multiplex shows images in native 4096 x 2160 resolution, this new consumer format is 3840 X 2160.

This is one reason why some brands prefer not to use the 4K label at all, sticking with Ultra HD instead. However, the numerical shorthand looks likely to stick. As a broad brush label it's so much snappier!

Digital studios are gearing up 4K releasing with Hollywood:

Alongside Samsung's CES press conference, Amazon teams up with the Korean computer maker plus Warner, Lionsgate, and others for 4K video. It's not alone: M-Go and Comcast partner with Samsung too.

What is 4K TV Ultra HD? 10 reasons why you should care: John Archer says this about 4K in his comprehensive detailed review of the technology:

1. 4K Ultra HD TVs are getting cheaper very quickly

....it's a rapid reduction in a short amount of time and means 4K sets are now a similar price to the normal Full HD TVs

2. 4K Ultra HD is not just a fad

....there are more than 20,000 4K projectors globally, with 40% of all US commercial screens now using 4K Ultra HD digital projectors.

3. 4K film and TV is already common and it's growing

What’s missing is a mean means of distributing those 4K Ultra HD sources... More and more TV shows are now shot in 4K. ....as well as making it possible for 4K-produced TV shows to deliver slightly better picture quality than 2K productions even on 2K TVs, shooting in 4K now future proofs TV shows for the next generation of TV technology. Shooting and post-producing in 4K lets TV show makers to ask for more money during syndication negotiations. ....Sony Pictures now insists that any new TV series shot on its Culver City lot uses the 4K format....

4. 4K can recreate the look of 35mm film digitally

With the number of 4K-capable cinemas already high and growing fast, more and more new films are either being converted into 4K Ultra HD digital masters from 35mm celluloid, or filmed directly in the 4K digital format using a new generation of 4K-capable digital cameras.So, when people say there are no 4K Ultra HD sources, that couldn’t be further from the truth. There are loads of them. What’s missing is a means of distributing those 4K Ultra HD sources.... It’s not just films that are getting the 4K-treatment, either. More and more TV shows are now shot in 4K. This might seem strange given the current, though soon to change, dearth of 4K-resolution TVs and projectors, but as well as making it possible for 4K-produced TV shows to deliver slightly better picture quality than 2K productions even on 2K TVs, shooting in 4K now future proofs TV shows for the next generation of TV technology. Shooting and post-producing in 4K lets TV show makers to ask for more money during syndication negotiations. At the time of writing 14 TV series shoot in 4K. ....Sony Pictures now insists that any new TV series shot on its Culver City lot uses the 4K format.

5. 4K Ultra HD is far closer to 'the cinema at home' than 2K

....it follows that the only way to see at home a film that looks pretty much exactly as the people who made it wanted it to look when they made it for a cinema, is to own a 4K display able to render 4K digital film files in their native resolution....

6. 4K Ultra HD delivers detail 2K and Full HD cannot reach

....Having so many pixels of detail also greatly boosts the potential draw distance of pictures, giving them a much more profound sense of depth than you get with 2K. So much so that many viewers feel like 4K Ultra HD images are 3D, even when they’re not....

7. 4K is the perfect resolution for full immersion

....4K Ultra HD’s ideal viewing distance seems like a good thing to me. Why? Because sitting at a distance of 1.5 x your screen height means that the screen completely fills your field of vision, making you far more immersed in what you’re watching. In other words, it’s yet another way that 4K Ultra HD helps you achieve at home the sort of experience you usually have to go and seek out at the cinema....

8. Native 4K Ultra HD delivery to the home is closer than you think

Actually, some native 4K content is already here. Most exciting, Sony is shipping a hard disc drive system containing 10 full 4K movie transfers and some 4K shorts with its upcoming new X series of 4K TVs, though at the moment this feature looks set to be exclusive to the US. Most digital photos these days, meanwhile, are taken in a native resolution of at least 4K. Your photo slide shows should look a hell of a lot better on a 4K screen. Sony’s also planning a new PS3 App that contains a huge range of 4K photographs, covering everything from nature and wildlife through to classic paintings – the latter even including close-ups of sections of the artworks. YouTube, meanwhile, already supports the uploading and playback of 4K video files – provided your PC has a 4K-capable graphics card. ....a number of broadcasters are already experimenting with 4K broadcast streams, and are increasingly starting to shoot shows in 4K. I'm told 4K broadcasting will be well and truly underway in 3-5 years, and I’m leaning much more towards the three-year end of this scale.

