OA FILM NEWS - 'Part One: Love' nominated for best documentary at the St Kilda Film Festival!

Great news!

Our film, 'Part One: Love' has been nominated for best documentary at the St Kilda Film Festival.

This is a wonderful compliment to our film from an excellent festival that is dedicated to cultivating film culture and supporting filmmakers.

http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/blogs/view/id/127864/t/St-Kilda-Film-Festival-nominees

http://www.filmink.com.au/notices/7476/

Fingers crossed on a win but, given how warmly we were received and how well the audience responded at our festival screening, it truly is just an honour to be nominated.

THE JUSTIFIED COMEUPPANCE OF THE PHONIES

A heist has been uncovered.

A complicated confidence scam involving major corporations.

It happened in plain sight.

And it all started with online video.

Online views are the new heroin, you see.

Ask anyone who has ever posted anything online.

You become addicted to watching the counters. You can't help it.

How many 'Likes'?

How many views?

Do they love me?

As the great viewing revolution has evolved, and audiences move increasingly to online video, these simple metrics have become increasingly important.

Not just for your ego. For actual commerce.

Careers are being built on the foundation of online popularity.

How else did Psy become a worldwide success?

His music video, 'Gangnam Style' is the most watched video on Youtube, with 1.5 billion views.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/29/psys-gentleman-music-video-sets-guinness-world-record/

The view counter, therefore, is becoming a symbol of how large your audience is.

Large audiences give established players (e.g. Hollywood studios) confidence in supporting you on your next piece of art.

And so careers are built.

But don't be fooled into thinking it's just about art.

There is plenty of money floating around too.

Psy is now a millionaire. 8 times over, in fact.

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121209/07431921317/psy-makes-81-million-ignoring-copyright-infringements-gangnam-style.shtml

But it's not just for pop stars. Advertisers want to play too.

If you are getting annoyed with the constant pre-roll of advertising at the start of nearly every Youtube video these days, that is the work of the advertisers.

That's the deal you've made, I'm afraid. If you want video content for free, you have to make some concessions.

And trust me, it's not going away.

Advertisement partnering on online videos is seen as one of the key foundations of the future video-on-demand (VOD) models.

Producers like me will be counting on these models to make money from our work and create sustainable careers.

So yes, I watch the view counter too.

For the advertisers, the view count is everything.

It tells them that their ads are reaching eyeballs. Their whole world.

It's where the money is.

And it's the perfect target for a heist.

How do you corrupt this seemingly scientific model, based on tangible data like a view counter?

Fake the views.

Oh yes, it's possible.

Believe it or not, you can artificially inflate the number of views of your work online.

But who would gain from this?

Some of the biggest media players in the business, that's who.

Think about it.

They gain both ways.

They make their product, whatever is the subject of the video, look popular and therefore easier to sell.

Win.

They also make it seem to advertisers that this video is worth partnering with, leading to a possible windfall from the revenue they get per ad, per view.

That's a winning each way bet. That's the heist.

But they got caught.

Surely I'm exaggerating, right?

Nope.

'Major record labels such as Universal, Sony/BMG, and RCA, were stripped by YouTube of over two billion views in the past month. Universal was hit the hardest, losing one billion views in the raid, and artists such as Michael Jackson, Chris Brown, Beyonce, and Avril Lavigne were all stripped of over 100 million phony views, violating YouTube's terms of service regarding view manipulation. In addition, videos from over 500 prominent channels were also stripped of views.'

http://www.complex.com/music/2012/12/youtube-strips-major-record-labels-of-over-two-billion-fake-views

The Young Turks provided a good analysis as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hhhuuRGfaU&sns=fb

Yes, they were caught with the hand in the cookie jar.

And their behaviour makes it harder for the rest of us filmmakers.

It reduces the power of a strongly viewed video to act as proof that you can engage with an audience. If the views are faked, what audience is there really?

It diminishes trust from possible advertisers and jeopardises a possible revenue stream for filmmakers.

In short, the heist benefits them and harms the rest of us.

But it's not all bad news.

That they were caught out is the most important thing.

There is an old saying, "transparency is the best antiseptic".

This behaviour had to be exposed and eliminated.

To clear a path for artists who are genuine, talented and organic.

To make way for those artists who have genuinely engaged audiences and lifted their view count legitimately.

To open opportunities for those artists who can potentially live off of the advertising revenue because of their talent and connection to a genuine audience base.

Now that the game is not rigged, why couldn't that be you?

- - - - - - - - -
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

NEPOTISM

Will Smith. Jaden Smith.

Tom hanks. Colin Hanks.

Martin Sheen. Charlie Sheen.

Yes, nepotism is alive and well in the film business.

Is it any more or less than in other industries? Or does the film business just make it more visible?

One thing is clear. It's a tag no-one wants.

It follows you around. It's like an accusation.

"You didn't earn this! Your success is only due to your famous lineage."

To artists in particular, this is an insult that burns deep.

Artists are supposed to struggle for their passion, you see.

Like soldiers, we toil anonymously in the trenches for our art.

Earning our stripes.

And then, if we are lucky to survive the perils and the battles, we return home.

In honour and to glory.

The nepotism tag suggests that you have circumvented this process, somehow.

You are not "one of us".

In some cases, unfortunately, the critics probably have a point.

I'm sure Rumer Willis is a lovely girl, but I am also certain I would've never heard of her if not for Bruce and Demi.

For other artists, the charge of Nepotism seems to be used as a metaphorical demerit badge.

Tall poppy syndrome is also rife in the film business.

And so it is with Lena Dunham.

For the uninitiated, Lena Dunham is the current 'overnight' success, as writer, director and star of the hit TV show, 'Girls'.

With its unique portrayal of modern women and relationships, 'Girls' has become somewhat of a cultural phenomenon.

Before the success of 'Girls', Lena came to attention as the writer, director and star of the low budget feature film 'Tiny Furniture'. The film won the Best Narrative Feature Film prize at the prestigious South by Southwest Film Festival, and went on to be theatrically released in the Unites States.

From 'Tiny Furniture', Ms Dunham's talent was recognised and the 'Girls' phenomenon followed shortly after.

And then, the criticism began.

Now, from her achievements thus far, you might think that Ms Dunham has earned her success; albeit rather quickly.

Apparently, not everyone agrees.

The most common of all criticism levelled at Ms Dunham was that of, you guessed it, nepotism.

http://crushable.com/entertainment/emmy-nominee-lena-dunham-defensive-nepotism-418/

This despite neither of her parents being Hollywood power players.

Apparently, it is enough to be considered nepotism just because her parents are wealthy and this allowed her the freedom to create her art and find success.

NEPOTISM (def'n): favours granted to family members regardless of merit.

