'We had the inside story more than any of the news crews did. Like at the end for the verdict, we had radio mikes on Helen and Dave. When they got the verdict I waited with them and then put the radio mikes on quickly, so when they come out of the court at the end you can hear what they are saying to each other, which is great for our film. I was actually getting news people actually offering me cash for a feed of the radio mikes. That I turned down.'

Franny Armstrong
- Director, McLibel

Two campaigners, postman Dave Morris & gardener & bar worker Helen Steel are sued for libel by McDonalds over their leaflet ?What?s Wrong With McDonalds?? The film follows their court case as they defend their views against the litiginous might of a multinational fast-food giant. Following the longest libel trial in Britain, 314 days There were mixed verdicts. Refusing to pay £40,000 in damages awarded by the court to McDonalds, the McLibel 2 took their case to the European Court, citing unfair legal practice.
In February 2005 the European Court ruled there had been ?an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's during the trial, and that the lack of procedural fairness and equality gave rise to a breach of the right to freedom of expression.?
Franny Armstrong was there with her camera to update the story.

You started out as a drummer ? what got you started in filmmaking?Yeah, drumming in pop groups. It was my dad got me started. He was a filmmaker and he asked ?Have you seen about this trial in London? Sounds like your cup of tea.? He has a production company, but he was busy working with the internet at the time, so he said ?Why don?t you borrow my camera and go and make a film?? So I did.Why was it your cup of tea ? are you a campaigner yourself?I?m interested in issue-based stuff, freedom of speech, animal cruelty, all of that kind of thing. I had been interested in them since I was a kid. I only made a film because that was the resources I had access to. If I had a printing press that?s what I would have been doing. It was the story I was interested in.

What point was the story at when you actually began filming it?It was around the very beginning of the trial, a couple of weeks or something and when I got in touch with Helen Steel and Dave Morris, they said it had about six months left to go and it turned out to be the longest trial in history, over two and half years.Did you have any filmmaking experience at all when you started on this?I didn?t film it myself at first. At the beginning, I got together a team of volunteer people I knew, including a cameraman friend, so I got him roped in. I was mainly doing the organising rather than doing the filmmaking. I didn?t realise that throughout my whole childhood really, I was always recording things for my dad, or holding the mike or setting up the lights. So really, I already knew quite a lot about filmmaking. I kind of thought that was what everybody?s childhood was like, but apparently it wasn?t!Did you have a shooting plan or were you planning to busk it?I was pretty much busking it, but also thinking about it all the time, working out who we should be talking to, who would make a good interviewee, that kind of thing. I had quite a long time available ? much longer than you would normally have. There was plenty of time to make mistakes and go down wild goose chases, interviewing the wrong people who didn?t make it into the film, that kind of thing. We were editing as we went along and doing re-edits for various reasons. When we wanted to involve Ken Loach, he wanted to see a rough cut and then later, we needed another one and we had to re-edit and we would see what we were missing. That was a very good way of learning how to make a film.Were Dave and Helen happy to cooperate with you?They were after a while, when they got to know us and started trusting us to a certain extent.At the beginning, sure, they were suspicious of everybody. You have to remember that, at the very beginning, they were infiltrated by McDonald?s spies, so they were always nervous, understandably.You must have spent a lot of time with them - did you ever feel you were intruding on them?Helen, in particular. Like she says in the film, she?s a very private person and this was pure torture to her. Not only was she going through this awful court case, which is an extremely stressful event, but she?s also agreed to be in a documentary as well, which is really awful for her. Double the stress, really, especially to a private person like Helen, whereas Dave, he?s really more water off a duck?s back. As far as the media goes, he doesn?t mind being interviewed whenever.

