Werner Herzog next up, this Saturday at the Royal Festival Hall. "Chaos, hostility and murder." Can't wait!
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Spike Lee
One of the bonuses of being a cinephile in London are the number of talks with well known film practitioners. The BFI normally has at least one major filmmaker speaking every month. This month it was Spike Lee who was in town to help promote screenings of Do the Right Thing in its twentieth year since release. The quality of these talks depend highly on the interviewee getting some flow to proceedings and David Lammy MP was a pretty good choice. Spike had to cut him off early in the night to make sure he got to the point but after that it was an enjoyable evening. The highlight ironically was getting home and turning on Newsnight to see Spike Lee ask Jeremy Paxman "How long have you been black?"
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Jane Campion for Best Director!
Only three women have been nominated for the oscar for best director. Jane Campion was one of them for The Piano in 1994. Campion has a new film out called Bright Star and the reviews have been brilliant so far. Now is the time for a woman to get her hands on that oscar. Jane Campion has the pedigree and should take it away next year. If anyone out there reading this is a member of the academy then get the word out now.
The Vintner's Luck has had early bad reviews from the Toronto Film Festival. As I mentioned in an earlier post the trailer was uninspiring and bode ill for Niki Caro's third feature. Caro was hot property after Whale Rider but if this film flops her next film will have to hit the mark.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Talkin bout my generation
Two weeks without the internet is a long time, especially when so much is happening. The ministerial review has just published the submission's it's received on its website. Ant Timpson has made the case for a NZ Film Month. But what I want to focus on today is Matthew Horrocks and his Notes for a New New Zealand Cinema.
Matthew Horrocks worked at the Commission for a few years mostly in development and is now on the other side of the fence as an independent producer. In his Notes he sets out the basis of why filmmaking in NZ isn't as rosy as some people would like you to think it is. There is a lot to be said about his thoughts but what really struck me upon first reading was this paragraph.
"The key cause of the situation in which new filmmakers are not making new films is that in the absence of a clear set of ideas about the types of films we want to make we "new" - though not necessarily particularly young - aspiring feature filmmakers, have for some years now been proving spectacularly unable to generate a healthy supply of film projects that are demanding to be made because we are having real problems finding and developing cinematic stories that just have to be told on film."
I don't think I've ever seen this idea articulated before. To put it simply, most of the ideas that have come to the commission in recent years from filmmakers are crap. That's very harsh. But it should be. I am also part of the problem. I've known a bunch of filmmakers since I moved to Auckland in 1999. We're mostly all in our mid 30's now. Apart from a handful of digital features we have very little to show for our efforts. We know our stuff, have fairly good taste, but have failed to make a mark. Why is this?
Horrocks says "The challenge is cultural. It has arisen because a number of the various streams of ideas to do with identity - national, masculine, feminine, gay and Maori - that have nourished the development of our film culture thus far have to a certain extent run their first course. That they are not being replenished is in turn reflective of the type of crisis of values, meaning, and identity that grips a culture, and a person, that is struggling to make a difficult transition from one era of development into another"
That is pretty heavy stuff and not the intellectual debate you see coming from within the NZ film industry very often. It does have a strong whiff of truth about it. It encapsulates the gnawing feeling that many of us have had watching our films in recent years. Let me use Eagle vs Shark as an example. It's the first film that came to mind so I'm certainly not trying to be dismissive of the work Taika Waititi and his producer Ainsley Gardiner have done. However, that film is basically an American independent quirky romnatic comedy. Now, the problem with doing this is that every film can't be made to stand for the whole. Eagle vs Shark can't represent an argument about the whole NZ film industry. What is interesting is what the films of my generation look like. What they look like is probably other people's films or the filmmaker's own navels.
Horrocks again "I think we need to blast the way we think and talk about films far out beyond the self-referentiality that occurs so often when we discuss films only in relation to other films. Lets discuss films in relation to the true source of all film material - life."
It astounds me that more filmmakers don't look at the newspaper for their next story. There are amazing stories happening all the time in NZ. The feature film idea I'm working on is based on an incident that occured just last year. Why aren't we all mining the news? I think there is more to this than simple laziness.
