BE HONEST!

Talking about yourself is a high wire act. 

It is also part of the weirdest experiences I have had at film festivals or networking events. How to talk about yourself enough to establish credibility, but not so much that you become the guy who everyone assumes has narcisissm or special needs.

Everyone wants to feel like they are achieveing something, after all. That applies to more than just film. 

In a room full of peers, family or friends, when someone asks, 'are you setting the world on fire?', you want to be able to say 'of course!'.

And, quite frankly, the ability to talk about your success is important. Successful people I know own their success as much as they own their failures. You should be proud of your achievements and be able to articulate them. 

Succinctly, of course.

It's an art form.

Remember, you are building relationships. Relationships that may only ever be cordial, but you never know what could develop professionally. 

But you must also remember, there is a golden rule when building relationships. 

In the film world, where so much effort is spent in the ethereal realm of story development or rumoured productions, there is a razor thin line between talking about your achievements and overblown hype.

This may seem an obvious statement, but it is absolutely critical you be aware of the line between hype and truth.

There is one thing that the majority of experienced professionals develop, and that is the ability to spot a fake or overblown story. This is because spotting hype can be the difference between developing a strong collaboration or achieving nothing.

The most common example is the sin of omission. 

For example, if you leave a few key words out of a film festival title, it is the difference between suggesting your film was selected for the Cannes Film Festival (the official one) or the Cannes Independent Film Festival (the recent addition which I strongly believe is a scam).  

And if you get caught on a lie, not only will it get pointed out, but it is hard to recover.

A recent example was when an Australian horror film, 'Muirhouse', travelled to Cannes this year to screen at the Cannes Film Festival's Film Market. 

A story appeared in Inside Film, headlined: 'Aussie horror film Muirhouse to premiere at Cannes'.

http://if.com.au/2012/05/02/article/Aussie-horror-film-Muirhouse-to-premiere-at-Cannes/FAGWZRWUOX

Not an innacurate statement.

Except that the prestige of being selected for the Cannes Film Festival is very different to the experience of screening at the Cannes Film Market. The market is still an excellent milestone for the film, but alas, different.

The comment section of the article reflects exactly the reaction I am talking about:

"Cannes" and "The Cannes Market" are two very different things and the title of this article is quite misleading. You shouldn't have the heading of an article as "premiering at Cannes" as this suggests it's in the line up proper, not the market. No offense to the filmmakers, I'm sure it's a great film, but the the heading shouldn't be so misleading." (Bill. 02/05/2012)"

"Premiering at Cannes and screening in the market are two very, very different things. Misleading headline. (Harry Newt. 02/05/2012)"

"I look forward to seeing articles on the other 20 or so Aussie films "premiering" in the market at Cannes. (Anonymous)"

An innocent mistake in this example, surely, but it shows how highly attuned people are when they suspect liberties are being taken with the truth.

So, what is the easiest way to avoid this kind of trouble altogether and to be held in the highest regard by your peers?

Follow the golden rule.

Be proud. Be articulate. But, most of all, be honest.

- - - - - - - - -
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 SAMUEL L JACKSON ECONOMY

Just give up!

It's hard.

Everyone is smarter and more talented than you. Better looking too.

You will never get a break. 

Everyone you are competing against is miles ahead of you.

Really, you should just give up.

Or......

Will their looks fade, while your unique perspective remains?

Will your struggle teach you the craft and make you better in the long run than any of these overnight successes?

Will you get your break, as long as you endure?

Anyone taking on a film has these thoughts. Actually, anyone endeavouring to do anything inspired by their passion has these thoughts. Whether it is painting your first canvas in your living room or writing a script. 

I've had them.

It's an internal struggle, borne of never really knowing if your work resonates with anyone. 

Does anyone reading this really connect to it the way I want them to?

When faced with that kind of uncertainty, and watching the apparent success of others, it's easy to contemplate giving up.

You haven't really risked anything if you have never, even briefly, contemplated giving up.

But what if you persevered?

Samuel L Jackson is a household name today.

He was still acting in Hamburger commercials in 1975, when he was 27 years old. Still waiting for a break.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd0G0f50_9g 

14 years later he played the 'black guy' in 'Sea Of Love'. That was his actual character name. 

