"I WISH I WORKED AT NETFLIX"

So, last week I wrote about that fact that Jimmy Fallon is now making jokes about how backward thinking the film business is.

What saddened me was not that a comedian would find humour in our pain, but more that a mediocre comedian would discover this joke. How bad can it be if a late night yuckster has figured it out?

In the week that followed, I wondered whether I had been too harsh in my final assessment: that the movie business had become a bad joke.

Well, more news has arrived. And no-one is laughing anymore.

'The (USA Summer Film) season is expected to finish down 15 to 20 percent compared with 2013, the worst year-over-year decline in three decades, and revenue will struggle to crack $4 billion, which hasn't happened in eight years.'

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-slump-hollywood-facing-720420?utm_expid=19303748-89.vl1UgudORTW16NBGatuX7w.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2F

One part of the article is so adorably pathetic, however, you will struggle to stifle a chuckle.

Laments one studio executive, "I wish I worked at Netflix."

Hilarious.

And this is what it has come to in the upper echelons of the industry. No innovation. Just 'grass is greener' pining.

3D was supposed to be the prodigal son. A returned sideshow that had matured to the point of respectability. Because nothing says respectable like seven foot tall, blue people with Australian accents.

Never-the-less, the modernising of 3D was going to be the talisman that made cinema an 'experience' again. And yes, the audiences would flock back in droves, heralding a new Eden of theatrical film prosperity.

Poppyc*ck.

All these years later, after we have overcharged people to sit through bad movies, with even more expensive overbuttered popcorn, we are still not thinking of our audiences. The flaw is in where most analysis starts: the golden age of cinema. When cinema was respected. When children watched quietly, rather than talking and texting through the second act climax.

The golden age.

Oh, how quickly we forget our history.

The golden age of cinema, used as the thoroughly outdated yardstick of success, was based on a FALSE scarcity. Audiences had to go to the cinemas because you couldn't see the film by any other means. That the cinemas were the glorious theaters of yesteryear, red curtains and all, was a throw back to the times rather than any decision about audience engagement. If cinema owners thought you would watch a film in a card board box, with yesterdays popcorn, and pay $24 for the privilege, they would usher you to your seat in row F of the Westinghouse refrigerator packaging without hesitation.

And, as the cinema owners of the past realised they had a captive audience, the prices of cinema tickets went up, while the cinema-going experience became more and more generic and low frills.

This is the audience we have inherited today. Abused. Exploited. Pillaged. Ready to take control of their experience via the new delivery platforms like Netflix.

There is no loyalty from these audiences. Nor should there be, based on their continued treatment. And so the box office crumbles.

Surely, all is lost.

Or is it?

What if someone began to truly think about how to make cinema more engaging? More immersive. Preferably without needing cranium accessories to make it work.
What could an unfettered mind create in the cinema experience, if only thinking about making it better for audiences? Making the act of going to the cinema mean something, aside from just seeing the film earlier than everyone else.

What if?

And into the breach, appears Screen X.

Screen X is what occurs when someone actually starts to contemplate why people might go to the cinema. 270 degrees of screen, along the walls of the cinema, making you feel immersed in the action on the traditional primary screen.

But don't take my word for it. See for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJHrB3hyfB8

Remarkable.

Before the cynics chime in, yes, this exists. It's not like the overstated hype of Asimo. Screen X premiered at a huge film festival called Busan, in Korea late last year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/widescreen-immersive-and-no-funny-glasses-is-this-the-future-of-3d-cinema-8879849.html

And suddenly, there is a point to being in the darkened theater again. This is what an audience will respond to.

You can keep masticating the same old cinema distribution model, squeezing every last nutrient until its over. But do you really want to compete with Netflix the day 'simultaneous release' arrives?

Or, you can innovate and give cinema audiences a reason to walk into that hallowed ground again.

Yes, I know it will be painful to evolve. But the well-worn path is fading very quickly into oblivion. It's time to adapt or fail. Be the piper, or be the rats.

Is it about what you want, or your audience?

- - - - - - - - -
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 COMEDIAN'S INSIGHT

"Here’s a little bad news for the movie studios. I saw that this year’s box office revenue is down 20 percent from last summer. I’m not sure why that is, but I bet you there’s a documentary on Netflix about it."
                                                                         - Jimmy Fallon, 'The Tonight Show', 8th July 2014

Then he gave a wry smile.

This was a part of Jimmy Fallon's opening comedy monologue on 'The Tonight Show'.

http://www.nbcumv.com/quotables-tonight-show-starring-jimmy-fallon-july-7-%E2%80%93-july-11

But he's not alone.

Louis CK, the now famous stand up comedian, was asked about the bizzaro world of the internet; where willing, paying audiences are geo-blocked from accessing content they can simply steal online.

Namely, Australia:

"The whole country pirates there. (In the US) weirdos pirate things, but in Australia, moms and dads pirate video, because we’re not letting them buy it. We’re keeping it from them. Everybody in the world is like "take my f**king credit card and just let me have the thing, and I’ll pay". But if you’re going to be a pain in the a*s, f**k you! I can steal all of it!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d458sm5ToWk

Now, Louis CK is observant, intelligent and business savvy. I am not surprised he has a perspective on the piracy issue, nor that he has noticed the disparity in treatment of Australian audiences, in particular.

But Jimmy Fallon?

Jimmy Fallon is still doing jokes about Rob Ford. The "crack smoking Mayor of Toronto". Yes, Mr Fallon is still wringing this punchline for every drop he can get. Ironically, the first time Rob Ford was mentioned on the Tonight Show was in May 2013.

When Jay Leno still hosted it.

Since the Shakespearian days, comedians have been among the most insightful of players. Who can forget 'Feste' in 'Twelfth Night'? Cutting to the quick with razor observation; a mantle now taken up by Louis CK.

But late night talk show hosts?

They're the court jesters.

And that's when you know this whole piracy/access to content issue has become totally absurd.

The film industry is, officially, a bad joke.

- - - - - - - - -
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

POTATO SALADS AND THE WORTH OF AUDIENCE BUILDING

You have a fan.

Yes, you. Regardless of your vocation.

We all do. People who support us, in our professional lives, and believe that we can deliver. They believe in us.

This belief scales. The belief that a respectful colleague has in you to deliver is actually no different to a ‘Beliebers’ perception that simply touching Justin Bieber will make their life better. Sure, one is more based in logic, but there is no distinction, quantitatively, between the two levels of belief.

It’s akin to happiness. Over a drink in Shanghai, a Producer and I were sharing stories about people we had encountered making films. His work had taken him to Afghanistan quite a bit, and he had avoided the temptation to watch the Afghan life from a safe bubble. I had observed a myriad of people through my work as well. Our common point, was what we had seen first hand.

Happiness scales.

The joy that someone in Afghanistan feels when their child is able to be educated, is no different to the joy you feel when you get a promotion here. That your microcosms are different sizes, economically, has no bearing if you aren’t aware of it. Joy, is joy.

And these commonalities are more important than you think. When you think of delivering on your expectations at work, regardless of what you do, you share the same expectations as Bieber has to his audience. The audience size is different, of course, but neither one of you will have a job if you don’t perform.

We all cultivate these fans. When you go to a job interview, you put on your costume and you gambol and dance to the delight of the onlookers. If they enjoy your performance, you make fans, and money flows in. If not, hit the pavement.

