'); document.write('

Cinema Minima
News for Movie Makers Worldwide Since 1999

'); document.write('

Lola Kenya Screen 2010 Call for Film Entries
'); document.write('Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:35:51 +0000
'); document.write('
BY OGOVA ONDEGO. NAIROBI, KENYA (CINEMA MINIMA) — The Lola Kenya Screen film festival for children and youth calls upon children, youth, amateurs, students, and professionals to submit quality films that focus on children, ages 13 and under; youth, ages 14 to 25; or families, including adults ages 25 and over. The fifth edition of the annual event will take place in August 2010. The deadline for film submissions is 2010 April 15. There is no entry fee.

Experimental films, television series, and video games will be accepted. Even creatively packaged music videos, tackling issues related to children, youth, and family — and which provide strong role models to children and youth while speaking positively to children of diverse backgrounds — are welcome.

Showcases and Awards

Selected films will be showcased under various categories, with those starring children between ages of 6-13 competing for the prestigious Lola Kenya Screen Golden Mboni award for the best children’s film; those featuring children above 14 years competing for the Lola Kenya Screen 14-Plus Prize for the best youth film.

$\"Lola$

Workshops

The festival not only showcases films; it also places audiovisual media production tools into the hands of children and youth. It has equipped 92 children with basic skills — 47 in filmmaking, 19 in creative journalism, nine in events organization and presentation, and 17 in the critical appreciation of films. Its annual film production workshops have realised 20 short animations and eight documentaries.

Lola Kenya Screen Film Festival entry rules and submission form are online in PDF format. Details about the festival, and other Lola Kenya Screen activities are available at the Lola Kenya Screen Web site.

Films must be received between 2009 December 1, and 2010 April 15. Entries must reach the Lola Kenya Screen no later than 2010 April 15.

The festival — which recognizes that adults must be sensitised into creating for and with children and youth — has been held annually since 2006. By its fourth edition in August 2009, Lola Kenya Screen had showcased 1,450 films from six continents. The 2009 edition had attracted 315 films in 33 languages, out of which more than 250 were shown to over three thousand people.

The 2009 Golden Mboni prize went to IO PARLO by Marco Gianfreda of Italy, the Silver Mboni to THE HAPPY DUCKLING by Gili Dolev of Scotland/Israel, and the Bronze Mboni to PAMELA by James Kanja of Kenya. The Golden Mboni has been awarded since 2006.

The 14-Plus award was inaugurated in 2009, and was won by South Africa’s UGUGU NO ANDILE, a timeless love story set against the backdrop of a political war, directed by Minky Schlessinger. The 14-Plus award for the second and third best youth films went to Norway’s A BEAUTIFUL TRAGEDY by David Kinsella, and to Kenya’s FROM A WHISPER by Wanuri Kahiu, respectively.
'); document.write('
Kietryn Zychal New York Correspondent for Cinema Minima
'); document.write('Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:21:35 +0000
'); document.write('
Kietryn Zychal is the New York correspondent for Cinema Minima. She has worked as a journalist in the American state of Pennsylvania where she had the distinction of being the first investigative reporter in 46 years to be allowed to read a police file for an unsolved 1962 double homicide. The prime suspect, Edward Maps, was on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list for five years. The police file contained evidence that the accused may have been the third victim of the homicide. Zychal’s reporting raised the question, “Was Maps innocent?” and caused a community to question its long held assumptions about the crime.

Prior to working as a journalist, Zychal pursued a career as an actress. She toured several American states performing a one-woman show “Merely the Ravings of a Maniac,” that she wrote and produced. Her screenplay, “What Comes Next,” is a dark comedy about the difficulty of being married to a professional golfer. Zychal is writing a TV pilot called “Eco-Hookers.” She was educated at Lehigh University and studied abroad in England and Switzerland.
'); document.write('
House of Film?s fusion distribution strategy optimizes revenues for quality independent films
'); document.write('Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:03:00 +0000
'); document.write('
$\"Ava$ BY AUSTIN BURBRIDGE. 2009 AMERICAN FILM MARKET, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA (CINEMA MINIMA) — House of Film — a new film distributor headed by veteran distribution executive Ava B. — offers a bold and comprehensive strategy to address the new challenges faced by independent filmmakers in a volatile market.

The formation of this firm, and its new, “fusion distribution” strategy, throws light on the dramatic changes in the market for independent films.

The 2009 American Film Market was a laboratory for producers and distributors (and a few filmmakers) to discover precisely how the market has changed; to experiment with new ways to get films before audiences; and to devise new methods to recoup investments and to realize profits from their productions.

How different is today’s independent movie market from yesterday’s? First, let’s look at how things used to be; then, the way they are now.

The old market for independent films

Until very recently, the market for independent films had been relatively straightforward: An independently financed film would have been considered successful, if it had been picked up by one of the big studio/media combines (“Hollywood”) for release into chains of theaters, thence into homes via DVD. The focus was on sales in major territories — mostly, USA. This worked well because — since 1980, when the United States abandoned antitrust regulation of the studios — Hollywood has practically controlled exhibition in USA (it continues to exercise significant influence over exhibition in other markets around the world, too).

In that environment, other ways of distribution were treated as desirable, but ancillary. Digital exhibition, in particular, was treated as more trouble than it was worth; and scorned as exploding the existing, simple, “business as usual” model.

The model had been based on a market in which Hollywood needed to purchase independent movies. Before 2005 Hollywood had not produced enough features to satisfy the demand from the theaters, television networks, and DVD distributors which it owns or controls. It needed independent films to supply the balance.

