APPEARANCES

Shanghai is a weird place.

Don't get me wrong, travelling there was a good experience overall. I was honoured to attend the 2012 Shanghai International Film Festival. I met the Producer of 'Star Wars', the producer of the Oscar nominated short 'Raju' and a bunch of excellent short film makers from around the world. I even accidentally sassed the Director of 'Enemy at the Gates', with a question after his speech.

But Shanghai is still a weird place.

It is a city that is obsessed with appearances over substance. This obsession is so complete, that it permeates everything in the city.

The hotels look perfect from the outside, but inside they are dated and infused with cigarette smoke.

The restaurants have big glossy signs, but inside they are like cafeterias with unhappy (and largely unfriendly) waiters.

And then there was the Shanghai Film Festival itself.

The festival is accredited by the 'Fédération Internationale des Associations de Producteurs de Films' (FIAPF), who also accredits the Berlin, Cannes and Venice Film Festivals.

The opening ceremony of the festival was attended by film luminaries such as Jean Jaques Annaud, Jackie Chan, Aaron Eckhart, Mike Medavoy and Chow Yun Fat.

The media was there.

Glamorous sponsors.

The short film awards ceremony, which I was there for, was attended by Chinese Celebrities and was broadcast live on Chinese television.

To an outsider or a media person, it had all the appearances of prestige.

But the truth is the festival got the media showpieces right and ignored the important little details.

Like Shanghai's hotels and restaurants, the film festival had its quirks when you got inside. It was the small touches, like the fact they lost a screening copy of my film and couldn't work out what to do until I brought it, IN PERSON, one hour before the screening. Or like that televised award ceremony for the short films, where they: transported us, the filmmakers, to the ceremony; trotted us along the red carpet; sat us up front for the ceremony; trotted us back out of the ceremony location; and then transported us back to the hotel.

No drinks. No after party. Only the Chinese Celebrities were allowed in the VIP area for a drink. We were brought out for the glitzy media event, then tucked away again.

I don't think they did this deliberately, mind you. It is just a part of their innate obsession with the facade.

The Shanghai perspective, ironically, is very similar to people who are new to film.

To an outsider, a film is a glorious exercise filled with beauty, publicity, celebrity, fame and artistry.

The truth is that it is hard work. Meaningful and wonderfully fulfilling, yes, but still hard. Filmmaking is a blend of art, science and commerce.

The film I was representing in Shanghai, 'The Good Neighbour' was completed at the start of 2011. That means, from script, to production, to distribution, I have lived with the film for around two years.

In addition to making the film, the director and I spent hours creating promotional materials for the film's release. I worked on the distribution strategy and have put many hours and late nights into getting the film out for the world to see.

But that is all in the background.

What an outsider observes is me attending a glitzy awards ceremony in Shanghai, wearing a nice suit.

It looks like easy, glamorous work, but appearances are deceiving.

It's also the reason why everyone at the major film festivals appear so eager to kick back and enjoy themselves. They are eager because it is really the culmination of hundreds of hours of work behind the scenes. They've earned a drink or two.

If they are allowed in the VIP area, of course.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

COMPLEXITY

I am writing this through the remnants of jet lag, so please bear with me. I just got back into Sydney from Thailand and The Shanghai International Film Festival, hence the late arrival of this instalment.

It's funny how life makes a simple thing, like sending a newsletter, more complex. 

To someone outside of the world or the environment you are in, it may seem that the complexity is unnecessary.

Before I left for Shanghai, I was asked an interesting question at the premiere of a feature film ('Careless Love') that I worked on. We were drinking in the bar upstairs after the film screened and a friend of a colleague asked me about casting extras for a film.  

'Surely it can't be that complicated?', she asked. 'For instance, in the university scene, you simply show up at the uni and just ask students and they become your extras?'

I thought about that for a minute. There is comfort in that sort of simplicity. 

But I knew the answer. 

Cost. Doing things out of desperation, at the last minute, inevitably costs you more than if you plan them well in advance. 

Insurance. If someone gets injured on your set, you are legally liable. 

Reliability. You need to be sure they will be there on the day. Missing extras equals lost shots, equals problems. 

Permission. Filming somebody actually legally requires their permission. Otherwise they can bury your film or worse, hold it to ransom. 

Choice. Organise extras and you get what you want. Improvise the extras casting and you take what you get. 

Such a simple thing, with a seemingly simple answer, has so many layers. 

The truth is, most tasks are like that. 

The trick for you is to make these tasks, with their subtle layers of complexity, seem simple. 

That's the kind of person filmmakers want to work with. 

Do that, and you will have a long career. 

- - - - - - - - -

GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

EXHIBITORS

The movies are overpriced.

There, I said it.

Going to a cinema is one of the few experiences where you get a variable quality product for the same highest price. The costs of production don't factor into the final price at all.

Imagine you went to a restaurant and had to pay a flat fee of $75. For that one price you could either choose the gourmet hand-fed lobster and truffle rissoto...or McDonalds chicken nuggets.

Which would you choose? The risotto, of course, to get your money's worth. 

That is a normal economic decision of a normal human being.

And that is exactly what happens with cinema tickets. The $200 million blockbuster, with all the bells and whistles, costs the same to see as a small independent film that costs $500,000 to make.  

It is absolutely bizzare, and the end result is empty cinemas and underperforming small independent films. That is what happens when you take away real choice from a consumer group. People choose the most 'bang for their buck' option.

The other result is that many independent producers have been quite vocal in saying they will release their film in cinemas, but only for a short time as a marketing tool. The hope, the producers say, is to then actually make a profit on the other platforms like DVD and Video on Demand (VOD). The trade-off is that the film will actually LOSE money during its run in the cinema.

You may be inclined to ask, who is to blame for this situation?

It's not a simple answer, everyone wants their cut after all, but the most fault lies with the exhibitors. The people who run the cinemas.

Exhibitors are like the spoiled only child we all knew in primary school. They always wanted it their way, even when they contradicted themselves.

Like when the head of the National Association of Theatre Owners, in the USA, announces that releasing a film in cinemas should not be thought of as 'just a marketing tool'. The implications from this and other announcements by the Association is that the cinema experience is at least equal to the other platforms, like VOD and DVD.  

http://trulyfreefilm.hopeforfilm.com/2012/05/theaters-should-not-be-used-as-mere-marking-platforms-for-home-release.html

The hilarious irony of such an announcement is that exhibitors have shown a penchant for wanting to be held in higher standing than the other viewing platforms.

As recently as the Brett Ratner film 'Tower Heist', which the producers wanted to release onto VOD in as little as THREE WEEKS after it started in cinemas, exhibitors have threatened the boycott of a film.