Pardon my language, but I call "bullsh*t".

There is not a single artist on this planet who hasn't received help from somewhere.

Family. Friends. Mentors. The government.

What is crowdfunding but not one great hat to throw coins into?

But does that mean that Lena Dunham's success is not her own?

Utterly ridiculous.

Did she receive support from her family? Of course!

Did she grow up in priviledge? Absolutely!

But, as you can tell from her achievements, Lena crafted her own success in the arts.

Could she be more humble?

Maybe.

But how would you respond when someone is inferring you haven't earned your success?

And this is where you can learn from Ms Dunham's experience.

When your success comes, and the criticism starts to rain down like pigeon excrement, know that this is another form of validation.

If you are not taking risks, if you are not challenging people in ways that make them uncomfortable and lash out, then you are not a successful artist.

You can't tear down a poppy, unless it is standing tall in the first place.

So just enjoy your success.

You've likely earned it.

- - - - - - - - -
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

GAME OF THRONES vs PIRATES

Now, before you 'geek out' on me, this is not a new spin-off of the HBO hit TV show, 'Game of Thrones'.

For the record, I think pirates would win. Muskets versus swords, you see.

But no, this is about Australia's latest great achievement. We're number 1!!

Unfortunately we are the number one, per capita, pirates of 'Game of Thrones'.

On pure volume of downloads, regardless of population size, we are still number three on the list, after the USA and United Kingdom.

We have always been known for overachieving, I guess.

http://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-pirates-break-bittorrent-swarm-record-130401/

Our achievement has not gone unnoticed. This week, the American Ambassador to Australia released a statement pleading with Australians to stop pirating the show.

He even suggested that Australia's traditional excuse for piracy, release delays, no longer holds water.

"While some people here used to claim that they used pirate sites only because of a delay in getting new episodes here, the show is now available from legitimate sources within hours of its broadcast in the United States," the Ambassador stated.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/us-ambassador-jeffrey-bleich-pleads-australia-stop-pirating-game-of-thrones/story-e6frfkp9-1226629324212

Now, to be clear, I'm a filmmaker and I DO NOT support piracy. I believe it is stealing, and will cripple our industry if it continues unabated.

On this issue, however, I must say I can understand why Australians pirate 'Game of Thrones'.

Hypocritical? Maybe.

But no more than suggesting that Australians have had easy, legal access to 'Game of Thrones' in the past.

The American Ambassador actually used a half-truth.

It's true, there is a new content deal between HBO (the makers of 'Game of Thrones') and Australia's online video streaming site Quickflix. People who want to access 'Game of Thrones' in Australia can now do so legally and easily via Quickflix.

How is that a half-truth?

The HBO-Quickflix deal is only two weeks old.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/04/game-of-thrones-just-got-easier-to-stream-in-australia-thanks-to-quickflix-and-hbo/

For Australians, their only option to watch new episodes of 'Game of Thrones' instantly has been through a, quite expensive, Foxtel cable television subscription.

And not only is the Foxtel subscription expensive, but you also need to have a traditional television set-up to receive it.

So, for our hypothetical person who only wanted 'Game of Thrones', they now end up paying for an entire package of TV channels they didn't want.

And even then, with that added complication and expense, it is still screened on Foxtel three hours after the United States broadcast.

Is this a reasonable option?

Do Australians really have "no excuse" for pirating new episodes of 'Game of Thrones' prior to the Quickflix deal?

As much as it pains me, I don't agree.

In reality, the Ambassador's statement is misdirection.

The Foxtel option is complicated (have you ever tried getting cable or satellite TV connected?) and overpriced, while the ink on the Quickflix deal is only just drying. A reasonable person wouldn't suggest that this history left Australians with "no excuse".

And, come to think of it, why are these legal and convenient options to access 'Game of Thrones' only just being established?

Could it be that they were trying to prop up the extremely lucrative sales of DVD's in Australia at the expense of Australian fans of the show?

No, of course not, that would be silly.

But still, it was misdirection. Blaming the pirates distracts from the real issue: that the industry is not making the content people want easily and legally available.

I hate piracy, I truly do, but the industry is not doing enough to cleverly stomp it out.

We need an approach that incorporates extreme convenience for audiences to access and pay for their content, as well as prosecution of pirates.

And we need it soon, before it's too late to convert people back from piracy.

The pirates are strong. They have muskets.

We need to be smarter 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

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!

When I was a kid there were only five TV channels in Australia.

Five. That's it.

Now, before you start claiming I am one of the ancients, this is only my 31st year on the planet.

In 31 years, we went from five channels to over a hundred.

And let's not forget the internet.

Oh yes, as horrifying as it seems, there was a time when the net was only something for oranges, hair, or tennis.

Now, the future of viewing is online, whether on your phone, tablet, or web-enabled television.

The effect of these changes have been like a clusterbomb.

Fragmented audiences.

More content produced than ever.

Increased opportunities to connect with audiences.

Decreased ability to stand out in the crowd of content.

So, like all evolutionary processes, there are winners and losers.

The most significant effect, and one that all filmmakers should pay attention to, isaudience sophistication.

Yes, audiences are becoming more savvy.

No longer are motion pictures something we see only occasionally. They're ingrained everywhere.

Websites. TV. Phones. Even billboards.

The one constant for the human mind, is that the more exposed it is to a stimuli, the more sophisticated it becomes at discerning microscopic elements that define differences and quality.

Case in point. There is a wonderful story of one of the first ever films being shown to an audience. It was a short, black-and-white film of a train heading directly towards the camera.

The audience freaked out.

They were convinced that the train was about to come through the screen and end their lives horrifically.

Can you imagine this happening today?

Of course not. This degree of novelty has worn off of movies and video content.

Today's audiences have become so sophisticated, it takes only the slightest poor artistic choice within a film to lose their engagement.

But it's not all gloom. With the growth in audience sophistication has grown their demand for content.

No longer a novelty, but no longer a luxury either.

Almost a necessity?

That may be a stretch, but it is fair to say that most people in the developed world could not imagine life without their entertainment.

This appetite is good for film and content creators, obviously.

There is, however, a caveat. We creators must evolve with the audience too.

And it is an evolution. The traditional 'we create, you watch' model still exists of course, but video entertainment is increasingly a participatory sport.

Don't believe me? Google 'Harlem Shake'.

Or better yet, watch this excellent TED talk from the Video Trend Manager at Youtube. His job is to watch Youtube videos all day, and he gives an entertaining presentation on the evolution of audience engagement through video.

http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_allocca_why_videos_go_viral.html

Pay particular attention to the idea of "communities of participation".

How more sophisticated do you think our audiences become when they make their own content too?

People are even sharing the minute details of their lives through video, socially. A new app by the makers of Twitter, called 'Vine', allows people to share 6 seconds of their life at a time.