There is something going on with my generation of filmmakers. Our post-84 liberal minded socially conservative genreation. We don't really remember pre 1984 NZ. We don't remember what it was like to live in an effectively socially democratic country controlled by the state. We don't remember what it was like when pretty much everyone had a job and lived in an egalitarian nation. We don't remember what it was like to have only very limited job prospects (maybe civil service if you went to uni). We don't remember what it was like to not have to lock your door at night. We do have a collective consciousness because when we were young we all watched the same two tv channels and went to see Top Gun and The Goonies at the movies or watched Olly Olson After School. We may have faint memories of the Springbok tour of 1981 when people got pissed off at each other and expressed it. But that might seem like a world away now. Very few of us get really annoyed at anything political. Very few of us are angry about politics in any way although you may be annoyed that (new) Labour ran out of ideas last year and we decided to let the other team have a go again. When I think about the group of filmmakers I know well, they simply don't care about politics. They couldn't care less. What bothers me about that is that it tells me you have absolutely no interest in how we got to our current state of affairs. It tells me that you think that "stuff happens" that you have no control over. That you naturalise the world. That things just are because that's the way they are. You can't tell stories if you don't know how to structure them. It makes sense that you can understand the stories that happen around you if you understand the structures that created them. I can see why you wouldn't notice if a story occurred that raised profound questions about the current state of the country and its people. The problem is - that's the good stuff. The Godfather is just a gangster film if you don't place it in the context of what it tells us about the place of immigration and commerce and violence in the nation building and (maybe) collapse of America.
If you care about all this I suggest you read Notes on a New New Zealand Cinema. The debate about the future of NZ film is happening now.
Matthew Horrocks worked at the Commission for a few years mostly in development and is now on the other side of the fence as an independent producer. In his Notes he sets out the basis of why filmmaking in NZ isn't as rosy as some people would like you to think it is. There is a lot to be said about his thoughts but what really struck me upon first reading was this paragraph.
"The key cause of the situation in which new filmmakers are not making new films is that in the absence of a clear set of ideas about the types of films we want to make we "new" - though not necessarily particularly young - aspiring feature filmmakers, have for some years now been proving spectacularly unable to generate a healthy supply of film projects that are demanding to be made because we are having real problems finding and developing cinematic stories that just have to be told on film."
I don't think I've ever seen this idea articulated before. To put it simply, most of the ideas that have come to the commission in recent years from filmmakers are crap. That's very harsh. But it should be. I am also part of the problem. I've known a bunch of filmmakers since I moved to Auckland in 1999. We're mostly all in our mid 30's now. Apart from a handful of digital features we have very little to show for our efforts. We know our stuff, have fairly good taste, but have failed to make a mark. Why is this?
Horrocks says "The challenge is cultural. It has arisen because a number of the various streams of ideas to do with identity - national, masculine, feminine, gay and Maori - that have nourished the development of our film culture thus far have to a certain extent run their first course. That they are not being replenished is in turn reflective of the type of crisis of values, meaning, and identity that grips a culture, and a person, that is struggling to make a difficult transition from one era of development into another"
That is pretty heavy stuff and not the intellectual debate you see coming from within the NZ film industry very often. It does have a strong whiff of truth about it. It encapsulates the gnawing feeling that many of us have had watching our films in recent years. Let me use Eagle vs Shark as an example. It's the first film that came to mind so I'm certainly not trying to be dismissive of the work Taika Waititi and his producer Ainsley Gardiner have done. However, that film is basically an American independent quirky romnatic comedy. Now, the problem with doing this is that every film can't be made to stand for the whole. Eagle vs Shark can't represent an argument about the whole NZ film industry. What is interesting is what the films of my generation look like. What they look like is probably other people's films or the filmmaker's own navels.
Horrocks again "I think we need to blast the way we think and talk about films far out beyond the self-referentiality that occurs so often when we discuss films only in relation to other films. Lets discuss films in relation to the true source of all film material - life."
It astounds me that more filmmakers don't look at the newspaper for their next story. There are amazing stories happening all the time in NZ. The feature film idea I'm working on is based on an incident that occured just last year. Why aren't we all mining the news? I think there is more to this than simple laziness.
