Who’s not wearing swim trunks, or: Film is a bad business

You can spend a lot of time online and off keeping up with all the changes being wrought by all things digital. You know, it has pretty much ruined the business models for print, music and now film and all that (I’m going to refer to digital as an it for the sake of this post). It’s also been responsible for new production methods, new distribution methods and is likely changing a bit about how we can tell stories. That’s cool and all (or horrific, depending on your vantage point), but to me the single biggest effect of digital has been the transparency it has brought to everything. Warren Buffett has said, regarding the economic collapse, that one doesn’t see who’s really wearing the swim trunks until the tide goes out.

Well folks, digital has behaved like the Moon and brought out the tide in the film world and we can now see that pretty much the entire business is naked as a jaybird. More importantly, however, it always has been this way, especially for indies. As a noted filmmaker once said to me in regards to all of this - well, yes, it’s always been rape and pillage, but now it’s much more apparent.

Selling your film - when is the best time?

The Conversation took place this week in NYC, and while the entire event was great (kudos to the organizers) and I learned a bit, had some great conversations and even found some inspiration, I was also left scratching my head. How can we, as a field, get something so collectively wrong as the notion of film festival premieres and audience awareness? Thomas Woodrow, a producer who I admire, stated on one panel that you needed to sell your film at the point of its maximal awareness, and that for Bass Ackwards, that was clearly at Sundance (paraphrasing). Joe Swanberg said something to this effect regarding his decision to do a simultaneous premiere at SXSW and on IFC. We’ve seen these experiments at multiple festivals now, and will continue to see more. As currently conceived, all of them will fail.

Let me be clear - I am not critiquing IFC, the filmmakers or the festivals for experimenting - we need more of that. I also like all of them. I’m also sure that some of them would argue with me over what constitutes a failure, and I’m sure some of them will make some money, possibly even good money. That said, we’ll never know how much they might have made with a different strategy. My argument here is really with the notion that a premiere at a major festival is your point of maximal awareness. It’s not, never has been and never will be, unless such festivals do a lot of re-visioning of what they are and how they operate.

My conversation(s) at the Conversation

This weekend, I’ll be speaking on a panel at The Conversation, a great event that has apparently sold out. My panel is about new ways of thinking about film festivals, screenings and DVD. The panelists joining me are great - Robert Bahar, Ira Deutchman,  Bob Hawk and Mitch Teplitsky, and we’ve been emailing and hope to offer some good thoughts on new ways to make all of these work together for greater exposure, impact and hopefully, revenues. I’ll also be moderating a session where four social media experts talk a bit about new trends and then workshop audience member’s projects. I’m looking forward to that, as I think panels should, like culture today, become more participatory.

During lunch, I’ll be hosting a discussion on best practices for building robust audience engagement. What does that mean? This is the brief description I offered the organizer, when planning the talk:

Building robust audience engagement - Everyone is (finally) talking about audience engagement, but how can we enable more robust audience engagement? What happens when we think about engaging audience from the script stage, or allow them to interact at the story level? This discussion will focus on best practices and new ideas for building deep audience engagement.

I’ve been getting frustrated lately that most of our talk, mine included, around engagement has been in limited ways - crowd-funding, audience building (followers/fans) and at times, getting active with some issue in the film, usually if it’s a doc. Some transmedia types go further and try to engage the audience in the story in multiple different ways. Good transmedia types are even doing this from the beginning and letting the audience interact with the story, and maybe even change it. As filmmakers begin (ok, I know a few who’ve been doing this for a long time) to think more about audience engagement, they’ll need to think about this as well. What happens when you let the audience have more control? I’ve spoken to many filmmaker who are horrified at this thought - they want to be the auteur and maintain all artistic control. Sure enough, there’s also good reason to wonder about the aesthetic quality of such projects. There’s also, however, much potentially to be gained. New things might happen that we don’t expect, new story forms might be developed and something creative might take place. It will also likely increase audience engagement and perhaps that in itself will build larger audiences. I’m not sure what will happen, but I’m interested in discussing it, and if you are too, then join me at lunch.