It it was released on VOD in three weeks, the exhibitors said, we will not show it in cinemas at all.

In the end, Universal Pictures had to back down to the exhibitor's demands. 

So, what does this little stoush mean?

It means that exhibitors believe they are at least the equal of the other movie viewing platforms...but...they want to be first!! Don't hold them as equal to the others!

Confused?

I'll cut through the rhetoric for you. The exhibitors want things to stay the same, where they have a captive audience, can charge what they want and raise prices with impunity. 

But the world has changed. 

The internet exists. Piracy exists.

The exhibitors want to pretend that the world is still flat.

How is the 'flat earth' map business going these days? 

- - - - - - - - -

GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

DANGER WAS HIS LAST NAME

At 4 years old he was diagnosed with Leukemia.

He fought it for his entire life.

At 21 years old, the cancer finally claimed him.

That could have been the story of Nick Danger.

But it isn't.

I met Nick while I studied at the Sydney Film School. We had different sensibilities, he being an avid South Park fan, and I the Irish-Catholic sarcastic humourist.

But his energy was undeniable.

He spoke early on of his heroes, Kevin Smith and Robert Rodriguez. The kings of low budget character-driven films that became major players in Hollywood. Nick wanted to emulate their storytelling styles for his own ideas.

For our first films at the Film School, I made a documentary about whether or not I was related to Mel Gibson and Nick made a documentary about his long term battle with cancer. Both were honest films, with some humour thrown in for good measure.

Funnily enough, both of our films were eventually selected for the same short film festival in St Kilda, Australia.

And then he was gone. We both graduated and we didn't really keep in touch.

Then, recently, I heard that he had achieved his dream of making a low budget feature film 'Sick', and that it was screening in LA as a part of the Independent Filmmakers Showcase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBgT96kJcXc

http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?a=18540&s=news_files

Suddenly, he and I were back in touch again, trying to organise a screening of his film for The Sydney Film School community. He was upbeat and energetic, looking forward to screening and talking about the film.

I was taking far too long to get it organised, bumping it down on my priority list under developing scripts, working on my own films and other related issues. With the benefit of hindsight, I would have done better.

Then a week ago I login to Facebook for a quick check in, only to see the bulletin "RIP Nick Danger".

I thought it was a joke at first. A promotional opportunity for his film. The film was called 'Sick', after all.

But slowly I realised it was real.

As always happens in these situations, the blanks were filled in by multiple people.

Nick had become sick again some time ago. He was keeping it as quiet as possible, understandably.

Finally, it had become too much for his body to cope with. I am told he spent his penultimate night talking and joking with friends, then he passed away peacefully in his sleep the next day.

Nick Danger.

At 4 years old he was diagnosed with Leukemia.

He fought it for his entire life.

At 21 years old, the cancer finally claimed him.

He never let it get in the way of his dreams.

In those 21 years he graduated from film school, made short films that were acclaimed and chosen for film festivals, achieved his dream of making a low budget feature film, and had the feature film selected to screen in Hollywood.

He lived more in his 21 years than most people do in a lifetime.

That will be the story of Nick Danger.


- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

I AM THE HARBRINGER OF DOOM, BUT I'M STILL NICE

One of the worst things that you will ever have to do is tell another person that they no longer have a job.

There is no way to put a positive spin on this sort of news.

Sometimes it's their fault, but most often not.

But it never matters. Looking into the face of another person and telling them they have lost their livelihood, their security, never goes well. The why doesn't matter at that point.

I have had to do it when I was producing a film, due to the incompetence of the person involved. She wasn't shocked when it dawned on her what I was saying, but there was a moment when she said, "Are you firing me?"

And then, no matter how detached you are from your feelings, you have to look them in the eyes and say "yes".

I have had to look a grown man in the face, a family man, and tell him he no longer has a job to provide for them. When his eyes watered slightly, and his lip trembled a little, I begged the universe to stop him from crying. I knew I would follow if he did.

You try and be the good guy. If it were up to you it would be different. You try and show that you are still "nice". It's a hard sell.

In film and media, within companies and on creative projects, there is sometimes a bravado that comes from wielding this sort of power. I've seen it first hand on several film projects. "I'll just kick him off the project," the courageous man or woman says.

But eventually, when the reality of having to have the conversation sets in, the bravery tends to diminish a little. 

Because, deep down, we are all just people. Imperfect. Trying our best. Trying to make it work.

The best people I know, the ones I would work with in a heartbeat, will preserve a person's dignity while having to give this news. It is their ability to empathise with the person losing their job that also makes them great filmmakers. Empathy. Respect. 

You should never be too quick to exercise absolute power over others' livelihoods.

Having to fire people is necessary sometimes, I know. 

But you should always hate it.

- - - - - - - - -

GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

OAFILMS NEWS - The Good Neighbour Teaser Trailer

Hello world,

I have put The Good Neighbour's 15 second teaser trailer in the Opening Act Films VIDEO GALLERY.

http://www.openingactfilms.com/video-gallery.html

Enjoy!

OAFILMS NEWS - 'The Good Neighbour' moves into Europe!

Our short film, 'The Good Neighbour' is traversing the globe this year.

It has been selected in excellent festivals in Australia like Byron Bay, Sandfly, The Blue Mountains Film Festival  and The Warrambeen Film Festival.

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/good-neighbour-selected-for-byron-bay.html

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/another-festival-selection-for-good.html

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/good-neighbour-in-sandfly-film-festival.html

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/good-neighbour-wins-at-blue-mountains.html

Then the film made its North American premiere in The Rochester International Film Festival, New York.

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/good-neighbour-is-off-to-america-and-is.html

Recently, we received word it has been selected into 'Mobile SIFF' the short film section of the wonderful Shanghai International Film Festival.

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/good-neighbour-is-going-to-shanghai.html

And now, we have received word that 'The Good Neighbour has been selected to screen in the Krakow Film Market, part of the American Academy Accredited 'Krakow Film Festival' in Poland!

We are so excited and proud to have been selected for these festivals, and overwhelmed by the positive response to our film. The most important thing for us as filmmakers is that our film is seen by, and challenges, as many people as possible. These festival selections will ensure that happens. 

Thanks to the Krakow Film Festival for welcoming us to Europe!

Remember, we are also posting information to our Facebook Page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Good-Neighbour/131722040230896) 

OAFILMS NEWS - 'The Good Neighbour' is going to Shanghai!!

We are going global! 