However, by 2006, Hollywood had purchased most of the so-called “independent” studios — effectively bringing their productions “in house.” This reduced — sharply — its demand for movies produced by independent filmmakers.

The model also took international demand for granted. Film and TV markets outside USA had constituted a rich, and — hitherto — reliable, market for independent filmmakers.

By 2009, however, many places around the world can produce their own first-class entertainments; and, in numbers sufficient, not only to supply local demand, but to offer them for sale in the independent market, too. This development has increased the number of suppliers of independently made films, while — at the same time — it has reduced the demand for them.

The new market for independent films

In 2009 the market for independent movies is smaller, and heterogeneous. A producer can neither depend on a single big sale to Hollywood to recoup her costs or make profits; nor can she afford to “leave money on the table,” in smaller markets, new media, or new venues for exhibition.

Now, a filmmaker must begin early — in preproduction — to think about how she will sell her movie, get it distributed, and market it to an audience. Putting off those questions until after a film would have been completed is no longer a practical option.

Audience development

With so very many different — and compelling — kinds of entertainment competing for time, attention, and dollars, a movie audience is no longer a given. Nowadays, a movie does not find its audience, nor does an audience discover a movie; instead, an independent movie production must develop an audience. A filmmaker ought to devote the same amounts of time and resources to develop an audience that she devotes to develop a story into a screenplay.

Independent filmmakers must start to do what Hollywood has been doing for decades — start to work early with media, advertisers, and sponsors to develop audiences using coherent combinations of publicity, promotion, and co-branding. These relationships would not only provide financing; they would also leverage partnerships with established brands to seize public awareness — and amplify a film’s marketing message far beyond the reach of publicity and advertising.

House of Film’s new strategy for a new market

In an exclusive interview with Cinema Minima, founder Ava B. — previously, Vice President of Sales and Acquisitions at LongTale, a foreign sales and intellectual property asset management company — explained her firm’s “Fusion Distribution” strategy.

“House of Film connects independent movies with both traditional and non-traditional distribution. We can reach the widest possible global audience and maximize producers’ revenue in a new ‘fusion distribution’ model.

“This new business model underscores our ability to incorporate product placement and integration, as well as sponsorships, into the production of quality independent films.

“Watching what’s happening to distribution these days — traditional distribution does not work any longer, but new distribution does not work yet,” she averred. This refers to the fact that — although the number of persons who go to the movies continues to decrease, and DVD sales are declining — the number of persons getting movies online has not increased so much as to make up the difference. In short, the total audience for motion picture entertainment is shrinking. As Ava B. puts it, “Filmmakers are independent, but filmmakers are lost: There is no good solution to make enough money from their content.

“So, putting together my experiences — and learning from the mistakes of other companies — I thought, all right, let’s put this together: What can work? The business model of this company, is basically, optimizing profits from any content; to look at the content and see how much it can carry:
- Find the optimum distribution strategy.
- Combine digital technologies with the best of the traditional methods, for both USA domestic and international distribution.
- Negotiate contracts that provide the most lucrative return.
“First, start at the top with the best options of traditional distribution, then go one level lower, one level lower, like television, then DVD ? and go through all the levels of traditional distribution. We have something like eight thousand buyers in our database — we are rather well-connected, especially with Academy Award-worthy content [i. e., SUNRISE/SUNSET] that brings in the important buyers.

“Once we have finished with the traditional distribution, we monetize the content as much as possible across all media. We switch over to non-traditional distribution for the content,” she said, “and we are trying to find other ways to monetize the content, for example, sponsorships, or cover-mount deals.

Product Integration and product placement

“And, we are looking at movies in development, where we could do product integration or product placement. That is why it is important for the company to pick up quality movies, so that it would be well-positioned to be attractive to high-end brands, so that — the Chanels, the Diors, and the Pradas of the world would not mind being associated with our company. That’s the vision. That’s what we are aiming for. ?

Worldwide distribution under the House of Film brand

?”? And we pick up the content accordingly. House of Film offers worldwide distribution to films — of any genre — that meet the highest standards in aesthetics, with a special focus on movies that relate to design, fashion, or the arts. Visually, quality has to be ‘A-plus’; or, a picture must be innovative in its presentation. We can pick up high-art movies, or a horror movie — if it is quality — or even an action movie, or a documentary.”

House of Film’s current lineup reflects its openness to different kinds of films — as well as its insistence on superlative visual quality. “These are all pearls here,” Ava B. remarks.
- SUNRISE/SUNSET: DALAI LAMA XIV follows the iconic Tibetan leader for one day for an intimate — and revealing — portrait.
- BELLADONNA is a feature which uses time travel to examine the moment of a wedding to contrast the evanescence of courtship with the permanence of love.
- FOR THE NEXT 7 GENERATIONS presents 900 years of wisdom and prophecy from the 13 most-powerful female elders on the planet.
- TATTOOS is a gripping documentary enlivened by celebrity cameos.
- MILAREPA is the epic story of Tibet’s greatest yogi and saint.
- THE RAIN is a wordless, all-dancing sequence of ravishing tableaux of love and passion.
Fashion + Design + Filmmaking

In this new environment, a distributor must be more than an efficient business opertion. To be a nexus for buyers and sellers, a market-maker must have a recognizable identity, a theme, a focus.