A second part of the conversation is much more basic. If we want to engage audiences more with our projects, what might be some best practices. I’ve been reading a bit of Nina Simon’s book, Participatory Museums (you can read it online free) and she does a great job of analyzing what attributes help make something more participatory. In chapter one, for example, she lays out different types of participants, from those who don’t at all, to the most active ones and gives real world examples of ways to get people to move from “me to we,” or to become more actively engaged with a project. (You can read about it here, I’ll probably blog more in-depth about it later, and that chart above is from her site) I’m hoping to discuss how her ideas about participation in museums might work in thinking about films and storytelling. I’d also just like to hear about successful examples from others at the conference. So, if any of these subjects interest you....join us.

My presentation for BAFTA Scotland

Here's the Slides from my recent presentation in Glasgow, Scotland for Scottish Students on Screen, a program of BAFTA Scotland. For those of you who've seen my other presentations, this one won't be really new - it combines a few things from multiple different presentations, but it does add a few new things near the end. I always post these, however, so that people don't have to take notes on links, etc which are all embedded in the presentation. The entire day was great, with many other good speeches, including one from Anita Ondine and from Peter Mullan.

Glasgow - Inventing the Future

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

Re-thinking impact in film

I recently attended a think-tank, strategy session for an independent documentary filmmaker trying to have meaningful impact with his film. He did a smart thing - gathering about 30 really smart people (plus me, somehow) to talk about having an impact with film. This got me thinking about this question generally, and while this filmmaker was coming from the right place on this, I generally have a problem with this whole question. I have been thinking about this sense, and it led me back to a post I made on this blog in 2006. There might be one or two of you who read me now, but I figured most of my readers are new (the rest having left from all these long posts), and I think this post is still pretty relevant.  Plus, I've been busy this month and posting less, so this gives me something new/old. So, with some minor revisions, here’s some thoughts on the whole question of having an impact with film.

Increasingly, the foundation community and other funders of film are 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 support from those obsessed with impact, we must address this concern now, for although grounded in many false assumptions, the premise is ultimately true.

Building a community through Remix

I've talked about these folks from Spain before and in a few of my presentations, and now Riot Cinema is up to more good shenanigans, partnering with The Auteur's Garage, for a pretty cool remix contest.

You can head over to the site, grab their content, remix it however you'd like and upload your new version of a teaser trailer for their upcoming film, The Cosmonaut. They've put up over 30 clips (including clips they've yet to use), CGI sound, voice-over files in Russian and English and just about everything else you need. There's a contest that promises to have lots of cool prizes and in case you doubt these kids are moving to Billyburg soon, they've even got a Cosmonaut branded Lomo camera as part of the mix.

These folks are doing some really cool stuff for their film. They're convinced that by opening up the entire process and letting their fans become participants, they can build an audience for their film before they've finished shooting it. They don't yet live in Brooklyn, but rather Spain, and trust me on this - not many people in the European film industry are rushing to embrace new models, so it's exciting to see them so enthusiastically trying new things. I hope it works for them, and it seems to be doing so already.

For my money, however, the coolest thing they are doing is their fundraising campaign in general. They're doing a whole crowd-funding thing with lots of great merchandise for sale. My favorite are their pencils. The website text describing them is classic, but since it's in flash or something, I can't copy it here (note to the cosmonauts, there is one tiny fix to be made), so you'll have to click through for the hilarious story of technological innovation through NASA spending that they've posted.

I have no idea whether this film will be good or not, but I can guarantee that the cosmon-auters will continue to provide the film world with some great experiments and good ideas for at leas the next several months. That at least gives them some better than average chances of success with their film. I'm a big fan already of their fundraising video, which takes a cue from both Bob Dylan, ok Pennebaker really, and Four Eyed Monsters in strategy. I'm even happier that they've now posted this short, making of video of their trailer. Another smart move. Check it:


Making of Rodaje video Premios INVI from Riot Cinema on Vimeo.

MLK and Media?

Last night I joined the first NYC Transmedia Meet-up. Sounds horrible, right, WTF is that? It was actually a great little gathering of several people interested in where things are at and going next in film, media and transmedia, or cross-platform (please another word soon) projects (the book on the right is a good place to start learning about this stuff, BTW). While my mental state only allows for a brief visit to such settings before I really want to talk about something else, I had a great conversation with a small group about the difference between transmedia as marketing and as real transmedia. Lot’s to unpack in another post, but I really enjoyed some comments by Jeffrey Lee Simons, who has been doing this a lot, and you can read his thoughts on his blog. At one point he compared good transmedia as similar to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Having had a couple beers, I was ready to pounce on this nonsense, but he might be right.

