Picture
If the United States experiences a horrifying economic collapse (and it most definitely will), will that cause a complete and total collapse of society?  Will we experience crime, violence, riots and social unrest on a scale that is unprecedented in U.S. history?  Before you dismiss such notions as utter foolishness dreamed up by a few bloggers with too much time on their hands, perhaps you should consider what one of the biggest credit rating organizations in the world is saying.  According to a report on sovereign debt by Moody's, the world's five biggest AAA-rated countries (including the United States) are all at risk of soaring debt costs and will have to implement austerity plans that threaten "social cohesion".  In case you are wondering what happens when "social cohesion" starts to break down due to economic factors, just check out the recent examples in Iceland and Greece.  If even Moody's is warning that there is a realistic possibility that "social cohesion" in the United States may break down due to economic factors, perhaps we should all start listening.

Or if you will not listen to Moody's, then perhaps you will listen to the man who has been called the top trends researcher in the entire world.  Gerald Celente is the CEO of Trends Research Institute, and he is convinced that we are heading into what he calls "The Greatest Depression".  The picture that he paints of the future of America is extremely alarming and extremely sobering.  It would be easy to dismiss his forecasts as just the ramblings of another useless "talking head", but unfortunately Celente has been dead-on accurate time after time after time in the past.  Considering his exemplary track record, what Celente says is coming next for America is incredibly frightening....

At this point you may be tempted to think that America has been through extremely tough economic times before (The Great Depression for example) and came through them okay.

So what is so different now?

Well, the truth is that the character of the American people is dramatically different.  At the time of the Great Depression, the American people were tough, self-sufficient people who knew how to live off the land.  Today, most Americans are weak, spoiled little children who will throw a temper tantrum whenever anyone tries to take their toys away.  The character of the American people has been decaying for decades, and there is no way that the current crop of Americans has any chance of weathering a horrible economic depression the way Americans back in the 1930s did. 

Already we are seeing early signs of what the rest of America could soon be like.  The city of Detroit is a rotting, crime-ridden war zone that has a "real" unemployment rate of somewhere around 40 to 50 percent.  The state of California has become a cesspool of gang violence, rampant unemployment, rising foreclosures, unchecked drug dealing, and depressing economic decline.  Even in New York City we are seeing early signs of what is ahead.  Residents are quite alarmed about the dramatic rise in violent crime that is happening throughout the city.  Many New Yorkers were convinced that the days of "The Rotten Apple" were behind them, but economic problems are going to cause an increase in crime in just about any city.

But it just isn't crime that is on the rise.  Millions of normal, law-abiding Americans are angry.  This anger is coming out in various ways - including the Tea Party protests that are sweeping the nation.  The majority of the American people are frankly disgusted with the government, and the approval ratings for both major parties continue to hover around record lows.  As things continue to get worse for the U.S. economy, the anger of the American people is going to continue to rise.   

All of this is causing many in the U.S. government to view "troublemakers" inside the United States as one of the greatest threats to national security.  In fact, according to FBI Director Robert Mueller,"homegrown terrorists" represent as big a threat as al-Qaeda.

As big a threat as al-Qaeda?

Is he serious?

Not only that, but U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is comparing Tea Party members to Timothy McVeigh.

Considering the fact that Timothy McVeigh received the death penalty, that is a very frightening parallel for Clinton to draw.

Does Clinton actually believe that Tea Party protesters should receive the same treatment as McVeigh?

Even more alarming is new legislation being pushed in the U.S. Senate.  A new bill introduced by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman would allow the U.S. military to round up large numbers of Americans and detain them indefinitely without a trial if they "pose a threat" or if they have "potential intelligence value" or for any other reason the President of the United States "considers appropriate".

The reality is that as "necessary" as bills like that may seem to many as we edge ever closer to the breakdown of society, the reality is that the United States is quickly becoming just like so many of the other horrific totalitarian regimes that we have seen rise throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

In fact a time may soon be coming when authorities in the U.S. may soon be able to legally utter this bone chilling phrase: "Your Papers Please!"  Lawmakers in Washington D.C. working to create a new immigration "reform" bill have decided on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card that all American workers would be required to obtain.

Can you imagine being forced to carry around a national identification card?

Or worse?

A startup company developing "chipless RFID ink" has already tested its product on cattle and laboratory rats. 

Could one day we all be required to sport an "RFID tatoo" to prove our identity to authorities?

Let's hope not.

But many of us never thought that the day would come when we would see things such as the Patriot Act, "no fly" lists, the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, DNA databases, Guantanamo Bay or full-body scanners at airports that reveal the graphic details of our naked bodies either.

America is quickly changing.  The next Great Depression is coming, and society is not going to be able to handle it.  How the U.S. government (and governments around the world) handle the coming social problems is going to be very interesting to watch.  Let's hope that all of this does not degenerate into the absolute societal nightmare that many are projecting that it could be.

