May 4, 2022
The past couple of years have been a time of major shifts in the film business, and when the ground starts shifting, you often see cracks in the foundations, which we’re starting to see now. For the past week, a lot of the focus has been on the possible cracks in the foundations of the streaming business – and whether it’s all been built on sand (debt and shitty business models). But from my perspective, the cracks we’re seeing now are more foundational. But instead of detailing the problems (click here for those), here are five proposed places I propose we could focus on to shore up the foundations.
DEI – This remains in first place, but it is also one area where we’ve seen some good things happen in the past couple of years. More funds and projects seem to be flowing to producers and projects working on DEI behind and in front of the camera. That said, I’ve heard a bit from younger, emerging, and even some non-emerging but not yet famous producers and directors in this space who feel they’ve missed out on the good changes. There are plenty of such directors who don’t need another Fellowship or mentorship program, they just need financial support to make their projects, and/or the faith to take a small chance on them – breaks that have come more easily to people who look like me, or who don’t but have found navigating the system to be easier. Let's focus a bit more deeply on this one.
New Finance Structures – We need to figure out how to rebuild parts of the system to support the equity financing model that has underpinned the (US) indie sector, or mechanisms to replace it. I’ve already written about the death of the equity model here and wondered what’s next. But if we ever needed smart thinking, this is where we need it. I think it comes from a mix of things: brands; collaboration between funders/investors; international co-financing models (again) between those left out from the bigger streamer’s game plan; concentrating on development funding and/or distribution financing; and a big one – foundations/donors filling the actual gaps instead of glomming onto the next big project just to get their logos out there. But we need a lot more work here, and I'm open to ideas and/or collaborations on it.
More Equitable Pay Structures and Standards – The film world – every aspect of it - has largely been built upon inequitable pay structures – a few big names get the big bucks, and everyone else works too damned much for too damned little, with no power to really do much about it. We’ve seen people revolting against this across the board – indie producers are organizing; assistants are too; fest workers are calling out bad behavior online or just walking out offline; cinema workers are striking; and even local actors in Atlanta are fed up with getting stiffed on pay. Go figure. Of course, these labor fights need to be kept in the perspective of a broader worker awakening and cultural moment – workers are fed up everywhere. But let’s face it, the only reason many film fests, indie productions, sector nonprofits, and others didn’t die during covid was because they were already so scrappy and underpaid that it was just another punch to roll with. But if you talk to almost anyone over drinks (even zoom drinks), you’re starting to hear a lot more frustration, a lot more desperation, and a general things-are-catching-up-to-us-vibe that wasn’t there even a year ago. I’ve been saying this since at least 2007 before the last big crash (another is coming, but that’s another article) – if you can’t afford to pay people a living wage and treat them with respect, maybe you don’t actually get to make that film, or run that festival, or make them roll your calls (and I've been part of the guilty having run such places). It’s time for some serious change here.
Merge, Joint-Venture, Roll-Em-Up or Shut ‘Em Down – This is another one I’ve been arguing for since too long ago, but I’ll say it again – we’ve got too many folks doing too many similar things, but not having much impact because they can’t build the infrastructure to make bigger changes. One of the main reasons the indie film sector looks so tiny is because we have thirty distributors who could be about ten, thousands of festivals that could be about twenty, and a general ethos of building something new instead of joining forces with someone already doing it almost well enough. Build ‘em up, roll ‘em up, think boldly (and without time zones or geographical boundaries), or give them up. When the sands are shifting this much and the cracks in the foundation are getting this big, it’s time for super-structures.
Building Leaders (or finding them fast): This is a little wonky, but a whole heck of a lot of this boils down to a lack of qualified leaders who have been “leading” us off a bunch of cliffs. There seem to be more incompetent leaders in this business than anywhere else (although I’m sure the workers in any other sector would beg to differ with me). As Richard Rushfield points out in his latest missive about the Academy, the Met Gala and the state of the entire business (that’s a lot in one post) –
“And the question is how do we get from here to there and does anyone have a vision for what th(at) journey looks like. We have a lot of faith in the genius of the marketplace. But companies have to be run by people who make decisions. And if they make bad ones, bad things happen to their companies. It would be a lot easier to have faith if someone stepped up with a plan…And the Met Gala isn't the first time we could've used that voice lately. But if it exists in our leadership, I sure haven't heard it.”
