I feel like I’m cyber-stalking you here, but the other thing you need to remember about self distribution is that you, the filmmaker, retain the rights… So maybe Ballast only took $80+k at the BO – that doesn’t mean its monetary life cycle is over… DVD and VoD etc revenues traditionally are far more in the filmmaker’s favour than BO, so Lance and his team still have (well eternity technically) to continue to make money from Ballast. If he’d gone down the traditional route, he’d have his $50k and so the BO take would make no difference – but he’d be a VERY old man before he got any further money (aka overages) if at all.

Cheers

zahra
http://www.pissheadsthemovie.co.uk

I’d be humbled to get an opinion on my own casting call before i unleash upon the online actors community :
———————————————-

Scouting for an actor to play LEAD ROLE – an assassin in a short rude/romantic comedy. Applicants should look 23yrs old (so – 20-25 is fine.) Having beard or stubble is ok!

An american accent or an ability to talk like an old-timey-humphrey-bogart-detective is a definite plus.

The role is funny, but in a deadpan manner – must be able to deliever ridiculous lines in serious tone. Also requires to talk really, really fast.

Must be able to arrive to mile end, shooting would take about 2 days somewhere this week or the middle of next week.

Student film, so no salary! Crew and cast working for credit only : The movie will be uploaded to numerous online video streaming / community websites, as well as to a dedicated website containing detailed cast/crew bio and contact info. Will also be sent to many festivals – luftfest, flipside, raindance, and more.

——————–

Have i included enough/too much info about the role?

Is it clear that i can’t pay anything, that no one is getting payed? is that an acceptable practice for short student films?

Is the promise of a dedicated website with detailed bio/contact info enough of a compensation?

The key is to realise that making the film is only 50% of the job – with the other 50% being the work getting in front of an audience. If you don’t have the time to do this, I am sure there will be others ho can do it for you (but obviously you will have to pay them).

I really can’t recommend “Think Outside the Box Office” enough, Jon Reiss talks about the need for a new role n the filmmaking process – a PMD (producer of marketing and distribution). His site is http://jonreiss.com/ – I don’t work for him, nor have I met him – but as a filmmaker I can’t deny that he talks sense. Another interesting place to look is http://www.peterbroderick.com/ – I’ve seen Peter talk a couple of times and find his thoughts and ideas both refreshing and revolutionary.

The other thing I didn’t mention in my reply above is that distributors in this country have to work harder to get deals than in other countries because of the power of the exhibitors – therefore their margins are quite often much lower than in say America… This of course means they are often less likely to take a risk on “unknown product.”

Good luck whatever you choose to do… just remember to keep us posted.

Cheers

zahra
http://www.pissheadsthemovie.co.uk

I’ve been thinking quite a lot about the idea of self-distribution in the last couple of days having just picture-locked the edit on my first feature film. I don’t know what will happen with my project yet, but in the case of my film, there is certainly a case to be made for choosing this route, over a potential distribution offer.

I think it comes down to knowing/assessing your audience and the film’s potential to reach it better than how a distributor might understand it. The film I am making is called ‘Slackistan’ and has a potential core audience for whom this is an exciting ticket. Without any stars, marketing budget or sex/scares, a very simple teaser (that was made for myself really) has generated 65k youtube hits and about 3k facebook fans. I have about 300+ emails to date asking how to see this film. This is an interesting beginning for me before I have even finished the film, because the signs of there being an audience that will pay to see this film are already revealing themselves.

In terms of this perceived core audience, in my case I am getting a lot of interest from young, twentysomething, urban, modern South Asian types. Of course, there are quite a few of these types in the world, though scattered across South Asia, Europe and America etc. I feel that if I found a way to tap into their demand to see this film directly, it would reach them (and of course others outside of this core viewer idea) far more directly and with more impact than, say isolated festival screenings or a territory/format restricted distribution scheme.

