THE OSCARS

The right film won best picture. That's all I'll say about the results.

But the Oscars ceremony. What happened to the truth in that Ricky Gervais joke?

"For any of you who don't know, the Golden Globes are just like the Oscars, but without all that...esteem."

Ellen handing out pizza to the celebrities?

Pharell Williams wearing shorts to the red carpet?

Celebs crowding with Ellen to take the self-anointed 'world's greatest selfie'?

Esteem?

I'm not saying that the ceremony should be stuffy, or take itself too seriously, but who actually enjoys this shtick besides the celebrities themselves?

'We're normal people too!'

'We' just happen to be millionaires who get paid to play pretend, but we take selfies like you!

There is actually nothing philosophically wrong with the ceremony, and the behaviour within, being made all about the celebs. It's their event after all.

Just don't broadcast it.

'Woah! Let's not be hasty here. People WANT to see the Oscars. We do this silly stuff for their entertainment.'

But do they?

Like the elaborate selfie Ellen hastily arranged. Just some good old fashioned tomfoolery for the enjoyment of John Q. Public, right?

No.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/a/21805673/was-ellens-epic-oscars-selfie-a-product-placement-stunt/

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2014/03/ellen-degeneres-oscar-selfie-preplanned-product-placement-plug-f/

Yes, Ellen got busted.

Her 'selfie' phone, prominently displayed, was a Samsung. Her real phone, the one she actually AUTHENTICALLY owns and uses, is an iphone.

So now, through the prism of honesty, what was a moment of celebs engaging in adorable 'buddy' behaviour is seen for what it really was.

A carefully orchestrated piece of product placement for the main sponsor, Samsung.

Feels icky now, doesn't it?

Not light hearted celebs taking themselves with a grain of salt. But selling. Whoring for the sponsor.

The problem for Ellen is that, these days, it's easier than ever to get caught out being a shill. And we, the public, don't like being manipulated. The power of authenticity is degraded.

Then, the news breaks that two Academy voters chose '12 Years a Slave' as Best Picture, without having seen it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/academy-members-voted-for-oscarwinning-12-years-a-slave-without-watching-it-9177352.html

Authenticity deteriorates further. And now it's a slippery slope Oscar is riding.

The Academy can fix this now. Stop trying to give every film the 'Oscar Bump' at the box office. Limit the number of Best Picture nominations back to five again.

Send Pharell Williams, or anyone else for that matter, home if they show up in shorts.

Cut the blatant product plugs and let the ceremony run with some dignity. Faster too, I might add.

Or, do nothing.

And lose your greatest commodity; the one the other awards wish they had.

No, not bigger sponsors.

Esteem.


- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL.
http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

BY WHEN?

May already? Where is the year going, right?

There is never enough time these days, allegedly. Modernity took our idleness from us.

And yet we all find time to procrastinate.

Strange.

I use the phrase 'find time' deliberately, by the way. Realistically the problem is not a lack of hours, but what we make time for.

Filmmakers, amongst meetings and projects, still find time to read a book.

Parents, amongst feedings and sleepless nights, still find time to update Facebook.

And so on.

Making productive time available, I'll grant you, is the trick. But there are ways.

The simplest is to ask yourself, and anyone else pitching a project, a basic question. Keep in mind, however, that this question inspires fear in the hearts of many would-be creatives. They will go out of their way to avoid it if they can.

BY WHEN?

You want to finish that script by when?

That film is ready to be shot. By when?

The project needs a pitch document created by when?

It's not a complicated phone app for productivity, or a nuanced methodology written by a self help guru.

It's being brave enough to give yourself a deadline, when no-one is asking.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL.
http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

GIMME MA MONAY!!

It's a strange time for workers.

People are working longer, real wages have fallen across the globe, and we're often reminded that we are competing with third world employees, earning mere cents for 'similar' work.

I wonder if the same conversations happened when slavery was legal?

"You want how much in wages? But Artis over there works for nothing!"

Absurd, to be fair. But this hypothetical still touches on an important principle:

People should be paid fairly for what they produce.

This idea come up a LOT in filmmaking circles. We are all basically freelancers after all. And don't get me started on piracy.

But this simple expression is also the cause of the great societal divide you see increasingly today. It divides because there are two simple responses to this statement. You either agree with it, or you don't.

There are many, MANY people, I'm sorry to tell you, who do not. To these people, there is a different modus operandi that governs the societal construct:

People should be paid whatever they can negotiate for what they produce.

The implication is that this second statement provides an enormous upside, far greater than the first. 'What you can negotiate' has nothing to do with fairness after all. You could negotiate $1M for work that is only worth $1.

Or, has happens far more often, $0.10 for work that is worth $1000.

Whatever you can get, remember?

It's the magic carrot that is dangled in front of the ignorant masses. Let the world operate this way, without regard to a 'fair' wage, because you too can be rich like 'us'...maybe.

But nothing could be further from the truth. It's fools gold.

The game is so stacked against you, the negotiating power so concentrated out of your hands, that you have almost no chance of thriving in this laissez-faire approach.

I've seen it first hand. Recently, I was in touch with an Oscar-winning production company, based overseas.

The company were planning to shoot a small section of their latest low-budget, independent feature film in Australia, and they were looking for a local production company to partner with.

I was delighted to get the email, of course.

As the discussion evolved, however, it became clear that they were particularly concerned about spending too much money on this small section of the film. Understandable, given it is always important to be shrewd with your film's budget.

The concerning aspect for me, however, is that the budget I proposed was at the cheapest/minimum rates for the crew, the minimum rate for the actor, and the minimum to acquire all of the relevant copyright for the actor's performance.

In short, it was the minimum for all involved, but in the end it was still considered too much.

The final email, while certainly polite, indicated that they were instead going to fly out an existing crew member, and a local theatre group was going to be involved. Supplying a free actor, I presume.
Cost effective no doubt. But fair? When a company is making something that they expect to exploit for a significant profit, why should people work for them for nothing?

And I wish this were just about fairness, but it is a tentacle on a much larger, much more destructive, beast.

Income inequality.

A buzz word, no doubt, but one of the handful of greatest problems we face going forward. The imbalanced distribution of wealth is literally eroding the foundations of our society.

Overly dramatic? In a word, NO.

The USA is the living proof of what happens when you leave only people at the very bottom and the very top of the economic pile. The businesses that meet the needs of the middle class, what has traditionally been the largest part of the economic spending pie, become unsustainable and fold. And we all lose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/business/the-middle-class-is-steadily-eroding-just-ask-the-business-world.html?ref=nelsondschwartz&_r=0

We all lose, including the wealthy, because the real world is based on RELATIONSHIPS. I pay you, you pay someone else, they pay someone else, who pays me, and so on. Those who look for short term gain (i.e. by screwing over other people and paying less than what someone is worth), break down these economic relationships and hurt everyone, including themselves eventually.

Now, before I go down the rabbit hole of explaining economic theory, let me provide this easy clarification.

NO SPENDING MONEY FOR THE LARGEST GROUP OF SPENDERS (THE MIDDLE CLASS)
=

LESS MONEY BEING SPENT, LESS DEMAND FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, LESS ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, LESS JOBS FOR ALL, LESS PROFIT FOR THE WEALTHY

And this is the future we face as income inequality worsens. Less jobs. Less economic activity. Less opportunities for all.

In a recent TED talk, millionaire businessman Nick Hanauer explained this very principle, saying simply:

"In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are middle class consumers; and taxing the rich to make investments that make the middle class grow and thrive is the single shrewdest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor, and for the rich."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wc9bWc-WRs

So, whether you are a filmmaker or not, every business, the entire economy in fact, thrives when there is a less concentrated distribution of income.

And it doesn't start with governments. Governments reflect the attitude of the citizens that elect them (...allegedly).

It doesn't start with companies or with rich people.

It starts with you. And a choice.