The BBC has already dipped its toe in the water
with a trial of 4K at this year's Wimbledon....
Sony put micro adverts on the fingernails of
tennis player Anne Keothavong
to show off the detail levels offered by 4K
[this image is only 725px wide]

9. 4K Ultra HD can solve controversies and get closer to nature 

So you know all those sporting controversies like ‘did the ball cross the line’, ‘did the defending rugby player stop the opponent from grounding the ball for a try’ and ‘did Suarez really bite another footballer as viciously as we think he did?’Well, 4K Ultra HD can solve them all. The way the ultra high-definition format delivers four times as much resolution as a normal 2K signal/screen lets referees and the media to zoom in much closer to the action, without losing so much clarity that it’s impossible to make a key call.... [with sports involved, it's no wonder 4K is on the fast track- Jon].

10. 4K does wonders for 3D and is essential for ‘glasses-free’

Watch passive 3D on a 4K TV, however, and the horizontal resolution compromise of the passive format is completely removed, leaving you with a stunningly detailed picture unaffected by the crosstalk, loss of brightness and potential flickering issues associated with the active 3D format....

You're Killing Me

Ted Hope posted about the poor state of indie film distribution, his frustration with deals that pay out so little that screw indie producers, and how he's decided to stop producing. This marks a turning point. I had to respond with this comment:

The main reason indie films have distribution problems has to do with compulsive behavior to take whatever deal you can get. [Distributor-Sales Agent] Lists are good, if they are vetted. There are a lot of unscrupulous players out there. And even with good distributors and sales agents, you have to hold out for the terms you want.

If indie filmmakers keep signing all rights deals, then that becomes the norm. If we give distributors 20% off the gross, or add P&A expenses first, then that becomes the norm. These things kill independent film.

I'm pretty sure that in any other industry, the manufacturer is paid a wholesale price for product. If it's not all sold there may be some return. But you don't see retail outlets deducting advertising costs from sales or taking 20% off the remainder sales gross before the manufacturer sees a dime. No manufacturer would agree to those terms. Why do we?

I'm pissed that the guy who produced 21 Grams doesn't want to produce more films, and because I

think it's the fault of most indie filmmakers who take bad deals. 

Every time a producer signs an all rights deal without a six month performance agreement, or with a back-end 20/80 split after unaccountable P&A (publicity and adverting). they are hurting all of our chances to make a sustainable living with film. Maybe filmmakers need more education.

It's just my opinion (see others here), but filmmakers should always retain rights. For example, sign limited rights for a limited period of time, such as six months for foreign territories (performance agreement), while retaining the right to separate domestic distribution, and direct website and digital. If a distributor can't get you a deal in six months you need to move on to someone else or do it yourself. Films age fast. Some are even more timely than others.

You need foresight when you write a screenplay or start a production. I started filming health care reform protests in 2009. I didn't know anything about health care reform. All I knew was that a lot of people were gathering in the streets to complain about it. And it was completely ignored by the news media.  If there's one thing I hate it's the news media ignoring people.  I will not be ignored.

Out there I learned through interviews what it was all about. My questions were as much for me as for my audience. I was amazed to find doctors and nurses out in the streets in these protests. They were (and are) besides themselves helplessly watching people suffer and die, for lack of health care, at the hands of insurance companies who make insurance unaffordable, or even deny claims when people do have insurance. The statistics are outrageous. 48,000 Americans die every year for lack of health care. This happens in no other industrialized country where health care is considered a human necessity, like food, water, police, fire protection, or the golden military. America ranks 37th in healthcare performance and 51st in healthcare fairness among other countries of the world. Cuba has a more fair system than America does. So this got me passionate enough to see through the making of a feature documentary over the next four years.

But the film was not marketable (as Maureen Cruise, my exec producer, notes here). You could assume that distributors did not want to promote a film counter to the healthcare industries (insurance, pharmaceuticals, cancer, hospitals, medical devices) that comprise one-sixth of the American economy (with a 30% overhead), despite the fact that 16 times the number of Americans killed in 9/11 are effectively killed by these industry lobbies every year. So when I was offered an all rights deal at a 40/60 back end split, if I would change the title of my film, my answer was no deal. They offered better terms. But I didn't like the company, nor three others as well. Never heard of them. No deal is better than a bad deal. Post that to your wall. So I decided I would stick to self distribution on my website and Amazon. Maybe I'll go up on Vimeo.