There is something going on with my generation of filmmakers. Our post-84 liberal minded socially conservative genreation. We don't really remember pre 1984 NZ. We don't remember what it was like to live in an effectively socially democratic country controlled by the state. We don't remember what it was like when pretty much everyone had a job and lived in an egalitarian nation. We don't remember what it was like to have only very limited job prospects (maybe civil service if you went to uni). We don't remember what it was like to not have to lock your door at night. We do have a collective consciousness because when we were young we all watched the same two tv channels and went to see Top Gun and The Goonies at the movies or watched Olly Olson After School. We may have faint memories of the Springbok tour of 1981 when people got pissed off at each other and expressed it. But that might seem like a world away now. Very few of us get really annoyed at anything political. Very few of us are angry about politics in any way although you may be annoyed that (new) Labour ran out of ideas last year and we decided to let the other team have a go again. When I think about the group of filmmakers I know well, they simply don't care about politics. They couldn't care less. What bothers me about that is that it tells me you have absolutely no interest in how we got to our current state of affairs. It tells me that you think that "stuff happens" that you have no control over. That you naturalise the world. That things just are because that's the way they are. You can't tell stories if you don't know how to structure them. It makes sense that you can understand the stories that happen around you if you understand the structures that created them. I can see why you wouldn't notice if a story occurred that raised profound questions about the current state of the country and its people. The problem is - that's the good stuff. The Godfather is just a gangster film if you don't place it in the context of what it tells us about the place of immigration and commerce and violence in the nation building and (maybe) collapse of America.
If you care about all this I suggest you read Notes on a New New Zealand Cinema. The debate about the future of NZ film is happening now.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Movie-Con!
I've just spent the weekend at Movie-Con II. It's an event run in conjunction with the BFI and Empire magazine. I think the genesis of the event was movie geeks in the UK wishing they could see the special previews of Hollywood films being shown at Comic-Con in San Diego.
Movie-Con is nicely British version of the huge San Diegan event. It occurs over one weekend in one theatre NFT 1 at the BFI. Essentially it involves screening a bunch of trailers for upcoming films. There were also two full-length screenings, District 9 and Adventureland. District 9 was a secret screening and the audience whooped when the title 'Peter Jackson Presents' came up. Essentially it's a souped up 1950's sci-fi B-Movie but with less of a script. The initial reviews were ecstatic and it wasn't a surprise that it didn't live up to expectations. It's an enjoyable diversion but the political allegory element is simplistic and will leave audiences thinking South Africa is a refugee infested hell hole. Adventureland is the latest from Greg Motolla who is now in Judd Apatow's stable. It's a coming of age comedy that was a diverting two hours. Both films were a step-up from last years full screenings Step Brothers and RocknRolla.
Guy Ritchie did turn up as he did last year and he had Robert Downey Jnr in tow. They showed footage from Sherlock Holmes and Downey Jnr came back the next day to introduce Iron Man 2 footage. Robert Downey Jnr's unexpected entrance had the audience whooping. Possibly the most interesting preview was for Kick-Ass which looks and is directed by Guy Ritchie's old partner Matthew Vaughn. That one had me whooping. Terry Gilliam and Kathryn Bigelow also showed up (how does Kathryn Bigelow look like that???). The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus looks like typical Gilliam, Bigelow's The Hurt Locker looks terrific.
The weekend ended with a presentation of 3D trailers from Disney and seven minutes from James Cameron's new epic Avatar. Avatar wasn't quite as mind blowing as some reports have suggested. The aliens still look like CGI aliens. The 3D element was fascinating. I found myself very aware of 'long lens' shots though. I didn't like anything out of focus. James Cameron has mentioned this somewhere already, his style of shooting suits 3D. A shallow depth of frame doesn't work because you need depth of frame to create the effect of 3D. That sounds obvious, but I didn't expect my eye to be drawn to the out of focus portion of the frame. It's like 2D animation that uses the out of focus style, you notice it because it's unusual. The excellent Marvel tv cartoon Wolverine and the X-men uses this technique and its hard to get your head around. I also wonder if I don't watch enough cartoons and I'm out of practice with what is the norm.
It was a thoroughly enjoyable weekend but I can't help mention the one sour note for me, which was the clip from the Harry Brown starring Michael Caine and directed by newcomer Daniel Barber. The footage from the film looked fine. It's a revenge vigilante thriller, an exploitation flick that looks fairly stylish. The director himself seemed to be an idiot. Assuring the audienence that he had made this film because it was about a VERY important topic, UK street crime, or something along those lines. Apparently he only wanted to make films that had some kind of 'message'. I don't care if anyone makes an exploitation flick, Dead Man's Shoes is a terrific British example of this, but please dear lord, don't also pretend you're delivering a message.
Roll on Movie-Con III!