People should be paid fairly for what they produce.

OR

People should be paid whatever they can negotiate for what they produce.

What do you believe?


- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL.
http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

"I WAS BORN IN THE WRONG ERA"

I hear this too often.

From musicians. From writers. Even from feature film producers.

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/the-equation.html

'I was born in the wrong era. I should have been born in the good old days. When there were only three TV channels. Only one movie theatre. Only 5 radio stations. I would have been a huge success. It's too chaotic now.'

The power of this 20/20 hindsight is intoxicating.

But before nostalgia overruns your senses, let me ask you this.

In that era of severely limited options for film and content distribution, how would you have pushed your work onto those three TV channels? Or your song onto one of those few radio stations?

With the benefit of being born now, in the relative 'future', you know what would have been popular back then.

But if you are stuck now, unable to break through on our contemporary distribution models with your contemporary thinking, what would have made you any different if you were born in that previous era?

Elvis only thrived because he made music TOTALLY different to his contemporaries. He was an innovator, who thought differently to the era he was in.

It was not the limited portals for people to reach Elvis' music that created his success. Just like it's not the scale of opportunities that dictates your success now, it's your mindset to make something that breaks through.

Which brings us to an immutable truth. I'm sorry to tell you, but if you are stuck now, unable to engineer your break, you would have been just as stuck in the 50's.

The beauty of such a challenging revelation is that you are now in an era where new approaches can break through to new audiences, purely because there are MORE than three channels, one theatre and five radio stations.

The magic is in thinking differently. Changing your approach. Refreshing and challenging your mindset to create your best work.

And the best part of this situation is that you have no choice.

Because the past is over.

Time to look forward instead.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL.
http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

THE iPOTTY

It's hard being alone sometimes.

We are, to varying shades, social animals. We crave connection, even if it's with just one person.

Even in these modern times, where we are rarely 'alone', we still find ourselves yearning for a deeper intimacy. Among friends. Among peers. Even among lovers.

And then, in your darkened room late at night, a tiny screen flickers on. It illuminates your face.

Concentrating. Seeking.

Who liked my status update?

You smile. You've reached people.

The screen flickers off. You roll over to sleep.

Yes, it is hard to deny the power of technology and social applications. Repurposed from a simple phone, the smart phone is now the window to a million small moments of connection.

It's heroin for the masses.

Is that an overstatement? I read of psychological developments like 'Phantom Vibration Syndrome', where a person feels vibration in their leg, despite their phone not actually ringing, and I think 'heroin' might actually be understatement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_vibration_syndrome

And while I know that more screens equals more opportunities to tell visual stories, I am also overcome by the feeling that there has to be a limit somewhere. Modern connectedness can go too far.

Without an Alamo, I believe the unchecked growth in screen usage has the potential to affect human behaviour and development. To disrupt the natural flow of discourse and rapport.

This effect is quite bizarre to see in action. I've been at dinners, for example, where the majority of the invitees played with their phones, rather than interact with each other. It's akin to the Mackelmore lyric:

"Apps this good who's got time to make friends?"

If people start to become hardwired to connect with their screens and not other people, what interest will they have in screen stories, which are fundamentally about people? What good will multiple screens be for screen storytellers, when no-one has the inclination to watch stories over updating their Facebook status?

There has to be a line drawn. A boundary.

Be it the growing dinner party/social gathering rule that all phones are put into the centre of the table, or some other neological societal norm.

I can't tell you exactly where the final line should be, but it should be well short of this:

'The iPotty' - http://www.amazon.com/CTA-Digital-iPotty-Activity-Seat/dp/B00B3G8UGQ/ref=cm_cd_ql_qh_dp_t

I saw this advertised on television in America.

Children should not be using ipads while potty training. Learning to aim is more important at this stage of their life.

Yes, I want people to grow up and use multiple screens to engage with the screen stories we create.

But they have to learn to be people first.


- - - - - - - - -

WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL.

MINIMUM WAGE ON AN ISLAND PARADISE

The knuckles creaked. The fog of holidays on my vocabulary cortex was thick and smothering.
But I missed you. So I fought through the articles of my inactivity to write this.

I'm back.

I hope you rang in the new year in style. Or, at least, avoided serious bodily harm.

I kept the celebrations very simple. Not because I am incapable of a bender, I'm only in my thirties after all, but because I was flying to Hawaii 36 hours later.

Yes, I began the new year immersed in the Xanadu of pop culture.

The U.S.A.

Well, 'Diet U.S.A.' Hawaii is like The States with slightly less 'Merica' in the recipe.

There are chain franchises, shopping, enormous human beings, and bad food, of course. We went to a sushi restaurant where they served hot dog frankfurts, with avocado, in a rice roll. As the tiny plate rolled past on the sushi train, carrying it's conceptually grotesque hot dog sushi, our mouths literally hung open in horror. The frankensushi, meanwhile, disappeared around a bend in the conveyor belt and never returned. I imagine it climbed off the sushi train and made a new life for itself as a surf instructor.

Despite these moments of American peculiarity, there is also a tangible atmosphere of relaxation on the island. It seems to take the edge off the usual intense experience of dealing with Americans in large herds.

Oh, and there are sea turtles, apparently.

Despite being from a Western democratic country myself however, there was still the initial 'culture shock' of being around people and institutions with such a profoundly different genesis than my own. It's a strange feeling, one that makes you feel alien, detached, from your surroundings.

I got over it though. Starbucks helped.

Once my initial bewilderment passed, I was able to relax and, most importantly, interact. With waiters. With tour guides. Even with, gasp, other tourists.

It was during one of these interactions that I was exposed to the popular topic of the minimum wage in the USA.

Our sea turtle snorkeling adventure guide was riffing about life in Hawaii. We was from "Cal-eee-fuurrnnn-ia". Something like California, but said slower and with less purpose. A friendly young surfer, he had apparently moved to Hawaii to live the 'island paradise' life. Then, without prompting, he uttered a cliche we had been exposed to a number of times in our first few days on the Island:

"You gotta pay to live in paradise."

It piqued our interest, because this had started to become a common theme amongst the Hawaiians we met. He went on to explain that, despite the fact that the Hawaiian lifestyle was indeed 'paradise', it was also the most expensive state in the USA to live in. When coupled with the fact that the minimum wage is so low in America, US$7.25 an hour in fact, he lamented that it can be tough to make ends meet for your average young 'beach bum'.

Intrigued, and somewhat to his surprise, I asked him how he survives these economic headaches.

"Extra jobs", he deadpanned.

We had heard this concept multiple times as well. But what kind of second job could a 'beach bum' find on an island paradise?

"I do promo work" he said, "but the best paid stuff is when I can get character work. Wearing a costume at a product event or something".

Best paid?

"Yeah, they pay more than double minimum wage. Like, $15 an hour."

But why, you ask? Why would he get paid more just because he put on a costume during a promotional job?

This jump in pay comes from the efforts of one group. Ironically, this group has become somewhat of a pariah in our society these days. Their name has become a dirty word.

Unions.

As soon as our Californian put on a costume, he is classed as a ‘performer’ which means he is covered by a higher minimum wage that has been fought for by the powerful performers’ unions. In America, the likes of The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) are immensely powerful, due to many years of difficult negotiations, and solidarity amongst members.

Think about that for a moment.

Because of the work of unions, like SAG, our Californian’s wage is DOUBLE what an employee would otherwise have been paid.

How would your livelihood fare if half of your pay was suddenly taken away?

And yet, despite this tangible positive impact on people’s lives, I see unions increasingly demonized in the general discourse.

But what is a union?

A union is you. And I. A union is a collective of people, who join together to ensure that they and their peers receive fair remuneration for their efforts.

Does that sound intrinsically evil to you? Or a necessary balance in a system where negotiating power can sometimes be distributed unfairly?