“Since we are aiming at establishing relationships with advertisers and sponsors,” Ava B. explains, “I thought: There is something no one is doing yet — and there is such an obvious need for it. To connect the three big businesses — fashion, design, and filmmaking/film distribution — under one umbrella. I would like this company to be the connecting point.

“Buyers would know that — when they come to House of Film — whatever they find here will be beautiful. It can be the beauty of the soul; it can be the beauty of the form, or the design, the fashion; or it can be via the participation of an artist. ? Sooner or later, we will be identified as the meeting point. There’s no company that does that. It is an interesting niche; a new concept.”

A return to quality

“These days, everyone is going for quantity over quality — they’re aggregating bigger and bigger,” she observes. “If everone is going one way, there is room for someone who is doing exactly the opposite — quality over quantity.”

A focus on quality is a welcome development. The recent glut of undistinguished motion picture entertainments — created by financial, not business, considerations — has damaged the “brand” of cinema. Audiences no longer trust the movies to reliably deliver the high-quality confections of spectacle, drama, meaning, and pleasure which had made the cinema the unrivaled form of popular entertainment throughout the twentieth century. This has been especially destructive of the interests of independent filmmakers and distributors. At the Independent Film & Television Alliance’s 2009 Production Conference, independent producer (and former studio head) Bill Mechanic complained that the principal challenges to independent films are neither finance nor distribution nor piracy, but poor quality and lack of originality.

If cinema is to retrieve its privileged place in the popular imagination, and to resume its stature as a business which attracts the best and the brightest, it must again invest in the fundamental mythic and visual qualities which are meaningful to its customers. Also, it must promote business practices which foster its long-term prospects, and deprecate decisions which are motivated by short-term, financial considerations.

House of Film comes to market with a powerful strategy, singular films, and savvy, experienced management. Navigating by the pole star of �sthetic quality, it is well-positioned to prosper in this new and challenging market.
Services offered by House of Film

Distribution under the House of Film label
- Worldwide, U.S. domestic, or international distribution for feature-length motion pictures — of any genre — that relate to fashion, design, or the arts; or that meet the highest �sthetic standards; or whose approaches are innovative or groundbreaking.
U.S. Domestic distribution
- Submission of films to more than 20 of the best Internet/DVD distribution companies
- Transfer of film to digital format to meet submission requirements
- Completion of all paperwork
- Marketing in concert with Internet/DVD distributors
- Insertion of search-engine-friendly metadata
- Transfer into appropriate formats of artwork and supporting materials
- Negotiation of all deals to ensure the best possible terms for the filmmaker
- Client approval of every deal
- Quarterly progress reports
Producer’s representation
- Submission of movies to multiple distribution platforms — U.S. domestic, and international
- Contract negotiation
- Consulting on all things distribution
- Consideration for international sales representation by high-end distribution companies
Content management
- Devising the optimum distribution strategy for clients’ films
- Monetization of content by creation multiple revenue streams
Marketing
- Product placement/product integration and sponsorships for movies with majority financing secured but still in development or post-production
- Cover mount deals
- Public Relations
- Alternative marketing
- Consultation on marketing strategy, including viral marketing and festival strategy
Technical
- Editing (or re-editing) of trailers or movies
- Format conversion
Production and creative development
- House of Film evaluates projects for their commercial viability. In addition, it facilitates creative process with screenplay coverage, cast, and project evaluation.
Strategic alliances
- House of Film will find — and introduce its clients to — synergistic partners within the design or fashion communities. Clients’ films benefit from creative, non-traditional advertising via sponsorships or product integration.
Contact
- <houseoffilm@houseoffilm.net>
- Telephone 1 + (818) 481-1289
- <www.houseoffilm.net>
'); document.write('
Filmmaker pitch contest at American Film Market 2009 Nov 7-10
'); document.write('Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:26:43 +0000
'); document.write('
$\"American$ BY AUSTIN BURBRIDGE. AMERICAN FILM MARKET, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA (CINEMA MINIMA) — Movie business professionals who attend the American Film Market have an opportunity to pitch their movie ideas to producers, distributors — and the audience for an American television awards show, “The People’s Choice Awards.”

“The AFM is about the business of film — everyone is selling something — so it’s the perfect venue for a Favorite Film Pitch contest,” says AFM Managing Director Jonathan Wolf. “Imagine the winner telling a producer, The public voted my project the film they most wanted to see get made. That’s powerful.”

Pitches will be recorded live, in person, November 7?10 from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM in the AFM Filmmakers Lounge at Le Merigot Hotel, 1740 Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. A filmmaker can just show up, fill out the Entry Form & Release, and wait for her turn to record her pitch. An AFM badge will not be needed, but if there’s a line, priority will go to participants with an AFM badge or an AFM Seminar Ticket.

Only one film idea may be pitched. A pitch may not exceed two-and-a-half minutes. One retake, but no edits or pauses. Participants may not review the video afterwards.

Afterward, the AFM will assemble a group of industry leaders to select five finalists. Their pitches will be posted on the PCA Web site following the broadcast of “The 2010 People’s Choice Awards” show on the American television network CBS in early January 2010, allowing fans to choose the ultimate winner: the film they would most like to see get made.