First it was Rochester, USA for the Rochester International Film Festival:

http://www.openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/good-neighbour-is-off-to-america-and-is.html

...and now our film, 'The Good Neighbour' has been selected for 'Mobile SIFF' the short film section of the Shanghai International Film Festival!

http://www.siff.com/MovieEn/Default.aspx

This is an EXCELLENT film festival, which is accredited by the Fédération Internationale des Associations de Producteurs de Films (FIAPF) along with many esteemed festivals including Berlin, Cannes and Venice.

I have been invited to come to Shanghai to present the film at the Festival in late June. More updates to come.

Congratulations to everyone who helped us make the film and have contributed to its success!

And remember, we are also posting information to our Facebook Page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Good-Neighbour/131722040230896) which you can 'like' to keep in touch with the film. 

OAFILMS NEWS - 'The Good Neighbour' is screening in my hometown

You never forget where you grew up.

I grew up in Penrith, a town one hour west of Sydney.

In a nice nostalgic moment for me, they are screening my film 'The Good Neighbour' there on 9th June.

Homecomings are sweet.

http://www.bluemountainsfilmfestival.com/events.htm

THE BEAUTIFUL, HORRIBLE POWER OF VIDEO

There are some stories that are hard to tell.

Similarly, there are some truths we refuse to believe unless we see them with our own eyes. 'Seeing is believing' as the well worn saying goes.

This simple fact is why the early pioneers of motion pictures predicted its future power. This power should be respected, they said.

As technology has changed, and video has become more accessible, this power has grown.

Now a camera can be as small as a lipstick tube or a lapel pin. There are no limits to what can be 'seen' and therefore 'believed'.

Much as many won't admit it, this power can be both beautiful and horrible, despite even the intentions of the user.

Video has changed the political discourse against wars and thus saved lives.

Video (and Al Gore) changed the climate change debate.

But not all examples are positive.

Recently, a United States Army Officer's death was witnessed by his wife, via the video calling program, Skype.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/world/13608936/us-army-officer-dies-while-chatting-with-wife-on-skype/

Apparently, they were chatting via Skype, while he was stationed in Afghanistan, when something horrible happened. The US Army is not releasing the details, save to say his wife witnessed the event over the video call.

Once upon a time, she would have just gotten a letter.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Seeing is, unfortunately, believing.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

PIRATES WIN THIS BATTLE, BUT...

Another day, another battle fought and decided over piracy:

http://if.com.au/2012/04/20/article/High-Court-rules-in-favour-of-iiNet/MUNAFKPXCQ.html

This time, 'iiNet' an Australian Internet Service Provider (ISP), has won a battle in the highest court in Australia (the unimaginatively named High Court of Australia) against the Australian Federation against Copyright Theft (AFACT).

AFACT was attempting to have iiNet held responsible for the copyright breaching behaviour of their customers. AFACT argued that, given iiNet knew that a large volume of the traffic on their service was file sharing (a major source of piracy) via Bit Torrent, they were partially responsible for the illegal activities.

The High Court disagreed.

The court ruled that the ISP cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of a customer, much like a gun maker cannot be held responsible for the activity of a mass murderer.

Interestingly, the court did say that the ISP's power was "limited to terminating contractual relationships with customers engaging in file sharing and piracy."

This would leave the door open to the "three strikes of pirating and your service is terminated" rules we have seen elsewhere in the world. I, and others, have been predicting the global spread of this model for a while:

http://www.openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/tidbits.html

Could this single sentence in a high court decision be the tipping point that brings the "three strikes" framework here?

Time will tell.

In the mean time, the head of AFACT released a statement saying that their loss in this court case demonstrated that legislative change is needed. AFACT's argument is that they have fought in the courts as far as they can, so Australian copyright laws will have to change for justice to be done.

http://if.com.au/2012/04/20/article/High-Court-decision-shows-Government-needs-to-keep-pace-with-online-environment/HJGVWMVHMA

Otherwise, AFACT says, Australia's copyright protections will fall even further behind the rest of the world.

Sounds like fighting words to me.

The battle has been decided, but the war still rages on.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

THE DUBIOUS TALE OF THE STARVING FILMMAKER

Once upon a time there were three cynical and industry hardened filmmakers, sitting under a tree.

By the fading light of the afternoon sun, the three were grilling a single kipper over a small fire. As the fish cooked delicately, they passed the time with industry war stories.

"With all these cheap new cameras and filmmaking tools, there are too many people in the market!", said one, sewing up a hole in his dirty sock.

"Yeah! It's too crowded now. No-one can make a living anymore.", said another, padding his tattered winter coat with torn out script pages.

"Definitely," piped up the filmmaker cooking the fish, "There is no future in this game anymore."

Suddenly, a corporate type, in a suit and tie, appears over a nearby hill. He approaches the filmmakers, removing his $600 Armani sunglasses. As he arrives at the filmmaker's makeshift camp, he brandishes a warm smile and says, "Excuse me gentlemen, but I have need of your services for a corporate video." 

The filmmakers observe him for a moment.

The suited man's smile drops slightly.

Finally, the cook replies, "Can't you see we are busy?"

"Yeah," said the sock mender, "Go bother someone else."

The corporate man trots away, defeated.

The men sit silently, watching the cooking fish.

Finally, the coat padder says, "They should have a telethon: 'Feed the starving artists'."

"Yeah," they reply.

THE END.

The above may seem silly, but its only a slightly askew satire of the discussion that is happening in the industry. 

While the established practitioners are quick to point out all the ways the new filmmaking environment is worse, there is data that paints a different picture.

Oddly though, as the resources to produce video have become cheaper and therefore led to more filmmakers, so too has the APPETITE for video grown.

The latest research is that video is going from a luxury on a company's website to a necessity: 

http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1008957&ecid=a6506033675d47f881651943c21c5ed4

This is because the norms around what we expect to see have changed, especially for younger generations who have grown up with Youtube. Video used to be a luxury, but it is fast becoming the new minimum.

The money from these corporate videos could do many things. For example, it could keep a filmmaker's bills paid until their developing 'coming of age, sci-fi, horror, romantic comedy' script is ready to go into production.

So, who says there is not enough opportunities out there?

Or is ego getting in the way?

- - - - - - - - -

GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

ARE THE BRITCHES TOO SMALL, OR...?

My friend got evicted.

Not from his home. Don't worry, he still has somewhere to sleep.

From his film production studio space.

It wasn't his fault.

The studio was a VERY large space, controlled by one supreme overlord who rented it from a landlord.

Within the space were an eclectic mix of web designers, promo makers, music producers and so on.

Unfortunately, while the group was certainly talented, there was not much happening in the way of cash flow.

Idealists.

But they still wanted a safety blanket in the form of a "studio".

What do I mean by a safety blanket?

