Smart Art Films Thrive at the Right Price

Certain helmers can attract financing, but balancing a bare-bones budget with auteur integrity can be tricky.

In the movie business, the label “art film” isn’t always a deal-breaker.

Nowhere is this more apparent than at Cannes, where films that might seem obscure to your average Hollywood studio executive rack up worldwide presales and receive the kind of attention devoted to Brad Pitt strolling down the Croissette.

Consider some of the filmmakers in this year’s lineup: Sofia Coppola, James Gray, Alexander Payne, Roman Polanski, James Toback. They’re not exactly synonymous with blockbusters, but in the realm of global film financing, their names attract coin — at the right budget and with key cast attached.

Producers and financiers say the principal ingredients to getting these movies made are much the same as they were in the past: packages that yield foreign presales, securing locations that provide soft money and tax incentives, and foraging around for ways to cover the risk against the lack of domestic distribution.

“For better or worse, we’re still playing the same numbers game we were 10 years ago,” says Anthony Bregman, a producer on Bennett Miller’s John Du Pont project, “Foxcatcher,” which sold internationally at last year’s Cannes Market.

A crucial part of auteur-pic financing strategy, according to Greg Shapiro, producer of James Gray’s “The Immigrant,” is to make the movies “for the absolute lowest price possible without compromising the integrity of the fi lm. Seems a natural and obvious thing to do, but it is usually very difficult in practice. Budgets naturally go up, not down.”

With “The Immigrant,” Gray was fortunate to have a relationship with foreign sales shop Wild Bunch, which took on a fair amount of risk for the foreign rights. That still left a sizable gap in financing that “nobody wanted to fill,” says Shapiro, “until we happened upon Worldview Entertainment.”

Worldview, which provided backing for three films in this year’s official selection (“The Immigrant,” “Blood Ties” and “All Is Lost”), is one of several relatively new financing entities, along with Everest Entertainment (last year’s “Mud”) and Black Bear Pictures (which also backed “All Is Lost”), that have been bullish about the high-end indie space. Another is Annapurna Pictures, which has backed such pics as “Lawless” and “Killing Them Softly,” which competed at Cannes last year, as well as “The Master,” “Zero Dark Thirty” and upcoming “The Grandmaster.”

“We’ve been able to structure these (pics) so they make sense financially,” says Worldview CEO Christopher Woodrow. “But if you’re not partnering with a studio and you’re planning to sell domestically, you need to make it for a price where the domestic gap is achievable.”

Many insiders suggest that equity financing is on the rise, with high-networth individuals looking for areas to invest outside the stock market. Woodrow also suggests there’s some indication that hedge funds and investment banks are coming back. “But it all comes down to the quality of the product,” he says.

FilmNation’s Glen Basner agrees. “In the specialty film world, you can still do healthy presales,” he says. “There just has to be a compelling case to a distributor, and that could be a filmmaker, an actor, a subject matter or a producer with a great track record.”

Basner cites Coppola’s “The Bling Ring” as an example. “Sofia has existing relationships with Pathe and the Japanese distributor Tohokushinsha, so we came onboard, and bought a chunk of the world, and the film was put together in true independent fashion,” he says.

Similarly, Danish maverick Nicolas Winding Refn’s latest, “Only God Forgives,” was also forged as a result of the fi lmmaker’s track record, even before his 2011 pic “Drive,” says Cecile Gaget, head of Gaumont Intl., which financed the film along with Wild Bunch and Swedish fund Film i Vast.

“We had a director with really faithful distributors, a high concept and a very reasonable budget,” says Gaget. “And that’s exactly what the market wants.”

While U.S. majors have largely abandoned the auteur-driven pic, producers say there are plenty of new domestic companies — A24 (which bought “The Bling Ring”), CBS Films (the Coen brothers’ Cannes entry “Inside Llewyn Davis”), the Weinstein Co.’s

Radius division (Refn’s “Only God Forgives”) and even HBO (Steven Soderbergh’s Cannes pic “Behind the Candelabra”) — to keep auteurs and their producers in business.

Every once in a while, “with the right director and the right price,” says Albert Berger, a producer on Alexander Payne’s Paramount-backed “Nebraska,” even a Hollywood major will finance a maverick vision. FilmNation is selling the pic internationally.

Many pieces of “Nebraska” ran contrary to the impulses of a normal studio, admits Berger, citing the film’s black-and-white cinematography, actors with no foreign sales value and shooting in non-rebate states. But Payne’s resume and script were clearly the attraction, adds Berger — along with a compromise on the film’s budget.

“There’s a number that the studios have in mind, and the number we have in mind, and you come to a consensus,” he says.

Even so, Berger says such pics are never easy to fund. “A lot of these types of films don’t add up on paper,” he adds. “But they are the movies that ultimately stand out.”