Amen. One of the problems is that we don’t actually train leaders in this sector. The closest thing we have is the mailroom to assistant to agent system and we see what that’s built (monsters). I work with brands a lot, and it’s crazy how often one of my colleagues is absent from a discussion because they’re on a leadership training retreat or some such. I’ve never had that happen in the film world (outside of Ford Foundation program officers going off to Harvard for mini-business school). Instead, I see a lot of inexperienced folks, with no ethics training to speak of btw, being hired because they have a name, a connection to someone with money or similar. Maybe if we need to be led out of this crisis, we need to invest in the leaders who can do it, and while we’re at it, we can make sure they also fit goal number one – addressing the lack of representation (some work is being done here, but without the leadership training part).
Of course, we also have writers with no clue who keep pontificating about all of this (yes, that’s me). Maybe I’m wrong about all the above, but I’m gonna be here a while, searching for answers, so if you have better ones, drop me a line.
|
|
Film
After streaming’s worst week, Hollywood bows at the altar of cinema: These last couple years were rough on theaters — small and large movie theater operators desperately tried to stay open. Many couldn’t. At the same time, streaming was booming. But while streaming recently had its worst couple of weeks (see previous newsletter for the details), things have started to look up for the movies: “Box office in the U.S. and Canada is expected to total more than $9 billion this year, about 20% less than the $11.4 billion reached in 2019, according to B. Riley Securities analyst Eric Wold, who covers the exhibition industry. But it’s more than double last year’s paltry $4.4 billion. Wold expects revenue to come within 3% of 2019 levels next year.” What’s been driving this box office growth? (a) Movie-goers are willing to pay more for movie tickets — they’re increasingly gravitating toward “premium” formats, such as Imax, to maximize the difference between going to the movies and sitting at home” and (b) “the movies themselves are back. In a sign of confidence, studios have mostly stopped delaying their big releases, unlike last year when the release schedule seemed to change from month to month, depending on COVID-19 variant-driven surges.” Key takeaways from this article are as follows: (1) “It’s becoming increasingly clear that the most dire predictions about the doom facing theaters were exaggerated”; (2) “The major studios are expected to make fewer movies exclusively for theaters”; (3) Theatrical windows (from theaters to streaming) are shorter now. Ryan Faughnder for the Los Angeles Times has the news. (GSH)
UK Government Confirms Privatized Channel 4 Will Be Allowed To Create Shows In-House: The UK government-owned broadcaster Channel 4 is being sold into private hands, placing it in direct competition with BBC, ITV and more. “The development will be devastating for the UK’s thriving production sector”, writes Deadline’s Jesse Whittock. and British Ministers are being accused of “cultural vandalism.” Why? “A private owner could shift production away from independent producers to cut costs, with a knock-on impact on the wider industry,” explains the chief executive of Pact (the trade body that represents UK indie prod. co’s). The indie sector has also benefited tremendously from Channel 4’s publisher-broadcaster model (indie producers were able to retain rights to their commission under this model). And government claims that the privatization will save taxpayer’s money is total BS – Channel 4 “receives no public funds and makes its revenues through advertising and other streams, reinvesting that cash into programming,” writes Whittock. So, what are the ramifications of C4’s privatization? Loss of jobs and a big hit to the indie sector. Also, and as Channel 4 previously warned, “[privatization] may result in “reduced diversity and quality of content for UK viewers.” (as quoted from Chris Baynes and Ashley Cowburn’s article for Independent.) (GSH)
Redford Center Grant Applications: “Stories that show us how to solve the climate and environmental crisis are woefully underfunded, under-resourced, and undervalued. Yet the filmmakers and activists on the frontlines of the crisis, their leadership, their victories, and their actions, illuminate a path for major environmental progress. Our grants program is designed to help fill this gap. It honors the vast intersections of environmental stories and reveals the many ways these issues touch everyone’s lives.” — Jill Tidman, Executive Director, The Redford Center.
The Redford Center is inviting filmmakers to apply for the fourth cycle of its bi-annual Redford Center Grants program supporting environmental filmmakers and frontline stories that drive solutions for people and the planet and provide pathways for audiences to engage in addressing the environmental and climate crisis.