We live through these routines and rituals for our entire lives, filled with uncertainty and doubt about our ultimate fate, without ever asking ourselves a simple question.

How many fans do you need to live comfortably from your work?

One million? Two hundred thousand?

Five?

I’ll grant you, it’s a more difficult question than it seems. But surely the peace that can come from understanding this point makes it worth asking?

For most people, it’s usually one audience member: your immediate boss.

But for an artist?

Scratch the surface and there are layers you have never considered.

The depth of the connection. How niche is this audience? How long will they be your audience member? How much access are you willing to give an adoring fan?

Will you be as cold and distant as Avril Lavigne? Or as inappropriately, hilariously, gropey as Rhianna?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/a-rihanna-meet-greet-vs-an-avril-lavigne-meet-greet

A friend and colleague recently started experimenting with this very notion. He’s using a range of content to try and build and audience on Instagram. When the people are gathered then, in front of his soap box, he will test what level of engagement they show towards him and his work.

It’s a wild west, in this regard. Rules are being made on the fly. Some experts proclaim that building an audience must be a structured process of analysis, planning, and well executed strategy. Others suggest that good work will build your audience for you. Neither one is incorrect.

Realistically, the answer returns, inevitably, to you.

What level of income do you need? You would be surprised how you can make freelancing work when you are willing to scale back on your spending.

Most importantly, however, what kind of work are you producing? Lamborghini, prior to 2003 when they were bought by Audi, used to make only 250 cars per year. Justin Bieber, on the other hand, has 52 million followers.

Recently, a guy from Ohio created a Kickstarter campaign as a satire of crowdfunding. His ‘project’ that needed funding was to make a potato salad. That’s it. Just potato salad.

5,953 backed the project. It has reached $49,070 of a $10 original goal. That’s roughly $9 a person.

Could you live on $50,000 a year?

I could.

So, there is a starting point. That’s my tribe. In a world of roughly seven billion people, I need to find at least five thousand committed fans who are willing to give me a minimum of $10 a year for my work.

How many do you need?

This will be your base. As long as you keep your tribe happy, you are free to court more fans with the quality of your work. 52 million fans, at $10 a year…

But you have to perform. You have to maintain the integrity of your work, to keep your tribe happy rather than lose them while chasing a bigger audience.

Because you have dedicated fans now.

Your fans believe in you. Your responsibility as an artist is to them.

And so you have to deliver.

Even if it’s just potato salad.

- - - - - - - - -
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

USURPED BY THE SCREENWRITER IN BLACK

So, you're a Hollywood screenwriter.

You have worked many years and developed your craft.

You have some excellent PRODUCED credits, including 'Tropic Thunder' and 'Catch Me If You Can'.

You are at the top of your game, and you have been hired onto the latest installment of a Hollywood film franchise that has grossed US$1.3 billion worldwide.

Your time to shine, right?

And then, there's a delay.

The film's star, Will Smith, is not happy with the script.

There's a further delay. Still no agreement.

Time passes in multitudes. What is going on?

Suddenly, a shadowy figure emerges in the distance. He's not on the project. But he is. But he's not.

Soccio.

Who is this Soccio?

He worked with Will Smith as a writer on 'The Fresh Prince of Bel Air'? So?

And then, you realise. Will Smith has brought in this man. This Soccio.

A usurper! A new writer! What can he possibly contribute to the 'Men In Black' franchise?

Word reaches you. Soccio has worked with Smith for years in the shadows. Soccio is someone Will Smith brings onto projects to alter dialogue and make Smith's characters sound like 'Will Smith'.
Because, you sigh audibly, 'Will Smith' is a brand now. A brand that Will Smith, himself, protects.

And now, you have a question to answer.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/clone-smith-s-mystery-writer-173006

Because, as the article says:

'But it's unlikely any of the other writers would care to make an issue of it. (After all, Koepp -- to give an example -- pulled down more than $250,000 a week for his services.)'

There's the line. You've worked hard for your craft. You are staring down a horribly delayed film, with a script in transit.

And you have been sideswiped, by Soccio.
But the money is SO good.

This is your trial as a screenwriter, perhaps as a human being. The question only you can answer.

Do you want to enrich yourself, or do you want to be the one with the real power?

The lame duck or the Screenwriter in Black?

That's your choice.

Welcome to Hollywood.

- - - - - - - - -
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

NETFLIX HEADS SOUTH

Rejoice friends!

Netflix, our noble savior has arrived!

http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts-and-culture/rejoice-netflix-is-really-coming-to-australia/15bba7f4-dbb3-4f63-8755-ac4030aa6219.htm

No more shall Australian audiences wait six months for the same TV shows as the rest of the world.

Never again shall a DVD be a more viable option than simply staying at home and using technology you already own.

The prices shall be lower. The entertainment plentiful.

And the convenience, oh the convenience, shall be the likes of which we have never seen.

A new golden age. Eden renewed. The cornucopia arrived at last.

And if you believe any of that, you are living in a fool's paradise.

I have two words for you. Rupert. Murdoch.

Yes, that Rupert Murdoch. The one who owns both a Hollywood major studio, 20th Century Fox, and an Australian cable television provider, Foxtel. Oh, and that same Australian cable television provider is trying to create a streaming service for its licensed content. In direct competition with Netflix's business model.

The same Rupert Murdoch who, in 1975, ordered his newspaper editors to 'Kill Whitlam', the Australian Prime Minister at the time. Of course, he meant politically, not literally.

The effect, however, was almost literal. Ten months later, Gough Whitlam was ousted as Australian Prime Minister.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/murdoch-editors-told-to-kill-whitlam-in-1975-20140627-zson7.html

When a man this powerful is lobbying against you, how easy do you think business becomes?

But Rupert's not alone. Did I mention the other Hollywood studios, complicit in denying Australian audiences convenient access to content? Those same Hollywood studios, who decry Australian piracy publicly, then resist easier online access to content for Australians because the current system means Hollywood can extort a higher price from antipodeans.

I wrote about this extortion, this 'dirty little secret', previously: http://openingactfilms.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/dirty-little-secrets.html

So, before you plan your 'Welcome Netflix' party, imagine this.

A group of Australians are stuck on a small island in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

There is a plane, flown by an independent pilot for a price, which airdrops supplies to the stranded Australians, at an inflated cost. Let's call this independent aviator, Rupert.

Meanwhile, on the distant mainland, a group of large organisations have built an enormous catapult. This catapult launches important perishables to the stranded Australians, again for a hugely inflated price. Let's call this group of organisations, Hollywood.

For many years, Rupert and Hollywood have been making a very, VERY comfortable living charging inflated prices to these marooned Australians.

But suddenly, a new structure appears on the mainland's shore. It's the foundations of a bridge. The construction trajectory is the island. At last, the Australians will be free again. Free to make choices. This bridge is called, Netflix.

Rupert and Hollywood soon realise what is happening.

Rupert diverts his flights to drop explosives on the expanding bridge construction.

Meanwhile, the catapult turns. Salvo after salvo rattles the bridge.

Still construction continues.

Rupert doubles his efforts. He calls in favours. The bridge has its building permit rescinded.

Relentlessly, the plane drops waves of bombs. The catapult seemingly never rests.

The bridge builders fight back. The permit is restored. The Netflix bridge continues to grow.

Frantic now. Attack after attack. Destruction. War.

