Observations about Ukraine. 7 March 2022

Skip to content
Using Gmail with screen readers

Search

More

15 of 19,100

Favorite Film Directors

1.   DW Griffith
2.   Preston Sturgess
3.   Stanley Kubrick
4.   Federico Fellini
5.   Humphrey Jennings
6.   Alfred Hitchcock
7.   FW Murnau
8.   Sergio Leone
9.   David Lynch
10. Ann Hui

Favorite Films of the 21st Century

The Fabulous Destiny of Amélie Poulain (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, France, 2001)
The Station Agent (Tom McCarthy, USA, 2003)
The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, Germany, 2006)

Sin City (Frank Marshall & Robert Rodriguez, USA, 2005)
A Simple Life (Ann Hui, Hong Kong, 2011)
Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson, USA, 2012)
What We do in the Shadows (Jemaine Clement & Taika Waititi, NZ, 2014)
Train to Busan (Yeon Sang-Ho, South Korea, 2016)
The Death of Stalin (Armando Iannucci, UK, 2017)
Leave No Trace (Debra Granik, USA, 2018)
The Open Door (Florenc Papas, Albania, 2019)

Favorite Films

Intolerance  (DW Griffith)
Blow Up (Michelangelo Antonioni)
Ashes and Diamonds (Andrezj Wajda)
Listen to Britain (Humphrey Jennings)
Sullivan’s Travels (Preston Sturgess)
Amarcord (Federico Fellini)
The 39 Steps (Alfred Hitchcock)
The Last Laugh (FW Murnau)
Eating Raoul (Paul Bartels)
The Wicker Man (Robin Hardy)
The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck)
The Fabulous Destiny of Amélie Poulain (Jean-Pierre Jeunet)
Sullivan’s Travels (Preston Sturgss)
Blue Velvet (David Lynch)
A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick)

Favorite Films by Category

Favorite film.  INTOLERANCE (1916) DW Griffith

Western:  ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968) Sergio Leone

Horror:      THE RE-ANIMATOR (1985) Stuart Gordon

Comedy:   THE PALM BEACH STORY (1942) Preston Sturges

Romance:  BROKEN BLOSSOMS (1919) DW Griffith

Suspense: THE 39 STEPS (1935 ) Alfred Hitchcock

Mystery:    WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (1957) Billy Wilder

Documentary:  LISTEN TO BRITAIN (1942) Humphrey Jennings

Sports:       THE CLUB (1980) Bruce Beresford

Science-Fiction:   ALIENS (1986) James Cameron

Musical:     MY FAIR LADY (1964) James Cukor

Screwball Comedy:  PEEWEE’S BIG ADVENTURE (1985) Tim Burton

Childrens:   THE BRAVE LITTLE TOASTER (1987) Jerry Rees

Futuristic:   A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) Stanley Kubrick

Drama:       THE WICKER MAN (1973) Robin Hardy

Action:        THE ROAD WARRIOR (aka MAD MAX 2) (1981) George Miller

Dark Comedy:  NOTHING BUT THE BEST (1964) Clive Donner

Guilty Pleasure:  EATING RAOUL (1982) Paul Bartel

Films I love that top no category:

NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (1955) Charles Laughton

CHINATOWN (1973) Roman Polanski

SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS (1941) Preston Sturges

THE STATION AGENT (2003) Thomas McCarthy

THE THIRD MAN (1949) Carol Reed

Five favorite directors:

DW Griffith, Stanley Kubrick, Federico Fellini, Preston Sturges, Alfred Hitchcock

Obituary for Michael T George

Born in 1953 in South Bend, Indiana.  Moved to Santa Barbara, CA at the age of six. Survived an extremely rare form of colon cancer as a teenager.  By the age of eighteen, he had committed himself to three life objectives:  self-employment, frequent international travel and a career in the screen content business.

Attended Santa Barbara Community College for a year before transfering to UCLA–majoring in Motion Picture / Television, with a minor in Russian.  Started his career with legendary American International Pictures in 1977.  After a few years in domestic tv syndication, he moved to Embassy Pictures and became a specialist in the international distribution of American-made screen content.  He frequently attended international film festivals and screen content market events (including 29 Cannes Film Festivals).

