The Real Pirates

I've been hoping for some time that I'd see a good spoof of the ridiculous ads the MPAA has been running about piracy. Today on BoingBoing, they linked to this great new video by Steve Anderson. Wish these would run in the "Twenty."

Amanda Congdon on Net neutrality

I meant to get this up earlier this week, but it's still relevant. Rocketboom has a nice edition on Net Neutrality. The Senate seems dead set on killing the internet. I won't go on and on about why you should care,as a full site has been put up for this purpose. Today, Senator Kerry put out a letter saying:

Free and open access to the internet is something all Americans should enjoy, regardless of what financial means they’re born into or where they live. It is profoundly disappointing that the Senate is going let a handful of companies hold internet access hostage by legalizing the cherry-picking of cable service providers and new entrants. That is a dynamic that would leave some communities with inferior service, higher cable rates, and even the loss of service. Not to mention inadequate internet service — in the age of the information.

This bill was passed in committee over our objections. Now we need to fight to either fix it or kill it in the full Senate. Senator Wyden has already drawn a line in the sand — putting a “hold” on the bill, which prevents it from going forward for now. But there will be a day of reckoning on this legislation soon, make no mistake about it, and we need you to get engaged — pressure your Senators, follow the issue, demand net neutrality and build-out.

SaveTheInternet has links for action - and take it today, because after July 4th, the Senate returns and simultaneously tries to kill the Net and figure out a way to allow Bush to get around the Supreme Court's orders yesterday that he act civilized on Guantanamo. Busy folks.

Four Eyed Monsters Invite

Great new invitiation from the 4 Eyed Monsters Folks - it's an ad, it's instructions, it's viral marketing...it's brilliant.

New York, NY - Cinema Village

Tuesday June 27th @ 7:30pm | Wednesday June 28th @ 7:30pm
Buy Tickets | Print B&W flier | Directions | Who is attending
Trailer | Video Podcast

NYC Losing Arts

A great email was sent out by Galapagos Arts Space today. In it they refer to ten performing arts spaces going out of business in New York, and how this is just the beginnings of a loss of emerging arts, and artists, from NYC.

As I've written elsewhere, this trend is also hitting the media arts, and the recent closing of AIVF can, in part, be seen as indicative of this change. Is the same trend mentioned by Galapagos starting to be seen in NYC's media landscape? We're probably in better shape due to the continued imnportance of NYC as a film town, even for Hollywood production. But, I would argue that what Robert of Galapagos mentions below could easily be seen occuring in the film world next. Perhaps filmmakers and media artists that call NYC home should start addressing this possibility now:


The original article is quoted almost entirely here, and is worth reading:

"The canaries in New York City’s real estate gold mine – the emerging arts – are no longer talking about the next show they hope to land, they’re talking about the next city they think they can land in once their current lease runs out. (...) Within the next few months, ten off-Broadway theaters will permanently close . The price of real estate has risen so far that, from a cultural point of view, in three to five years we’ll be experiencing a fundamentally different idea of what it means to live in New York City and be a New Yorker. City Hall must find ways to incentivize rebuilding the emerging arts infrastructure that’s evaporating in our white-hot real estate market, or it won’t be built.

(...)

In a New York too expensive to incubate young artists many of these best young minds will fly right past our exploding real-estate market and rezoned artistic neighborhoods to cultivate and grow cultural and economic opportunities in other, less expensive cities. It’s important to remember that these young artists have no loyalty to New York; they’re from places like Des Moines after all. Many in New York City believe that the vital underground of emerging artists’ environments is here to stay ‘just because’. This is wrong. New York doesn’t have to be the cultural capital of the emerging arts, or of the financial or the media industries for that matter, New York needs to continue to earn its place and it can easily price itself out of that role. London is only one of many capable cities who are very busy trying to beat us at our best industries.
(...)

The Future:

As more and more cities begin to understand the advantage they can place in their populations by proactively attracting the emerging arts and either establishing or buttressing their own creative economies, the bidding for our young cultural participants will begin. Smart cities will soon make New York based artists offers they’d be foolish to refuse, and cities like (gasp!) Philadelphia, Berlin, Pittsburg or London will get the most adventurous of them – the ones our meritocracy would obviously miss the most – if we can’t find effective ways to continue pooling them here, in our city."

What we need to do:

The cost of real estate is crushing the emerging arts. We’re about to see a huge exodus of emerging artists leaving new York for other, less expensive cities. To even think about retaining them we have to incentivize the creation of opportunity at the emergent level. And we have to create lots of it.

Why?

If emerging artists and the best young cultural thinkers can’t see themselves possibly affording to live here then we’d better find ways to make them think they can’t possibly afford to live anywhere else.

In the end only one-thing matters: good artists and the best young cultural thinkers follow ideas, and ideas flourish when and where there is opportunity to realize them. .

No one can roll back the cost of real estate or prevent small performance spaces from becoming chic little clothing stores, but to create so much opportunity in this real estate climate that we remain an effective cultural capital and not simply a wonderful museum city where art isn’t made, there are a number of questions that must be asked.

What can our City government do?
What can the largest cultural institutions do?
What can the foundation and funding community do?
What can the business community do?
What can our next Governor do?
What can you, the audience, do?

Robert Elmes
Director, Galapagos Art Space"

Filmmaker Julia Reichert’s Big Day

A quick shout out to wish filmmaker Julia Reichert Happy Birthday, and to congratulate her on getting to this day. (Okay, her birthday is June 16^th, but I had to post this a day early). As some of you probably read in IndieWire or heard through others, Julia found out in January at the Sundance Film Festival that she had cancer, and her doctors advised her to leave Sundance immediately and return home for treatment. Julia had been at Sundance with her partner in life and film, Steven Bognar to premiere their documentary A Lion in the House, a four-hour long film about kids and their families struggling with cancer (filmed over eight years). Since that time, many of us have kept up with them through emails that both she and Steven have been sending out chronicling her journey. It’s been harrowing, sad, honest and lately it’s been turning for the better - much better.