But to no avail. Netflix arrives on the island.

The stranded Australians are free!!

But wait.

Enduring and perseverance came at a cost. The bridge toll, which was supposed to be affordable to the stranded Australians, is now more than what they would have paid for the airdrops and catapult deliveries.

And that bridge? After the campaign of punishment it received, the foundations are shaky, at best. The bridge is a mere shell of what was originally planned.

Because war takes a toll. And Rupert Murdoch, his Fox empire, and the studios know how to fight it.

So if you think, for one second, that the major studios will deign to lose money through a lower wholesale price for content in Australia, or that Rupert's 20th Century Fox will allow Netflix to open in Australia, without a fight of unholy armageddon proportions, you too are living on a fantasy island in the middle of the Pacific.

Yes, Netflix may arrive here. It will, however, be a shell of the American service.

But all is not lost.

The bridge will be shaky. The journey perilous. But we'll get off the stranded island.

A better future will come for Australian audiences.

And when it does, we won't forget. We'll never forget.

Who built the bridge to save us.

And who tried to tear it down.

- - - - - - - - -
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

BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

You have two choices in life when it comes to dealing with people.

You can assume the worst in their intentions. Or you can believe that people are, on the whole, going to do right by you.

You can give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove that they deserve otherwise. Or, you can live always behind the turrets.

There are arguments for both approaches. Preparing for the lowest ebb in people allows you to protect yourself, it's true. Being open to the best in your peers creates opportunity.

But openness creates vulnerability. Vulnerability can be exploited. Shielding yourself, meanwhile, creates a closed mind. A closed mind shuns fortuitous timing, for fear of risk.

No-one gets to their perspective unassisted, I'll grant you. We all have our traumas and successes.

But it's how we respond to them that defines us.

There are some individual universes that can abide a closed perspective. A detective, by experience, training and necessity, has a mindset that must doubt the purity of human intention.

But yours?

Is your world improved or degraded by how you approach the people in it?

As a filmmaker, I may not be a font of knowledge, but I know this:

Without openness towards people, you cannot collaborate. You cannot share ideas if you think they will be stolen.

Without openness towards people, you cannot ask for help. The risk of being taken advantage of is too great.

Without openness towards people, you cannot empathise. It's impossible to see the perspective of someone you have already judged.

And it is herein that the tragedy lies, when you assume the worst in people: you lose the most.

Because without collaboration, timely assistance, and the power of empathy, a filmmaker (although I would argue most people as well) is doomed.

The walls you raise become the tomb of your dreams.

Gloomy.

But don't despair. Because, through the grace of fortune, it's not too late. Your mindset belongs to you, its lord and master.

Your outlook can be resolved exactly where it began. With a choice.

What will yours be?

- - - - - - - - -
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 DISRESPECTING WOMEN

While I can't claim to be a feminist, only the deliberately ignorant would claim it's an easier world for women.

Women are constantly on the timer. Their motivations are questioned rigorously against their biology.

We sarcastically label them 'the better half', and yet women are so enthusiastically placed into simplistic bi-polar categories: reasonableness is 'soft', resilience, 'being a b**ch'.

I am a believer in equal pay for equal work, however. If someone is paid to lift heavy things, and they can lift more of those said heavy things, then their remuneration should reflect the difference. Gender should be irrelevant in either direction.
But it's not.

And what dismays me, truly, is the bald-faced disdain that women live with. Particularly, I am ashamed to say, in film.

In 2013, The Forbes’ list of Hollywood’s Highest-Paid Male Actors banked a collective $465 million, almost two and a half times more than what the top-paid Female Actors received.

It was less than ten years ago, 2007 in fact, that Warner Brothers head of production, Jeff Robinov, infamously declared “We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead”.

Where does this kind of ignorance find its genesis?

It starts with pay, but goes much deeper. Somewhere darker, lurking in our unspoken biases.

“Movies that are female-driven do not travel,” said Krista Smith, West Coast editor of Vanity Fair, describing the broader sentiment in Hollywood. "There are almost no women who have sales value in multiple international territories, maybe with the exception of Sandra Bullock..."

'...there’s a wide-ranging perception in Hollywood that audiences — in the U.S. and abroad — simply don’t care for women in leading roles and that movies for and about men are more likely to have better cross-market appeal than movies about women.'

Wow.

This is what we have come to. Where women, who make up more than half of the world's population, are so marginalised that their stories are not considered worthy of joining the cultural discourse on screen.

How did we fall so far?

Don't we all have mothers? Sisters? Daughters? Wives and girlfriends? Even female colleagues?

Could you look them in the eyes and say "your perspective doesn't matter"?

I doubt it. But this is the cultural landscape we inhabit.

Even more sadly, given their prominence, when the numbers are actually reviewed these biases are found to be also factually inaccurate.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-dollar-and-cents-case-against-hollywoods-exclusion-of-women/

This excellent article performs a detailed numerical analysis on films with significant female characters, and determines they perform as well, if not better than other films. I wasn't at all shocked. More troubling to me is the fact that someone felt this argument needed to be addressed in the first place. What does that say about us?

But that doesn't matter either. As much as the numbers support my case, it just shouldn't come down to algebra. Dollars cannot be given the reins to our cultural identity.

I am lucky to have many significant women in my life. I'm also recently a proud uncle and godfather.

My niece and goddaughter deserve better than this. They deserve to see a culture that respects the intrinsic value they add to the world. We all do, actually. For goodness sake, art is supposed to provide some insight into life! How can there be any insight through a myopic perspective?

“...women will go to a ‘guy’s movie’ more easily than guys will go to a ‘woman’s movie,’” said Michael Shamberg, who produced 'Pulp Fiction' (1994), 'Django Unchained' (2012) and 'Garden State' (2004).

Fine.

It's all about dollars then. Bank activity drives the culture, regardless of how insidious it has become.

It's a good thing then, that 'Frozen', the Disney animated film with two female leads, just became the highest grossing animation of all time. It even overtook uber-masculine Batman in 'The Dark Knight Rises' and Robert Downey Jr in 'Iron Man 3', as the 5th highest grossing film of all time.

$1,245,064,674 reasons to start respecting women in our screen culture. I'm sure the Forbes list will look utterly different next year.

Sigh.

If only it were that easy. It starts with individual perspectives, you see.

We have to rebuild the culture. For women. For ourselves.

For the nieces and goddaughters, waiting to inherit the world.

- - - - - - - - -
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

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

We live in a bizarro world sometimes.

Where the truth is often bedfellows with deception. Grey everywhere. Slippery slopes at every turn. It's the natural by-product of an imperfect world, run by imperfect people.

But there are boundaries, somehow. Somewhere in the mire, there is a line. It's that point we reach where our entire being reacts in opposition, 'no, no, that's not right.'

Nothing triggers this reflex like blatant hypocrisy.

When a political leader tells us all we need to stop relying on handouts, to 'pull ourselves up by our bootstraps', only to allow his child to receive a dubious scholarship.

When a business leader claims that the general public has an entitlement culture, yet secretly expects special tax concessions for her businesses.

We react, vehemently.

And such is the hypocrisy of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) around the globe.

Again and again, ISPs have claimed no functional ownership of the internet. It's how they avoided copyright infringement claims for the piracy of their users.

'We are not responsible!', they said. 'We lay the pipe. What people put in the pipe has nothing to do with us.'