You can then watch these tiny snippets, for hours if you are so inclined, at a website called vinepeek.com. It is fascinating, and (I warn you now) extremely addictive.

https://itunes.apple.com/app/vine-make-a-scene/id592447445

http://vinepeek.com/

Tiny snippets of life, shared in a constant stream of video.

Incredible. Unthinkable not that many years ago. Now a reality.

And this is the world you face as a storyteller today.

But what does it mean?

It means that you can be terrified by this evolving world of increasing audience sophistication.

Or you can realise that the audience will push you to do your greatest work. If you let them.

It means that the way we tell stories today, will not necessarily be the way we tell stories in the future.

But that's not a bad thing. Imagine evolving filmmaking to the point of fully immersive stories and 'choose your own adventure'? How much fun could that be for the creator and the audience?

Most of all, it means that creators understanding and grasping the fundamentals of great storytelling (connection, emotion, entertainment) will be more important than ever.

Because good enough won't be good enough.

The audiences have grown up.

They're ready for your best work.

Are you ready to create it?

- - - - - - - - -
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 - 'Part One: Love' selected for the St Kilda Film Festival!

After a terrific screening in the fantastic Byron Bay Film Festival, followed up by an excellent reception at the wonderful Melbourne Queer Film Festival, we thought we had run out of adjectives.

And then, we received word that 'Part One: Love' has been accepted into the amazing St Kilda Film Festival!

We are deeply honoured to have all of these great film festivals allowing us to screen to, and connect with, their audiences. Hopefully, we can one day repay the favour.

With that in mind, start getting your tickets for the St Kilda film festival now, and come and say hello if you see us there.

http://www.stkildafilmfestival.com.au/2013/

THE FEEDBACK RESPONSIBILITY

So, you got what you wanted.

Music is cheaper than ever.

You can buy an album for $16 on iTunes today.

When I was a kid, I bought a Busta Rhymes CD, from HMV, for $35.

Yes, Busta Rhymes. I was young.

Movies are cheap too.

You can get a new release DVD for $22 now.

I remember trying to buy Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story', years ago.

$35.

So, you won.

Your entertainment is more easily available.

It's cheaper.

Congratulations.

But guess what?

These improvements aren't free.

Sorry.

The piper is here. He's playing loudly for you.

I know, I know. You don't want to.

You don't think you have to.

I'm afraid you're wrong.

If you want us to keep making the movies, TV and music you enjoy, you have to earn it.

You have to start giving feedback.

More than that, you have a responsibility to give feedback.

Rate movies online. Spread the word about TV shows. Write a review about a song.

Pay it forward.

You don't realise it, but the content makers of the future are going to rely on you exponentially to help them stand out from the crowd.

Our careers will be in your hands.

We are entering an era of abundance. There is going to be more film, music, TV and gaming content released in a year than you can consume in a lifetime.

It's already happening now.

Traditional marketing will play a part in how you will hear about these new films, games, music and television.

But more than ever, word-of-mouth will be vital to ensure that the best content rises to the top and finds an audience.

Without your feedback, good films will languish in a sea of content.

We have to make it easier for you to give this feedback, of course. An instant, quick star rating prompt after you have watched the movie you bought on iTunes, for example.

But you have to play your part. You have to take the feedback responsibility seriously.

After all, you won.

You wanted the power to be in the hands of the consumer.

It is.

Now it's time to use it.

- - - - - - - - -
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

FAME

A great man died this week.

But you've never heard of him.

He was laid to rest on Friday.

But there was no fanfare.

When the time came to commemorate his passing, there were only those of us, who's lives he had touched, to say farewell.

There were a lot of us.

So many that some of the mourners had to stand outside of the chapel.

As we cried openly together, it was clear what a remarkable impact Bill had made on so many.

And yet, you haven't heard of him.

And I realised, so much of what we do is built around making a 'name' for ourselves. Fame. Or legacy.

But all that really matters, when the final curtain falls, is connection.

How we have connected with people.

With our words.

With our deeds.

For filmmakers, with our art.

In a world that baffles you with complexity and speed, it is still all about people.

About how we connect to our brethren. How we touch the hearts of strangers and kin alike.

It always has been. It always will be.

Bill knew it. That's why he made sure that he was a force for so much good in people's lives.

That's why I feel his loss now.

He wasn't famous.

But great men are rarely famous, and famous men are rarely great.

RIP, Edward "Uncle Bill" Green.

- - - - - - - - -
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

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS OPTIMIST

Generational psychology is the new pop psychology.

If you believe in its wafer-thin scientific principles, usually based on a survey with a sample size akin to a football match crowd, you are likely to be fairly pessimistic about the younger generations.

Gen Y in particular takes a lot of flack, most commonly characterised as 'Generation Me', the epitome of narcissism.

Of course, the Baby Boomers, with their focus on wealth and accumulation (remember the quintessential 'greed is good'?) never stooped to self-adulation the way Gen-Y's are alleged to. Of course not. No way.

They accumulated all that wealth and power for the greater good, not for personal glorification.

Right.

Personally, I don't believe that you can make broad assumptions about an entire GENERATION of people, based on surveys which cover barely a drop in that generational ocean.

I can, however, make broad generalisations about the people who believe you can trust generational psychology.

But I'll stay on topic.

The overwhelming tone of the verdict on Generation Y is that they are focussed purely on benefitting themselves.

Mixing this base with the effects of 9/11, the dreadful naked-lunch reality check of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a financial crisis du-jour, leads the Gen-Y cocktail to taste like narcissism blended with apprehension.

An interesting piece in the New York Times articulated the diagnosis quite nicely:

'"Buhler argues that the group she calls Cynic Kids “don’t like the system — however, they are wary of other alternatives as well as dismissive of their ability to actually achieve the desired modifications. As such, the generation is very conservative in its appetite for change. Broadly speaking, Cynic Kids distrust the link between action and result.”

I had many reactions to Buhler’s dazzling paper, but I’d like to highlight one: that the harsh events of the past decade may have produced not a youth revolt but a reversion to an empiricist mind-set, a tendency to think in demoralized economic phrases like “data analysis,” “opportunity costs” and “replicability,” and a tendency to dismiss other more ethical and idealistic vocabularies that seem fuzzy and, therefore, unreliable. After the hippie, the yuppie and the hipster, the cool people are now wonksters.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/opinion/brooks-the-empirical-kids.html?smid=tw-share

An interesting analysis, no doubt.

But totally off the mark.

Call me whatever diminutive term you prefer, but I don't buy the cynical-narcissist-generation spiel. I am instead full of hope about my generation and the next.

The problems we are inheriting are complex, no doubt.