Anthony Kaufman – VARIETY – MAY 16, 2013

Australian Writers Guild launches new TV drama screenwriting competition

The Australian Writers’ Guild (AWG) is calling for entries to its inaugural writing for
television competition Think Inside the Box. Entries close on 3 June 2013.

Each week we see more quality and diverse Australian storytelling make its way to
our television screens. From Offspring to Puberty Blues, Wentworth to The Straits,
Redfern Now to Rake, this new wave of Australian drama series is bold and exciting,
and a move away from what we’ve seen in the past.

The AWG is presenting an opportunity for writers to be a part of this new era of
Australian TV by giving them the chance to have their original work read by
internationally renowned 2011 SPAA Producer of the Year, Australian production
house Matchbox Pictures.

Writers are invited to submit a 2-3-page treatment outlining their original idea for an
adult television drama series or mini-series. An industry panel of judges will select a
long-list by assessing the treatments for their ability to engage the reader in the
writer’s vision, the potential for the project to be produced for television and the
originality and excellence of the idea. The shortlisted entrants will be asked to submit
the pilot episode of their original show and the winner will be determined from this
group.

As well as being set up with meetings with the development team at Matchbox
Pictures, the shortlisted applicants will be invited to join the AWG’s Pathways
Program, an initiative that provides networking opportunities for writers and the
chance to showcase their ideas to industry professionals thereby giving those
industry professionals access to quality scripts.

For entry form and full guidelines go to www.awg.com.au

Revolutionary New Screenwriting Software Able to Write Screenplay on Its Own

In what the Writers Guild of America is calling the worst thing to happen to its
members since Starbucks banned screenwriters from all of its locations worldwide,
the soon-to-be released latest version of the revolutionary screenwriting software,
Easy Script, will produce a full-length screenplay without the need of a writer.

Many in Hollywood believe Easy Script 2.0 will be the final nail in the coffin of the
screenwriting profession, which is why dozens of studio executives and producers
have already sent their assistants to wait in line until Easy Script 2.0 goes on sale
Friday at midnight.

“Unlike Easy Script 1.0 which could only rewrite a screenplay enough to receive co-
writing credit and save the studio money on screenwriters’ production bonuses, Easy
Script 2.0 can write a completely original screenplay,” Easy Script CEO Miles Evans
told Hollywood & Swine. Easy Script 1.0 was launched in 2000, and became a vital
resource in the development of many of Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters. But the
software hasn’t been without critics, including “Spider-Man” director, Sam Raimi.

“When I was making my ‘Spider-Man’ trilogy, Sony opted for our screenwriters to
use Easy Script over the industry standard Final Draft to save time,” Raimi said.
“Unfortunately Easy Script made the third act of each film exactly the same, with the
villain kidnapping Kirsten Dunst and Spider-Man having to rescue her.”

But several technology pundits are advising consumers to wait until Easy Script 3.0
is released next year, when many of the flaws plaguing Easy Script 2.0 are fixed.
According to one tech analyst, one of the biggest flaws of Easy Script 2.0 is the
software’s inability to tell the difference between a good or idiotic script note from a
studio executive or producer.

Other notable flaws include the fact that Easy Script 2.0 has a tendency to look at
pornography on the Internet when it is supposed to be writing, turning in its drafts
weeks late, in addition to constantly wanting to direct.

Visit HollywoodandSwine.com for more.

Hollywood and Swine – MAY 3, 2013

Six Questions: Genevieve Bailey, film-maker, 31

WHEN did you discover your vocation?

When I was about eight. Pre-internet, pre-YouTube, pre-video cameras on phones,
we only had access to a video camera a couple of times a year, when we’d borrow a

massive old clunky VHS camera from school. It would be attached to my arm all
weekend. I became fascinated by capturing a point in time and sharing it with people
in the future.

Genevieve Bailey, filmmaker

Your documentary I Am Eleven has been a hit at film festivals around the
world. Where did you get the idea of a doco based on talking to 11-year-
olds?
I worked at the Herald Sun for a while after uni, saw bad news every day and became
disheartened. It made me think about kids today, seeing that constantly on the
internet and TV news. When I was 11 it was such a great time in life, I wondered
whether it was still the same.

Why did you opt for a global perspective, filming in 15 countries?
I’d decided to leave Australia for the first time – I had been in a serious car accident
and my Dad had passed away from cancer, and I wanted to turn that around. I
decided to shoot in every country I went to; I felt I could make something thought-
provoking, universal and hopeful. I didn’t want to make something depressing.

How long did it take?
From 2005 until 2011 I made a trip every year, and in between I’d work two or three
jobs at a time in Melbourne to save to go again. In 2005 in Prague I met my partner
Henrik Nordstrom and we worked on it together, funding it ourselves.

Were you afraid of failure?
Yes, it was risky, but I’m so glad I didn’t let that put me off. Our opening weekend at
Melbourne’s Cinema Nova was the highest-grossing for a local film in more than
three years. We screened there for 26 weeks – a dream come true – and ended up in
more than 40 cinemas nationwide.

