CRTC rewrites the rules for indie funds!

Posted on August 31, 2016 by Michael Korican

In a surprise move that comes into effect this Thursday, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is rewriting the rules when it comes to indie producers accessing Certified Independent Production Funds.

Among the changes, the CRTC is:

Eliminating the requirement that producers obtain a broadcast licence or development agreement to receive CIPF funding.
Allowing and encouraging CIPFs to allocate funding for script and concept development.
Allowing and encouraging CIPFs to allocate funding for promotion and discoverability.
Allowing CIPFs to fund productions achieving at least six Canadian certification points (down from eight), and include the pilot projects recognized by the Commission.
Including co-ventures in productions eligible to receive CIPF funding.

Responding to the new policy framework, Andra Sheffer, CEO of the Independent Production Fund, states:

“The Independent Production Fund has long been an advocate for the support of Canadian content for platforms other than television and because of its endowment, has been able to fund scripted series designed for the web. Therefore, the IPF is encouraged by the CRTC decision to allow other certified Funds which receive their funding from BDUs, to potentially finance projects with no broadcast licence. This will provide the flexibility that our system needs to keep up with evolving production and business opportunities and the demands of modern audiences. Web content allows for innovation and experimentation in story-telling – we have seen it in the web series we have funded over the past 6 years. With few gatekeepers and risk-adverse broadcasters, it encourages new talents to explore and create new forms of story-telling and content that do not typically work on the traditional television platform.”

There are over a dozen Certified Independent Production Funds in Canada.

My take: I think this is a clear signal that the CRTC and Heritage Canada (see ‘by ministerial portfolio’) want to diversify media production and divorce it from television. We shall have to wait and see how the CIPFs respond and how they change their programs.

Locarno Film Festival finds future in small and local

Posted on August 24, 2016 by Michael Korican

Variety reports on two interesting independent film developments: community and content from Step-In at the Locarno Film Festival.

While lamenting the state of indie film today on one hand, some art houses claim to be doing great business on the other.

“‘We’re making a profit,’ said Jon Barrenechea, at the U.K.’s Picturehouse Cinemas, which aim to become hubs of community activity all day long and run their own cafes and bars. ‘One thing programmers don’t like to hear is that it isn’t about films but venues,’ he insisted. Last year at Step-In, Barrenechea cited the case of a 243-seat three-screen in Dulwich, a more affluent part of south London, which was doing ‘incredible business,’ with 90% of audiences living within 10 minutes’ walk of the cinema.”

On the content side, Telefilm Canada crowed about its Micro-Budget Production Program.

“Targeting first-time directors, its Talent Fund – a private donation fund whose partners include Bell Media, Corus Ent and Technicolor – finances movies or TV/web narrative content capped at $250,000 per budget and specifically created for digital distribution. 15% or more of Telefilm financing contribution must be dedicated to promotion and distribution. A pioneering experiment, money is raised not by Telefilm but influential local equity investors backing the Fund, and decision-making on projects is left with film schools or fund partners.”

Eurimages’ Roberto Olla posits that the creative freedom this affords allows filmmakers to try new things and expand the definition of cinema.

My take: Interesting to me that we’re back at the local cinema watching engaging small-scale movies.

VR stats from England

Posted on August 10, 2016 by Michael Korican

Charlotte Rogers of Marketing Week in the UK has reported a raft of VR statistics that are very interesting.

Very nice graphs show:

Consumer Sentiments on Virtual Reality
What Experiences Would You Like to Have When Using Virtual Reality?
What Sorts of Places Would You Like to Get Virtuality Reality Content Related to Your Interests From?

In terms of winning content, the survey points to new, unique experiences as being the most diserable:

“The ability to travel to different cities proves the most popular VR application at 56%, followed by being in the crowd at a concert (52%) and fantasy scenarios, such as flying or walking on water (45%).”

See the original Ipsos MORI media release and raw data.

My take: I just don’t know. Is VR/360 a technology in search of it’s killer app? Or — ? I can’t help but remember the trailer for The Matrix — I think we’ve seen this movie before.

The state of VR to date, in one page

Posted on August 3, 2016 by Michael Korican

Janessa Nichole White of VR Dribble offers the best summary of Virtual Reality to date.

