I was thinking of all the different kinds of puns I could use for the title of this blog, but I thought it best to keep it short and sincere.
Below you will find the first full length feature film to have it's premiere on YouTube.
Its a pretty big step in the whole new technologies thing. And since Four Eyed Monsters was the first full length film (not premiered) on YouTube (foureyedmonsters youtube channel), you can bet you bottom dollar that YouTube have been waiting to premiere one on there for a while!
YouTube have been pretty savvy so far about a lot of things, and I figure that they have probably had a lot of offers to premiere a film and wouldn't want to premiere crap. And after watching the trailer, something tells me they definitely picked the right film here!
I'm am currently letting The Cult of Sincerity load so I can watch the whole thing.
You too can do the same...Enjoy!
Wednesday 23 April 2008
Thursday 10 April 2008
First step to getting on IMDb
Into the Shadows has finally being submitted to IMDb for consideration! For anyone who wants to submit credits for their own work but does not know how check out this link
I had to search and scan to find this little link but it put me on the path to submitting the infomation IMDb require in order for your project to be considered for approval. Be prepared to give up half an hour or so of your time to fill out all the info.
So hopefully in four weeks time Into the Shadows will be on IMDb- fingers crossed!
I had to search and scan to find this little link but it put me on the path to submitting the infomation IMDb require in order for your project to be considered for approval. Be prepared to give up half an hour or so of your time to fill out all the info.
So hopefully in four weeks time Into the Shadows will be on IMDb- fingers crossed!
Melbourne down, Sydney and Brisbane to go...
After three days in Melbourne we are back home, enthusiastic and ready to continue the hard slog of editing Into the Shadows together.
On Monday, we arrived in Melbourne and after dropping some bags of at our now regular, City Limits hotel, met Paul Coulter. Paul has had a long life in the film industry, from the days of the Melbourne film co-op, Melbourne Film Festival and finally running the Lumiere Cinema for 12 years before closing it in late 2005.
He made some interesting comments about distribution and exhibition in Australia and views the need for a vibrant screen culture as very important. Afterwards he offered us a lift into the city where we met with Tony Ayres.
Tony is currently producing a TV Series 'Bogan Pride' and we ended up interviewing him in the art-department store room, which actually worked out quite well. Tony spoke openly about his experiences making and releasing The Home Song Stories. He also commented on the way Australian films are financed and the grueling development processes that they must go through from script to screen.
After the interview Phil and I headed back to the hotel, then we were off in search of wood fired pizza and a cold beverage.
Tuesday was not as eventful. Matt Zeremes was unable to do his interview (so we postponed it till later in the month) and I could not get in contact with Matt Saville. Not wanting to waste a day, we packed up the camera and tripod and went scouting for overlay. We shot exteriors of some cinemas and imagery of the city scape then took a taxi out to Westgarth and recorded the old Valhalla cinema (now run by Palace). The building tells its own story of changing times, reflected in the mix of its past and modern architecture.
We then headed back into town to meet Jarred (four4ty), a singer, song writer and our potential music composer. We talked over a beer and discussed how we saw the music working in the doco. Jarred was really receptive and liked the idea of collaborating with us to create a dynamic soundtrack. Phil and I left the conversation with some enthusiasm and headed off to Lygon Street for dinner and more filming.
The highlight of the night was getting to film inside the projection room at the Nova followed by a free bottle of wine and great pizza and pasta.
Wednesday, we checked out of the hotel and headed off to meet Clayton Jacobson, the man behind the 2006 Aussie hit 'Kenny'. Clayton was welcoming from the minute he opened the door to the minute we left. The interview was insightful on many levels, filmmaking, distribution, exhibition and audience perception. We chatted with Clayton for a while after the interview and left inspired to continue on in our work for Into the Shadows.
Yet again Phil and I have returned from the city of Melbourne with more great stories, experiences and encouragement to keep on keeping on...