For anyone pursuing a career independently, which covers a lot of entertainment professionals, there is a lingering uncertainty in not having the traditional career path.

A 'career path', for you realists out there, is a psychological safety blanket. It doesn't really exist, but it certainly makes a person feel better if they are suffering through an awful job or a career setback.

"It's OK, I'm on the right career path", they say.

The only reason the illusion of a career path exists, is because there are actual employers out there to feed the myth.

In the film, TV or media industries, this is not really the case. The employers exist, but you are cast as one of a million plebians trying to get in, and the walls are allegedly VERY high.

The truth is that there are many ways to get in. But they are not as clear and uniform as most industries.

And, for some people, this uncertainty is too much to bear, so they will latch onto something that makes the whole endeavour feel "real". Something that feels like it is on the "right career path".

Like an indie film studio.

Except that, unless the studio is really producing and selling content, even on a low emerging level, it is not really on any path at all.

So the whole thing folded.

But I don't think this is a bad thing.

There is a reason many businesses start small and build up.

It's called 'overheads'. The cost of running a business.

Running a small business may be a dent to your ego, but it also makes you lean enough to grow at a sustainable rate.

In this case, the studio overlord jumped in too deep, starting a studio when he should have just had a desk.

My friend has no safety blanket any more.

It's scary.

But that fear breeds creativity.

Creativity gives him a better chance at success than the safety blanket ever did.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

PIECES OF EIGHT

Sometimes, you are lucky enough to be spoilt for choice. 

Sometimes choices get taken away from you.

This week, I have two gems for you, to the point where I couldn't really split them. So, I am giving you both.

THE FIRST, THE PEOPLE HAVE NO CHOICES

Ripped off.

That's how I feel.

So do a lot of other filmmakers.

The self-touted 'people's choice awards' of the Australian film industry, the 'Inside Film Awards' have cancelled their 2012 awards run.

http://if.com.au/2012/04/18/article/Inside-Film-Awards-put-on-ice/RPZGTDBHCD

With their decision, everyone who had a chance of being nominated for the 2012 awards was given the shaft.

I understand economics are involved.

The Australian Academy Awards (the AACTAs) were a bigger success than anyone imagined.

Sponsors for film awards in Sydney are therefore thin on the ground. They put all their money into the AACTAs. Geoffrey Rush was there after all!

I get it.

But Inside Film doesn't.

If you take on the important task of recognising an industry with awards that have become 'accredited' via esteem, then you actually have a responsibility to them.

The awards are not your plaything to make money out of.

If you needed to scale back the awards, then you should have done it.

You should have taken a financial hit.

But instead, you chose to breach a trust that came with being a recognised accolade.

Now, I'm afraid, I actually hope you don't recover.

You don't deserve it anymore.

SECOND, LEE STOREY (AND COMMON SENSE) PREVAILS!

She won!!

Lee Storey, the filmmaker I wrote about in March...

http://www.openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/judge-diane-kroupa-vs-filmmakers.html

...has won her case against the IRS and had her documentary film declared a 'for-profit enterprise'.

This avoids any chance of her work being declared a 'hobby', which would have made the expenses associated with the film not tax deductible.

http://www.documentary.org/news/filmmaker-lee-storey-wins-irs-case-all-counts

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/04/19/maker-of-up-with-people-movie-knocks-down-irs/

Mrs Storey, inadvertently, has done more for filmmakers by being taken to court by the IRS than many government film agencies. Her case sets a much needed precedent for the long process of film development and production to still be considered a for-profit exercise. This precedent was needed, given the length of time it takes for many films to be completed, let alone profitable.

Interestingly, the case also touched on another important subject, the reality of filmmakers having 'day jobs' whilst they complete a film. In Mrs Storey's case, she is a water rights attorney for a law firm named Ballard Spahr in the USA. Apparently, this day job is quite lucrative for Mrs Storey, and the IRS was suggesting that this showed her filmmaking was an 'expensive hobby'.

Did you hear that sound?

That was the filmmakers who are reading this spitting out whatever they were drinking.

The practice of having a 'day job', while getting a film production moving, is common practice. If this suddenly became the standard by which a film was determined a hobby, a lot of filmmakers would be, quite frankly, starved to death.

But thankfully, Mrs Storey and her team won a victory for herself, for filmmakers and for good sense. Judge Kroupa, to her credit, fully admitted that she now understood that documentary filmmaking was definitely a for profit exercise, and not just to 'educate', as she had previously asserted.

It is slightly concerning that a victory in today's film industry is simply being recognised as a profession at all.

But every little bit helps, I guess.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

THE FUTURE IS COMING FASTER THAN WE GUESSED

Together, we glimpsed into the future.

I thought you might like to know, it looks like we were right.

Last August, I wrote to you about the impending death of traditional broadcast television.

http://www.openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/rip-broadcast-television.html

I suggested that, once you can plug an internet cable into your television, broadcast television will become the Tasmanian Tiger. Extinct.

Extinction will come because, in an internet enabled world where you can watch content you want at any time, why should you be 'told' by the broadcasters what to watch? The traditional TV broadcast schedule becomes irrelevant.

And so do the traditional broadcasters, unless they evolve.

My suggestion was that, in this new world, the traditional broadcasters will have three main roles:

1) commissioning new original content (i.e. pay creatives to make original shows that they have exclusive rights to);
2) curating a catalogue of programs that they offer on demand (e.g. channel 7 will become the home of reality television shows that they buy in bulk from Producers); and
3) uploading their shows online.

Much quicker than expected, Netflix in the USA is doing just that. For the uninitiated, Netflix is a subscription service where you can watch movies and TV shows legally online for a monthly fee. Business has been booming, as viewers in the USA have embraced subscription 'content streaming' services over traditional 'hard' media, like DVD's.

For a while now, Netflix has simply been buying existing content in bulk from film and TV producers, or making exclusive content deals with major producers like HBO (who make favourites like Sex and the City, The Sopranos, The Wire, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Entourage, Deadwood, Six Feet Under, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, and True Blood).

Now, Netflix has decided to start commissioning original content.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflix-ted-sarandos-original-content-309275

The reason is obvious.

If you make the TV show, and it is a major hit, then you have the exclusive right to show it. Anyone who wants to see your TV show, and this could be millions of people, has to subscribe to your service to get it.

Netflix is leading the way into this revolution. First with streaming of movies, legally, to replace traditional DVDs. Now original content.

Watch for the major broadcasters to follow or fall.

If only we could predict lotto numbers this well.


- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

HITTING THE WALL

Right now, a huge wall is being slowly erected that will affect you and a lot of people you know.

It is being constructed slowly, so that you won't notice. Until of course, you do.

The wall is not something you can see or touch. But it exists.

