Pakistan Film Industry is in Collapse 04/15/2010
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 Whatever we had before is not only destroyed but is obsolete in terms of technology and skills.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. 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. 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 ( 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, visit SOURCE Netflix, Inc. Back to topRELATED LINKS http://www.netflix.com Disney’s (and Hollywood’s) fall from grace 03/18/2010
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. Hollywood Stock Exchange set to launch 03/11/2010
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. Finally recovered. 03/07/2010
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. Self Fund Your Own Film! 12/18/2009
So how would you like to get your own film funded? No worries. There is a brand new web site called "Pirate My Film!" You register your film idea, state how much money you want raised and push the YES button. The site was founded by independent researcher and Journalist Max Keiser and is also the CEO and Co-Founder of the HSC Holdings and the inventor of "virtual market specialist!"Pirate Myfilm - The Film Futures Market for PiratesSome film makers want to have copies of their films pirated by millions. Some want to sell copies. In either case, producers can raise money for their projects on Pirate Myfilm by selling future copies today. When enough future copies have been reserved to fund a project a group-debit occurs and the funds are made available to the producer. Producers also have the option of offering members who reserve future copies a piece of ad or retail sales. In addition to getting a copy of the film you might also get some money back. For example, if a producer has opted to share ad revenues of future pirated copies or a percentage of future retailed copies of the next "Saw" or "The Blair Witch Project" the producer and future copy buyers like yourself could make a bewitching pot of gold. Keep in mind, nobody is debited until 100% of the future copies needed to fund the project have been reserved and you can cancel at any time. And keep checking your Pirate Myfilm account because producers can change any aspect of their projects - including the percentage of future revenue splits on ads and retailed copies - up until the group-debit. Real N' Raw, almost there!! 10/08/2009
Well it finally happened. After reviewing over 400 hours of video, fourteen months and three countries (New Zealand, America and Costa Rica), Real N' Raw is in the final stages. Matthew Wilson, has been an amazing artist to work with over the past year. Here is a write up that Tim Lynch, a world class radio broadcaster wrote about Matthew Wilson........ Matty was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis at age 5 after being ill for two years. At age 12 he was told if he did not have his bowel removed and replaced with a colostomy bag he would have cancer by age 19 and not live to see 30. Today he is 35 and is a picture of health. This is his story. By eating raw foods which includes grass and virtually every thing like weeds that we find growing in our back lawn, such as clover, kikuyu, puha, plantains, dock, dandelion etc he was able to cure his disability. What Matt also found is that the wider the spectrum of leafy greens we eat, the greater the protection from being burnt by the sun. And that humanity maybe being affected by sunburn, because of excessive intake of mass produced, heated, powdered, packaged and tinned foods etc when nature outside gives us phyto-foods to sustain us and enable us to remain protected from the suns ultra violet light among 'many other things.' Matt who is also a top NZ animation artist, working with Warner Brothers and trained by one of Disney's top animators is a co-founder of Animator Inc, his own animation company, and has recently completed and directed an independent film called " Real N Raw" about reclaiming your health using simple and easy to access solutions. Listen to how other peoples globally have actively lived to very old ages, by eating raw foods, close to the land, on their own doorstep. So you want to know a secret? If you go over to the realnraw web site and sign up to be able to watch the film for free. You'll love it! Indie Filmmakers: China’s New Guerillas 09/26/2009
By KIRK SEMPLE BEIJING OVER the course of six years Zhao Dayong, an independent filmmaker from Guangzhou, China, spent many months living among the residents of Zhiziluo, an impoverished and forgotten village in the rugged mountains near the Myanmar border, and filming their lives. Using his own money and simple digital filmmaking equipment he made “Ghost Town,” a quiet, hypnotizing, three-hour documentary that provides an extraordinary and intimate portrait of Chinese life. Like independent filmmakers everywhere, Mr. Zhao worked with no guarantee of an audience, or even a place to show his work. By his estimates only a few thousand people have seen “Ghost Town” in China since he finished it last year. Several hundred more are scheduled to see it Sunday afternoon when the film has its international premiere at the New York Film Festival. But what makes Mr. Zhao’s commitment particularly noteworthy is that his project was apparently illegal. The Chinese government has decreed that all films must be approved by government censors before being distributed and screened, including in overseas film festivals. Mr. Zhao, 39, said getting the approval of the censors was never a consideration. “It’s like asking to be raped,” he said this month in an interview here. “The government certainly has its own agenda. They want us to stop. But at the same time we know we’re doing something meaningful.” This mixture of defiance and principle defines China’s nascent yet highly dynamic crop of independent filmmakers who pursue their art in apparent violation of the law. For decades the Chinese government had nearly full control over all aspects of the film industry, from celluloid filmmaking technology to financing to distribution and screening. An underground filmmaking subculture emerged in China in the late 1980s, but it began to flourish only about a decade ago with the advent of inexpensive digital cameras and postproduction computer programs that helped put filmmaking further out of reach of the government authorities. Many of this latest generation of Chinese filmmakers have no formal film training and shoot on minimal budgets, often with small crews, or alone. Ying Liang, whose films have won numerous prizes on the international circuit, shot his widely celebrated debut film, “Taking Father Home,” using a borrowed camera. Relatives and friends were his cast and crew. “Unlike in previous generations, the stars of this generation are not only