Speaker: Levelling the Playing Field
96 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Jonathan King, in reply to
And one thing that’s happened with the changes in that sector is that form has changed along with format.
I think this is a very important point / concept. The feature film is the size it is cos that’s what you could have people pay to sit in a theatre and watch (x 5 sessions a day). With TV showing that there’s a market for 26 or 76 hour stories, and the web perfect for 1 or 5 or half minute pieces (or 24-hour real time train journeys) and – most importantly – cinema becoming the sole preserve of giant multi-sensory rides, then if NZ films’ home really isn’t cinemas, the 90 min format may well be the next thing to fall away.
Good to see NZ on Air taking some action on this.
-
Jonathan King, in reply to
it’s not just an issue NZ faces.
In LA they have created a ‘film Czar’ to try and stop the flow of productions being made outside LA.LA’s “problem” is exactly what our industry is desperate to have happen, and what the increase in subsidies is trying to achieve: productions “running away” from LA … and coming here.
-
Bearing in mind that I barely have a creative bone in my body and can only speak as a consumer.
Isn't part of the problem the change in consumption? The music industry changed because consumers changed the way they listen and are still changing the way they listen. The book industry is going through a similar trauma as old institutions struggle to maintain revenue in an industry where the consumers want something different from that which the industry was designed to deliver.
It seems very much to me that kids nowadays (heh) get most of their viewing at the computer. The cinemas exist for a different purpose than consumption of content. And hence the content that is produced to fit those cinemas is no longer relevant to the interests of the new breed of consumers.
I can see the problem you describe with technology changing the production of content. But I see a larger problem with the change in technology affecting consumption.
For me it's a problem, I just started watching The Almighty Johnsons, it feels so very kiwi and I love it. I missed it on TV. But I bought the DVDs. I could have so easily stolen (or borrowed) that content but I chose not to because I can't figure out how they continue to be able to produce the content if I choose to steal (or borrow) it.
But the TV channel that paid for the production has given up on that content - because I and others chose not to watch it on the media they wanted me to use.
So here's the question, "How do I as a consumer get my dollar to the creators of content I want to see?".
Some part of the answer really has to be via my taxes, so please tax me some more, really. But also there needs to be some other way.
-
Just as another thought, if I do see my taxes used to create more content then personally I am much less interested in seeing big films made here that have little or no creative input from New Zealanders. If those who understand this industry say that doing that really does help kiwis create content then fine. But personally I'd prefer to see my contributions go into genuinely local content eg The Blue Rose and the like.
-
We really need to stop thinking of screen content as 'cinema'.
-
The most significant growth area for cinema going, in NZ and elsewhere, is the art house sector. Oldies hate the multiplex and are returning to independent cinemas, for a different kind of social experience. American studios are beginning to notice this, which is why we now see Helen Mirren in action flics . Small films suit film-making best but we do need to do something about fixing distribution. John Davies owns the only NZ-owned distribution company.
-
Sacha, in reply to
But the TV channel that paid for the production has given up on that content – because I and others chose not to watch it on the media they wanted me to use.
So here’s the question, “How do I as a consumer get my dollar to the creators of content I want to see?”.
By removing the owners of certain distribution methods from roles as gatekeepers of production funding.
-
Campbell Walker, in reply to
Hi Russell
Are there other ways? Depends what you need to get from it, as always. There are good community oriented structures for watching and talking about film - I am very fond of Wellington's People's Cinema (run by a different Jonathan King) as a really engaged space to screen films in, and will try and work with them again, but they're definitively not in the monetised realm.
For the most part I'm not either, so I organise screenings at galleries, houses etc, usually on a koha basis which nobody who comes can afford. That's ok, I can't either - living in Dunedin for instance gives you access to amazing art on a weekly basis, and nobody ever tells you off for not paying to get in, because there is really no money here. We're literally living a long way off the grids of "creative professional" life that is a central focus for so many contributors to PA, obviously.