Suddely, I’m thinking that this makes taking control of the situation for me not just a predetermined choice, but actually something worth looking into rationally. Now, I could wait for that great minimum guarantee offer from a distribution company that I believe will come because I think my film deserves it.. but that is hopeful thinking in a decadent, unsustainable and oppressive system for independent filmmakers. Of course, it might happen. But I think this is where a tug-of-war happens between common sense and the filmmaker’s fears and dreams. If I didn’t wait for permission to make my film, why would I seek permission for it to be enjoyed by people who want to see it now?

It’s also key that this whole thing has nothing to with good or bad films. It is merely what traditional distributors think might make a buck. That doesn’t tell the whole story though.

Lance Hammer is a filmmaker who made a stunning, highly acclaimed feature called Ballast and rejected an offer from IFC films, in favour of self-distribution. This has been discussed quite a bit in film circles and is high profile evidence of the choice a filmmaker can make in this situation. The other night, a film colleague of mine saw a British comedy called ‘Beyond The Pole’, which he said was very funny and entertaining, got great reviews in the press, BBC coverage and has a recognisable comedy face. But this is a film that is being self-distributed theatrically as we speak. It was a choice made by the makers. It has sold out at its ICA run and has screenings lined up nationally and internationally.

Having said that, there are obvious drawbacks to self-distribution. I am a filmmaker and want to make my next film and then the one after that. So it is also a choice to spend the next six months or year getting your film out when you could be writing or shooting another film. This is where I pause and think I might try and do a deal if it comes. Even if the money is peanuts and you lose all control over the film (which is how it would be). If I do give this (quite personal little film) away, it will be for this reason primarily, I believe. To move on and create more work.

Alternative distribution is a genuinely current, evolving issue that is beginning to have parallels with independent digital production. It could be the next step of the filmmaker’s empowerment and, as has been seen, online platforms, social networking media make this all seem possible : if you have a film that has an audience who want to see it.

Perhaps the skills and psyche needed to be a filmmaker have changed now. To buck the system using the tools and mechanisms available to the filmmaker, there is an interesting holistic idea of the ‘artist-exhibitor’ mindset. It’s kind of pure as fundamentally, we all find a thrill in making and showing people our work!

Anyway, I had to share these as its been on my mind a lot and saw merit in the comments from Zahra and was stimulated by Ben’s questions.

Thanks,

Hammad.

Sorry I didn’t expand further on my comments, when I promised that I would (still as a director you should be used to being lied to by producers eh???)

The thing that has always fascinated me with film is that the distributors can completely control what goes into cinemas (and in some cases by definition what gets made). If we look at film as a business then we the filmmakers (except the producers who clearly aren’t filmmakers) are the manufacturers and designers etc of a product (the film). We may have to sell the product (or long license it) to a distributor for less than we feel it is worth – because they (the experts) tell us what the market will bear. Using the traditional model of distribution we have to no choice but to listen to these experts and accept whatever deal they offer us.

Sometimes the more unethical of these experts then lie, and skim off the top and leave us the makers out of pocket – and sometimes they lie and don’t even put the film out as widely as they promised or they miss-sell it and cost us potential viewers. I’m neither too naive nor cynical when presenting this argument, nor am I bitter. It’s a business and their duty is to their business (which sometimes is not in our or our film’s interest)… If we can find another way to get our film in front of our audience then why shouldn’t we (if we feel more people will see it – or that it will benefit from doing without a distributor).

In what other business does the distributor have so much power in what gets made? Do the showrooms tell Nissan what cars to design and build? Admittedly a lot of filmmakers create work without a recognisable audience, but many of us make films where we have a clear market sector in mind – but maybe it’s a niche market or a hard to reach sector – does that mean no-one should serve this audience or distribute our films?

I know “The Long Tail” is now a tired cliche in many circles (if you haven’t heard of it – Google, read and be inspired) – but there is a lot of truth in the theory of niche markets and their inherent value. And if by thinking outside the box and realising that not only are the tools of production within our grasp; so too are the means of distribution we can have a very successful career as “alternative filmmakers” (I just made up that phrase to mean alternative to traditional distribution). In the olden days the only place to see films was at the cinema – now there are tons of other places and as a filmmaker you need to ask yourself – would you be happy with 3 days on 12 screens in front of less than 2,000 people + a small DVD run and a week on Filmflex – or would you rather harness the opportunities that technology offers and use a little ingenuity to get your film seen by tens of thousands?