What’s next?
We need to make some return on this film in order to fund more projects, so we want
to release it commercially overseas – and also, I hope, on TV.

I Am Eleven is out now on DVD and iTunes

JILL ROWBOTHAM – The Australian – May 04, 2013 12:00AM

More Here:
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features

How TV turned itself into a big event

Reports of the death of the ‘watercooler effect’ are greatly exaggerated.

The strangest thing about The Voice and My Kitchen Rules was not Delta’s shoulder
pads, Joel Madden’s hair or watching wannabe chef Dan Mulheron say with a
straight face: “I get excited anytime there’s a mention of sausage.” It was not scat
music or the use of “confit” as a verb (as in “I had better start confitting that duck”).
Nor Ben Lee telling a singer to “get freaky in your own planet”. No, the strangest
thing is that we were watching at all, in such numbers.

Last Sunday night, an estimated 2.95 million people tuned in to see the MKR winner
crowned on Channel Seven, while 1.97 million watched musical battles on Nine’s The
Voice. It was the biggest night of television viewing this year.

Not so long ago, some pundits predicted the rise of digital TV and on-demand
devices would supplant such mass viewing events. The TV audience would fragment
via a multitude of channels and technologies. And yet, last Sunday night just under 5
million homes were tuned in to one of two commercial channels – which equates to
roughly half the households in Australia. Many viewers chatted about what they were
watching in real time via social media and the next day with friends and colleagues.

Reports of the death of the “watercooler effect” – programs with such mass appeal
they become the topic of conversation in the office or home – appear to have been
greatly exaggerated. “We still have a human and social need for some kind of media
that allows us to gather,” says media professor Catharine Lumby, of Macquarie
University. “We see that with sporting events that are broadcast, we see that with the
Olympic Games. There are certain moments in media that bring most people
together and families look for those things.”

What has changed is what we watch together. Watercooler-type conversations once
dominated by dramas and comedies such as Melrose Place or Friends are
increasingly turned on by so-called “event TV”: reality shows that run from the
inspirational (MasterChef) to the idiotic (Celebrity Splash). ”If you flashback to a few
years ago we were all watching Friends and Desperate Housewives and Grey’s
Anatomy but they have all died off now. It is mostly now about Australia and about
reality,” says TV Week editor Emma Nolan. “After the heyday of Big Brother and
Australian Idol, everyone was saying reality TV is dead but it never happened.
MasterChef was just around the corner, rating millions, followed by My Kitchen
Rules then the bonanza that is The Voice.”

An estimated 3.7 million Australians tuned in to the July 2009 final of Network
Ten’s MasterChef – about three-quarters of that night’s total TV audience. ”It was a
new format that felt fresh, where the whole family sits down and watches together,”
Nolan says. Ratings for the cooking show’s latest season fell victim to other event-TV
offerings – MKR and Channel Nine’s The Block.

Such programs have managed to corral a large audience through ”the illusion of
liveness”, says Sue Turnbull, professor in media studies at the University of
Wollongong. ”The arrival of reality television means we have to keep watching TV
every day because of the notion it is unfolding in real time, no matter how false that
is.” In most cases it is an illusion. The crowning of the MKR winner was filmed last
December but producers cut two possible outcomes, so not even the teams in the
final knew the result until Sunday.

Many viewers now watch TV dramas via downloads or DVD boxsets. But canny
networks have countered the threat of fragmentation by creating local reality TV

shows many viewers feel compelled to watch as they go to air. Seven’s director of
programming, Angus Ross, says predictions of the demise of watercooler shows was
driven in part by the ailing ratings of US imports, such as the CSI franchise
and Desperate Housewives. ”The way you counter fragmentation is producing
quality programming that viewers want to watch.”

For the commercial networks that has meant reality shows strip-screened in prime
time several nights a week. ”The first or only time you can see those is on the network
that is broadcasting them,” Ross says. ”We view them like a sporting contest. You
pick the team you like and cheer for them, and over multi nights you build that
momentum.”

The spread of social media tools, such as Twitter, has enhanced the appeal of event-
TV, Ross argues. ”A lot of the watercooler talk is happening now as you watch the
show. That also forces people to watch the shows live to feel part of that conversation
but also to avoid any spoilers.”

Networks have sought to keep viewers together by offering online platforms – such as
Seven’s Fango or zeebox on Ten and Foxtel – which encourage them to chat and
interact while they are watching. ”Now we can second-screen and share our thoughts
on Twitter while the show is on air,” says David Knox, of website TV Tonight. ”Shows
like Q&A and My Kitchen Rules provoke social media. Even Offspring triggers huge
online conversations.”

Dr Lumby says fragmentation has brought a ”new energy” to programming. “If we go
back two decades, getting a slice of the audience was easy peasy. Today’s audience is
incredibly fragmented into age groups, demographics and gender, so the shows that
really draw the crowd are the ones that cross boundaries and speak across a broad
group of people,” she says.