In 1985, he founded MTG MEDIA, originally as a tv program distributor and producer representative.  In 1988, the principal emphasis became a database driven marketing business, while continuing to provide consultation services to buyers, sellers and creators of screen content.  Moved to Hong Kong full-time in 2006, to Taipei in 2016 and mostly alternated between northern California, Montevideo (Uruguay) and Penang (Malaysia) thereafter.

To the end, his private passions included baseball, cooking, movies, classical music, travel and correspondence with good friends throughout the world.  He is survived by his sister Katherine of Indianapolis and first cousin Richard Davis of North Star, Ohio.

The Mike on Uruguay

La Republica Oriental de Uruguay has a population under four million and is approximately the size of Missouri and Oklahoma.  It has the highest cost of living (25% less than that of the USA per costofliving.org) and is the least corrupt in Latin America (and is in the 89th percentile in the world per Transparency International).  It has a moderate climate with mild winters and moderate summers.

The character is distinctly European, with most Uruguayans being able to trace their ancestries to Spanish and Italian immigrants.  The native Guarnari culture that has significantly impacted its neighbors (and near-neighbor, Paraguay) to the north and west has nominal impact in Uruguay, as native populations had mostly disappeared by the mid-1800s.

Notes on Latin America

Preface

There are two indexes that I may refer to in this communication:

www.costofliving.org or www.coli.org  Wherever in the world I have an extended stay, the cost of living is a factor.  The USA, Australia and New Zealand are the more expensive.  Rents in Hong Kong are high, but the COL is otherwise relatively low. (Just stay away from the Mid Levels and other tourist areas.) 

Malaysia, Thailand and Paraguay are among the least expensive.  Uruguay and Chile are the most expensive countries in all of Latin America, but have redeeming factors that make them my two favorite countries in the region.

www.transparency,org   The issue of corruption may mean more to me than most people.  So be it.  Transparency International has a Corruption Perception Index that has credibility with me.  The less corrupt countries tend to have high qualities of life.  Uruguay (“The Switzerland of South America”) is the least corrupt country in Latin America–with Chile being a distant second.  Almost all countries in the top 15 have populations under 15 million.  (Australia is the one exception.)  Denmark and New Zealand usually top the annual rankings.

www.xe.com  Exchange rates mean less to me than most.  What I can buy with the money once it has been converted is the mcguffin.  How far will my US dollars go where I am visiting?  I have been in Australia when an Aussie dollar cost US$1.19.  I have been there when the cost was US$0.68.  In the former situation, my expenses were covered by a client.  If not, I probably woud have either gone elsewhere or stayed in Hong Kong, where I lived 2006-2015.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita. Per capita Purchasing Power Parity.

Uruguay

Despite its relatively high cost of living, this country of 3.5 million  is an immensely appealing country by every standard. 

Is very European.  Probably the least ethnicly diverse country in the Western Hemisphere, its population is largely a mix of people tracing their heritage to Spain and Italy.  Was one of the later countries to be colonized, as it had neither the gold nor the silver that attracted dthe Conquistadors to other countries in South America.

Indigenous Responsibility for Global Warming

The developed world is generally held responsible for changes in the atmosphere. However, consider the following:

Summer temperatures in Paraguay hover interminably around 40 degrees celsius. Native Guaranis and those of mixed Guarani and European stock represent well over 80% of the population. 500 kilometers south is Utuguay, which has almost no indigenous people and summer temperatures that rarely surpass 25 degrees.

In Australia, Aborigines have their highest population densities in the Northern Territories, which have insuferable heat and humidity during the summer. In contrast, the coolest summer weather in Australia occurs on the island of Tasmania, whose last native Aborigine passed over 100 years ago.

Comparable examples can be found throughout the world. Is it a coincidence that native populations tend to frequent warmer places? Is there a cause and effect present that isn’t being reported in the left wing, pinko fake news organs that spew their propaganda relentlessly?

I leave it to the reader to decide.

Michael T George in Paraguay – Spanish version

Soy Michael T. George. Durante 45 años he trabajado como profesional en desarrollo financiero, marketing y distribución de contenido de pantalla en el mercado internacional, los últimos 38 años con MTG Media, la empresa que fundé en 1985.