On an individual level, so many of us believe in looking out for the welfare of each other. That we all benefit when the bar is raised for everyone, not just a few who will 'trickle' down the proceeds later.

But when you put a label on it, the dreaded ‘union’, suddenly that same concept becomes a corruption, rotting the foundation of our democracy. Or some other overzealous negative platitude. We're smarter than this disconnect suggests.

So as we begin 2014, please remember.

Remember there are people just like us in the world, living in ‘Western’ industrialised democracies, who exist on a barely living wage.

Remember that their predicament is totally fixable.

And, most importantly, remember that their situation exists, only because of a failure to stand together and ensure prosperity is shared when success comes.

This year, as you have a blindingly successful 2014, try and do something to help someone else achieve their goals. Be a mentor, give advice, buy someone a meal, or back a crowdfunding project.

Know that your generosity will bring us all up, including you, in the fullness of time.

Happy 2014.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL.
http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

OA FILMS NEWS - Photos from the screening of 'Chip' at the Sydney Opera House for TEDxSydney 2014

Our latest film, 'Chip' (produced by Tony Radevski) screened in front of 2200 people at the Sydney Opera House on Saturday 26th April 2014. It screened as a part of TEDxSydney to this huge live audience and many more over their livestream online.

Here are a couple of photos of the screening, as it happened. Enjoy!

OA FILMS NEWS - our latest film 'Chip' is screening during TEDx Sydney 2014, at the Sydney Opera House.

Wonderful news. Our latest film, 'Chip', produced by Tony Radevski and written/directed by Pete Ireland, is screening during TEDx Sydney 2014 at the Sydney Opera House. It will be screening at roughly 2:45pm during the main event on Saturday 26th April.

If you're online at the time, you can catch it on the official TEDxSydney live stream at TEDxSydney.com/LIVE, or at Big Ideas ABC TV, YouTube & Livestream.

It will also be posted on the official TED Youtube channel after the event.

For more information about TEDx Sydney, visit: www.tedxsydney.com

MERRY XMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!! (PLUS A GIFT AND SOME SAGE ADVICE FROM SETH GODIN)

Merry Xmas and a happy 2014!

I hope your Xmas day was exactly what you needed. Restful and lazy, or hectic and full of family. Or both, if that's at all possible.

As I do every every year, there is a free gift in the last 'Tales From the Opening Act' of the year. But in true storytelling fashion, you will have to read until the end to claim it.

I also want to wish you a safe, but productive and energetic, start to the new year. You have very likely earned it.

2013 has been an odd year. Literally, but also in the general tone.

There is so much anxiety still in the air. The GFC is behind us, and yet, we still feel its threat for some incomprehensible reason. It's the unspoken suggestion in the room: 'what if things are not stable, after all? What if it all gets taken away?'

This anxious, unspoken consternation leads, inevitably, to the most unsettling thought of all: 'am I totally disposable in this harsh 'new economy' of a globalised world?'

It's a fair question.

Jobs get outsourced to cheap labour. Real wages are stifled or reduced altogether, as people are asked to work more hours for the same wage. The first sacrificial lamb offered to productivity is always the workers.

A person could be left feeling, in an environment where they are so easily exploited or discarded, that they don't matter at all.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

You, the intrinsic values and talents that you bring to bear, matter now more than ever.

It's true, some of the fundamentals of how the world works are changing. The most robotic or process oriented jobs are disappearing to places where anyone with basic training can do them. Think Holden leaving Australia, or the bankruptcy of 'Motor City' in the U.S.A.

These jobs chase the lowest paid workers, you see.

But what is left?

The jobs where people matter.

Where YOU matter. Where you can take a risk in the name of doing great work, because it's not about process, but your unique and remarkable output.

Don't take my word for it. Renowned author, TED talker, and all around deep thinker Seth Godin conveys it best:

'In a post-industrial age, when jobs get commoditized as fast as possible, the only good ones left are the ones that must be done by a person, not a machine, must be done by someone figuring things out, must be done by an individual willing to put themself on the line.'

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/09/qa-linchpin-will-they-miss-you.html

So, if I can leave you with one last thought for 2013, it is this.

Don't hold back. Challenge yourself, and everyone around you, with the quality of your work. Your ability to be remarkable is more important now than it has ever been, and nobody wins if you let it atrophy.

Imagine what an incredible year 2014 could be if everyone in your circle produced something that was astounding enough to promote itself? How much better could things be if everyone chose to race to the top, instead of spiraling to the bottom?

And it is a choice. One that can start, as always, with you.

To give you a headstart, here, as promised, is your Xmas gift. It's a free App I found, called 'Cameo', which was named in the 'Best of the App Store 2013'. It allows you to shoot videos in HD, edit, and add professional effects and titles.

To see how it works, check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbYu4AG50-Q

To get the App, visit: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cameo/id716354815?mt=8

So, there is no excuse for you to avoid producing your best in the new year.

May you have a wonderful 2014.
________________________________________

PS: AS USUAL, 'TALES FROM THE OPENING ACT' WILL BE GOING ON HOLIDAYS FOR ALL OF JANUARY 2014. BUT DON'T WORRY, IT WILL BE BACK, BETTER AND MORE PUNCTUAL THAN EVER, IN FEBRUARY 2014. HAVE A SAFE AND RESTFUL HOLIDAY SEASON! CHEERIO, PETE

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

THE 2014 REVIEW

The holiday season is all about traditions.

Some have developed over generations of family gatherings, broken bread and, inevitably, annual drunken feuds. Loathe or adore them, they're our customs, and that makes them special. Part of our DNA.

Even here, in our little micro-community of 'Tales From the Opening Act', we have our own tradition. You've waited almost a year, but it's finally returned.

The year in review.

For those of you who have joined us this year, I take a different slant on the annual review genre. You see, most pundits use November/December to review the year that is winding down.

I contend that this is folly.

The past is over and, as I wrote when I started this little tradition, 'The time to reflect, and the lessons you feel you need to learn, surely are your own.'

Instead, I review the year ahead. Call it an existential exercise in looking back on a year that hasn't yet started. Call it prognostication, if you prefer. I call it 'Looking forward with an open mind, instead of backward with nostalgia.'

And so, getting finally to the point, I bring you 'The 2014 Review'.

What to expect over the approaching new year?

Let's start with the big picture.

On the economic front, all important for the film/content industries given people need to have spending money for our survival, the global situation will actually have improved dramatically. The U.S. will have had significant job and economic growth, and the first push for a rise in the minimum wage in years. Europe will have stabilised as well, although the difference between Germany and Spain within that overall stability is still an enormous chasm of unemployment.

Which brings us to Australia. I would like to tell you that 2014 will see 'The Great Southern Land' progressing at a boringly comfortable rate, however the new Australian government's economic policy impacts are not clear as yet. A focus on mining expansion may offset the inevitable austerity measures this conservative government introduces, but we'll have to wait and see. In the mean time, you'll have all year to enjoy the effects of the enormous expansion in Australia's coal production on the world. Who needs lungs anyway?

Now, the bad news.

For film-goers, it's going to be 'sequel-o-rama' in 2014, as the major studios aim to play it safe. Captain America, Optimus Prime, Caesar the Ape, Spiderman, Xmen, Bilbo Baggins and Katniss Everdeen all make a big-budget screen return.

For film-goers wanting original fare, or for those who simply abhor the wet sock beating experience of Hollywood franchise marketing, this will be a difficult year in cinema. On the other hand, if your heart sang with delight at each of the character names I mentioned above, then you are either 14 years old, or you enjoy spending $24 on a film where you inevitably say 'the original was better'. Perhaps this won't be such a bad year for you, after all.