On Monday, we arrived in Melbourne and after dropping some bags of at our now regular, City Limits hotel, met Paul Coulter. Paul has had a long life in the film industry, from the days of the Melbourne film co-op, Melbourne Film Festival and finally running the Lumiere Cinema for 12 years before closing it in late 2005.
He made some interesting comments about distribution and exhibition in Australia and views the need for a vibrant screen culture as very important. Afterwards he offered us a lift into the city where we met with Tony Ayres.
Tony is currently producing a TV Series 'Bogan Pride' and we ended up interviewing him in the art-department store room, which actually worked out quite well. Tony spoke openly about his experiences making and releasing The Home Song Stories. He also commented on the way Australian films are financed and the grueling development processes that they must go through from script to screen.
After the interview Phil and I headed back to the hotel, then we were off in search of wood fired pizza and a cold beverage.
Tuesday was not as eventful. Matt Zeremes was unable to do his interview (so we postponed it till later in the month) and I could not get in contact with Matt Saville. Not wanting to waste a day, we packed up the camera and tripod and went scouting for overlay. We shot exteriors of some cinemas and imagery of the city scape then took a taxi out to Westgarth and recorded the old Valhalla cinema (now run by Palace). The building tells its own story of changing times, reflected in the mix of its past and modern architecture.
We then headed back into town to meet Jarred (four4ty), a singer, song writer and our potential music composer. We talked over a beer and discussed how we saw the music working in the doco. Jarred was really receptive and liked the idea of collaborating with us to create a dynamic soundtrack. Phil and I left the conversation with some enthusiasm and headed off to Lygon Street for dinner and more filming.
The highlight of the night was getting to film inside the projection room at the Nova followed by a free bottle of wine and great pizza and pasta.
Wednesday, we checked out of the hotel and headed off to meet Clayton Jacobson, the man behind the 2006 Aussie hit 'Kenny'. Clayton was welcoming from the minute he opened the door to the minute we left. The interview was insightful on many levels, filmmaking, distribution, exhibition and audience perception. We chatted with Clayton for a while after the interview and left inspired to continue on in our work for Into the Shadows.
Yet again Phil and I have returned from the city of Melbourne with more great stories, experiences and encouragement to keep on keeping on...
Monday 7 April 2008
Last plane to Melbourne
It's 5am and I am about to head out to the airport for what will hopefully be our last plane trip to Melbourne (time for a morning coffee).
We have 5 interviews planned with some great Australian directors, an actor and a past exhibitor and all round film buff.
If all goes to plan we will be back in Canberra on Wednesday night with plenty to blog about. So until then, stay safe and have a great week!
-Andrew.
We have 5 interviews planned with some great Australian directors, an actor and a past exhibitor and all round film buff.
If all goes to plan we will be back in Canberra on Wednesday night with plenty to blog about. So until then, stay safe and have a great week!
-Andrew.
Tuesday 1 April 2008
Richard Harris responds to 'Embracing Innovation - White paper'
Richard Harris: A Response to Robert Connolly’s White Paper
Robert Connolly’s paper Embracing Innovation is provocative, thoughtful and immensely timely. Robert is one of the few people who works successfully as a film practitioner who has the ability to step back from the industry, examine his own practice and preconceptions, and really look at how things could be done better. It’s a rare gift.
What has always amazed me in the almost twenty years I have been in this industry is how resistant it is to change. This is an industry that prides itself on its creative and technological innovation and yet it in so many areas it remains locked into paradigms and methodologies that were developed over 100 years ago. And there so often seems to be a fear within the industry of challenging them. This is the reason, whether you agree with Robert’s analysis and recommendations or not, that interventions like this paper are so valuable.
Robert’s paper starts with a look at the changing framework for filmmaking in this country and with a challenge to some of the myths and preconceptions that exist in the industry. However, the greatest strength of the paper is that Robert not only identifies problems but tries to make recommendations for change where possible. He is willing to go out on a limb on a number of issues, but just as importantly he is also willing to recognise that there are some issues that cannot be solved immediately but will require further discussion and negotiation with numerous industry players.