Soy originario de California, pero he vivido principalmente en Hong Kong y Malasia durante los últimos 20 años. Estoy en Asunción hasta el 30 de noviembre, cuando regreso a Montevideo por tres meses más.

Ahora, semi-retirado, vine a Paraguay para obtener nuevas perspectivas sobre la vida y en los medios de entretenimiento y educación. Esto es lo que he observado hasta ahora.

Parece que aquí se produce muy poco entretenimiento de larga duración (largometrajes, telenovelas). Comparo y contraste Paraguay con Austria y Bélgica. Austria podría satisfacer todas sus necesidades de contenido de entretenimiento desde Alemania. Bélgica podría satisfacer sus necesidades a través de tarifas en francés desde la vecina Francia y programas en holandés desde los Países Bajos hacia el norte. Y ambos importan muchos programas extranjeros.

No sé si Paraguay está haciendo algo para emular a Austria y Bélgica. Lo vi como un extraño, un observador: Paraguay tiene una cultura única y especial. Ningún otro país del mundo fue conquistado por una potencia colonial y, sin embargo, mantuvo la primacía o co-primacía de su idioma nativo. A diferencia de sus vecinos, cuyas influencias culturales son principalmente europeas, la influencia cultural dominante es nativa (Guarnari) y mestiza. Paraguay tiene una voz única, algo especial para contribuir a la conversación cultural mundial. Tiene historias que contar.

¿Estas historias se mostrarán al público paraguayo y se compartirán con el mundo? Sólo si existe la voluntad de hacerlo. Los defensores deben formar alianzas entre sus filas y ofrecer una voz coordinada para solicitar apoyo público y recursos gubernamentales.

A primera vista, parece una gran inversión, pero ¿no es tanto como uno podría pensar? La difusión del Nuevo Cine Paraguayo se puede generar a través de las redes sociales. El énfasis en obtener contenido paraguayo en los festivales de cine se organiza simplemente a través de organizaciones como Film Freeway. Pero, ante todo, debe estar la voluntad de que la voz paraguaya se promueva en Paraguay y se abandere en tierras extranjeras.

No tengo conocimiento de la política paraguaya. Tal vez, me estoy perdiendo factores importantes en cómo se hacen las cosas. Sin embargo, veo posibilidades prometedoras para el contenido paraguayo a nivel internacional. Tengo más pensamientos sobre esto. ¿Quieres escucharlos? Si es así, envíeme un correo electrónico a mtgeorge53@gmail.com

Michael T George in Paraguay – English Version

I’m Michael T George. For 45 years I have worked as a professional in financial development, marketing and distribution of screen content in the international market–the last 38 years with MTG Media, the company I founded in 1985.

Am from California orginially, but have mostly lived in Hong Kong and Malaysia for the most recent 20 years.  I am in Asuncion until November 30, when I return to Montevideo for three more months.

Now, semi-retired I came to Paraguay to get new perspectives on life and in both entertainment and educational media.  Here is what I have observed thus far.

Very little long-form entertainment (feature films, telenovelas) seem to be produced here.  I compare and contrast Paraguay with Austria and Belgium.  Austria could meet all of its entertainment content needs from Germany.  Belgium could meets its needs via French-language fare from neighboring France and Dutch-language programs from The Netherlands to the north.  And, both do import a lot of foreign programs.

However, both Austrians and Belgians have made it clear that they want to the unique qualities and accents of their countries portrayed on screen–and are willing to allocate substantial tax dollars to achieving this cultural benefit.  Their governments have provided investment and susidies to producers, but have also helped their producers develop their filmmaking bona fides, participate in international co-productions that advanced the international visibility of their national cultures and have had a positive impact on tourism and commerce.

I do not know if Paraguay is doing anything to emulate Austria and Belgium.  I saw this as an outsider, an observer: Paraguay has a unique and special culture.  No other country in the world was overtaken by a colonial power, and yet maintained the primacy or co-primacy of its native language.  Unlike its neighbors–whose cultural influences are principally European–the dominant cultural influence is native (Guarnari) and Mestizo.  Paraguay has a unique voice–something special to contribute to the world’s cultural conversation.  It has stories to tell.

Will these stories be shown to Paraguayan audiences, and shared with the world?  Only if there is the will to do so.  The advocates must form alliances among their ranks and offer a coordinated voice in soliciting both public support and governmental resources.