It is the 'paywall'.

You see, in the new frontier of the internet, there are no experts. This includes from the ranks of the experts in the 'old world' of TV and radio.

The possibilities, and the risks, online are just so vast, that no one has really worked out the rules yet.

Except one: THE CUSTOMER IS KING.

In a world of infinite choice online, you can vote for what you like by very easily shopping elsewhere.

As you can imagine, getting paid for your creative work in this new world is very difficult. Why would I pay for your news website when I can get it for free from somewhere else?

Why would I buy a movie from your website when I can download it for free?

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

This has been the thinking pattern on the internet for years. The status quo that internet users have been operating under.

Until now.

With DVD sales dwindling, newspapers disappearing, and more people owning internet-connected devices (like the ipad), the content providers have seen enough. They want to start taming the internet beast and making online content generate more revenue.

And how do you do this? With a paywall.

Picture this. You hear about a great news article. You rush over to the site. You get the headline and the first three lines and then....

Nothing.

Then a box appears.

"If you would like to continue reading, you can subscribe to (insert name here) for the low low price of $X's per month."

The New York Times has done it. They lost nearly 600 million monthly online readers overnight. But they did it.

Variety, the trade publication for the Hollywood Film Industry, did it too.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118052111

In the USA, Netflix has exploded as a way for people to legally pay for the films they watch online, via a subscription, rather than download a pirated version.

Quickflix, the Australian version of Netflix, and Bigpond movies are looking to do the same.

The film 'Melancholia' grossed as much money through paid online viewers as it did in traditional cinemas.

http://thefyzz.com/blog/vod-rides-to-the-rescue-of-indie-film

What does all this mean?

It means that you will still get things for free online. They will be the cheap and easy things like news headlines or movie trailers.

But the really good content, the in depth news article or the film you want to watch, will no longer be free. Unless you want to steal them of course.

This change will be introduced very gradually, to get you used to the new 'status quo' of paying for things, but take heed. It is coming.

Personally, and I am biased I know, being a filmmaker, but I can't help but think this is a good thing.

I actually want my journalists to be able to pay their rent, so that they don't have to have a second job at McDonalds to house their family. That way, they can focus on what I want from them: in depth and good quality news articles.

It is a double edged sword, however. In a world used to free, you will have to produce very good quality work, consistently, to keep people paying.

You also have to make sure the access is convenient and the price is reasonable. Netflix seems to be doing this in the USA, hence why they are adding millions of subscribers at an impressive rate.

So, the paywall will mean the content producer gets paid, but with it will come the heavy responsibility to keep your interest. You have many other options online after all.

But I'm a filmmaker. For the most part I am on the other side of the wall to you. Trying to make you love me. Hoping you will support my work because you believe in it.

And then there is you. Looking through a gap in the wall. Trying to decide if you want to save a few shekels, or to support the content makers who enrich your life through words and film.

Whose side are you on?

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

VIDEO KILLED THE VIDEO STAR

When it came to girls, I was never the most popular kid.

A lot of other guys had charm and charisma. I had a quirky sense of humour and 20 extra kilograms.

Sure, give me enough time to chat to a girl and I could make her laugh, but the funny fat kid doesn't get much in the way of valentines cards.

Skip forward to my early twenties, and I had lost 27 kilograms. I had also scraped together enough for a new wardrobe. The things we do for love. Even brief, morally ambiguous love.

The realisation that took years to come to me, was that overcompensating is a band aid. If the situation requires you to become an extreme version of yourself, it is probably time to ask why you want to be there in the first place.

The famous Groucho Marx quote says it best: "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member." 

Somebody needs to give this same lesson to the filmmakers making music videos.

Making music videos has almost become an extreme sport, as the filmmakers involved have to work harder and harder just to get attention.

You may remember the 'golden age' of music videos, somewhere in the 80s and 90s, where every band HAD to have a great music video. And people actually WATCHED music videos, ad nauseum, via dedicated music video TV channels, like MTV, Channel V and Rage.

Not any more.

The channels still exist. But the viewers are dwindling. MTV programmes mostly reality TV shows now; dreadful stuff like 'Jersey Shore'.

And for the filmmakers still making music videos, they are having to go to EXTREME lengths to get anyone to pay attention. 

The best example is OK GO's latest music video. You have to see it to believe it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MejbOFk7H6c

They use a car, driving on a specially constructed course, to play their song by bashing on instruments, at speed, placed along the course. Not just a few instruments either: xylophones, 280 guitars, pipes, pianos, and the list goes on.

But that wasn't their first extreme effort. Their previous video was an outdoor, choreographed stop motion performance over 24 hours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2fpgpanZAw&feature=related

And before that, an amazing giant machine, running like cascading dominoes over two floors of a warehouse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w&feature=relmfu

And before that the choreographed, one-take, multiple treadmill dance that took them 27 takes to get right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTAAsCNK7RA&ob=av2e

These were all very impressive efforts.

But where does it end?

Do they stop at one point and say, "OK guys, maybe we shouldn't fire the rocket, shaped like a unicorn, into the sun?"

Once upon a time, a good music video could help launch a filmmakers career, like Michel Gondry, Spike Jonz or Brett Ratner.

But those days are pretty much over. There is no future in music videos anymore.

If you have to fight this hard just to get attention, you should stop and ask yourself if you want to be in this club.

Instead, use your creative talent where you'll be appreciated and where your good work will be recognised.

Even I got the girl in the end.

I just had to change clubs.

 - - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

IT'S NOT EASY BEING GREEN

For some reason, Hollywood hates fun.

I don't know if it is because they are terrified of not being taken seriously, or because fun is inefficient.

I am on the outside looking in, after all.

In any case, we are losing what could be classic memories before they happen. 

This time it's The Muppets.

Beloved by millions.

Educators and friends to generations of children and adults. 

But not good enough for the Oscars, apparently.

During the recent Academy Awards telecast, the Muppets were banned from singing their Oscar nominated song, "Man or Muppet".

http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-oscars-doing-their-best-to-make-sure-you-wont,68933/?mobile=true 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWWTW1P8rQ = the song.

Now, I know acting and filmmaking are an art, on some level, and are not to be taken lightly.

I know that in Hollywood, sometimes all people have is their credibility.

But, I don't care.

The film industry has many responsibilities, and one is entertaining people. Forget the audience at your own peril.

I meet so many wonderful creatives and filmmakers who are beautifully attuned to good storytelling and can also put themselves in their audiences perspective. It makes them great filmmakers.

And telling a great story is about taking risks. All creatives are at risk of looking foolish and being ridiculed for their art. But when they get it right, you can change lives.

