Lessons to Learn from Wakaliwood

2009. Isaac Nabwana Godfrey Geoffrey (or Nabwana I.G.G.) was just a fan of Hollywood action movies. He was living in the slum of Wakaliga, near Uganda’s capital city Kampala. He decided to make his own- Uganda’s first action movie! He sold everything he owned and made bricks so he could raise enough money to buy an old Sony camcorder.

Don’t Scale Back Your Ambition

Isaac rallied the people of Wakaliga together, with less than a $200 budget, to make Who Killed Captain Alex? an action movie that makes no sense whatsoever but is absolutely hilarious with surprisingly good action. One of the reasons is that he and his friends taught themselves Kung Fu and now compete in local championships, so the action is authentic. He built himself an editing suite to include CGI in his films, and after making every movie, he has to delete the footage so he has enough space to make his next film.

After the film became a success, he developed “Wakaliwood”, a film studio within Wakaliga that has created such hits as Bad Black, Cannibal Mama, and Ebola Hunter. They play film festivals worldwide, and enough fans bankroll Wakaliwood that it is self-sustaining. Isaac dreamed big, made a movie whose ambition doesn’t necessarily match its budget, and it paid off. His long-term project is building an entire life-size replica helicopter for his next film! and he’s almost there!

Don’t Forget Where You Came From

Isaac had survived the Ugandan Civil War and lived under the brutal dictatorship of Idi Amin. Yet he fed his experiences into his movie, which makes for one of the funniest moments in the movie. His production company, RaMon Film Productions, is named after his grandmothers Rachel and Monica, who raised him. He even composed a song dedicated to them which plays over the credits of Who Killed Captain Alex?

Throughout it all, Isaac has remained committed to improving his community through the growth of Wakaliwood. People in Wakaliga who sell his DVD’s are allowed to keep a large percentage of any sales. He cares about his friends and his family, whilst doing what he loves without sacrificing his integrity.  Not always true in Hollywood.

Expect the Unexpectable

Isaac made Who Killed Captain Alex? for fun. He never intended for anyone outside Wakaliga to see it. But when a copy of the trailer was uploaded to YouTube in 2010, it became a viral sensation across the globe. One of the reasons it was a success is because Isaac hadn’t intended to make money from the film initially, or have it be his “calling card”. He did what he loved for the fun of it, and that passion shines through.

Isaac was recently invited to China, home of his beloved Kung Fu movies. People all over the world love his films and journalists from the likes of Vice, BBC and Al Jazeera are constantly writing about Wakaliwood. Isaac managed to capitalize on his 15 minutes of fame and made it something sustainable. Who Killed Captain Alex? could have been written off as a joke, but 8 years later he has created a film industry in his hometown.

The Moral of the Story

Don’t scale back your ambition. Don’t forget where you came from. And to quote the film, “expect the unexpectable”.

Isaac should be an inspiration to filmmaker and writers alike. You have no excuse not to write your script or make your movie- if Isaac can make an action movie for $200 in a Ugandan slum, and keep it personal to him, then what’s stopping you?

Thanks to a reader I stumbled on this transcript of the Los Angles Times Round Table director’s conversation.  I thought it was worth reprinting here.  The video isn’t available any more and full article can be found at http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/jan/23/entertainment/la-ca-directors-roundtable-20110123

Some spent years fighting to bring their movies to the screen. Others had the great fortune of seeing the pieces fall into place almost overnight. A few of the directors work so closely with their actors they almost become their therapists. One simply turns on the camera and lets his performers fly.

The six filmmakers who recently came together at the Los Angeles Times to talk about their craft have dramatically different work and directing habits. And their films could hardly be more diverse: David Fincher’s Facebook film “The Social Network,” Ben Affleck’s crime story “The Town,” Tom Hooper’s historical drama “The King’s Speech,” Darren Aronofsky’s ballet tale “Black Swan,” Lisa Cholodenko’s family comedy “The Kids Are All Right” and Ethan Coen’s western “True Grit” (directed with brother Joel).

But they all achieved something exceptional in 2010: They created movies that not only were critical and commercial hits but also became a part of the pop cultural conversation. For all their differences, these six directors share the same passion for storytelling and concerns about moviemaking — those early moments when failure seems imminent, praying for the weather to cooperate, kicking holes in doors over financing headaches.

Here are excerpts from a conversation with six of the season’s most celebrated directors:

—

You’re all here because your films have been incredibly successful. But I wonder if you actually learn more in failure. Are the more telling learning experiences from something that doesn’t work?