Among the many great aspects of Dr. King’s legacy was the fact that he empowered his audience. He wasn’t just a preacher, just a civil-rights leader, just a political figure, just an organizer. He was all of those things and more, but he had an uncanny ability to catch the mood of a certain moment and a lot of people and give them a message that didn’t just preach to them or tell them what to do - it empowered them to feel part of a movement, to know they could control their destiny and that their actions were as important as his. You never felt talked down to, or that he was the most important man in the room - you were on a journey with him, and yes he was very important to the movement, but so were you. When he said “I have a dream” it was powerful, for among many reasons, because that dream could become yours and you could add to it and make it happen.

This is simplifying Dr. King’s legacy a bit, but I think it’s a valuable lesson for anyone thinking about transmedia, and actually for anyone making a film generally, be it narrative or (but especially) a documentary. Let’s just call all of you media artists for now. What media artists often do is try to be the master of their story world, and exercise complete control over where it takes you. They tell you a story and it can enthrall, entertain or so many other things, but while it may “suck you in” it rarely empowers you and makes you feel you are as important to the story as the media artist who authored it.  Of course there are exceptions, but this is a generally true point for much media. Jeff’s point, I think (but it’s definitely mine), was that good transmedia goes an extra step. Yes, it gives you multiple story access points and good ones can be quite interactive, but to rise to truly great it must empower the audience. It too should capture the zeitgeist and bring you in to a journey for which you are equally important to the outcome. It should empower you to take action, to join the conversation and contribute to its fruition. Not by telling you exactly what action to take, necessarily, but empowering you to make a choice that could change the (hi)story. The nature of the story, by definition, must change based on how where you, the audience, takes it. Many transmedia experiences today are simply marketing. While they are on multiple platforms, they aren’t doing much more than giving you alternate ways to get to their story and (with some exceptions) they don’t empower you to add to or change the story. I’m not arguing that no one does this, but rather that more should think about this empowerment aspect.

While this clearly applies to transmedia, it also applies to traditional filmmaking. In documentary, in particular, I find a lot of films that tell me some story. It might be compelling, it might be persuasive, attempting to change my mind or enlighten it. They might also tell me where to donate, when to cry, or how to take some action. But rarely do I feel empowered in quite this same way. While I wouldn’t argue that every film should be an exercise in empowerment, I do think it should be explored by more filmmakers, especially those hoping to have a true impact. Plus, I can’t see any harm in trying to put a little MLK in your media making!

11/04/08 and participatory filmmaking

On 11/04/08 I voted, went to work and celebrated a bit too much at the end of the night when Obama took the stage to announce he'd won. Jeff Deutchman and more than 20 other filmmakers documented the entire day, from 8am til 4am the next morning, and the resulting film, called 11/4/08, is about to premiere at SXSW very soon. I was lucky enough to be among a small group invited to see the film in advance yesterday, and I can highly recommend you see it there or at another festival or screening soon. But this isn't a review post, but rather is a note that what Jeff is doing goes well beyond just telling a story of which we know the ending.

Jeff's idea came to him just a few weeks before the election. It was likely to be an historic moment, which it became as Obama became the first black president. It also turned out to be historic for other reasons - the turn out from young people, the places that turned blue, etc. But as many of us can remember, this wasn't a given, so Jeff's team could have ended up documenting the defeated hopes of so many supporters for all they knew. Jeff wanted to catch the day regardless of the outcome, and he asked friends from around the world to document their experience of the day, send it to him and he would "curate" a film from their footage.

More than 20 people, from accomplished indie filmmakers to amateurs, agreed to take part. Some filmed their own experience throughout the day, others captured organizers pulling out the vote, some went with the major crowds others just their own families and friends. Jeff calls the film a piece of "consensual cinema," and while you see the vision of multiple filmmakers shining through, it has been edited to his own rhythm. BTW, it interestingly let's you experience your own version as well, in a way, but that's for a review piece.