I’ve known Steven and Julia for years, having first met Steven at the Atlanta Film Festival in the early 1990s. I later met Julia at the same festival, and have always found them to be among the most genuine filmmakers I’ve ever met, not to mention quite talented. When I arrived at my current gig in New York, both of them had already received Fellowships from our organization, and it made me proud to have them in our roster even if I had nothing to do with their success. Their bios, from the NVR website:

Bognar’s documentaries and short narratives have screened widely at festivals and on television. He has produced feature films, taught media production and received several fellowships. Reichert has directed and produced both fiction features and documentaries, and teaches filmmaking at Wright State University, Ohio. She co-founded the film distribution co-op New Day Films and Film Fund, the predecessor of Independent Feature Project. They have collaborated on several films, often as producers, since the mid-1990s.

A Lion in the House has been playing at several festivals, and has won numerous awards, including Best Documentary at the Nashville Film Festival. It just ended a run at the Makor Theater in New York, and it premieres on Independent Lens on PBS on June 21 and 22^nd. I recommend you check it out.

Best wishes to Julia as she celebrates an important birthday!

AIVF Closing Shop

After several months of attempting to reverse their slide, AIVF sent an email out announcing that they will close the doors on June 28th. They do give word that some members are gathering soon to try to save the magazine and possibly relaunch the organization. My understanding is that some ex-board members (from long ago, I believe), and concerned members of the community plan to meet at the Flaherty Film Conference to discuss the demise of AIVF and see if they can figure out a way to relaunch it. In addition, as mentioned in the email, several groups are discussing with AIVF the possibility of at least taking on the magazine, The Independent, and keeping its focus of in-depth information and advocacy. (Full Disclosure: The group I run, NVR, has discussed this possibility, although we have no plans at this time).

I'm not sure, however, that trying to relaunch the organization is a good idea. As I described in an earlier post, AIVF is dying for a variety of reasons, and no one has been able to step forward and offer a plan for revitalization during the appropriate time - which would be the last five months of reorganization. Furthermore, part of AIVF's problems were due to having a board comprised mainly of filmmakers without much ability to raise funds. The group coming together sounds like more of the same.

It would possibly be much wiser for people to rally behind any of the numerous other groups that serve filmmakers, and that are also currently struggling, and help them transition. During the beginnings of the (public knowledge) of the AIVF crisis, several filmmakers gathered and made it clear that they didn't feel that any other organization was serving their needs. This is probably true, but organizations are really what their members make of them. If organization X isn't serving filmmakers needs, then their members (that means those of you willing to pay for the right to complain about them) should gather and force change. These organizations have to respond to their members needs, but they won't if those needs aren't articulated.

I continue to believe that even in this new age of media, where access is near ubiquitous and everyone seems to be a filmmaker, artists still need a group that can advocate on their behalf, serve their needs, get them information they can use and possibly help them get their films made and seen by more people. Such a group will undoubtedly need a stronger web presence, new business models and stronger commitment to its members, but the need is still there. Perhaps it's time for media artists to get more vocal about what they want and deserve.

Poor Glickman

Dan Glickman agreed to debate John Perry Barlow about movie piracy on the BBC. Didn't he know he'd end up looking really, really bad? You've gotta wonder sometimes about the advice given to the MPAA by their PR people. Read the full interivew here, or just my favorite snippet:

"JPB: I've got good news and bad news and good news. And the good news is that you guys have managed to buy every major legislative body on the planet, and the courts are even with you. So you've done a great job there and you should congratulate yourself.

But you know the problem is - the bad news is that you're up against a dedicated foe that is younger and smarter that you are and will be alive when you're dead. You're 55 years old and these kids are 17 and they're just smarter than you. So you're gonna lose that one.

But the good news is that you guys are mean sons of bitches and you've been figuring out ways of ripping off audiences and artists for centuries....."

I've never met Dan Glickman, but a friend has and they told me he's actually a nice guy. I've been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it appears he is hopelessly confused about the potential economics of the internet. Says Glickman:

"It is ridiculous to believe that you can give product away for free and be more successful. I mean it defies the laws of nature."

Well Dan, you should talk to Rick Prelinger at Prelinger Archives. He made all of his content available for free, and his sales increased more than 40% defying all laws of nature. Or check out one of the numerous studies showing that free availability of music has had zero statistical effect on music sales.

The MPAA is going to keep fighting this war, and keep losing, for quite some time. It would be interesting to see them take their collective heads out of the sand and think about the possibilities of addressing the changes due to the internet, instead of reacting in a manner that alienates their consumers.

Gatekeeper Survival Tactics

There's been a lot of talk lately about how new technology is leveling the playing field - from low cost cameras aiding production to new modes and methods of distribution. I've read and heard proclamations about how anyone can now distribute their content and that gatekeepers are going the way of the dinosaur. If you look at things like OurMedia, Revver, YouTube or Eyespot it does indeed seem that anyone can bypass the gatekeepers, or become one, easily now. While no one has made a business model that allows someone to make a living from putting their stuff online yet, all of us can imagine this potential.

And guess what? So can the gate-keepers, and they don't like the future they see. They are doing everything they can to maintain their control, and in addition to things like the recent Grokster case, or their ridiculous anti-piracy campaigns (which are all about control, not piracy), they are now trying to curb the freedom of the internet to maintain their business advantage. Cory Doctorow has a great post about how these companies are using the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to curtail the rising amount of video on the web, and to limit things to a few players. Essentially, they are trying to extend a broadcasting treaty onto the web. As such, they are making stronger DRM requirements, and giving web-hosts (broadcasters) the rights to anything they broadcast for the next 50 years. So, if you post a video on iTunes, Apple could then claim ownership to that video, and anything in that video including public domain footage. As he says:

"Virtually the entire world has opposed the extension of the broadcast treaty to the Web. Giving people who host Web-based audio/video a 50-year monopoly over the use of the copies they send out is just plain nuts...." and:

"The forest of hundreds of startups gets burned to the ground, and only a few old trees like Yahoo and Microsoft are left standing.

This is the same UN agency that created the DMCA and EUCD, the laws used to jail crypto researchers and shut out tech companies that want to make interoperable technology, that let the Church of Scientology and others censor web-pages by claiming that they infringe on copyright.

They're the most deadly enemies the Internet has.

They claim they're acting on your behalf."

The worlds of policy, intellectual property and global politics can seem hard to figure out, but it's not that difficult - it's just obscured. Keeping us in the dark is what keeps these companies in control. It's time filmmakers and their friends (audiences, fans and advocates) start paying attention to both the national and global policy debates, because otherwise you'll wake up in two years with less options for distribution than you have today. This isn't a joke - you may no longer have places like OurMedia to share your film for free, much less any new business model that let's you use the power of the web to skip the gatekeeper and go directly to your audience.