Ben Affleck: I feel like all filming for me, directing, is about failure. Every day I go home, “Oh, my God.”

Ethan Coen: Yeah, that’s terrible, isn’t it?

Darren Aronofsky: It’s the worst.

Coen: And you kick yourself all the way home — that stuff you could and should have done.

Aronofsky: I think it’s a myth that you [get] exactly what you have in mind. You’re in three dimensions with weather, atmosphere, technology that has limitations, time that has limitations. And you don’t want to control an actor to that extent because it’ll just suck the life out of ’em. It’s a constant form of improv, and you just sort of roll with it.

Tom Hooper: I think it’s an extraordinary thing when you watch your first assembly [of the roughly edited movie], the film always has become something slightly different from what you thought…

Aronofsky: The worst day of my life, every time.

Affleck: Way worst.

—

In what way?

Aronofsky: When you watch an assemblage, you just know you’re getting drunk that night. It’s just a miserable experience. Because you realize you have so much work [to do on it].

Lisa Cholodenko: And you have no idea if it’ll ever be there.

Aronofsky: And you really thought you did better work. You thought you did better stuff. And it has nothing to do with the editor. It just takes time and time to refine, because you’re so far away from that final mix where you’re really putting on that final sanding, the final shellac.

Coen: It’s always funny because we cut our own movies, and I feel exactly the same way.

—

Since you’re an actor, Ben, what do you learn about directing from directors who get good performances out of you?

Affleck: One of the real advantages of being an actor who’s a director is that actors have seen how everybody else does it. Actors have been on all these sets. And made more movies, with the exception maybe of you guys. So you have a sense of all the different ways it can be done. And what that means is you’ve seen it done well, and you’ve seen it done really poorly. There is a kind of unique understanding of having to kind of stand there, and what sort of goes on in your head. And I think there’s two ways to get actors’ trust. One is to become a great director and have done all of these movies. And so actors show up and go, “OK, I’m working on the Coen brothers’ picture.” The other is they’re gonna trust you, that no matter what happens I’m on their side.

David Fincher: People like to do things for people that are really handsome too. [Laughter] But do you ever find that you were in a situation that you thought this guy is a jackass and this is never going to amount to anything, and then you go and you see it and you go [this performance is really good]?

Affleck: I’ve worked in situations with an actor where I was like, “This guy is crazy.” You know what I mean? And I’d say, “OK, the scene is over here.” And he’d go, “I think it should happen in the living room.” And I’d go, “Well, I feel like if she’s waiting for you here and you’re going to come to talk to her….” And then we’d work it out and he’d kind of like sulk. And then I’d say “action” and he’d walk into the kitchen, or the living room. I’m like, “But the cameras are over here. OK? You can’t just….”

Fincher: And then the final product?

Affleck: It turns out because that actor was absolutely fearless — in terms of being able to walk into the room where the cameras weren’t because he thought that’s where the scene was — he actually had a kind of amazing sort of odd presence. He did nothing fake. There wasn’t a false moment in there.

—

What you’re talking about, is that you’re half filmmaker and half therapist?

Aronofsky: It depends on the actor. Natalie Portman [in “Black Swan”], just complete professional relationship. Open up the door, she walks in, does the work. No issues. No hand-holding. She’s just fully prepared. Mickey Rourke [in “The Fighter”] … I’d say 90% therapy.

Isn’t that part of your job as a director, is to meet Natalie where she is and meet Mickey where he is?

Aronofsky: Every actor is an individual and you come to them and see what they need, and try to give them everything they need to sort of be free.

—

Are there actors who just make you want to pull your hair out?

Cholodenko: Yeah. I’ve only had a couple experiences where I wanted to pull somebody’s hair out. And I still wasn’t satisfied with what I saw on the screen. There’s one actor that I just worked with, that is Mia Wasikowska, where I cast her without meeting her. I just liked her from seeing her on “In Treatment.” We were going really fast. I had an instinct. I just did it. And she showed up and I was really like, “Oh, no. This girl is so meek and kind of petite and withdrawn.” But I didn’t talk to anybody about it. And then it was one of those things where, like, you’re just stunned as you go. You’re like, “Oh, my God. She knows more than I do. She’s letting her cards out slowly. This girl is a firecracker.”

Affleck: I think actors want to be allowed to contribute and do their thing and not be micromanaged. They really want to feel like this guy or woman has got it, gets it, and is gonna take you there.