Jeff isn't done, however, with his participatory cinematic experience. He's still collecting stories online at the project website, and he's encouraging people to upload their footage, or their complete films, and to take the film's footage, remix it and upload their own versions for everyone to see. It's a great way to collectively re-participate in the experience. This is something that might make McCain supporters gag, but hey, they can theoretically spin their version as well, and I am willing to bet one of the more interesting results will be when that happens.

Anyone who reads this blog knows what a big fan I am of those who embrace the new, participatory culture and this film is an interesting way to use it for the recording and re-telling of history. Check it out when you can and spread the word. Oh yeah, as you can see from the image, there's a Kickstarter campaign you can help with too.

Engage 101 at Shooting People/DCTV

Tonight I gave a speech for Shooting People and DCTV called Engage 101 - Audience Building Masterclass. That was an impossible enough task, so I tried to make it harder and give a brief overview on film distribution, all the new models out there and some basics on using the web and some old fashioned tools to build your audience...all the way up to transmedia 101. Whew, not sure that was smart, but I got good feedback and it was fun. I also learned a lot from the questions, and at the end we opened it up for a group session on a few films, and as expected, the audience feedback was great. I always upload my presentations for free, so here below it is. No audio or video was taken, and these slides don't capture everything I said, but the essence is there. If you're super advanced in this stuff, it might not be worth your time, but could be worth a view for some new (and old) ideas. Feedback appreciated as always. This was also just one of many panels and masterclasses these folks do, with many great speakers, so check out their info online.

here's the presentation, and my apologies that Slideshare always repeats the title, the title, the title....I don't understand this glitch.

Shooting People Engage101

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

Ben and Noah in Rwanda

About a year ago I was lucky to join a group of people on a trip to Rwanda. With us on that journey was Joe Summerhayes and his two sons, Noah and Ben. They had the task of teaching several young students from Rwanda to make a hand-made animation about gorillas in just two days. Somehow, they did this, but it took them about a year to edit their mini-doc about our trip. It's a great little ten minute video, and I think it's worth watching all the way through, but if you feel 10 minutes is too long in this day/age, skip through to watch our amazing hike with the gorillas (and the near-death experience when a gorilla tackle's our leader!) and the preview of the animation they created. I only show up briefly, so you can tell what an impact I've had on these kids and their future careers in media! Great video, and btw, their father's blog is pretty cool too.

ACTA...wasthat? and why it matters

Well, the New York Times finally covered what is arguably the most important tech/film/net/future/etc story going on in the world (a close second to the Google/Authors Guild proposed rip-off) yet I'm not seeing much about it in the blogs and tweets I follow from the film world. That's bad news, because this is something every filmmaker should be aware of, as well as anyone who is interested in the future of content online. Or the future of the net, really, and that should be everyone. So what the heck is ACTA and what can you do about it?

I know, I know, these policy things make your head hurt. Mine does too, and this one is a doozy. ACTA, or the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Haven't heard of it? That's because you aren't supposed to know about it. It's a top secret negotiation between major countries to combat counterfeiting. You're probably thinking well, piracy and counterfeiting are bad, so what? Well, there's lots of arguments against that view, but even with it, it's a pretty big concern when major countries meet in secret, with no democratic input, about possible rules which could forever change how we access content online. Guess what....your needs as a little indie producer/consumer probably aren't on the list. But you can bet those of the MPAA are, and knowing how like the RIAA they've become, you can bet their proposals amount to breaking the net to preserving their business model.

These talks are secret, you know, like the ones you kept when you were twelve, so details are scant, but there's been leaks and they've have included some doozies.

Upcoming panels and workshops

I've been here in London, doing some consulting and speaking at Shooting People's "Short-sighted" event at BAFTA. It was a great conference and I highly recommend that filmmakers check out the line-up of speakers and (eventually to be posted) the videos of the day. They gave out many resources for indie filmmakers, especially short filmmakers, and I learned a lot. More soon, but there was a fascinating discussion about advertisers/sponsors and indie films, inspired by a dialogue with MoFilm. They've got an interesting model for short filmmakers working with brands. Check out their page for some details on how they work, and the contests they are running. Many filmmakers have benefited from the program, but some in the audience took issue with the corporatization of indie filmmaking, as well as their deal structure and payments. I'll have more thoughts on this soon, but for now a note to festival and conference producers - this is the conversation to be having going forward and it's much more interesting than new distribution yadda yadda stuff. The biggest change to indie will be how we work with advertisers, sponsorships and corporate support for media (or don't). Especially in Europe as state subsidies dry up and corporate support becomes one of the only viable options. What are the ethics, the best practices, horror-stories, etc. What do we think about this as indie filmmakers and what is our stance? More soon....