Net neutrality is bigger than just this issue, it also includes things like giving faster service to those who pay higher fees, insuring that iTunes (for example) gets video to you more quickly than some low-budget indie filmmaker. It means the internet may become more and more like a big, dumb television that just lets you find shows quicker and link to advertisors more easily. All of it is being decided now, in US and World courts, treaties and behind closed doors.

What can you do? Well, keep informed through places like Cory Doctorow's blog on BoingBoing, or even better sign up for the Free Press net neutrality coalition - Save The Internet - and get active. You can do so at this link.

Worse news - WIPO

If the news about the Smithsonian deal wasn't bad enough, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and others) have pointed out that under the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty being considered now, any public domain work used in this agreement could become copyrighted - and controlled - by Showtime for 50 years.

From EFF:

"If adopted, the WIPO treaty will give broadcasters 50 years of copyright-like control over the content of their broadcasts, even when they have no copyright in what they show. A TV channel broadcasting your Creative Commons-licensed movie could legally demand that no one record or redistribute it -- and sue anyone who does. And TV companies could use their new rights to go after TiVo or MythTV for daring to let you skip advertisements or record programs in DRM-free formats.

If that wasn't bad enough, the US contingent at WIPO is pushing to have the treaty expanded to cover the Net. That means that anyone who feeds any combination of "sound and images" through a web server would have a right to meddle with what you do with the webcast simply because they serve as the middleman between you and the creator. If the material is already under copyright, you would be forced to clear rights with multiple sets of rightsholders. Not only would this hurt innovation and threaten citizens' access to information, it would change the nature of the Internet as a communication medium."

It looks like the Smithsonian has (probably accidentally) just sold their public domain holdings to Showtime in addition to their other works. Now, in addition to a bum deal for indies who want to make a film using Smithsonian work, tons of public domain work would become the property of Showtime screwing the rest of us as well.

Smithsonian and Indies

The NYTimes had a great article this weekend on the potential problems arising from the Smithsonian’s recent decision to pact with Showtime to create Smithsonian Networks. Smithsonian Networks will develop television programming using Smithsonian Collections and staff, and appears to be part of a VOD package from which both Showtime and the Smithsonian will profit. The deal also creates a new “right of first refusal” over producers hoping to use the same resources. In other words, if you want to make a film using Smithsonian archival items or quotes from their staff, they could stop you by saying they may want to produce the same type of film.

This is a horrible threat to independent filmmakers. The article had quotes from famous filmmakers, such as Ken Burns, about how disastrous this could be for their filmmaking. But it’s not just heavyweights like Burns who are affected. Laurie Kahn-Leavitt, director of the film “Tupperware,” was told her film would have been denied under this pact. This deal let’s the Smithsonian decide on a “case by case basis” what films they will allow. What will be allowed? A spokesperson said that films with incidental and brief uses might be allowed, but the terms of the contract are confidential. In reality this means that if they think a film will be profitable, they won’t allow you to make it unless you work with them.

While I am usually all for collaborations between for-profit and non-profit organizations, such deals are risky when they work to the exclusivity of others. The Smithsonian is a public archive, it was established specifically to spread knowledge throughout the world. It’s archives are a public trust, and they are funded as such – 60% of their budget comes directly from the Government as Federal Appropriations and another 15% comes from Government grants. That means from you and your tax dollars. So, the Smithsonian is using our tax dollars to create a public archive and is now turning around and selling it under confidential terms that limit the rights of anyone else to use it for the public good.

This is absurd. It’s also something that groups like AIVF, IDA and IFP should be fighting as part of their mandate to help their filmmaker members. I haven’t spoken with any of them, and they may be planning to protest this action, but as I mentioned earlier, many of them are too cash-strapped to take on political action. Nevertheless, this is another example of an area where a strong support group for filmmakers could be of help –lobbying Congress, Showtime and the Smithsonian against this action. I haven’t see much press about this outside of Anthony Kaufman’s blog – so start telling your friends.

In the meantime, the political blog The Daily Kos has taken up the story and they have a great post which breaks down the entire situation, including a break-down of funding for the Smithsonian and links for Congress members and the Smithsonian’s Board. Here’s one place you can send complaints to:

Secretary Lawrence M. Small
Smithsonian Information
PO Box 37012
SI Building, Room 153, MRC 010
Washington, DC 20013-7012

Office of Public Affairs: (202) 633-2400

Thoughts on having an "Impact" with film

Increasingly, the foundation community is asking the question, how can we have more impact with film? Quite often they are focused only on social media, and the implications are twofold: first, that past efforts to have impact through film have not succeeded, and second, that impact means more than eyeballs – in other words, that audience size isn’t enough and that some larger change also must take place. Let us realize from the outset that the first assumption is completely false. The second assumption puts forth a proposition destined for failure, and one that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation of media to culture, the civic sphere and social change. That said, as many filmmakers and media organizations rely on foundation support, we must address this concern now, for although grounded in many false assumptions, the premise is ultimately true.

The independent media arts have had enormous social, cultural and political impact – but this story has been overlooked because it is one of baby steps and aggregate sums. The independent media movement started because individual artistic and socially important voices were absent from the media sphere. Today, independent media is ubiquitous and one could argue that it is one of the greatest success stories of arts and culture. We now have thousands of film festivals across the US, independent film has become so big that it is now referred to as “indiewood” and subjects that were once the purview of independent artistic voices are now mainstream. Aesthetic practices of the avant garde are so successful that advertising, Hollywood and even commercial news broadcasts mimic their techniques (albeit for different ends). Advances in technology and media literacy (or at least usage) have spawned an entire “amateur” culture of user-generated content that threatens business models. Training in media, once the purview of small, independent media arts centers, has resulted in films schools having more difficult entrance ratios than Harvard Medical School, and an entire for-profit cottage industry of training exists, with thousands of potential filmmakers spawned each year. The most popular traded files on the internet are now video files, and a large percentage are not Hollywood media.