But it didn't matter. He was still working towards his dream.

That same year, 1989, Samuel L Jackson finally got his big break in Spike Lee's 'Do the Right Thing'.

At 41 years old.

22 years later, Samuel L Jackson became the Guiness Book of Records 'Highest Grossing Actor of all Time' in 2011. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/samuel-l-jackson-highest-grossing-actor-guinness-book-world-records-254155

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/how-samuel-l-jackson-became-his-own-genre.html?_r=1

His films have grossed an INCREDIBLE US$7.4 Billion.

That's about double the entire economy of Fiji. 

It turns out you can learn more from Samuel L Jackson than just a "Royale with Cheese" is the French term for a McDonald's Quarter Pounder.

Perseverance pays off.

- - - - - - - - -
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

UNPAID INTERNSHIPS vs SLAVE LABOUR

I worked unpaid on a feature film once.

It was an excellent experience and I walked away with a film credit for my trouble too. The film got a theatrical release as well, which was even more exciting.

For anyone looking to get experience working on a feature, I would recommend it.

But beware. There are predators out there.

Wolves who offer things like "exposure" and a "foot in the door", when really they are simply looking to exploit people desperate for a break in the competitive film industry.

It's dangerous mixing predators with the desperate.

I had the chance to see this predatory behaviour up close in the last week. Essential Media, a big company currently producing the feature 'Saving Mr Banks', starring Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson, put up a notice on the Facebook page of my old film school. It read:

'We're looking for an unpaid intern to assist while our office manager takes 4 weeks of annual leave. I wondered if any of your students might be interested? 

It would be answering phones and arranging travel and couriers but it's also a foot in the door, the opportunity to see how the business works and to make some great contacts. There would also be some fun and creative jobs like designing DVD slicks and whatever skills the person has to offer. It could also lead to more interesting roles on future productions.

...

(BLAH BLAH)

Associate Producer

Essential Media and Entertainment'

Now, I'll be honest I wrote a pretty scathing reply to this. Something to the effect of: 'Dear Essential Media, making your coffee and answering your phones is not an internship. Spend $300 less on coke for your Christmas party and pay these hard working students for taking on the role as your receptionist.'

That's not verbatim, but you get the idea.

Somebody administering the film school's Facebook page must have felt my reply was too scathing, however, and they removed the comment.

So I commented again.

This time it was a little more reserved.

'My original comment got deleted, so I will keep this one simple - what they are suggesting is not legal. Filling in as an employee is not an 'internship'. An internship is something specific under employment law where a person can expect to get training or experience, not just fill in as your receptionist so you can not pay a desperate film student looking for a break:http://www.fairwork.gov.au/factsheets/fwo-fact-sheet-internships-vocational-placements-unpaid-work.pdf'

At this point, someone responded with an 'Are you serious?'

To which I gave my final comment:

'100% serious. I have worked unpaid on a feature, but I received actual training on a feature and a feature credit out of it. That's an unpaid internship. This one is calling itself an unpaid internship, but really you are just working as a receptionist for free. I want to make sure the SFS students know the difference and don't get exploited.'

And that sums it up, really. People deserve better than to have their dreams dangled in front of them so that someone else can get slave labour.

It's just wrong.

And I am not the lone voice on this.

Right now in the USA, Fox Searchlight Pictures is facing off against a lawsuit regarding unpaid interns.

In 2009, the two interns worked on the smash hit film 'Black Swan', but claim that, instead of receiving experience in entry level film production, they were allegedly simply told to make coffee, answer phones and occasionally do some janitorial work (i.e. cleaning and taking out garbage). They are now suing Fox to argue that, for this sort of work where they were not learning anything, they should have been paid a wage instead.

The lawsuit started in October 2011. Now, just in the last few days, the suit has added more plaintiffs: a "corporate intern" at Fox and a "production intern" who worked on "(500) Days Of Summer". These new plaintiffs are alleging that they too were promised a learning experience, but instead were simply used as unpaid labour to replace paid staff positions.

