ASK & DISCUSS
INDEXGround breaker query
9 years, 8 months ago - Rickardo Beckles-Burrowes
Which production companies, film makers or film executives do you think are making more culturally inclusive, challenging or diverse films which is changing the film industry as a whole?
Only members can post or respond to topics. LOGIN
Not a member of SP? JOIN or FIND OUT MORE
9 years, 8 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
I cannot pretend to know how it is on the ground for a black filmmaker, but if it's any help I've seen no inherent bias in any direction within any of the British production people I know. If your film is compelling and affordable and the type of film the production house make, you'll be taken seriously. Baby Cow don't make sci-fi for instance, but approach them with very tight, character-based comedy and you will get their attention. Any help?
9 years, 8 months ago - Rickardo Beckles-Burrowes
Hi Paddy,
It's less about bias and more about getting a sense of who you think the ground breaking film makers are out there.
9 years, 8 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
@Rickardo Beckles-Burrowes
Tough one - maybe TV is more progressive just through its voracious appetite means things move faster?! I can't think of any movie production entities that are particularly ground breaking, partly because of the terrifyingly high costs meaning risks have to be mitigated!
9 years, 8 months ago - Rickardo Beckles-Burrowes
@Paddy Robinson-Griffin I think you're right r.e. TV, especially in the US where there are around 400 shows running at this stage in our entertainment based history. Though the streaming services are opening film production up more and more.
9 years, 8 months ago - Marlom Tander
What is meant by ground breaking? At any one time people may be experimenting with things but it's only when history looks back that it can be seen which experiments succeeded and were, in retrospect, ground breaking. And which were just crazy.
IMO history never (well rarely) actually credits the people who did the first experiments, but the one who is more cautious and by walking closer to accepted area, gains the bigger commercial/critical success.
Some people don't like this but compare Darius Milhaud - La creation du monde (esp the section starting at 4 mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3GPtgY9hSQ with Rhapsody in Blue. Gershwin is generally credited with investing the symphonic jazz with Rhapsody, but the Milhaud predates it.
Both are great music, but Rhapsody is clearly LESS ground breaking, but more commercial, so it got the rep AS ground breaking.
9 years, 8 months ago - Rickardo Beckles-Burrowes
Hi Marlom,
You've answered the definition of 'ground breaking' question in part, though for me, it is about those people whose work is actively changing film or television in a tangible way.
That change then means that others then follow a similar method or employ the same types of strategies for production.
9 years, 8 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
@Rickardo Beckles-Burrowes
I see what Marlom is saying, and it's a strong point - everybody is groundbreaking with every project in a way, even the most derivative script will be shot with different angles, different technology, different cast, etc.
And to use a parallel from a decade ago, if you wanted to make 'a viral', you'd fail. All the ad agencies spent multi-millions yet only a few got any genuine viral traction. If you're doing things differently, you're either ahead of your field, or a Muppet rejecting the core wisdom built up over years *but won't know which until the film hits or misses*.
Maybe the 'which production companies...' question is the wrong one to ask - production companies will make what sells, and that means what buyers will buy, and to a large extent that means what TV want to sell adverts in. It's not one industry, the broadcaster count has proliferated. It's now many broadcasters targeting niches with TV, streaming, free to air, pay TV, market segmentation, etc. UCB will commission entirely different programming than Dave or Discovery. They're chasing different markets and groundbreaking in one may be simply irrelevant or folly in another.
'...Film industry as a whole' is not as homogenous as that - it's people finding niches they can tap. Some producers make dreadful post-pub £50k films they sell for £75k because they've found a niche. Others make what I've heard called 'wimjeps', the 'Women in Jeopardy' niche, mainly for US cable. I'm certain there are other more niche markets where you might find an audience and backing. As long as you make a consistent profit, you'll get backers. If you create a market, you can be sure the studios will come in sharpish if they smell cash.
I'm hoping somehow I answer or at least cross paths with your question. Was there a more specific question within it that would be easier to answer precisely? Are you asking who you should send xyz script to, for instance? Or looking for a job? Or which film festivals will be curated with films you'll typically enjoy?