At face value, it seems like a major investment, but it is not as much as one might think?  Creating awareness of the New Paraguayan Cinema can be created through social media.  An emphasis on getting Paraguayan content in film festivals is simply arranged via organizations such as Film Freeway.  But, first and foremost, must be the will to have the Paraguayan voice promoted in Paraguay and championed in foreign lands.

I have no insight into Paraguayan politics.  Maybe, I am missing major factors in how things are done.  However, I see promising possibilities for Paraguayan content internationally.  I have further thoughts on this.  Do you want to hear them?  If so, email me at mtgeorge53@gmail.com

My Personal Experiences with Depression

For hundreds of years, scientists have sought chemical remedies for it, probers of the mind have pursued its psychological components, and psychaitrists have made fortunes from it.  But, no one has found a definitive cure for it.

It is entirely possible that one person’s experience with it can be significantly different than that of another’s, and the treatments that work for one may be entirely different than what might work for another.

In my experience, I believe that it is largely a matter of heredity.  I believe that there is a genetic predisposition for

Observations about the Ukraine War. 7 March 2022

Remembrance. Alan Cumberland

The late Mr Cumberland was a close friend during my decade living in Hong Kong and, later, in visits to Australia. For over twenty years, he was the principal tympanist at the London Symphony Orchestra, and later taught at the Brisbane Conservatorium and the Hong Kong Academy for the Performing Arts. At the LSO, he performed on the scores of more than 500 productions for film and television. Particularly in Hong Kong, we got together regularly. Topics of conversation varied, but we shared a special interest in word and phrase origins.  For example, after a concert one evening at the HKAPA that Mr Cumberland conducted, he introduced me to a young student of his and asked me if I was a friend of Dorothy. I told him that no, we had just met. He nudged me and told me he would explain later.  Later, he told me that asking someone if they were a friend of Dorothy was the way that homosexuals–in mixed company–inquired as to whether someone else was gay. It derived from the commonly held belief that homosexuals had a special attachment to Judy Garland, who, of course, played Dorothy in “The Wizard of Oz”.

On another occasion, I cited the rarity of the subject of our discussion by saying that it was as rare as an unemployed piccolo player on the Fourth of July. He said nothing in response, but it was clear that the gears were turning in his brilliant mind.

Years later, I was in Brisbane on my then annual visits thereto. Mr Cumberland had recently retired from the HKAPA and moved to the outer suburb of North Lakes.  I arranged to visit him.  On a bright Sunday morning, I started my long trip from Highgate Hill (near Southbank) which would entail three buses and a 20 minute walk. As prescribed, I called him when I reached the appointed intersection. I asked him to confirm the street address, but he said that the address was not important, and to just start walking up the street. As I did so, I could see his wife Teri looking my way and could hear him playing “The Stars and Stripes Forever” by John Phillip Sousa on a piano in the distance. When he got to the solo part scored for four piccolos in the band version, he gave it a special flourish.  As we neared the house, I could see that the living room doors and windows opening out onto a terrace were wide open and he was pounding it out.  She told me that he had been practicing all week. It was a magical moment on an unforgetable day. (The solo for four piccolos begins at 3:02 on a brilliant version of “The Stars and Stripes Forever” arranged for concert band at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-7XWhyvIpE.)

B2C Possibilities for AVOD and TVOD

Ten years ago, a hot topic for conversation was the prospect of screen content distribution evolving as a B2C (business to consumer) proposition.  Content producers would put their content on either AVOD (advertiser supported) or TVOD (pay-per-view) platforms, and drive traffic to them–most often via social media.

This goes against norms that have been in place for over a hundred years.  Traditionally, and with few exceptions, producers created screen content, distributors licensed the content to exhibitors (cinemas, tv stations, etc) and the public consumed it as ticket buyers or as viewers of commercials.  The B2C model disrupts the B2B monopoly hold on reaching out to potential consumers.

My experience with the new model has not been successful.  And, while my research has not been exhaustive, I have yet to find an example that has produced meaningful results.

Nonetheless, I see no fatal flaw to the B2C model.  Here are the preconditions:

First, the content must feature a product, personality or idea (“hook”) that has a strong following that is not adequately served by current social and commercial media, but can be reached via social media and be pursuaded to visit a webpage where they can watch the content.