Independent content has generated numerous television broadcast channels, led to syndicated television shows, and become a profitable sector for businesses who disseminate the work. The themes of the content are no longer just a niche industry – Hollywood is spending millions to duplicate themes that they used to never touch, and are seeing profitable results. And the world has changed as a result – innocent prisoners have been freed, films on global trade practices have changed global policy, election strategies have shifted in response to political films, entire social and political movements (MoveOn and house parties) have come about because of film marketing ideas. Independent films are helping to encourage society to ask key questions on the death penalty, the health care crisis, employment practices – the list is endless. Further, they lead us to question fundamental aspects of copyright law, licensing issues and net neutrality – all of which are essentially questions of control of content – but most importantly, the questions are being pushed most vigorously by the need for access to visual content.

It is also interesting to look at the impact of Hollywood movies. Billons are spent advertising these films, and their impact on culture is huge – financially, in the cult of celebrity worship and in how they shape our very goals as a society. But if one steps back for a moment, it is easy to see that their impact has also been incremental. For example, it has taken years of small steps to finally make a movie, Brokeback Mountain, that can show two lead gay characters and make money – but it still couldn’t win the Best Picture Academy Award ™. Politically, very few Hollywood films have individually made progressive, or other, social change. Good Night and Good Luck, a film on Edward Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy, should have sparked a timely national debate on the role of the press in exposing political inequality. There couldn’t be a better moment for this film to have an impact – our country is plagued with real, national events to spark a political movement for reform. The film was financed by Participant, Jeff Skoll’s company, with an explicit aim to make political change. The film has huge movie stars, deep pockets behind it, and indeed it made money, many people saw it, and the stars were on the cover of many a magazine and guests on many a show. Yet its net impact on policy, by any estimation, has to be considered nil. Nothing. We’ve heard Oscar speeches and press-recognition to the contrary, but beyond spawning a great Frank Rich article in the New York Times, no real change has come about.

I am being hard on this film – it has had an affect, but only as part of a cumulative process. Many such movies, coupled together, have subtle effects on our culture. The world knows about this additive effect, which is why many foreign countries try to limit the amount of Hollywood films that can show in their country – such as through the French “foreign exception” or outright censorship and bans. Indeed, the MPAA was formed to ensure two things: first, that Hollywood business continued to make money without outside threats, and second, that American values were spread like wildfire around the globe. It is also why Hollywood movies shy from tough subjects or trying to effect change – they can have a far greater effect through subtlety while also filling their cash registers.

Still, what do we mean by having an impact? We need to disambiguate the term. What does impact mean? Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 has had enormous social impact – millions saw the film. To this day, millions of people subscribe to Moore’s website and consequently become politically active in certain causes; millions of liberal, democratic voters watched the film and became even more cynical; democrats thought the hype around the film meant they were ensured of a backlash against Bush; millions of conservative voters voted for Bush because of the film. A variety of impacts. Likewise, MoveOn.org used to have a map on their website of what cities held house-parties for Robert Greenwald’s Uncovered: The Truth About the War in Iraq. It was supposed to show how far their reach was; unfortunately it coincided perfectly with the map of who voted with Kerry – their impact was on the “already converted.”

Something is working (baby steps, remember) because one of the more interesting changes – which should signal to the progressive community that something is working - is that those on the Right are copying the media movement of the Left and trying to finance, distribute and make social impact through media. You can see this in film festivals that launched this year devoted to conservative ideologies, and in Philip Anschutz’s company Walden Media, which makes media with “family values.” If the Right is copying the Left, why are progressive foundations convinced that the sky is falling? Perhaps because they feel the impact has not been big enough, or that it could be better. And here, they are correct. But, the problem has not been a lack of good ideas for having impact though media. Rather, it has been a refusal of the progressive community to fund, support and build new systems where it matters most – the dissemination of important media.

The Beginnings of Some Solutions

One can’t discount the power of knowledge. Audience – not just numbers of people but type of audience – is extremely important. Madison Avenue knows that to get someone to respond to a message, it must be ubiquitous – it must be everywhere and it must be repeated multiple times, for you may not be convinced to buy Crest Whitening Strips until the fiftieth time you’ve seen the ad. Advertisers also know that you must get to what are called trend-setters: that small group whose adoption of a clothing, product or lifestyle – or their political power to give a business an advantage – are a further key to mass impact. Translation: the number and types of eyeballs that see a film matter immensely.

Marketers know something further, and they are ruthlessly good at this – they know how to find out what the customer wants and what the customer doesn’t know they want but can be persuaded to desire. There is an old saying in the marketing world that a customer never desires a ¼-inch drill bit, they want a ¼-inch hole, and the drill bit is the tool that gets them what they want. Home Depot profits not because it markets drill bits, but because it offers tools to fit your needs. No one necessarily needs a tooth whitening strip – but they do want acceptance, a perception of beauty and ultimately love. Marketers know this, so they created a product that would fill these needs. Filmmakers then, should focus on what the audience wants; or, be willing to use the knowledge of what they want to make them think they want what you’ve got. Translation: The audience matters, and filmmakers need to start giving them the tools they need to get what they desire – which can also be of social import. Hollywood does this already. Independent films should start doing it more.

Last, marketers have discovered that customers want what they want when and where they want it, period. This “get it when/where I want it” attitude translates to pre-made peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, drinkable and unspillable soups for the car, and myriad other products. Coupled with digital technology, this attitude is responsible for the spread of the iPod (one of the clunkiest interfaces ever, but a quick way to get to the song you want), TiVo (watch your show when you want it); and Slingbox (watch your media from your computer anywhere). Translation: There is no question that release windows will shrink, and possibly disappear, and filmmakers (and distributors) should be welcoming the change as it means more audience and more impact.

Independent media has, with few exceptions, ignored the lessons that Madison Avenue and Hollywood have mastered. As mentioned above, independent media has been successful at times, and amazingly so considering its failure to utilize these tools, but overall its greater “impact” has been small. New technologies, new business models, rethinking and application of time-tested methods – all of these are needed to increase the impact of independent film. In my next article, I will suggest some of the changes needed, and try to give a more nuanced definition of the term “impact” as it applies to independent media.

AIVF Reinvention

I mentioned in a previous post that AIVF was among many nonprofits having some trouble. A couple people commented that they would hate to see them go, while some others seemed to feel it was about time. Well, for those of you interested in their survival, I suggest checking out their website soon. They are gathering members and supporters for some "reenvisioning" of the organization, are creating a new business plan to move forward and are looking for help raising funds. Give 'em some love y'all.