The point I'm making is that you can't take the first deal that comes along, nor the second, third, fourth, nor any, if they aren't good deals. However, most first time filmmakers jump at bad deals. It is almost unheard of to pay an indie filmmaker upfront for their hard work (especially without stars). In the indie world there are rare cases of the MG (minimum guarantee), which means a distributor will agree to pay a minimum amount of maybe $20K for example (usually a paltry sum like that), for the acquisition of your film. There are also rare cases of pre-sales, which means the distributor finds foreign territories that agree to pay a certain amount (usually totaling between 20% and the more unlikely 70% of your budget) for the acquisition of your film. I wouldn't mind some pre-sales and MGs if I could get them. Add 30% pre-sales to 30% in tax credits and you have funded 60% of your budget before the start of production. With that, you can likely easily find investors to back the rest of your budget. But you'll have to finance that 60%, because you don't get it all back until well after the film is finished. If your budget is under two to five million, you likely have to have private investors do that financing for you. A bank or bond company will not be interested otherwise. Regardless, you have to add around 10%-20% of the financed amount to your budget for interest, plus maybe 2% for a bond. That's the way to get a film financed. Also with pre-sales and a signed on distributor, assuming they are credible, you have built in distribution to your project before you even start. Then after production you move on to the next project instead of spending a year or two to find distribution deals or to self distribute. Nice work if you can get it.


If you can't get pre-sales or MGs, then you are left with the tax incentives (up to 30%) and the rest has to be from private investors. On a low budget film, that's doable. But without the MGs or pre-sales, you don't have skin in the game from any distributor. So I think it becomes more likely you'll see bad deal offers, which you should refuse, or revise the terms of. Of course, your investors may pressure you to take them, because of the false perception that having any distributor is lucrative. There are all kinds of distributors and all kinds of deals. Odds are you'll see nothing at all from them. It's likely you can do better to self distribute, especially with the advancement of internet digital distribution.

Self distribution can include self-theatrical (as with Tugg), and digital platforms like Fandor and Vimeo. There are others that you really need to have an aggregator for, like YouTube, Distrfy, Hulu, Roku, iTunes (which I think includes Vudu), and others. An aggregator is a digital distributor that does not deal with theatrical or other things that traditional distributors do, such as P&A.  Indie Rights is an aggregator (and production company) that will give you some great information even if you don't sign with them. They'll tell you where you can easily distribute on your own as opposed to where you need an aggregator. Distributors have to market your film, which is why they want a take, right off the top, to recoup their expenses. So you have to decide if their services are really worth you and your investors making nothing for you effort. But a lot of indie filmmakers and their investors are star-struck and will sign any deal they can get. Without MGs, pre-sales, or contracts that stipulate VOD, cable, TV or theatrical, distributors can take you for a ride. They can go to the aggregators and keep 20% plus the 20% they pay the aggregator as an expense, plus their possibly non-existent unaccountable P&A, leaving you with nothing. If you go direct to an aggregator, they take a straight 20%. But I would want to have some transparency in their accounting as well.

All these numbers vary by film and with time. Things change. A film with names may be more marketable and draw more interest. Splits and interest charges change. You have to talk to a working sales agent or aggregator that has the pulse of the industry to find out what your film can do, and you should do that before shooting one frame, and before booking one actor.  [More on this process information on Stacey Parks's FilmSpecific and Adam Cultraro's Million Dollar Blueprint]

When most filmmakers take bad deals from distributors they make it bad for all of us. It is now the norm to get an initial offer from a distributor for a 40/60 split after P&A or even nothing. In other words, it is now standard practice in the industry to take indie films from filmmakers for nothing in return.  The reason this happens is because indie filmmakers agree to these deals. We give away our films for free. Our $3 billion indie film industry makes a 2% profit because of our bad star-struck habits. Two years after you make that deal, you're frustrated with the business, bitching about festivals and how you can't get a deal, or if you get a deal, how you can't make any money, and so you quit and become an accountant or you make reality shows or you make wine. You're killing yourselves. You're killing the industry. You're killing me.