Hooper: It’s a paradox. They have to feel you have a completely tight vision and know exactly what you want, but at the same time the more they can feel completely free to give you everything that you have in your head, without feeling like they’re negotiating your preconceived vision. The more and more I work with really great actors, the more it’s about opening yourself up to what they bring.

—

Ben, you’re describing actors wanting to see a director who is completely in command, and you say you’re driving home every night saying, “This is falling apart.” So is part of your job as a director to give a performance?

Fincher: No, to lie.

Affleck: For me it was just like pretending: “Yes, I know what we’re doing.”

Coen: Yeah, we don’t give the actors anything. We don’t do anything for the actors. I’m not aware of ever having directed an actor, actually. And if an actor comes to us for therapy, he’s in deep, deep trouble. We cast people from our visions because we trust them, and the whole process is mysterious to me. And really, truly, we don’t do anything with actors. They do their thing. You feel like a scene is not working, but you never feel that in a vacuum. The actors feel that too. You kind of work through a scene. It’s all about kind of working the scene. It’s not about the people, or we pretend it isn’t, and that has worked well for us.

—

Has there ever been the case where you put them in front of a camera and you just say it’s not working, you’ve got to recast the part?

Aronofsky: I cast a brain surgeon to play a brain surgeon [in “The Fountain”] because I was so impressed with him. We did all this research, and we found him. And he came — it was just terrible. And as he was doing the lines, I noticed that his nurse, who was his wife, was mouthing the words with him. So it was like they rehearsed all night, and it was a disaster. So, don’t cast a brain surgeon.

Affleck: Will you guys tell an actor, if inside you think, like, “This is no good. This is not working”? And the actor goes, “Well, I had an off day.” Will you kind of come out and say, “Yeah, it doesn’t work”?

Fincher: I think honesty is the best policy. I think you have to be able to go up and say, “I don’t think this is working for the following reasons.” I think it’s all about taking away the things that are confusing. But getting the blinders on so that you go, “You know, this is human, and it may be real, but it’s ultimately confusing to the narrative. And now let’s talk about what it means for these other colors to come into this. And let’s try to find it.” I have found, on numerous occasions, that people are doing stuff where you go, “This is so odd. This is not what we talked about.” And then you find over the course of three of four days, “Oh, I see what this is.”

Coen: That happens a lot.

Aronofsky: The goal is, if you want to reshoot it, then you might be honest with them and tell them, “You’re right. It’s not working.” You’ve generally got to keep it positive and moving forward, I think, because if you knock the confidence away from an actor, you’re…. That’s where it falls apart.

Hooper: Actors are programmed to see the worst. If you’re talking about an actor’s TV series, you say, “I loved you last night.” And they go, “What about the week before?” They immediately worry. Sometimes your body language is enough for an actor to know that you’re not happy. And you don’t really need to say it out loud if you deal with actors you know very well. And I don’t think you really need to be explicit.

Fincher: But it’s never their fault. You know what I mean? If something’s not working it’s usually…

Aronofsky: Either writing or something.

Cholodenko: I had an experience on “The Kids” where there was a scene [that wasn’t working] — I mean, we had no time. So I didn’t really have time to go around and pull it apart and let them find it. I had to look at it twice, three times … it didn’t work. And say, “You know what? We need 15 minutes.” And I grabbed my co-writer and said, “We have to rewrite this. We have to go out there and edit it and turn this around.” And it was the writing.

—

Do you give your actors line readings?

Coen: You can hear [dialogue] before it actually gets performed, line readings in your head. And if the actor makes a different choice you go, “Oh, man. That sounds wrong. I don’t know why, but it’s wrong because it isn’t what was in my head.” But, of course, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Affleck: Jeremy Renner on the second day on the movie, in a scene where he’s getting angry at me — and we did a couple of takes. And I was really kind of into what he was doing. And then the last take seemed to be a little bit weird. And he was like, “Hey, can I talk to you?” I was like, “Yeah. Of course. Sure.” And he goes, “You’re mouthing my lines.”

—

What do people misunderstand about your work?

Aronofsky: That 95% of our job is bureaucracy. It’s like worrying about budget, scheduling, how much time is left in the day. But when we call “action,” we can sort of surrender and sort of, hopefully, connect with what’s going on. And so I think that’s what it’s all about.

—

Does that 95% impede your ability to make your movie?