Second, the producer must upload the content onto a TVOD platform, such as YouTube or Vimeo, and set up the mechanism for payment.  If the numbers rise to over fifty thousand, the availability of the content on AVOD would become more attractive to advertisers.

Third, the inclusion on the team of a social media specialist that can use the hook to attract potential viewers to the site is indispensable.  This is all about B2C.

A few years ago, I conducted an experiment with an Australian client in Hong Kong.  I was aware that there were over 220,000 domestic workers from the Philippines that were living in the city-state.  The producer had a completed feature film that told the story of a Filipina domestic in Hong Kong who faces a number of daunting challenges.  We broke it down into eight ten minute segments, uploaded it on to a YouTube channel and tried to drive traffic to it by handing out flyers where Filipina domestics congregate on Sundays and via social media.  We had decent traffic, but were unable to attract advertisers.  It was an education, but fruitless as a commercial enterprise.

Today, we would likely go the TVOD route.

In the commercial marketplace, enterprises will usually emerge to fill a need.  In mid-2021, I have yet to see an entity that will pay a competitive CPM (cost per thousand) on ad placements.  Anybody out there know anyone who does?

Aggregators

Major content buyers (tv program services like HBO, VOD platforms like Netflix, etc) mostly create their own content or obtain it from major studios or the biggest independent producers.  However, they want to be sure that content from lesser producers and distributors do not elude their consideration.  (They could vet the candidate content inhouse, but instead they engage specialists to collect content and present it to them.)  These specialists are aggregators.

There are a number of additional reasons that they outsource their acquisitions activity:

First, the aggregator turns down content that are not a good fit for the content buyers that they work with, saving both parties time and effort;

Second, the content buyers are spared the effort of educating the distributors as to the material requirements, contract fine points and general procedures of doing business with the content buyer.  This is left to the aggregator.

Major content buyers attend market events in substantial numbers.  For promising projects in development, they will usually deal directly with the program producer, pursuant to negotiating a pre-sale or co-production.  But, for content from a lesser distributor they will usually refer the distributor to contact them via aggregator.

So, to which aggregator do they refer the distributor?  They can be cagey here, and generally leave the distributor to find their own.  And, with good reason.  They don’t want to alienate aggregators that are not chosen, and by not recommending candidates they do not run this risk.

The Distributor/Aggregator Agreement.

A Distribution Fee of twenty-five percent of the total revenues received by the aggregator (“gross”), with expenses of up to five percent of the gross collections deducted from the remaining sum (“off the bottom”).  This translates to the distributor receiving not less than seventy percent of the gross.

Expenses: Assuming that the delivery materials are of an acceptable standard, the Aggregator has relatively few expenses.  Expenses come in two forms: Direct Expenses and Indirect Expenses.

Direct Expenses are all expenses directly related to the content in the distributor/aggregator agreement, including shipping, advertising and creation of delivery materials.

Indirect Expenses are costs such as participation at market events and the travel expenses related to same.  If indirect expenses cannot be included in the distribution fee, they should be limited to a percentage (perhaps five percent) of the gross revenues received by the aggregator.

Length of the Agreement.  A two year assignment of distribution rights in specific media (e.g. satellite, cable and VOD) in the specified territory is the norm.  Usually, the aggregator will be able to get a yes or no within a few months as to whether the buyer is interested or not, with negotiations and contract execution rather soon thereafter.  (More appealing content will always be fast-tracked.)  If two years pass without the aggregator making a deal, they know they are unlikely to make one and will have no use for the content.  So, the short term of the rights assignment is normal.  The aggregator will have the right to service any agreement that they make with a buyer for the duration of the aggregator/buyer agreement.

The Territory is usually the United States only, but the aggregator can always come back to the supplier if the buyer has interest in additional territories.  Both, Netflix and HBO have increasingly bought international rights.  Both companies will-under most circumstances–exclude specific territories from a worldwide agreement.

Keep in mind that aggregators are specialists in placing content with a limited number of buyers that are off limits to most suppliers.  Sales agents and distributors deal with everyone else.  So, when aggregators inquire about rights beyond the United States, they are usually talking about an expansion of rights on a license covering the United States.