We’re making a micro budget feature called Pissheads at the moment, it’s rude, crude, funny and different to anything else out there – but what are the questions distributors want answers to? “Who’s in it?” No one you’ve heard of. “What’s it like?” – Nothing really – it’s different. Does this mean we don’t know our audience? I know exactly who my audience is – but trying to articulate that in terms that film distributors understand is difficult – so we are planning an alternative campaign that we know will work and that will allow us to reach our audience. Our audience isn’t a festival audience or other filmmakers or film industry types – but they have money and they are crying out for something like Pissheads. I can’t go into too much detail here about what we are planning to do – but if we can make our money back, keep our investors happy and get the film seen then we’ll be more than happy (with or without a distribution deal).

Anyway I’m not an expert in any of this and there are plenty more people both on SP (eg Jon Williams) who have a ton more experience in getting their films seen without the backing of a traditional distributor. I’m learning too – but I’m ready for the challenge and I would hope that the rest of my generation (including you Ben) who signed up to Shooting People back in the day to learn how to make films on digital (when the dinosaurs that are the industry were saying that that wasn’t practical to) do too. We now have the means to make our own films without a TON of money and if we use our brains and the possibilities afforded by new technology we also have the means to get our films to our audience – DIRECTLY. Come on people we didn’t listen when they told us we had to wait to make a film and I don’t think we should wait now for them to put our film out to an audience on their terms.

That’s not to say that I don’t think there should be a traditional model, I just don’t think it should be the ONLY model.

For further reading on this look up the book “Think Outside The Box Office” by the MIGHTY Jon Reiss, the website Truly Free Film (Ted Hope), Power to the Pixel… Actually SP NY is hosting a seminar’y thing by a guy called Bruce New as well – he knows a ton.

I am always struck every year in Cannes that it’s the filmmakers (the designers and manufacturers of the product) who are SKINT and sleeping on floors! Vive La Revolution!!!

Love and kisses

zahra xxx
http://www.pisseheadsthemovie.co.uk

Named deeds by named perpetrators are forever linked. If in the eyes of that person and his friends the named person’s character and otherwise good standing appears to have been diminished by what you have written then a court might find that you are guilty of defamation.

The power of the written word, like that of the screen image, is immense and needs careful thought in its execution, especially if it is expressed in one of the Movie Maker world top 50 film maker blog sites. With that power comes responsibility. Good job Matt took your criticism so well!

Keep up the good work Ben, but go carefully on the castigations. otherwise I fear that one day it could cost you a great deal of money.
The watchword is respect.

James

I know Mark and have worked on his previous feature and also his recent short film, both times without pay although I am not an actor but a composer. I have always found Mark to be a joy to work with and would jump at the chance to work with him again.

I can see that you make good points about his posting, but I regret that you saw fit to name him. That is a pity because the person you deduce from the posting is in no wise the Mark McDermott I believe I know. Mark has always been a complete gentleman in all his dealings with me. Yes, he sometimes makes mistakes, and I once gave him a right piece of my mind – well we’re all human and he took it like the gent he is. Sometimes Mark may trip over his own enthusiasm, but thank goodness for his enthusiasm.

I am sure Mark will now work to improve his pitching technique. I believe him to be a very worthwhile director to work for – which is why I repeatedly give him my time and hard work for free. I have worked with him twice and I hope to continue to work with him.

Best wishes to you,

Aaryk Noctivagus
Composer and SP member.

I agree Daddy lacked a solid dramatic hook and did what a lot of shorts seem to do which is express some sort of mood or state of being. Though in a 2-minuter that’s fine if done well, in my book. Any longer and it gets tiring. However, the revelation did shock and disturb me, at least partly due to its rug-pulling effect. The film may not say anything profound about cycles of abuse and guilt, but by distilling its key point in to one provocative moment, the impact is concentrated. For me the filmmaker’s approach is more memorable than your alternative version.