In addition to receiving the Favorite Film Pitch award, the winner will also receive an AFM 2010 package that includes full access for two to the AFM, including seminars and conferences; airfare for two to Los Angeles; hotel for five nights in Santa Monica; and scheduled meetings with producers and distributors. Contest guidelines.
'); document.write('
American Film Market 2009 coverage at twitter.com/cinemaminima
'); document.write('Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:48:43 +0000
'); document.write('
$\"American$ BY AUSTIN BURBRIDGE. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA (CINEMA MINIMA) — Cinema Minima is covering the American Film Market from 2009 November 4 Wednesday to November 11 Wednesday. For updates follow <twitter.com/cinemaminima>.Complete stories, reviews, and analysis will appear here shortly.
'); document.write('
Like Detroit?s automakers, studios and independents have ignored their customers, says producer
'); document.write('Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:10:00 +0000
'); document.write('
$\"IFTA$ BY AUSTIN BURBRIDGE. LOS ANGELES (CINEMA MINIMA) — The best thing about the annual Production Conference of the Independent Film & Television Alliance is the remarkable candor of the participants. The four-hour morning conference is attended by independent producers and distributors, who attend a keynote, followed by two panel discussions by prominent independent producers and distributors. Everyone is there because they want to exchange information about the business of independent film. There is no publicity or grandstanding — only straight talk. Attending it is a great way to get an accurate sounding of the state of independent film production and distribution.

The September 29, 2009 Conference in Century City in did not disappoint. Bill Mechanic — President/CEO of Pandemonium LLC and former Chairman and CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment — delivered a bracing assesment of the current state and the future of the independent film business in the keynote speech.

Here is a video of the speech. What follows is a transcript of his remarks, supplied by IFTA:

Greetings. I was asked to address you this morning with my observations on the present as well as the future state of independent production.

But before I begin, I have to relate the story of a close friend of mine, who’s a leading heart surgeon.

He said he’d recently been involved in a very trying and emotional six-hour piece of open heart surgery where he and a team of people fought valiantly, but unsuccessfully, to save a patient.

Afterwards, my friend entered the doctor’s locker room. One of his colleagues was staring absently into the void, clearly spent from the ordeal. He tried to cheer him up, but the colleague turned to him and asked why he was not more distraught.

My friend answered with a smile, “At least we weren’t asked to save Independent Production!”

Well — truth be told — we may not be heart patients; but we aren’t that far away.

We have too many insignificant movies clogging our distribution channels.

Tightening economic conditions are sending sharp pains through our systems. Our blood supply from heretofore vibrant markets such as DVD and TV seemingly have evaporated in front of our eyes.

The question we must ask is, whether the condition is fatal? In all candor, I would say, “Only to some — those who ignore the warning signs; who don’t adjust to the threatening conditions; those producers — and distributors — who pretend there is nothing wrong.”

Nine years ago, I was a healthy (and occasionally happy) studio executive. I had taken Fox over a seven-year period from a doormat to the number-one studio; and before that, I had spent nine years at Disney building a then-dormant minor player into a muscular and, for the first time in its history, a real force in the studio world. I left Fox with five of the top ten films in history and departed Disney with 19 of the top 20 videos ever, and as the number-one International distributor.

I had fought with Rupert Murdoch over my desire to create a business for Fox in the world of animation. He felt no one could compete with Disney. Nevertheless I started up Fox Animation. ANASTASIA was a start, it made money. TITAN AE a misstep, and lost [money]. Even though that is the nature of the business — that not everything works — he didn’t want to wait for ICE AGE to finish production. I didn’t have a foot out of the door before Fox tried to sell off the film. Luckily for them, they couldn’t get a deal done.

At the same time, Peter Chernin thought I was taking too much of a chance with X-MEN. He called it my “$70-million art film,” since everyone knew that not only were comic book movies dead, but you certainly couldn’t start one in a concentration camp. That wasn’t comic book fun. Maybe not, but most comic books are dark, so it was a question of being relevant, of being grounded.

Ironically, both films have lasted longer at Fox than I did and are now the most valuable franchises in the history of that studio, throwing off billions of dollars of profit.

But they also were, along with FIGHT CLUB, the leading reasons I was shown the door. My bosses couldn’t deal with the unconventional choices like those and others such as BRAVEHEART and THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY because the films weren’t pre-sold, and thus, seemed less predictable. This, despite the fact that these unconventional movies guided Fox to the five best years in its history.

When I left, a few of the other majors called to see if I were interested in running their shops. I thought instead it was time to do things on my own, to not work for companies that no longer wanted to be in the film business, that no longer thought enough about the future to not gum it up. Easier to raise money and worry only about making good movies which could make money.

Needless to say, I was na�ve. I thought raising money would be easy. I didn’t exactly foresee such things as the Silicon Valley bubble bursting, or the economic meltdown, or the Madoff scandal. But then — I guess the Captain of the Titanic thought the Atlantic was smooth sailing. And Batman thought the Joker would be a laugh.

When I first made the decision to go off on my own, Larry Gordon said to me something that I’ve never forgotten. He said running a studio is a great job but a terrible life. Producing is a great life but a terrible job.

Nine years as an independent producer provides a great perspective. It also cause heart palpitations.

Here’s the one key thing I’ve learned: There is no such thing as an independent producer.

There are only dependent producers: Dependent on distributors, financiers, bankers, and distribution channels that understand the needs of the market even less than the corporations that own the studios.

Which makes a truly independent producer even more truly dependent because the alternatives to the studio system are in many ways more difficult, not easier.

Perhaps even more than the studios, those with the controls over whether or not a movie gets made independent of the studios, do so, almost with less attention to the movie itself.

Part of that is due to outsiders who always seem to come into the business believing they can do better and yet rarely have an idea of what they are doing. Attorneys and financial analysts picking movies is a recipe for disaster. They can tell you all day long what hasn’t recently worked, but in truth, haven’t the experience or the knowledge to do anything different than has already been done.