Coen: I mean, shooting a movie you’re just worried, basically 95% of the time, about making the day, getting the setups, because, yeah, production is time pressure. When you’re rolling it can be fun because you’re an audience for what the performers are doing. You’re always worried having to make the day.

Hooper: What Ethan was saying about speed is the most curious thing about filmmaking because, in reality, your most intimate relationship on set is with time, I think.

—

It’s not with an actor?

Coen: It’s always there. The actors come and go.

Cholodenko: I think there’s a kind of interesting flip side to that kind of time pressure, which is that it makes your senses incredibly heightened. It really is like being in combat so that I think your creativity kind of fires faster, your problem-solving fires faster.

Hooper: You check your watch hundreds of times. And yet when you see “The King’s Speech” nothing would make you think that the major battle the director is having is with time. Our work never gets judged in the context of the time pressure, nor should it. But in reality, when I look at it, I can decode what I’ve done very specifically in relationship to time or lack of it.

Affleck: It’s like weather. Nobody cares.

Coen: An intense, a really intimate relationship with the weather — where the sun is and what the clouds are doing.

Aronofsky: Do any of you guys pray for weather?

Fincher: Pray for snow.

—

All of your films are governed by great use of language. David, I would love to hear about your relationship with language and Aaron Sorkin.

Fincher: I think the key with Aaron is to make sure that not everybody is the same. ‘Cause there’s a degree of snark or glibness or whatever that he has. You have to be careful that you don’t sort of parse out that, that the ensemble becomes delineated and specific. So you want to make sure that Jesse’s [Eisenberg] thing is not Andrew’s [Garfield] thing. So it’s about kind of judging that. But for the most part, it’s on the page. You kind of look at it and you

—

Is it a different challenge for Tom, Lisa and Darren because you have to go out and help put together the money to make the movie?

Hooper: It’s certainly psychologically very strange — that up to the week before we shoot, the whole thing can collapse and there’s no protection. You have to make this imaginative commitment to the idea that your film is going to happen, when there are a myriad of possibilities that it’s gonna fall apart. So you have to take this leap of faith. It’s only the act of starting that will make it real.

Cholodenko: It’s fight or flight. This film, it was insane. We started prepping. And then the person who was putting up the money couldn’t guarantee that the crew was gonna get paid. And the producer said we’re not gonna prep unless we can guarantee everybody gets paid. And we stopped and we lost a week out of a short prep anyway. And you think, “This is a train wreck, this is a recipe for disaster, I can’t believe I’m going headlong into doing this, and I’m gonna exploit these actors who I respect enormously and I’m gonna exploit myself.” I’ve made three independent films that have been financed this way. And this was the one that I was sure was gonna be the easiest and it was by far the most [complicated]. There’s a hole in my door. There’s evidence that it was insane.

—

A hole that was punched or kicked by you?

Cholodenko: I just kicked this hollow door in. And I was like, “I’m losing my mind.”

It sounds as if filmmaking is kind of managed compromise — what can I accomplish, what battle can I win?

Fincher: You read a script and you get through it the first time and you go, “God, that’s an awesome movie.” And then it’s never that interesting or fun from that moment on.

Hooper: When you’re shooting, you’re always hunting for “Is there a better shot? Is there a better moment? Is there something else, another take? Is there a different angle?” And then the moment you get to the cutting room that falls away, and it becomes a sort of ruthless thing of just cutting these things that you fought so hard to get. And they’re shots that you drive your crew so hard to get. And then if they’re not serving the story, they go. It’s a complete change of personality.

—

What was the biggest crisis on “The Town”?

Affleck: It all felt kind of like a crisis to me. There are definitely directors with more experience, who appear to be able to do it with their eyes closed. I feel a tremendous amount of anxiety, talking about making the day, and my own unknowns. Is what I’m doing working? Can I hear my own writing? I mean, just a constant sort of staying above water. We had some trouble. There was an actor that we wanted to play one of the bigger parts and he had a felony conviction.

—

What was the problem?

Affleck: You can’t hold or handle a handgun if you’ve had a felony. So we went to the federal judge and the probation officer. It turns out there are some things that even Hollywood can’t get past. You’re used to this idea that like, “We’ll talk to him, we’ll go in there, we’ll get the permits.” They’re like, “We’re a federal judge. He’s a felon. No.”

—

[email protected]

Last night I went to the DGA program honoring Kathryn Bigelow for her achievements as a director.  I went with my friend Sister Rose Pacatte, who writes a popular blog on cinema and spirituality.