Collectively, these interns have finally said enough is enough and ignited a debate on the long running practice of unpaid internships in the film industry.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-blackswan-idUSTRE7943KB20111005

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/08/14/fox-internship-lawsuit-expands_n_1774999.html

But while some might think the interns taking a stand is courageous, they are not without their detractors.

Since scratching the surface on this issue, it has been suggested to me that this case is an example of the 'new generation's' greed, wanting to avoid paying their dues and not willing to put in the hard work.

I completely disagree.

If you agreed to teach an aspiring filmmaker something, anything, valuable about film production to fast-track their career, do you really think they would refuse to answer a phone or make a coffee? Do you really think they would sue you for making them take out some trash when they were mostly learning on a production what would take years to learn in film school?

Of course not.

But if you promise someone an ice-cream and they get a slap in the face instead, they are bound to be upset.

Now, my colleagues have worried out loud about me writing this newsletter on an active and seemingly powerful production company. They think it could be a career limiting move.

And, in a way, that is exactly why I wrote it.

There are real unpaid internships out there. Valuable experiences that I completely support, offered by the likes of excellent Australian Producers like Jenny Day, or the Australian Distribution guru John L Simpson.

Then there are 'internships' like those offered by Essential Media. Thinly veiled slave labour.

Pointing this out so that aspiring filmmakers, chasing their dreams, don't get exploited shouldn't be considered a revolutionary act.

It's just the truth.

These companies know they are not doing the right thing.

How do I know?

Because actions speak louder than words.

No one has admitted anything, but...

...Fox now pays its interns $8 an hour.

- - - - - - - - -

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

MAKE HIM AN OFFER HE CAN REFUSE

Money clouds your judgement.

You think it is just you who can have your better judgement swayed by a paycheck waved at your desperation.

People like us who have to make a choice about taking that freelance job on an awful corporate video, just to pay the rent.

You think it only happens to us mere mortals.

But you're wrong.

Even for the greats, money clouds your judgement.

Even for someone like Marlon Brando for his legendary, Oscar-winning role as 'Don Corleone' in 'The Godfather'.

I love this story. Especially since it relates to the secret wrangling behind the scenes of the iconic film (one of my personal favourites).

The fact that the story is about shady deals involved in making an iconic gangster movie just makes it better.

So, imagine it's 1970 and 'The Godfather' is in pre-production.

Apparently, the studio making the film dislikes both the Director, Francis Ford Coppola, and the proposed lead, Marlon Brando.

Brando, however, had given an early preview of how he thought the character would speak and conduct himself. It was so good, allegedly, that his transformation into 'Don Corleone' (including tissues shoved into his mouth for the jutting jaw) was dubbed 'The Miracle on Mullholland'.

Brando was in.

And then came the touchy subject of pay.

The studio still disliked Brando on some level, so apparently they offered him 'actor's scale (note: minimum wage for actors) up front and 5 percent of gross receipts when the film grossed $50 million. He would also have to put up a bond against any cost overruns caused by his bad behaviour.'

Ouch.

But Brando needed the money now. So, he sent his lawyer back to the negotiating table with the studio, where he 'pleaded for at least $100,000 to help the actor avoid tax delinquency. In exchange Brando agreed to return his points (note: percentage of the gross box office) in the movie'.

The studio agreed.

As we now know, the Godfather was a huge hit.

This deal, where Brando handed back his possible percentage of the profits for more cash upfront, ultimately cost him at least $11 million.

OUCH.

The reason why this is a cautionary tale, and not just a random tidbit, is because Brando had an inkling that 'The Godfather' would be a hit.

You never really know, but the book 'The Godfather' was based on had been an enormous success, and had a large and loyal following.

Brando had also indicated, to his advisors, that he knew 'The Godfather' had the makings of a spectacular success.

But, knowing this, he let money get in the way of his decision making.

What if he had believed in the possible success of the film just that little bit more, without the money clouding his judgement?

He would have had $11million in his bank account instead of $100,000.

Learn from Brando's mistake.

Do your absolute best to ignore the money.

Trust your judgement.