It was a thoroughly enjoyable weekend but I can't help mention the one sour note for me, which was the clip from the Harry Brown starring Michael Caine and directed by newcomer Daniel Barber. The footage from the film looked fine. It's a revenge vigilante thriller, an exploitation flick that looks fairly stylish. The director himself seemed to be an idiot. Assuring the audienence that he had made this film because it was about a VERY important topic, UK street crime, or something along those lines. Apparently he only wanted to make films that had some kind of 'message'. I don't care if anyone makes an exploitation flick, Dead Man's Shoes is a terrific British example of this, but please dear lord, don't also pretend you're delivering a message.
Roll on Movie-Con III!
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Return of the Big Hitters
The trailers are up for the new films by the two most important kiwi filmmakers of all time - Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones and Jane Campion's Bright Star. It will be interesting to see how many LOTR/KONG fans make the journey to the multiplex for this one. Unless the reviews are horrible it's likely to do very well. Bright Star relies on good word of mouth and good reviews but seems set to be Campion's biggest film since The Portrait of a Lady. Both trailers are o.k. but the voiceover for Bright Star grates "He was a dreamer...". The Lovely Bones goes for the more modern tell a story no voiceover style. The end of the voiceover? A sad day indeed.
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Rant
It's good to have a rant once in a while. Ant Timpson's piece that I quoted in full in my last post has inspired me to let rip at what I consider the most insidious element of the Commission's controlling mechanism.
I said on his facebook page,
"A few people have contacted me privately saying they thought Headstrong was a failure and therefore this low budget studio idea is a bad one. The problem is that very few people have seen the final figures for what HS made. HS didn't fulfil its remit of x number of films in a couple of years but unfortunately very few of us know why. The problem seems to be that the commission made life very difficult for that initiative rather than enabling it. The lack of accountability from the commission has been unbelievable. Few of us outside a certain Wellington cafe set know what goes on inside their doors. This has to change. It's a sad fact that the commission keeps power through the mechanism of development money and fear. At some points the commission has had up to 80 films in development. Some of those are in development for 5 years or more. This creates a culture of acquiescence because you're never quite sure if you're getting your next development paycheque.
It keeps at least 80 directors/writers/producers silent. “I’m in development!”. How many of those films get made? It’s probably less than 10%. It’s hard to believe the Commission enter all those development deals in good faith, thinking that a certain project will actually get made. I’ve told good friends that their projects won’t get made even though they’re in development but they take some commission development person’s notes and dutifully do a rewrite. There’s even a scheme now where if you’ve been in development hell for five years you can get even more feedback about how you might get out of it. I mean, come on, just tell the director it’s not happening and let them get on with their lives. The development process is expensive and ridiculous. Write to the ministerial review and ask for those funds to be funnelled into production. Specifically a low budget studio!"
end of rant...
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Shorts vs Low Budget features
Ant Timpson has just made a call on his facebook page for the $1 million spent on the Pod system of short films to go instead to low budget feature films. I've quoted him in full below.
The cost of making the nine films will be nearly one million dollars.
It's a lot of work (from the call out, development, production and finally release) and the results in the past decade have ranged from utter brilliance to absolute dross.
Now one million dollars sounds like a lot of dough but it's really not a lot in the film biz. But here's something I would like to throw out there.
Since there appears to be very little money in the coffers to produce low budget features, the question must be asked :
Are 9 shorts at nearly $100,000 each better for the NZ film industry than 9 low-fi features budgeted at $100k? Lets break it down.
The pros for shorts :
1. High Quality 35mm end result.
2. Major Interest from the Big 5 fests in NZ shorts of high calibre
3. Tightly controlled and well supported productions
4. Talent and crews paid reasonably.
5. Builds awareness of talent internationally
6. Creates a talent highway.. short - Sundance - fest support - 1st feature invited
The Cons for Shorts
1. Little return on investment
2. Bring zero awareness or growth to NZ film audiences
3. A lot of time, money and energy expended for a 11m result.
4. No real local audience for them.
Now lets look at low fi features.

The pros for making 9 low-fi features
1. Creating excitement amongst new young talent in NZ.
2. Better odds for an overall return on a low investment than shorts
3. More interest from local sponsors/ partners
4. More interest from local broadcasters
5. More interest from local distributors
6. An opportunity for the stars of 48Hours to fasttrack into features
7. An opportunity to have consistent product in front of local audiences
8. Building the next generation of film and filmmakers.
The Cons (which are all true but all can all be remedied wth some work)
1. The Ghost of Kahukura (however a lot was learnt from this early scheme, which was also ahead of its time and there was no digital infrastructure ready)
2. Low fi features usually look like arse
3. No one gets paid well, bloody slave labour!
4. They sometimes don't get finished and run out of money
5. There is no money set aside for P&A (release, prints and advertising)
6. Local audiences supposedly don't want to see that crap
Now I'm not saying I have all the answers but with a major review coming up, I think its time to look towards the future and one area that I see lacking in the NZ film scene are local high energy films aimed at anyone under 30. The cons above do have solutions to them and they're not to hard to facilitate.