The landmark case, between ISP 'iiNet' and the 'Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT)', went all the way to the High Court; the most powerful judicial body in Australia.
And, the ISPs won.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/technology/iinet-wins-landmark-copyright-case/story-e6frgakx-1226334090530

Now, before you accuse me of inflating the importance of this one case, I am aware that this was only one legal precedent in Australia.

What you should be aware of, however, is that the iiNet case was being pursued by unseen global entities. A US Diplomatic Cable, leaked by Wikileaks, revealed that 'although the case against iiNet was filed by a number of local (Australian) and US content owners and distributors, the prime mover behind it was the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which has been active in copyright enforcement in the US.'

http://delimiter.com.au/2011/08/30/wikileaks-cable-outs-secret-iitrial-background/#more-44281

The plot thickens.

So, just as the film and content makers of the world were surveilling the case, watching too were the international ISPs. Over a frothy glass of vindicated evil, they no doubt breathed a collective sigh of relief at the final decision.

And that is where we are today. Ultimately the courts agreed that ISPs are simply the 'pipe layers'. In this construct, they cannot be responsible for piracy. Legally.

It is with some bemusement then, that I have watched the recent debate increase over 'Net Neutrality'.

No matter how little spare mental capacity you have, you need to know about the 'Net Neutrality' debate. It is the latest duplicitous example of powerful, monopoly/oligarchy companies trying to sneak in new laws to enrich themselves, to all of our detriment.

To arm yourself with the requisite knowledge, I strongly suggest you watch this hilarious, yet factual, clip from comedian John Oliver's show 'Last Week Tonight'. Mr Oliver decided it was time to comment on the current USA-based debate over 'Net Neutrality'.

Or, as he calls it, 'preventing cable company fuc*ery'. 

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

If you're too lazy, however, the simple explanation is that ISPs have been fighting since 2010 to create a two-road internet. On one road will be you and I, with 'normal' internet speeds. On the other road, will be companies, like Netflix, that will pay the ISPs to have a faster internet. The idea is that ISPs will make a fortune by charging big companies a premium to make their internet content get to you faster.

The internet will be dominated by those companies with the deepest pockets to access the best internet service from the gatekeepers: the ISPs.

And the net will be egalitarian, no more.

So, with a strong reaction to their hypocrisy, I ask you: how can ISPs have it both ways?

The central defence, in the iiNet ISP copyright infringement case, was that the WAY the internet was used was of no concern of the ISPs. They simply provide the pipe.

But the central premise of the 'net neutrality' discussion, is that the ISPs will give preferential treatment to certain content, for a price.

On one hand, they claim that they're not responsible for how the internet is used, but simultaneously they plan to extort a huge profit on preferential deals for certain content?

'NO, NO THAT'S NOT RIGHT.'

- - - - - - - - -
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

EGO

So, there I was, blinking hard and trying not to respond from reflex.

I could have told this person that he was, with all due respect, unintelligent.

It would have been easy to dismiss him with a simple "because it's your job".

It's quite rare that a cinematographer suggests that you are "wasting his time" with a safety briefing at the start of a film shoot.

But there I was.

He looked at me, expectantly. The other crew watched on.

I smiled, using the time to internally restrain my desire for sarcasm.

"Well", I said, "I want you to get on with the job as much as you do. But, just because we are on a tight budget and schedule, doesn't mean we can't do it right. Agreed?"

Lame, I know. But it was the best I could think of at short notice.

Quite by accident, however, he had taken my generality to mean that he was suggesting we cut corners. His concern instantly shifted, from wanting to play with the camera, to being perceived as a professional.

We didn't have another issue all day.

It's funny how often ego and pride can affect our judgement. In this case, his ego helped me quiet his petulance, because the last thing he wanted was to be seen as 'unprofessional'.

Unfortunately ego doesn't always help.

You may have heard about the recent death of a camera assistant, Sarah Jones, on a film set in Georgia, U.S.A.

Poor Sarah was hit by a train. She was filming a scene on an old rail bridge, over a river, that trapped the crew as the train approached. Several crew were injured. Sarah didn't make it.

While the full facts are still being determined, certain points are becoming clear. There was not a formal plan to manage all the factors involved in shooting on live train tracks. There was not a supervisor hired to monitor crew safety on the tracks and ensure that all elements, of a very risky shoot, were under control.

And, possibly worst of all, the production doesn't appear to have had permission to be filming on the train tracks at all.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/midnight-rider-accident-sarah-jones-death-gregg-allman-685976

There has been a lot said in the post-analysis of this horrible tragedy. Pundits have commented on process, unions, regulations, laws, regulatory authorities, lawsuits, and so on, and so on.

But to me, this comes down to an issue of ego. What kind of ego does it take to put your film crew in mortal jeopardy?

There is a lot of bravado amongst filmmakers. The idea of 'letting nothing hold you back' is often celebrated in indie/low budget filmmaking circles.

The challenge with this arrogance, is that it often ignores simple truth. A film that doesn't find an audience was unsuccessful 'because people in this country don't respect these kind of films'. Or that actor rejected their script 'because she is doing nothing but bland Hollywood sequels these days'.

Or, the crew are complaining about safety 'because they have all been spoiled and don't know how to make real indie films, where you take some risks'.

Of course, all of these responses ignore the facts. Arrogance, pure unadulterated ego, lead this person to overlook that their film was terribly made, so no-one saw it, or that their script is horrible, thus the actress rejected it.

But you can't ignore a dead crew member.

So, Sarah Jones has left us with two legacies.

First, if something is unsafe, if a corner is being cut, speak up. No-one benefits when valid concerns are silenced.

And second, ego should never be left unchecked.

There was a way that this scene could have been shot where everyone left intact. But the arrogance of the Producer/Director told him that he knew better.

Challenge this arrogance at all costs. Whether you see it in others, or see it in yourself.

Lives may depend on it.

R.I.P. Sarah Jones

- - - - - - - - -
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 GREASY PALM OF THE MIDDLE MAN

What would the world be like without Facebook?

Like it or not, Facebook is a cultural phenomenon.

1.3 billion active users. Yes, with a 'B'. On a planet of 7 million.

Meaning, at any gathering, Snow White would have to tell at least one of the dwarfs to "put their phone away and be social". Multiply that by a factor of the entire planet, and you get the scale of this behemoth.

And it's not just for individuals to find people they dated during pubescence. There are organisations and creatives living in this social networking petri dish, all looking to engage with you.

Facebook, organisations you love, your friends, and you. One big happy family, all communicating freely with each other.

Right?

Well, no, actually.

Facebook you see, is not 'free' at all.

I know you don't pay in monetary terms, but the Faustian pact is for your data.

In case you haven't worked it out, Facebook follows your every move. Your every whim. Your every communication in Facebook. Your every search. Even the searches of the people you connect with.

Oh, and those 'private' messages? Sorry. Private in name only.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-02/facebook-sued-over-alleged-scanning-of-private-messages.html

Why the violation of privacy?

Money. Always money.

Facebook went public in 2012, and is now worth something in the vicinity of $65-70 billion. With a 'B' again.

So, how does a 'free' service, become a golden goose? By selling every detail it can glean about you to marketers. That's how you 'pay' for the service, with access to your online profile.