Or, at the very least, you can guide people to that thing we all crave: fun.

Imagine Kermit and Billy Crystal on stage together. We would be talking about it for years. Fantastic!

Yes, the Oscars are steeped in esteem and prestige.

But come on, the Muppets have been around since 1954. They've earned it.

 - - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

OAFILMS NEWS - 'The Good Neighbour' is off to America and is eligible for an IF Award nomination!!

The Good Neighbour has been selected for the Rochester International Film Festival, which is the oldest continually running film festival in the world!

http://www.rochesterfilmfest.org/2012%20program/page4.html

This will be The Good Neighbour's North American Premier, which is a fantastic next step for the film. We are screening on Saturday, April 21st, in the final session of the festival, at 8:00pm. Our Director, the one and only Mr James Crisp, will be representing the film there and collecting our 'Official Selection' trophy. Make us proud Crispy.

The screening at the Byron Bay Film Festival also went really well and the film was very well received. I made the trip to Byron for the screening and the feedback on all aspects of the film, the performances and the production values, was all really positive.

You should also know that The Good Neighbour is now eligible for an Inside Film Awards nomination! This is because of our screening at the wonderful Byron Bay Film Festival, and is something that you can influence by voting for the film online. For those who don't know, the IF Awards are one of the two main film awards on the Australian film calendar, the other being the Australian Academy Awards.

The IF Awards are open to voting from the public via the internet. To help our chances of being nominated, we have put a version of 'The Good Neighbour' online on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/openingactfilms/the-good-neighbour-full) so that people can watch the film and then vote for it on the IF Awards website. Please note, the VIMEO site is password protected (password: THEGNFULL2011) to make sure we don't disqualify ourselves from screening in other festivals.

Please watch the film (if you haven't already seen it) and then rate the film at:

http://www.ifawards.com.au/film/the-good-neighbour

If we get enough good ratings, we can be IF Award nominated. Also, please feel free to PASS THIS ON TO YOUR FRIENDS!! Together, we might be able to win our film its biggest honour yet!

Remember, we are also posting information to our Facebook Page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Good-Neighbour/131722040230896)

IS LOUIS THEROUX MAKING THE WORLD BETTER OR WORSE?

This has been one of those weeks when I thank (insert deity here) for a moment to scratch myself.

When I did finally get a moment, I did what we all do when trying to clear one's head yet avoid complete silence. I prostrated at the altar of television.

While I could have settled for mindless fluff like the Kardashians, I instead was drawn to a gangly Briton named Loius Theroux.

I had seen some of his work before, but nothing like this. Louis visited the city anecdotally referred to as the most Methamphetamine ("Crystal Meth") addicted in America.

http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/the-city-addicted-to-crystal-meth-video_57d94ccae.html

With humanity and honesty, he delved into the lives of the drug addicted and the desperate. Very moving.

I'm not here, however, to do a review on the program. You can watch and do that yourself.

What struck me was the depth to which it delved into people's lives. For better or worse.

It occurred to me that, while I was interested in the program and what I learned about these people who's lives had become slaves to a drug, I was discovering an awful truth that would have remained otherwise unseen.

I couldn't help but think: is the growing role of the filmmaker to illuminate truths in the world making things better or worse?

Before Facebook, for example, there were certain things you didn't know about complete strangers. Then, when Facebook appeared, everyone was so excited by this new technology that they uploaded their whole lives online. Slowly, however, we have realised that discretion can be a good thing. Don't believe me? Ask the people who lost their jobs for putting information on their Facebook wall. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1155971/Teenage-office-worker-sacked-moaning-Facebook-totally-boring-job.html)

The same is true for filmmakers, in that the technology to make our films (cameras and such) has become very cheap. As a result, there are more and more documentaries being made, leading to a deeper and deeper examination of the human condition.

If one were to judge the welfare of the world, based on this wave of documentary films, you might assume that the we are all doomed.

The question therefore, of responsibility for the filmmaker's message, is becoming particularly important. Are filmmakers, like Louis Theroux, making the world a worse place by exploring our deepest and darkest secrets?

Personally, I think this is simply a matter of visibility. I read once about 'Golden Age Theory', which suggested people always yearn for a "Golden Age" (where the world was a better place) that never really existed in the first place.

Similarly, in the modern age, we are gaining drastically more visibility of each others' lives through documentaries and technology, and therefore it would be easy to think there are more social problems than in the wonderful past ('The Golden Age').

The truth is, however, people have always been weird, perverted and strange. They just kept it a secret.

One of my favourite stand-up comedians, Stewart Lee, articulated this much better than I can. Mr Lee stated that, while we judge the people we see on programs like Jerry Springer, the themes of these shows can easily be found in classic literature. Shakespeare's plays for example were about incest, murder, rape and adultery.

The behaviour, therefore, isn't new. We just couldn't see it in high definition piped right into our living rooms in Shakespeare's day.

While all these thoughts were crossing my mind, Louie's documentary on Crystal Meth addiction suddenly illuminated the truth for me very clearly. As one of the drug addicted young men was preparing to smoke meth, he detailed the fact that his father used to cook the drug and sell it in the 1970's. According to the man, the market for crystal meth was large in the city, even as far back as the 1970's.

In his own words, this man was saying that Louis Theroux, therefore, is not exacerbating this problem by making a film about it. The problem exists, regardless of whether there is a filmmaker there to explore it or not.

Having said that, I can't be completely sure that these documentaries are not making the world worse. After all, someone could argue that awareness breeds curiosity and therefore more of the problem.

I can be certain of two things, however.

First, the capabilities given to us by technology are growing faster than our ability to determine whether we should use it.

And second, I should have just watched the Kardashians.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

JUDGE DIANE KROUPA VS. FILMMAKERS

What if one person decided that you, and all the people you work with, suddenly owed thousands of dollars?

What if that same person decided that the work you do should not even be called a profession?

How would you react?

In a strange case of reality writing better stories than Hollywood screenwriters, one such person actually exists.

Judge Diane Kroupa.

Judge Kroupa is a Federal Tax judge in the United States from South Dakota. In what should surprise very few of you, Judge Kroupa was appointed to the United States Tax Court, in 2003, by none other then George 'Dubya' Bush. With that in mind, you may form your own opinions on where Judge Kroupa falls in the liberal-conservative spectrum.

Lee Storey, on the other hand, is a water rights lawyer from Arizona. After 15 years of marriage, Mrs Storey found out that her husband was keeping a secret. Mrs Storey discovered that, in the 1960s, Mr Storey had been part of the quasi-right-wing-religious-cult-music-group 'Up With People'. 'Up With People' became famous for touring their group of fresh-faced wholesome American youth, who also just happened to have conservative political and religious beliefs, around the country to sing about good old fashioned values and morality. They were actually parodied in the brilliant mock-umentary film 'A Mighty Mind'.