Accordingly, I'm only starting to re-engage with these questions outside of my arts community. I'd always taken music as much more of an influence than cinema here - and regard what i'm doing as most closely aligned with the ideas of musicians like Peter and Graeme Jefferies and Bill Direen than any local filmmakers.
I'm most interested in making and seeing work that is critical of culture and that demands a certain serious engagement from an audience, and so I'm most interested in thinking how that can work locally, on a small scale that promotes its continued existence.
I know there is an audience for this, based on the responses to the films I've made, but I know its fragile, too. When I've screened to decent crowds who don't know me or slower kinds of cinema too well, we've had the kind of responses that show audiences are seeing something new: some people hate it and leave, others are shocked at seeing something so familiar but new as well.
I went to a random costume party once, and the host came out, dressed in a wonder woman costume. She saw me, and said "Ah, you're the guy who made that Uncomfortable Comfortable film - that film changed my life!" This was several years after the fact. She went on, "I saw it with my boyfriend, and left him as a result". So, yeah, I changed Wonder Woman's life... but in particular, these kinds of quietly extreme responses tell me there are people who have an interest in, maybe even a need for a quietly serious cinema that captures elements of our culture and lives outside the cute and stereotypical.
For me, this lead to considerably further research into the effects of non-expedient cinematic strategies upon audiences: things like duration and the use of real time, getting away from a dependence on the mantra of "storytelling" and replacing it with techniques and methods that are more native to cinema.
But I'm also resigned to doing this pretty much on my own, because its not how we do cinema here. As in line with many other elements of our society now, we don't trust people like artists and academics to do their work - which is not based around the same value systems - without needing to punish them for having potentially less meaningless lives than us, until they earn more money than we do. We see this in film, for instance, in the way that filmmakers are required to whore their ideas out as clickbait (in the most superficial forms) on social media before they're allowed to make a serious film project. Whether or not you are making work that is based around a highly commercial model, cinema doesn't benefit from this kind of reductive approach, and neither do the people making it.
In the same way, I seriously do not think there is any possibility of creating a sustainable NZ cinematic voice that can reflect our culture within the kinds of systems we have operating at present. But this is part of a wider war on culture that we are all participating in, anyway.
Is there a way to do it better in the current environment? There are probably many, and I am speaking from financial perspectives too. I tend to believe that the cinema I'm most interested in works best in public spaces, rather than on a small screen, so I've been trying to tour films. This is hardly financially sustainable, but it does result in positive engagement with audiences. Certainly, I think education and advocacy are necessary.
I am fully aware that I'm running against the tide of conversation for a lot of people here. But I see the problems with film here as much more about the way we make and sell it: if we can get past the assumptions that ideas like reflecting culture, engaged (rather than lazy) criticality and respect for ideas are meaningless and secondary to commercial thrusting, then we can start talking about how we have things worth watching and earning from.
-
Campbell Walker, in reply to
and vice versa as well? agreed they are entirely different things
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Just as another thought, if I do see my taxes used to create more content then personally I am much less interested in seeing big films made here that have little or no creative input from New Zealanders.
With all due and sincere respect, Bart, I’d like to thank the British and Australian taxpayers who (however indirectly) put money in the pockets of every Kiwi employed on Top of The Lake. Thanks, Screen Australia & the British Broadcasting Corporation!
I am fully aware that I’m running against the tide of conversation for a lot of people here. But I see the problems with film here as much more about the way we make and sell it: if we can get past the assumptions that ideas like reflecting culture, engaged (rather than lazy) criticality and respect for ideas are meaningless and secondary to commercial thrusting, then we can start talking about how we have things worth watching and earning from.
I'm trying to pull my thoughts together, but I have the nagging (and not entirely coherent) sense that it doesn't really have to be a zero sum game.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Also, it seems clear to me that the success of Mount Zion was partly related to its use of music, which brought in an audience that might not otherwise venture to a small, local film.
On the other hand, you have Roseanne Liang, two feature films under her belt, currently having the time of her life making Flat 3 in five-minute chunks. I dunno, are there potential solutions emerging in other territories?