She was a VIP guest, having been on the first jury to make an award to The Hurt Locker, Bigelow’s break-through multi-Oscar-winning film.  The Ecumenical Jury at the Venice Film Festival was the first to launch the critical acclaim that would carry the film to an historic win for Bigelow as Best Director at the DGA and the Oscars.

The reception was lovely and the program was heart-felt and was a wonderful tribute to an amazing woman.  But I couldn’t help remembering a Women in Hollywood article I had read the week before.  It recounts the rather dismal reality in the aftermath to Bigelow’s stunning achievement.

Let’s look at the last couple of winners:

Danny Boyle – 2008 winner – is back in the running with 127 Hours ($18 Million budget) and is also the artistic director for the London Olympics opening ceremony.

Joel and Ethan Coen – 2007 winner – are back in the running this year with True Grit ($35 Million budget).

Martin Scorcese – 2006 winner – released Shutter Island this year ($100 Million Budget).

There are two women still in the major discussions for possible Oscar nods — Debra Granik and Lisa Cholodenko.  Though it would be another huge deal if another woman gets a nomination for best director this year, the truth is that women directors still have little commercial power.  As LA Times said: “nearly all of the beloved indy female directors are unemployable at major studios…”

Okay– So am I incredibly small minded for not just enjoying the evening?  But the truth is all this wonderful director could line up after her win was an HBO movie.

As far as my search revealed her next film (at a low $10 million dollar budget) may or may not be financed a year after taking home the Oscar.  Reports are conflicting.

http://allreetnow.posterous.com/directors-roundtable-when-a-scene-doesnt-work

Were we to have an extended dialogue about this question, I’d try to lead you to a recognition that such a thing no longer exists.

.

The MPAA recently released data on domestic and world box office figures for 2010. Worldwide box office totally $31.8 billion. Domestic box office was $10.6 billion. International (which used to be called “foreign”) was $21.2 billion.

.

Thus, 2/3rds of box office revenues now come from outside the United States.

.

Domestic box office has increased about 15% since 2006, but that’s in dollars, not attendance. In fact, attendance dropped 5% this year, but income managed to equal that of 2009 because of higher ticket prices, especially for 3D.

.

In contrast to the declining American box office, since 2006, international box office has increased 30%.

.

For much of the past 15-20 years, I and most others have been saying that box office revenues for American studio films were roughly split between foreign and domestic.

.

The fact that box office revenues are now 2/3rds foreign and 1/3 domestic explains a lot about what the industry is – and is not – interested in.

.

One of the things it’s not interested in is something that’s simply an American film.

.

The MPAA data is at http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/653b11ee-ee84-4b56-8ef1-3c17de30df1e.pdf

Love those post-apocalyptic teen dramas.  Not.

See more info at Gordon and Whale.

Sleepers come seemingly out of nowhere. They are the little films that confound expectations, attracting enthusiastic audiences that happily spread the word. Sometimes they come from the studio system, produced almost as an afterthought, but mostly they’re produced well off the radar. On occasion, they upend the established order by opening at No. 1 at the boxoffice. But more typically they start small, building over time, hanging on in theaters as more heralded movies come and go. Often the filmmakers involved meet with initial rejection before wildly triumphing in the end. In the process, they expose the limitations of Hollywood’s conventional thinking about what makes a hit.

10. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (Sony Pictures Classics, 2000)
Budget: $17 million
Domestic gross: $128 million

8. “Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight, 2008)
Budget: $15 million
Domestic gross: $141.3 million

7. March of the Penguins (Warner Independent/National Geographic, 2005)
Budget: $8 million
Domestic gross: $77.4 million

6. Jackass: The Movie (Paramount, 2002)
Budget: $5 million
Domestic gross: $64.3 million

5. “Juno” (Fox Searchlight, 2007)
Budget: $7.5 million
Domestic gross: $143.5 million

4. “Saw” (Lionsgate, 2004)
Budget: $1.2 million
Domestic gross: $55.2 million

3. “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” (IFC, 2002)
Budget: $5 million
Domestic gross: $241.4 million

9. “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” (Lionsgate, 2005)
Budget: $5.5 million
Domestic gross: $50.4 million

2. “Napoleon Dynamite” (Fox Searchlight/Paramount 2004)
Budget: $400,000
Domestic gross: $44.5 million

1. “Paranormal Activity” (Paramount, 2009)
Budget: $15,000
Domestic gross: $107.6 million

The full story and video clips from The Hollywood Reporter

Someone forwarded me an exerpt from a talk you did at UCLA about New Media. I really liked you point of view and your enthusiasm. I am finishing post production on an original web series for Sony’s Crackle.com called The Bannen Way. I Co-wrote, produced and star in it. It came out of my frustration with my career and wanting to create. We launch January 6th on line with Day and Date iTunes release of the feature. It’s been quite a ride.