Now, though her husband had distanced himself from 'Up With People' due to their 'interesting' beliefs around organised marriage and marital sex, Mrs Storey knew this was a tale that needed to be told.

With no experience, Mrs Storey set about producing and directing a documentary telling the story of her husband and 'Up With People'. In 2009, despite having to learn filmmaking from scratch, Mrs Storey finished her film: 'Smile Till It Hurts - The 'Up With People Story'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgXAuFmU3M

The film screened at the Slamdance Film Festival and the Florida Film Festival in 2009 and Mrs Storey won best director at First Glance Film Festival. Not bad for a first effort.

Joy soon turned to concern, however, when Mrs Storey was called to a tax audit in 2010 regarding the claiming of production expenses for 'Smile Till It Hurts' as 'business expenditure'. Claiming expenses as 'business expenditure' is a common practice for any business in the world, so Mrs Storey had a right to feel quietly confident.

Then, in March 2011, the audit turned into a tax trial. During the trial in the United States Tax Court, Judge Kroupa made a statement that made every documentary maker break out into a cold sweat.

Judge Kroupa declared that documentary films 'mainly served to educate rather than make money'.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/ida_issues_amicus_brief_on_behalf_of_audited_documentary_filmmaker

http://austin.culturemap.com/newsdetail/06-16-11-arizona-ruling-threatens-documentary-filmmakers-austin/

Wow.

Judge Kroupa's contention, which would then be the view of the tax authorities in the United States, is that documentary filmmaking is therefore a not-for-profit venture and holds the tax status of a HOBBY.

Production expenses incurred for a hobby, are not tax deductible. If this view were to be upheld, Mrs Storey, and many other documentary filmmakers, would owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes and penalties to the United States tax authorities.

All because a conservative judge, with no film production experience and therefore no understanding of the time it effort it takes to finish a film, believes that there is no profit motive in making a documentary.

And apparently, Mrs Storey is not the first to experience this.

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2011/07/why-filmmaking-cannot-be-a-hobby/

But at least, for this filmmaker, his case was restricted to his own personal finances. Judge Kroupa has decided that her case will determine whether all documentary films can be considered a for-profit exercise.

Where does she get off?

Any documentary filmmaker, even some I know of that work for a charity, will tell you that they ABSOLUTELY want to make a profit.

But that's not actually the point.

The point is that the logic of Judge Kroupa's contention is wafer thin. Regardless of what I know to be the perspective of actual filmmakers, does she honestly believe that anyone putting their blood and sweat into finishing a film for YEARS, then doesn't want it to make any money? On what planet?

How else are they meant to live and make more films?

Filmmaking is a lot like oil prospecting. The investment is huge and a dry well can happen easily. The result is a bust and a lot of financial loss. But, if you strike oil, the returns can be substantial.

Would anyone in their right mind say that oil prospectors are not motivated by profit?

Do oil prospectors quit when they find one well?

No. And neither do filmmakers. They use the profit they make to eat, create jobs and create more films that entertain, educate and inspire.

But I am sure Judge Kroupa knows all of this, being a Federal Taxation Judge.

Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

GLAMOUR

I am writing this on a plane on the way to the Byron Bay International Film festival. So far my phone hasn't caused a major failure in the plane's navigational system, but if you are now reading this newsletter posthumously, the jokes on me.

It's a cliche I know, but I actually worried about what I would wear to the red carpet opening night tonight. There is no getting past it though. In the film industry, where the entire product is based on pretend characters, played on false sets or locations, appearances matter.

But how much?

Last year I made an exploratory trip to Los Angeles, to see how the ideological centre of the industry operates. It was certainly eye opening, but not for the reason you think.

What struck me was how many disappointed tourists there were. They had grown up watching the glorious facades of Hollywood, only to get there and find out it was a working town. Hollywood is a lot like Detroit, extremely functional with only a few real tourist fun spots. The only difference is Detroit exports the blue collar car industry and Hollywood the glitz of entertainment. But that's not what they tell you on TV and the movies.

The same thing has happened at filmmaker "meet and greets" I've been too. There are always people at these events who put a lot of effort into looking 'successful' or appearing to be 'developing projects', when their film slate or CV shows they have barely finished a script or a short film. They try their best to look the part, can actually be quite rude (because they are trying to avoid being caught out) and have little experience to talk about and add to the knowledge of the other filmmakers in the room.

They certainly have 'cool' clothes though.

There is something to be said for good grooming, but even more to be said for authenticity. Lady gaga hasn't learned this lesson yet, but she's working on it.

The realisation for me, as I critiqued my way mercilessly through my own wardrobe, was that its easy to be distracted by appearing to be successful. It's much harder to actually be a success.

In the end, rather than trying to construct a veneer of impressive glamour, or pretending to be a major success, I decided to just dress like myself.

Jeans, a white tshirt and a suit jacket.

I'll impress them with my jokes.

Assuming the plane lands safely.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

SIMPLICITY

Geoffrey Rush has a peculiarly large head.

It's true.

Not in ego terms. This is purely literal.

Last weekend, I attended a day of film seminars, from established and successful filmmakers, called 'Tropfest Roughcut'.

During a talk from a director who's debut feature film opened at Sundance this year, I heard someone whispering to someone else, on my right, with a voice that seemed oddly familiar.

I looked over and realised I was sitting directly across the aisle from Mr Rush.

I played it cool. I mean, how often do you sit next to an Oscar winner?

When I stole a glance the second time, I noticed it.

His head.

It was HUGE. Like a caricature.

And I remembered something from an episode of the TV Series 'Entourage' on this very subject. One of the characters in Entourage claims "the bigger the head, the bigger the star".

The simple logic of this statement is that a bigger head means an easier to perceive performance on camera and therefore bigger film industry success. Fairly straightforward, really.

It's funny how often, in the film world, the best answer is often the simplest.

So, you need to capture an actor's facial performance better? Find an actor with a bigger head!

Mr Rush actually illuminated this point on simplicity best when he spoke on stage. He was asked about acting, with a special focus on the difference between comedic and dramatic acting. He stood up and played out a brief scene. A man comes into the room and answers the telephone with a straight/slightly concerned face.

"Hello? Yes? Oh I see. Yes. I'll be right there."

The very essence of dramatic acting.

"And how to do comedy acting then?", Mr Rush was asked.

His answer was a perfect example of keeping it simple. He said:

"Well, you do exactly the same thing, but you do it with your eyebrows raised."