MacroCinemas...One Idea

During the time I was posting my last entry, I ran across a blog thinking about similar issues - Self-Reliant Filmmaking, by an old filmmaker acquaintance Paul Harrill. We exchanged some emails and links (see bottom of last post), and his most recent post essentially posits one possible scenario in response to the problems I've listed about filmmakers finding an audience (side note: he did this on his own, not in response to this blog, but it fits as an answer regardless).

Paul has proposed a MacroCinema network - an non-hierarchical system to build a circuit of microcinemas that filmmakers could tour. It's a great idea, and one that I've heard proposed before (once by Jem Cohen, an artist who has travelled to many a microcinema), but I think his blog is the first one that's trying to collectively build a workig system for such a network.

I think this is only one of the systems we need to think about building, but a great start. It would be even better if the organizers and programmers of regional film festivals would think this creatively; same goes for arthouse programmers; museum and gallery curators and the like. Our end goals should all be the same - to help filmmakers reach a broader audience (and maybe someday earn a living while doing so) and to help audiences find films which are usually not easy to see. Some cooperation will be key, but I think there's room for collaboarations along with actual business models - all of which accomplish the same tasks and that aren't mutually exclusive. In the meantime, I'm glad at least one other blog is thinking about these issues. If anyone knows of others, please bring them to my/our attentio in the comments. Thanks.

Festivals and Distribution

Today, too few independent films reach a broad audience, and despite some signs to the contrary, the situation is worsening. Outside of a few successful instances, truly independent work by exciting makers remains largely in the realm of film festivals, limited theatrical runs and institutional sales, brief (if any) exposure on cable or broadcast television and the extremely rare success on home video. In spite of — and often because of — recent developments, including the DVD, the distribution system for independent media remains in crisis, with few films successfully reaching a broad audience.

Although generally made with the goal of connecting to audiences in person, few films are picked up for distribution that involves screening for live audiences outside of a few select cities. For-profit distribution companies often release a film in a few major cities (New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco), but do not see reaching a larger theatrical release as cost-beneficial, and often rely on a home-video sale to make profit. Non-profit distributors have generally survived by relying on institutional sales as a business model. These distributors argue that efforts to reach individual consumers would erode their institutional base, and that they actually reach more individuals through institutions than they would by marketing directly to consumers. While this approach does get smaller films to a market, it leaves the vast majority of consumers unaware that such films exist or how they could purchase or rent one.

It has become obvious that the market for a diversity of voices has grown over the past several years, as evidenced by the success of blogs and the recent success of several documentaries. American audiences hunger for diverse, interesting work and are connecting with it in new ways. At first confined to major cities, film festivals of one form or another began to pop up in towns across the U.S. (and internationally) more than 30 years ago. These smaller, less internationally recognized film festivals have become the de facto art house circuit, often screening works in conjunction with local film societies. General audiences have prospered culturally by having more access to a wider range of films than ever before. Unfortunately, this type of exhibition leaves the filmmakers well-traveled but none the richer for their efforts.

The proliferation of festivals highlights two interesting items – that an audience exists nationally of consumers who want to connect to exciting independent and artistic films, and that festival screenings may be the best way to place a film into the cultural consciousness and promote a film. At festivals across America one can often hear the same question during the Q&A – how can I purchase this film? The common answers are either “We hope to get a distributor soon —check back with this festival soon to find out how to buy it” or “Our distributor only makes it available to institutions.” This means that filmmakers are letting a captive audience of anywhere from 50-800 potential impulse purchasers go home empty-handed. Few will care once they’ve left the theater to follow up with the distributor or the film festival. This cycle is repeated in numerous cities, with neither the filmmaker nor the potential or existing distributor taking immediate advantage of the “buzz” of the film on the festival circuit. In fact, they will end up spending much time and money trying to re-create the film’s buzz, most likely never recapturing the audience’s attention.

What if the same filmmaker could sell copies of their film at the festival? What if filmmakers handed out postcards to the audience, with a website where they could buy or rent the film and recommend it to a friend? What if they did this in every city they visited and mentioned the website every time they were interviewed? One can imagine a small success for a filmmaker who took this approach. Why do so few filmmakers and/or distributors do so? Because it doesn’t fit the model of the release window — a model that only works for a small number of films. Additionally, few filmmakers want to put their energies behind distribution of their film — generally, they want to make another film. Many distributors work with festivals as publicity for a theatrical release, or sometimes to allow filmmakers to satisfy their desire to connect with audiences before an institutional release on DVD. Almost none have made a concerted effort to use these festival screenings as nontheatrical tours of work, to help spur DVD sales. Even fewer filmmakers have taken this strategy, with most hoping that a festival tour will help them find a distributor, instead of helping them find an audience.

We now need a more systematized, comprehensive approach that uses film festivals as a tool to help filmmakers profit from their filmmaking - or at least to be able to make a living at it. DVD, film festivals and the internet have transformed the way audiences interact with independent material, but no one distributor, and very few filmmakers, have yet effectively addressed these changes. The independent film sector is in dire need of a distribution system that recognizes these new realities and devises a comprehensive, duplicable method for distributing such content to a wider audience.

I'll post some ideas about this in my next post, but in the meantime, a similar thread has begin at Self-Reliant Fimmaking, which I suggest you check out.

Maintaining control through DRM

Kathryn Cramer has an interesting post about DRM as the "new killer app for corporate authorship.". As I've mentioned before, and as many others have known, the war on internet piracy has nothing to do with lost profits, but everything to do with maintaining control. While there may be some merit to the argument that pirated DVDs sold on the streets of New York (for example) contribute to lost sales, good studies have shown that the effect of internet piracy is nil. By arguing that piracy is hurting their bottom line, however, big media can now convince Congress and the Courts to install DRM software that enables them to control what gets made and distributed. Don't believe the hype - this is just another way to make sure that in the future, the media you share will be bought from the same people as today. A long time ago, before most people started thinking about using OurMedia.org to distribute content, Hollywood figured out that user-generated-content could be bad to their bottom lines and watermarking and other DRM is a way to re-professionalize media such that user-generated-content falls to the wayside.