The Bannen Way Trailer is on Crackle.com

“I was asked to address you this morning with my observations on the present as well as the future state of Independent Production.

But before I begin, I have to relate the story of a close friend of mine, who’s a leading heart surgeon.

He said he’d recently been involved in a very trying and emotional six hour piece of open heart surgery where he and a team of people fought valiantly but unsuccessfully to save a patient.

Afterwards, my friend entered the Doctor’s locker room where one of his colleagues was staring absently into the void, clearly spent from the ordeal. He tried to cheer him up but the colleague turned to him and asked why he was not more distraught.

My friend answered with a smile:

At least we weren’t asked to save Independent Production.

Well, the truth be told, we may not be heart patients but we aren’t that far away. We have too many insignificant movies clogging our distribution channels. Tightening economic conditions are sending sharp pains through our systems. Our blood supply from heretofore vibrant markets such as DVD and TV seemingly have evaporated in front of our eyes.

The question we must ask is if the condition is fatal.

In all candor I would say only to some.

Those who ignore the warning signs. Who don’t adjust to the threatening conditions. Those producers and distributors who pretend there is nothing wrong.

Nine years ago, I was a healthy and occasionally happy studio executive. I had taken Fox over a 7 year period from a doormat to the #1 studio and before that had spent 9 years at Disney building a then-dormant minor player into a muscular and, for the first time in its history, a real force in the studio world. I left Fox with 5 of the Top 10 films in history and departed Disney with 19 of the Top 20 Videos ever and as the #1 International distributor.

I had fought with Rupert Murdoch over my desire to create a business for Fox in the world of animation. He felt no one could compete with Disney. Nevertheless I started up Fox Animation. ANASTASIA was a start, it made money. TITAN AE a misstep, and lost. Even though that is the nature of the business, that not everything works, he didn’t want to wait for ICE AGE to finish production. I didn’t have a foot out of the door before Fox tried to sell off the film. Luckily for them, they couldn’t get a deal done.

At the same time, Peter Chernin thought I was taking too much of a chance with X MEN. He called it my $70mm art film, since everyone knew that not only were comic book movies dead but you certainly couldn’t start one in a concentration camp. That wasn’t comic book fun. Maybe not, but most comic books are dark, so it was a question of being relevant, of being grounded.

Ironically, both films have lasted longer at Fox than I did and are now the most valuable franchises in the history of that studio, throwing off billions of dollars of profit.

But they also were, along with FIGHT CLUB, the leading reasons I was shown the door. My bosses couldn’t deal with the unconventional choices like those and others such as BRAVEHEART and THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY because the films weren’t pre-sold and thus seemed less predictable. This despite the fact that these unconventional movies guided Fox to the 5 best years in its history.

When I left, a few of the other Majors called to see if I were interested in running their shops. I thought instead it was time to do things on my own, to not work for companies that no longer wanted to be in the film business, that no longer thought enough about the future to not gum it up. Easier to raise money and worry only about making good movies which could make money.

Needless to say I was naïve. I thought raising money would be easy. I didn’t exactly foresee such things as the Silicon Valley bubble bursting, or the economic meltdown, or the Madof scandal. But then I guess the Captain of the Titanic thought the Atlantic was smooth sailing. And Batman thought the Joker would be a laugh.

When I first made the decision to go off on my own, Larry Gordon said to me something that I’ve never forgotten. He said running a studio is a great job but a terrible life. Producing is a great life but a terrible job.

9 years as an independent producer provides a great perspective. It also cause heart palpitations.

Here’s the one key thing I’ve learned: there is no such thing as an independent producer. There are only dependent producers.

Dependent on distributors, financiers, and bankers, and distribution channels that understand the needs of the market even less than the corporations that own the studios.

Which makes a truly independent producer even more truly dependent because the alternatives to the studio system are in many ways more difficult, not easier.

Perhaps even more than the studios, those with the controls over whether or not a movie gets made independent of the studios do so almost with less attention to the movie itself.