But the age we live in is a golden age (Google age?) of awareness, access-ability and information.

Filmmakers today have the cheapest tools ever to make their art and open people's minds while making them feel something. Writers can blog or e-publish at will. Anyone can learn to write computer code and create the next paradigm changing piece of software in their bedroom.

Why wouldn't we use these remarkable opportunities to evolve our society into something truly egalitarian, sustainable and prosperous?

Is that kind of evolution so big it's terrifying?

Perhaps it's the enormous scale of these opportunities that is the cause of all of the consternation by and about Gen Y. The access to information and technology, you see, takes away the pervasive excuse of ignorance.

Suddenly, we are being held accountable for being uninformed.

And, most importantly, we are also accountable for not taking action to improve the situation. We are not Germany from 1939-1945. No-one is unaware 'accidentally'.

That kind of responsibility is scary at first. But then, exciting.

'You can do anything that you set your mind to achieve.'

Scary. Then, exciting.

But the pop-psychologists would have you believe that Gen-Y's combination of narcissism and negative world events has lead them to be cynical and paralysed by the need to always have empirical 'data' before taking action.

You can believe that if you like.

Or, can you read about the story of the three teenage girls in Africa who developed a power generator that works on human urine.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57547296-1/pee-power-african-teens-create-urine-fueled-generator/

Or, you can read the recent story of the 17 year old from Britain who developed an App that that he sold to Yahoo for an estimated $30 Million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/business/media/nick-daloisio-17-sells-summly-app-to-yahoo.html?_r=0

A 17 year old in Britain. Two 14 year olds and a 15 year old in Africa.

Trusting in their potential.

Changing the world.

Just like you can, if you put in the work and think big.

Scary. Then, exciting.

- - - - - - - - -
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

DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS

Australians pay 30% to 70% more on iTunes than Americans do for the same content.

But that's not the secret. Anyone with a computer can find that out.

The dirty little secret was actually revealed by the man in charge of Apple Australia, Tony King.

At an inquiry in Australian Parliament on the pricing of Microsoft, Adobe and Apple products in Australia, Mr King revealed:

"The pricing of this digital content is based on the wholesale prices which are set through negotiated contracts with the record labels, movie studios and TV networks".

"In Australia, they have often set a higher wholesale price than the price of similar content in the United States."

"(In the digital age) the content industry still runs with perhaps old-fashioned notions of country borders or territories or markets. (This) creates confusion for customers"

He went on to say that Apple had pushed for lower Australian pricing with content owners, to no avail. 

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/evasive-microsoft-adobe-fail-to-justify-prices-20130322-2gjkr.html

Now, to people within the film and music industries in Australia, the above is not new information.

To the Australian public, however, this is a revelation.

You see, it is really easy for the general public to blame Apple for the price differential between geographic regions.

Apple are the flashy, know-it-all, hipster face of tech and content distribution.

Apple was also the first-mover, from the established players (I'm ignoring Napster and P2P file-sharing services at this point), to create a usable online content store for legal downloading.

In that sense, Apple is the well-dressed, smarmy guy/girl in the room, who loves to tell you about their success. When these kinds of people miss-step, the world loves bringing them down a peg.

And so it is with Apple. Schadenfreude of the highest order.

The real culprits for the price differential between geographic regions, of course, stay silent.

Why get in the way of a public grilling that should be directed their way?

But Apple know they are not to blame. And now they want you to know too.

According to Apple, it is the MAJOR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS, like the big Hollywood Film Studios, who are making you pay higher prices.

The little independent filmmakers are not to blame. They don't have the negotiating power to cause such a differential.

From my perspective, however, Apple is only half right.

The problem is actually bigger.

You see, price differentials for movies don't just happen in the online world, like iTunes, but also in the physical world of cinemas as well.

In Australia, the viewing public are shaken down for every last cent at both the cinema and in the online content stores.

There are two bandits in this enterprise. THE EXHIBITORS (i.e. cinemas) and the MAJOR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS (i.e. Hollywood Studios).

The exhibitors empty your left pocket at the cinema, and the major copyright holders empty your right pocket when you try and purchase a film later on DVD or online.

What has Australia done to deserve this treatment?

Nothing.

This issue is all about the big, well-established players in the film industry, the titans, wanting to make as much money as possible.

I have actually written about the exhibitor side of this problem before and, from the looks of things, little has changed.

http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/exhibitors.html

Exhibitors continue to enforce outdated geographic restrictions on film releases internationally. The Quentin Tarantino helmed 'Django Unchained', for example, was being discussed ad nauseum for months in America, when it hadn't even been released in Australia.

There used to be a good reason for this difference in release dates worldwide. Once upon a time, a film was geographically restricted because it only had so many copies to screen in cinemas. Once all the copies ('prints') were finished being used in America, they were shipped to Europe, then Asia, and so on.

Today, the film can be sent as a high-resolution digital file to screen immediately, all over the world. There is no real point to geographical release restrictions anymore.

Except...

...to maintain a false scarcity of the film and keep ticket prices artificially high, fleecing the audiences for their money.

Then, once the film has finished in the cinemas, the Major Copyright Holders continue to maintain outdated, higher 'non-theatrical format' prices (i.e. DVD and online prices) for the film in different regions. There used to be a good reason for this too. Shipping VHS tapes and DVDs to far away locations, like Australia, was expensive. The cost of the additional shipping and handling was therefore passed on to consumers.

Today, the film can be downloaded from online stores, instantly, with no shipping costs, no physical product and no logistical overheads (aside from the computer infrastructure, e.g. the hardware, software and labour that Apple use to maintain the iTunes store). There is no real point to price differentials between regions anymore either.

Except...

...to maintain a false 'price floor', and therefore keep prices artificially high, fleecing the audiences for their money.

And they wonder why people are not 'morally' challenged by pirating films? The audiences have been mugged for so long, they feel no moral obligation to put money into the pocket of the bandits.

And sadly, I can't blame them.

But the biggest players in the film industry don't seem to care.

Even if it means encouraging every last person to pirate, they will squeeze every last dollar out of audiences while they can.

Why?

Because they are big public companies with shareholders.

Because the people currently in charge of these film industry titans know they won't be around when the whole thing comes crashing down.

They will have cashed in their chips long before we have to clean up their mess.

And that, my friends, is the dirtiest little secret of them all.

- - - - - - - - -
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

VERONICA MARS AND THE MILLION DOLLAR EXPERIMENT

It seems like every other day someone is announcing a new 'world changing' event.

Maybe we have become too cynical. Overexposed to media hype, our attention can only be drawn by announcements of the extreme.

Hype, in a way, has become a self-sustaining cycle.

But occasionally the exposure is warranted. An event is truly paradigm shifting.