That has been the oddest lesson of this period for me: That the independent world — which should be aiming to do things better and different from the studios — doesn’t have that as a mandate at all. If anything, the only thing that independent distributors and financiers look for is the same. Maybe costing a little less than the majors but, they want what the studios want, or — in FIGHT CLUB-speak — they want copies of a copy.

I now understand that unconventional choices like X-MEN and ICE AGE would barely have a prayer getting made independently. Why? Because at the time, they didn’t look like anything else.

It’s disrespectful if not downright dumb to think audiences can’t tell the difference between the original — which occasionally might even have some fresh faces — and the copy, which almost always is populated with retreads. It’s like thinking you can sell yesterday’s news under a different banner.

The exception to the rule is DISTRICT 9, which didn’t try to compete with the Majors with special effects or stars or plot. Instead of feeling recycled, it was fresh and is now one of the year’s best and most successful pictures. But lot of credit has to go to Peter Jackson since it was undoubtedly his clout that got the film made.

Following the lead of the majors presumes that they know what they want. It presumes they have a fix on their audiences.

I would say that’s anything but true. Admissions are down over the past few years and — perhaps most troubling — the audience that Hollywood spends the majority of time focusing on, the under-25s, are the ones finding other things to do.

Take a look at this shift over the past decade. While use of the internet and video games have dominated leisure time activities, movie consumption is down or flat over the same period. And — more to the point — you can see that there is a 21% drop in film going amongst the core target audience, and a 24% drop in the next key category, 25?39-year-olds.

And yes, these charts beg another question [sic]: if the audiences are shifting, why isn’t the product shifting as well? Name five mainstream films this year that successfully targeted an over-30 year audience.

In that way, Hollywood in the broadest sense of the word is much like Detroit. It’s a manufacturer’s mentality that reigns, seemingly indifferent to the consumers it serves: Ignore whether the consumer likes our product as long as they buy it; market it and they will come; and don’t worry if they don’t come back. Accept 60% drop off rates as the norm, saying it’s all about wide openings.

Three years ago the [Los Angeles Lakers basketball team] all-but-sold-out every game, even though they had a lousy team. Since Jerry Buss is a smart owner, he knew if he didn’t fix things, no shows would eventually turn into season ticket non-renewals. He did what he needed to do to make it the hottest ticket in town again; and a no-show today is a no-no.

When was the last time you heard anyone either from a studio or an independent talking about improving their product, of creating positive buzz and expanding the audience?

Here’s one basic question to ask yourself: If the most popular film in history was TITANIC — and it did so by weaving together interest in all demographic pockets (as well as pulling in non-film goers) — why in the last 12 years has no attempted to do the same?

TITANIC was number one at the box office for 15 consecutive weeks. It not only spurred on record year in theatrical attendance, and had the biggest video in history, but also generated the biggest Oscar telecast in years. A good movie, like a good team in sports, makes everything around it better.

An independent couldn’t — and shouldn’t — make movies of that scale; but it should make movies [that are] as individualistic and compelling. Certainly there are good examples among some of the smaller independent films — SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE being an easy choice — that actually do stand out and succeed because of their quality and their uniqueness.

But as you can see from these next few charts, the independent world was no more concerned with the consumer than the studios.

With the influx of hedge fund money, the past decade saw a glutting of product, again most of it with no idea of who it was for or how it could be sold.

Whether some of these movies had artistic integrity or not, there is no question there was no audience appeal.

From the low water mark of 1990, there has been a 50% increase in the number of pictures and even since 2000, nearly a 25% increase. And most of the influx came from non-majors, rising from 150 in 1990 to 450 in 2008. That, my friends, is insanity.

Remember that through this entire period, the only growth at the box office has been inflationary, which means more films were fighting for a share of a flat box office. Over approximately this same period, the biggest hits took even a greater share of the box office pie, meaning the independents, even with a vastly greater number of releases, are taking a dramatically smaller percentage of the available money.

Let me get out the rest of the bad news, though I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know.

The next 2-3 years will be even worse, not because of the flood of new releases — since that is already abating — but rather due to the effect the over-saturation has had, combined with the economic downturn.

New money is going to be hard — if not impossible — to find. Ad sales are down, so TV networks around the world (other than cable) aren’t buying. Add in a confused video market and — it’s going to be tough.

To my mind, the next few years will be about survival.

If it’s any consolation, it will be harder on the Studios than the independents. Not only is it harder for big companies to change, to adapt, but there are legacy issues in terms of personnel. And within the next few years, their big market advantage, the bricks and mortar of their distribution operations, will become a disadvantage in the democratic age of digital. I would assume at least two of the Majors to be sold or consolidated by the middle of the decade.

Before I turn to why I don’t think this is all fatal — and in fact, might be a boon — let me address one more item, video. I get asked a lot if the problems are systemic. My answer is, “Not necessarily.” That we would reach a point of maturation in DVD is natural and logical, but too much of the downturn is completely self-imposed.

Like much of the bad decision making that has helped take a lot of the profit out of the business, the air was let out of the tires by the studios themselves.

No top management of a studio really cared what was going on over the past few years other than was their budget being met.

No one asked whether their units should be pushing Blu-Ray in the face of an economic melt-down or even whether or not Blu-Ray was going to be the next big app to the general consumer. They simply accepted the idea that they could resell their libraries at higher prices.