She summarizes:

VR revenue projections
VR market demographics
VR hardware sales
Content that doesn’t work in VR
Content that works in VR
VR gadgets
Privacy and data tracking in VR

Regarding content that works in VR, she lists:

Stationary and interactive puzzle games
Horror
On-rails vehicle
Using 1-to-1 motion controls
Using head as a cursor
Teleporting from place-to-place
Travel and music experiences
Social engagement
1st person story segments

She closes with:

“The vernacular hasn’t been created. There are many obstacles in building a VR game or story. The hardware still has room to improve. Despite all of the above, it sure is an exciting time to be alive.”

My take: if you think 360 is just a fad, check out Say Lou Lou‘s Blue on Blue music video for a perfect example of the plasticity of cinema — in four dimensions. It will blow your mind.

Wattpad is the Youtube for writing

Posted on July 13, 2016 by Michael Korican

Nicole LaPorte writes in Fast Company about ‘How A Toronto-Based Storytelling App Is Becoming A Hollywood Idea Factory‘.

That app is Wattpad, a creative writing social media space.

With 45 million monthly users, Hollywood has marketed numerous films and television shows on the platform.

“But now Wattpad wants to more than just help Hollywood market its wares, it wants to help create those wares. Emboldened by the success of Wattpad author Anna Todd, whose serialized story After (over 1.3 billion reads and more than 6 million comments) was optioned in 2014 by Paramount and is being developed into a feature film (it has also been published as a book by Simon & Schuster), Wattpad has created Wattpad Studios, an in-house production company of sorts that will help identify the next Todd’s and partner them with movie studios and TV and digital networks. The hope is to churn out Wattpad-inspired entertainment.”

Wattpad can do that because they have their finger on the pulse of the community.

“Wattpad’s 2 million writers are different from print authors for a variety of reasons. They publish their stories on the fly, posting chapters as soon as they finish them, rather than going through an editing and publishing process that can take months, even years. They also have a very active relationship with their fans which gives them a unique power that studios and networks can use for their own benefit as they’re developing a Wattpad project.”

Moreover, they’ve already succeeded in doing this in the Philippines with a TV series called Wattpad Presents.

As quoted on Mashable, Aron Levitz, head of Wattpad Studios, points out:

“We have a distinct advantage over other social networks who trade in images or talent. We trade in the atomic unit of the entertainment and publishing industry: Stories.”

My take: I find it interesting that a social media platform seeks to intermediate between a creator and an industry, presumably for a cut of the deal. True, they created the platform allowing writers to create for and communicate directly with their audiences. Is this just another way of saying talent is always rewarded? Is this truly a new economic model, or is it just using the crowd to read the slush pile? I want it to be the former but until the money starts flowing in a new way, I think it’s the latter.

A new role for film critics

Posted on July 6, 2016 by Michael Korican

Richard Brody writes in the New York TImes that ‘Our Dated Model of Theatrical Release Is Hurting Independent Cinema‘.

His thesis is that ‘part of the blame lies with a system of tacit complicity between critics and the industry that poses obstacles to the recognition of independent films’ because any film that has not played for a week in a cinema is considered not to have been released.

Therefore those films remain ‘unreleased’ and not worthy of reviews. Recognition, distribution and monetization then is harder to come by.

Meanwhile, say hello to the Internet. VOD and sVOD platforms effectively sidestep ‘real life’ exhibition.

Brody feels critics are ignoring independent film and asks them to change:

“It’s up to critics and editors to acknowledge what was already clear in 1969 — the realm of movies, their substance and their distribution, has changed drastically, and the practice of criticism needs to catch up with it. What’s both stressful and great about this prospect is that it vastly expands the pool of movies at hand. Critics can no longer keep their heads down and look at a fixed and stable list of releases; they have to do some research and some extra viewing to determine what constitutes, in their eyes, the day’s notable releases. This practice would shift power away from industry executives in determining what’s reviewed. Critics themselves would gain both the power and the responsibility; rather than responding to a pre-existing cultural agenda, critics would be setting it. Rather than interpreting the cinema, they’d be changing it — and that’s precisely the point.”

My take: I agree with Brody wholeheartedly. He’s describing the difference between a movie reviewer and a film critic. As people lose interest in Hollywood, they need guides to help them find their way in the mediascape to great indie films.

Scientific insights into storytelling

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Michael Korican

Jeremy Adam Smith illustrates in a Greater Good post, The Science of the Story, the emerging understanding of neuropsychology in storytelling.