We remember twists that “get us” and tell friends about them, giving the film some sort of afterlife in a special part of our consciousness that is fascinated by tricks and being fooled. So on a slightly cynical level I would suggest that as short filmmaker’s who desperately want/need to stand out and be remembered, then one of the most effective (if rather less noble) ways of doing this is to pull off a narrative switcheroo that
makes ‘em go “Oh God! Of course!”

I also believe however that such twists shouldn’t just be a handy gimmick. They must always enhance what the story is about. I’d argue that Sixth Sense and Usual Suspects are genuinely enriched by their final act reveals and make great repeat viewing and not just to see how they fooled you but because of new things you understand when you watch back.

I’ve read very few shorts that have a genuinely impactful “straight” ending. So I favour those with some sort of clever twist that heightens the impact of the end as it sends you reeling back through the story. It’s also vital to have a suitably compelling dramatic question propelling the story, but I find myself doing one or more of the following:

- re-frame what that dramatic question really was or what it’s implications are
- show that it was powered by a very different agenda to the one we took at face value
- answer it in a very unexpected way
- show how by following the drama they were part of, the protagonist was missing a bigger picture, which becomes apparent at or after the climax.

But there should always be a legitimate story/thematic reason for the twist and for coming at the story from the apparently contrasting place where it opens.
These could be:

- to illustrate how a protagonist was… manipulated, or short-sighted, or closed-minded, or prejudiced without realising it etc. For us to feel what they feel at the end, the audience should experience the same naivety followed by realisation for maximum
empathy.

- a twist might show us privileged information at the end (a “Rosebud” twist if you will), which says there is more than was dreamt of in our protagonist’s philosophy, for a more reflective/ironic conclusion.

- the world of a short story is inherently very small so the twist is a nice way of showing how the world has more dimensions than you first realised, more depths and alleyways. It makes the film feel like it’s painted on a bigger canvas without seeming crammed with stuff along the way; it doesn’t open up to you fully until the end and perhaps in your mind
afterwards.

- And since a film with a twist is essentially telling 2 complimentary stories simultaneously, if it does both effectively and everything makes sense, then you’ve found a way of making a bigger impact.

- in keeping with the tradition of the short story too, I think a sting in the tail, be it nasty, nice, revelatory, whatever, is a fun, concise way of saying “and that’s it.

Far from being limited in impact due to the short time before it, I think a twist can in fact have the opposite effect, of making the story world richer than a 10 minute run time suggests.

I often read your blog with interest and started reading it this morning when I was quite shocked to see I was the source of it! You have done an interesting analysis and I understand where you are coming from. I would like to reply and clarify my position though so people don’t consider me “conceited” or as two people commented, “a hack” and giving “filmmakers a bad name.”

As I stated and you pointed out, this is my second feature. Perhaps I should have established my position a little more. Yes, my first feature vanished without a trace. I made it over 5 years ago when I was young and inexperienced, but fiercely ambitious. I should have made some shorts, but I couldn’t resist the urge to make a feature. It wasn’t horrendous, but it wasn’t good enough for distribution. I am not pretending this film does not exist as the experience was invaluable. In some ways it is too easy to go out and make a feature these days, leading people to make one before they are ready. I certainly wasn’t ready and looking back, I wish I had done some shorts to gain the necessary experience and that I would now be making my first feature. However, that is not the case and I wanted to be up-front about the issue. I have since used the time to further learn the craft of filmmaking and hopefully my second feature will show far more what I am capable of.

Regarding distribution, I did not intend to “spin” anything. Self-distribution is the most likely route to get the film out there to an audience. However, this will not stop me from trying to attain a distribution deal when the film is complete. If I didn’t think it was potentially worthy of distribution I wouldn’t be making it, so I am going to strive for this option, while considering self-distribution strategies that will allow the film to get out there rather than sit on my shelf.