Beijing Film Academy graduates,” said Karin Chien, a film producer in New York and president of dGenerate Films, a company she founded last year to distribute this new crop of independent Chinese films outside China. “They’re journalists, they work at television stations, they’re painters, they’re people who just picked up a camera and made a film for $1,000.” Output is still small. Several leading filmmakers put the annual production of unsanctioned, independent films at fewer than 200. But this work has provided unusual ground-level views of China that possess an unvarnished authenticity often missing from mainstream, government-sanctioned films. “There’s been an extraordinary explosion of young filmmakers — quite a few of them are quite talented — who are dedicated to record and tell the real story of what’s going on in China,” said Richard Peña, program director for the Film Society of Lincoln Center, which produces the New York Film Festival. “That story is really more fascinating than the story that the regime wanted to be told.” These achievements have come at a price. About 20 filmmakers have been banned from making films for two to five years, according to Zhang Xianmin, an independent film producer and a professor at the Beijing Film Academy. Others have received intimidating phone calls, had tapes confiscated or been detained and interrogated. But according to several filmmakers and film scholars both here and abroad, the government recently appears to have adopted a somewhat hands-off, though highly watchful, posture toward this film vanguard, leaving it to operate in an undefined gray area. It seems that as long as certain incendiary topics are not broached — among them the Tiananmen Square massacre, Tibet, the Cultural Revolution, the outlawed religious group Falun Gong — then independent filmmakers are allowed to work. Yet no one is absolutely sure where the boundaries are, or whether the government will start to clamp down more fiercely. “You don’t know where that limit is,” said Zhang Yaxuan, a critic and documentary filmmaker who is organizing an independent film archive for the Iberia Center for Contemporary Art in Beijing. “You have to try to touch it. In the process of trying, you know.” Huang Wenhai, a documentary filmmaker in Beijing, said that the process of filmmaking here “is the process of conquering your fear.” Despite this pressure and uncertainty, there are now at least four major independent film festivals around the country and at least two theaters, both small, dedicated to showing Chinese independent films. Meanwhile Chinese audiences largely remain out of reach. With cinemas and television off limits to their unsanctioned films, independent moviemakers are mostly restricted to screenings in front of small audiences in art galleries, bars, universities and homes. As a result the most accomplished filmmakers have found their largest audiences overseas, especially at international film festivals. “I feel very frustrated,” Mr. Zhao said. “I’m a Chinese filmmaker, and of course my audience should be the Chinese people, especially since my films are about ordinary working Chinese people.” He added, “That would be more valuable than winning an international film festival.” Mr. Zhao began his career in the fine arts. He studied oil painting at an art academy before dropping out and working as a professional artist and advertising director in Beijing and Guangzhou. He eventually founded his own advertising firm as well as a journal for contemporary arts, and he opened a gallery in Shanghai. His first documentary was “Street Life,” a portrait of recyclers on the streets of Shanghai, which had its premiere at the Viennale in Austria in 2006. “Ghost Town,” his second film, is a series of vignettes and scenes that explore the economic struggles, religious beliefs and relationships of the residents of Zhiziluo, which had once been a local county seat for the Communist Party but was largely abandoned by the government. Mr. Peña said he had heard about the film for some time but finally viewed it in the 11th hour of the festival’s film-selection process. “It’s one of those films that, when we saw it, there was little question in our minds that it should be included,” he said. “Ghost Town” is the first documentary from China’s new generation of digital independent filmmakers to be included in the New York festival. Mr. Zhao, who continues to support himself by shooting television advertisements, said he had no illusions that his films would ever make him much money. “For me, making films is a way of life, not the means to it,” he said. “And I really enjoy this life.” Zhang Jing contributed research. Spike Lee - still doing the right thing! 09/18/2009
As the BFI celebrates 20 years since the release of Spike Lee's seminal film with The Independent Interview and a season of movies on the Southbank, the director talks to Kaleem Aftab about race and retrospectives Spike Lee arrives at the BFI Southbank on Monday as part of a celebration of Do The Right Thing, his third film, which premiered at the Cannes film festival in 1989. In the two decades since then, the film has been recognised by the American Film Institute as one of the greatest 100 American movies in film history and was highly listed in a Sight and Sound Poll of the best films of the past 25 years. It was also, as Barack Obama coyly admitted last year, the movie that the President of the United States of America took Michelle to see on their first date. All in all, a far cry from the divisions and debate that the race drama provoked on its release. It was the most controversial and discussed film of that summer. You couldn't pick up a magazine or newspaper without someone having an opinion on the Brooklyn tale or the director. Critics David Denby in New York Magazine and Richard Corliss in Time argued that Do The Right Thing was of no value except as agitprop to incite the black community to riot. In the opposite corner was Roger Ebert who wrote that "it comes closer to reflecting the current state of race relations in America than any other movie of our time". It's not to belittle Lee's other films, including Malcolm X or Inside Man, or his two great documentaries 4 Little Girls about the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama and the Katrina documentary When the Levees Broke, to state that Do The Right Thing remains the key work in his oeuvre. The director would never admit that it's his best film. "My films are like my children", he says. "I don't have a favourite." Yet in all the literature that Lee approves, from the children's book he wrote with his lawyer-turned-writer wife Tonya, Please, Baby, Please to the blurbs on the back of DVDs, it's always Do The Right Thing that is given the status of first among equals. |
Transparent Pictures, Ltd.










RSS Feed