As always, there will be flops. Big budget flops are the ones that ripple the most, because they cause general risk aversion in film investors and scare away flighty audiences. While there seems to be a fairly vanilla approach to blockbusters in 2014, the one that stands out, and the one that I think will wear the dunce cap of box office failure, is the 'Robocop' remake. It pains me to say it, because I am a devoted fan of the original film, but I just don't see it making a dent against such well founded existing franchises. With a reported production budget of $120M, I think it's only a matter of how much Sony/MGM will have to write off.

And speaking of blockbusters, be prepared for more, more, MORE.

'Sequels and blockbusters' will be the 2014 ethos for cinemas, as the Hollywood studios try to minimise risk, yet make a massive financial return. Historically, there have been roughly 9 to 13 blockbusters released during the U.S. summer. There were 17 blockbusters released in the U.S. summer in 2013.

There have been 14 announced for 2014 already, with more announcements to come.

If you thought there were too many trailers, TV ads and billboards now, be prepared for mass marketing that never ends.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/business/studios-unfazed-by-colossal-wrecks.html

In an area that has actually been quiet for a while, 2014 will also see the 'filmmakers vs piracy vs internet service providers (ISPs)' tussle, move to the UK. While ISP's have, globally, resisted attempts to make them responsible for piracy conducted on their internet services, the UK is finally implementing a new enforcement law, The Digital Economy Act. The DE Act contains a requirement for online copyright infringers to be given 'three strikes' before facing internet disconnection and ISP blacklisting. The ISPs, in this legal framework, will of course have to play a role, but are still resisting.

http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/20523/isps-asked-hunt-down-pirates

Many industry players are watching this situation as it evolves, because it will be the test tube for future laws worldwide. Watch this space.

And finally, 2014 will also see the bad news of the virtually global roll-out of Netflix, the leading streaming video-on-demand (VOD) service. Netflix is in America and Scandinavia, completing its roll out in Europe, and will likely start its Australian expansion early, in 2014.

Why advance their Australian plans?

Because 20,000 Australian subscribers already exist, having individually worked out ways to avoid geo-blocking. Clever Aussies.

The Netflix expansion, however, is horrible news for every existing provider either offering or developing VOD in Australia, including: Foxtel ('Presto'), Dendy Cinemas ('Dendy Direct'), Quickflix, and Telstra ('Bigpond Movies'). What is also unclear, is how the Netflix arrival will affect existing deals film/content makers have with current Australian VOD providers, particularly if, god forbid, it's an exclusive arrangement?

But enough of the anxious hand wringing.

If you've made it this far, you deserve a dose of positivity. Don't fret. There will be good news amongst 2014's banal content, piracy debates, disruptive business moves and blockbuster flops.

Ironically, the good news is actually the inverse of the bad news.

'Sequel-o-rama 2014' will produce some of the most highly anticipated films of the year, not just by 14 year olds, but by critics as well. 'Hunger Games 1' received a very positive 84% rating on the critic's site 'Rotten Tomatoes'.

'Hunger Games 2'?

An outstanding 90%

So, as much as my cynicism is my finest asset, 'sequel-o-rama' seems to be producing films actually worth watching. Cliche's were made to be broken, after all.

And, while the combination of sequels and blockbusters may seem enough to make your eyes bleed, it was the blockbusters that actually rescued the 2013 U.S. summer from being 12-15% down at the outset, to a record year at the box office. While 2014 won't hit those record numbers, because there just isn't a franchise big enough to match the heady heights of Iron Man 3's $1.2 billion box office gross, expect the blockbusters to again buoy the box office worldwide and continue to keep the industry profitable.

That's a good thing for audiences and filmmakers alike, in case you were wondering.

My very flimsy prediction is for 'Hunger Games 3' to be the biggest box office smash of 2014, however 'The Hobbit 3' could just as easily sneak in; given it's the concluding film of the trilogy. If 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' is the highest grossing film of 2014, at least Michael Bay will finally stop making films, having been at last claimed by hell for his Faustian success contract.

Meanwhile, on the classier end of the spectrum, the 2014 Awards contenders will be difficult to separate.

While 'Gravity' and '12 Years a Slave' are the favourites, the momentum seems to be with 'American Hustle' for the 2014 Best Picture Oscar. Never underestimate, however, the power of Oprah Winfrey and the Weinsteins to wrangle 'The Butler' into the winner's circle.

On the Australian front, the Australian Academy Awards (The AACTA's) are shaping up as a battle between the overcooked drippings of 'The Great Gatsby', and the quirky Laotian charm of 'The Rocket'. If its industry and audience response at the Sydney Film Festival premiere are anything to go on, look to 'The Rocket' to sweep the AACTA's in 2014.

Which leaves us, finally, with the good news of Netflix's expansion into Australia. But how can the bad news of Australian VOD providers' business disruption in 2014 possibly have an inverse good news story?

For audiences, of course.

While Foxtel, Telstra and the rest treat Australia like their personal ant farm, where they can experiment with video-on-demand but not provide a service anywhere near what the audience wants, Netflix arrives and blows their experiment to pieces. Audiences will finally be able to really experience the service of: content they want; when they want it; how they want it.

And trust me, audiences will be hooked; which is only good news for film and content makers.

So, are you now suitably confused? Wondering what this murky 2014 picture of interrelated good and bad news stories mean for you?

The easiest way to comprehend it is in the continuum.

2013 was the year of 'question everything'. There were so many unanswered riddles, so much uncertainty, so many changing paradigms, that the only real approach was to interrogate the entire mess, and see what truths fell out.

2014 will be the year of 'perspectives'.

The global economic recession is receding. Money is flowing again. Tentatively, but it's flowing.

There are a lot more answers than there were a year ago. For example, regarding the prevalence of blockbusters, on the health of the box office, and on the level of demand for video streaming services like Netflix.

What determines whether these answers are 'good' or 'bad' news, however, is you.

It depends on your chosen circumstances.

How adaptive you can be.

How open to taking the new opportunities, and running with them, you are.

In short, your perspective counts now more than ever. It's the prism by which the events of 2014 will either be a blessing or a curse.

Yes, the bleak shadow of the GFC is finally behind us. But now the work really starts.

2014 can be a big year for you. But are you ready?

- - - - - -
The 2013 Review (written in 2012)
http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-2013-review.html


The 2012 Review (written in 2011)
http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/2012-review.html

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

I'M BEING FOLLOWED EVERYWHERE...BY FAKE PEOPLE

No, I haven't lost my mind.

I am empathising with President Barack Obama.

Everywhere he goes.

No matter what he does.

He is shadowed. By fake people.

No, this is not a political statement. It's a fact.

19.5 million fake people follow the President every day.

On Twitter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430875/Barack-Obama-19-5m-fake-Twitter-followers.html

Yes, of the 36 million Twitter followers the President has accumulated, over half are considered fake. 'Fake' meaning 'one which has one or no followers and follow less than 50 others. It can also be one which is used to send spam tweets or one which has never tweeted at all.'

But in the digital wild west of social media, is this distortion really a moral turpitude? Are there any truths to be gleaned from this revelation?

Has the freedom of free conversation, the legitimate virality of great content and ideas, been co-opted by marketers using shady ways to stay at the top of your Twitter Feed?

Yes, yes it has.

And it means that Twitter is officially extinct.
Because the driving force behind Twitter is 'trending'. The infamous hashtag. Twitter was supposed to be the free flow of short bites of wit, knowledge, truth, feeling, etc.

Between PEOPLE, not between MARKETERS.

With marketers buying Twitter followers to totally manipulate social media, the whole point is lost. It means that, realistically you can't be heard, because the marketers control the message. And even if, but it's a BIG if, you can break through the din of fake Twitter users, so many real users have tuned out by that point that no one is listening anyway.

But surely that couldn't mean that Twitter is marching towards doom? Surely this prognosis of extinction is sensationalism?