Link to original: http://bit.ly/collapse_overview_2010



 
 
Picture
Hollywood still undecided.
...but movie box office receipt trading undecided!

Written by Monique Georges


On Friday, over the objections of Hollywood executives, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) approved Media Derivatives, Inc. (MDEX) for designation as a contract market. While this decision paves the way to the development of a film futures and options exchange, the CFTC has not yet approved any trading based on motion picture box office receipts.

Last month, MDEX announced its plans to launch The Trend Exchange— the first federally regulated film exchange to offer futures contracts based on opening weekend movie receipts. Although the approval of its application as a contract market is a positive development for the firm, it is not quite time to break open the champagne. The CFTC has stated that it is still considering MDEX’s request to trade film box office receipts. In a press release, the Commission qualified:

Given the novel nature of the contracts that MDEX has proposed trading, the CFTC has requested, and MDEX has agreed, that rather than self-certifying such contracts, MDEX must submit all new classes or categories of media-related contracts it lists for approval by the Commission. The Commission has not approved the trading of any futures or options related to box office receipts at this time.

Nevertheless, Trend Exchange Founder and CEO Robert Swagger seems hopeful. He enthused:

Like all Americans, we cherish the entertainment industry. We believe that our products, designed in partnership with the broad industry constituency, will help better manage economic uncertainty and financial volatility, thus enhancing opportunities for success.

Hollywood executives disagree. They believe that film futures and options trading may expose the studios to adverse speculation. Last month, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) requested the CFTC to block the proposed trading of film futures contracts. In a letter to the agency, Interim MPAA CEO Robert Pisano, warned:

The reputation and integrity of our industry could be tarnished by allowing trading in the movie futures contracts in a manner which allows them to be viewed as the economic equivalent of legalized gambling on movie receipts.

Investment banking firm Cantor Fitzgerald wants a piece of the action. The Wall Street firm has recently announced its own plan to open a film stock exchange. Cantor Fitzgerald’s Hollywood Stock Exchange was founded on 1996 as an entertainment gaming site. The Los Angeles-based website invites visitors to use Hollywood Dollar® currency to buy and sell virtual shares of celebrities and movies. According to The New York Times, the company has recently begun allowing customers to fund their accounts with real dollars. The firm expects to get final CFTC approval for its exchange on Tuesday.

In good news for Hollywood, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) appears to be taking the side of the film establishment. On Friday, Lincoln--who as Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry has jurisdiction over futures markets--unveiled new financial reform legislation that contains language which favors the film industry. Among other items, her Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010 amends the term “commodity” to specifically exclude motion picture box office receipt and related contracts. 

Also in Washington, on Thursday the House Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management is scheduled to hold a public hearing “to review proposals to establish exchanges trading ‘movie futures.’” A number of major Hollywood players are expected to attend.

 
 
Fear that it may expose studios to speculative harm

Picture
Tina Fey and Steve Carell are shown in a scene from “Date Night.’’
By Todd Shields

WASHINGTON — Regulators approved the first futures market based on movie box-office returns yesterday over the concern of lawmakers and Hollywood executives that the exchange may expose studios to speculative harm.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted 5-0 to let Veriana Networks Inc.’s Media Derivatives Inc. unit open a market for professional traders to make financial bets on how well a new movie will do in ticket sales.

A plan by Cantor Fitzgerald LP to create a market that includes retail investors is pending before the commission.

Media Derivatives’ market, to be called Trend Exchange, “will help better manage economic uncertainty and financial volatility,’’ Rob Swagger, chief executive of the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based company, said in an e-mailed statement after the vote.

Professionals would use the market to hedge risk to movie investments, from “catastrophic events such as the World Trade Center bombing, to climate events such as severe snowstorms,’’ the company said.

Media Derivatives told the commission its proposed market could transfer financial risk from producers, studios and theaters to “a community of speculators willing to assume these risks’’ in return for being paid a premium.

The market plans to begin trading in the third quarter, Stephanie DiIorio, a company spokeswoman, said before the vote.

The CFTC must still approve the type of contracts to be dealt before Trend Exchange can begin. The company has said its first product will center on opening-weekend box office.

Product approval is “a very different question’’ from exchange approval and raises “significant concerns,’’ CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton said in an e-mailed statement. He said he had “reluctantly’’ concurred in yesterday’s vote.

“I’m worried about manipulation,’’ Chilton said in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

“We have serious concerns regarding the trading of media contracts and we support a very thorough review of all of these first-of-a-kind products,’’ CFTC Commissioner Scott O’Malia said in an e-mailed statement.

Hollywood studios that participate by hedging their films’ prospects will doom ticket sales, said Peter Guber, chairman and CEO of independent production company Mandalay Pictures LLC.