”Everyone has some kind of interest in a show that has a narrative, end game or
competition to it. That’s why those programs come into their own because they are
one of the few spaces in media where people from a whole range of age groups can
actually connect.”

Which is not to say we are returning to an era of entire families sitting around the
box after dinner. Fragmentation, at the very least, has lowered the bar of what is
considered worthy of a watercooler-type conversation. ”Anything over a million is
pretty good these days because television has diversified so much,” Nolan says.

Peter Munro – SMH – May 4, 2013

Screenplay, novel, movie: Sony options The Rosie Project

By Matt Millikan | Monday April 29 2013

Screenplay, novel, movie: Sony options The Rosie Project

Author/screenwriter Graeme Simsion

Debut novelist Graeme Simsion can do no wrong. Not only has The Rosie Project been sold to over 30 countries, it’s also just had the screen rights optioned by Sony Pictures.

According to Deadline the screen adaptation will be produced by longtime colleagues and Sony executives Matt Tolmach and Michael Costigan, working together as producers for the first time. Columbia Pictures president Doug Belgrad and production president Hannah Minghella closed the deal with Simsion, who adapted the novel from a screenplay he started as a creative writing student in Melbourne. Now it has come full circle, with Simsion having written the screenplay of the novel that was based on his screenplay.

‘We love this story,’ Minghella stated. ‘Not only does it have tremendous commercial appeal, but a wonderfully interesting, groundbreaking lead character. There’s already been an incredible response to this novel in Australia and the UK and we think it will strike a similar chord in the States.’

It seems likely, with The Rosie Project a bonafide hit that has so far netted Simsion around $1.8 million AUD. In a sign of its continued success, one of America’s major publishing houses Simon & Schuster will publish in America in October.

While talking to Simsion earlier this month he mentioned shopping the script, not only the book rights, around Hollywood and already having interest from studios. If the screenplay is anything like his manuscript, Simsion would’ve had no shortage of suitors. Almost every major publishing house in Australia bid on the manuscript, with Simsion eventually deciding on Text Publishing.

The Rosie Project follows genetics professor Don Tilman as he undertakes The Wife Project, a curiously scientific approach to matrimony based on a questionnaire that hopefully uncovers his ideal partner. In traditional screwball style, Rosie is anything but perfect candidate, yet still might be the one.

Yet much of the success of Simsion’s book is based on the unique narrative voice of Tilman, who suffers from undiagnosed Asperger’s, with much of the charm coming from the protagonist’s inner world. We wondered how he might translate that from page to screen.

‘In The Rosie Project what Don thinks is a very big part of it,’ he said. ‘That’s why you get the buddy in film, rather than being what Don’s thoughts are, because Don describe them to us, Don will tell Gene.’

It’s not the first time that Simsion’s tried to have the film made. According to the writer, the script was with a producer for a year earlier in its existence but didn’t go anywhere. In order to get it off the ground, he wrote the novel. As he tells the Penguin Blog, one of the reasons to write the novel ‘was to get more attention for the script to help fund the making of the film’.

Matt Millikan | mattm@artshub.com.au

Matt Millikan is a writer and assistant editor at artsHub. You can follow him @MattMEsq

How Social Networking Kills the Creative Spirit

You want to hear some hard truth? Do you promise not to get mad at me? Promise?

Okay then. Here it is. Your social networking habit? It might be hurting you.

Yes, I know it’s fun. Meeting new people, reconnecting with old friends, discussing
the price of tea in china with strangers, staffing up your mafia, finding out your
Princess personality, etcetera, etcetera. But every minute you spend on Facebook and
Twitter (I’m not even going to try and list the gajillion other social networking sites
available) is another minute you aren’t writing, or reading. Nurturing your creative
spirit.

The Muse is a delicate flower, a fickle Goddess. She must be treated with respect and
dignity. She must be nurtured, given the proper nutrients: water, sunlight, fertilizer,
a touch of love. If properly taken care of, she will reward you with great things: a
bountiful garden of words, a cornucopia of ideas. But if you neglect her, she will
forsake you.

And none of us want to be forsaken.

I read an essay last week that broke my heart. It was one writer’s honest, true
assessment of her burgeoning Twitter addiction. She openly admitted compromising
her family time so she could spend hours a night talking to strangers on Twitter. Her
online world became more important that her real one. And I get it. I see how easily
that happens. Especially when you’re a new writer, and networking is so vital to your
future success. (I am so thankful Facebook and Twitter came along after I was
already published.) A little encouragement—that tweet that gets retweeted, the blog
entry that starts people talking, that link you sent that helps someone else—it’s heady
stuff. A classic, undeniable ego stroke, and for a lot of us, that’s just plain
intoxicating. (Yes, some of us not so new writers fall into the Twitter trap too…)

But when does it become a problem?