In terms of the analysis itself, Robert makes crucial points about the state of our sector, and the structural limitations within which filmmakers operate – the failed business model, the need for innovation, the perverse incentives that exist, and the bizarre treatment of income for filmmakers whose films are commercially successful. These are just some of the big picture issues that he correctly identifies as needing addressing.
Then he moves his focus to wages and fees – dangerous territory because there are always stories of abuse and exploitation in the film industry. What is important, however, is that he identifies that there are models outside of Australia that could provide models for moving forward, and that should be considered.
He correctly questions the fixed percentage model for producers’ fees (and also writers’ and directors’), which has always struck me as an odd invention, because in a system where there is no incentive for success – because there is no way to share in it for a producer – the only incentive is to bump your fee up in order for you to survive until you make your next film. The more the budget is, the more the producer earns – surely there has to be some more sophisticated way of calculating this; surely there needs to be some connection between success and rewards.
Finally, Robert looks at cast fees, an issue that has caused much consternation over the years, because of the seeming contradiction between the need to attract back our best and brightest stars and the need to keep budgets more realistic and in line with the size of our market. Robert’s nuanced proposal to cap cast fees is a vast improvement on a proposal that I made a number of years ago to simply cap, at a fixed rate, actors’ fees on FFC films (along the lines of the Fox Searchlight cap), because Robert’s proposal makes allowance for the marketplace value of that actor. This makes eminent common sense as a proposal, as it allows flexibility while recognizing the constraints within which our film financing operates.
Robert’s final four recommendations focus on issues that seem so basic and simple that you wonder why they have never been addressed – until you remember that there are very few ways for the industry to look at issues at a whole-of-industry level. Insurance, the seemingly endless expense of legals even on simple projects, the level of unnecessary reporting required – surely some of these mechanical blockages and expenses can be removed or streamlined so that filmmakers can get on with the job of filmmaking. It’s like the whole industry needs an enema to clear out all this detritus that has gathered over the years – and I hope Robert would forgive me for suggesting that that paper is the first dose.
Finally, Robert touches on just one of the issues of distribution – an area that gets scant attention so often within the production industry, and its seeming refrain that if we build it they will come! Robert focuses on the ever increasing delivery demands of the marketplace, which are becoming more and more excessive – and makes a plea for some sanity to return and for the responsibility not to continue to lie always with the filmmaker.
In some ways, I see Robert’s paper as just the start of a discussion that needs to continue beyond those structural areas that he has identified and really delve downwards into the production methodologies themselves. Why are crew structures the way they are? Do they need to stay that way? How do we maximize the benefits that can accrue from new technologies in the actual production process? There are countless questions about the micro that are worth asking and that could take the industry in interesting directions if there was a will to take it there.
This discussion only gets us so far, because it will not solve the many issues that the industry faces that are outside the scope of innovation in production – and in particular issues related to financing and distribution. These will have to be teased out and, who knows, even solved by Robert’s next paper. What this paper does, however, is start the process on what we can do in our own backyard – to fix a few of the problems that we have right now. He’s thinking global but acting locally (as the slogan goes). And who knows, if we can start to embrace a culture of innovation within the production sector perhaps we will even have the guts to begin to challenge the locked marketplace structure within which filmmakers operate. For encouraging this kind of radical thinking, Robert Connolly should be applauded.
This article is found on the Centre for Screen Business website.
Robert Connolly’s paper Embracing Innovation is provocative, thoughtful and immensely timely. Robert is one of the few people who works successfully as a film practitioner who has the ability to step back from the industry, examine his own practice and preconceptions, and really look at how things could be done better. It’s a rare gift.
What has always amazed me in the almost twenty years I have been in this industry is how resistant it is to change. This is an industry that prides itself on its creative and technological innovation and yet it in so many areas it remains locked into paradigms and methodologies that were developed over 100 years ago. And there so often seems to be a fear within the industry of challenging them. This is the reason, whether you agree with Robert’s analysis and recommendations or not, that interventions like this paper are so valuable.