There'll be a few bigger budgeted films coming along that will hit a younger demo but surely we also need to create hope and excitement amongst young filmmakers here. Do they really want to see the staircase of 5yr development hell looking at them in the face. A process which I've seen water down and generally suck the life out of 'some' projects like a vampire.
The general argument from many about these low-fi films is "why don't you just go and make it yourself! ". Well people have done this (big kudos) but many are not thinking of the bigger picture. Some make films with no audience in mind and that's fine and dandy but they also don't create much energy or excitement in local filmmaking by doing so. They have no end game planned for anyone to see the film or how its going to get out there. Making something and getting it seen are two completely different targets to hit.
A support structure where these films get help with marketing, release plans and finally onto digital screens is probably more important than finding what films to make, because without a long term vision for consistency and strategy, we're back to square one again in a few years time.
This is just one part of an idea being sent into the review of the NZFC coming up. I'm interested to hear anyones thoughts on all this and whether some think everything is aok as it stands, and there's no need to rock the boat.. ie leave the shorts alone you prick!
There is no question that real talent has come through the shorts programme and now those people are on the international radar. Their eventual first features (5yrs time) maybe be invited by the very fest where their shorts originally played.
However, would those people have been able to pull off something just as remarkable in a feature scenario? Saving 5yrs of time and possibly get the same results?
Or do you have something you'd like to add. Remember all debate is healthy.
There is also a real feeling that we are moving into a new era at the NZFC and that should be cause for some elation.
The one thing I know without any doubt is this...
The talent is out there to do pull off these films.
best
ANT TIMPSON"
It is fantastic that someone with the profile of Ant in NZ has spoken his mind on an issue that affects filmmakers at the lower end of the scale. He makes a lot of good points and some I disagree with.
The pro's of the Pod system of short films outweigh the cons. The 'talent pathway' that he mentions is probably their most successful aspect. It is a great way to get into a big film festival. NZ makes high budget short films that often get into A List Film Festivals. Those filmmakers then have a much wider door to get their features into same festival. Basically, I think targeting the Pod system to be replaced by a Low Budget Feature one is a bad idea. The Pod system works. Let's not break it.
The low budget feature idea is one I'm very interested in. When I was in NZ in March I canvassed a few people about the idea of setting up a low budget feature studio. The idea would be that you make about ten films a year. You would buy most of the equipment you needed initially (e.g. using Red technology) thereby avoiding nasty hire fees. The biggest point was that we would seek out private investment. Investors would put in money for a years slate of films. Hopefully, after theatrical, dvd and ancillary the investor would make money. It's a lot more complicated than that but the idea would be that an institution would be set up outside the Commission to make films that the Commission couldn't make. If you want to make low budget features they must have a strong support structure, from preproduction through to distribution. Filmmakers can create this. They don't need the Commission to tell them to do it and ask them to report back every five minutes.
There's a lot more to say about this. The deadline for submissions to the Commission review are due in a few days. I'm going to get writing about that and report back when I'm finished.
"The NZFC have just done a call out for applications for the Short Film Fund. What this means is that three devolved exec-producer teams will eventually be in control of the final funding to do call outs for scripts, then selecting three to be made with the final talley being nine 35mm short films created.
The cost of making the nine films will be nearly one million dollars.
It's a lot of work (from the call out, development, production and finally release) and the results in the past decade have ranged from utter brilliance to absolute dross.
Now one million dollars sounds like a lot of dough but it's really not a lot in the film biz. But here's something I would like to throw out there.
Since there appears to be very little money in the coffers to produce low budget features, the question must be asked :
Are 9 shorts at nearly $100,000 each better for the NZ film industry than 9 low-fi features budgeted at $100k? Lets break it down.