I can’t answer that question for you. You may want to ask yourself some hard
questions though. Namely, how much time are you really spending online? Can’t
answer that offhand? Spend a week keeping a log of all your online activity. Not just
Twitter and Facebook and Goodreads and Shelfari. Track your email consumption,
your blogging, your blog reading, your Yahoo groups, your aimless surfing and your
necessary research. Be honest. Don’t cheat. Add that time up at the end of the week
and take a candid, truthful look at the results. I guarantee you’ll be surprised at how
much time the Internet takes.

Then ask yourself these questions:

Is the Internet as a whole compromising my writing time? Am I reading less because
I’m spending more time online? Why am I doing this? Am I reaching out to strangers
because I’m not feeling the same sort of support at home? Am I lonely? Blocked?
Frustrated?

Because here’s the heart of the matter. Writers? Our job is to write. And I don’t mean
pithy status updates and 140 character gems that astonish the world. I mean create. I
mean writing stories. I mean taking all that energy and time you’re spending online
playing and refocusing it into your work.

You know why it’s so easy to say that and so hard to back it up with results? Because
Twitter and Facebook are FUN! And you’re talking to other writers, so you can sort of
kind of tell yourself that this is really just research, background. You’re learning,
right? You’re connecting with your fans, with your readers, with your heros. Very,
very cool stuff.

Listen, if you get inspired by social networking, if watching successful authors launch
successful campaigns helps spur you on to greatness, fabulous. I have been greatly
inspired by some posts, links and attitudes on Twitter. I think it’s so important to try
and have a positive experience out there in the world, and I follow people who exude
positivity, who are following the path I want to follow.

But if you’re forsaking your Muse, taking the easy way out, then you have to do a bit
of self-examination and decide if it’s really worth it. I am “friends” with people who
are online every single time I open my computer and go to the sites. And I can’t help
but wonder – when are they working? When are they feeding the Muse?

An editor is going to be impressed with your finished manuscript, submitted on time.
The jury is still out on whether they’re impressed that you can Tweet effectively or
that you’ve rekindled that friendship with the cheerleader who always dissed you in
school.

The thing about social networking is a little goes a long way. I love Twitter. It’s my
number one news source. I follow interesting people, I’ve made new friends, and
more importantly, I’ve gained new readers. It’s a tremendous tool for me. But I’ve
also (hopefully) mastered the art of Twitter and Facebook. I can glance at my
Tweetdeck, see what I need to see, read what I need to read, then move along.

Facebook, on the other hand, became a problem for me last year, so I gave it up for
Lent. I spent six weeks only checking it on Tuesdays and Fridays. The first two weeks
were hell. I was missing out! Everyone was on there having fun except me.

And then it got better. At the end of the six weeks, I added things up. I wrote 60,000
words during my enforced Facebook vacation. That was enough of an indicator to me
that it was taking time away from my job, which is to write.

Now Facebook is a breeze. I’ve separated out my friends, the people I actually
interact with daily, so I can pop in one or twice a day, check on them, then keep on
trucking. I’ve set my preferences so I’m not alerted to every tic and twitch of the
people I’m friends with. I don’t take quizzes or accept hugs. Ignore All has become
my new best friend. Because really, as fun as it is to find out that I’m really the
Goddess Athena, that aspect isn’t enriching my life.

I read Steven Pressfield’s THE WAR OF ART recently and was so struck by his thesis,
that artists fight resistance every moment of every day, and the ones who are

published (or sell their work, etc.) are the ones who beat the resistance back. Twitter,
Facebook, the Internet in general, that’s resistance. (And to clarify, resistance and
procrastination aren’t one and the same. Read the book. It’s brilliant.)

For professional writers, the social networks are a necessary evil, and as such, they
must be managed, just like every other distraction in our lives. I still have my days
when I find myself aimlessly surfing Twitter and Facebook, looking at what people
are doing. Getting into conversations, playing. But I am much, much better at feeding
my Muse. I allot time in my day to look at my social networks, but I allot much more
time in my day to read. And most importantly, I have that sacred four hour stretch—
twelve to four, five days a week—that is dedicated to nothing but putting words on
paper.

There’s another phenomenon happening. The social networks are eating into our
reading time. Readers have their own resistance, their own challenges managing
their online time.

Yes, there are plenty of readers who don’t have Facebook or Twitter accounts, who
may read this and laugh. But many of us do, and if we’re being honest with ourselves,
every minute spent conversing online is another minute we aren’t reading. I can’t
help but wonder if this is what will ultimately drive the trend toward ebooks, since
one out of every three readers prefer to read electronically now. One in three, folks.
That’s a large chunk of the market.

So how do you turn it off? How do you discipline yourself, walk away from the fun?