“The word will get out in three seconds and the picture will be a complete catastrophe,’’ said Guber, who was chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment in the early 1990s.

Key members of Congress also expressed doubts.

Senator Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, added language yesterday banning trade in movie futures to a broader derivatives bill she is writing. Lincoln is chairman of the Agriculture Committee that oversees the commodity commission.

Senate Judiciary Committee members warned CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler in a letter Thursday of the risk of “creating perverse incentives for movie failure that may undermine the integrity of the industry.’’

Activity on the exchanges would bring about “risky and manipulative’’ behavior, said the letter from Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, who heads the Judiciary Committee, and Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican.

“I just don’t know if this is something that makes sense,’’ said Representative Collin Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, in a conference call with reporters.

“A kernel of wheat is a kernel of wheat,’’ said Peterson, whose committee oversees the CFTC. “Movies are very subjective.’’

He said he had “significant questions about this whole idea.’’

 
 
Picture
By Saskia Wilson-Brown

In the past several years I’ve had the opportunity to participate in and listen to a lot of conversations about the shifting role of film festivals, particularly as those shifts apply to mid to high level independent festivals. There are a number of conflicting opinions on the role of film festivals – from ‘they’re useless and will die’ to ‘they are the future of theatrical’. In truth, all theorizing aside, nobody knows the role film festivals will take over the course of the next few years because nobody know how time-based media will evolve. I do, nonetheless, believe that they can retain their relevance… if they adapt.

What follows here are several thoughts that came to me about the functionality of film festivals, in four parts and in no particular discursive order.
Thought 1.
For small festivals, the ‘shifting’ purpose of film festivals is actually not shifting at all.

People seem to concur that the primary purpose of film festivals is (was?) akin to that of an art gallery: To sell art.

Festivals have long acted as the gatekeepers to commercial distribution. As such, the ideal and well-trodden path for an independent filmmaker was a simple one: Make a film; get into a good fest; get the film acquired for distribution. Done.

This was an apt trajectory when dealing with a festival like Sundance, one of several festivals which were indeed the most functional gateways through which films could join ‘the system’. For the smaller festivals catering to independent or local film (and for the indie filmmakers whose work was typically programmed there), however, this was never a relevant model. The reason for that is simple: Distributors tended not to attend those festivals.

This ‘festival-as-marketplace’ raison d’etre , then, has only ever been a functional purpose for the bigger festivals. Further to that, this is sort of inherently understood by the film community: Not many filmmakers ever submitted their film, for instance, to the Tulsa Overground Film Festival, Nevada City Film Festival or Cucalorus with the intention of selling to HBO.

The obvious deduction? We’re assigning and bemoaning a dwindling commercial purpose to small festivals retro-actively in light of a perceived dearth of distribution deals – a dearth which, again, is only really relevant to festivals that were the hosting space for sales in the first place, and entirely irrelevant to the continued purpose of the small festivals who saw no such activity in their lounges and meeting rooms. Most annoyingly perhaps, small festivals gamely play along, trotting out their one or two success stories as bait for a system that never functioned for them or their filmmakers in the first place.

With the advent of digital media and the burgeoning (but hopeful) success stories around online/DIY distribution strategies, the purpose of the festival as a sales agent becomes even more obviously questionable.

We’ll look at that in the next post, but for now, I leave you with a recent tweet from Ted Hope: David Brown’s Secret To His Success: “I never lived beyond my means, & therefore, I never had to be a slave to Hollywood.”
Picture
Silver Lake Film Festival
Thought 2.
Money-making should not a successful small festival make. Culture-defining should.

In my time running the Silver Lake Film Festival in Los Angeles (alongside my partners Greg Ptacek and Kate Marciniak), we rarely hosted any distributors at the screenings. Those that did attend never cut a deal with any of the festival’s filmmakers.

I’m pretty sure that the Cucalorus Film Fest in North Carolina has never immediately helped filmmakers pay off their credit card debts, either.

In these two instances, the festival hosts no commerce: No one involved is making any money to speak of. Are these festivals, then, to be seen as failures?

The answer, of course, lies in how one defines the purpose of a cultural event. I believe that if we put aside commercial functionalities for a minute, we see that though the utility (and success) of smaller festivals becomes inherently value-based, it is nonetheless inherently of value.