You may say, well that's the way the business is. If I don't take that bad deal, I won't get any deal. Good. No deal is better than a bad deal (Peter Broderick).  If no one takes bad deals, bad deals will cease to exist. If you keep taking bad deals then don't whine and moan about how bad the industry is, or how it's a boys club, or how the studios screw you over. They screw you because you agree to let them. Think before you sign. Research. Vett. Get an attorney. Where will you be in two years? Will you pay back your investors. Will you be able to say you made a profitable film? Will you be able to find funding for the next one? Will you spend two years at film markets selling instead of making movies?

Capitalism works by supply and demand. Wait for a good deal. Starve the supply. Create demand. The market can't sell films without films to sell. We see the markets manipulated. But as a filmmaker, you are part of it. You can agree or not agree to deals. The market is what we collectively make it. Every time a filmmaker makes a bad deal it hurts us all. It is better to make your film on the cheap with no intention of distribution or sales. If you need investors tell them, this will not be distributed. No money will result. At least then you are free to make your movie and it will add to your experience and repertoire. It will gain you some respect, colleagues, and contacts. It will be the making of a movie and not the selling of stuff at the market. What am I missing?

Why and How to get a Distribution Deal?

Film Production and Distribution
in one Indie Company

You're an indie filmmaker. You can get by with relatively inexpensive equipment, cast and crew and make movies. I made a short a few years ago for $3K, just for camera, sound, and editing software. Then I used the same stuff to do another one for the cost of feeding the cast and crew, about $500. A few years later I made a feature doc for $3K with some new HD stuff. But you don't need a cast or crew for docs. All you need is a camera, editing software, and great events to attend. However, if you do want a cast and crew, and you don't happen to know film school buddies willing to work for free, you really have to pay them, and you may need locations, props, and so on. So we see budgets more likely starting at $50K to $500K for first time feature director narratives.

If you want your film to be attractive to sales agents and distributors you will likely need some name talent. That will cost you anywhere from $5K to $50K at a minimum for a week of their time, depending on how hard up they are for work. But lately the trend is away from names and towards just really compelling stories. The script has become all important as it should be. With a great script you probably can attract some names anyway, which would add marketing value. Actors will want a killer script before they're willing to work cheaply or for a back end.

This is known as the chicken and egg dance thing that filmmakers do with talent and distributors. If you have a script good enough to attract talent, they (their agents actually) may be interested, but they will likely want to first know that your project is funded. If you had the talent signed on first, you could more easily find investors, or even pre-sales to fund the project, just based on the talent. So you have to be creative. Tell the talent that yes you're funded, which you will be if they are interested after reading the script (but don't tell them all that), assuming your distributor and investors concur. And yet it's not that quite easy.

There are requirements and priorities you have to have in place before talking to talent or distributors.

• The script has to be compelling. 
• You have to have a vetted project. You need a professionally done budget and shooting schedule by an experienced UPM (around $2K to $5K). 
• You need to have a crew lined up (to be paid upon funding). And that crew or production company should have a track record. 
• You also need to register a company (from $400 and up annually), 
• and hire an attorney (around $5K) to review contracts and give your project credibility 
• You need some completed work, short films, or maybe a proof of concept short film or trailer

Whoever looks at your project will want to know that you can actually pull it off (Why should they invest thousands of dollars?). With those things in place you can go to a state film commission to get approved for tax credits, up to 30% or so of your budget. State approval says your project is real to investors and distributors, and you can claim that as a funded part of the budget. Maybe you can get grants or government subsidies, especially outside the US. But the question may remain, is it marketable?

Part of the dance thing is to check with sales agents what talent you have in mind and how marketable they are for your project. If you don't have names, you should have a skilled cast. And this is where things fall apart for me. Because I think that named talent are in demand because of their talent. It's unlikely a cast without names can pull it off as well. But not impossible. Maybe you can find some good actors. You probably need at least a good CD (casting director) to help you do that. And a good CD costs at least $5K, maybe $20K. No, that hot girl you met in college is not that good of an actor.