It’s hard. But what’s more important? Writing the very best book you can possibly
write, or taking a quiz about which Goddess you are? Reading the top book on your
teetering TBR stack, or reading what other people think about said book?

For writers, you have to set your priority, and every time your fingers touch the
keyboard, that priority really should be writing. The rest will fall into place. I
hypothesize that while the Internet is taking a chunk of reading time, most readers
still read a great deal. Which means we need to keep up the machine to feed them,
right? Does this post sound like you? Are you easily distracted? Frustrated because
you can’t seem to get a grip on things? There are a bunch of great tools out there to
help you refocus your creative life. Here’s a list of the websites and blogs that I’ve
used over the past year to help me refocus mine.

Websites:

MinimalMac
43 Folders
Zen Habits
Bloggity
The Art of Non-Conformity

Books:

The War of Art – Steven Pressfield

The Creative Habit – Twyla Tharp
Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life – Winifred Gallagher
Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience – Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

Take fifteen minutes a day off your social networking and read one of these. I
promise it will help you reprioritize your day.

Because really, what’s the point in being a writer if you don’t write?

J.T. Ellison is the bestselling author of nine critically acclaimed novels, including EDGE OF BLACK and A DEEPER DARKNESS. Her novel THE COLD ROOM won the ITW Thriller Award for Best Paperback Original of 2010 and WHERE ALL THE DEAD LIE was a RITA® Nominee for Best Romantic Suspense of 2012. She is also the author of multiple short stories, and her novels been published in more than twenty countries.

The China Clusterf–k: Is Hollywood Fed Up?

Erratic decisions, murky agendas: Frustrated studios are up against a not-so-secret agenda of the world’s second-biggest box office market as they try to build their own entertainment studio system.

At a time when securing film financing is harder than ever, Hollywood desperately is searching for a pot of gold. And there it sits in China — if only the studios can figure out how to get their hands on it.

But increasingly, whether seeking a big investment in a slate of movies or a far
smaller commitment to an individual film, they are meeting with frustration. “A lot
of people in China talk about wanting to invest, and ultimately, for whatever reason,
it doesn’t seem to happen,” says the head of one entertainment company. “It’s
unclear to me what they think they’re getting going in and, when it doesn’t happen,
what’s caused them to change their minds.”

By now, many studio executives have given up on the idea that authorities will ever
permit a Chinese company to invest broadly in a studio whose films might not suit
the state-run China Film Group. Many have actively pursued deals including,
recently, Sony Pictures and Universal. (Some are said to be under pressure from
parent companies in this respect.) Financier-producer Legendary Pictures also is said
to be in pursuit of Chinese money.

Among contenders, perhaps DreamWorks Animation, with its family films, has fared
best. It has released more than a dozen films in China without a hitch and has
announced plans to team with Chinese partners to build a production facility in
Shanghai. Kung Fu Panda 3 is set to be the first animated co-production in China.

Others have learned that even a partnership with a Chinese company on a film
doesn’t ensure their movie will be designated an official co-production, which allows
studios to get a bigger cut of the box-office gross.

In fact, even if studios expect nothing more than the chance to play a movie in
Chinese theaters and believe all hurdles have been cleared, sudden obstacles can arise. Such was Sony’s experience withQuentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, pulled from theaters in China on April 11 literally moments after it began to play.

Still, the lure of China is strong. The country has become the world’s No. 2 movie
market (behind the U.S.), on track to become No. 1 by 2020. (China generated box
office of $2.7 billion in 2012, up more than 30 percent from the previous year, and
the country is still adding screens fast.) Although China typically returns only 20 to
25 percent of box-office grosses to U.S. studios on films allowed in — less than other
foreign markets — a smaller cut of a bigger pot is well worth pursuing, especially in
these hungry times.

But some say the climate in China seems to be getting worse, despite the easing of its
quota system to allow into the market 34 foreign films a year instead of 20. There
have been frequent censorship issues to contend with, as well as the Chinese desire to
tilt the board in favor of homegrown product. In August, when The Amazing Spider-
Man was forced to open opposite The Dark Knight Rises, MPAA head Christopher
Dodd called the Chinese embassy in Washington to ask why.

There’s growing awareness that the Chinese agenda in dealing with American studios
is largely about creating China’s own version of Hollywood. “I think they have a real
ambition to build up a film industry, a real studio business,” says Sony
Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton. “They hope to learn a lot about how movies are
made and marketed.” Such thinking is said to have been behind Dalian Wanda
Group’s $2.6 billion acquisition of U.S. theater circuit AMC Entertainment in 2012.

A top U.S. executive says he believes China’s primary intent is not to make money but
“to create an industry equal to Hollywood, but in a way that reflects Chinese culture
and sensibility and history.” And the goal is for those films to play globally, as
American movies do.

Given all this, plus a shifting political landscape that is opaque to most Westerners,
one Hollywood exec sums up the situation bluntly: “China is way too big to ignore
and way too f–ed up to expect anything.”