Here are some points, then, on the value and purpose of film festivals, above and beyond commerce:

• To curate, provide imprimatur and thus help shape culture;
• To create access to independent voices and new stories within specific, underserved geographic communities;
• To educate filmmakers;
• To grow independent film communities and foster creative collaboration;
• To help create de facto four-wall releases for filmmakers through festival-run programs and partnerships above and beyond the event itself;
• To assist with DIY distribution by offering access to distribution tools through festival-run partnerships with emerging content platforms

These last two functionalities are becoming more important as filmmakers and festivals realize that- scary as it may be- the ‘old’ system is falling apart. It thus becomes incumbent upon a festival to help build up a new system through an increased focus on helping filmmakers sustain and exhibit their work. This can be achieved by brokering and supporting digital distribution deals for filmmakers, or simply by providing education in self-distribution. Further still, festivals can create four-wall programs and partnerships that allow greater visibility for the participating films beyond the festival itself (a traveling screening series, for instance).

Acknowledging an alienation from the mainstream film industry has big repercussions for festivals and filmmakers alike. Silver Lake Film Festival, for instance, with all its focus on working outside the system was unable to harness the sponsorships that festivals so drastically need for survival, and died a fiery financial death in 2007 (the results of which I am feeling to this day).

With that said… it still felt successful. It spoke to several of the points I believe to the inherent in a fruitful arts organization- points that have nothing at all to do with (immediate) economic exchange. The organization focused- largely- on what we thought should be its primary goals: Empowering a community and its artists through coherent promotion; leveraging the festival name to garner publicity and opportunity for its participants; facilitating radness in general– Art for art’s sake, as it were. The efforts of the core team, then, were mostly spent on promoting and advocating for micro-communities through programming decisions, and fostering creativity and creative collaboration in our neighborhood and beyond. Mainly, though, Silver Lake FF focused on curating a very cool and forward-thinking festival (under the benevolent expertise of programming director Roger Mayer, as well as a plethora of guest curators), the results of which are still bearing fruit in the continued existence of some of its former programs and ongoing collaboration.

So do these artsy, community-driven, low-budget, no-commerce festivals like the still-thriving Cucalorus, Nevada City, or even Slamdance still have value? My conclusion would be that yes, they do. These festivals’ value (and purpose) lies in providing an imprimatur – an edge – for its filmmakers, and a strong platform for community-empowerment. This value, for a filmmaker, supercedes the worth of some horrid exploitative distribution deal, and lasts longer. At the end of the day, sometimes being part of something amazing and cultural is worth more than being paid a grand to have your documentary air once or twice on TV.

 
 
Picture
Lahore, Pakistan's Lollywood, a once-robust movie-making machine, has fallen victim to religious-based government policies, cable TV and DVD piracy.

Odeon Cinema's creaky, ripped red vinyl seats are mostly empty except for a couple of back rows where a dozen Pakistani men sit slouched, their eyes half-open, legs slung over the seats in front of them.

Along the hall's bubble-gum pink walls, rows of fans barely move the hot, dank air. Odeon's loudspeakers crackle like a ham radio, a report in Los Angeles Times said.The feature on this recent evening is a Pakistani film called "Majajan," a love story.

The barely breathing, Lahore-based Pakistani film industry produces less than a dozen movies each year, which explains why every day, three times a day for last three years, only movie screened at the Odeon has been "Majajan."
       
Welcome to Lollywood, or what's left of it. It wasn't always this way. Back in 1960s & '70s, Lahore buzzed with movie shoots, red-carpet premieres and box-office hits.

Pakistan film industry has always been based here, and though it didn't have girth or dazzle of Bombay's Bollywood, "Lollywood" thrived in a country staking out an identity distinct from its Indian neighbor.In their heyday, theaters Odeon had queues of Pakistanis snaking far beyond box-office window and down Lahore's bustling sidewalks.

Moviegoers dressed in their snazziest salwar kameezes and arrived two hours before a showing to secure tickets. Today, Pakistani cinema has all but vanished, a victim of VCR, cable television, President Zia ul-Haq's Islamization of Pakistani society, and finally DVD piracy.

In 1985, 1,100 movie houses operated in Pakistan; today, only 120 are in business. The few directors, producers and cinema owners often rely on second jobs to make ends meet.
       
Reviving the industry necessitates junking what's left of Pakistani cinema and starting from scratch, says Jahanzaib Baig, a Lahore cinema owner pushing for a revival of Pakistani film. Baig has been lobbying the government to clamp down on DVD piracy, a scourge that keeps Pakistanis from leaving their living rooms to head to cinemas.

 "We have hit rock bottom," says Baig. "We can only go up. Whatever we had before is not only destroyed but is obsolete in terms of technology and skills. So we're setting foundation for a new film industry in Pakistan." Sangeeta, a Lollywood mega-star during the 1970s and one of few survivors still directing homegrown films, says a revival of industry can happen only if government lends a hand.

"We need government support," says Sangeeta, now 52. "We need new cameras, new studios. Right now, producers aren't investing because the equipment isn't good." On set of a television drama she's shooting, hardships Sangeeta faces are evident. The cameras are dead ringers for clunky 1980s camcorders. There are no trailers, no craft service, no security to keep Pakistani passers-by from wandering onto the set.
       