There has been some awareness of this behaviour for a while. People, generally, are more savvy than they're given credit for. But you accepted this dubious trade-off, as long as the communications were allowed to flow unfettered. It seemed like a bizarre, egalitarian social contract, didn't it? You sacrificed some privacy in return for unfiltered updates from the people and entities you wanted.

But alas, that's not the case either.

Facebook is desperate to make revenue. After their initial IPO, the share price tanked, and a large number of lawsuits were filed. The main wound of contention was the allegation that insiders, like banks, were given a clue to the fact that Facebook doesn't make much actual money. The result was that the insiders bought and sold the Facebook stock on the first day, making a tidy profit, while the 'mum and dad' investors were left holding a dud.

It's called a 'pump and dump' scam.

Since then, Facebook has become pathological about actually providing a service that generates real revenue.

Their first brainwave was to sell your data. Not a blindingly clever idea, but with over a billion users, a cash cow none-the-less.

Their next scheme is far more suspect. I would go as far as to suggest that they have broken their part of the Faustian bargain.

'If this microcosm of statistics is taken to be broadly emblematic of the whole, then the truth would appear to be that each of your Facebook posts is now reaching only 6% of the people who Like your Page. That’s around 1 in 16 people who have actively chosen to follow you and take an interest in what you do. Conversely, 15 out of 16 of your ‘followers’ see nothing. The only way to increase that is to pay, on average somewhere between $30 and $50 per post, to reach anywhere close to 100% of your followers.'

http://stuartbuchanan.com/decline-facebook-reach-worse-think/

You should read this article, whether you are an organisation using Facebook or not. Everyone should know the real terms of their deal with the Facebook devil.

Essentially, Facebook's second scheme involves them squeezing organisations to pay a fee to 'promote' their posts, to ensure that their Facebook communications actually reach their existing followers. That's right, not to reach strangers, but to reach the people who have already agreed to follow the organisation's Facebook page.

To many of you this may not be a terribly important issue.

To many filmmakers and creatives, however, not having a direct line to your audience is a serious problem. This should serve as a warning shot. Over your head as opposed to your kneecaps.

I have heard too many entrepreneurs, particularly filmmakers, boil down their promotional strategy to 'we are going to build an audience via social media'. This expression has become the mating call of people who either do not have the funds or the brains to run an effective marketing campaign.

It's an Ackbarian trap.

Acquiring 'likes' may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but it means close to nothing for the awareness of your project. Zuckerberg and his cronies have seen to that.

So, for the Facebook users out there, enjoy Facebook if you must, but know that you are selling the online version of yourself, to stay in contact with people you would probably cross the street to avoid in person.

For organisations, know that the price of using Facebook for your marketing activities just went up substantially. Whether it is more or less competitive with traditional marketing channels, remains to be seen.

And, for my fellow filmmakers, know that your work to build an audience for your film or visual story is going to have to extend far beyond the 'thumbs up' universe.

Because, for now, we do not have to contemplate a world without Facebook.

And yet, strangely, communicating with our audiences is becoming harder than ever.

- - - - - - - - -
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

GROUND CONTROL TO...

It's a divisive time in Australia. The class war has finally arrived here.

And so, as one of the opinionated, you may be expecting me to break into a long political diatribe.

'Save the arts! Don't cut Screen Australia's funding!'

'Stop badgering SBS and the ABC!'

'Leave the lower and middle class alone!'

I'm tempted, I won't lie. But I have become strangely zen about the whole thing.

Don't go accusing me of apathy. I care. I believe the comeuppance of those who would harm the poor and vulnerable, will be delivered by an enraged karma.

But I just can't get flustered about politics anymore. To be infuriated about the systemic vicissitudes of politics is to become a slave to the belief that this is as good as it gets.

The more you buy into the system, the more that system becomes entrenched.

But everything is temporal. Even the fluctuations of political will.

And while it is easy to become incensed by what we see from our 'leaders', there is an easy tonic for any exasperation. Simply, watch this:

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/

It's the live feed from the HD camera mounted on the International Space Station (ISS).

Yes, it's our home. Surrounded by an endless expanse of silent darkness.

Watch it. Study it. Bathe in this remarkable moment where video technology can take you instantly to the true perspective of our petty grievances.

I did. And I realised a few things.

First, stop worrying about 'time'. Time is a construct.

See that black edge above the Earth? That's what it is like in space, constantly. The only reason we think of 'wasting days', losing time', 'not keeping to our timed-out life plans', is because of a concept derived from the rotation of parts of the Earth away from the sun.

But in space, you don't 'waste days'. You can either see the sun, or you can't.

And yet, we burden ourselves with this micro version of time, focussing on the smallest version of the concept, so that we can feel we are getting 'the most from every day'. Is it any wonder our leaders reflect our short term view of the world?

Second, the silence in space is somewhat terrifying. There is no atmosphere to carry sound, so instead there is...nothing. If that huge vacuum of nothing doesn't make you appreciate what we have, even slightly more, you lack imagination.

And finally, nothing is permanent. Not us. Not our family. Not our friends. Not even our legacies, more than likely.

You can be disillusioned by this impermanence. I can understand that impulse. Or, you can realise that our ephemeral nature behooves you to respect the things that are most important to you: family, friends, art, smoking, money, drinking, a good cup of coffee, whatever.

Watch the Earth spin. It was doing that long before you or I were here, and it will be doing it long after. Nothing else lasts.

Not the elder experts who seem to want to stay camped in the top echelons, and keep you from your goal forever.

Not the narrow minded film decision makers who keep producing the same Hollywood tripe, instead of aiming for better.

Not the film executive luddites who resist better experiences for audiences so that they can keep extracting as much money, from an evaporating business model, as possible.

And certainly not a few small thinking, mean-spirited politicians who are resistant to the growing wave of positive social and economic inclusion that is spreading throughout the world.

You will have your day to shine, eventually. Then you too will be gone.

In the mean time, you can get mad and frustrated at the ebb and flow of micro-level happenings if you want to.

Or you can take a long-term view of things. Make the most of your experience.

While you can.

- - - - - - - - -
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

JUST MAKE IT EXPLODE!

There's something to be respected in bludgeoning honesty.

You know the kind. The brutal truth that cuts straight into the heart. It's an uncomfortable habit, no doubt, but there's an argument that it often helps more than it hinders.

Because, like it or not, we are all in a search for truth. What kind of person are we? What kind of life can we build? What kind of relationships do we engage in?

The icky questions we can't shake. The ones that take a lifetime to answer.

So we look for help along the way. We look to the trusted voices. We forfeit our perspective to the guidance of the experts.

And, with far more frequency, the experts are speaking to us. The magic of technology provides them a pulpit.

And what are they saying?

“People say ‘It’s all about the story". When you’re making tentpole films, bulls***. The story (of the recent Alice In Wonderland remake) isn’t very good, but visual spectacle brought people in droves. And Johnny Depp didn’t hurt.”

Right.

That was Walt Disney Animation Studios Chief Technical Officer, Andy Hendrickson, describing the thinking behind the studio’s film strategy. Disney also happens to be the studio that made the 'Alice In Wonderland' remake.

Yes, this is the attitude they have towards their own film.

Is he right? 'Alice in Wonderland' did make $1,024,391,110 worldwide, at the box office.

But consider 'Toy Story 3'. It has a 99% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was nominated for five Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Sound Editing. It was the third animated film (after 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'Up') to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture.