Sensationalism, maybe, but it is certainly interesting that Twitter has decided to become a public company now, as these revelations are starting to appear. The public share offering for Twitter, of course, has earned billions for the founders of the company.

http://business.time.com/2013/11/07/live-updates-twitter-goes-public/

Yes, Twitter has become public, just in time for the masses to not have realised that Twitter is over.

The President shouldn't feel too bad though. He's in good company.
Justin Bieber is followed by 19.5 million fake people too.

Take note too, filmmakers. How much time and energy are you going to put into becoming a social media sensation, again?

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

TROPFEST

My first Tropfest experience has resulted in a sunburn that radiates with the heat of a thousand suns.

Yes, Tropfest, the largest short film festival in the world, is on again. It's a beautiful summer day in Sydney, and the outdoor Tropfest site is brimming with a festival atmosphere.

I'm assuming.

I didn't stick around for the big event this evening. I took my horrific sunburn and left.

Call me a party pooper, but I wasn't there for the main event. I was there for TropJR, the Tropfest category for filmmakers 15 years and under which runs earlier in the day.

A group of young filmmakers I supported to enter TropJR were finalists, and I was there to support them. They didn't win the major prizes, but the audience response to their film was terrific. There were sighs and laughs, more than enough to inspire these kids for their future films; and make some of us older filmmakers slightly jealous. I was very proud of them.

Most importantly, the kids had a terrific experience in their first major film festival.

Good filmmaker experiences are not necessarily mandatory at film festivals, you see. Filmmakers can often feel used and abused. In that sense, it's an odd world, the film festival circuit. You are often left wondering who the festival is for. Filmmakers? Audiences? Celebrities? All three?

I was chatting to a filmmaker friend of mine recently, Mark, about the weirdness of this film festival cosmos. Mark has made documentaries good enough to be licensed by major news channels around the world, but he still gets the occasional film festival that promises 'exposure' for the chance to show his films. What organisation would offer 'exposure', when another organisation is willing to pay for the same content?

Film festivals. They occupy this strange limbo.

Many are genuinely wanting to encourage filmmakers' careers, and yet they charge those same filmmakers 'submission fees' to enter their festivals. This conundrum becomes murkier when these festivals also charge their audiences to attend festival screenings of the films. Everyone is being charged a premium to participate. Are the festivals having their cake and eating it too?

And so, as I slowly deep fried myself today, I thought about Tropfest's place in the bizzare oddworld of the film festival circuit. I was surrounded by the trappings of what they had built, after all.

And if you have never been, or have no intention of going, I have to tell you, Tropfest is a film festival on an enormous scale. Huge audience areas. Numerous big screens. Huge VIP tents. Food and beverage stalls as far as the eye can see.

Oh, and crowds this size: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=624000017646275&set=vb.131115713601377&type=2&theater

Interestingly, to build this Xanadu of the short film world, TropJR doesn't charge entry fees to filmmakers. Get them hooked while they're young I guess. On the other hand, Tropfest, the grown up section of the festival, charges all filmmakers a submission fee.

The public, however, can attend the massive final event for free. And they do, in droves. The effectiveness of this strategy, therefore, can't be questioned.

A fair question, though, is how big does Tropfest have to get, with its numerous sponsors and partners, before it declares that it will no longer charge filmmakers to enter? Could they, god forbid, charge an entry fee to audiences instead?

These ideas only lead to more questions.

Would an audience ticket price destroy the Tropfest final event? Is it exploiting filmmakers to charge them for the opportunity to screen their film to an audience, when the demand level shows that audiences could be willing to pay for it? Or does charging audiences miss the audience engagement point entirely?

The answer to these questions really depends on how you view the world of film and entertainment.

If you are a SUPPLY SIDE thinker, then you believe that the making of a film, which people might enjoy viewing, means the film has an intrinsic value that should be paid for. The supply side approach is the one that has driven the traditional film and television creation model for years.

If, however, you are a DEMAND SIDE thinker, then you believe that a film only receives value by how it engages with an audience. This model is the one that creates gatekeepers/curators, like film festivals, who have built an audience which filmmakers fall over themselves to get to.

So what does this mean in the context of Tropfest?

If you are a supply side thinker, the idea of a filmmaker having to pay to get to an audience is abhorrent. In this scenario, the film festival should be recognising the value of the film up-front (that the film festival doesn't exist without the filmmakers, in fact) by paying the filmmakers for the privilege of screening it. The film festival would then charge audiences, or sponsors, to recoup the cost.

If you are a demand side thinker, then the film festivals have curated an audience, and a filmmaker should be grateful, and pay, for the right to get to that audience. If the audience then responds well to your film, you have a chance to make money off the film through prizes and further licensing.

Personally, I think you can end up at either scenario, depending on a number of factors.

For example, an established filmmaker, who is known and beloved to audiences, and who has a film with actors that draw an even larger audience, should be recognised for their ability to draw their own crowd. In this hypothetical, the festival would be cynical to suggest that their curation alone is what will bring audiences to this film, and should rightly pay the filmmakers a screening fee for what their film brings to the table.

By contrast, a completely unknown filmmaker, with a completely unknown cast in their film, can trade on the reputation of a festival to boost their film's ability to reach audiences. In this case the film's curation, and access to the audience the festival has built, is tangibly beneficial to the filmmaker; and a fee, charged by the festival, could be considered fair.

The issue, therefore, is not the fees, the filmmakers, or the festivals.

The element that makes the film festival circuit the bizzaro world it is, is the lack of communication or a consistent approach to these scenarios. If a film festival simply made it clear that they believe in the demand side value they bring to the table, and perhaps were then instrumental in helping filmmakers monetise their films, then the debate would likely be over.

It should be a simple fix.

Instead, film festivals often say things like "we couldn't exist without the filmmakers" and then proceed to charge the filmmakers to enter.

Confusing.

And in that confusion, I'm not the only filmmaker who is left feeling burned.

Thankfully, I have Aloe Vera and a cold shower to help.

___________________

More info: http://tropfest.com/

My very talented friend, Mark: http://www.marktipple.com/

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

ON THE PASSING OF A FILM INDUSTRY GURU

A leading light in the film world, someone who's work has impacted many filmmakers around the world, has shuffled loose his mortal coil.

No, not Paul Walker.

Apologies if you enjoyed his movies, but I couldn't honestly describe Mr Walker as a film industry guru.

I am referring to Mr Syd Field.

Who, you ask?

I suppose that's the point.

I don't know if it's the speed with which time seems to be passing, or the couple of important people I lost this year, but I have been really mulling over legacy quite a bit.

It's a part of life that things get taken away, eventually. When you are younger, they come in abundance (if you are from a 1st world country). You are like a suckling pig, engorged with love, education and opportunity. Or perhaps a combination of these.

Then you get older.

Yes, new doors open. But others close.

And the hardest part, the one that can't be repositioned as a 'growing experience', is when people get taken away. Important people. Ones who made you who you are.

You feel their absence when you achieve a success that they played some small part in. That moment of distracted amnesia passes, and you remember they are not here anymore. And they never will be again.

If you let it, this moment can take you down a rabbit hole.

'Will they be remembered?' 'Will I?' 'Does it even matter if anyone remembers us when we're gone?' 'If it doesn't matter, what's the point of it all?'

I wish I could tell you that pondering these thoughts for long enough gives you answers, but it doesn't. You end up with more questions.

And then, in the midst of the emotional descent, an email arrived.

It was a newsletter from Michael Hauge, a Hollywood script pitching guru, who was a personal friend to Syd Field. Amongst a long and beautiful message, he wrote about Syd's book 'Screenplay':

'And, as it was for almost everyone in Hollywood, it was the first screenwriting book I ever owned.'

This struck a chord with me. 'Screenplay' was the first book I ever owned on screenwriting as well. I remembered, when I first read it, that I was so moved I wrote to Syd Field:

From: Peter Ireland
Subject: A personal thank you (from Australia)
To: sydfield@sydfield.com
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 6:16 PM

Dear Syd,

While I am almost certain you will not have time to read this, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your book. My name is Pete Ireland; I am from Australia; and I am just starting out in the film industry.