For studios, the immediate question is: What do the Chinese really want? When it
comes to co-productions, U.S. studios have learned that injecting a few Chinese
elements into a film does not suffice. DMG Entertainment, the Chinese company that
partnered with Disney’s Marvel on Iron Man 3, had touted the movie as a co-
production, but questions arose as to whether the film would meet China’s ill-defined
criteria. (One problem: Ben Kingsley plays a villain called The Mandarin.) Marvel
ultimately decided not to seek co-production status; instead it will release a tailored
version of the film in China.

Even if a studio is not dreaming of getting co-production status but simply wants the
best chance for a release in China, there may be unforeseen issues, as Sony found
with Django. No reasons were given for pulling the film, but several American
executives are surprised that its extreme violence and nudity had made it past

Chinese censors in the first place. (Several doubt the film will ever be released in
China.)

Last year, Tarantino lent his name as a “presenter” on the martial arts film The Man
with the Iron Fistsstarring Russell Crowe and Lucy Liu. Chinese authorities reviewed
the script for the $15 million movie and allowed the entire picture to be filmed in
China. The only issue raised was an oblique objection to a Chinese actor who
apparently was out of favor. (The actor was not cast.)

But producer Marc Abraham says Chinese authorities ultimately declined to allow
the film to play there for reasons that were never explained. “Filming in China was a
great experience but it was beyond my skill set to understand or fathom the inner
workings of the Chinese government,” Abraham says.

In light of the challenges, some studios have adjusted their thinking. Paramount will
partner with two Chinese entities on Transformers 4 and cast four roles with
Chinese actors selected through a reality television show whose panel of judges
includes producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura, casting directorDenise Chamian,
Paramount executive Megan Colligan and former Academy head Sid Ganis.

Nonetheless, Paramount is not counting on Transformers 4 to be a co-production,
says studio vice chairman Rob Moore. Doing that would be a mistake. “We’re taking
a different approach,” he says. “We are only counting on the fact that we have
identified partners that we believe will help us make the best, most playable movie
for China. If we have a more playable movie in China, we’re going to be happy with
that.”

24/4/2013 by Kim Masters –THR

The crest is history

Actors Sam Worthington and Myles Pollard made the part-surf, part-drama flick Drift over a packed 32 days in Western Australia.

He is a bone fide Hollywood star, the face of the Avatar and Clash of the Titans
franchises and an emerging producer, but Sam Worthington knows he is still
learning.

Take the incident outside an Atlanta bar late last year, when he was handcuffed and
pepper-sprayed after an altercation with a bouncer.

”I was an idiot,” Worthington says. ”If I show you the photo, you’ll understand why.”

The former NIDA student, who now lives in Hawaii when he is not making films
around the world, scrolls through his phone to show a scary-looking shot of him as a
character called Monster in the coming Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie Ten.

”I learnt not to go out in Atlanta, which is primarily a black town, looking like that -
with swastikas on me and ‘world Aryan race’,” he says. ”I forgot that I was looking
like that. So as I was going up to a bouncer, it kind of got out of hand.

”You suddenly realise the thing I have to learn from this is to take my tattoos off and
take my earrings out and I’ve got a bald head and I look quite intimidating.”

Once a promising but limited tough-guy actor, Worthington showed he could really
act in Somersault, opening himself up as a farmer’s son struggling with his sexuality.
When he graduated to bigger movies in Hollywood, he showed his action chops in
Terminator Salvation, Avatar and Clash of the Titans.

”The whole world went a bit upside down when Avatar hit,” he says. ”I call it running
with the bulls. Jason Clarke [the Australian actor from Zero Dark Thirty] and Chris
[Hemsworth from Thor] are doing it at the moment. You run with the bulls. You take

all the movies that come your way because of the fear you’re never going to work
again.

”I’ve got to the point now where I can put the brakes on. I can do movies that are
smaller. I don’t have to be the pretty boy running ’round with the short skirt and the
rubber sword any more.”

And one of those smaller movies shows that even if Worthington is still learning at
36, he is prepared to pass on his Hollywood experience to Australian friends.

When one of those friends, former McLeod’s Daughters star Myles Pollard, asked if
he wanted to be in the surfing action-drama Drift, Worthington was only partly
interested.

The two surfing buddies, who auditioned for NIDA together in Western Australia
then went through the country’s leading acting school in the same year, had long
talked about making the definitive Australian surf film.

While Worthington liked the sound of Drift, which Pollard was producing and acting
in, he had no intention of starring alongside him in the film.

”It could have been quite easy to phone up his mate who does Hollywood movies,
have his mate sign on and you get your money,” Worthington says. ”I refused that. I
said, ‘No dude, you’ve got to build a base around you. Go find a bigger producer, go
get yourself directors, develop the script.’

”It would have been too easy to do that and we don’t work that way as mates.
Amongst us boys, we forge our own way.”