I'm very excited to be speaking soon at several cool events. Check out the following websites, not just to see me speak, but because the other speakers are pretty great and there's bound to be some great conversations. I look forward to learning more about the future of the business at each of them:

First up on March 27th is "The Conversation." Scott Kirsner has been running this excellent event in a few cities for a couple years now and I'm excited to be part of the line-up in NYC. Check out the schedule and sign-up soon.

The following week on April 3rd is "DIY Days NYC." Lance Weiler is putting together an excellent group of speakers, and what I like about this is that he's looking at innovation beyond just film - in music and other arts as well. This one is free, so consider this and the Conversation and it's like a 2fer1 special!

Later this Summer I'll be participating in a new Lab from Power to the Pixel - a full week of intensive training and discussion around trnasmedia and the future of the business. As the organizers explain -
"The Pixel Lab, a ground-breaking new residential course centred in developing, producing and distributing cross-media stories – stories that can span film, TV, online, mobile, gaming. The Lab is open to anyone with a strong track record in the European film and related media industries."

You have to apply soon, so check the website asap. And, if you need a cool job, they are hiring a producer for the event, so look into that as well.

I'm booking some other talks and projects soon and hope to report more in the coming weeks.

On the YouTube, Sundance Failure

There's been a lot of noise out there about the YouTube rental program and it's experiment with some films from Sundance. Most of the posts seem to (almost gleefully) agree that the program was a failure - and with approximately $10,000 in net revenue, it's hard to disagree. So, I'll concede from the start that whatever this experiment was, it was a failure. I don't think it's something we can really make any judgements from, however, as it was almost not even an experiment. The story of this debacle really shines a light on the problems Sundance has always had with digital, and which YouTube seems to have with monetization in general, but I'm not sure it shines any light on indies, rental or the future of the business except that it might not be Sundance and YouTube figuring it out (even if they likely remain part of the answer).

First, calling this an experiment in day/date rentals is generous at best. Ok, they did get lots of press impressions, but in nearly every mainstream publication I read, the story was buried on about page 2 of the business section. Almost every story focused on the idea of rentals, the fact that it was in partnership with Sundance or some similar angle. There was almost no mention of the films, the merit of the films (as no PR person seemed to think that was something to pitch them on) or anything else that would make you want to see the films. Then we have the marketing...or should I say we didn't.

Midway through this experiment my Sundance condo-mates and I did our own experiment - how easy would it be to find and rent a film. So late at night (disclaimer, we'd been to a party or two, so this could be an influence) Lance Weiler, Scilla Andreen and I tried to find the films online.

For an hour. With no success.

Diverse thinkers on the new era

I’ve been spending much of the last few years on the road speaking at numerous panels about new models for film, new media and distribution. I’m continually peeved to find myself sitting on a stage with a bunch of other white guys talking about the future. Usually, there’s not even a woman on the panel. I often bring this lack of diversity up publicly, because I find it so odd to find a bunch of white guys talking about the future - when we are decidedly not the future. What gives?

I found myself thinking about this again at Sundance in the panel entitled “The Doctor’s in the House” on distribution. Besides the moderator, Eugene Hernandez, there was no diversity on the panel. Now, I’m not faulting Sundance here - while their track record isn’t great when it comes to diversity, they aren’t the only, just the most recent example of this phenomenon. It’s much broader.