So no one asked what impact dropping the price on their existing DVD’s would have. I mean — if I can buy TITANIC for under $5 in some stores — why am I so eager then to rush out to pay $30 or so when it’s released on Blu Ray? Is the quality difference that great? How many formats are yet to come?

No one asked what buying great movies at cheap prices would do to new releases, which may not be as great. Give a consumer with less expendable dollars a choice between LEGALLY BLONDE for $5 or ALL ABOUT STEVE for $20 or $30, which do I want to buy?

Simply said: The studios have destroyed the price-value relationship in video — particularly when low-priced rental alternatives have sprung up everywhere.

And then, add in the absolute flooding of TV product from the beginning of time into the market, and you have the conditions that have absolutely killed video as the key profit center of new movies.

Ok — so in the face of all this, why can I say this is all good news? Because a lot of waste is going to be cleared from the marketplace. Excess product will go away, the people who don’t take the business seriously will go away.

Hopefully those who make crummy movies will also go away, but — that may just be a personal wish.

In 1984, I went with Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg to Disney as perhaps the fourth employee of the new regime. Disney at the time was barely a film producer much less a major distributor. Before we could execute the plans to transform that company into one of the Majors, I was asked to prepare the presentation to the Board of Directors. A lot of capital was at stake.

The numbers, like some of those we’ve discussed today, were overwhelmingly negative. In truth, the film business has never been an easy one to master. More companies fail than succeed.

But what I presented, and this is still one of the absolute truths of the industry, was that it was only a bad business on average.

If you expect to be an average performer in this world, you can expect to fail.

Those without the ambition or the brains to figure their way through these tough economic conditions are going to be the heart patients who cannot be saved. No one has a birthright in this business.

It is a game for winners. And those who win today will win to an even greater extent than at almost any point in the past. The flattening of the box office is only true on a macro level. For the individual film, the sky is the limit. Even though there’s more piracy of the hit picture than any other, it’s still that same hit picture that can score giant revenues in all the ancillary streams.

Those who will win will be smart about what they make and how they sell their films. They will hopefully make good films but perhaps — even more key — they will make unique films that stand out, which means they will not have to compete against the bulk of the films for talent. They won’t look like all the other films so they won’t have to spend as much money marketing them.

It’s not that the buyers aren’t there. Consumers, TV outlets, Retailers and, yes, even Pirates want what works.

Don’t believe me? Ask Summit about TWILIGHT. Ask Searchlight about SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Ask Screen Gems about DISTRICT 9. Ask Focus about CORALINE.

Let me conclude by saying that the challenges are great: Technological innovations often hurt before they help; it takes resources to fight the sense of entitlement that breeds piracy; it takes skill and experience to know what [U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt] FDR really meant when he said, “We have nothing to fear, but fear, itself.”
'); document.write('
International Audiovisual Media Experts Converge at Lola Kenya Screen 2009
'); document.write('Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:59:50 +0000
'); document.write('
BY OGOVA ONDEGO. NAIROBI, KENYA (CINEMA MINIMA) — Rut Gomez Sobrino of the Barcelona-based UNESCO Centre of Catalonia — UNESCOCAT — leads the team of mentor experts who will conduct the skill-development programmes at the 4th Lola Kenya Screen in Nairobi, Kenya (2009 August 10-15).

Sobrino, holder of a doctorate and three Master’s degrees with more than 10 years in journalism/communications and media development at international level, is also head of the UNESCO Audiovisual department in Barcelona, Spain.

While in Nairobi, Sobrino shall conduct a round table conference on the UNESCO Audiovisual E-Platform project in the framework of Lola Kenya Screen, show several films?The Children of Darfur, Children of Inkisi?from the E-Platform. However her main mission in Kenya is to facilitate the Lola Kenya Screen Creative Journalism (Festival Press) mentorship programme.

Coming from Denmark armed with an equally impressive curriculum vitae as a television director, producer and concept-maker is Anette Tony Hansen who will facilitate the Television Drama for children and youth workshop with adults. It is expected that at least five TV drama films targeting children will be realised from this hands-on workshop and that thereafter there will be greater interest among TV practitioners to create more professional TV dramas for children and youth.

Employed by the Danish Television in 1968, Hansen is actively involved in co-productions in Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark.

Another expert with vast experience?45 feature films, 22 Telefilms, 200 documentary films, 8 TV series,60 advertising commercials to her credit?is Fina Sensada.

Sensada?who works globally?shall facilitate the Film Production workshop and also showcase her WHITE SAND BLACK SAND film at Lola Kenya Screen. She will also discuss the joys and pains of independent audiovisual media production besides holding a photo exhibition, “Hands that Heal?Humanitarian Photo in Africa”, produced on the mission of “Plastic surgeons without borders” in 2008. This will form the basis of discussion on the importance of humanitarian-social audiovisual media in Africa.

The Nairobi-based Lola Kenya Screen audiovisual media festival, production workshop and market for children and youth explores, identifies and nurtures creative talent among children and youth through hands-on skill-development mentorship programmes in areas such as journalism, filmmaking, arts appreciation, and organisation and presentation of cultural and creative events.

The objectives of the Lola Kenya Screen mentorship programmes, among others, are to equip children and youth with the skills to understand, appreciate, and create quality audiovisual media productions in particular, and arts in general.

While the Festival Press is aimed at uplifting the standards of creative and cultural journalism in eastern Africa, the Film Production Workshop empowers children and youth to make at least five quality, low-budget, moving images per year.