He posits:

“Experiencing a story alters our neurochemical processes, and stories are a powerful force in shaping human behavior.”

He goes on to discuss negativity bias, stress, adrenaline and cortisol.

“When someone starts a story with a ‘dragon,’ they’re harnessing negativity bias and manipulating the stress response, whether they intend to or not. We’re attracted to stressful stories because we are always afraid that it could happen to us, whatever “it” is — and we want to imagine how we would deal with all the many kinds of dragons that could rear up in our lives, from family strife to layoffs to crime.”

Jeremy then explains how likeable characters stimulate our brains to release the neuropeptide called oxytocin. And, finally, dopamine.

“That’s when the storytelling miracle comes to pass: As the cortisol that feeds attention mixes with the oxytocin of care, we experience a phenomenon called ‘transportation.’ Transportation happens when attention and anxiety join with our empathy. In other words, we’re hooked. For the duration of the story, our fates become intertwined with those of imaginary people. If the story has a happy ending, it triggers the limbic system, the brain’s reward center, to release dopamine. We might be overcome by a feeling of optimism — the same one characters are experiencing on the page or screen.”

Why would we evolve to crave stories?

“We need to know about problems and how to solve them, which can enhance our survival as individuals and as a species. Without a problem for the characters to solve, there is no story.”

Watch neuroeconomist Paul Zak‘s video Empathy, Neurochemistry, and the Dramatic Arc.

My take: I like the both the big picture and the details; Zak’s research helps me understand storytelling further and makes me think of the seven basic plots and creativity templates.

Europe moves to protect VoD

Posted on June 1, 2016 by Michael Korican

As reported on Screen Daily, the European Commission is proposing that one of out five titles on Video on Demand platforms be European.

“The updated Audiovisual Directive will enforce VoD platforms such as Netflix to ensure at least a 20% share of European content in their catalogues. The new proposals will also give the possibility for the EU member states to impose financial contributions upon on-demand services to the production and rights acquisition of European works.”

The new rules are outlined in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), under clause three: Promotion of European Works.

My take: it’s about time. Quotas work to establish a domestic industry. Just see how successful CanCom has been for Canadian music and television. With this measure, the Europeans are ending the free ride for VoD services. Too bad we don’t have the guts to enact this and movie screen quotas in Canada.

Snapchat: live, stock and hype

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Michael Korican

Today, to millennials, many new media celebrities are bigger than old media celebrities.

So what do you do when you have over 2.5 million Youtube subscribers?

If you’re Andrea Russett you partner with Indigenous Media and make a horror feature over five days using Snapchat, in 10 second ‘broadcasts’.

The story concerns the hunted Sickhouse, its urban legends, Russett and her friends — invoking a nod to The Blair Witch Project, one of the first word-of-mouth found footage success stories and the most successful one by box office.

Then, in true Snapchat fashion, the clips started disappearing from view 24 hours after being posted.

Don’t dispair, though. The director’s cut will be available for everyone on Vimeo on June 2. You can pre-order now.

Why is ‘Canadian films on Canadian screens’ such a radical idea?

Posted on May 18, 2016 by Michael Korican

Thirty years ago, I organized two film screening series in Toronto at the Bloor CInema called Toronto Film Now and later Film Can.

What was my motivation? My thoughts at the time were:

“In a sense, it’s a radical thing to see Canadian films on a Canadian screen. So it has to been done slowly. But ideally we would have Canadian films on Canadian screens, and the people that are making these films would be able to work with larger budgets and do films that they’re interested in doing in Canada for Canadians.”

See Steve Grant interview me on Maclean-Hunter‘s Community Link cable TV show on February 25, 1986.

Are we better off today?

The Canadian film industry has always found it difficult to exhibit films in Canada. Even Telefilm has given up on shooting for 5% of the box office, though we now have an annual National Canadian Film Day.

My take: I wonder where we’ll be in thirty more years. Will we still be going to the movies? While the majority of tickets are purchased by heavy moviegoers, one third of Canadians just don’t go to the movies at all. Cinema attendance peaked in 2002 and is down almost 20% since then. By the way, that’s the date when approximately 10% of the world got online; today it’s more than half. Coincidence? I think not.

Michael Korican Thinks

Thoughts on Independent Filmmaking and the Emerging Economic System

Category Archives: The Mediascape