Some aggregators charge a fee in addition to the commission, but the commission gives the aggregator an incentive to get the highest license fees and non-refundable advances against royalties (“minimum guarantees”).  Nonetheless, the distributor may wish to have the minimum amounts allowable specified in the agreement.

Delivery Materials to be provided to the aggregaror are rarely negotiable, but the provision of same can often be conditional upoon actual licenses being effected.  For example, the aggregator can be provided with a lab access agreement which will allow it to order and pay for videomasters that will be provided to the buyer at their expense.  The full or partial cost of errors & omissions insurance can be delayed until it is actually required as a delivery item on a aggregator/buyer license.

Wherever possible, the distributor should supply the materials specified in the agreement, rather than allow the aggregator to arrange for same and charge the costs to the distributor.

Remembrance. An Extra Tooth

In austral winter of 2008, I was renting a room for a few months in the Highgate Hill section of Brisbane.  The house was an old Queenslander, not far from the river and was less than fifty years younger than the city itself.

One evening, I returned from a work assignment and prepared a one pot meal composed of diced chicken, a half can of chickpeas, onion, celery, tomato sauce and spices–cooked at high heat, served in large soup bowl. a delivered to the mouth with a large spoon.

While spooning away, I encountered that dreadful thud when one meets the resistance of a stone that found its way into one’s granola.  I spat a molar into my hand and awaited an onslaught of pain and blood that was sure to follow.

No pain.  No blood.  I ran a fingertip along my teeth.  All present and accounted for.  It was only at that moment that I looked at the tooth once more.  It wasn’t my tooth.  It was significantly decayed, had almost no root and a cheap metal crown that was unlikely available anywhere but a third world country.

My housemates encouraged me to sue the cannery.  But, I was simply pleased to be spared the expense and discomfort of a replacement tooth.

=======

Michael T George
2 February 2021

Overrepresentation of White Pigs in Entertainment Media

Where are the pigs of color? Even when they are colored in the source material (e.g. The Empress of Blandings is a black, Berkshire sow in the Blandings novels of PG Wodehouse, but she mysteriously becomes a white pig in the BBC series “Blandings” (2013 – 2014). Only in “Heavy Weather” (1995) co-starring Peter O’Toole does a pig of color play a prominent role. But, with all due respect, I attribute this to nothing more than tokenism, to white pig guilt.

What will we do to end this plague of bigotry?

1) Until leading roles performed by pigs of color match or exceed those played by purebred white breeds such as Chester Whites, Yorkshires and Landraces, white swine should be excluded from consideration unless it can be proven that they are homosexual. (Exposure to and arousal resulting from exposure to pig porn would determine eligibility.)

2) Plot lines should be modified to promote interbreeding and same sex pig couples as preferred lifestyle choices.

3) Television series (ie. “Green Acres”, “Blandings”, etc.), books (“Charlotte’s Web”, “Animal Farm”, etc.) and movies (“Babe”, “Babe in the City”, etc) that promote white pig supremacy should be permanently withdrawn from public circulation.

4) Western Classical Music should be banned be banned from sale and public performance, as at least one movie (“Babe”) features an arrangement of a Western Classical Music piece (Symphony #3 by Camile Saint-Saens) that proves the undeniable elitist and racist connection between Western Classical Music and White Pig Supremacy.

It may take centuries for past wrongs to be righted, but the time to start is now.

Michael T George

23 January 2021

Development Capital for Feature Films

Michael T George

Updated 2 September 2019

Preface. If you are impatient, skip ahead to the paragraph that begins: For anyone but the most established and well-backed producers…

Years ago, an Esquire magazine article featured the picture of a monkey at a typewriter and asked: “Is there anyone out there not writing a screenplay?” Good question then. Equally good question today. Hundreds of thousands of original screenplays (“original” meaning not based on a previously produced play or published work) get written every year. Less than a thousand get made, even as low-budget features. Only a handful of original screenplays get made into feature films costing $10 million or more.

Most feature films are based upon source material that was commercially successful in other media. Why? Because $10 million plus is a lot of money. Not only do the investors want a higher probability on a financial return, but everyone in the production and distribution food chains wants reliable deniability if the project ails. (“Who would have thought that a hit novel like Two Nuns and a Vicar in a Taxi could be such a colossal failure?”)