Programme Organisation and Presentation (MCs), as the title suggests, empowers children and youth to organise and present events and programmes. Such children are usually in charge of the programme during the six days of the festival.

The Film Jury, on the other hand, seeks to inculcate in participants skills with which to critically appreciate and appraise creativity in general and film in particular. The jury members watch and award films in competition. The official Lola Kenya Screen Jury consists only of children and youth.

Also attending Lola Kenya Screen will be independent producers from eastern Africa: eastern Congo-Kinshasa, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia.
'); document.write('
Lola Kenya Screen 2009 Short-Lists Candidates for Skill-Development Programmes
'); document.write('Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:36:14 +0000
'); document.write('
BY OGOVA ONDEGO. ZANZIBAR, TANZANIA (CINEMA MINIMA) — Lola Kenya Screen, the annual audio-visual media festival, production workshop and market for children and youth in eastern Africa — that holds in Nairobi, Kenya, every second week of August — has announced the names of candidates for her 4th skill-development programmes to be held 2009 August 10-15 in Nairobi, Kenya.

The names of successful applicants were made available to the international media in Zanzibar, Tanzania, during the 12th Zanzibar International Film Festival on 2009 July 1.

The Nairobi-based Lola Kenya Screen has — since its inception in October 2005 — been exploring, identifying and nurturing talent among children and youth in areas such as screen-writing, cinematography, production, marketing, distribution, creative journalism, event planning and presentation, and critical appreciation of creativity.

Lola Kenya Screen was established as a movement that uses appropriate and available technologies to deliver audiovisual media content that complements, enhances, entertains and promotes learning among children and youth in the promotion of literacy, gender equity, independent thought, human rights, environmental responsibility and global health.

Apart from the Television Drama workshop that is aimed at adults (above 18 years) interested in creating audiovisual media works for children and youth, the rest of the programmes target people defined by the laws of Kenya as children, i.e. children and youth (under 18 years).

Film Production
1. Njeri Waithera Nesbith, 13, Braeside School
2. Alex Ndegua, 16,Ruiru Boys secondary
3. Brian Saruni, 14, Highway Secondary School
4. Charlene Ndolo, 14, German School
5. Charmaine Ndolo, 14, German School
6. Crystal Ndolo, 7, Riara Road Primary School
7. Daniella Kinyanjui, 11, Mount Kenya Academy
8. Flora Wanjiru, 16, Githurai Mixed Secondary School
9. Fredrick Ochieng, 16, Bridgeway School
10. Irene Esonga, 16, Kahawa Garrisson Secondary School
11. Michael Mwangi, 15, Moi ForcesAcademy
Event Organisation and Presentation/MC
1. Tracy Muringa, 14, State House Girls High School
2. Bernard Otieno, 15, Moi Forces Academy
3. Nicholas Ngugi Ngobe, 10, Almond Land School
4. Rushel Rang?ala, 17, Cardinal Otunga High School Mosocho
Film Jury
1. Samantha Wangui, 8, Riara Road Primary School
2. Sauda Hamisi, 12, St Arnold Jansen School
3. Vanessa Wanjiku, 8, BuruBuru I Primary School
4. Wangari Mumbi Kiarie, 15, Kianda School
5. Vivian Atieno, 16, Annointed High School
6. Creative Journalism/Festival Press
7. Whitney Kerubo Otenyo, 13, Excel Academy
8. Antony Mukiri Chege, 12, Uthiru Primary School
9. Harun Muange, 15, Moi Forces Academy
10. Kathleen Siminyu, 15, Kianda School
11. Polet Njeri, 15, Alliance Girls High School
12. Mina Ogova, 11, Greenyard Junior School
Television Drama
1. Moses Siku, 22, Multi-Media University
2. Mitchelle Janga?ra, 18, Limuru Girls? School
3. Ken Mbugua, 26
4. Charles Thuku , 18
5. Catherine Kiambati
6. Anthony Micheni Metha
7. Janet Mose, 18
'); document.write('
Where Farmers Fear
'); document.write('Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:48:34 +0000
'); document.write('
BY SUDDHASATYA GHOSH, KOLKATA, INDIA (CINEMA MINIMA)-Vidarbha is a region in the state of Maharastra in India. Poor India, that is Bharat resides here for too long. This belt, which have mountain, river, plateau and plain, is consisted of mostly tribal peoples like Gonds and Korkus. Population distribution has been according to the topographical nature. Where it is steep and hazardous that is less populated and when river and fertile plain gives a comfort there is an increase in it. But the most important part of topography is soil structure. 75% of the land in Vidarbha has black soil which can be classified into three major categories like shallow black, medium black and deep black and rainfall is between 898.4 to 1314 mm annually. Coefficient of variability of rainfall is between 23-26% . This land has not developed in irrigation much and that has divided the pattern of crops. Well irrigated areas are small, but affords higher population (average of 150 persons per Km) who live by the support of Paddy agriculture . Cotton or millet crop supports the average of less than 100 persons per Km in less populated and less irrigated areas.

Cotton needs black soil. Once British colonial rulers had cotton from this land to the mills of Lancashire in cheap and made huge profit out of that. But the condition of farmers had hardly improved. Even after independence farmers were strangled time and again by the middlemen and money lenders. Various banks under the auspice of Indian government were supposed to support the farmers through loan for seeds, tractors or tilling means. But it almost remained in paper. Yet these farmers had continued their survival in a hard uncomplaining way. In the last few years situation had taken a dramatic turn. On 30th June, 2006 one Ramdas Ganpat Bhagat had committed suicide only to join his name in the list of more than 1600 farmers who died allegedly by being debt ridden. The then prime minister of India Mr. Manmohan Singh was supposed to visit that region at that time.