Oh, and it made $1,063,759,456 at the global box office.

So, you have Hendrickson's expert opinion.

You also have a bundle of facts about two hugely successful films.

Are you now able to determine whether you should follow the expert advice and ignore storytelling, simply making a film with visual spectacle as its centrepiece?

Of course you can't. You don't have enough information. Making a determination now would be allowing someone else to do your thinking for you.

But this is what your peers do, every day. They parrot the platitudes of the self-appointed lords of the manor, using the expert's name as a shield against critical discussion.

And in doing so, they have put themselves on a path to mediocrity.

Yes, you should remain open and listen to people with experience.

Yes, you should heed what has been done in the past.

Yes, you should welcome unabashed honesty.

But you are not an etch-a-sketch, to be shaken clean by an expert and reprogrammed with their perspectives. Andy Hendrickson would proffer you his expert advice, and meanwhile he doesn't seem to realise that his film with a 'not very good story', is derived from a beloved and respected classic book. Two books, actually. Why would you want your thinking to be dictated by his perspective?

Become your own expert. Create your own process. Forge your own path.

Because expertise is short lived, circumstances change so rapidly, and many 'experts' clearly have no clue what they are talking about.

If you need to hear a voice of truth, develop your own.

- - - - - - - - -
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 WALKING DEAD...RISES AGAIN

I'm sick.

It's ironic how the body chooses its moments to acquiesce. I was reading a terrific but terrifying article, imagining a post antibiotic world. (Another great find by the ever watchful Barry)

Do you know about this story?

It's like climate change all over again. Yes, while we are all kept distracted by cooking shows, or the headline news story is an Australian billionaire engaging in a street fight with an Australian millionaire, experts are setting fire to the red flag, trying desperately to gain our attention.

Antibiotic resistance is accelerating. Bugs are mutating more rapidly, becoming impervious to treatment. The experts are moving beyond planning disaster scenarios and actually speculating of a world where the current paradigm no longer applies, replaced with a great unknown. A world without antibiotics.

You're tough, you say. Not a problem, you say.

And then you read the story about a firefighter, who lived just before the advent of antibiotics and who died from an infection for which there was no salvation.

The cause? Scratching his face on a rose bush.

Uh-huh.

And in this midst of this 'Dr Google' fueled paranoia, my body ironically decided it was time to power down the immune system.

Congested. Unable to sleep. Feckless.

When morning came, my eyes stung from a night of staring at the inside of my eye lids. Eyes closed, but never asleep. Eventually, thankfully, I passed out.

But you can't fight biology. As soon as sunlight touches your eyes, no matter how far into the well of slumber you fell, your brain reboots.

So, there I was. A head full of marshmallow fluff, but a bit better rested. Seemed like as a good a time as any to catch up on emails.

The universe has a baffling synchronicity. I read about a post antibiotic world. I become sick. I sit down to read emails, and the predominant theme is responses to my thoughts on 'The Walking Dead', a post-viral apocalypse TV show.

Bizarre.

And there was a particular reply that I thought was worth examining. A perspective that I was being an 'apologist' for piracy, and that AMC has the right to exploit the financial returns of the 'Walking Dead' in whatever way they choose. In Australia, or anywhere else.

A fair point.

However short sighted it may be. McDonald's have a right to charge $45 for a hamburger. How long would they remain in business?

Rights have nothing to do with it. The engagement with audiences is all about RELATIONSHIPS.

This is why we have had to work so hard to bring people back from piracy, to streaming services overseas, in the first place. Audiences have been mistreated. Overcharged for a trip to the cinema. Overcharged again for a small disk worth mere cents. Blocked from accessing online streaming services that they can see online but not subscribe to.

Is it any wonder the public have no loyalty to film as an art form? It's an abusive relationship, and the audience finally found a way out via piracy.

But thankfully, filmmakers and visual storytellers have learned the error of our ways. We are trying to woo audiences back, with convenience, reasonable pricing and great content.

But not in Australia.

In Australia, audiences are still being locked in cupboards. Forced to wait longer than everyone else. Pay more than audiences elsewhere for an identical digital file. Or forced to buy the premium version of an expensive payTV service, just so they can watch their favourite content STILL later than everyone else.

And why?

Because of powerful companies, lobbying to keep the direct to audience streaming services out of Australian homes. Fighting to retain their role as middle men between the audience and the content.

Am I missing something?

We need to think beyond this paradigm. How much longer should a middle man exist when I can get the content, directly, from the content maker? Why do they have a role at all?

Before you answer, remember that no middle-man intervenes without taking their cut, adding to the overall end price. And nothing irritates an audience more than having to pay a higher price, for exactly the same thing, for absolutely no reason.

It's quite simple. Just give audiences what they want. Now. I know that's not the current model, but since when did the parasite dictate the actions of the host?

Is that the character of the Australian media distribution landscape? One giant Ophiocordyceps?

We are moving into a post-paradigm world. Either we start illuminating that great unknown, thinking about what the world can look like when the models we know break down, or we can leave it to providence.

I want an alternative when antibiotics are no longer effective. I want a new model and engaged audiences when the current content distribution models are permanently disrupted by technology.

Because I want my post-paradigm apocalypse to remain where it belongs.

In the 'Walking Dead'.


- - - - - - - - -
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

CHIP

I have been known to have an opinion from time to time.

Lately, I have had a particular bee in my bonnet about unreliable artistes.

I have moaned.

I have whined.

And while I can honestly say that I believe there were fair points derived, and meaningful lessons extracted, I can understand if you may be a bit 'rant-lagged'.

So, I thought I would share the film with you, which was the basis of those tales of struggle. It's an animated documentary about the Production Manager, who also became MC, of the Woodstock Music Festival, who then went on to production manage and tour with the legendary rock acts of the 60's and 70's.

'Chip' screened at the Sydney Opera House, as a part of TEDxSydney this weekend, to an audience of roughly 2200 people. As part of the live event, TEDx have also made 'Chip' available to watch here: 'Chip' at TEDxSydney

And, if you're interested, you can also see my photos of the Opera House audience watching the screening: Photos of 'Chip' Screening

Whether you love it or hate it, any feedback is welcome.

Enjoy.

- - - - - - - - -
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 IRONIC CONUNDRUM OF THE WALKING DEAD

Happy Easter.

I hope you had a relaxing Easter break. Some chocolate too. Jesus was all about chocolate. In moderation, of course.

After the frenetic pace of the last few weeks, I took the opportunity to unwind a little. Like most people in the modern paradigm, my relaxation included catching up on some unwatched television.

In my case, I have a severe addiction to the American post-apocalyptic survival series 'The Walking Dead'.

You would think this would be an easy enough craving to satiate. It's a hugely successful program, watched all over the world and spoiled by millions of Facebook comments with as much vigour as the plot ruiners of 'Game of Thrones'.

Unfortunately, you would be wrong.

I started with the most obvious means: DVD. But no, the latest season hasn't been released on DVD yet. The slated release is in five months. Blergh.

So, much as the idea of owning digital files gives me anemia, I checked iTunes. The new season is there and available. For $20 more than the DVD costs, and you need to have high speed internet to download it. Which my holiday location doesn't.

Sigh.

And so, just out of curiosity, I checked Netflix. Could I be tech savvy and organise an American proxy server to access the streaming video service, thus scratching my now festering 'Walking Dead' itch?