While a lot of focus is put on the practical skills your book teaches to developing screenwriters, I think the power of your work lies far more in the intangible.

To me, reading your thoughts and experiences filled me with hope about my ability to actually make my dream become reality. Too often in this industry (and this world) there are large numbers of people who say: "Don't bother, everyone is already doing it and there is no room for you". What your book has the courage to say is that it can be done - it is possible - and if you work hard and persevere (and get a little lucky), you can make it happen.

Personally, this message is far more powerful than any paradigm or inciting incident. It is a message that especially struck a chord with me, and it is the reason why I felt compelled to say thank you.

Because of you, I feel inspired.

Many thanks

Pete

While a gushing email would seem like a waste of time, it was a feeling I genuinely had to express. While I never expected a response, I was content just to put it into the universe. Gratitude like that shouldn't be bottled up.

But then, one morning, I opened my email, where I was stunned to find:

From: sydfield@sydfield.com
Subject: A personal thank you (from Australia)
To: Peter Ireland

Dear Pete,

I want to thank you for your email. I appreciate your thoughts and feelings about my books.

I want to wish you the very best in your career.

Good writing,

Syd

Now, to be honest, I have no idea if Syd himself wrote this. It could have just as easily been his intern.

But that's not the point.

Many of you may not have heard of him, but Syd Field's book, 'Screenplay' is one of the bibles of screenwriting. His writing and teaching has inspired a generation of screenwriters, including the likes of Alfonso Cuarón (of the recent 'Gravity') and James L. Brooks (the name you always see in 'The Simpsons').

But that's his resume, and that's not the point either.

What matters most is that Syd made an impact on me that I carry to this day. His voice cut through the din and made me know it was possible to pursue this crazy idea of filmmaking as a lifetime passion. In a world of "no" Syd Field has united a worldwide disparate group of dreamers. He was the better angel of our nature.

How do I know that Syd impacted so many people? Because Michael Hague articulated it best:

'Syd passed away 10 days ago, just hours after the rest of us finished presenting the Summit in London. Linda opened the event with a message from Syd - as always he was the one who welcomed everyone - and then the four of us did what we could to make it a fulfilling and inspiring event. But for us it was very sad, and unreal. He was a part of us, and he was there, but he wasn't. To me it was like we were spokes on a wheel that had lost its hub.

And that's how it will be from now on, I guess. Syd will always be a part of all of us - the millions of writers and filmmakers and moviegoers who have been touched by his ideas, and his humanity, and his love of story, and all of us script consultants and authors and screenwriting teachers who follow the path that he created.

But he's here, and he's not here. And I miss my friend.'

And that's the point. That's Syd's legacy.

How we impact other people. How we improve each others' lives somehow, with a kind word, a profound thought, or a cup of tea.

Syd did that for me. So did the two people taken away from me this year.

It's the only legacy that really matters. Because in the fullness time, none of us are likely to be remembered.

Except by the people who's lives we affect for the better.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

FOUR WEDDINGS AND A PARTICIPATORY CULTURE DEBATE

I was at a wedding yesterday. There was no time to write in the midst of the joy and subtle family feuds that were going on around me.

Lucky I had a date. That song gets it right "...here I am, stuck in the middle with you."

In any case, it was fortuitous. I was going to write about something totally different this week, but the wedding presented an observation particularly worth sharing.

No, it's not that you should get married. I'm the last person who should give relationship advice to anyone. I'm a child of two divorces. I'm built for cynicism.

As I sat in the uncomfortable wooden church pew, adjusting my seating position in a regimented rotation to avoid damaging my tailbone, I was struck by how many photographers and videographers there were. I can understand a wedding photographer or two, but this was a personalised paparazzi service.

Not to mention the relatives snapping pictures and videoing on their phones.

It reminded me of every music concert I have been to in the last 3 or 4 years. When I first started going to concerts, a smattering of people would hold up their phones. Not to record anything, of course. The technology wasn't there yet.

They had someone on the phone. On a call to hear their favourite song via the now archaic magic of a phone call. Hilarious when you think of it in the modern context.

Today, everyone is an iVideographer (sorry Samsung people). Tweens shooting live video of their favourite bands and posting them to their private Youtube channels. No wonder MTV's ratings have been falling steadily.

But this wasn't a concert. This was a wedding.

And yet, there they were. Two photographers. A videographer operating two fixed cameras. A videographer with a camera on a small steadycam rig. A data wrangler on a Macbook, checking the feeds and reviewing footage on the go. There were so many AV people, in fact, that they actually obstructed the view of the proceedings somewhat.

My last documentary had a smaller team, and it screened in film festivals in Australia and overseas.

Oh well, at least the loving couple's memories will be captured with beauty and an abundance of detail.

Do people even watch their wedding video again?

I digress.

The main point worth sharing, particularly for visual storytellers but also for audiences, is what this wave of participatory video means to us all.

Is the way that audiences expect to receive visual stories changing as the culture becomes more participatory and there is a video of everything? Or is a wave of cat videos and selfies unlikely to change the way audiences engage with the content they demand?

It's actually an ongoing discussion, for the global film and content industries, in which there are two clear schools of thought.

One, that new technology has ultimately changed everything, and visual stories going forward will need to have large elements of participation because audiences will demand it. They will not engage with stories in which they can have no input. Video games, transmedia and augmented reality will all overtake, and eventually make obsolete, traditional visual storytelling.

Or, two, that audiences will always respond to well told and engaging visual stories, told in a traditional screen/audience setting, to the point where they now 'binge' on them in ways never before seen. The breakaway success of 'Breaking Bad' and 'House of Cards' marathons will become the norm for great stories, regardless of whether audiences can be 'involved' in the actual telling of the story or not.

Both ideas have their merits. Both have far reaching implications for visual storytellers.

But which perspective is right?

Well, the bride and groom had just finished their first dance. The speeches had concluded too. Thank the gods, the speeches had concluded. Dessert was being served and women across the room were slipping off their heels in preparation for the dance floor.

Then suddenly, the lights dimmed. A screen unrolled on the far wall. A projector descended from the ceiling. The groom's face appeared. Nervously dressing for his wedding. The bride was getting her hair tousled.

It was a wedding highlight video, of the day that had just been.

The videographers had shot beautifully. From many angles, unsurprisingly. What was most interesting, however, was the room we were watching in.

It was silent. And still. A sea of rapt attention.

What had moments before been a roar of activity, chatter, and pre-dance stretching, was now a constellation of shining eyeballs. Glued to the screen.

They had all participated in the day. They had their iphone videos and photos. And yet, like statues, they watched the whole video on the traditional big screen as well.

It was the kind of attention that would make any filmmaker weep with jealousy. And, for any filmmaker looking for conclusions in the 'great participation debate', it actually left you with more questions than answers.

Because both perspectives appear to be right.

"Stop being Switzerland!", you say. Pick a side.

I would be lying if I did.

The only answer I have, if you're a filmmaker or visual storyteller, is that now is the time to be experimenting with all the different ways of engaging an audience. Create both participatory and traditional visual stories. Build your skills.

Do it now by the luxury of choice, rather than by the threat of necessity in the future. Your audience will likely thank you for the consideration.

Assuming they're not still hungover from the wedding, of course.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

I SAW A GHOST

Paranormal activity! In a mid-size, suburban town called Parramatta, of all places.

I was at a film festival called 'Best in the West', celebrating filmmakers from Western Sydney. I was invited, which was nice, and was attending because I wanted to support Western Sydney filmmaking. It's a cultural wasteland an hour west of Sydney Harbour, I know because I grew up there, so any event trying to improve the situation should be supported.

I didn't expect a supernatural experience, however.