During the panel, I tweeted out the following:

“What, do only white people think about new models for film?? Wtf #sundance c'mon”

Slamdance and Sabi Pictures on the future

Just back from Slamdance, and Sundance, where I participated in a great event called the Filmmaker Summit. My particular panel was about the future of film festivals, and I hope to put forth some thoughts on that soon. In fact, the whole day made me think a lot about the future, but that's for a later post. What impressed me the most about the event was that the organizers tried hard to include the audience and other filmmakers in the design for the event, in the event discussion and hope to do so going forward. They started a discussion page in advance for input. Each panel met in advance for a great talk about their subject - mine lasted an hour and a half (of prep, mind you, for a 30 minute panel) - to be sure we could jump right into discussion. They're gathering further comments online now, and I hope the discussion continues.

What most impressed me, however, was that they decided to get two filmmakers - Sabi Pictures (Zak Forsman and Kevin Shah) - to post a series of videos related to the festival, exploring the questions and themes a bit more. The videos are executive produced and sponsored by Workbook Project and Filmmaker Magazine, and the entire event was sponsored by IndieFlix, the Open Video Alliance and Slamdance (amongst others). Sabi didn't just tape the talks, edit a piece and throw it up for viewing. Instead they are exploring the questions from their position as filmmakers in the middle of making and then distributing a film. They went beyond the Slamdance Filmmaker Summit and interviewed other people, including (gasp) Sundance filmmakers to try and work towards some new answers. They aren't done yet, but the first few videos are online. They feature yours truly in the first few so far, so yes, I am self-promoting, but I think the best stuff comes from the filmmakers they speak with and their personal voice in the films. Check them out online, and give me your thoughts. I'll have more on the Summit and the entire week soon.

Videos after the fold:

10 ideas on the future of the arts (20<40)

My recent post about possible leaders in the arts under 40 (20<40) ended up getting some traction. The idea it was based on wasn't mine, but rather comes from an upcoming book on 20 new ideas by emerging leaders in the arts who are all under 40. I've been selected to submit a chapter, and hope to do so soon. The idea of the book isn't to discuss who are the leaders, but to listen to their ideas about the future of the field.  In the spirit of openness, I submit my idea below for your feedback and advice. The chapter I am contemplating writing (and I have to do it soon) is about some key changes in the arts. Not the most cutting edge changes, mind you, but those that I think will have the most impact in the next few years. These ideas will be old-hat to anyone who thinks about these matters a lot, but I think they bring together some of the more important changes we face in the arts in general - and of course to film, particularly as that's where I work. So, tell me what you agree with, disagree with, think is more important, etc. I promise that I'll consider all responses before submitting my final chapter. So here's what I think:

Slamdance Jury & Summit

I'm excited to be heading to Park City this year, and now I can say why - because I'm on the jury for Slamdance. This year I'll be one of the judges for documentaries, and the line-up looks great. The rest of the jury line-up should be public soon. I'm looking forward to meeting the filmmakers there, and also participating in the Filmmaker Summit, which I wrote up earlier. There's a lot of great things going on in Park City in addition to Slamdance:

This little old fest called Sundance.
....Which has a great panel on rethinking distribution
....And a cool New Frontier Section.
The Filmmaker Summit
Peter Broderick's Distribution Clinic.

So, if you are headed to Park City, I hope to see you there. Let me know of other good things going on in Park City, and good luck to all the filmmakers.

My 20<40 leaders in Film

Well, that went over well....No one has suggested anyone for the twenty leaders under 40. Considering I made it clear that you could even nominate people over 40, I’m surprised. Perhaps no one cares, or perhaps as was suggested to me, people don’t want to diss anyone by not nominating them. One person suggested online that they couldn’t think of any real film leaders under 40. Before giving up on this experiment, here’s my list of 20 leaders in film under the age of 40. I’m not sure all of them are actually under 40, but they all look young. And these aren’t my only picks, actually, so if you aren’t on the list, don’t feel slighted. In picking my starter list, I tried to stay away from some of the usual suspects - i.e., if I speak on panels with you on a regular basis,  or everyone refers to you as our savior daily, I left you off the list. The people below are leaders in the film world who I deeply respect and who I think will do at least one thing, if not more, to improve the indie film world in the next five years. Disagree? Don’t say so here. No need to denigrate anyone, but do feel free to add people you think I’ve missed. I’m sure there are lots more.
This list is in alpha order by last name:

Who are the 20 < 40 in film?

