Film industry should be more accessible, says Hope
Veteran independent film producer Ted Hope called for new film business models built on “access and transparency” in his keynote speech at the Power to the Pixel Cross-Media Forum, held in London today (October 14).
The New York based producer told the audience at the event, which is part of the 53rd Times BFI London Film Festival, that the current business models for creation, financing and distributions were based on “exclusionary practice of isolated control” and that they were “running on fumes these days.”
“How long can the controlling studio model survive when the wall of the control has already come down?” he asked.
Hope, whose credits include 21 Grams and In The Bedroom, said that producers had, for too long, been only concerned with “content and production”, but that they should be embracing what he called the “other four pillars supporting the film industry” - discovery, promotion, participation and presentation.”
He went on to say that it was “not just a possibility but a necessity to take part in the other four pillars. We have to embrace in these opportunities to engage in those aspects, or frankly we will lose it.”
As part of his speech, which opened two days worth of discussions dedicated to bringing the film industry into the digital age, Hope offered a list of “best practice” tips to film-makers.
These included:
- Expanding the narrative along a common thematic premise
- Opening up narratives and erasing the “ending” or giving multiple opportunities for endings, because audiences want to be able to be engaged in different ways at new and different times.
- Offering alternative points of view in the narratives, so that the experiences are no longer single character centric experiences.
- Shedding the notion that it is distancing for audiences to have the same characters played by different actors..
- Embracing collaborative brainstorming sessions with other likeminded story tellers on how to expand the narrative. For example, are supporting characters worthy of their own stories?
- Providing access to the production process at every step of the way, by pulling back the curtain and letting others see how the work is being done. This would include allowing crew and cast be broadcast in the process.
- Recognising that it is the job of film-makers to curate and reference those other works that they love.
- Offering different points of access to the audience and designing characters that will easily travel into other creators hands.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (8)
mike ogden | 14-Oct-2009 11:14 pm
This is nonsense on so many levels, your typical 'digital revolution sky-is-falling' b.s. conference. I hope the break time food was nice though...
It ignores the most basic 'rule' of storytelling - submerge your audience in a believable world and for that story to hold its audience, never giving the audience an opportunity to question it thus breaking the narrative and that world. Otherwise, you're making a computer game and whilst there's nothing wrong with that medium, its not film and its not storytelling.
And multiple endings? Even the computer industry threw that out back in the early '90's. It's unfeasable and unsatisfying.
And why this crazy obsession with showing the audience the man behind the curtain? Where is the magic? I'm a great believer in realism but, sheesh - how dull. Guess Tom likes the audience knowing how every shot was constructed AS they watch the narrative. I guess the crew are all meant to have webcams strapped to their heads now, huh?
And its not my job to reference films within films. I left that 'technique' back in film school.
This reads like Tom discovered his kids PS3 one night and got all excited over a new medium. As the gamer world would say, 'what a noob'!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Biagio Messina | 15-Oct-2009 8:34 am
As someone who's not a noob, I can say there's a place for all kids of entertainment. To dismiss Ted's ideas out of hand seems silly. Rather like saying, "those 'talkies" will never catch on" or "who wants to see a movie in color?" All arguments that seem just plain weird now.
No one's saying movies as we know it will die. Just like plays didn't replace novels, movies didn't replace plays, and 3D didn't (at least yet) replace the 2D motion pictures we all love.
I think all entertainment that survives adapts with, listens to, and most importantly, surprises it's audience. To never push the envelope is the death of creativity.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Jonathan Williams | 15-Oct-2009 2:52 pm
I strongly suggest that people visit Ted Hope's blog: trulyfreefilm.blogspot.com where you will find the complete text of a long and very difficult to summarize speech. And as with all visionary writings it's rather dense and difficult.
But he's really talking about how digital and the internet have transformed the landscape and loosened control by the finance and the studios.