Since launching the grants program in 2016, The Redford Center has remained one of the few entities exclusively funding intersectional environmental justice documentary film projects and filmmakers with multifaceted support systems. To date, over $1 million in grant funding and direct project support has been awarded to 36 films through the program and your film could be next. Check out their promo video to learn more. Application Deadline: May 30, 2022 (GSH)
|
|
Branded Content
Star Wars and Headspace let you practice mindfulness in a galaxy far, far away: Yes, you read that right. Star Wars and Headspace (the meditation/mindfulness app) have partnered to make “Breathe with Star Wars” which features animated breathing exercises with Yoda, Chewbacca, R2-D2 and more. On the app, “every time you inhale, Yoda's eyes will close and his hand will stretch out and levitate an X-wing — on exhale, it'll descend back into the Dagobah swamp. Chewbacca's meditation is fittingly focused on managing strong emotions, so you'll join him in the forest on his home planet Kashyyyk”. Users can also fall asleep to the sound of porgs (see image). Of course, “Breathe with Star Wars” drops May the 4th (today! May the Fourth Be With You!). Shannon Connellan for Mashable has the news. (GSH)
 Elon Musk's Twitter trolling of McDonald's and Coca-Cola is a warning for brands: Elon Musk is taking over Twitter, and he’s already trolling brands on the platform. He tweeted that he’d buy Coca Cola next and put cocaine in its formula and said he’d fix McDonald’s infamous (and always broken) ice cream machines. The takeaway: “The banter is a sign that no matter what comes of Twitter, brands will have to be on their toes. Musk is set to shakeup the service with consequences for how advertisers approach the platform…. Brands are worried Musk’s edgy sensibilities could diminish the brand-safety work that has gone into making the platform more friendly to advertising.” Adage’s Garrett Sloane has the news. (GSH)
GamesBeat Summit: What brands need to understand about the metaverse: On day 1 of GamesBeat Summit 2022, three brand and metaverse experts shared a conversation about what brands should be thinking and doing when it comes to their presence in the metaverse. Key takeaways are as follows: (1) Authenticity is key. Brands need to know why they’re participating in this new space and who they’re serving/targeting; (2) Brands should get in early, experiment, and not be afraid to make mistakes. “History has shown that…at the early stages of any network, there’s less competition, it’s easier to stand out, and it’s easier to learn” (Samuel Huber, founder and CEO of Admix); (3) Web3 is the next evolution of the internet. While Adidas is a colossal brand in Web 2.0 (the interet we know now), in Web3 (decentralized…etx), Bored ape is the biggest brand. The tides can turn!; (4) Web3 “embodies that new culture, going against the establishment, the decentralization [where] you can own digital items. Being able to associate your brand with that is a very strong signal” (Gabriel Heymann, head of global brand partnerships at Zynga.) Jen Larsen for VentureBeat has the news. For the full conversation, click this link. (GSH)
|
|
Miscellany:
 How have parents’ views of their kids’ screen time and social media use changed during the pandemic? The Pew Research Center came out with a bunch of data. Here’re some findings that stood out to me:
- “Among parents who had a child age 5 to 11 at the outset of the pandemic, the share who said this child used TikTok rose 11 percentage points (21% in 2020 to 32% in 2021).”
- “Among parents with a young child who said their kid had used a smartphone in 2020, for instance, 14% said their child was not using one in 2021. Similarly, 19% of parents who said their young child had used a game console or portable game device in 2020 said that child was not doing so in 2021.”
- 16% of parents with a child [between 5-11 years of age] said they did not limit screen time for this child in 2021, despite having said they did so in 2020. Conversely, 8% of these parents reported limiting their child’s screen time in 2021, after having not done this in 2020.”
Colleen McClain from the Pew Research Center explains that “the unique approach of this study – surveying parents about a specific child and looking at how individual parents’ responses changed over time – provides a window into children’s pandemic experiences with technology.” (GSH)
GSH = Articles written by Sub-Genre's Gabriel Schillinger-Hyman, not Brian Newman (BN)
|
|
|
Like This Newsletter? Subscribe & Past Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