No. Even Netflix, based in the U.S.A. doesn't have the latest season yet.

But then, a beacon of hope. A ray of light.

The pay-TV service here in Australia, Foxtel, is screening the new series.

This was it! My moment had arrived!

But...

...no.

Foxtel still operates its service like a traditional broadcaster. Only the premium service offers 'on-demand' viewing. Which means, if you have missed an episode, there is, like the world of Sheriff Rick Grimes and the survivors of the zombie apocalypse...no going back.

Thwarted. Frustrated. Confused. And all I want is to LEGALLY watch the show which I have supported for three seasons via DVD purchasing.

Why? When all the possible portals exist for loyal viewers to connect with the programs they enjoy, why do they make access so difficult?

Is it hubris? Or stupidity? Could this be some elaborate exercise to help me understand the desperation of the scavenger, and so deepen my empathy for the tribulations of the 'Walking Dead' survivors?

There are a number of supposed legitimate answers. The most commonly cited is that the delay in other release platforms gives AMC, the show's producing channel, the chance to exploit the programmes's popularity with its direct subscribers and premium (i.e. simultaneous release) partners.

So, in short, money.

AMC needs to justify it's subscriber fee in North America, and premium licensing fee worldwide, by restricting access to other viewers who engage with the show via secondary platforms.

And this is the ironic conundrum of The Walking Dead.

The people tasked with providing the show to its devoted audience are ensuring that it cannot be seen legally by many who want it. In doing so the Walking Dead is actually empowering, by ceding the moral high ground, the illegal means to watch the show.

Yes, 'The Walking Dead' is, ironically, actually giving LIFE.

To piracy.

When will they learn?

- - - - - - - - -
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

IT TAKES A VILLAGE

A creative project feels like raising a baby.

Sleep deprivation. Nothing ever seems to work out the way it did in your mind. A plethora of questions with few concrete answers. There are no shortage of people telling you how to make it better.

And, of course, in the end you will have to love it no matter how it turns out.

This edition is a day late for this very reason. I have been a wedded to a project, an animation, for the last two weeks, pushing against a rapidly dwindling hourglass to get it finished.

There were moments when I was certain we wouldn't finish. There was a day where I was so overwhelmed, I didn't want to get out of bed. A snide comment would have pushed me to tears.

I could sing you a tale of woe. Of the illustrator who had a nervous breakdown two weeks from the deadline and couldn't finish his allocated art. Or the young illustrator, who excitedly got involved, and then refused to be communicated with directly, only to quit, again without completing his work. Or the international illustrator, who came on board for a fee, only to quit...yes, again without delivering.

I could regale you with the horror of the horrible feedback meeting where I was left so demoralised, I contemplated pulling out of the project altogether.

I could tell you about all of that. But I won't.

And I could proclaim to you that I overcame all of these obstacles through a triumph of pure will and hard-nosed determination, forged in the fire of my good character.

But that's not the truth.

No, the truth is that I would have quit. I would have buckled. I would have cried like a freshly spanked baby, if not for a few key people.

We all want to tell ourselves how independent we are. That, when pushed, we are our greatest teammate.

But the truth is, this project only made it to the finish line, limping, battered and bruised (but intact) because a few of us pulled together and wouldn't let it fall. The Producer who refused to give up and became an artist by necessity. The animator in Queensland who cleared his schedule to be our white knight. The sound mixer who joined at short notice, and worked silly hours between existing commitments.

And me, trying not to fall apart.

It sounds chaotic, I know.

But actually, it was quite amazing. Individuals uniting to make something tangible from a pure idea. Supporting each other when it was ready to fail. And, most importantly, delivering.

So, from one creative to another, don't be afraid to be overwhelmed. Great challenges should scare you.

The most difficult feat of challenging work, however, is accepting that you can't do it on your own.

Thankfully, if you surround yourself with good people, you won't have to.

_____

P.S. If you have any interest in watching our film that almost wasn't, 'Chip', it is screening at the Sydney Opera House at TEDxSydney on 26th April 2014. You can watch it live on the day, at roughly 2:45pm via the official TEDxSydney live stream at TEDxSydney.com/LIVE, or at Big Ideas ABC TV, YouTube & Livestream. 

- - - - - - - - -
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

MEANINGS

"OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you
But you're an animal, baby, it's in your nature
Just let me liberate you
Hey, hey, hey"

These are lyrics from an actual song. Drink them in. Really ponder them for a moment.

Now, tell me, what is Robin Thicke's point? What is he trying to say about the human condition?

Yes, these are lyrics from the number one song of 2013, 'Blurred Lines' by Robin Thicke. Number 1. As in, it was the most popular song, for the greatest number of weeks, in 2013.

Does this reflect poorly on us? Or on Mr Thicke?

It's a strange time for the arts. The tools of production have become so cheap, and we are swarmed by a "me too" generation, who have all decided to leave school and become famous. As if it's a choice, or even a legitimate goal.

It's a cacophony of mediocrity. The din of so many people hoping that, as long as they are blasting noise into the atmosphere, they are on the path to celebrity.

So many people speaking, so few with anything to say.

How did this happen?

Was it the rise of the cult of celebrity? Did teachers stop doing their jobs? Did the world change so drastically that critical and artistic thought is obsolete?

Part of me wishes it was a simple answer, but I have a feeling it is something more fundamental to our being, and therefore utterly complex.

It strikes me as an interesting coincidence that, at a time when information is more easily available than ever, when science is making possible things that seem like science fiction, when technology has made human discourse (over formerly impossible distances) as simple as the push of a button, we are so distracted by shiny trinkets and rutting.

We ignore volumes of information, and instead follow the simple answers of small minded politicians.

We read the blatant lies of a biased media, then espouse those lies as our own and promote them to others.

And our arts become a redundant or rehashed parody of post-modern repetitiveness, marked by endless film sequels and vapid pop stars.

Coincidence?

Or something darker lurking beneath the surface? A deliberate ignorance, via distraction.

Because what can be more terrifying than the lifting of the veil on the mysteries of the universe? Carl Sagan once said that astronomy is a humbling and character building experience, because it gives a person a clear perspective of just how tiny and insignificant we are in the universe.

What better way to avoid this realisation, of our own lack of importance in the universal construct, than to distract ourselves with trivialities and 'bling'?

One of my favourite comedians covered the topic on-stage:

"Of course, uh, the universe is gradually slowing down and, uh, will eventually collapse inwardly on itself, according to the laws of entropy when all it's thermal and mechanical functions fail, thus rendering all human endeavours ultimately pointless. Just to put the gig in some sort of context."

It was his opening line of the show.

A risk, yes, but Bill Bailey has something to say about the world. It's what makes him an artist.

And there have been others, from Oscar Wilde to Bill Hicks' 'It's just a ride' speech, delivered when he knew that he was terminally ill with cancer. But perhaps Stanley Kubrick said it best, when asked: "If life is so purposeless, do you feel it's worth living?". His answer is breathtaking.

"The very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning...The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death — however mutable man may be able to make them — our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light."

LINK- STANLEY KUBRICK ANSWERS A QUESTION

And this is what artists used to do. To illuminate. To ruminate, just as we do secretly but never really talk about, on that great question.

'What is the point of it all?'

It's a terrifying thought. What if there is no point? What if everything I work and strive for has utterly no consequence?

And the easy answer is Robin Thicke.