Here is some in dept information from first hand accounts of this process:

• Distribution Case Studies - Hope for Film
• Distribution advice for 2014 - Stranger than Fiction

I should credit most of my information to Stacey Parks and Adam Cultraro. Although it's general knowledge as well. Stacey is a former sales agent with a website, FilmSpecific.com. Adam is a successful indie producer-director who used the same concepts mentioned above which Stacey discusses and teaches on her website. It's like a grad school in film distribution, considering the huge amount of information she offers. Adam has a series of podcasts on that site (like this one), which are referred to as the Million Dollar Blueprint, where he discusses his own direct experiences doing these things. He was able to sign Tom Sizemore for $5K, I think, since Tom was just out of jail looking for new work (not anymore). Anyway, that is my original source of information and has proven to be solid for others as well. This information also changes from year to year. But this is just the tip of the iceberg of traditional distribution. Digital or self distribution is another thing.  Although, if you go through the traditional route, you'll likely end up with a traditional distribution deal that puts your film out on digital platforms, and if you're lucky and marketable, maybe VOD or cable as well. 

Distributors take around 20% off the gross, and that's after their expenses, which are not necessarily accountable. So you should be sure to include terms in your distribution deals that limit P&A expenses or even better, exclude them completely and let the distributor absorb them.

If the best you can do with traditional distribution is to land digital and DVD sales, it is not worth the trouble. You can do that level of distribution on your own and keep 100% of the gross.  You'd have to do your own marketing. But what kind of marketing will a distributor do for you? It should be way better than what you can do on your own. And I would want a deal to include cable and VOD. You should make sure these things are all in your contract and run it by a trusted attorney. You should assume that you will have to sue to get your share of the gross. In fact, it's common knowledge to assume that any first time filmmaker can expect nothing in terms of money from a distribution deal.

That means the only reason to do it is for exposure and to gain a track record. But will that actually happen? With thousands of digital titles on the market, how will your film be found and noticed. If all you want is to gain experience and recognition, you can do that without traditional distribution and even come out with some profit. The glamor and fame are not likely to happen anyway.

If you have to answer to investors or talent with contract stipulations, you may not have that option. But you should explain to them upfront that direct sales could turn out to be more lucrative than a distribution deal.

Moneyball Concept Applied to Film

There is a great thought provoking article on Slated by Colin Brown. And this is my response to it. 

There's a fatal flaw here.

In terms of financing, what are we looking for in a first time director? We want to make a film for as low a budget as possible with as high a return as possible. That is the financial appeal. But first time directors are unknown. They aren't sitting on the bench with a track record of hits.

You say, pair up with a producer. So where's the analogy with Moneyball? How does that producer evaluate you? Why would they bother? You're unknown with no track record, no stats.

You say it's like dating. Yeah, I get it. I married the girl no one noticed who went to Saturday dances with her grandfather. She didn't date much. A wallflower. I stumbled on her. I didn't seek her out. She was perfect. So much for that analogy.

The find a producer/dating thing is good advice. It's also the traditional model. I'd love to. Fat chance. Something like 40,000 filmmakers are looking for producers annually. There's a stat for you.

Hooking up with a producer is the traditional model. It is not working. Macaulay says do the speed dating thing at festivals. Festivals curate. Oh really? Guess what. Festivals are corrupt. Paid publicity agents get you in them. Some sucky films get in. Some good films don't. Do I need a publicity agent to help me find a producer?

The major fallacy in your analogy with Moneyball is that baseball, like most sports, is a numbers game. You win by racking up points. Statistically though, it's about numeric scores. Not money. It's not about the popularity of the player. And that popularity would be a more accurate analogy with the traditional film business model.

I love the Moneyball premise. But that premise actually is not statistics. The premise is finding the overlooked talent. In film, when you sit on the bench, you are ignored - you don't exist. It's not like you fill out the roster.

The overlooked filmmakers are the guys who made Paranormal Activity or Blair Witch, before they made them. If you came across Oren Peli with his script before he ever made Paranormal Activity, or even after it was completed (with Peli as writer, director, producer, DP, CD, and editor) would you fund his project? Hell no. Film is collaborative. You need talented people in each department - so says the conventional moneyball wisdom. Obviously this is bullshit as proved by Peli.

Blair Witch is a bit different with Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez as writer-director-editors and nothing else. And yet their producers and cast were also unknowns. Names meant nothing. Producer connections - pretty much non-existent.

