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

THE OSCARS

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

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

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

Ellen handing out pizza to the celebrities?

Pharell Williams wearing shorts to the red carpet?

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

Esteem?

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

'We're normal people too!'

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

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

Just don't broadcast it.

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

But do they?

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

No.

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

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

Yes, Ellen got busted.

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

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

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

Feels icky now, doesn't it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, do nothing.

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

No, not bigger sponsors.

Esteem.


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

BY WHEN?

May already? Where is the year going, right?

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

And yet we all find time to procrastinate.

Strange.

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

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

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

And so on.

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

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

BY WHEN?

You want to finish that script by when?

That film is ready to be shot. By when?

The project needs a pitch document created by when?

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

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

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

GIMME MA MONAY!!

It's a strange time for workers.

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

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

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

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

People should be paid fairly for what they produce.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever you can get, remember?

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

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

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

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

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

I was delighted to get the email, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

Income inequality.

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

Overly dramatic? In a word, NO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It starts with you. And a choice.

People should be paid fairly for what they produce.

OR

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

What do you believe?


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

"I WAS BORN IN THE WRONG ERA"

I hear this too often.

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

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

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

The power of this 20/20 hindsight is intoxicating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the past is over.

Time to look forward instead.

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

THE iPOTTY

It's hard being alone sometimes.

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

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

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

Concentrating. Seeking.

Who liked my status update?

You smile. You've reached people.

The screen flickers off. You roll over to sleep.

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

It's heroin for the masses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There has to be a line drawn. A boundary.

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

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

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

I saw this advertised on television in America.

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

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

But they have to learn to be people first.


- - - - - - - - -

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

MINIMUM WAGE ON AN ISLAND PARADISE

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

I'm back.

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

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

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

The U.S.A.

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

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

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

Oh, and there are sea turtles, apparently.

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

I got over it though. Starbucks helped.

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

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

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

"You gotta pay to live in paradise."

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

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

"Extra jobs", he deadpanned.

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

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

Best paid?

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

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

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

Unions.

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

Think about that for a moment.

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

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

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

But what is a union?

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

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

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

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

So as we begin 2014, please remember.

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

Remember that their predicament is totally fixable.

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

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

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

Happy 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Xmas and a happy 2014!

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a fair question.

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

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

But nothing could be further from the truth.

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

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

These jobs chase the lowest paid workers, you see.

But what is left?

The jobs where people matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May you have a wonderful 2014.
________________________________________

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

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