Believe in your work.
________________

P.S. For more reading on this story:

'Infamous Players: A Tale of Movies, the Mob (and Sex)' by Peter Bart

http://www.amazon.com/Infamous-Players-Tale-Movies-Mob/dp/1602861390

- - - - - - - - -
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

OLD PEOPLE HAVE FOUND THE 'ANY' KEY

I remember having to show my grandfather how to use a mobile phone.

He is one of the smartest people I know. Ask him about Shakespeare or W.B. Yeats and he can quote their entire collected works to you. And yet, a lump of plastic with 17 buttons completely baffled him. 

Talking to him on it is even funnier. He always sounds like he doesn't really believe that he is talking to me. It's too weird for him.

And don't even get me started on getting him onto a computer. 

He owns one. I think it gets turned on roughly twice a year.

Given this has been my experience, I thought this was was the norm with older people.

As it turns out, I was wrong.

I was looking into the demographics of tablet users, given the ipad and its friends have a massive impact on how films are being purchased and consumed (look up 'multi screen content' if you don't believe me).

Ironically, I had just talked to my Grandfather in the preceding days. His latest big issue was the unexplained change in flavour of Heinz's 'Baked Beans in Ham Sauce'. 

They weren't as "ham tasting" as they used to be, apparently.

Keeping this in mind, my mouth fell open when I read that older people (50-65 and 65+) are one of the large growing markets for tablet computers. Apparently, the oldies like the intuitive touch screens and the high resolution.

My shock turned to borderline disbelief with the next stunning fact:

'As of April 2012, 53% of American adults age 65 and older use the internet or email.'

...and THEN...

'As of February 2012, one third (34%) of internet users age 65 and older use social networking sites such as Facebook, and 18% do so on a typical day.'

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2281/seniors-older-adults-online-internet-email-broadband-social-media-facebook-linked-in

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Older-adults-and-internet-use.aspx

As if that wasn't enough, it turns out the numbers of older people using social networking sites overall are growing significantly. Of ALL AGE GROUPS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE USERS between 2008 and 2010, over 65s jumped from from 2% to 6% of total users. More significantly, over 50s went from 9% to 20% of total users.  

Simply, wow.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2025/social-impact-social-networking-sites-technology-facebook-twitter-linkedin-myspace

SO much of the wisdom and education around using the online world to attract viewers focuses purely on the younger generation.

Is this a subtle form of age discrimination? Not letting older people play the game, even though they want to?

It's counter-intuitive too.

Think about it: how many older viewers, and therefore how much money, are we leaving on the table because we don't engage with them, even though they are there?

I don't have the exact answers, unfortunately. There is enough information there to make a case, but we need more data to be absolutely sure.

And perhaps I don't have the perfect personal example. The last time I spoke to my Grandfather, he told me he was watching French news, to try and help him learn French. 

He couldn't understand much though, he said.

But that's my Grandfather, the lovable luddite.

There are plenty of other older people who are online, on their tablet or computer, looking for content to consume.

Think about how much disposable income and leisure time these older people have. Who better to be a viewer of your film online or a regular viewer of your work?

- - - - - - - - -

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 SHERIFF IS ON HOLIDAYS...PERMANENTLY

Imagine there is an old colonial town, with a massive bucket of gold in the town square.

The bucket of gold belongs to the entire town.

Bizarrely, however, the bucket of gold is left open and unsecured.

Now, there is a sheriff in this town.

Rather than lock up the gold, the sheriff in town is responsible for tracking down anybody who steals it.

How well do you think this system would work? How long would the gold last?

Or, put another way, how well did 'voluntary regulation' of financial companies work in the lead up to the GFC?

Our media landscape, responsible for bringing us news and entertainment (yes, I think of them separately) is our bucket of gold.

Currently, we have a lock on our bucket of gold: the laws that regulate our media and media ownership.

With the laws regulating our media, no large ambitious media company...cough...Fox...cough...Murdoch...can own more than two of the three major media mediums: TV, Radio or Newspapers.

Times are changing, however. The internet, that universal gamechanger, has made us start to rethink whether we need a lock on our bucket of gold.

Right now, the Australian Government is mulling over The Convergence Review, a review of the laws that govern media provision in this country.