It was a tough-love decision that Pollard now calls ”the biggest favour he could do
me”, encouraging him to learn the business of producing.

Shot around the rugged south-west of Western Australia, Drift is that rare thing: an
Australian surf film with not just spectacular wave action but an engaging story. It
centres on two brothers, Andy (Pollard) and Jimmy (Xavier Samuel from
Anonymous, A Few Best Men and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse), who launch a
backyard surfwear business in the 1970s. It’s a fictionalised version of the origins of
labels such as Billabong, Quiksilver and Rip Curl before they became international
brands, with a story of a family’s struggle to survive after moving to a new town and
facing conflict from a local bikie gang. Worthington plays a surf photographer who
arrives in town in a hippie-style bus.

”It happened here in our backyard,” Pollard says of the rise of the big surf brands.
”These backyard companies became world-beaters on the world stage. I don’t think
that’s been told in a feature film.”

While Drift suggests Pollard has the looks and talent to have his own international
career, he admits to lacking confidence when he tried the Los Angeles audition
circuit after McLeod’s Daughters.

”Myles has got a son,” Worthington says. ”He goes, ‘The primary thing is, I want to
do a movie that my son can watch down the track and be proud of something that his
father did.’ That sold me.

”Then you look at the story and it’s about family who are struggling and get their
dreams come true. Not to embarrass my mate but this is Myles’ dream coming true -
almost parallel with the guy in the movie’s dreams coming true.

”Him and his character had that great crossover, which makes Myles’ acting way
more honest and believable because he’s feeling it for real. That was something I
wanted to help endorse.”

Another former NIDA student from the same year, Morgan O’Neill, wrote the script
and co-directed Drift with Ben Nott.

Pollard says producing Drift was like a university degree, especially when the shoot
ran up against time constraints for lack of finance.

”We had a 38-day schedule,” he says. ”We had to reduce that to 32 because of the
lack of finance. Ripping six days out of the schedule was pretty rough. We were
shooting quicker than telly. So to be in the water as an actor, freezing, I had little
escape from that because I knew just how valuable the time was and how long we had
Sam for.

”It was stressful but pressure makes diamonds.”

Worthington is also moving into producing, starting with a TV series on the
journalists covering the Gallipoli World War I campaign to commemorate the 100th
anniversary next year, and two movies too early to announce – ”but they’re big” – in
the US.

”We’re doing a thing with [director] Phil Noyce as well, which I’m in because I liked
it that much. But the rest of them aren’t vanity. ”That’s what I think is the key: you’re
doing it from a place where you’re paying it forward almost;

it’s much more interesting to produce it.”

The surfing movie is a tough genre to crack, Worthington says. ”I said what you
should do – and Morgs and Myles agreed – was get proper professional surf
photographers who have shot Taj Burrow’s movies and actually been out in Grajagan
in Indonesia and places like that. Get those guys because the cinematography in a lot
of surf films is a land [director of photography] in the ocean trying to prove himself.

”But if you get the guys who live in the ocean, who know how to photograph the
waves and photograph surfing, that really helps.”

Being around so much surf sounds an ideal film shoot for two surfing buddies but
Worthington says six-metre to nine-metre swells in the middle of winter were often
perilous. ”We know we can hold our own but there were waves where you were
nervous,” he says.

”Even bobbing around in a 20-foot swell in the horizon, I’ve never been that scared
in my life. But I understand the ocean – I know that I’m not going to die. I have
enough trust in myself being able to read where the swells are coming.

”I said to Myles, ‘Let’s just go out there and take it on. It’ll seem more real for an
audience.”’

Drift  opens in cinemas on May 2.

Garry Maddox – SMH – April 21, 2013

 

ABC rules with chattering class

THE ABC has stolen a march on the commercial networks when it comes to getting social media users talking about its programs, with several of its shows topping the first results of a new monthly survey that aims to measure programs’ “talkability”.

Monday night discussion show Q&A, a pioneer in Australia in encouraging viewers to
use Twitter to comment live on a TV program, was easily the most talked about on
social media in March, according to the survey, ahead of big sports events and
commercial “watercooler” shows such as The Block and My Kitchen Rules.

Richard Corones, managing director of strategic media firm Magna Global, said the
weakness of the TV ratings system was that it measured the size of audiences but not
how engaged they were and therefore how receptive they might be to advertising
messages. Social Audience Rating Points data is calculated using an algorithm taking
into account factors such as the volume of conversation about a show on Facebook,
Twitter and online forums, whether the sentiments expressed are positive or negative
and if the amount of chatter is increasing or declining.

The SARPS system also reflected how viewers felt about the actors and storylines of a
show, Mr Corones said. By overlaying SARPS data with other measures, media
planners would be able to recommend investment in programming that might not
rate highly in audience numbers but scored well in terms of interest in other aspects
of a program.

Sally Jackson – The Australian – April 22, 2013