The pros for shorts :
1. High Quality 35mm end result.
2. Major Interest from the Big 5 fests in NZ shorts of high calibre
3. Tightly controlled and well supported productions
4. Talent and crews paid reasonably.
5. Builds awareness of talent internationally
6. Creates a talent highway.. short - Sundance - fest support - 1st feature invited
The Cons for Shorts
1. Little return on investment
2. Bring zero awareness or growth to NZ film audiences
3. A lot of time, money and energy expended for a 11m result.
4. No real local audience for them.
Now lets look at low fi features.

The pros for making 9 low-fi features
1. Creating excitement amongst new young talent in NZ.
2. Better odds for an overall return on a low investment than shorts
3. More interest from local sponsors/ partners
4. More interest from local broadcasters
5. More interest from local distributors
6. An opportunity for the stars of 48Hours to fasttrack into features
7. An opportunity to have consistent product in front of local audiences
8. Building the next generation of film and filmmakers.
The Cons (which are all true but all can all be remedied wth some work)
1. The Ghost of Kahukura (however a lot was learnt from this early scheme, which was also ahead of its time and there was no digital infrastructure ready)
2. Low fi features usually look like arse
3. No one gets paid well, bloody slave labour!
4. They sometimes don't get finished and run out of money
5. There is no money set aside for P&A (release, prints and advertising)
6. Local audiences supposedly don't want to see that crap
Now I'm not saying I have all the answers but with a major review coming up, I think its time to look towards the future and one area that I see lacking in the NZ film scene are local high energy films aimed at anyone under 30. The cons above do have solutions to them and they're not to hard to facilitate.
There'll be a few bigger budgeted films coming along that will hit a younger demo but surely we also need to create hope and excitement amongst young filmmakers here. Do they really want to see the staircase of 5yr development hell looking at them in the face. A process which I've seen water down and generally suck the life out of 'some' projects like a vampire.
The general argument from many about these low-fi films is "why don't you just go and make it yourself! ". Well people have done this (big kudos) but many are not thinking of the bigger picture. Some make films with no audience in mind and that's fine and dandy but they also don't create much energy or excitement in local filmmaking by doing so. They have no end game planned for anyone to see the film or how its going to get out there. Making something and getting it seen are two completely different targets to hit.
A support structure where these films get help with marketing, release plans and finally onto digital screens is probably more important than finding what films to make, because without a long term vision for consistency and strategy, we're back to square one again in a few years time.
This is just one part of an idea being sent into the review of the NZFC coming up. I'm interested to hear anyones thoughts on all this and whether some think everything is aok as it stands, and there's no need to rock the boat.. ie leave the shorts alone you prick!
There is no question that real talent has come through the shorts programme and now those people are on the international radar. Their eventual first features (5yrs time) maybe be invited by the very fest where their shorts originally played.
However, would those people have been able to pull off something just as remarkable in a feature scenario? Saving 5yrs of time and possibly get the same results?
Or do you have something you'd like to add. Remember all debate is healthy.
There is also a real feeling that we are moving into a new era at the NZFC and that should be cause for some elation.
The one thing I know without any doubt is this...
The talent is out there to do pull off these films.
best
ANT TIMPSON"
It is fantastic that someone with the profile of Ant in NZ has spoken his mind on an issue that affects filmmakers at the lower end of the scale. He makes a lot of good points and some I disagree with.
The pro's of the Pod system of short films outweigh the cons. The 'talent pathway' that he mentions is probably their most successful aspect. It is a great way to get into a big film festival. NZ makes high budget short films that often get into A List Film Festivals. Those filmmakers then have a much wider door to get their features into same festival. Basically, I think targeting the Pod system to be replaced by a Low Budget Feature one is a bad idea. The Pod system works. Let's not break it.
The low budget feature idea is one I'm very interested in. When I was in NZ in March I canvassed a few people about the idea of setting up a low budget feature studio. The idea would be that you make about ten films a year. You would buy most of the equipment you needed initially (e.g. using Red technology) thereby avoiding nasty hire fees. The biggest point was that we would seek out private investment. Investors would put in money for a years slate of films. Hopefully, after theatrical, dvd and ancillary the investor would make money. It's a lot more complicated than that but the idea would be that an institution would be set up outside the Commission to make films that the Commission couldn't make. If you want to make low budget features they must have a strong support structure, from preproduction through to distribution. Filmmakers can create this. They don't need the Commission to tell them to do it and ask them to report back every five minutes.
There's a lot more to say about this. The deadline for submissions to the Commission review are due in a few days. I'm going to get writing about that and report back when I'm finished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)