The project itself is a difficult one to pitch. I can’t explain why right now as it is a unique concept. I am not looking for actor improvisation to save a bad script, but improvisation is actually built into the core of the idea. Again, maybe I should have elaborated a little more, but I am walking a fine line between revealing key information and keeping certain facts under wraps. Suffice to say, improvisation is an essential ingredient to add authenticity to the story. Regarding your point about the word “meandering”, you are absolutely right, it is not the right word at all. I like the suggestions you made and in further pitching I may use some of your ideas if that’s okay?!

You come on to discuss the “partial nudity.” You say that, “How come nudity is “required” yet everything else has “opportunities for improvisation”?” I didn’t say that everything was available for improvisation, I just said there were “opportunities”, as you quoted. Yes, I would like the actors to bring ideas and improvisation, however, the script has certain elements in the story that must be followed. If there wasn’t this roadmap the film would be “meandering” . I could be wrong, the story may organically grow during filming and partial nudity won’t be required, which is fine with me. However, I would prefer to be open about this from the outset rather than hiding it and springing it on the actress further down the line. If it is required, it is one small element of a much larger role and I certainly do not want the actress to “improve your script with her impro skills and get her tits out.”

I am an ambitious filmmaker and continually strive to improve my skills with the aim of one day making some great films. I have a long way to go, but hopefully my next feature will be another big step on the way. I did not offer a deferred payment to the cast as this often seems an empty gesture. However, if the film does go on to make some money I would certainly fairly remunerate all those involved out of my own pocket. I appreciate that without talented actors and actresses my ideas are worthless. I want to engage in an active collaboration with cast and crew to help realise my ideas and create films worthy of an audience.

I hope no one took offence in my casting notice, this was not intended, and I will attempt to significantly improve my pitching in the future.

Best wishes,

Mark

Of copurse if he has any personal wealth or a rich benefactor, he could now sue the arse off you…

My only criticism is your stance of self-distribution – yes it can mean one hasn’t yet garnered the trust or support of the industry – BUT – it could also be because the filmmaker has decided upfront that that is the best way to get their film in front of an audience.

I think the industry is on the cusp of a whole new way of working at the moment and a lot of that revolves around distribution and exhibition. One of the films we currently have on our slate is a definite self distribution case, whereas with the rest we will be looking at a more traditional model.

Once again an insightful post though!

Peace

z

Thanks for standing up for us xoxo

I still believe the twist ending can work as a thrilling devise- I recommend the original Diabolique or Memento- but I prefer it where it’s used in films, like Silence of the Lambs, to provide you with a seat jumping moment rather than spend an entire duration building toward a one-note conclusion.

Two things. First, maybe its just me, but the single most irritating thing about the anti-piracy adverts is the shots of an audience whooping and cheering because they’re having SUCH a great ‘experience’. If someone started doing that in a film I was watching, they’d never whoop again.

Anyway, I do FOH in an independent cinema in Kent and I think the real issue is to do with inadequate staff setups. We have ushers in every screening and, whilst its not practical for some of the multiplexes, its what we need. I know people who work at an Odeon and they don’t have to watch the film because its ‘unfair’ to sit through the same film repeatedly. That’s insane – if you don’t wanna do it, get a new job.

Being ïn-screen, we have one piracy ad (or, more often, just a card with the cinema logo and a ‘turn off your phones, no recording’ message. Its a single fair warning, not a barrage of accusations! Its FOH responsibility – only those who actually are using their phones, talking, undressing (it’s happened!) get spoken to about it. That’s just good customer service!

But hey – you ask a guy to turn off his phone and the other customers glare at you for speaking during their film

It is sad to see the arse drop out of the cinema industry. I’ve had the experience muted somewhat after a decade working in them but I still get the same sensation, even if its a little burried these days, I remember from the good old days when sharing an experience in a large darkened room with a bunch of strangers. Even if the talk and rustle wrappers – its all part of the charm and something that can’t be recreated in the home no matter how large a tv, how True your HD is.