Did you plan for how long you might have to support yourself, unpaid?Well, Helen and Dave told me six months and that sounded like a good length of time, but when you make an independent film it is with you for life, basically.We just busked it really. The story was getting more and more important. We realised what n amazing story it was we had on our hands. We were very lucky really to have such a great story, so the money never really came into it and we were far too busy really.But how did you manage to keep yourself?I moved back in with my dad when I started making the film.Any other resources available to you?I used up every possible favour that I could. Various people loaned money or loaned equipment, or worked on it for free.What camera did you use?DV hadn?t been invented at that time, so at first we were using Beta SP. Then DV came out and my dad loves to be ahead of the game on the techno front . He actually bought a DV camera in 1996 and we went ahead using that and that was pretty good really, because it meant that I could start filming on my own.News interest was sure to be enormous ? how did you plan to cope with the camera crush whenever there was a breaking news interest?We always had the entire story, really. We had Helen and Dave and after a year of hard work on the story, they were always very much helping us, telling us where things were happening and where the best places were to stand, so we had the inside story more than any of the news crews did. Like at the end for the verdict, we had radio mikes on Helen and Dave. When they got the verdict I waited with them and then put the radio mikes on quickly, so when they come out of the court at the end you can hear what they are saying to each other, which is great for our film. I was actually getting news people actually offering me cash for a feed of the radio mikes. That I turned down.

Did Dave and Helen?s struggles give you motivation; help keep you going through this long, drawn out process?Absolutely. When we first approached them and they said we were too late because they had already been approached by all these other production companies, including some big names, TV people, who had already contacted them and were trying to get commissions. But nobody could get a commission. All those other production companies dropped out and that is how I ended up with the story, ?cause no-one else wanted it. So they left the field wide open?Yes, wide open. It was Dave who asked ? and I think he put it rather well ? ?Since when does not having any money stop you making a film?? It was really Dave who made me realise that just because you don?t have a commission doesn?t mean that you can?t make a film you want to make. And all the way through, when I was just getting frustrated ? which was often ? I only had to look at what Helen and Dave were doing and how much stress and strain they were under?. And exactly how much effect they were having. That gave me the inspiration to keep on.That put everything into perspective?Oh yes, absolutely. It was very thrilling to be part of it really. Every time something amazing happened in the court room, it was all over the world?s press, but they were getting such amazing feedback from the public one way or another?and more and more people coming forward to give evidence and all that kind of thing. It was thrilling. It was hard work, but it was exhilarating. You must have had a tremendous job just selecting when you came to the edit, with so much raw material to select from?We did go down lots of dead ends, but you knew they were dead ends, like for example the rainforest issue, which Helen and Dave lost in the final verdict. We had done loads and loads on that, but then, because they had lost on that issue, we decided we could not go into that too much, so that was a whole section wiped out at the drop of a hat.Sad, after all that work?It is, but then we are just doing the DVD at the moment, which has got five hours of extras on it... so that means lots of stuff is re-surfacing. I say it was my film school, so it was all good practice.You landed Ken Loach to direct the court reconstructions ? That was quite a coup wasn?t it? How did that come about?That was our first really big coup, yes! It was very simple really. McDonald?s would not let any of their witnesses, or any of their staff, speak to the media. So, we were wondering how we were going to represent their point of view without them. As it was a court case, it seems rather obvious to do some court room reconstructions, but none of us knew how to do drama ? or documentary! So, we made a list of people we might get to direct it and we put Ken Loach at the top --and me at the bottom, obviously-- then we wrote to him at his production company and asked ?Would you like to direct this? and he wrote back ?Yes, please.??It was as easy as that!Some well known faces take on court roles on both sides ? performers of conscience perhaps, or just another job of work?Ken got all the actors, so I just couldn?t say. We were delighted they agreed to do it and they were all absolutely brilliant. On the DVD there?s this thing called amateur dramatics. In order to agree to do it, Ken Loach wanted to see a rough cut, so we then did some stand-in versions of the drama scenes to put into it. It stars me and my dad and anybody who was about at the time, so everyone watching the DVD gets to see just how bad we all are?..nothing like as good as Ken?s actors were!Once you locked down the edit, did you ever worry about the possibility that you too might just find yourself on the receiving end of a McLibel writ?Of course we did, but mainly from the point of view that we wanted the film to be seen. We wanted other people to be possibly inspired by Helen and Dave?s story. So, from that point of view we didn?t really want McDonalds to sue, so we could sell it to TV and get as many viewers as possible. To that end, Ken Loach actually loaned us his libel lawyer as well as his own skills. The original version of the film was checked very carefully by his lawyer and now that it has been recut it was checked again by other lawyers, all working for free.You covered all the angles?Of course, we didn?t want to waste all that hard work and just land back in a courtroom?The later, European court ruling, meant updating, but has it also refreshed interest and the market for the film?The timing was very fortuitous really. We had already been contacted a year ago by an American cinema distributor, who said that if I cut a longer version of the film they would release it in the cinema and I told them, ?Even better, this European court hearing is coming up? and they said that was great and I intended to use the European court case to make longer version for American television, but then, when Helen and Dave won their European case. Suddenly all the interest exploded! So now, we have just sold it to the BBC and 24 other countries have asked for screeners.