Part of that is due to outsiders who always seem to come into the business believing they can do better and yet rarely have an idea of what they are doing. Attorneys and financial analysts picking movies is a recipe for disaster. They can tell you all day long what hasn’t recently worked, but in truth, haven’t the experience or the knowledge to do anything different than has already been done.

That’s been the oddest lesson of this period for me. That the independent world, which should be aiming to do things better and different from the Studios, doesn’t have that as a mandate at all. If anything, the only thing that independent distributors and financiers look for is the SAME. Maybe costing a little less than the Majors, but they want what the Studios want, or in FIGHT CLUB speak, they want copies of a copy.

I now understand that unconventional choices like X MEN and ICE AGE would barely have a prayer getting made independently. Why? Because at the time, they didn’t look like anything else.

It’s disrespectful if not downright dumb to think audiences can’t tell the difference between the original, which occasionally might even have some fresh faces, and the copy, which almost always is populated with retreads. It’s like thinking you can sell yesterday’s news under a different banner.

The exception to the rule is DISTRICT 9, which didn’t try to compete with the Majors with special effects or stars or plot. Instead of feeling recycled, it was fresh and is now one of the year’s best and most successful pictures. But lot of credit has to go to Peter Jackson since it was undoubtedly his clout that got the film made.

Following the lead of the Majors, presumes that they know what they want. It presumes they have a fix on their audiences.

I would say that’s anything but true. Admissions are down over the past few years and, perhaps most troubling, the audience that Hollywood spends the majority of time focusing on, the under 25’s, are the ones finding other things to do.

Take a look at this shift over the past decade. While use of the internet and video games have dominated leisure time activities, movie consumption is down or flat over the same period. And, more to the point, you can see that there is a 21% drop in film going amongst the core target audience and a 24% drop in the next key category, 25-39 year olds.

And yes, these charts beg another question: if the audiences are shifting, why isn’t the product shifting as well. Name 5 mainstream films this year that successfully targeted an over-30 year audience.

In that way, Hollywood in the broadest sense of the word is much like Detroit. It’s a manufacturer’s mentality that reigns, seemingly indifferent to the consumers it serves. Ignore whether the consumer likes our product as long as they buy it.

Market it and they will come.

And don’t worry if they don’t come back. Accept 60% drop off rates as the norm, saying it’s all about wide openings.

Three years ago the Lakers all-but sold out every game even though they had a lousy team. Since Jerry Buss is a smart owner, he knew if he didn’t fix things, no shows would eventually turn into season ticket non-renewals. He did what he needed to do to make it the hottest ticket in town again and a no-show today is a no-no.

When was the last time you heard anyone either from a studio or an independent talking about improving their product, of creating positive buzz and expanding the audience?

Here’s one basic question to ask yourself: If the most popular film in history was TITANIC and it did so by weaving together interest in all demographic pockets as well as pulling in non-film goers, why in the last 12 years has no attempted to do the same?

TITANIC was #1 at the box office for 15 consecutive weeks. It not only spurred on record year in theatrical attendance, and had the biggest video in history, but also generated the biggest Oscar telecast in years. A good movie, like a good team in sports, makes everything around it better.

An independent couldn’t and shouldn’t make movies of that scale but it should make movies as individualistic and compelling. Certainly there are good examples among some of the smaller independent films—-SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE being an easy choice — that actually do stand out and succeed because of their quality and their uniqueness.

But as you can see from these next few charts, the independent world was no more concerned with the consumer than the studios. With the influx of hedge fund money, the past decade saw a glutting of product, again most of it with no idea of who it was for or how it could be sold. Whether some of these movies had artistic integrity or not, there is no question there was no audience appeal.

From the low water mark of 1990, there has been a 50% increase in the number of pictures and even since 2000, nearly a 25% increase. And most of the influx came from non-Majors, rising from 150 in 1990 to 450 in 2008. That, my friends, is insanity.

Remember that through this entire period, the only growth at the box office has been inflationary, which means more films were fighting for a share of a flat box office. Over approximately this same period, the biggest hits took even a greater share of the box office pie, meaning the independents, even with a vastly greater number of releases, are taking a dramatically smaller percentage of the available money.

Let me get out the rest of the bad news, though I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. The next 2-3 years will be even worse, not because of the flood of new releases, since that is already abating, but rather due to the effect the over saturation has had combined with the economic downturn.

New money is going to be hard, if not impossible to find. Ad sales are down, so TV networks around the world, other than cable, aren’t buying. Add in a confused video market, and it’s going to be tough.