Much of what he says purely identifies things which are going on - fans make 'tribute' movies, some looking as good as the original, which go beyond the origianl narrative. Large numbers collaborate in creating sci-fi epics, bringing to the process their own talents and interests. Communities of fans grow and spread around their common interests - which may be a film with no conventional distribution at all, yet fans organise packed screenings in anything from local halls to independent cinemas.
All of this by-passes the traditional model, and has more in common with indie music fringe theatre, festivals and events, and so on.
You could even see the rise of the DVD 'extras' (now even more such material is posted on line) as part of the process whereby the filmmakers, cast and key crew, get a chance to engage directly with the audience about the making of the film.
Ted's excited by all of this. I'm excited by all of this. The 'King Canutes' amongst us might not be, but then again they might just have missed the point.
Unsuitable or offensive?
mike ogden | 15-Oct-2009 3:03 pm
The studios have lost their grip? Are you sure? One quick look at the local multiplex listings puts paid to that notion. Studios still suck up huge amounts of potential independent investment with the premise that their films will make a buck as opposed to the more truly independently made movies. Even when they don't make a buck, the machine still grinds on, eating investment monies from the middle east and asia, filling screens with 4000 prints and elbowing independents off of the best marketing spots on itunes, blockbuster etc. That's their model and they're not going to let go so easily.
Where is the independent distribution model everyone has been waffling on about for 9 - 10 years now? Damned if I can see it.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Arnold Drenth | 15-Oct-2009 7:54 pm
Just as in its day "television" was a strange new wor(l)d,so today's new forms seem strange at first, but are already becoming part of everyday usage: English verbs now include 'to Google', 'to FaceBook' and 'to YouTube'. So whether we call it a computer game or a film is somewhat irrelevant, since both are consumed via the same screen in a very similar way. And in the same way that TV has not replaced film and cinema, and the novel did not replace plays (which are a few millennia older), new forms will co-exist with current ones, I suspect. Engaging content and delivery will always attract an audience.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Arnold Drenth | 15-Oct-2009 10:00 pm
Or to tackle them point by point ...
•Expanding the narrative along a common thematic premise
prequels and sequels and series and ...
•Opening up narratives and erasing the “ending” or giving multiple opportunities for endings, because audiences want to be able to be engaged in different ways at new and different times.
which novels already do via changing viewpoints
•Offering alternative points of view in the narratives, so that the experiences are no longer single character centric experiences.
which novels already do via changing viewpoints
•Shedding the notion that it is distancing for audiences to have the same characters played by different actors..
ask any theatre company: it's not a problem, it's a point of interest
•Embracing collaborative brainstorming sessions with other likeminded story tellers on how to expand the narrative. For example, are supporting characters worthy of their own stories?
called spin-offs, e.g. X Men
•Providing access to the production process at every step of the way, by pulling back the curtain and letting others see how the work is being done. This would include allowing crew and cast be broadcast in the process.
as has been said, 'Making of ... ' featurettes
•Recognising that it is the job of film-makers to curate and reference those other works that they love.
Everyone borrows stories, Shakespeare, for example
•Offering different points of access to the audience and designing characters that will easily travel into other creators hands.
like James Bond, for example
Unsuitable or offensive?
Biagio Messina | 17-Oct-2009 4:14 am
As someone who's not a noob, I can say there's a place for all kids of entertainment. To dismiss Ted's ideas out of hand seems silly. Rather like saying, "those 'talkies" will never catch on" or "who wants to see a movie in color?" All arguments that seem just plain weird now.
No one's saying movies as we know it will die. Just like plays didn't replace novels, movies didn't replace plays, and 3D didn't (at least yet) replace the 2D motion pictures we all love.
I think all entertainment that survives adapts with, listens to, and most importantly, surprises it's audience. To never push the envelope is the death of creativity.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Jan-2010 9:23 pm
RE;Where is the independent distribution model everyone has been waffling on about for 9 - 10 years now? Damned if I can see it.
www.fromheretoawesome.com
Unsuitable or offensive?