Would you like to share some of your secrets of documentary filmmaking?Set up as a limited company and borrow a good libel lawyer ? especially if your film is about McDonalds. Making a documentary is 99% admin and about 1% interesting.Buy your own editing equipment.. If you can?t put the money together (try selling possessions or moving back in with your parents) consider alternative careers.Get release forms, especially from interviewees who might change their minds.If you are so sick that you can?t film the interview, film the interview. Everything must be sacrificed to the documentary. If that sounds a bit much, get a proper job.

So, with the BBC 4 audience, the other worldwide broadcaster new interest for the film and a US cinema release, the audience for the film has grown exponentially has it?Oh yes, there?s a whole new audience out there waiting to see it.How many people have actually seen it so far?We keep a running total on our website and I think McLibel is currently on 26 million.And yet, surprise, surprise, it has never been seen here on TV.But it has been seen on TV in lots of other countries. Lots of those figures come from TV in America and Australia and Belgium and?Did you expect UK broadcasters to be so reluctant?Yes we did, because of the history of McDonalds sueing in this country.They use our libel laws?That?s one of the problems the film uncovers, isn?t it, a kind of technical gagging of people in a sense.Yes, that?s exactly what we found out and we experienced for ourselves. In a way it worked out well for us, from a selfish point of view. All those professionals would have got that commission nearly ten years ago; you know, the nice BBC documentary finished in six weeks.And it would have gone out and that would have been it. Whereas, because we made it independently and it has been a kind of life?s work, its going to go a lot further.You say you would rather film as a complete independent rather than as a commissioned filmmaker ? why?There are two main reasons; first is keeping control of the rights, because my aim is to get the story out as far as I can, not to make as much money as I can. For example, there are lots of cable channels around the world that don?t have much money to buy in documentaries, but they are always looking for high quality stuff and they have lots of viewers. I am happy to give it away free or for whatever they can afford, whereas if I had made a commissioned film and it belonged to the BBC or whoever, they would not get that kind of deal and all those millions of people wouldn?t watch it.So you go for exposure, but then you don?t make any money.Er, no. But then the other thing is, we keep the editorial control of course.The McLibel trial itself has changed the climate though, would you say?Oh, yes. The climate has completely changed in the last seven years since Helen and Dave and McLibel. I mean, McDonalds haven?t sued anybody since and the film Supersize Me and the book Fast Food Nation both came out and nobody got sued. So, it seems the climate really has got changed now and they are more prepared to put on hard-hitting documentary.If this had been a commissioned film all those years ago, it would not have been editorially, as hard-hitting as ours.Is it the case alone that achieved this, or do you think the film itself with a large world audience contributed to the change?Well, it did seem at the time as if we were all part of something together and I am including people like Eric Schlosser who wrote Fast Food Nation and the people who are making McSpotlight. It is a little bit scarey when you are putting your neck on the block and McDonalds could sue you, but the more people who do it and who stand up to the libel laws? You get strength in numbers, so I guess everybody who contributed can take part of the credit.Do you think that all of this, as well as changing the legal climate, has brought any changes to the way McDonalds and other fast food chains, go about their business?It was never about McDonalds, not for Helen and Dave and certainly not for me. They are just one multinational corporation and I don?t care what they do, personally, but what I am very excited about is that there has been a complete seed change in the public awareness of the big McLibel issues, like nutrition and advertising aimed at children. These are big issues that people talk about all the time, you know - Jamie?s School Dinners. That is a huge change and part of the reason people didn?t talk about these things ten years ago, is partly because they were scared of McDonalds or other corporations, even in the media. I?ve always been interested in nutrition and it was slightly strange thing ten years ago to care about these things and access to healthier food in the high street, or in schools or in hospitals or in any of these places. If there has been a seed change in public awareness, that is something I can be really proud of, if I did contribute.