If you haven't heard of it, you should really be paying more attention. The proposed changes will affect us for years to come.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/convergence-review/media-review-misses-online-behemoths/story-fndfo21g-1226343170941

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/ZS346/upload_binary/zs3461.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/143836/Convergence-Review-Interim-Report-web.pdf

There are many things to come out of the Convergence Review, but the most interesting is the idea to abolish media ownership laws and replace them with a "public interest test" decided by the Government.

So now, if these changes are accepted, there will no longer be a lock on our bucket of gold, but instead the Government will decide if stealing the gold is a good thing or not.

Why dilute the laws that regulate our media and media ownership?

The Convergence Review argues that, with the internet turning everyone into their own newspaper (blogs) or TV Stations (YouTube), limiting media ownership is pointless. 

I think this conclusion overlooks one MAJOR point.

The conclusion that media ownership is pointless works in a world where there isn't already entrenched powerful media barons. Sure, in a world without Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch, the only thing that matters is how big a media company becomes. 

But Packer and Murdoch have existed. 

And they have created companies with huge power bases and almost unlimited media resources. 

And their companies have not shied away from using this power to influence how the news is presented.

Maybe the idea of a free press is dead, but do we really have to help bury it too?

At least the Convergence Review got one thing right, recommending to keep content quotas for Australian programs.

http://if.com.au/2011/12/14/article/Viewers-turn-away-from-foreign-content-in-2011-survey/GOTXWUUCGJ

Content quotas force broadcasters to show a certain percentage of Australian content. This is because, despite Australian content regularly rating in the top 20 television programs, Australian programs cost a lot to produce. 

American TV shows, by comparison are relatively cheap for broadcaster to buy and show in Australia. Approximately, it costs three times as much to make Australian content as it does to buy it cheap from overseas.

Without a content quota, broadcasters would just programme endless cheap American sitcoms instead of making Australian shows.

Luckily they saw some sense.

So, did you know all of the above?

My apologies if you did.

But I doubt it.

The more people I talk to, the more I realise the majority are not paying attention. 

But you should care. Not just because I think you should.

Because the bucket of gold belongs to you too.

And the thieves only steal from the bucket when they think no-one is watching.

So, guess what?

In the real world, you're the sheriff too.

- - - - - - - - -

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

ACCOLADES

Money. Fame. Respect.

The power trifecta.

Plenty of people opt into entertainment to achieve one, or all, of these milestones. You only have to watch a musical talent show like 'Idol' or 'X Factor' to see the crash and burn parade.

Some of these people have talent. Most don't.

The bad news for a lot of newcomers is that the barriers to the 'in-demand' careers in the arts are very high. That's not a new idea, but in the world of the internet it is harder for people to accept.

Yes, just like it was in the many years past, the overwhelming consensus is that your artistic work has to be 'good', whatever that means, to achieve any semblance of real success. The power trifecta demands quality!

But what if you are good at your artistic profession and accolades still elude you? Is that even possible?

Australian films in 2011 had their most critically successful years ever. 'Australian films featured in all six premiere international film festivals with the standout achievement of Sleeping Beauty screening in Competition at the Cannes Film Festival'.

Amazing!

How much did these Australian films gross at the $1.09 Billion Australian Box Office in 2011?

$42.9 Million. Or, put simply, a paltry 3.9%

One film, 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2' exceeded that on its own, with $52.6 Million at the Australian Box Office in 2011.

http://if.com.au/2012/01/23/article/Australian-films-gross-3-9-per-cent-of-total-box-office-in-2011/OLFJQRJZSJ

So, critical success equated to what, exactly?

The same trend can be seen in the latest announcement of Nominees to join the American Academy. Two notable nominees for this year are actor Andy Serkis and director Terrence Malick.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-terrence-malick-andy-serkis-top-academy-invitees-20120629,0,2076864.story

The role that transformed Serkis' career, and indeed how we view 'acting', was his motion capture performance as Golumn in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Serkis' star turn impressed audiences and critics alike, and led to further critically acclaimed performances in King Kong and Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

So, Serkis' most acclaimed role was in 2003. The Academy recognised him with a nomination in 2012. That is almost a decade of difference, for the mathematically challenged.

For Terrence Malick, his Oscar nominated (yes, by the very same Academy) film The Thin Red Line, was released in 1999. 13 years ago.