Six years ago, a paradigm shifting event had its genesis. It was May 2007, and the last episode of a TV show, 'Veronica Mars', aired in the USA.

Their audience was devastated, despite the fact it had run for only three seasons. When TV audiences fall, they fall hard.

The executive producer, Rob Thomas, never gave up on the concept, despite the cancellation. In optimistic defiance he wrote a feature film script set in the world of Veronica Mars.

And then, nothing.

Warner Brothers, the studio who owned the show, turned down the film version.

Rumours of the show's return whirled, circled, settled and disappeared.

Slowly 'Veronica Mars' disappeared over the horizon. A DVD back-catalogue item.

But not for Rob Thomas.

Years passed.

Nothing.

Then suddenly, a new seed of hope.

Crowdfunding appeared. A direct connection with your audience, who then donate to your film project, up-front, to get it made.

Rob Thomas approached Warner Brothers. Would they let him use the 'Veronica Mars' story, which they owned, if he could crowdfund enough for a movie?

Sure, was Warner Brothers' reply, just raise 2 million dollars and it's yours.

So Rob Thomas listed the film on the crowdfunding website Kickstarter. The crowdfunding campaign had 30 days to raise $2 Million from their fan donations.

And here is where this event earned its hype. The paradigm shift is real.

The 'Veronica Mars' crowdfunding campaign raised the first million in 11 hours.

Within one day, the film had raised the required two million.

At the time of writing this, the campaign has raised $3.5 Million.

It set a crowdfunding speed record for the fastest project to break $1 Million.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica-mars-movie-project

Incredible.

This week, therefore, crowdfunding for film hit puberty. From here there will be growth, pain, angst and opportunity.

The angst has already started. Industry-shifting events always generate debate.

On one side are the independent filmmakers, who with consternation decry the 'Veronica Mars' crowdunding campaign as a travesty.

Crowdfunding, they say, was supposed to be for independent artists to connect with audiences and thus receive the backing to make their art. They see 'Veronica Mars' as a takeover of crowdfunding by studios that already control the majority of the pie.

On the other side are the industry pundits and futurists, saying that 'Veronica Mars' has rung in the beginning of a beautiful new world for film.

This new world is one where audiences and artists/creators are in synch, with a symbiotic relationship of support and artistic creation. This new world, they say, should not discriminate on the scale of the artist, be they studio or independent filmmaker. Everyone should get to play.

Interestingly, both of these viewpoints have an in-built assumption that I am not sure I agree with.

The assumption is that the 'Veronica Mars' crowdfunding experiment was a success.

Certainly the campaign was a success. They raised a huge amount of money, well beyond the $2 Million target. Previously, this sort of success was reserved for music projects using crowdfunding, like Amanda Palmer.

Movies, however, are not like music projects. Music projects, during their creation, scale in ways very unlike films.

Music, while still expensive at the most produced end of the spectrum, can still be made within a reasonable cost niche. By contrast, and despite technological improvements, the resources needed to make AND RELEASE films are still enormous. Hopefully this will change, but it is the reality that filmmakers face today.

So, in the present paradigm, films still need to be a profit-making exercise to pay for the on-costs that music doesn't have, especially around a theatrical release.

And it is with this in mind that I question the assumption that the 'Veronica Mars' campaign is a success.

Why?

Because who is their untapped audience now?

Where will they make the profit they need, to pay for film related on-costs, if they have already drained the dollars from their supporter base?

Will their base feel exploited if asked to pay for the film at the cinema too?

Maybe I am wrong, and their audience, loyal to the end, will show up in droves.

But I'm not sure.

I'm not sure if, ultimately, the 'Veronica Mars' crowdfunding experiment will be a success.

I'm not sure if crowdfunding is built for these sorts of mass projects. They might be bleeding the well dry up front.

The world may have changed, but how much?

Time will tell.

- - - - - - - - -
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 CAN PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND SO SHOULD YOU!

Filmmakers everywhere should be doing the 'President Obama'.

No, it's not a new viral dance craze.

But it is revolutionary.

And it all starts with one man.

But it's not the President.

What if I told you that the driving force behind President Obama's successful 2012 reelection campaign was another man lurking behind the scenes?

It sounds like a movie plot conspiracy.

A super genius.

A man who assembled a team of fellow geniuses and built a sophisticated computer system to win the election.

A Bond film perhaps?

This may all sound far fetched, but it is absolutely true.

And he even has a name. Not a silly code number or pseudonym.

Harper Reed delivered President Obama reelection.

But more important than who he is, is how he did it.

Filmmakers should be paying attention.

He built a system to track voter, and potential voter, data. Simple yet extraordinarily powerful.

Harper Reed and his team could then track, down to the individual, who their army of Obama Campaign volunteers (the 'door knockers', as they are imaginatively called) had contacted and how engaged the potential voters were with President Obama's re-election efforts.

Now this may not sound sexy to people in the film business traditionally, but it is indeed revolutionary.

Why?

Imagine if, before you have even finished your script, you could be sure that it had an audience. What would that be worth to you?

If you're a filmmaker and the answer isn't 'priceless', you should change careers. Now.

Imagine if a movie studio could be sure that its new $100M fantasy sci-fi epic had all the elements that would attract a big audience and loads of ticket sales.

This is the power of data.

Data is the new world currency. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

The President knew it. And now he is the President again.

But why aren't we doing this as filmmakers? Our livelihood is actually certain to benefit from this kind of audience data revolution, more so than the political sphere.

And yet, in a bizzare irony, it is a POLITICIAN leading the way. How odd.

To help get you up to speed on this new world of data, I present to you this excellent article on the President's data team, including Harper Reed. It is a must read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-the-nerds-go-marching-in/265325/1/

If you are lazy, however, the part you must know is:

With Davidsen's help, the Analytics team built a tool they called The Optimizer, which allowed the campaign to buy eyeballs on television more cheaply. They took set-top box (that is to say, your cable or satellite box or DVR) data from Davidsen's old startup, Navik Networks, and correlated it with the campaign's own data. This occurred through a third party called Epsilon: the campaign sent its voter file and the television provider sent their billing file and boom, a list came back of people who had done certain things like, for example, watched the first presidential debate. Having that data allowed the campaign to buy ads that they knew would get in front of the most of their people at the least cost. They didn't have to buy the traditional stuff like the local news, either. Instead, they could run ads targeted to specific types of voters during reruns or off-peak hours.

According to CMAG/Kantar, the Obama's campaign's cost per ad was lower ($594) than the Romney campaign ($666) or any other major buyer in the campaign cycle. That difference may not sound impressive, but the Obama campaign itself aired more than 550 thousand ads. And it wasn't just about cost, either. They could see that some households were only watching a couple hours of TV a day and might be willing to spend more to get in front of those harder-to-reach people.