STOP PRESS 10th November 2008"The Age of Stupid," Franny Armstrong's climate change documentary has won a Grierson Award at Sheffield International Documentary Film Festival.Congratulations Franny from all of us Shooters!STOP PRESS 1st March 2009THE AGE OF STUPIDThe Age of Stupid is a 90-minute film about climate change, set in the future, which will have its world premiere in London on March 15th 2009 and then be released in UK cinemas on March 20th 2009, followed by other countries. SYNOPSISOscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite (In The Name of the Father, Brassed Off) stars as a man living alone in the devasted world of 2055, looking back at archive footage from 2007 and asking: why didnt we stop climate change when we had the chance?FORMAT & LENGTHDrama-documentary-animation. 92m25s. HD. SUBJECTClimate change, oil, war, politics, consumerism and human stupiditySTARRINGPete Postlethwaite (drama)Fernand Pareau, 82-year old French mountain guide (documentary)Jeh Wadia, starting a low-cost airline in India (documentary)Alvin DuVernay, Shell oil man who rescued 100 people after Hurricane Katrina (documentary)Layefa Malemi, living in Shells most profitable oil region in Nigeria (documentary)Jamila and Adnan Bayyoud, two Iraqi refugee kids trying to find their brother (documentary)Piers Guy, a windfarm developer fighting the anti windfarm lobby in England (documentary) FILMED ON LOCATION INAmerica, UK, India, Nigeria, Iraq, Jordan, The AlpsCREWDirector: Franny Armstrong (McLibel, Drowned Out)Producer: Lizzie GillettExec Producer: John Battsek (One Day In September, In The Shadow of the Moon)Editor: David G Hill (Game Over, McLibel)Animation Directors: Martyn Pick & Jonathan HodgsonComposer: Chris Brierley (McLibel, Drowned Out)Featuring the music of: Radiohead, Depeche Mode, Boots Are Made For WalkingFUNDING & BUDGET450,000 raised by crowd-funding - selling shares to individuals and groups. Film is therefore completely independent. Age of Stupid International Release datesUK March 15: PremiereMarch 20th: cinema releaseMay: Indie Screenings startJune: DVD releaseUSA May: Premiere September: cinema release (date TBC) AUSTRALIA July: premiere July: cinema release (date TBC)INDIA Sept: premiere & release

Say what you like about Franny Armstrong, call her a determined eco-warrior if you will, but she is also a Grierson documentary award winner and a long time member of Shooting People. Now she's embarking on the biggest challenge of her life; saving the planet. To kick it off, for good measure she's planning the world's biggest ever film premiere to introduce us to the Age of Stupid. Fran's got a long way to go with this one, but I have a feeling that if anyone can make it, Franny Armstrong will. Here's the inside story.James MacGregor 5th March 2009Q. You have MacLibel, Drowned Out and other campaigning films under your belt;where exactly did Stupid come from what spurred you to make this film? Well I have actually been obsessed with climate change my whole life ever since I first heard about it in the 80s at school when it was called the greenhouse effect, so it has kind of been the monster in the room that I have been avoiding facing ever since then really. And then I finally got around to it in 2002. Q. So what makes Stupid different from Inconvenient Truth, 11th Hour, Crude Awakening and all those other climate campaigning films?We were really glad when An Inconvenient Truth came out, because it basically did the groundwork for us. It does the science of climate change very, very well and it meant, when that came out, that we didnt have to include all that stuff in ours. We thought when we were planning our film that we would have to do a quick grounding, so people knew what we were talking about, but ours is utterly different because ours is about the people, the human impact, whereas his is about the science, so they go hand in hand.Q. So it dynamically changed a bit and evolved over the four years you took to make it then?Oh, Yes, it certainly evolved. I mean it started off as pure documentary, six interweaving stories and by the end it turned into this drama/animation documentary hybrid, set in the future [laughs.]Q. So it is certainly not the film you set out to make in the first place.Certainly not. The first one was called Crude but as we went along we knew we had to change it.Q. You must have been delighted to get John Battsek on board as producer, how did you persuade him to support the project?Oh, Yes. He was very easy to persuade. He was the second person to be involved after me. I had just heard him speak at something or other and I was on the look out for a producer or an exec producer who was in the mainstream, because I did not want to make a film that just preached to the converted. So, while I was on the lookout for a mainstream producer I heard him speak somewhere and I just