To my mind, the next few years will be about survival.

If it’s any consolation, it will be harder on the Studios than the independents. Not only is it harder for big companies to change, to adapt, but there are legacy issues in terms of personnel. And within the next few years, their big market advantage, the bricks and mortar of their distribution operations, will become a disadvantage in the democratic age of digital. I would assume at least 2 of the Majors to be sold or consolidated by the middle of the decade.

Before I turn to why I don’t think this is all fatal — and in fact, might be a boon — let me address one more item, video. I get asked a lot if the problems are systemic. My answer is not necessarily. That we would reach a point of maturation in DVD is natural and logical, but too much of the downturn is completely self-imposed.

Like much of the bad decision making that has helped take a lot of the profit out of the business, the air was let out of the tires by the studios themselves. No top management of a studio really cared what was going on over the past few years other than was their budget being met.

No one asked whether their units should be pushing Blu-Ray in the face of an economic melt-down or even whether or not Blu-Ray was going to be the next big ap to the general consumer. They simply accepted the idea that they could resell their libraries at higher prices.

So no one asked what impact dropping the price on their existing DVD’s would have. I mean if I can buy TITANIC for under $5 in some stores, why am I so eager then to rush out to pay $30 or so when it’s released on Blu Ray? Is the quality difference that great? How many formats are yet to come?

No one asked what buying great movies at cheap prices would do to new releases, which may not be as great. Give a consumer with less expendable dollars a choice between LEGALLY BLONDE for $5 or ALL ABOUT STEVE for $20 or $30, which do I want to buy?

Simply said, the studios have destroyed the price-value relationship in video, particularly when low priced rental alternatives have sprung up everywhere.

And then add in the absolute flooding of TV product from the beginning of time into the market, and you have the conditions that have absolutely killed video as the key profit center of new movies.

Ok, so in the face of all this, why can I say this is all good news? Because a lot of waste is going to be cleared from the marketplace. Excess product will go away, the people who don’t take the business seriously will go away. Hopefully those who make crummy movies will also go away, but that may just be a personal wish.

In 1984, I went with Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg to Disney as perhaps the 4th employee of the new regime. Disney at the time was barely a film producer much less a major distributor. Before we could execute the plans to transform that company into one of the Majors, I was asked to prepare the presentation to the Board of Directors. A lot of capital was at stake.

The numbers, like some of those we’ve discussed today, were overwhelmingly negative. In truth, the film business has never been an easy one to master. More companies fail than succeed. But what I presented, and this is still one of the absolute truths of the industry, was that it was only a bad business on average. If you expect to be an average performer in this world, you can expect to fail.

Those without the ambition or the brains to figure their way through these tough economic conditions are going to be the heart patients who cannot be saved. No one has a birthright in this business.

It is a game for winners. And those who win today will win to an even greater extent than at almost any point in the past. The flattening of the box office is only true on a macro level. For the individual film, the sky is the limit. Even though there’s more piracy of the hit picture than any other, it’s still that same hit picture that can score giant revenues in all the ancillary streams.

Those who will win will be smart about what they make and how they sell their films. They will hopefully make good films but perhaps even more key they will make unique films that stand out, which means they will not have to compete against the bulk of the films for talent. They won’t look like all the other films so they won’t have to spend as much money marketing them.

It’s not that the buyers aren’t there. Consumers, TV outlets, Retailers and, yes, even Pirates want what works.

Don’t believe me? Ask Summit about TWILIGHT. Ask Searchlight about SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Ask Screen Gems about DISTRICT 9. Ask Focus about CORALINE.

Let me conclude by saying that the challenges are great. Technological innovations often hurt before they help, it takes resources to fight the sense of entitlement that breeds piracy, it takes skill and experience to know what FDR really meant when he said: We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

The 208 winners were announced today. I was the featured speaker at this happy event. And we had a wonderful lunch prepared by Chef Brian from “Top Chef.”

Here is a bit more about the organization:

Voted “Best” Student Film Festival by MovieMaker Magazine, the Angelus Student Film Festival draws entries from graduate and undergraduate students of film from around the world. The future of the film industry gathers each year during the Angelus Student Film Festival to showcase their films of artistic excellence that reflect human dignity. With over 500 entries, from over 100 film schools, in over 20 countries, Angelus Student Film Festival draws a diverse, passionate audience of college students and those working in all areas of the film industry.