So, what does it take to get an original screenplay produced?

First, be realistic. The odds are particularly long if the creative talent (screenwriter, producer or director) has never had a film produced that was either

a) a low-budget film that made a significant profit; or

b) an independent feature in the $2 million plus range that was a significant, critical success (and I don’t mean an almost positive review in the Minot Daily News.)

Lacking these, the best route is to either

a) find an angel (probably a relative) to finance the whole thing, Or

b) get off their butts and raise the development capital that will allow them to assemble the team necessary to put together a package that will attract actual production finance.

Uh, you ask ‘what about shopping the screenplay to big production companies and distributors? You’ve just disproved the notion that there is no such thing as a stupid question. Go back and read the third paragraph above. When you return to here, keep in mind the following.

You will be sending your screenplay to development executives. Keep in mind the following:

a) Most will return it unread, rather than risk a lawsuit for plagiarism should the screenplay be similar to something they might already have in development.

b) The objective of a development executive is neither there to help you nurture your creative potential nor to fast track your opus to fame and fortune

Their real objective of a development executive is threefold:

a) to keep having three square meals a day and roof over their head

b) to either retain that nice job of theirs until they can get a promotion (with more money and further opportunities for advancement) or a better job somewhere else.

They know that their company:

a) already has producers with projects of their own that will take precedence over anything you’ve got, and with whom they don’t want to make enemies (am reminded of Voltaire, who when asked while on his deathbed if he renounced Satan replied “Now isn’t the time to be making enemies.”) ; and

b) few people get fired for saying no or pushing the project upstairs with a maybe. the yes word would be verboten even if it were allowed to them–the only fear being that they might pass on some project that would be a big hit elsewhere, and they might be called on the carpet for it.

So, you are back to either self-producing or building a package that can attract the participation of credible co-production entity, such as a big production company or top twenty distributor that will invest a chunk of capital.

For anyone but the most established and well-backed producers, availability of development capital is the single greatest determinant in whether or not a film gets made.

I support this claim with the following contentions:

a) creative talents (will use the term producers heretofore) have to pay the bills while they try to bring their projects to fruition; thus, the part-time producers are competing with full time producers; and,

b) re-writes, casting directors, “name” screen talent and potential collaborators cost money.

The idea that a novice producer can send a screenplay to a top 500 screen talent and that they will allow you to attach their name to your project is fanciful at best and induces thoughts of clientcide on the part of agents at worse.

Actually–and this should be obvious–a commitment on the part of screen talent that have been consequential to films that have made money in the past is worth money, and can only be secured by even a credible casting agent if a paid up front option is secured.

Development capital is the source from which such options can be secured.

So, let us consider the key issues:

a) What are the expenses for which development capital will be used?

b) How much capital will be required?

c) How would the capital be compensated?

d) Would all of the development capital be paid up front?

e) What are the sources of development capital?

f) What are the necessary elements to attract development capital?

What are the expenses for which development capital will be used? Here is a checklist:

a) A salary for the producer(s) sufficient to allow their full time efforts to be devoted to bringing the project to fruition. Such must be low enough to suggest that the producer is willing to share risk with the investor, but high enough for the project not to be dismissed as a labor of love for which a ROI is immaterial.

b) Office rent, expenses and salaries in a commercial facility–preferably a production office in a building mostly containing other production offices.

c) Nominal travel and hospitality expenses.

d) Professional services, including accounting, legal and the retainer for a bona fide casting director.

e) Money to secure options on screen talent.

How much capital will be required? Depends upon the budget of the film. Wiggle room on each item up 20%

a) $5 million feature
screen talent costs of $3 million
development window of five months
advanced draft of screenplay
$500,000

b) $2 million feature
screen talent costs of $1.5 million
development window of three months
camera ready draft of screenplay
$250,000

Salary for the producer(s)
12%

Office rent, expenses and salaries
4%

Nominal travel and entertainment expenses.
2%

Professional services, including casting director.
10%

Money for talent options. (More on negotiating these later. Be patient.)
62%

How would the capital be compensated? For the sake of simplicity, we will go with the following assumptions:

a) The development capital is 10% of the total budget.

b) The producer will negotiate a distribution agreement in which 60% of the total revenues accrued by the distributor (“Distributor Gross”) with no further deductions whatsoever are paid to the producer (“Producer Gross”).

c) The investors of development capital would receive 100% of the Producer Gross between the moment that has received its “Initial Compensation” (defined hereafter) and the occasion in which they have been paid 120% of their investment. Thereafter, the producer and the investor of production capital shall equally share the profits.