Oh, "stop being bitter", you say.

But truly, my criticism comes from nowhere near bitterness. If anything, the ineptitude of masses of would-be artistes means that I have less competition.

The truth is, I want better from all of them. I want them to think harder. In fact, I want all of us, artists and non-artists, to think harder. Because we are all diminished by the lack of critical and creative thought that is permeating our culture.

We can ignore that darkness, that niggling doubt of our own mortality and our place in the universe, by staying distracted by meaningless fluff.

Or, with every conversation, every piece of work, every relationship, every creative endeavor, we can illuminate it instead.

Which kind of world would you rather live in?

_________

P.S. thanks to Barry for the inspiration.


- - - - - - - - -
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

LIFTING THE CURTAIN

We are surrounded by visual stories these days.

And, true to the adage, familiarity breeds contempt.

Armchair experts pontificate about how easy it is to create a screen story. These would-be auteurs walk out of films, preaching about the flaws and proclaiming they could have done better. They can shoot films on their phone, after all. How hard could it be?

Sigh.

Rather than argue the merits of their CV, however, a more useful exercise is to lift the curtain on some film craft. It might help you appreciate your films a bit more too.

And I say 'your' films deliberately. You may not realise it, but you are an active participant in every film and TV show you watch.

Yes, you.

Your brain is so sophisticated, that it makes films and screen stories work. Without the power of that grey mushy lump behind your eyes, the one you diminish with alcohol and poor decisions, screen stories would be an incoherent mass of images.

Your brain, you see, is a powerful information processor, which works outside of the constructs of time and space. You can recall something that happened twenty years ago, imagine something that never happened, and perceive and respond to an event occurring directly in front of you.

Such is the power of your brain, it is omnipresent. And we filmmakers use that power, most notably with editing.

But how?

Every film you have ever seen, jumps forward, backwards and sideways in time and space, both inner and outer. This temporal shifting is a necessity to tell a complex story in a short time frame. Imagine if instead you had to follow the hero home, watch him eat, patiently wait while he sleeps and then re-engage when he arises the next morning, ready to fight the arch-nemesis. The film would be three weeks long.

Instead, the hero arrives home, the lights turn off in his house, which we are watching from the outside, and the screen fades to black. We rejoin him already driving to the epic confrontation, loading his weapon in his lap.

Lame scenario, but you get the point.

And the only reason this editing technique works, is because of you. Because your brain, when given clues and a context, will join the dots to allow comprehension. All we have to do as filmmakers, is know which clues to leave, in which order, at a certain pace and in a certain tone, and the astronomical capability of your mind will do the rest.

It's the same phenomenon that leads people to hear satanic lyrics in Led Zeppelin songs. The power of suggestion, coupled with your brain's incredible capacity, and in fact compulsion, to connect seemingly disparate information into a whole, summed up in this hilarious live version of the experiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bG7EFhMw8w

So, there you have it. A piece of bona fide film and screen storytelling craft, for you to share. Impress your friends. Astound your loved ones.

Or at the very least, when you have the opportunity, put the armchair expert in their place.


- - - - - - - - -
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 AN ARTISTE'

An artiste is a protected species.

They have talent so vast, its fringes are unobservable. They can create stunning work, seemingly at will and at a moment's notice.

A drawing. A song. A painting. Created in the time it takes you or I to make an instant coffee.

Artistes are a mystery. From what deep recesses of their soul, of the fabric of their consciousness, are they able to draw this glowing, warm nectar of pure creativity?

And like many mysteries, they have quirks.

Not showing up on time. Not responding to basic communications. Ignoring deadlines with a contemptuous wave of their hand. Dismantling relationships in a single evening of bizarre behaviour.

Yes, this is the caricature of an artiste.

And every word of it is a convenient fabrication.

Yes, artists can be a bit mercurial. Changeable temperament comes hand in hand with some of the more impressive forms of creative expression.

But let me be abundantly clear, a true artist does not let their work suffer. All other elements of life are on the table, but not the work.

Do you think the major music acts reached their pinnacle by never delivering new music? There are so many new artists that a flaky musician, albeit a talented one, is easily shelved.

What use is a painter who never paints anything?

I'm currently working on an animation, meaning I am dealing with a number of artistes. If I had a dollar for every excuse I have heard for missed deadlines, this small project would have an enormous budget. It's just shy of "a dog ate my homework".

Ultimately, the response ends up something like "I wasn't in the mood to draw."

I hope you are as bamboozled by this response as I was.

And I hope you learn the lesson I have discovered first hand. Whether you are the artiste, or the one collaborating with them.

True artists let nothing stand between them and their muse. They are prolific.

An artiste uses the cliches of artistic temperament to avoid adhering to schedule.

An artist is a creative who gets things done.

An artiste is a codename for an unreliable douche.


- - - - - - - - -
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

...NINE-TENTHS OF THE LAW

"The things you own, end up owning you"

It has become a cliche now but, at the time, that line from 'Fight Club' was certified fresh. Ironically, I own the DVD.

Fifteen years ago the film first hit theaters. Yes, fifteen.

September 11 was still two years away. I was in my second last year of high school, with absolutely zero visibility on where I would be today. I didn't know where I would be in five years. Fifteen years away was as good as a thousand.

It wasn't as vital to have answers back then. Just questions. Questions about who you are, where you want to be, and what you want to do.

But, never what you want to own. It just wasn't important. Your precious brain cells were needed elsewhere.

Then age factors in. Everyone matures; accumulating their wordly possessions. Tokens of a life.

Personally, I never really got into that habit. I have knick-knacks, but everything I own could realistically fit into one medium sized room. That's the funny thing about pursuing a creative career. Until you have a major success, you have to stay mobile. Lean. You can have stuff, of course, but all within reason.

And it speaks to the world we live in that 'not having stuff' is often what baffles outsiders about this career path. They love the idea of "being creative". "Working on projects" seems ideal. Film festivals, awards nights and premieres are, of course, welcomed with gusto.

But not having stuff? That's troubling, apparently. The implication is that no stuff equals no roots. And, despite the credit crisis, along with all the demonstrated evils of debt, it is an attitude which still prevails. Like a nuclear cockroach, it endures.

It's the reason the line from Fight Club is still relevant.

"The things you own, end up owning you"

But how? How is this reversal of power even possible?

Well, as you make your early foray into the world, you acquire stuff. Mostly stuff you need.

Then you start to get more stuff. Stuff you don't actually need but you WANT.

Eventually, you need a place to put the stuff. So you buy a house.

Now, the house has a mortgage and has to be paid off. Meaning you have to work to pay the mortgage to keep the stuff that you didn't even need in the first place.

On top of that, you are worried that something will happen to the stuff. What if someone steals the stuff I didn't even need in the first place? Or what if my house burns down, destroying the stuff?

Now, when you go out, you are worried about something happening to the stuff. The welfare of your stuff haunts you.

So you get insurance, to protect the stuff.

You have to pay for the insurance. With money. That you earn from your job. Which you got to pay for the house holding the stuff you didn't even need in the first place.

Eventually, you may realise that your life choices around work, finances and freedom are actually being dictated to you by the stuff.

Or, you don't.

But at least you get to come home to your house everyday.

And look at your stuff.

...

Or perhaps, as we move to an increasingly online world, Tyler Durdan was onto something?


- - - - - - - - -
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