Thinking in teams? Yeah, they had teams, mostly me, myself, and I, plus a few more unknown but talented enough people they could round up. I pay a DP $300 a day, actors $100, an editor $3K. I have a team. I don't need a team. I need money to buy one.

You may say those films sucked anyway. You wouldn't want to produce them. But they had the one element that is truly important and is missed in all these insightful articles, and that element is a huge captivated audience. They were also dirt cheap with huge returns. Lucrative.

It's not about finding a producer. It's about finding an audience. As Ted Hope says, that is the hardest part. And the value in a producer is recognizing this fact and helping you make it happen. Because without a compelled audience, your film will fail and your producer's track record will be hurt. The connected producer can then affirm that, yes, your film will attract an audience. And the connected producer will want to see that audience element in your project.

Conventional moneyball wisdom says these unknown successes are outliers. These are rare cases. And that is exactly my point. We need to find the rare cases. We need to make the path open for them, or more likely, they need to make themselves known. The problem is that statistics can't be used here. The unknown filmmakers are unknown. They are on no one's list. They are in the vast void beyond even the 11,840 or so who applied to Sundance and didn't get in. And they are ignored or non-existent in producer email in-boxes or at festival speed dating events.

The real task at hand for the filmmaker is to be distinguished as having an audience, or the ability to have one. Crowdfunding could do that. But that is also a special skilled endeavor.

This is not a problem with an obvious solution.

Film Emulation of Music

I have long though that music has so much more going for it than film, in terms of the quality and effect it can have on people. You can sit and get lost in music for hours, like a meditation. While film requires your focused attention, it has a potential to go even further.

Music is a sound and time dimension, but with incredible ranges and dynamics within it. Film includes music as only one of it's dimensions. Additionally film has image, motion, visual time, dialog, visual human emotion and visual and sound effects. There is a vast untapped potential in film if we think in terms of using it to please or effect so many senses at once in the same way that music can with only sound and time.

In this regard, it seems storytelling and three act structure are only one possibility, or one possible element. I think David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, Chris Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, Terry Gilliam and other filmmakers who venture beyond conventional film structure are exploring these ideas. And this seems to be with writer-directors, indicating a very tight understanding and translation of the written intention to the actual execution. Films that seem like a dream structure (or even a nightmare) are one possible structure.  Mulholland Drive is like this. Inception is more literal and structured but seems to explore the dream concept, almost as an instructional seminar on how to write dream like movies. Films that play with time like 2001, Brazil, 21 Grams, Pulp Fiction or Memento are perhaps other areas of exploration, and closely related to dream structure.

When we think about the past or remember things, we don't play them back in our mind chronologically. We remember one thing and then that triggers another memory, perhaps that occurred before the first one, and that may trigger a thought we have about an expected future, and so on. yet most films are chronological going from A to B to C.  It makes more sense in terms of how we remember things if we wrote stories in B to A to C to B structure as Pulp Fiction seems, or maybe even backwards like Memento, going D to C to B to A. But these are just one area we've explored. There are probably any number of possible ways to go limited only by imagination.

Ted Hope wrote a blog asking for a film metaphor, and I had to respond with my ideas as follows:

I was thinking, a symphony orchestra, but you'd have to include the composer writing the pieces, and the concert hall putting on the show. I think there is much parallel in music, and music has hundreds of years of a head start over film. But have we yet to find our great classical musicians and pieces that will last for centuries, like Beethoven or Mozart (Scorsese and Coppola said films were at only 6% of what they could be, in the interview you shared)? I love some filmmakers we have.  But music is so universal, timeless, and soul touching, especially the classics.

Also the dynamics of music, just looking at the harmony among so many different instruments or even within one piece played on a piano, with the bass track countered by the melody and so on (perhaps similar to a film crew, cast, and post team). I don't think we are near that kind of wonderfully solid organization in films yet that you find in music, even with just the directions on a page of music to inform the players of beats, feelings, dynamics and so on.  And I think this is mostly a task of the writers, just as it was and is with composers.