loved his attitude. Everybody else was wearing suits, he was wearing jeans. He was going on about how the idea for a film is the only thing that counts; as long as you have the strength of the idea, then everything else falls into place. So I just emailed him and said I had just made McLibel and could I come and tell him my idea for a new film. And I did that and he said and I quote Love it! Lets do it! [smiles and giggles] And that was our agreement!Q. Oh, thats fantastic! What a star!Yes, that was within about five minutes. He said the other day that it has been at least twice as long as any other film he has made and he has got paid exactly nothing.Q. Right! [Both laugh]For double the amount of work he has never done before! [chuckles]Q. Pete Postlethwaite is very busy man and I gather, very environmentally friendly so did that help you to secure his services?Oh, my god yea, I mean it actually took the film into another league when he came on. For example Channel 4 news did an eight-minute piece about the drama shoot which was essentially some people are making a film. --I mean this is not really news, not really national news, but thats the kind of effect Pete has, hes a kind of national treasure. I have always loved him. He has always been my favourite actor; genuinely, I am not just saying that, but I didnt realise he was such a national treasure.Q. In the film he plays a future archivist I gather, looking back through his film archive at how we ignored the evidence and managed to destroy the earth, so is Stupid fiction or factual then?It is science fact er, science faction. [Chuckles]Q. Right, can you define science faction then for us, tell us what that is please?That was a joke er it is entirely factual. The science in the film is all based on the IPCC science the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose science is the basis for our predictions. In fact we didnt need to exadurate for dramatic effect, the situation really is that dire. In fact we did not want to exadurate our prediction in fact we didnt need to - so we had a science adviser for the film for that reason. We actually had an idea at one point to have two parallel futures, one was good future and one was bad future. We wrote that version of the script but we decided against that in the end because it would have kind of given the impression that we were at a cross roads now and it could have gone either way, whereas we are actually on a one-way path at the moment. We have turn the whole ship around, if you dont mind a mixed metaphor. Q. I see, yes.I would say it was giving the wrong impression, thats why we decided to dump the good future.Q. You had 14 filming trips to 6 countries at one point, so what sort of budget did you need for the film?We raised 450,000 complete budget, all from our crowd funding idea. Which is basically, when I got together with John, his issue with the films he has made in the past, even if you make an Oscar winning blockbuster film, all the money goes to middle men and you dont get any money yourself. And my issues were because I had accidentally made McLibel independently nobody would commission it because they had already come off it in the past; but that made me realise that owning the rights is the most important thing because then you own the distribution and you decide where it goes. In fact you can get it out that much further. In fact McLibel was seen by 25 million people around the world in the end, which is a mammoth number obviously. That was because we were controlling the rights and we were able to give it for free or for very cheap to these cable channels if we would be getting three million viewers in one hit as it were, which is our aim; to get the largest number of viewers. So it was absolutely key to control the rights, which is why we came up with this model of funding, which is basically loads of individual people all getting together and giving us bits of money. Q. And how exactly does that work? Is there a bottom line that people have to give? Or can they donate just 50p for example?Well, if you want tobe an investor you have to give between 500 well at the beginning it was 500 but we had to put that up so between 500 and 35,000 and they all own a percentage of the film and they will be getting a share of the profit.Q. And that is all pro-rata according to the investment I presume?Yes and all the crew own a percentage as well because all the crew had to work at minimum wage or survival wages as we called them, but they were all the crew on percentage as well, according to how much work they did obviously. So thats how we managed. Even 450 grand is a big budget for a little budget documentary, but it is nothing if you consider the scale of the documentary when you see it. I mean it has quite few minutes of animation in it, and a Hollywood score and a Hollywood actor in it! [laughs]Q. Well