Incredible.

Keep in mind though, knowing the size of your audience is not a new idea. For example, there is a famous (though questionably accurate) story about filmmaker Kevin Smith and the release of one of his films by the film moguls, the Weinsteins. For the unaware, Kevin Smith is famous for his films 'Clerks', 'Mallrats' and 'Dogma', as well as his extensive public speaking and comic book writing.

As the story goes, Mr Smith advised the Weinsteins not to spend a large amount on releasing his film, because he wanted the production budget and the distribution budget to add up to a certain maximum amount.

For the purposes of this story, we'll call this total amount 'X'.

Smith claimed that the audience he had cultivated over the years amounted to a certain regular amount of box office return, equal to at least 'X'. These people, Smith said, would always buy tickets because they were 'Kevin Smith' fans.

Let's call this number of guaranteed fans 'F'.

So, including the production budget, as long as the Weinstein's spent no more than 'X' releasing the film, they wouldn't lose money.

According to the story, however, the Weinstein's ignored Smith's advice and, in the short run at least, they lost money on the film.

So what is the moral of the tale?

Even if it's not true, this story is informative conceptually. The guesstimation of audience size by Mr Smith in the story, however, has now become antiquated by the new world of data.

In the future, you won't have to guess. Data is how you will know, for your film project, what your 'F' is.

'F' will be a powerful number. It will drive constraints like the amount of investment money you will be able to raise to make your film, and therefore help you determine your 'X'.

But 'F' will also bring opportunity. It will inform how much more you need to do, to raise awareness about your film. It will guide your focus for engaging audiences, and potential audiences.

In short, knowing 'F' will help you build your audience, and your career, as Kevin Smith has.

And the data revolution has already begun. From the documentary makers who have used targeted online advertising of their film to track the 'click-throughs':

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/business/media/finding-a-documentary-audience-for-a-cause.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&

...to Netflix creating their new original show, 'House of Cards' using Netflix viewer data to show who to cast (Kevin Spacey), who to select as Director (David Fincher), and even what kind of show to make (a remake of the original BBC TV Series):

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers_into_puppets/

As with anything new there are concerns. In particular, there is worry that too much data-driven decision making will lead to formulaic films and TV shows being made.

I don't agree.

Formulaic content was already being made, long before there was ever the faintest notion of a data revolution.

All the data does is tell you what audience exists. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You will still have to make creative decisions, to engage with this audience. Perhaps though, the data will give you pause to scale your budget to the available audience.

So, no more bankrupting studios with $100M films, that have no audience to watch them.

This can only lead to better decisions on the business side of filmmaking, which is traditionally our weakest area. We are creatives after all.

And for you, the time has come to embrace the data revolution.

Use the data to work out your 'F' and then work to engage and grow your audience.

President Obama knew it was important enough to invest in, and he only wanted four more years.

This is your entire film career. How much more important should it be for you?

- - - - - - - - -
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

ACQUIRING SUPERPOWERS

We live in remarkable, revolutionary times. If you pay attention long enough, you realise it really is an amazing epoch to be alive in, on this small clump of dirt we call Earth.

Everything on Earth is evolving in some way. Notions of gender, marriage, sexuality, technology, economics, power, politics are all changing.

Remember when we just accepted everything as it was, purely for the reason 'because'?

Those days are over. In the developed world, everything is evolving though a post-modern maze. We need real answers. So, for the first time in generations, we have had to go back to the script and work out why things have been written the way they are.

The best example of this navel gazing is in education.

Remember when you went to school, because that was just what you had to do?

Even that is changing. There is now an education debate going on, worldwide, that you should be paying attention to.

People are asking, what is the real point of education? What should we be teaching our youth to be ready for the future? What should we be learning, as adults, to prepare ourselves for the challenges to come?

Tough questions, going to the foundation of education's very existence.

First, you have to know where education started. The education system was originally designed to produce more compliant and effective factory workers in the manufacturing industry, particularly for the big factories of the UK, Europe and America. It was not a philanthropic gesture.

Don't believe me? Start here and keep googling:

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/09/back-to-the-wrong-school.html

But something has changed fundamentally in the developed world, since that inception. The manufacturing jobs that built the current status quo are disappearing to developing countries, to chase lower wages and higher profit margins.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/07/09/11898/5-facts-about-overseas-outsourcing/

So, we now have an education system producing people hard-wired for a societal construct that no longer exists.

Can this lead to anything but misery?

Yes, it can lead to something better.

I remember learning to read and write. It was so incredible that it felt surreal. To be able to hear these words in my head and articulate them into thoughts and stories.

It was like a superpower. It still is.

But now, we need a new superpower. Luckily, this superpower that can be acquired.

We need to learn how to code. All of us.

Some of us will be better at it than others. Not all of us will make a career out of it.

But EVERYONE needs to learn it.

Software is now a driving force behind everything. Where once a person had a job keeping a spreadsheet tracking deliveries, now there is a program that can do it automatically.

This is the future, and it will affect every industry.

Film and content creators, I am talking particularly to you. The tools to distribute and promote your content will increasingly involve software.

It's happening already. There are now dedicated iphone Apps just for content from specific films. As this area grows, you will have to be able to at least understand what the programmers building websites (or any other software) for you are talking about.

But this is about more than that. This is about understanding the zeitgeist. It's about understanding how people think, so that you have a better ability to empathise and appeal to them as an audience for your films and stories.

If you don't understand what is driving the culture, how can you be a part of it as a storyteller?

If you don't even have a basic awareness of how coding works, you are being left behind. And that applies to everyone, whether you are a filmmaker or not.

Have you ever seen a senior citizen struggle to complete a simple task on a computer?

How will you feel talking to an eight year old that knows more about technology than you do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKIu9yen5nc&feature=youtu.be

The evolution of society in the developed world, and the need for new superpowers, has already begun.

Are you preparing for it?

- - - - - - - - -
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

CREDIBILITY FOR SALE: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF CINEMA AND TELEVISION ARTS (AACTA)

Dear AACTA,

Why are we Australians so quick to sell ourselves to the highest bidder?

Apologies, before diving into my diatribe, I should provide you with some context.

I was reading through some older emails I had de-prioritised recently.

We all do it. Time is a commodity more precious than platinum, for everyone, these days. You skim read and answer the most urgent, while leaving the rest for that unicorn-like spare minute.

Pegasus had arrived for me this particular day, so I was finally getting to some older communications.

One in particular caught my attention. It was a communique' from you, The Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts (AACTA), regarding the future of the AACTA Awards.

I noted a number of positive ideas about a sustainable model for the AACTA Awards. Well done, it should be a pillar of our industry for years to come.