It all seems light years away from her glory days, when all of Lahore fawned over the curvy, vivacious movie star with dark-eyed appeal. She got her start in show business after coming home from school one afternoon and finding her parents chatting with a Lollywood director looking for a lead actress in his new film, "Bangle."

 "When he saw me he said, 'That's my heroine!' " she recalls. She was just 13. Sangeeta went on to star in more than 100 movies. Nowadays, she focuses on directing for television, though last year she directed a film for a producer who wanted a movie about himself. "Back in 1970s, our movie industry was in full bloom," Sangeeta says, her eyes beaming behind black-framed Givenchy glasses as she remembers.

"It was a great period for us. Everyone felt at home in studio, and work was deep in our hearts. Not like today." The advent of cable television and VCRs drew Pakistanis away from cinemas, but it was President Ziaul Haq's religious-based policies that sped the industry's demise.

Many cinemas were shut down, rest were heavily taxed. New laws that required producers to have college degrees thinned ranks of movie makers.
       
The message Ziaul Haq's government was sending to society was clear, Baig says: "We were being told that filmmaking was a vulgar and bad business to be in." As Lollywood's top-shelf creative talent dropped out of flagging industry, scripts got worse and Pakistanis stopped going to movies.

Bollywood filled the void; Indian movies flooded video stores and clogged cable channels. Pakistani filmmakers who stayed in the industry found themselves hamstrung by dwindling budgets. "In India, they spend $12 million on a movie, and we can spend maybe about $120,000," says Pakistani film producer Jamshed Zafar, who sidelines as an exporter of South Asian spices. "How can we compete?"

One of only directors still making movies, Syed Noor, has established a film school in Lahore to help seed new generation of filmmakers. But most directors and producers gave up long ago. Sangeeta says a few went into television; most of rest live off incomes of their adult children. Every once in a while, some of them meet at Sangeeta's modest two-story home in a woody Lahore neighborhood to reminisce over tea and screenings of their old movies.


 
 
Picture
Geoff Gilmore, director of the Sundance Film Festival. Image provided by the festival

Written by Geoff Gilmore

Everyone speaks today of this being a moment for change. And yet the truth is for independent film, change has been constant. As the Director of the Sundance Film Festival over (nearly) the last two decades, I’ve witnessed an ongoing and constant evolution. Indeed every passing year has seemed to proclaim the end of an era and the beginning of a ‘revolution’! And each year it seems independent filmmakers expand the realm of the possible. As viewed over an extended period of time, there certainly has been remarkable change. The numbers of films produced as compared to the mid-1990’s has quintupled - there has been a complete change in the marketplace in terms of films distributed (doubled), companies competing (tripled), and the standards for success, (A million dollar gross twenty years ago vs. ten million a decade past vs. twenty-five today). Most importantly the overall visibility and significance of independent film and its players, that generation of filmmakers that produced the Coens, and Tarantino, P.T. Anderson and Todd Haynes, Errol Morris and Michael Moore and the rest have had a distinct impact on American film culture and its industry. All of these changes are significant and real.

But after thirty years of independent film, have we reached an end? Is the independent arena creatively moribund and/or has the audience itself changed either because of a generational shift or simply a transformation in public taste? Perhaps more critically, are the changes with financial or structural models that fueled the independent arena’s growth now outdated or passe? For over three decades, video/DVD and cable were the revenue safety net for independent film and equity financing its fuel, and that may simply no longer be the case. So where are we now? I know most media and journalists seek definitive answers. All I know are the questions but I think they are instructive.

Perhaps I’ll start with what I know best, film festivals and the business of film markets. The numbers and range of film festivals globally has grown exponentially, but in terms of the business, there really are still just a handful of festivals that service the various national and international film industries. Essentially those key film festivals e.g. Cannes, Toronto, Sundance, Berlin, (and perhaps for specific arenas, Pusan, San Sebastian and Dubai), have become primarily industry events, existing as platforms for film for various and sundry purposes such as film sales, publicity, critical and jury accolades, filmmaker and talent opportunities and media exploitation etc. But when festivals are evaluated purely as markets we tend to overlook what is most crucial, the quality and inventiveness of the filmmaking and the emergence of new filmmakers, actors, writers and other creative forces. 

Two years ago more films sold out of Sundance than any year since we’ve begun and then last year sales were less than half of that previous year. In most people’s mind the films last year were at least as good, interesting and successful as the year before, if not better, yet one festival was regarded by media pundits as a success, the other as a failure. Even the idea that the performance of films in the marketplace should be regarded as part of the festival’s purview suggests that the hype and buzz of festivals is of our own making. Is it? I tend to think that’s not what a festival’s primary mission is. That said, festivals have changed and the industry aspect of their existence is entrenched. If festivals are to remain relevant to what has always been their lifeblood (young people, new talent, and a new generation), their mission must continue to evolve. To this end they need to expand their accessibility and their creative focus and they need to take risks, to create the atmosphere for that aforementioned expansion of the sense of the possible. If festivals don’t continually rethink how and what to showcase for the future, even without abandoning their traditional cultural purpose and aesthetic standards, then the festival world will go the way of the dinosaur.