Robert’s paper starts with a look at the changing framework for filmmaking in this country and with a challenge to some of the myths and preconceptions that exist in the industry. However, the greatest strength of the paper is that Robert not only identifies problems but tries to make recommendations for change where possible. He is willing to go out on a limb on a number of issues, but just as importantly he is also willing to recognise that there are some issues that cannot be solved immediately but will require further discussion and negotiation with numerous industry players.
In terms of the analysis itself, Robert makes crucial points about the state of our sector, and the structural limitations within which filmmakers operate – the failed business model, the need for innovation, the perverse incentives that exist, and the bizarre treatment of income for filmmakers whose films are commercially successful. These are just some of the big picture issues that he correctly identifies as needing addressing.
Then he moves his focus to wages and fees – dangerous territory because there are always stories of abuse and exploitation in the film industry. What is important, however, is that he identifies that there are models outside of Australia that could provide models for moving forward, and that should be considered.
He correctly questions the fixed percentage model for producers’ fees (and also writers’ and directors’), which has always struck me as an odd invention, because in a system where there is no incentive for success – because there is no way to share in it for a producer – the only incentive is to bump your fee up in order for you to survive until you make your next film. The more the budget is, the more the producer earns – surely there has to be some more sophisticated way of calculating this; surely there needs to be some connection between success and rewards.
Finally, Robert looks at cast fees, an issue that has caused much consternation over the years, because of the seeming contradiction between the need to attract back our best and brightest stars and the need to keep budgets more realistic and in line with the size of our market. Robert’s nuanced proposal to cap cast fees is a vast improvement on a proposal that I made a number of years ago to simply cap, at a fixed rate, actors’ fees on FFC films (along the lines of the Fox Searchlight cap), because Robert’s proposal makes allowance for the marketplace value of that actor. This makes eminent common sense as a proposal, as it allows flexibility while recognizing the constraints within which our film financing operates.
Robert’s final four recommendations focus on issues that seem so basic and simple that you wonder why they have never been addressed – until you remember that there are very few ways for the industry to look at issues at a whole-of-industry level. Insurance, the seemingly endless expense of legals even on simple projects, the level of unnecessary reporting required – surely some of these mechanical blockages and expenses can be removed or streamlined so that filmmakers can get on with the job of filmmaking. It’s like the whole industry needs an enema to clear out all this detritus that has gathered over the years – and I hope Robert would forgive me for suggesting that that paper is the first dose.
Finally, Robert touches on just one of the issues of distribution – an area that gets scant attention so often within the production industry, and its seeming refrain that if we build it they will come! Robert focuses on the ever increasing delivery demands of the marketplace, which are becoming more and more excessive – and makes a plea for some sanity to return and for the responsibility not to continue to lie always with the filmmaker.
In some ways, I see Robert’s paper as just the start of a discussion that needs to continue beyond those structural areas that he has identified and really delve downwards into the production methodologies themselves. Why are crew structures the way they are? Do they need to stay that way? How do we maximize the benefits that can accrue from new technologies in the actual production process? There are countless questions about the micro that are worth asking and that could take the industry in interesting directions if there was a will to take it there.
This discussion only gets us so far, because it will not solve the many issues that the industry faces that are outside the scope of innovation in production – and in particular issues related to financing and distribution. These will have to be teased out and, who knows, even solved by Robert’s next paper. What this paper does, however, is start the process on what we can do in our own backyard – to fix a few of the problems that we have right now. He’s thinking global but acting locally (as the slogan goes). And who knows, if we can start to embrace a culture of innovation within the production sector perhaps we will even have the guts to begin to challenge the locked marketplace structure within which filmmakers operate. For encouraging this kind of radical thinking, Robert Connolly should be applauded.
This article is found on the Centre for Screen Business website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