I also noted, however, that you are in search of a 'naming rights' sponsor for the AACTA Awards again.

I sighed internally.

This year, AACTA, you took a quantum leap forward in the level of esteem with which the Awards are held. It was a very impressive event, with famous attendees, healthy TV numbers and excellent media coverage.

Bravo.

That being said, once you have established credibility for your work, tangible credibility, you should protect it. Credibility is one of the few things you have a chance to preserve, purely by maintaining the integrity of your work.

Would you respect the 'Tena Lady' BAFTA Awards?

I understand there are economics involved, but the AACTA Awards have literally JUST established themselves as a credible and prestigious event.

I am an AACTA member, I was an attendee at the 2013 Awards, and I saw the news coverage. It was something to be proud of.

This was a vast improvement to the 2012 'Samsung' AACTA Awards. I can't even type that without reacting to the blatant commerciality of having a sponsor's name in the title.

And it is worth noting at this point that Australians, in particular, have a strong distaste of feeling 'sold to'.

This year, without the burden of a naming rights sponsor you were simply 'The AACTA Awards'.

Elegant.

Prestigious.

Kind of like the BAFTA's or, heaven forbid, The Oscars.

You cannot buy that kind of esteem. It makes the whole enterprise something people want to be a part of.

And once you have sold this earned esteem, like selling your soul for a dollar, you cannot buy it back.

So, dearest AACTA, I implore you.

Please find another way to make the AACTA's work, without selling your name to the highest bidder.

Couldn't categories of sponsorship work, with a lower barrier entry level for smaller sponsors? Less comp tickets, perhaps only for nominees? Lose the Awards luncheon and have all the Awards in one event at the Awards evening, to save venue costs?

There must be a way. For the good of the Australian industry for years to come, there has to be.

Some things should be worth more than money.

Sincerely,

Pete Ireland
Opening Act Films

- - - - - - - - -
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

WASTE NOT

"You see cars driving in New York all hours of the night. It's like Musical Chairs except everybody sat down around 1964. The problem is car manufacturers are building hundreds of thousands of new cars every year, they're not making any new spaces. That's what they should be working on. Wouldn't that be great? You go to the Auto Show, they got that big revolving turntable, and there's nothing on it. New from Chrysler, a space."
                                                                    - JERRY SEINFELD


We are all connected.

If we didn't know it before, social networking and 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' have made it abundantly clear.

Being connected yields amazing and wonderful things. Art, a rise in social consciousness and economic opportunities we never thought of.

But it also comes with responsibility. If we are all 'in this together', then our ability to thrive depends very much on understanding and improving the negative impacts we have on others.

Something the film and content industries don't talk much about is sustainability. There have been film productions in recent years certified as being 'best practice in their environmental footprint', but generally the effort of being green is given up for economic rationality.

This is a mistake.

Being sustainable is a new idea in it's large scale form. The concept had been around for years, but only recently has it entered the global vernacular.

New ideas always seem too hard or too expensive. They give way to arguments of 'but we have always done it this way', or 'but that will eat into our profit margin'.

Being sustainable, however, is more than just a green ideal. In a connected world, showing that you are an industry that cares about the world you are operating in, and indeed the audience you are trying to connect with, is actually good for business too.

Being certified green has become a standard that companies use to differentiate their brand from the others. This only happens because people respond, with their hard-earned money, to these companies being positive contributors to the world we live in.

It is with great hope then that I read recently about a sustainability idea for televisions and computers, the portals of the content our industry produces.

The idea? Television and computer recycling.

“Hazardous materials including lead, mercury and zinc will be prevented from entering the environment through landfill, and valuable non-renewable resources - including gold and other precious metals - will be saved for re-use.”

http://recyclingnearyou.com.au/ewastescheme/

This is a big deal.

Think of the environmental footprint reduction of the content industries from this wonderful new development. Precious minerals re-used instead of becoming landfill. Environmentally hazardous materials disposed of responsibly.

For you money counters out there, however, there are also obvious tangible economics to this. A new market comes from the second-hand non-renewable minerals (gold from your televisions, for example). These minerals can be stripped out and sold. This is the obvious benefit.

The less tangible, but just as relevant, economic benefit relates to the Jerry Seinfeld quote above. Just like buying a new car, part of the economic decision people make, on whether to upgrade their television or computer, is based in-part on the guilt of being wasteful.

Budget is certainly one part of the decision. Wastefulness, or even the perception of it, is a part of the decision making process as well.

Even if the film and content industries, including the technology providers, haven't seriously cared about the environment all this time, therefore, the audiences have.

With a new paradigm, where people know that they can purchase a new television or computer without the guilt of the old one being 'wasted', audiences will be more likely to purchase new equipment. As a result, and despite any associated costs with being 'green', this sustainable model is better for the technology providers, not worse.

In the long run, sustainability-led increases in television and computer upgrading are better for the film and content makers too. Newer versions of technology have newer features, usually ones that make it easier to deliver the content that people want; improving the audience experience. Netflix App anyone?

So, in the new world of environmentally sustainable economics, audiences win.

Technology makers win.

Film and content makers win.

The environment wins.

Who wants to keep doing this the old way?

- - - - - - - - -
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 - 'Part One: Love' selected for the Byron Bay International Film Festival and The Melbourne Queer Film Festival!

                             

  

Great news seems to come in pairs.

Our documentary, 'Part One: Love' has been selected to screen in the Australian Academy (AACTA) accredited Byron Bay International Film Festival, and the 23rd Melbourne Queer Film Festival.

We are very excited to be selected for both of these wonderful and prestigious festivals! 

The Melbourne Queer Film Festival (MQFF) is the oldest queer film festival in Australia, and one of the oldest queer film festivals in the world. It is the largest queer film festival in the Southern Hemisphere, as well as being the second largest film festival in Victoria.

'Part One: Love' is screening at the MQFF on the evening of Monday 18th March.

http://www.mqff.com.au/

The AACTA accredited Byron Bay International Film Festival (BBFF) celebrates its seventh year in 2013. The festival continues to grow, this year screening over 200 films from more than 30 countries with a program comprised of feature films, documentaries, animation and short films that support and celebrate local and international cinema.

'Part One: Love' is screening at the BBFF on the evening of Wednesday 6th March.

http://www.bbff.com.au/category/bbff2013

Our very own Pete Ireland will be attending both festivals to present the film, and there are plenty of other wonderful films to see at both festivals. 

Make sure you get along to see the amazing films they have on offer.

A GOOD START TO 2013: CUT YOURSELF SOME SLACK

And just like that, it's already February.

It's scary how quickly the time passes sometimes. We all try and deal with this fact in our own way.

Some people try and rationalise it. Others go for the irrational, the 'live every day like it's your last' idea.