But what are the possibilities for change? Are festivals healthy? Well yes and no. It’s not at all clear that a new generation will embrace festival attendance and exposure in the same manner of the last generation. And as festivals have evolved, is their cultural mission dissipating in favor of more manipulated industry function? Can festivals keep their integrity and even expand their meaningfulness to a range of constituencies? As they move into the future, will cyberspace and other forms of outreach (broadcast, cable etc.) become more a part of festival events in the same way of most sporting events? Will new forms of media become a part of so-called film festivals? As always the answers will be driven by the artists but festivals have to keep their eyes and ears open to freshness and diversity. Indeed the answers to most these queries are the portrait of our future.

But what about the present state of independent film?  Is the independent film arena truly struggling or are the production and distribution of independent films as difficult as they always have been and always will be? Maybe we can address this by asking several questions. First of all, there is the question of audiences - their tastes and motivations. A close second is the range the difficulties (both familiar and new) inherent in distribution. Many people say there are too many independent films produced given that the pipeline for distribution is so narrow. Even though more films are reaching the theatrical marketplace, the subsequent competition for audience and the perceived failure of many works in that theatrical arena creates an outlook that independent film is in crisis. Is it true? Again the answer is complicated.

Audiences are changing. The over thirty-audience is the target for much of the independent arena - whereas the new generation represents an interesting contradiction. There is no question that the current college audience is much more sophisticated about cinema- about art film or international and independent work- than was my generation 30 years ago. But frankly they seem to have less interest in it. Or at least they have a greater range of activities to engage in and thus are more selective and demanding about how they are going to spend their hard-earned dollars. It’s difficult to say whether the new generation will continue to harbor the passion for film that we had. Independent film has broken a lot of ground and had a lot of success in the last two decades. But what was innovative then is now familiar. Whether new audiences can be intrigued by innovative independent work, coaxed by critics, and motivated by marketing, whether they will be interested by new subjects and artistic invention, remains to be seen.

Structurally the biggest issue facing independent film is the theatrical distribution bottleneck. As long as theatrical exposure is the driving force to a film’s revenue streams in the so called ancillary markets, video/DVD, pay cable etc. then the expense of that theatrical release, the crowded marketplace and the competition with studio and specialized divisions of studios for that same filmgoer, creates a unique challenge. And if specialized distribution and the potential of new technologies, i.e. the Internet, are the answer, the question still remains how to reach filmgoers - how does marketing on the Internet succeed whether it’s viral, social community or niche, and when will revenue streams from new distribution mechanisms actually be significant?

Theatrical admissions have trended downwards for a number of years and the importance of consumer preference and choice, of filmgoers seeing films when and how they want, is essential to success for the film industry in the future. The “long tail” of availability, the keeping of films in the market for longer periods of time is especially important for independent film. And that a film’s release is ordered by an antiquated theatrical universe is one of the fundamental obstacles facing the independent arena.  Indeed why are films “seasonal” instead of “evergreen?”  The practice of dating films, i.e. assigning a year of release, strikes me as a holdover from the marketing past. How and where films will be made available depends on the establishment of new outlets and new strategies. It simply makes no sense that most of the year’s quality films are all released against each other in a cutthroat fall campaign.  In the future perhaps festival platforms could further serve to give films long-term visibility. At the very least new web venues, transformed marketing strategies and dynamic new concepts for consumption are at the core of making films available.

Finally, the question as to independent film’s health rests with the real driver of success - the films themselves.  Each year, the Sundance Film Festival presents a spectrum of new independent film, features and documentaries, mainstream and edgy, international and domestic. I can’t emphasize enough how sure I am that the overall aesthetic value of independent film has over the years continued to evolve, develop and mature. Some of the best filmmakers in the world got their start at Sundance, and many of the world’s new filmmakers have been affected and influenced by a generation of work that is ambitious, innovative and embodies the personal qualities of storytelling that is independent film. Each year independent filmmaking is rich with the promise of discovery - a new festival’s program, new filmmakers and stories. And that itself is a real cause for optimism and hope. 

Geoff Gilmore is the Director of the Sundance Film Festival.