......subMedia: Erasing Eminem

Great (relatively) new video by Franklin Lopez over at SubmediaTv.com which mashes up Ipod Ads, Iraq images and Eminem. In his own words:
THE SHORT STORY: A video Mash-Up/Re-Mix, whatever, of the Eminem Ipod TV ad. We replaced Eminem with Iraq war images, and added new lyrics to the instrumental version of 'Loose Yourself'. The clip was inspired by ForkScrew's 'Iraq' posters. Watch it at:......subMedia: Erasing Eminem


Submedia has been making some amazing mash-ups of video, and he's right in the thick of the rising trend of video sampling, which is about to shake the video world more strongly than it did music. More on this soon.

The end of an era?

The situation in the world of nonprofit media arts centers has never been more dire. In the past few years, we have seen the closing of several important media centers - Boston Film/Video being just one. Now, AIVF is having some trouble, and while I can't speak to the actual situation at any one center, it is no secret that there has been turmoil and/or massive change at Film Arts Foundation, IDA, IFP (and some of its sister orgs), Film/Video Arts...the list could go on and on, and doesn't even consider what were once strong regional media centers that are also now close to crumbling. While none will admit it, nearly every nonprofit media center and/or media arts service organization is near death.

Several factors have led to this situation. First, and most importantly, the field has been largely abandoned by its traditional support structure - Government and Foundations. All of these centers began in the early 1970's with strong support from precursors of and then the NEA. For many years, additional and substantial support came from the foundation community. NEA money began to disappear during the culture wars, although they still make some grants to these institutions. Foundation support began to dry up in the mid 90's and is shrinking rapidly.

The loss of Foundation support has been particularly painful and unfortunate. As Foundations priorities have shifted, they have switched from general operating support (money to be used as the nonprofit saw fit, essentially) to program support, or money that can only be spent on certain initiatives. Witness the explosion of youth media a few years ago - yes, cameras got cheaper and people wanted to train youth, but the youth media movement was largely started by a few program officers at a handful of foundations. Nonprofits, always desperate for money, shifted their entire programs into youth media, and guess what? When those program officer's whims changed and the money dried up - these center's programs began to die. Currently, the foundation community seems to feel that it is no longer necessary to fund the majority of media centers unless they are working on a handful of issues that fit the current trends in foundation support. To make matters worse, foundation support for the arts is declining in all sectors, so these media center's must look elsewhere for support.

While the foundation community needs to take some of the blame, so do the nonprofits themselves. All of these centers have been underfunded for years - most have operating budgets under 1 million, in fact, most have budgets under $500,000. Their staffs often make much less than $30,000 a year, many work part-time, with hourly wages that are below national averages. This has meant that each center has a hard time attracting talented individuals to the field and/or retaining them. On top of this, the staff and leadership of these organizations feel a strong demand for the work that they do - they hear from their membership constantly about the value of their programs. So, they are reluctant to cut programs, cut staff or make change. As a result, many are going under because they can't make the drastic changes necessary to survival. The sky has been falling for years, since at least 1995, and leadership wasn't able or willing to see the big picture and affect massive change.

Too, there is much overlap in the field. When I was in Atlanta, at least five groups started - within four years - whose missions overlapped with that of IMAGE Film & Video. Which meant competition for the same limited funds, all to do essentially the same job - to serve filmmakers and their audiences. The situation is the same nationally, and remains so. The field needs to consider consolidation, sharing of resources (especially back office type functions) and yes, even mergers as appropriate.

Nonprofit media centers are also being killed by an essential part of their own structure - their board of directors, mandated by law. Almost every single center has a board that consists of filmmakers, friends of film and people who love the mission, but very few people who can raise money. No nonprofit can survive this way - you have to have board members who can "Give, Get or Get off" - give money, get money or quit. The board of most of these organizations refuse to give or raise money, and they've also been ineffective at seeing the big picture and forcing policy changes to change their organizations for the future. Essentially, most of these boards have been building their resume while suffocating the field.

Last, those centers that are dying can essentially be categorized as those who didn't recognize and shift to the changing nature of the field due to digital technologies. Media artists today don't often need (or don't think they need) cameras, edit systems, markets, magazines and the like. Things are different. What they do need are a community in which to connect, advocacy for policies that affect them, good information they can use, money to make their work, and new ways to distribute it. These can all be found or developed online, and these centers haven't made the shift. Let's face it, if these nonprofits had been thinking of the future, there would have been no need to start an indieWire, ShootingPeople or an Ourmedia.org or the like. Not that these aren't great developments, but that they were created out of a void that shouldn't have existed.

Many people will say, well, perhaps they don't need to exist anymore, their time has run out. Why does it matter if we lose places like AIVF? Because they have been and could be the lifeblood of this field. I will speak in terms of could be, because even those that used to be relevant no longer are. If media centers can repurpose, and take into account technological changes, they could be a central hub for media artists to connect - to find crew, to find out how to solve technical issues with their gear, to share their media, to get advice on distribution agreements, contracts and the myriad needs everyone has, especially when they first start.

Major policy changes are being proposed that will forever affect media artists' ability to create and distribute their work - and we need an advocate who can speak on our behalf, as a group, to get what we need. At one time, groups such as AIVF advocated so strongly that ITVS was formed to help independents. As many producers are now opening their contracts with ITVS and finding things they can't accept, they need a group that through sheer membership numbers can advocate on their behalf to change these contracts. Places like AIVF could lobby not just government, but also corporations to change policies (such as archival footage pricing) to better serve our needs.

When the MPAA (and others) can shut down a technology that could help independents distribute their films without a gatekeeper (Grokster), and can claim that technology is only good for piracy (a blatant lie), filmmakers need someone who can tell them the truth and fight the MPAA to ensure our films remain distributable through the new technologies. Make no mistake about it - the gatekeepers want to maintain their control, and without places like AIVF, there will be no one to stand up and fight on behalf of the "little" filmmakers.

Want cheaper health insurance? AIVF. Want to make sure you can upload your short to the internet as fast as Fox can, and that it can be found? Laws are being considered to make sure you can't - and AIVF could fight them. Want to ask someone whether a contract you've been given for distribution of your film is fair? Want to find out how to raise money for your film? Just moved to a new city, and simply want to find a home with others like you - creative people making media - and connect to help each other make films? These are all made possible through places such as AIVF, and when they die, our culture and our society will be worse for it.