Ramdas took that poison actually which India took under the Congress regime by signing GATT. Prime minister of now a days India, MR. Manmohan Singh, was finance minister then. He was earlier an employee of World Bank. He lead the triumvirate that includes Mr. Pranab Mukharjee and Mr. P.Chidambaram to open up India to neo-liberal policies. In today’s Congress regime too Mr. Mukharjee is finance minister and Mr. Chidambaram is home minister of India. Mr. Singh has excelled to the post of Premiership. Trio is active and India is waiting to face the onslaught of another open up process.

Chandan Bhaduri, a David from West Bengal has taken up to fight this Goliath with a documentary ‘Where Farmers Fear’. He had been to Vidarbha at that period when one after another suicide were taking place. He strenuously investigated the whole causalities and came to a conclusion that India’s so-called liberal economy is responsible for this. Cotton exporter India has been reduced to a mino by the import syndrome. India and other developing countries are yet to open up the interim markets of United States of America and his allies. They has failed till date to pursue these big states to stop subsidizing their farmers,� whereas they themselves had to stop it immediately after signing the treaty. In India banks are playing to neo-liberal dictates and are not providing loans to farmers in most possible occasions. Thus they are being thrown to the hands of vulture money lenders who squeezes a steep interest from them. Governments, as usual, deny this and Chandan’s penetration in the heart of this issue proves that the government is lying.

In a part of his documentary we meet a village which is for sell in it’s entirety. It has no water, no electricity, no food, no health-centre or care. It had lands that are dry now. It had failed crops and broken inhabitants. One of them is sitting idly on road whom Chandan encounters. He vomits all his bitterness in a missive missile attack. He has lost hope. He now does not regard any institution or good will. It all seems a farce to him. This could have been the case of another state of India too. In Kerala farmers were doing almost the same thing. Coffee, a cash crop, had ruined them due to lack of rain and governmental policies. But the state of Kerala under the commission of Mr. Prabhat Patnayak, an economist who is noted for his anti-liberal stand, had combated it successfully. The Kerala government of Mr. Acchyutanandan had waived crores of rupee loans from the sagging shoulder of distressed farmers. They were using psychologists to strengthen the nerves of depressed farmers.

The Maharastra government under the leadership of Mr. Sharad Pawar, who is India’s minister of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Affairs, are sending so-called godmans to help farmers. This government is ready to provide outworldy solution rather than an actual one. Mr. Pawar and his party NCP (Nationalist Congress Party), a Congress ally, is backing government’s economical policies.� He himself is busy with the affairs of BCCI (Board of Cricket Control in India) and is prompt to announce a bulky prize money to players who will hit sixes in T20 tournament of IPL (Indian Premier League). He had been accused by oppositions in number of occasions in Chandan’s documentary as being hand in glove with Monsanto Corporation, the giant seed company whose genetic engineering and its business is under suspicion worldwide. The region of Vidarbha is facing the consequences of his act too. Resistances in the local levels are growing, but yet not so strong to derail the whole process of so-called liberalization.

Chandan’s movie has been an witness to all these varied and valuable truths.He himself is a man who has a defect in his walking. But surely he walks with his head held high. He has the courage to hold the mirror to a naked king. When he met that lonely, bitter fellow in the village which is ready for an outright sell, he asked him whether that fellow is satisfied with the governance. The man is intoxicated with local and cheap variety of alcoholic substance. He barely can stand. But after another burst of missives he asked in a clear and penetrating manner, “How we will live brother!”

That is the question India, that is Bharat and not signing, is asking for decades and no body from the ruling class is paying heed to that. Chandan Bhaduri, with his often slow fade in and outs and dissolves and often quick cuts, jump cuts is carrying these questions to an illuminating human documentation. This movie is one of the strongest and honest documentary made in India in the recent past and kudos to Chandan for that.
'); document.write('
Remixed Movies at the Open Video Conference
'); document.write('Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:03:17 +0000
'); document.write('
BY MARTIN LEDUC. TORONTO, CANADA (CINEMA MINIMA) — I got to help collect some of the videos that were playing throughout the Open Video Conference.� The conference took place on June 19-20, 2009.� It brought together an impressive collection of professional stakeholders involved with online video. Their aim was to bring video technology up to the standards of accessibility and decentralization that are currently available for blogs and other web tools.

For the video displays that were playing throughout the conference,� I collected 10 technically and artistically accomplished movie remixes that showcase the value of an open video environment.� The artists I chose take a wide range of� approaches to editing pre-existing movie footage.

Blogger, video remixer, and cultural activist Elisa Kreisinger also curated remix videos that demonstrate the political importance of fair use and open video standards.

You can visit www.totalrecut.com/openvideo to watch online versions of all the videos Elisa and I screened at the conference.
'); document.write('

Showcases and Awards

Workshops

The old market for independent films

The new market for independent films

Audience development

House of Film’s new strategy for a new market

Product Integration and product placement

Worldwide distribution under the House of Film brand

Fashion + Design + Filmmaking

A return to quality

Services offered by House of Film

Distribution under the House of Film label

U.S. Domestic distribution

Producer’s representation

Content management

Marketing

Technical

Production and creative development

Strategic alliances

Contact

Film Production

Event Organisation and Presentation/MC

Film Jury

Television Drama