Now, to be clear, I had been drinking. Two scotches. So, I was a bit wavy, but not sloshed. The first 45 minutes of the film screenings had concluded and I was enjoying the second beverage during intermission, while being roundly ignored by everyone there. It was actually quite fun, drinking and people watching. Young filmmakers screening their early work, taking photos with their crew and actors. Student filmmakers chatting happily with their classmates before the student film section of the program. It was nice to be a witness to people just enjoying filmmaking.

Then, amongst all of this joy, I spotted a familiar face. My stomach dropped.

It couldn't be. He died a year ago.

Nick Danger.

I even wrote about him: http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/danger-was-his-last-name.html

But there he was.

I was glued to my seat. Horrified.

How was this possible? Had he faked his own death? Why would he do that?

And then, I lost him. He mixed into the crowd and was gone.

With a shaky hand I finished my scotch. Suddenly, a loud voice announced the end of intermission.

I shuffled back into the theatre, hesitantly. I looked for Nick. No trace of him.

Was my mind playing tricks on me? After two scotches?

The films began playing. I refocused my attention to the screen. But I was distracted. Rattled, even. Through the first two films I kept surveying the crowd. Nothing.

A trailer began to play for a feature film. The festival didn't have time to play the feature, but wanted to promote it by playing the trailer. Title cards splashed on the screen in red script.

'A Danger Film'. I couldn't believe it. How was this possible?

The remaining films played through. Lights came on dimly. I leapt to my feet and scanned the audience.

There he was. Centre row. Chatting happily to friends.

I hustled in his direction, catching them all mid-conversation. Their confused faces stared at me. I scanned only one.

And I realised, despite looking freakishly similar, it wasn't him. I asked if he knew Nick Danger. He was stunned a moment.

"Of course, he was my brother".

That's how I met Tom Danger. We shared some pleasantries. I congratulated him on keeping up the family tradition by still making films. We both smiled and I moved on.

Mystery solved.

I've been thinking a lot about Nick Danger since then. I wrote about him last year, in June. He had just passed away after a long battle, from the age of 4 to 21, with cancer. It struck me then how his story could have been tragic, but that he had made the most of every moment he had. He had studied film, made a well received documentary, and even made a low budget feature film, like his heroes. His time was cut short, but he lived more than most people do in a lifetime.

And I couldn't help but think about what I have done with my time since then. It has been over a year since he was taken so young. In this time, he would have probably achieved more remarkable milestones, as he was prone to do.

But what have I done with the gift of life? Have I honoured his memory by using my time well?

I'm not sure that I'm fit to judge my own efforts. I'm biased, after all. And I'll spare you a cataloging of what I've done in the last 18 months. It's more of an internal discussion, really.

Instead, I wanted to remind you of a guy named Nick, who took on the world and succeeded in his own way. He was dealt a bad hand and he still managed to come up almost straight aces. By my logic anyway.

In the modern world, it's easy to get distracted. It's easy to spend too much time and energy worrying about what you haven't achieved, frowning at your to-do list, rather than focusing that energy on being productive.

Nick didn't have that luxury.

And that is his legacy, from my perspective. Nick will always be a reminder that you can sit around, buried in consternation about the difficulty of the challenge ahead and what goals you haven't achieved, or you can just start climbing.

OK, I didn't see a ghost. I saw a memory.

But I got the message Nick was sending, regardless.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

THAT'S EMBARRASSING

The first time I pitched a film, I was wearing a kilt, a wig, and I had the 'Braveheart' theme music playing behind me.

True story.

There I was, standing in front of my classmates at film school. Their mouths agape. My teacher looking at me, like I was insane, as I dove into the pitch.

'Family legends. Mine being whether I am related to Mel Gibson or not. The journey I would take to find out the truth.'

Yes, I really did that. I screwed any courage I had into a tight ball and threw myself at this bizarre pantomime.

In all honesty, I was slightly terrified. Not of whether I thought the film could work, of course. I was confident in the concept.

I was worried about embarrassing myself.

I look back on it and now and I am absolutely certain I did, in fact. But I also look back now and think, 'so what?'

Too often when I am speaking to people about their work, they clearly have the capability to do something incredible, but they hold back. It is not for lack of work ethic. Ultimately, it always comes down to two words: "how embarrassing".

Ironically, embarrassment is not something that can be forced upon you. You ALLOW yourself to feel embarrassed.

Why is that important?

Because it means the only thing holding you back from doing something totally remarkable, is you. Your pride is an anchor around your neck.

When Shakespeare was at his most successful, in Elizabethan England, women were not allowed to perform on the stage. Boys played the women's parts instead. Did these actors have time to be embarrassed?

No. They were too busy performing the work of the greatest playwrite of all time, at the peak of his powers.

Can you imagine the conversation if they bowed to pride? "Sorry Mr Shakespeare, but I would be too embarrassed to perform the lead for you. Will Romeo become available soon?"

To hell with your pride. Be passionate! Do your best work, even if (no, especially if) it means going out on a limb.

Imagine how good your presentation/film/email/report/tender/etc can be if you stop worrying about being embarrassed and just made it great?

Yes, it means taking a risk.

Yes, I may have made a fool of myself. In a kilt.

I may have been embarrassed, even if only for a moment.

But, I was also selected.

'Chasing Mel', directed by Pete Ireland.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

DEPORTMENT AND THE ART OF RECEIVING EMAILS FROM A HOLLYWOOD LEGEND

It's been a busy year. Everyone I know is EXHAUSTED.

When I was a kid, I used to laugh at that whole 'time is money' concept. Growing up in Australian suburbia, all I had was time. 'How could this be worth money?', I thought.

Now, I get it.

And everyone gets a bit more frazzled as we get to this part of the year. Time is running short before the Xmas holidays. Tempers fray. You remember the list of things you wanted to get done this year. You frown as you realise that you only got through a portion of said list.

So, given we are all a bit world-weary, I thought I would share a good-news story. Something to remind you why you keep working at it, whatever 'it' is in your case.

I know, it often seems like you are making no progress. That no matter how much you swim, the shore seems to get farther and farther away.

Nothing could be more removed from the truth.

Assuming you are always pushing yourself to do your best work, always attempting to make something remarkable, you are making progress. You may not see that progress bear immediate fruit, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

So, with that in mind, the other day an email popped up in my inbox from a friend. He is a photographer and documentary maker who has been pushing his limits and making better and better work over the years I have known him. A few times this has lead to some mainstream media exposure, but it hasn't converted completely into full-blown success. Yet.

He was slightly confused about an email he had received. He was concerned it may be a scam. The email read something to the effect of:

Hi (MY FRIEND'S NAME),

I have just seen your amazing (SHORT FILM/PHOTOGRAPH/ETC) online and wanted to get in touch.

I was really impacted by (SHORT FILM/PHOTOGRAPH/ETC). I and my team are really interested in you and your work. We thought it would be great to hear more. Are you interested in having a meeting or a phone hook-up to chat about your work and future projects?

At this point, I guess I can understand his caution.

But then, it finished with:

All the best,

(PERSON'S NAME)
(PERSON'S TITLE)
(OSCAR WINNING PRODUCTION COMPANY, FOUNDED AND RUN BY A HOLLYWOOD LUMINARY)
(HOLLYWOOD ADDRESS)

Nice.

The hilarious part of this whole story is that my friend had NO IDEA who they were.

I had to explain it to him. That is how focused on the quality of his work, rather than networking, he is.

The good news, for you and for him, is that his work has spoken for itself. It is garnering attention for him. As your work will for you.
So, enjoy the rest of the year. Do as much of your best work as you can in the last two months.

And remember, just because it feels like you are treading water, doesn't mean that the current isn't taking you somewhere great.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

TRUTH, $2.9 MILLION DOLLARS, AND A HOT CUP OF COFFEE

Once upon a time, there was a 79 year-old woman who received third-degree burns from a spilled cup of McDonald's coffee.