The stumbling of the Boston Film and Video Foundation should have been seen as the canary in the mineshaft - the first sign of systemic change for the worse. AIVF's troubles, and I am hopeful they will rise above them, are just the next in a line of possible futures. It is not melodramatic to see this as another ominous sign. What's going to happen to smaller, nonprofit distributors, especially as many of their leaders near retirement? What about places like Anthology Film Archives, one of the only places caring for experimental film? PBS is under serious attack and simultaneously has no clue as to what it should do in the future. What would happen if both ITVS and POV disappeared? Most remaining arthouse cinemas are nonprofit, and most festivals are as well, where will your film show if they collapse next? Not at Regal, and possibly not even on the web.

Yes, we have some great new possibilities - ITunes, indieWire and SF360, BitTorrent and the like. We also have some growing for-profit film festivals such as Tribeca and SXSW, and channels such as IFC, Sundance and VOD services such as Here. But these are corporate entities, they are beholden to their shareholders, not to the needs of the independent community. Even those with good intentions, such as indieWire, can't take on all that a place like AIVF could offer - it's beyond their means or their own mission. Only a place with the public good in mind can serve our needs as media artists.

With increasing consolidation of the media, a very real and silent push by corporations and governments to limit the ability of smaller individuals (such as an independent filmmaker) to create and disseminate their work through the new technologies and with an increasingly limited sphere in which an independent can make their work and profit from it - there has never been a greater need for places like AIVF. There has never been a time of greater need for a strong system of national and regional support for the field, through places such as AIVF, Film Arts Foundation and others like them in this sector - and yes people, they are all near death. If you want any of them to survive, get involved now - whether through money or ideas, because otherwise I predict 2006 will be the year the nonprofit media movement dies. The definition of independent is debated regularly, but could soon just mean one thing: alone.

Patriot Act and Creativity

Reuters reports that NYC is being sued by Indian filmmaker Rakesh Sharma who was arrested and detained for four hours for filming the streets of New York. While not mentioned in any of the press that I have seen, this is not the first filmmaker to be stopped by the police for filming - just the first to file suit. Filmmaker Jem Cohen has been stopped numerous times for taking Super-8 footage of bridges and structures in New York, and he was pulled off an Amtrak train for shooting footage through the windows - a creative practice he has done for years.

Jem told me once that when he brought this to the attention of the New York Times, they told him that their photographers are stopped evey day by the police, so it wasn't news. I'm sorry, but that in itself is news. Artists and others are being stopped from practicing their art, reporting on news or simply practicing a hobby to "stop terrorism."

Recently, Creative Capital held a day-long seminar on the effects of the Patriot Act on creativity. I'll post more soon on the conversation, but it's not pretty - artists being arrested, organizations being asked to check terrorist lists before giving grants to artists, the list goes on and on.

Possible Media Futures

Just under a year ago, I was asked by a foundation to write a brief memo about my thoughts on the future of media. I have posted it here , with some edits, to get some conversation going on this blog about this subject.

THE POSSIBLE FUTURE(S) OF MEDIA ARTS

“Access is, after all, about determining kinds as well as levels of participation. It’s not a question of who gains access but rather what types of experiences and worlds of engagement are worth seeking and having access to. The answer to that question will determine the nature of the society we will create for ourselves in the twenty-first century.” Jeremy Rifkin

“Media” means many things today and the definition constantly changes. In thinking about the future of media, this blog will focus on developments in the media arts — a mix of commercial endeavors and “independent” media, including social documentaries, animation, video games, Hollywood films, experimental films, journalistic videos, educational media, video installations — virtually anything that incorporates motion media using film, digital media or computer-based formats. The media arts include works that entertain and educate, and serve the public good by allowing individual and multiple alternative voices and ideas to be heard.

This is a pivotal moment in the history of media arts, a time filled with possibility and uncertainty, but most of all, promise. Simultaneously, there are concerns, both old and new, that threaten to undermine the possibilities. To best address the future of media arts and its promise to contribute to a civil, democratic society, one needs to keep in mind all of the changes and contradictions inherent in the technological advances that affect their production, dissemination and use.

THE PRESENT POSSIBILITIES

Historically, broad uptake of the media arts has been affected by concerns in three areas: production (the cost of making media); distribution (getting the work out to the public); and policy (concerns, such as copyright, that impact the use of media arts). Media artists have never lacked for ideas or subjects, but they have lacked the resources (financial and otherwise) to create their work, reach their audience and still make a living. Advances in technology provide tools that allow for easier production, dissemination and use of media. With increasingly affordable and available tools of production (cameras, editing systems and computers), artists and amateurs alike can create media more readily, which has led to an exponential increase in production worldwide. Technology also allows one to create new art forms and new forms of knowledge. For example, Open Source software technologies are changing the ways in which media is produced and consumed by promoting a vision of the world where knowledge, in all forms, is open, accessible, and even changeable by all.

Matching the exponential increase in the number of media projects produced are advances in distribution modes. Multiple platforms for the delivery of media arts now exist — whether through film festivals or art house cinemas, galleries or nightclubs, over broadband networks, on cable, through Netflix, on DVD or over the web. Artists have more ways to reach audiences than ever before. Increasingly, the disenfranchised, poor and excluded are gaining access to the means of production and to their share of the world’s audiences (via increasingly universal, cheap broadband WiFi), although certainly a digital divide persists.

Many theorists have worried that such ubiquity is a problem: that due to the cacophony of multiple voices, audiences will have difficulty finding alternative visions. Nevertheless, technology and other recent trends promise some solutions. Social networks, fan websites and blogs have formed around almost any topic or interest imaginable. Recommender systems, and search technologies like Video.Googleor iTunes allow the public to find the visual content they want, and technologies such as BitTorrent will allow individuals to subscribe to video content much as they subscribe to newspapers. The true merger of the Internet and television could allow greater consumer access to content. And all of this can happen on a global scale: the same technology that allows a well-to-do New Yorker to download a music video from the Internet over a latte allows indigenous workers in Colombia to spread word of their resistance efforts through digital video shared over cheap wireless networks.

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES

Of course, technology doesn’t solve every problem — indeed, it has the potential to shut down the very openness it brings. It can spread terror or piracy as easily as children’s programming. As theorist Siva Vaidhyanathan has pointed out, technology points the way to both anarchy and oligarchy, but real possibility lies somewhere in-between. At this crucial moment, the field and its supporters must tackle the possibilities in such ways that allow the media arts to help us envision a better world. Some of the primary issues and challenges that need to be faced in the present to prepare for the future are listed below.