Yet alternative mediums really are changing the way people want to see their films. I cannot think of anything worse than seeing a film for the first time on my brand new iPad – but there are plenty out there who will. There’s talk afoot of geting to a point where movies are released on all formats at the same time, day & date, and when that happens I think there will be a lot more bingo halls cropping up…. See more

Its one of the reasons I can’t bring myself to hate “Avatar”. For all its considerable flaws and mediocrity – at least its getting people out of their houses. Whether the gimmick that is 3D is responsible only time will tell but, for now, it will do

Help! I’m directing a piece of theatre and working it around Yuri Gadyukin, but information is really sparse on the web. I’m still waiting to hear back from Leonard Brabkin, but really need to get some pointers on where I can glean some more information. I’m also struggling to find any information on the Chipperfield Studios. I’d love to hear back from you if you could help in any way.

Best wishes

Rafe Beckley

I’ m not listing these in any particular order, and I make no claim to have read all that I should have read over the last ten years or to have bookmarked all that I should have bookmarked or to have covered all the demographics and/ or genres any righ…

great, I can\’t figure this out on a deeper level. I tend to over analyze I guess….

I’ve made a website to the great man (presumably where you found the poster image?) For the benefit of your readers… http://www.yurigadyukin.com

The overall poor standard of British screenwriting should provide solace for our few genuinely exceptional writers but, seeing as most writers think that they fall into that category, I’m not sure that helps much.

great, I can\’t figure this out on a deeper level. I tend to over analyze I guess….

Thanks for the plug! I’ll be updating the ‘blog every Friday, with hopefully a little bit of something for everyone.

Subjects covered so far have included Pedro Almodovar, Lars von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’, Jean Vigo, non-professional actors, Bollywood… In the next few weeks I’ll be writing about Eric Cantona, Jean-Claude Van Damme, British films from 2007-2009, and African cinema. Hopefully I’ll get a few regular readers.

All the best,

Kieron.

We’re currently reviewing the pricing models based on the metrics, usage statistics and user feedback and will most probably make some changes in the future.

As for the space bar play/pause, if you go to a single track page pushing the space bar should pause and play the track:
http://soundcloud.com/forss/madhouse-forss-vs-borg-interlude-live-2005

As for the UKFC figures, they’re very suspect. UK films take 15% of global box office? What that means is Bond and Potter take 15% of global box office, both made, and more importantly, distributed by the US, though shot here with UK talent and therby qualifgying under the DCMS ratings as British.

Slumdog did very well, but let’s not forget that almost went straight to DVD.

I’d suggest having a read of Harry Dixon’s comments on your poll page. His point about a sustainable French model because of almsot certain TV and theatrical money is exactly what I’m getting at, it’s something we don’t have. It’s not just that we don’t have an inbuilt audience like the French, go outside London and you often don’t even get the chance to see British films, they just don’t bother distributing them. We have a number of directors who are stupidly well regarded abroad, and yet they struggle over here. Everyone put Terrence Davies down in their top ten of British film in the Observer piece, and yet he constantly struggles to get anything made, let alone seen.

Obviously there are exceptions, but if you want to know what the market is like here for a British film try talking to a distributor.

However I think all filmmakers do themselves a massive disservice when they needlessly talk down the state of affairs in this country. Here are the most recent stats released on the 20th July this year…

Source: UK Film Council

-British films bank $4 billion at 2008 global box office
-UK films take 15% of global box office and 31% of UK box office (so yes, I can see a time when our box office is a 60/40 split, we’re not so far off that now)
-Best first half year UK film production figures since 2004
-Number of indigenous productions up on last year

To say “no one goes to see British film” is not only wrong it’s out of date. “This Is England” cost £1.5 million. That’s not a big film. Duane Hopkin’s work, brilliant as it may be, is never going to reach the mainstream audience and he’d hate the experience if it did. It’s like saying Hollywood is screwed because no one went to see “You, Me and Everyone We Know”.

We’re making artistically acclaimed films like “This Is England”, “Better Things” and “Hunger” and popular box office hits like “Harry Potter” and “Slumdog Millionaire”… I’m not saying everything’s perfect, but please stop telling everyone you see that our cinemas are empty and this is a ghost town… it’s not true.

Yes there are amazing films coming out of the far east, and that’s something that is exciting for real lovers of cinema. But I’m not talking about them, I’m talking about the general public.