That's all well and good, but everyone has to wash their underpants eventually. It can't all be skydiving and adrenalin.

In this world of seemingly increasing pace, the start to the year therefore tends to be the time that attempted inspiration is in oversupply.

Recently, I was reading an interview from a screenwriter who felt compelled to mention the 'every minute counts' idea in almost every answer. I give the screenwriter his due for attempting to inspire people, but I am starting to believe this mantra is increasingly misguided.

So, rather than complain about it, I decided it was time to provide a possible alternative idea, for those in need of inspiration, to adopt. This can be your mantra for 2013, if it works for you:

CUT YOURSELF SOME SLACK.

Yes, I know we should all be bungie-sky-kite-surfing, while eating nutritious supplements and working in our dream careers, because life really is what you make of it. HOWEVER, the 'every minute counts' slogan has actually turned counter productive, for a very good reason:

The guilt trip of not embracing today is less important than the sum of good work in the long run.

Do you have any notion of how much brain power it takes to support a person counting the seconds tick away, and worse, to worry incessantly about it?

This brain power would be much better spent on whatever it is you are passionate about. Work, cooking, family, or film.

Does feeling guilty about not spending every single millisecond on your dream project actually yield any positive results?

The answer, of course, is no.

And worse, the guilt can spawn negative behaviours, like working extreme hours to feel a perception of progress. Often, spending two or three intense hours on a project can yield more quality work output than spending copious 'unfocussed' hours.

But you ignore the impulse to stop for the day and get some rest, even though that would lead to better work overall. Why?

Because you have been told that 'every minute counts'. Until now.

CUT YOURSELF SOME SLACK. The guilt trip of not embracing today is less important than the sum of good work in the long run.

To get you started, I will show you how it's done.

I have a day job. There, I said it. In film and creative circles, this tends to be a source of shame. Others try and make you feel bad about it because you are not a 'true professional', earning your living off of your creative work. So today, instead, I am officially embracing it. Even though it means that I have to spend time away from working on my film projects. I am blessed to be able to live, eat, pay my rent and make films on the way to a sustainable career in film. What an amazing thing that I can be allowed to do that, when so many in the world have nothing.

So, I am officially cutting myself some slack. I won't feel shame or embarrassment for it anymore.

Besides, this need to have other revenue sources, while a film is being put together properly, is starting to permeate even Hollywood:

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/new-hollywood-producers-struggle-adjust-life-studio-lot-67471

And as for you, stop berating yourself if you don't get everything done in a day.

Know that your career is only over the day you stop creating and working on your craft. Whether it takes you ten years to write that great script or 10 weeks, your process is yours to own.

Just make it great, and the outcome will justify the means.

But in the mean time, cut yourself some slack. You'll be happier and your work will be better for it.

- - - - - - - - -
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 - Opening Act Films at The Australian Academy Awards

                              

Pete Ireland, the Opening Act Films founder, and his colleague from RunTime Pictures, Tony Radevski, attended the 2013 Australian Academy Awards (The AACTA's). Here are a few shots we took in the midst of talking, applauding the winners (and nominees) drinking and after-partying.

                                          

   

MERRY XMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!! (PLUS SOME GIFTS AND A LITTLE ADVICE FROM WOODY ALLEN)

Happy holidays!!

I hope you had a wonderful Xmas day with friends and loved ones.

Playing my part, there are some Xmas gifts for you sprinkled throughout this newsletter, but you'll have to keep reading to find them.

I also want to take the chance to wish you a happy and safe start to the new year.

Getting a running start to the new year is something many people aspire to and few succeed in. Too many hangovers and social gatherings.

But I thought, for the last Opening Act Films Newsletter of 2012, I could share something that might help you get inspired for a big start to 2013.

It comes straight from the mouth of Woody Allen, and a little of my own experience.

You see, I have been to a few festivals with my films and I can honestly tell you there is one immutable truth:

All that matters is the work.

I know some of you think that networking is the key. I know some of you think that, if you could just meet Oscar winners like Emile Sherman (Producer of 'The King's Speech') that your career would be on the fast track.

I have met Emile Sherman. He's lovely.

But meeting him briefly has had NO impact on my career whatsoever.

That doesn't disappoint me. That is the way it should be.

The great filmmakers became household names, not because of who they knew, but because their work amazed audiences to the point that they wanted to know who created this art. Contacts help, but talent shines through.

What would you even say to Steven Spielberg if you got into a conversation?

"Hi, I have an idea for a script that I wrote down on a napkin and have not bothered to develop or even write a script for. Can you please give me a career?"

But what if you met Mr Spielberg after an acclaimed screening of your first low budget feature film at the Sundance Film Festival? How much better would the conversation be then?

Your work speaks for itself.

But don't just take my word for it.

One of the modern auteurs, Woody Allen, says the same thing.

http://blog.talenthouse.com/2012/07/26/woody-allen-advises-aspiring-filmmakers-to-keep-doing-your-own-thing/

'Unlike other Hollywood patrons, Allen does not claim to know the secret to filmmaking success, instead his main advice is, “it’s only the work that counts."'

The wonderful part of all of this, for you, is that the tools to make a film, or even just be generally creative, are at your disposal right now.

Basic writing/screenwriting tools are free.

Gift 1 (GOLD) = CeltX Free creative writing/screenwriting tool = www.celtx.com

If you are worried that you do not have the skills or knowledge to get started, there are educational books on your creative interest, e.g. screenwriting, available free in most public libraries.

There are also free university courses online, e.g. a Stanford University Course on creativity.

Gift 2 (MYRRH) = Free online university courses website = https://www.coursera.org/

So, that covers your knowledge and the script to get started, but what about all that expensive equipment you need to actually shoot and edit the film?

Would you believe me if I told you can shoot and edit the film with what you have right now?

Smartphone cameras have now reached a standard that they can be used to shoot high quality video, with amazing results. Read this iphone 4s camera review for proof:

http://techland.time.com/2011/10/17/review-of-the-apple-iphone-4s-camera/

There is also a free video editing program, 'Lightworks', that has been used on major Hollywood films and that you can download for yourself.

Gift 3 (FRANKINCENSE) = Lightworks free video editing software = http://www.lwks.com/

So, now you have film knowledge, a script, camera and editing software.

All that is left is for you to get started.

What are you waiting for?

2013 could be your biggest year yet. It's up to you.

All that matters is the work.

Happy 2013.
________________________________________

PS: AS USUAL, 'TALES FROM THE OPENING ACT' WILL BE GOING ON HOLIDAYS FOR ALL OF JANUARY 2013. BUT DON'T WORRY, IT WILL BE BACK, BETTER AND MORE PUNCTUAL THAN EVER, IN FEBRUARY 2013. 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