The Digital Divide
True, as the costs of certain new technologies decline, those with less purchasing power have more access to technology, yet the digital divide persists. Perhaps more troubling than exclusion from physical access to technology is that the poor and excluded continue to be left out of conversations about policy, technological change and the arts, resulting in an ever-growing divide of exclusion.

The fact that the means of production have gotten cheaper simultaneously creates a problematic paradox for the arts: the majority of media artists working today must still spend large sums of money to make their art. While some work can be made cheaply, others remain costly endeavors due to the extensive research, expert opinion, talented actors or the high production values that are expected and demanded by a more media-savvy audience. Many artists have a hard time convincing funders (whether investors or donors) to allocate the resources necessary for quality media production, much less to fund a living wage.

Dissemination

Audiences have more access to more diverse media arts than ever before, but large bodies of work remain inaccessible to large segments of the public. A geographic divide persists, with few noncommercial works screened outside of major cities, and while the number of foreign films being produced is exploding, the ubiquity of American media overshadows them. Additionally, valuable cultural heritage is being lost: much media is disappearing from public access because archives often can’t afford to convert it to the digital formats that would allow for its safekeeping and dissemination.

The distribution system for independent film and video is in dire need of new paradigms. Many worthy films do not receive proper distribution due to a crowded marketplace, unimaginative distributors locked into old methods, or a lack of funding for proper dissemination. While the Internet promises new delivery mechanisms, many films and new media works are made for (and thrive in) a live, public audience. Unfortunately, reaching these audiences remains difficult, as many artists don’t have the knowledge, the funding or the tools to distribute their own work, or must settle for distribution systems that are less than satisfactory.

Policy Issues & Changing Business Models

Numerous policy battles are currently taking place that could forever change how society participates with media — in spectrum policy, copyright, media ownership and digital rights management, to name but a few. For example, the balance of copyright has shifted away from the public good to over-control by rights holders and the increasing issue of expiring rights is limiting the distribution of important work (as with the landmark civil rights documentary series Eyes on the Prize). No one’s interests are served when media is “stuck on the shelf” in both non-profit and for-profit archives because it’s too expensive to clear rights for extended use, and a balance must be found that benefits both media rights holders and users. In addition, business models are changing radically — or sometimes fail to change with the times, thus choking off new avenues. Many companies claim to be fearful of piracy or losing markets, but many resist change only because it threatens their (now antiquated) business model.

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
To address these challenges and to have the greatest societal impact, the field needs to think of innovative, transformative ideas. The arts should be the place to experiment with new models, and to envision new possibilities for the future, whether through newly invented technologies or new uses for existing technologies. Creative thinking in the media arts could have impact beyond the field, and possibly set new paradigms for other arts and for society.

Research, Policy, Advocacy and Education
There is great need for continued research, mapping, convening and policy work. The field needs the data to show the problems (such as lack of diversity), and the advocacy to ensure good policy decisions. There is also a need to convene around the multiple issues facing the media arts: What can be done collaboratively to broaden the reach of socially important media? In light of new developments, what directions are most central? Who is not being served? What can be learned from other fields? Last, there is still a need for education — of gatekeepers, of artists and of general publics — in the importance of media arts; in the value of media artists’ contributions to society; in the craft, technology and business of media arts; in its distribution and in media literacy. Through such work, the field can encourage broader support for and public understanding of the value of media arts.

Distribution
There are new models for dissemination, including alternative distribution and marketing strategies, new exhibition avenues, direct video sales and ever-increasing home video (DVD) markets. Systemization of festival screenings, web-based networks and new distribution strategies could get the work to broader audiences than ever before. The field needs knowledge sharing — strategies, stories, case studies and experiments focused on distribution and dissemination. Citizens need assistance in building communal media experiences where individuals and groups can connect, learn from and utilize media for social change or educational purposes. What if audiences could coalesce at a website for documentary films, talk about and recommend media, and even contribute video-blog feedback on what they have seen? What if they were engaged in a conversation with this media instead of being “fed” such media? Leaders in the field must think of what the public wants and deserves, and work together to make that happen so that audiences can find and use this important media. As a result, media artists will prosper, by finding new audiences for their work.

New Financing Models
The media arts need innovative funding models that validate artists, help them attract new sources of funding, and help them find and reach the broadest possible audiences. New strategies could be found in novel approaches to the venture capital model, or with open source and social networking advances. For example, an online, audience-driven fund for progressive media arts could enable individuals, foundations and investors alike to support a variety of work. The Internet provides great potential to encourage individuals to become art patrons rather than mere consumers. Most of all, funders need to support creative experiments, where new knowledge and thinking may help expand the field. Many funders are experimenting with ways to get money, services and advice into the hands of artists. Such funds may come from multiple sources, but collaboration could be encouraged to leverage investments to most benefit artists and society.

Furthermore, boundaries between commercial and noncommercial media are disappearing, and are increasingly irrelevant to creators and consumers of content. Many people theorize that successful future strategies in media arts will come from combining the assets of the for-profit and non-profit sectors to realize both financial and social profits. This new space, perhaps called with-profit (as in social goals with profit potential), promises a rich field for exploration. What if with-profit organizations funded socially important work that will receive commercial distribution, thus reaching broader audiences that aren’t commercially attractive to the for-profit community? What if a with-profit developed a rights-licensing system that allowed creators and rights-holders to be compensated based on actual usage while simultaneously increasing public access? Perhaps the greatest potential for increasing the impact of media arts lies in with-profit ideas.

Conclusion
These potential solutions, while not all-inclusive, suggest some of the work that remains to be done. Society will benefit most from a multi-faceted strategy that considers these options alongside methods that are already working. Most of all, the field needs to continue to discuss the “big picture” and imagine possible futures for society. Every new technological advance in the arts has brought us closer to realizing the ideals of a civil society. Each time, there has been a chance to realize dreams —of technology allowing everyone to share and build knowledge, of a more democratic society where everyone could be producers, not just consumers, where multiple viewpoints could be shared and, in general, where the world could be a better place. Each time, such possibilities have been squandered due to a lack of vision about the future, the forces of greed, the power of the few over the many and the simple fact that technology never quite realizes its potential. Once again, society has been given a set of tools, none perfect, that can help realize our dreams, if we are willing to imagine the possibilities and act soon to ensure their success. All that we need is in front of us. Will we act upon it, or let this chance slip away once again?