lets talk about distribution because you have arranged distribution through DogWoof, now they were very successful in getting Black Gold into cinemas I remember, but I think you employ them dont you, instead of them owning the rights to your film you still hold on to them, so why did you go down that road?We are not paying an upfront fee but they get a share of the profits and we invest all the P&A money, which normally the distributor does. Normally a distributor gives you an advance and they pay the publicity costs. We are paying the publicity costs, we are not getting any advance, but we are keeping the rights in line with our central point, that we want the most number of people to see this, so to do that we have to keep control of the rights. Q. Meanwhile, everybody, including the distributor is on a percentage really.Thats right, yeah. I mean DogWoof have been absolutely delighted. So far it has been a match made in heaven it has all gone so brilliantly well.Q. I mean, it is so simple, why has nobody thought of this before? [smiles][Giggles] It all sounds so simple! Ha! I mean we offered this to all distributors and most of them said, you know, Dont be so silly well see you later But there was more than DogWoof who were willing to try it out, the new model. Because we said we basically want a deal that is fair on the filmmakers, because with all those other deals, the bottom line is basically, they are not fair. And some distributors went yeah, we agree. DogWoof were our favourite, because of Black Gold really.Q. Well now lets go back to your travels around the world again; you met an awful lot of people during your filming travels including many developing economies are they all really aware of the threat posed by climate change or is it seen as a western, more than a global problem?Well we only went to India, Nigeria and Jordan. I would say that nobody we met had heard of climate change, certainly in Nigeria. It was complete non-issue. In India there was a higher level of awareness but still --we are talking about a very small sub-section of people here, we are not conducting any market research and also we were not really talking about it because we were very, very busy. But it is definitely high-profile. In fact I think UK have got the highest profile of anywhere in the world, but even here in the UK 50% of people still seem to think there is some doubt about whether climate change is going to happen. It is good that UK is taking the lead in this, but we are still desperately, desperately behind.Q. Tony Juniper who used to head Friends of the Earth said of Stupid This wonderful film is like a bucket of cold water. I hope it wakes people from their slumber and helps galvanise real pressure on politicians. Will it wake people up in time do you think or is it already too late?When anybody is going into any normal crisis situation you must have as much hope as you can and you need to keep going, clearly the future looks very bleak and it is an enormous uphill struggle, but having said that, the amount of energy there is now, building all around the world towards Copenhagen, towards making sure the politicians hear it. Personally, I mean I have been all around the world and the only time I have seen anything that is as inspiring as this, was at the height of McLibel, when everything we ever did was front page news. Thats the kind of energy that there is now in the climate change movement. It is looking good.Q. You actually reached an audience of 25 million people with McLibel, now you are targeting 250,000,000 thats ten times as much - do you think you will achieve that?Well we thought we would go for ten times as much because we have got one thousand times the resources backing us with The Age of Stupid and also because we are talking about the end of life on earth, so it is worth aiming high I think. I am not going to bet on whether we can achieve it or not, possibly not, but it was worth giving up all my money to say we were really trying.Q. And how on earth will you do it? What are the mechanics of getting it out There to 250 million people? Whats the plan?Well we have set up this campaign. Basically, the whole of the time I was making the film I was deluding myself into thinking that this was my contribution to climate change and that after that I would be able to retire from filmmaking and get a life and grow vegetables in Cornwall and all that kind of thing and have a dog, but basically since then, since we have been talking to all the NGOs the main people working on this issue I have been persuaded that our responsibility starts now, because we do own the rights and we can do what we like with it and it is a great pull to inspire people to start acting on climate change. So, we set up this campaign called Not Stupid, supported by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Stop Climate