Then he played the whole scene again with his eyebrows raised. And it was funny. Somehow, that simple act made it funny.

For filmmakers, creatives and the general population, Mr Rush's performance demonstrates sage advice. We often make simple things far too complicated, especially in a script or film. In truth, however, it is the small simple moments (a frown, a smile, a raised eyebrow) that are often the the things we remember most, and the difference between a film we know and a film we love.

It is a principle that is definitely worth carrying into your film, script, book, painting, song, etc etc etc.

People may disagree with Mr Rush's simple 'raised eyebrow' acting advice, but it's hard to argue with an Oscar winner.

Even if he does have a freakishly large cranium.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

OAFILMS NEWS - ANOTHER FESTIVAL SELECTION FOR 'THE GOOD NEIGHBOUR'!

Starting to get on a bit of a roll. This time it is in a smaller festival gem in Victoria, Australia - The Warrambeen Film Festival.

http://www.warrambeenfilmfestival.com.au/the-films-pm-131.html

Our Australian interstate debut for 'The Good Neighbour'!

CROWDFUNDING

'Nobody knows anything...the single most important fact, perhaps, of the entire movie industry'
- 2 time Oscar winning screenwriter William Goldman, 'Adventures in the Screen Trade' (1983)

I got a free invite, and there was free beer. Just to give you some context.

It's amazing how free beer and wine can draw in a room full of creatives. Alcoholism or poverty?

In any case, a startup company, Pozible, hosted an event on 'crowdfunding' this week. Pozible, as it turns out, is a website that helps you run a 'crowdfunding' campaign.

http://www.pozible.com.au/

For the unitiated, 'crowdfunding' is an idea 3 to 4 years old. Essentially, it is about offering rewards to people to get them to donate cash to your creative project. The cash you receive is then used to actually make the film/song/book, etc. The donator then receives their promised reward (e.g. a DVD copy of the completed film) when the creative work is completed.

For people in the USA, they have an almost identical website called 'Kickstarter'. Both websites do basically the same thing, but Pozible is better for those of us based in Australia and the Asia-Pacific.

But why is this relevant to you?

Well, 'crowdfunding' is the result of the wave of technology and social media changing all of our lives, enabling us in ways we thought previously impossible. Dreams are there for the taking, for the patient and impatient alike. There is no immunity to the future, only adaptation.

Think of a world without Facebook. Without Google!

Tough isn't it?

And that is the world that is evolving. Connected. Full of opportunity.

But with these opportunities comes a new form of uncertainty. The old rules are cast aside. How do we make the new world work?

To help answer this question, the Pozible team asked several people to talk about their successful (i.e. achieved their $ funding goal) funding campaigns. As they spoke, what became clear to me was, not for lack of effort, talent and intelligence, that these people were not really sure what it was that made their funding campaigns successful. Their success still had all the hallmarks of lightning in a bottle.

Is there a moral to this? In a manner of speaking, yes.

The Pozible guys are savvy. Their website has enabled creatives to raise, collectively, over $1 Million in funding for a large number of projects that would not have happened otherwise. In my view, they are a force for good.

But William Goldman's words remain valid.

Technology is opening up new frontiers. In the end, however, nobody really knows whether something will be a success or not.

So, be aware and open to wonderful new opportunities like Pozible, but never lose sight of the fact that your greatest opportunity is when a project is yours alone to craft and polish.

Make great work and the crowd will come.

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

STARTING OUT WITH A BANG

Well, hello...hello...hello.

To be honest I wasn't sure you would all make it back. 2012 is the year it all ends after all. Or was the Mayan Calendar maker just lazy?

The first 'new thing' of the new year is always the most scrutinised. I often wonder if that poor baby who makes headlines for being 'the first born in 2012' just reached the peak of their entire lives at the age of 38 seconds.

To live up to any 'first of the new year' expectations you have for me is like catching a unicorn. By that I mean extraordinarily difficult, not awesome. Maybe it's both.

So, to do my best, I have three offerings for you: a revelation, an update and a gift.

First, the revelation.

I have to put the gift last. To keep you reading. It's an honour system.

The revelation: I've missed you.

I have been quietly looking forward to the return of 'Tales From the Opening Act'. You keep my mind sharp. Hopefully I can return the favour.

Second, the update.

As you know, I like to make predictions. It is way more interesting and insightful than dwelling on the past.

So, how has my radar on prognosticating been?

In November, I said I thought it odd that Kodak took the time to respond to negative rumours and announced that everything was going great (http://www.openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/exaggeration_11.html). According to them, they were producing loads of film and things were on the right track. It seemed strange to me that they even took pains to make that announcement. Why bother?

The answer was MUCH faster than I expected.

In early January it was announced that Kodak was teetering on the edge of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140841495542810.html

By late January, they were already there:

http://if.com.au/2012/01/20/article/Kodak-files-for-Chapter-11-in-US-bankruptcy-court/FQOZKFPKQO

This does not mean they are bankrupt. It means they are at risk of becoming so, if they don't reorganise, and need protection from the people they owe money to coming to get them. So, they file for Chapter 11 Protection from their creditors. It may not be bankruptcy, but it certainly isn't good.

How did the company that INVENTED the digital camera get destroyed by it? Even the inventor of the 'Uzi' machine gun died of natural causes. Curious.

Finally, if you have made it this far, your gift.

Now, keep in mind this is a Film, TV and Media related newsletter. If you are expecting earrings, you may be disappointed.

In my travels, I came across an Academy and Emmy award winning professional-grade editing program, 'Lightworks'.

The software has over 20 years of history in the film and broadcast industries and you can download it for FREE at http://www.lightworksbeta.com/

Keep in mind that I paid $1400 for my Final Cut Pro film editing software, so free is a pretty good deal.

So, if you have a camera (even an iphone with a camera!), and a story to tell, now you have NO reason not to be shooting and editing it into your magnum opus in 2012.

With that in mind, I know 2012 will be a great year for us. Productive, challenging and fun.

It won't be perfect, but who has use for a unicorn these days anyway?

- - - - - - - - -
GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/subscribecontact-us.html

OAFILMS NEWS - 'THE GOOD NEIGHBOUR' SELECTED FOR THE BYRON BAY INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL 2012!!

Great way to start the year at an excellent festival! We will be screening on Saturday 3rd March 2012.

http://www.bbff.com.au/preview?film_id=232&session_id=3

I Shall Return...

First things first, Happy 2012.

Now down to business.

I know you have missed me.

I have missed you.

But we needed a break.

A holiday from our relationship.

But now I'm ready.

I think you are too.

January is almost over.

The holiday will end.

The 'Tales From the Opening Act' will begin again.

Soon.