It was 1994, and I was 12 years old.

Funnily, I remember the story being on the news when it happened. Not just because the old lady, Stella Liebeck, was burned by coffee, of course. The story was a sensation because Stella had just received a court judgement of $2.9 million in damages.

It was a lightning rod.

The case prompted a worldwide media frenzy about whether a company should be held liable for a person spilling hot coffee on themselves. The huge compensation amount kicked the hornet's nest even more.

Endless news reports followed. Like a game of whispers, the facts of the case changed ever so slightly with each telling.

By the time the news cycle was finished, the old lady had been driving her car, holding the coffee between her legs, taken the lid off, and then spilled some of the boiling coffee onto herself.

Outrage! Horror! Rabble!

How could a person, even an old lady, not be held responsible for such personal negligence?

But instead, a United States civil jury rewarded her with the $2.9 million dollar judgement.

And, despite some media and public backlash, the old lady took her vast new fortune and lived happily ever after on the duplicitously-gotten proceeds.

Thus the story remained. A victory in the civil courts but a loss in the court of public opinion. For many years, in fact.

But then, the internet arrived.

And some solid facts of the story, or so they seemed, started to wobble.

Until finally, years later, another version of the story emerged via documentaries online.

The old lady was the passenger in the car, which didn't have cupholders. The car was stationary, parked in the McDonald's parking lot. She had indeed removed the lid, and was holding the cup between her knees. While pulling the far side of the lid off the cup, she spilled the whole thing onto her lap and groin. The burns, ultimately were to 16% of her body. She spent a week in hospital, incurring a $10,000 medical bill. Her ongoing medical expenses, for skin grafts and rehabilitation, pushed the total medical expenses up to $20,000. Her family wrote to McDonald's and tried several times to receive only a recompense for the medical costs. McDonald's offered $800 to close the matter. McDonald's were aware that they served their coffee extra hot, requiring 'franchisees to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82.2–87.8 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds', and a McDonald's representative 'conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.'

Oh, and that $2.9 million the old lady received?

Reduced to around $500,000 by the trial judge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE#t=51

Quite a radically different story now, isn't it?

Once upon a time we were in the era of propaganda. Whatever stories were made and told became the single voice on the subject. The 'voice of God', almost.

Leni Riefenstahl made a career out of it, directing propaganda films for the Nazi's like 'Triumph of Will':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHs2coAzLJ8

The power of the filmmaker was excessive in Riefenstahl's case, allowing her to shape a false, positive image of the barbarous Nazi regime.

It's a lot easier when you are the only voice in the room.

Then came an era of diverse artistic voices. More filmmakers arrived, each with different perspectives. The lone authority, the 'voice of God' was no more.

And then, 'filmmaking democratisation' happened. Suddenly, cameras were cheap. They didn't even use film anymore. Editing could be done on cheap computers now too. DVD's could be created by anyone, not just Hollywood studios. Youtube videos, as well.

A rapidly evolving media landscape. From one voice, to a few voices, to too many voices. All clamouring to be heard.

In this new environment, the crowded room, you can start to doubt yourself. A filmmaker can start to wonder, why does it matter if I have a story to tell at all?

And the answer is Stella Liebeck.

An old lady who endured 3rd degree burns and a wave of unwarranted public outrage as her story was warped and twisted against her by a small number of powerful voices: the media.

The same old lady who, through the amazing new capability we have to make films more cheaply, and to make them available online so easily, can finally have her story told correctly.

It just had to wait until we were ready.

So much content is not discovered by audiences instantly anymore. Only the biggest players are in the instant attention and hype business. But hype doesn't last.

If told well, your film simmers. Passing organically from audience member to audience member. Growing in awareness and reaching more and more people over time.

That it is not an instant sensation does not diminish the quality of your story.

So, yes, your story matters. If it is good. If it is told well. It may just have to wait until we are ready for it.

Have a cup of coffee...err...water...cold water, while you wait.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html

WRITING IS THE EASY PART...RIGHT?

Why do writers get all huffy about their "respect"?

Writing scripts is easy.

You just need a cup of coffee, an idea and something to type it with.

Hell, with today's screenplay formatting software, you don't even need to tinker with the different formatting between dialogue, description, and character names. The writing software does it all for you.

So, even a monkey could write a script, if given a laptop and enough bananas as incentive.

Right?

...

No, actually.

And sadly, I come across this attitude towards writing quite frequently.

I'm not talking about ambition. The idea of someone saying they can do something difficult is very different to declaring that same challenge is easy.

Ambition still implies respect.

Declaring the pursuit of writing as 'easy', on the other hand, is akin to the broadest disrespect for the craft. And it is a craft. You have to sculpt characters, create narrative, bound them together in structure, and, if that wasn't difficult enough, make the reader/audience care enough about the whole endeavour to actually FEEL something at the conclusion of the story.

Noah had an easier job.

And yet, still, the writers are taken for granted.

Take this scenario: do you think, from a sample of 16 million people in the general public, you would be able to source a script good enough to be made into a film?

If your answer is no, what if that same group didn't have to come up with the original idea, just to write the script based on a story idea they are given? Would that change your mind?

Surely, given writing is so easy, someone would have submitted a script of notable quality. A secret enclave of talent was finally discovered?

Nope.

And I can say that with authority because it has been tried. Recently, in fact.

Paul Verhoeven, the noted director of 'Robocop' and 'Basic Instinct' completed this experiment in his native country of Holland.

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130807-the-public-cant-write

The results were, to put it delicately, awful. But I will let Verhoeven speak for himself on the quality of the submissions:

“You know,” he says, “there may well be some talent out there waiting to be found. But frankly – I doubt it...We actually found the whole process a headache. Because no, the public can’t write – not professionally, anyway..."

Ouch.

But that's for a feature film. Perhaps if it were for something more free-flowing, and a little crass, like a 'Simpson's' cartoon? Surely, someone from a large sample of the public could produce a 'Simpson's' script worth making? How much skill does it take to make Homer Simpson look like an ignorant and oafish middle-aged man?

'Without doubt, the most mathematically sophisticated television show in the history of primetime broadcasting is The Simpsons...Al Jean, who worked on the first series and is now executive producer, went to Harvard University to study mathematics at the age of just 16. Others have similarly impressive degrees in maths, a few can even boast PhDs, and Jeff Westbrook resigned from a senior research post at Yale University to write scripts for Homer, Marge and the other residents of Springfield.'

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/sep/22/the-simpsons-secret-formula-maths-simon-singh

Oh.

Apparently, the Simpsons is written by mathematical prodigies and geniuses, who have made a career of inserting complex mathematical equations and theorems amongst the numerous witticisms on Evergreen Terrace.

'The first proper episode of the series in 1989 contained numerous mathematical references (including a joke about calculus), while the infamous "Treehouse of Horror VI" episode presents the most intense five minutes of mathematics ever broadcast to a mass audience. Moreover, The Simpsons has even offered viewers an obscure joke about Fermat's last theorem, the most notorious equation in the history of mathematics.'

Maybe this writing business is not as easy as is often suggested?

Perhaps, to be good enough to capture the attention and mindshare of millions of people around the world, writers have to develop a skill level that goes beyond strong coffee and formatting software?

Now, that shouldn't be a deterrent to anyone who wants to write for a living. It just means that, if you are serious about it, you must realise that great writers make it look easy. But it's not.

You have to make mistakes. Develop your skills. Learn the craft.

But learning always starts with acknowledging the skill that we don't yet have and admitting that these gaps need to be bridged. That takes humility.

And it starts with respect.

- - - - - - - - -
WANT TO COMMENT? THEN BECOME A SUBSCRIBER AND ALSO GET THIS WHIMSICALLY OPTIMISTIC NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL. http://www.openingactfilms.com/contact-us.html