Chaos and all the main ones and basically we are all on a mission together to get 250 million people to see it and secondly, to inspire all those people to start taking action. It all focuses on Copenhagen where I am sure you know the successor to the Kyoto climate treaty will be finalised.Q. And when is that?December. Q. So you havent got long then?No. Well we have got ten months.Q. Well my hard drive is full of emails from you [Franny laughs] so I am sure one or two other people must have run into capacity problems as wellSorry about that!Q. No, thats OK the next thing is I suppose the premiere of the film and I believe you have got some rather special plans for that havent you?God knows how, god knows what happened, but we just had this idea to make a documentary five years ago seven years agoI had the idea and now we seem to be organising the worlds biggest film premiere! [laughs]Q. Now how is it going to be the worlds biggest film premiere? Come on, spill the beans[Getting serious again] There will be 16,000 tickets on sale as of this morning because it is going to be in a well the green carpet with all the celebrities and all that sort of thing is going to be in a massive solar powered marquee in London, in the park in Leicester Square.Q. And it holds 16,000?No, no, hold on. Theres a satellite link up with another 64 venues around the country, 64 other cinemas plus the Eden Project and they will all be seeing the green carpet and watching the features and everything via the satellite link which the UK Film Council is paying for. And then at the end of the film we are going to be launching the Not Stupid campaign, Pete is going to be launching it and then in each of those participating cinemas local speakers will come on and say how people can become involved in their community and they are all going to be given action packs so they can all get moving straight away basically. Q. And are you doing a Q&A as well?Yep. Q. And thats going around all the cinemas too?Yep. And thats going down the satellite too.Q. Well that sounds like excellent value for money whatever the ticket cost isYes, thats the ideaQ. How much are they?Ten quidAnd all the profits go to the Not Stupid campaign, not to us.Q. I see, yes, thats excellent. So what is the date of this world premiere?16th of March.Q. And it is held atIt is held at 64 places around the country and you will find all the details on the website, from Aberdeen to Plymouth! www.ageofstupid.netUPDATE FROM FRANNY, PARIS ON *th April 2009:>>This week's most thrilling email: "I am a curator at the BFI [British Film Institute] National Film Archive and we are very keen to acquire a copy of The Age of Stupid for permanent preservation in the archive... The importance of the film's issues led to an instant selection decision." - Pause for enormity to sink in - We are now into our fourth consecutive week in the West End, which is causing Oli the distributor's desk to suffer from over-dancing. And the Prince Charles cinema has just confirmed four evening screenings this Friday, Sat, Sunday and Monday. So if you have any friends left in London who for some crazy reason still haven't seen it, this is probably their last chance. We've trying to swing some good speakers.The not-complete-failure of our ludicrously ambitious People's Premiere has set our sights even higher for the rest of the World... Now we are planning: the Global Premiere. A Paris-based solar cinema tent - hopefully in July - linked by satellite to... wait for it... all of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, South Africa, India, Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, South America, Thailand and Russia. (USA/Canada and Australia/NZ are only missing as we have other plans for them.) Sounds absurd, I know, but we met up with the one-and-only company who could pull it off technically are they seem to think it's perfectly feasible (in fact, they're shortly doing a test-run with Iron Maiden). Hence me being in Paris wheeling and dealing. Ran the idea by our sales agents yesterday to much eyebrow raising. "It's impossible" was the immediate response, "you'd need twenty language versions for starters....". To which I of course replied: "We've already finished 32 languages, what's the next impossibility?". Which is almost true. Ten languages are completely finished - Slovak, Vietnamese, Finnish, Italian, Russian, Greek, Icelandic, Farsi, Korean & Czech - and 22 are well on the way. But we've just lost our French and Portuguese (Brazilian variety) checkers, so if any of you happen to be native speakers of either language and are in London and were up for spending half a day at the studio checking the subtitles, please contact Katie on translators@ageofstupid.net. The Korean translator wrote a cute blog about her experience which gives a clear idea of what you'd be letting yourself in for. <<