If you are good at your artistic profession can accolades still elude you?

Yes, yes they can.

Martin Scorsese was first nominated for the Best Director Oscar in 1980 for Raging Bull. It took another 5 nominations and 27 years for him to actually win the Award for The Departed.

What does this mean to you?

It means, if you want to be an artist, you can't do it for accolades that can be denied or taken away from you.

It has to be about something simpler than money, fame and respect.

Quite simply, like air, you just have to need it.

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

YOU COULDN'T WRITE THIS STUFF

I was having a lively discussion with a friend about submitting scripts to producers.

He was a touch annoyed about the 'no unsolicited submissions' policy most producers have. The policy generally means that, if you send in your script that they have neither asked for, nor been recommended, the producer will very likely return it to you unread and, in most cases, unopened. 

Their fear is being sued for plagiarism.

My friend felt this was an overly bureaucratic response to a small risk, and unnecessarily created an industry for 'middle men'. like agents. 

It's a tough argument to win, either way. Yes, you could argue that adding too many processes and 'filters' diminishes our ability to see, and therefore produce, new and interesting work. You could also argue that being sued for plagiarism, losing and being declared bankrupt also diminishes your ability to produce anything.

To get us both thinking, I told my friend about a case of alleged story theft that I had heard of. It relates to the Tom Cruise blockbuster film, 'The Last Samurai'.

The Producers of the film, Ed Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz, were sued by two brothers, Aaron and Matthew Benay. The brothers claimed they wrote a script called 'The Last Samurai', also about an American war veteran going to Imperial Japan to train the Japanese army, and pitched it to the Producers verbally. 

The brothers claim their story was then used as the basis for the eventual film that Zwick and Herskovitz produced, 'The Last Samurai'. They were paid nothing.

Warner Brothers, the studio involved, argued that it was coincidence, and that multiple writers accidentally developing similar storylines is common place in Hollywood. It is part and parcel of having so many writers trying to get their work produced, in a world where only so many films are made a year.   

In what would be especially upsetting to the brothers, the film went on to make over $400 million at the worldwide box office. Ouch.

And here is where it gets really interesting. 

On the eve of the trial, an anonymous letter arrived, purporting to have emails showing the Producers' guilt. 

The brothers argued it was damning evidence, with emails clearly showing theft and deception.

The studio argued that they were forgeries and that the brothers had not taken any steps to verify the documents were not tampered with. In fact, the studio alleged, it was likely that the brothers had played some part in the creation of the anonymous letter an the forged documents.

The brothers claimed they played no part in the letter and alleged the documents showed handwriting and email signatures that demonstrated their authenticity. 

In response, somewhat dramatically, the studio had the documents forensically analysed to show they were forgeries.

At this point, it no doubt seemed like the case had reached the peak of its intrigue.

But the most dramatic allegation came next.

The brothers alleged that the studio, after a meeting, took the glasses of water they were drinking from and sent them for DNA testing. The DNA evidence was to be used to show that the brothers had a connection to the anonymous letter.  

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/last-samurai-legal-dispute-forging-evidence-warner-brothers-276175

Amazing stuff.

In the end, however, the Producers, Zwick and Herskovitz, were vindicated and won the lawsuit.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/last-samurai-zwick-herskovitz-win-lawsuit-309268 

When I finished telling the story, my friend blinked really hard and said: "Nice story, but what does that have to do with the whole 'unsolicited submission' problem?"

I thought about it for second.

I said: "It shows how complicated the whole unsolicited submission process can get when it goes badly, hence why they don't take the risk."

Not a bad answer.

Ironically though, it actually shows that the stories behind making movies in Hollywood, can be far more interesting than the movies Hollywood is actually making.

It's great fodder for writers.

If you can get anyone to read the script.

- - - - - - - - -

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

GIVE MORE THAN YOU TAKE

Can you hear about a person you know having success and be genuinely happy for them?

What about if they are a peer? Or, put another way, a competitor?

A lot of people struggle to give a straight answer to these questions.

With the new online world for content creators, the idea of the 'personal brand' has grown more pervasive. As it takes hold of a filmmaker, they start to believe they are in competition with everyone.