I tend to spend my days between a mix of the film world and the art world. Not that film isn’t an art, but meaning that lots of thinking in the capital A, Arts World doesn’t filter to the Film World and vice versa. In the arts world, there’s a cool project going on now that I think would be worth repeating in the film world - it’s called 20Under40. The aim of this project is to gather 20 emerging (or even established) leaders in the arts who are under the age of 40 and compile their thoughts about the future of the arts in one anthology. Or, in their own words:

In light of the impending generational shift in leadership the field of the arts and arts education is about to experience, there has been much talk about the future: who will be our new leading arts thinkers, administrators, policymakers, and practitioners—and in what social, cultural, and political landscapes will these individuals operate? While there is great concern surrounding this matter, little is being done to provide a platform for tomorrow’s leaders to share their ideas with the larger field.

20UNDER40 endeavors to collect twenty essays about the future of the arts and arts education, each written by an emerging leader under the age of forty. In doing so, this anthology will provide a unique arena for new ideas by formally gathering the thoughts of young artists, teaching artists, administrators, researchers, and other arts and arts education professionals—legitimizing the talent of young leaders by bringing their ideas out of the margins and into the forefront of our dialogue.


I submitted a proposal which made it to the next round of selection. Now I have to turn in my chapter and make it to round two, which I have to admit - I hate. I mean, come on, I’m writing for free and don’t know if it will even be published, what is this....Hollywood? Regardless, I’m going to submit my ideas, and I’ll be posting more about my thoughts soon for your feedback, but this isn’t why I’m writing now. Instead, I want to know...You guessed it...

Who are the 20 leaders in film under 40? Who do you think will lead change? Should we  have a similar project in the film world? Perhaps where film leaders under 40 submit proposals for some website publication (Workbook project??) or a book? Perhaps we should start the <40AKC - the under 40 ass-kickers club, a monthly mixer for these folks? I think all of these could be interesting, but would love your thoughts. In the meantime, who are the 20under40 people we should be following in the film world? Feel free to nominate yourself, and bonus points if you name people that aren’t on the usual suspects list. Who is that? Oh, you know who we/they are.....

Now before you post a comment deriding the whole ageism thing here...I’m not saying everyone over 40 should be discounted. I’m not saying under 40 is a perfect cut-off either (what about under 50?). These were the same critiques that the Art world 20<40 folks received, and they answer them well online. I think this is stupid. Start your own damn club if you disagree. Yes, it’s arbitrary, but hey, none of you boomers seem to complain that you got to run everything else for the last 40 years or so, and still do, so give the under40’s a chance. And to be equanimous, go ahead, suggest your 20over40 below, or your 20><=40 or whatever rubric you want. As long as it’s good thinking about the future, I guess I really don’t care about the age of the prophet. I just want 20 great thinkers for all of us to follow.

What's the future for Film Festivals?

I recently attended the IFFS Summit in Las Vegas, where I spoke about new online strategies for film festivals. The IFFS is kinda like a trade org (but less official) for film fests around the world, and the Summit I attended was exclusively US fests (they have another summit in Europe). I’ve also recently joined the advisory board, as the founder asked me to join and help contribute thoughts on the changes needed in the festival world. I met some great people at the conference, and I was impressed with much of what I heard - festival directors were thinking a lot about the future of the business and how they fit. This wasn’t surprising - most festival people want their fests to be vibrant participants in the future of the field, much as they’ve been key parts of the past.

I was surprised, however, that a (to-remain-unnamed) sizable contingent seemed put-off with the idea that they should be thinking about dramatic change for the future. While I can’t stress enough that this doesn’t apply to all or even a majority of the fests in attendance, in my conversations I got a sense that many people felt that film festivals will remain largely unchanged in the foreseeable future. Sure, they could see that they’d have new tools to help people discover films and buy tickets, and they knew all the requisite knowledge about how to use Facebook and whatever comes next in their marketing strategies. They also know about projection changes to come and technical possibilities. There was even an awareness that filmmakers are starting to look at things like coinciding release strategies with their festival premiere.  But this was also where the thinking seemed to stop (again, not for all). When one of my friend’s pointed out on a panel about the future (with some smart thinkers) that this trend could have serious repercussions for the festival model, and asked how they think fests might strategize, he pretty much received blank stares from the panelists as if they hadn’t heard his question.