9 years, 8 months ago - Rickardo Beckles-Burrowes
@Paddy Robinson-Griffin thanks for the additional feedback / answer which certainly is a great view on the wider industry based aspects to the question.
I wasn't so concerned about 'who' to send a script to or which film festivals, but the who in terms of producers, directors, film executives, TV executives is of interest in a wider context.
9 years, 8 months ago - Alève Mine
There is a list at the end of this article:
http://nofilmschool.com/2016/02/Annenberg-Study-Reveals-Hollywod-Diversity-Failure
9 years, 8 months ago - Rickardo Beckles-Burrowes
Great article, thanks Alève for posting it.
9 years, 8 months ago - John Lubran
Raw statistics tell us a lot but not anywhere near enough if we want to analyse sufficiently enough to arrive at a true picture of the why's and wherefore's. In the wrong hands raw statistics can be downright misleading with the ability to support entirely competing agendas. Positive discrimination ought to have a degree of benefit, but beyond a certain point will tend to be counter productive. Those who suffer discrimination, which in this industry might be anyone who is not some sort of well connected toff, might pool their talents and resources and create their own opportunities. One will still need sufficient qualitative capital to achieve a viable audience, or a public sector subsidy.
"lies, damned lies and statistics"
9 years, 8 months ago - John Lubran
Just to add further perspective to this excellently contributed to conversation.
Getting back to Ricardo's original question essentially considering what constitutes 'cutting edge', 'ground breaking' and 'culturally inclusive' with regards to those establishment moguls currently with the power to enable such projects.
Clearly it's about money and power, it's often about demographics and the lowest common denominator too; very often there's a socio political agenda that's not necessarily of the highest order of altruistically ethical purpose, despite the often well practised crocodile tears.
Today's cutting edge break through is tomorrows old hat but the issue of cultural inclusiveness is steeped in entrenched dogmas about what truly represents differing cultures. There are profound cultural divides even within each singular race where equally onerous prejudices and discrimination has evaded the attention of anti discrimination campaigners; but the issue of race, particularly in terms of those ethnic groups that present distinct physical features such as colour or whose faith dogmas require overt behaviours that are starkly at odds with what can only be considered, just in pure ratio of numbers, as the vast majority of indigenes. The mechanisms for inclusiveness are usually tricky where the intolerance of inherently incompatible morés can only ever be mitigated by good manners and law.
It's a matter of pure demographics; in order for minority issues to achieve a profile commensurate with that of the whole population they have to be presented in a way that engages with that population, otherwise they must remain a niché and culturally limited entity. It is as simple as that.
Where the real breaking through is happening is the World Wide Web, and that I believe will increase exponentially while also fragmenting the current cartels represented by big studios and TV broadcasters, almost all of whom, including our own beloved BBC, are mired in socio political prejudices and overbearing influences that have little to do with race per se. With the World Wide Web we've seen nothing yet. Crowd funding, crowd sourcing and the 'long tail business model' (google it if you don't know about it) together with, yes lets celebrate it, alternative arts and media business structures and increasingly affordable technical advances, are already providing the sort of glass ceiling smashing tools for those unable to attain traction within the current set up.
An important consideration for this new sector is engagement with your audience on aspirational and empathetical terms. Projects that are essentially egocentric arts driven, such as zombie horrors and things that really have nothing to say, are unlikely to be supported by crowd funders in any significant way, unless that zombie flic has a clear element woven into it that does have something to say. That's where the 'break through's ' are.
It's a brave new world emerging; it's not being led by the current moguls, so if they're ignoring you, ignore them, and their parlour games, awards and festivals.
9 years, 8 months ago - Rickardo Beckles-Burrowes
Hi John,
Thanks for commenting. I don't agree that it is purely 'demographics' – that would simplify a more complex issue.
I do agree that the advances of technology and channel (internet) has opened up more opportunities for ground breaking TV, film and wider entertainment based artists to come through who are creating and promoting work which is impacting the culture, filtering down to mainstream media.
I also agree with you that current moguls are focused on their financial bottom line versus breaking new ground. The aspect of this being a 'business' is all they truly focus on when being motivated by ROI.