 
 
Picture
New Release DVD and Blu-ray Titles Will Be Made Available After a 28-Day Window; Film Streaming License ExpandedUNIVERSAL CITY, Calif. and BEVERLY HILLS, Calif., April 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Universal Studios Home Entertainment and Netflix, Inc. [ NFLX] today announced agreements covering the distribution of Universal new release DVD and Blu-ray titles at Netflix while providing an expanded selection of the studio's movies that can be streamed instantly from Netflix to TVs and computers.

New release titles on DVD and Blu-ray will be made available to Netflix members after a 28-day window, giving Universal a dedicated time period for sales of its physical and digital offerings.  Netflix receives the benefits of reduced product costs, significantly more units and better in-stock levels four weeks after street date. At the same time, a license for Universal streaming content allows Netflix to provide its more than 12 million members more movies they can watch instantly.

"As the home entertainment market continues to evolve, we're exploring new and creative approaches to distribution with our key studio partners," said Ted Sarandos, chief content officer for Netflix. "Our intent is to forge agreements that make sense for the companies involved and that, on the whole, improve the consumer experience and the movie ecosystem.  We believe the Universal deals accomplish that."

"We're extremely pleased to have reached this mutually beneficial arrangement that will allow Netflix subscribers to continue enjoying Universal's film content on DVD and Blu-ray," said Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Studios Home Entertainment.  

The first release covered under the new agreement is the comedy "It's Complicated," which will be available to Netflix subscribers 28 days after its April 27 street date.  New releases will continue to represent an important component of the Netflix service, and deals such as these with Universal will allow Netflix to be better in stock on new releases after a brief window while continuing to enhance the scope and attractiveness of the streaming content Netflix members receive.

The film streaming agreement makes premium domestic films like "Gosford Park" and "Billy Elliott" and library films  including "The Pianist," "Being John Malkovich" and "Do the Right Thing" available to watch instantly.

About Universal Studios Home Entertainment

Universal Studios Home Entertainment is a unit of Universal Pictures, a division of Universal Studios (www.universalstudios.com).  Universal Studios is a part of NBC Universal, one of the world's leading media and entertainment companies in the development, production, and marketing of entertainment, news, and information to a global audience. Formed in May 2004 through the combining of NBC and Vivendi Universal Entertainment, NBC Universal owns and operates a valuable portfolio of news and entertainment networks, a premier motion picture company, significant television production operations, a leading television stations group, and world-renowned theme parks. NBC Universal is 80%-owned by General Electric, with 20% owned by Vivendi.

About Netflix

With more than 12 million members, Netflix, Inc. [ NFLX] is the world's largest subscription service streaming movies and TV episodes over the Internet and sending DVDs by mail.  For $8.99 a month, Netflix members can instantly watch unlimited TV episodes and movies streamed to their TVs and computers and can receive unlimited DVDs delivered quickly to their homes.  With Netflix, there are never any due dates or late fees.  Members can select from a growing library of titles that can be watched instantly and a vast array of titles on DVD.  Among the large and expanding base of devices that can stream movies and TV episodes from Netflix right to members' TVs are Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PS3 game consoles and, this spring, Nintendo's Wii console; Blu-ray disc players from Samsung, LG and Insignia; Internet TVs from LG, Sony and VIZIO; the Roku digital video player and TiVo digital video recorders; and Apple's iPad tablet.  For more information, visithttp://www.netflix.com.



SOURCE Netflix, Inc.

Back to topRELATED LINKS
http://www.netflix.com

 
 
Picture
Walt Disney in his prime.
Late last year, a news report stated that Walt Disney Pictures had made Rich Ross its new chairman, a position vacated by Dick Cook, who in actuality had been elbowed out due to serious problems within the motion picture arm of the operation. The main issue at hand (pardon the pun) was a lack of consistent quality product. This had been putting a noticeable dent on financial results for the multi-billion dollar corporation.

For once, a conglomerate film studio conceded the obvious: that vacuous motion pictures just could be the culprit that’s hurting their fiscal bottom line. However, this kind of problem began to manifest itself a long time ago, side by side with Hollywood’s willingness to succumb to a gradual erosion of its moral footing. Mainstream media figure Michael Coren once aptly described the movie capital as being one of the world’s most dysfunctional communities.

The founders of the Disney company were Walt Disney (artist, entrepreneur, showman) and his brother, Roy O. Disney. Here are a few highlights:

1923 - Disney Brothers Studio established

1926 – name change to Walt Disney Studio

1928 – creation of cartoon character icon Mickey Mouse and the milestone short, Steamboat Willie

1937 – Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is released during the Christmas season. The first feature-length cartoon in film history becomes a runaway hit.

1954 – debut of Disneyland TV show on ABC. Under the Disneyland banner, construction of amusement and recreation park begins.

1955 - The Mickey Mouse Club show starts on TV October 1955, lasting four years to September
1959. It makes a star of Annette Funicello who will almost single-handedly carry Disney’s record label, Buena Vista, to profitability.