Possibly screenwriters need to plot out what each position needs to be, similar to how a composer writes a separate sheet of music for each instrument.  At this point I think each film department works out their own approach to what they do, under the director's vision.  But if you look at this in terms of music, it would intricately planed in detail by the writer or director, in script format, maybe shotlist format.  That would seem to leave little creative control for the department artists. Yet in music each musician still interprets the music as written, but with individual skill, talent, and emotion.

got cancer? take heart - it's a growth industry

Congratulations. You have the disease of the millennium. The good news is most cancers are treatable. On the other hand some are not. But as a consolation you can take pride knowing that your cancer treatment, regardless of outcome, suffering or death, is feeding the American economy (or lack thereof). Yes caner is a major multibillion dollar industry in America. You can invest with confidence in this growth industry.

No wonder American cancer research and technology is so advanced and amazingly curing more and more people every day. Sure we had a few bumps in the road. Many people died horrible prolonged suffering deaths along the way (and some still do). But less and less people have to die now. Now you can often simply endure painful life draining hairless chemo or radiation treatments for a few months to a few years, at the bargain basement price tag of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just think of all the hospital administrative staff and insurance adjusters than your cancer treatment supports.  Not to mention the wonderful profit potential and earnings of top tier industries in the DOW. What's it up to now?

Yes, cancer is money. And you may be wondering how we've been so successful in America at sustaining this lucrative disease. Well, there's 7-11, McDonald's, Burger King, Carl's Junior, and Starbucks. Walk into any cancer treatment center and what do you see? McDonald's and Starbucks, of course. Two of the biggest cancer industry supporters. Some of these even have state mandated disclaimers on their store fronts, warning of the carcinogenic dangers of eating there. But we are Americans! We don't pussy out at a few warning labels. Hell just look at the tobacco industry. This is what made America (or at least the top 0.001 percent who remain in the black). Be a man. Suck it up. Die for your country (or at least the bank rollers thereof).

And did I mention GMOs? Yes, the food industries that proliferate modified foods all over America make it virtually impossible to find real food anywhere. And if that's not enough, we have fluoride poured into our drinking water supplies. Most Americans don't know this, but in fact fluoride is known in some circles to be a major cause of most cancers. GMOs are outlawed in many other countries. But not here in America where we pride ourselves on corporate profits. After all the working girls on Wall Street need your support. And I have to admit, I do whatever I can to help the working girl. How about you?

got healthcare?, an Obamacare Documentary to Screen in Iran

Out in the Street Films is pleased to announce the documentary 'got healthcare?' will screen on December 16, 2013 at 9:30 in the Felestin theatre.at the Cinema Verite Film Festival in Tehran, an Iran international film festival. 'got healthcare?' covers the events in Congress and in American streets that lead to much debate and a formulation of the ACA (Affordable Care Act), also known as Obamacare. The film contains interviews with over 65 doctors, nurses and activists, as well as street and Congressional protests.

Locations include numerous town hall meetings, street rallies, and Presidential speeches. Director-Producer Jon Raymond attempted to show different sides of the issues by getting responses to questions from one interviewee and posing them to another, making for a stream of conversation style film. He found the experience enlightening to facts about American health care he was unaware of. Executive post producer, Maureen Cruise was initially filmed as a street protester and later became an involuntary sort of narrator with her eloquent and comprehensive interview, used throughout the film, to explain the failing state of American healthcare, where over 120 citizens die daily for lack of care, or the money to pay for it. You can see more about the film at the official website at gothealthcaremovie.com.
 

A better Mouse Trap

I made a feature doc for the cost of camera, sound and editing equipment ($3K) . Of course I also invested 3 years of sweat. But more and more this is possible. As technology advances, it is happening. Look at Adobe Suite CC, available for a monthly fee; or the Flycam or MoVI, to easily add high end production value for cheap. Look at the success of social media and crowd funding to get funds independently even before shooting. This is all happening now. Build interest, gather an audience, fund the film. It is becoming more and more as cheap as music.



There are basically 10 or 15 film genres we ever hear of (Colin Brown, Filmonomics: Thinking in Genres; Hope for Film 10/11/2013). Why? Is it because people are only interested in these genres? Is it because filmmakers only want to work in these genres? No. It's because the tradition of a high budget studio [ec]centric market has dictated these few genres and discounts anything outside the "corporate norm." So filmmakers are convinced (wrongly so) that they must stick to these genres to be budgeted.