Even big, successful British films like This Is England took, comparitively, very little. How many people went to see the new Mike Leigh film in the cinema in this country? Duane Hopkins makes a startling debut in Better Things, and it gets a tiny, tiny release.

British audiences appear to be suspicious of British movies and as a result so are British distributors. So either we try and change the way films are distributed (very hard) or we try and help educate the public (much easier). In the past all the terrestriral channels would buy lots of home grown film, getting a UK TV sale was almost a given, now it’s a rarity. I don’t know if a levy like the French have owuld work over here because language makes it much harder to divide up, but rather than dismissing the French we should admire their cinematic culture and wonder how we can try and develop something simillar.

I love French cinema, I love French film culture, I love queuing in the rain outside Paris cinemas… but Voltaire’s Coconuts took a hundred years before they really took root in foreign soil. The best way to turn a British audience onto British film is to keep making great films that mean something to a British audience… that’s what the French did when they did it best.

Can you really imagine anywhere in the UK running an event like Clermont-Ferrand?

I think you do Sheffield and Leicester a disservice, and have you ever been to Encounters in Bristol? A festival that specialises in shorts and animation and I’ve never been in a screening that’s not packed. I don’t know if Parisian short screenings are as sparsely attended as a lot of London ones are, but I do remember having tea with a friend who is both French and an actress and hearing her moan about how awful the french film scene was. Her father is quite a big star in France and she was sick of how lazy and self absorbed French directors are. She felt that the protectionism meant that they didn’t feel the need to make films for a real audience, she longed to work in England because we’ve made so many great films like Notting Hill and Four Weddings…

Yeah I was astonished too… and if I’m honest I’d be quite happy to see some of our endless digital TV stations put to a more interesting use, but my short time in Paris did make me realise that the grass is always greener.

best wishes.
bB

Contrast that to it’s next screening at a film festival in Brest, northern France. Brest is a small industrial town, it doesn’t have it’s own university but it does have a very nice arts centre, and that’s where the festival was. When I got there the lady asked if I’d like to see where I’d be screening. She opened the door and there was a huge thousand seat cinema. And it was full. For a screening of shorts. As was every screening. There were even queues of people waiting for any returns.

Now you can argue that the London festival was poorly attended because there’s so much more to do and the French one was full because there’s nothing else to do in Brest, but does a Sheffield short film festival get the same response? Or one in Leicester?

If the French really are so much more cine literate than we are then we should be asking ourselves how best to move to a situation more like theirs, not just dismissing them. And my answer as to how we should do it – a quota on TV films. Make UK broadcasters show UK films. The money they’d spend would help out production (not a lot, but every little helps) but most importantly it would give films a platform for the public to see them, and then, if they liked them, maybe they’d pay to see them at the cinema next time.

The other thing about the pirated films on the Internet … no bonus features. Same with Netflix downloads and Hulu. I love the bonus features.

Peace,

Rob:-]

I know this isn’t exactly a comment, but I couldn’t find your e-mail address, and I wanted to write and tell you about a new website for artists, musicians, fashion designers, and filmmakers: http://www.PutItOn.com. I’ve been using the site as an artist and have my work there, and am trying to support it because I believe in it. Basically, the site allows artists from all over the world to connect, display their portfolios, and sell their work (with NO commission taken!). The site gives artists a FREE gigabyte of space to showcase their portfolios, allows you to stream audio and video works, lets you create live personal broadcasts, and translates any writing into ten different languages. If you could take the time to visit the site, and if you like it too, let your readers know about it, and even sign up yourself or link to it on your site it would be greatly appreciated! We are trying to make a go of helping out artists everywhere and are trying to get the word out, so please help us out if you like the site after checking it out! Thank you!

All the best,
Sarah at PutItOn.com

I’d say there’s a huge market to exploit for the BBC right there. Start subscriptions for overseas people and see what that brings in… Having personally paid a subscription for stuff from America (NFL) which gives me the product I want in fantastic quality, I can see there being an attraction. They’ve got a worldwide reputation – BBC Worldwide should be using it properly. Loads of tv channels should. I mean – I’d consider paying for HBO if they offered an online subscription to an equivalent of the iPlayer…

I thoroughly recommend this beautifully shot, well structured film to anyone looking to learn something about making short films and hope to see more from this director.