1961 –  TV series changed to Walt Disney’s Wonderful World Of Color.

1966 -  December 15, Walt Disney dies.

1969 – TV show becomes The Wonderful World Of Disney.

1971 – December 20, Roy O. Disney dies.

1983 – continuous TV series ends after 29 years.

2009 – December 16, Roy E. Disney, the nephew of Walt Disney and Roy O. Disney’s son, dies. He was the last active defender of the company’s legacy.

    Roy E. Disney presided over two famous “Save Disney” battles (1984 and 2003-2005) in his quest to hold back the colossal trend that was pushing away his uncle’s vision of solid, wholesome entertainment steeped in creative, glorious and natural animation. But with Roy E. Disney now gone, hardly a visible shred is left of Walt Disney’s once originative multitudes. However, gold stashed away in the vaults provides a minute reminder of glory days gone by. Tellingly, every succession of company executives never fails to recognize the value of archival material, sometimes exploiting it to the point of ridiculousness.

This brings me to John Cameron’s science-fiction, 3-D film, Avatar (2009), the highest money-maker in the history of Tinseltown. Given the sorry state of the industry, this is truly astonishing and appalling.

Although I suspect I won’t win a popularity contest by my abhorrence of the long, downward spiral that still inflicts Hollywood today, thankfully, at least I am not alone. The Washington Post published an opinion piece by Gene Weingarten, titled ‘Tinseltown for toddlers’ (January 23, 2010) in which the writer correctly muses that Avatar’s plot is as thin as “a soup made by boiling a single mosquito.”

He continues: “The real heroes of action dramas are no longer swashbucklers like Steve McQueen. They are pale, pimpled people with overbites – cubicle bound techno-geeks skilled at computer-generated imagery (CGI), a science that has made it possible to realistically create absolutely anything... the problem is that when absolutely anything is possible, absolutely nothing is special.”

I rest my case.

Note: included in this year’s Hollywood issue of Vanity Fair is the uniquely fascinating article, Coloring the Kingdom; concerning the 100 or so women who laboured as inkers and painters in the preparation of such Walt Disney animated classics as Pinocchio (1940), Fantasia (1940), Dumbo (1941) and Bambi (1942).


Andrew Merey is a Whitby resident who’s interested in music and movie history. He has contributed articles to This Week since 2003.

 
 
Picture
Hollywood Stock Exchange is tentatively set to launch as a real-money commodity exchange April 20.

A spokesman said the exchange is "on track" to begin listing films' boxoffice projections for live trading from that date. HSX filed with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission for approval as an active trading site in November 2008 and recently entered the final phase of regulatory review.

Since 1998, HSX has allowed just-for-fun traders to buy and sell valueless shares in Hollywood films based on forecasts of what the pics will ring up. Once launched, a new HSX site will list current and imminent movie releases with their projected four-week domestic grosses and allow exchange users to take long or short positions on the films.

A formal announcement about rules and guidelines for HSX users is expected closer to the launch. The exchange hopes to lure hobbyist investors as well as industry professionals, though the latter will be prohibited from improper insider activity.

For instance, distribution execs with access to early boxoffice data will be barred from making trades on the exchange after a film has opened. But film financiers will be allowed to invest in HSX an amount equal to a minority percentage of their total investment in a movie.

Investors wishing to participate in the exchange will buy "contracts" priced at one one-millionth of a film's projected boxoffice, with films to be listed on the exchange from the time productions are announced in the industry trade papers. Trading will begin six months before a movie's anticipated wide release.

HSX is owned by U.K.-based investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

"The number of people who visit movie theaters each year and form opinions about a film's success is in the tens of millions," Cantor Exchange president Richard Jaycobs said. "We believe that's the reason the public response to this product has been very positive."

Cantor Entertainment chief Andrew Wing said the exchange targets movie distributors, exhibitors, producers and other investors seeking "an unprecedented public market to create liquidity and hedge their daily business activities."

Until now, HSX revenue has come from industry ad sales and the sale of customer-use data to Hollywood marketing outfits.
 
 
Picture
Hannah, Jenna, Laurie and Mitch in the Northland
Making an independent film in these challenging times is a labor of love. For the past fourteen months I've worked hard with film director Matthew Wilson and his partner producer Dana Louise Stewart to complete Real N' Raw.

Working with Animators-Ink, Ltd. and seeing the project through to the end has been a huge learning experience for me as a producer, as an entrepreneur and as a person who loves to help someone do their dream.

We have simply enjoyed an amazing summer here in New Zealand. On behalf of our team at Transparent Pictures, Ltd. we want to personally and professionally thank Dana Louise Stewart and Matthew Wilson for their collaboration, partnership and support during the making of the film.

Blessings to all!

With the film now done, look for a lot more postings here at this blog.