Compare this to music with 50 to 100 genres easily. Why? Because music is artist driven, not studio driven, and not budget driven. Five guys or girls get together in a garage and invent rock, or punk, or new wave or a new genre pretty much at least every generation.

Enter digital filmmaking giving filmmakers the same power that musicians always had. Musicians generate their own audience and followers; there own genre sometimes. Filmmakers are now doing the same with social media. Guess what happens next?

Bottom line: indie filmmakers need to spend a few years to generate their audience instead of trying to fit their polygonal genre-less peg into a corporate square genre hole.

All that filmmakers have to do is to ignore such generalized genre classifications and find their own audience. If they can't do that, then yes, they may need to go back and do something that will gain an audience. And in that case, I would agree, genre may be a starting point at the very onset of writing or re-writing. But not as the target for what the film will be. Audiences aren't looking for genre. They're looking for what moves them, and that goes back to human DNA. 

This genre model is based on what a corporate movie industry wants to invest in, not what audiences want to buy. The thinking is backwards and obsolete. Even if filmmakers fit into genres, they are better off with a lottery ticket in terms of making a living at this model, unless they are willing to succumb to corporate dictation, in which case they become just another wage slave working for the man.

As to Colin Brown's article on genre (here on Hope for Film or here on Slated), probably most indie films fit into the 12 listed genres and like DNA they can all be tied back to one of the few genres that the corporate film dictators so know and love.

The Colin Brown post lists the rules associated with those genres. Are you kidding me? Rules? Who is this guy? The genre police? And yet if you study those rules, you can see they are not really about adhering to a genre. They are more about finding an audience.

Forget genre. Just take all those rules and lump them together , and then use them to find your audience. This idea of having to label everything is moronic. It serves no purpose. You can't measure artistic endeavor with scientific methods, just as you can't effectively measure any abstract concept (like art, love, or God for example) with science (StoryAlity; Dr. JT Velikovsky). Velikovsky has been making these measurements for years and yet we're still in "the dark ages" in terms of understanding this scientifically, in Velikovsky's own words. What's the point of scientific research then?

I don't think the problem indie filmmakers face is that they work outside of established genres. The problem is the opposite. Filmmakers force their ideas into established genres based on fear generated by posts like Brown's. If musicians did that there would be no rock, no grunge, no new wave, no hip hop, no rap, no punk. And what would you call Madonna, Miley, or Gaga? EDM? That wouldn't exist either.

The successes of these artists is their originality, uniqueness, individuality, and pure balls to go against the grain. My point is that filmmakers have to grow a pair and do what musicians do. Filmmakers should strive to be rock stars, not corporate yes men. The reason they fail financially isn't because they don't fit into established markets. It is because they do fit into them and can't compete with studios. But they can't sell films if they don't have a following of people to sell to (regardless of genre or not), because if they did, they would not need the markets. The technology exists for filmmakers to sell direct and cut out the middle market.

In this fast paced world of evolving technology where things become obsolete within two years, I find it hard to attach much relevance to years of research, despite whatever doctorate scholars are involved. Any empirical data more than a year old is obsolete. Any data recorded now will be obsolete in a year.
 
This isn't about research and analysis. You can't research a moving target. This is about logic, common sense, and the historical precedent of a medium like music that's been successful in hundreds of genres, beginning at least 400 years ago with the classics. It's about art.  Is all modern art categorized into genres? Would you tell an artist that to be successful they have to create only inside a certain genre and by certain genre rules? That is deadly advice.


I'm on a project now, and really my only expense is paying people. So I can do this one scene at a time. But if I could find collaborators willing to sweat with me, without pay, this film would easily be done.

If you make a Facebook movie page and get 500K+ followers, not only will you get the attention of the traditional industry, you'll have an audience to sell to directly and to bypass the distribution middlemen. Forget Hulu. I can make $14 per DVD sale on Amazon. I would have to sell 77 rentals on Hulu to make the same amount. Even if I sell digital rentals directly, for $5 a pop, that's still 27 times my Hulu take. Direct sales from your own website is the way indie filmmakers can make out. But the audience is the crucial element, not the genre.

You may say millions come out to Hulu or iTunes. But they still will have to find your film when they get there among the thousands others. If you have to drive people to a website, why Hulu? Why not your own, where the take is 100%?

If you build a better mouse trap, the world will beat a path to your door (Ralph Waldo Emerson).