Video games seem to be another.
* Forbes: Why Video Games Are More Addictive And Bigger Than Movies Will Ever Be
* The Guardian: Videogames now outperform Hollywood movies -
Sacha, in reply to
cinema is one subset of screen content in the same way as television or internet are
-
Jonathan King, in reply to
cinema is one subset of screen content in the same way as television or internet are
Yes -- but the lines between them are almost entirely dissolved these days ...
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I’d like to thank the British and Australian taxpayers who (however indirectly) put money in the pockets of every Kiwi employed on Top of The Lake. Thanks, Screen Australia & the British Broadcasting Corporation!
It's a very good point and a really good reason to not close our investment borders so to speak.
But there is a difference of scale between those two entities and our own govt resources. SO yeah I'd still like to see our taxes preferentially favour our own stuff, not exclusively of course but preferentially.
But as I said I speak purely from the perspective of the consumer - I know practically nothing about the intricacies of the industry.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
cinema is one subset of screen content in the same way as television or internet are
Yes – but the lines between them are almost entirely dissolved these days …
And thinking of the future - at some point the watching experience will be better using a personal device than it can ever be using a large room with a white wall. At that point the market is individuals and not distributors and media companies.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the lines between them are almost entirely dissolved these days
exactly, and it has been interesting hearing the discussion taking that into account.
-
Campbell Walker, in reply to
the lines between them are almost entirely dissolved these days
Hmmm. The lines between selling them have mostly dissolved, but the way they are made has not. To determine how to analyse their market is not the same as understanding how best to produce them. This kind of blur effect is one of the main problems with understanding cultural production in a market based system.
-
Geoff Lealand, in reply to
I don't want to see that day, if it ever comes. Humans are social creatures and we have a deep and abiding need to gather in public or semi-public places, to experience theatre, listen to music, watch films....
-
Sacha, in reply to
Our nature is to gather socially, but that doesn't mean experiencing culture must happen in fleshy crowds. Online discussion and community around culture can also be richly rewarding. Contemplation and reflection doesn't require an audience.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
True, but for all the richness of my online life, I still need and feel more fulfilled by real world socialisation - well, as much as my introverted self can handle. Observation suggests others feel the same. So I don't see cinemas, concerts, pubs, festivals and other fleshy crowds going away any time soon. I suspect such things will last about as long as our species does.
-
Sacha, in reply to
oh the flesh shall endure, but not as the only option. And pubs and parks seem more likely to have a long future than cinemas.
-
Jonathan King, in reply to
To determine how to analyse their market is not the same as understanding how best to produce them. This kind of blur effect is one of the main problems with understanding cultural production in a market based system.
Maybe really seeing how these markets have changed might be a good way to understand how to produce them? Right now the 'way to produce things' seems strongly linked to how markets used to work ... And people are just willing it to go back to how it was ... or demanding laws are changed (labour laws, copyright laws) to squeeze things back into the shape they were?
-
The essence of the cinema is that it is larger than life. Perish the scenario that we will all be individuals, heads-down, staring at little screens with tinny audio. I believe that the second century of cinema will a long and rich one.
-
Jonathan King, in reply to
I believe that the second century of cinema will a long and rich one.
Have you been to one recently? Long most films are indeed and, while I'm not sure about rich, they're certainly expensive. But there's no mistaking the fact that what plays in cinemas now is markedly different from what it was 10 years ago, let alone the 90 years before that.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
we will all be individuals, heads-down, staring at little screens with tinny audio. I believe that the second century of cinema will a long and rich one.
Of anyone here I thought you might be open to the idea or even an owner of a home projector, I’ve had a Benq since 2008 – still rocking its first bulb, well past the 3000 hours mark, $600. Obviously my various lounges over that time haven’t had the capacity of even the smallest of cinemas but enough seats to get social on it. Especially in NZ where there’s a bit of yardage between the porch and the garage; where there’s a wall there’s a way.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.