I relished the unashamed portrayal of love and bewilderment that can’t be helped – in any sense – and it’s a film I’d like burned to DVD and sent to every home in the land (how’s that for blithe idealism?). If you haven’t seen it, you’ll probably understand why when you do.

Honestly though, come on Peter, pull your socks up. Write a review, something someone can argue with. Don’t just misspell and opinion. What didn’t you like? Why didn’t you like it? Play the game…

Khaldoon

Firstly it’s a masterpiece so perfectly timed with our Heat, OK, paparazzi overdosed society which disects our obsession with celebrity.

It does so in a wonderfully balanced way – exploring not only the public’s combined perception of the celebrity (via the opening voice over obituary of sorts) but also the individual fan’s private infactuation with their hero (Ford). Pitt also conveys the uneasy duality of celebrity – being both paranoid over possible ramifications of the obsessive attention he recieves yet welcoming of the adultion by inviting it literally into his home. Celebs do this all the time – they court the media then complain about the attention their homelife receives.

The film concludes by making the point that obsession over celebrity is a complete waste of ones life. That the final view of a celebrity in retrospect is strangely contradictory to the life they actually lead. That public perception and private reality are completely at odds – a point made via the “granulated eye lids” VO: From the start of the film, before we even meet the central character properly – we have a dreamlike, impression of what he should be, how he should behave, and this turns out – as we spend time with him – to be a false perception of Jesse james. The Eye lids not blinking are a metaphor for not seeing the true person behind the myth.

That’s how I read it anyway, cos I too noticed he didn’t blink at all too, and I dont think Andrew Dominik just ‘missed it’.

Of course as an audience member I’m manipulated by screenwriters (that’s their job) but I don’t like being reminded that I’m being played with. And when nipples cover plot holes and pubes disguise weak characterisation I know I’m being used.

TTFN

Simon Wright

However the Mozart argument makes sense to me.

Someone playing the piano for 10,000 hours just becomes really good at playing the piano. If they spent that time *composing* then they may be as good as Mozart at composing. It’s a different skillset. Why Mozart is special is because he wanted to do it and enjoyed doing it and didn’t just talk about doing it

And his age is irrelevant, other kids his age were playing Wii or vandalising bus shelters. He could probably put together a decent tune at that age but could he reach the top level of Super Mario Galaxy?

Also there are writers who have to take the kids to school and work to pay their bills but they get their 10,000 hours in by getting up early or staying up late or writing in their lunch hour or during work time or find time in other ways, like giving up television, because it’s something they really want.

The obvious symptom was restlessness. Since intelligent children are often restless because they are bored in classrooms where teachers must communicate with children of various talents, the equation is obvious. If your child won’t sit still and listen in class, he may be extremely intelligent, and drugging him will allow him to sit still in class. (and it usually is a boy because this is fairly usual boy behavior).

Medecalizing boredom and restlessness achieves a pill manufacturer’s goal: Sell something that people use every day and you will get rich. Telling people that the symptom is a sign of something special— marketing genius.

So adding this book’s thesis to that marketing strategy could indicate that if you can sit still in class for ten years then you can achieve mastery at sitting still in class.

That’s going to require tweaking before it’s brought to market.

A quote which a novelist friend of mine, Roger Ellory, got from ‘How Not To Write A Novel’ by David Armstrong.

Except that (in my opinion) The 39 Steps was such a disaster that the mustard spreading was quite a minor issue.

For example: Nobody mounted machine guns on biplanes until after WWI had started. And try not to think about the actual end sequence of Victoria getting shot too much, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

But the point is, yes, sex is almost always unnecessary (except when it’s essential). I find *unresolved* sexual tension to be a far more powerful writing tool.

May 2009 be the year that fulfils your aspirations. (Gosh, that was eloquent.)