If you get funding for a feature film, they didn't.

If your script gets bought by a major studio, theirs got left on the shelf.

If your film gets selected for the Oscars, theirs goes straight to an unwatched DVD collection.

It doesn't matter how true any of these statements are. They might not have even finished their script, or cut their movie.

But your success means their failure.

I have met these people. They exist.

But what if, and bear with my overwhelming optimism here, we were all in it together?

What if we looked at ourselves as a community of artists, where the success of one enables the success of others?

Imagine cheering for your filmmaking peers, and having them cheer for you in return. Or supporting another filmmaker with their dream project, knowing that this is the kind of working environment you want to create.

I am not a lone idealist on this thought.

And it is not just because I am not an Oscar winner (yet) or earning millions producing Hollywood films.

The producer of Terence Malick's 'Tree of Life', Sarah Green, believes in the community of filmmakers supporting each other too. Ms Green gave a wonderful and inspiring key note speech at the Sundance Film Festival this year that sums it up far better than I could.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/sarah-greens-sundance-keynote-be-as-generous-as-you-can-be

In case you're feeling lazy, the best quote from the speech is:

"So give some of your time, your expertise, your energy to mentor, to train, to advise and to cheer. What benefits one independent film benefits us all. Who hasn't referenced "Brokeback Mountain" or "Little Miss Sunshine" or "Precious" when trying to explain that our "female-driven," "period," "coming-of-age," "Americana" (oh, and here's the real eye-roller in a pitch meeting) or "drama" was going to make pots of money. A truly successful indie gives us all something to point to when pitching our own film, and makes it easier to get another independent film made." 

Giving more than you take.

A crazy idea?

The cynics will object and say this is all great in theory but impractical in the competitive film business.

But what if I told you this cooperation already existed?

In Australia, there is a group called Blue Tongue Films. They are a small, loosely organised commune of filmmakers who work on each other's projects.

Writing, directing, producing, acting, editing, etc. Whatever needs to be done to get the film made.

So far, they have had Oscar nominations, a Sundance selection, a Cannes selection and long list of other accolades.

Technically they should be in competition. Instead they support each other to make better and better work.

It is possible.

Ghandi said: 'Be the change you want to see in the world.'

So filmmakers, and everyone really, where does this better world start?

With you.

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

APPEARANCES

Shanghai is a weird place.

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

But Shanghai is still a weird place.

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

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

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

And then there was the Shanghai Film Festival itself.

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

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

The media was there.

Glamorous sponsors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that is all in the background.

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

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

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

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

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

COMPLEXITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I knew the answer. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth is, most tasks are like that. 

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

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

Do that, and you will have a long career. 

- - - - - - - - -

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

EXHIBITORS

The movies are overpriced.

There, I said it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what does this little stoush mean?

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

Confused?

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

But the world has changed. 

The internet exists. Piracy exists.

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

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

- - - - - - - - -

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

DANGER WAS HIS LAST NAME

At 4 years old he was diagnosed with Leukemia.

He fought it for his entire life.

At 21 years old, the cancer finally claimed him.

That could have been the story of Nick Danger.

But it isn't.

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

But his energy was undeniable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But slowly I realised it was real.

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

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

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

Nick Danger.

At 4 years old he was diagnosed with Leukemia.

He fought it for his entire life.

At 21 years old, the cancer finally claimed him.

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

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

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

That will be the story of Nick Danger.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having to fire people is necessary sometimes, I know. 

But you should always hate it.

- - - - - - - - -

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

OAFILMS NEWS - The Good Neighbour Teaser Trailer

Hello world,

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

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

Enjoy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are going global! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You never forget where you grew up.

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

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

Homecomings are sweet.

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

THE BEAUTIFUL, HORRIBLE POWER OF VIDEO

There are some stories that are hard to tell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not all examples are positive.

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure which is worse.

Seeing is, unfortunately, believing.

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

PIRATES WIN THIS BATTLE, BUT...

Another day, another battle fought and decided over piracy:

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

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

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

The High Court disagreed.

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

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

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

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

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

Time will tell.

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

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

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

Sounds like fighting words to me.

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

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