The provider of development capital would receive:

a) 100% of the revenues Producer gross until 120% of the development capital has been repaid.

b) 20% of the Producer Gross thereafter.

c) 10% of the producer share of the profits

d) An exclusive first option to invest production capital for the project

e) Co-Executive Producer credit

Sounds generous, does it? By the above formula, if the $5 million feature had a Distributor Gross of only $500,000

a) $200,000 would go to the distributor.

b) $240,000 would go to the investor of development capital.

c) $60,000 would go to the investors of production capital. (an 87% loss!)

d) $0 would go to the producer.

How can this be justified? The investors of development capital are running a double risk:

a) That the feature will not be made at all

b) That it may commercially fail so miserably–or be defrauded–so as to not get any ROI.

Since development capital would likely be the difference between the feature getting made and not getting made it is worth such generous terms, which would unlikely deter investors in production capital from participating.

Would all of the development capital be paid up front? Kinda. If 500,000 in development capital was provided, of which 70% was to go to talent options:

a) $150,000 would be payable to the producer upon execution of the development capital agreement.

b) $350,000 would be in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit very clearly specifying that if the producer was able to secure an option with any of the talent listed on the L/C for a role specified in the screenplay (and the same for the other lead roles) in accordance with very clearly specified terms.

For those unfamiliar with letters of credit, I will summarize here. Those familiar with same can skip ahead to: “The options would constitute 10% to 20%…”

A letter of credit is a banking instrument between an issuer (e.g. investor) and a payee (e.g. producer) in which a variety of objective criteria are articulated. The issuer uses an issuing bank into which the amount of the L/C is irrevocably placed. (Once the L/C has been issued, there is no backing out on the part of the investor.) This is the good part.

If the payee meets the exact specifications of the criteria before the expiration date of the L/C the bank must pay the amount in full to the payee. (That’s the irrevocable part.). This is another good part.

So, if the L/C states that if– prior to a specified date–producer Stanley Schlub provides fully executed WGA or DGA documents demonstrating that he has for his the feature film project “Hey, Hey in the Hayloft”acquired a fully executed option on the services of:

a) Stanley Schlub or Morrie Magillah or Deborah Dweeb to serve as director; and

b) Seymour Schtup or Thomas Twineweed or Peter Pinhead to participate in the role of Phineas Thoroughgood: and,

c) Brenda Shiska or Michelle Mishugunah or Tara Temple for the role of Porcina Thoroughgood.

Upon presentation of the attendant documents described herein to the bank in advance of the expiration date of the L/C the bank will pay you the full value of the L/C. And, if it will be a comfort to the investor and/or the agents for the talent, the pay-out made directly to various parties (just in case the investor was fearful that you might use the funds for other purposes). This is also good.

There are a few downsides.

a) Bank fees and review procedures can be time-consuming and expensive.

b) To get the money, one has to follow the exact procedures. There is no flexibility. All names must be spelled exactly correctly. They are not fool-proof. I offer an example.

Some years ago, I was representing an American seller of a film package of six titles to a company in Spain. The buyer had wanted delivery in advance of payment (something no credible seller will never do to anyone but the likes of the BBC). In anger, the buyer claimed he didn’t trust me and wanted to do it by L/C. When all of the materials were assembled and placed with the freight forwarder, the buyer contacted the seller and asked that the materials be sent to a different office in Spain–and send the materials through Madrid instead of Barcelona.

The seller agreed and contacted the freight forwarder who, suspecting a rat, gave me a call. I made sure that the port of entry be as specified in the L/C. If not, when the seller provided shipping documents to the bank for payment: his payment claim would be rejected, the buyer would have the materials and his money back from the bank. The seller would probably have to take legal action to get his money. It was a close call.

The options would constitute 10% to 20% deposit on the total up-front compensation for the talent, and would require the remainder of their compensation to be paid prior to a negotiated date or the deposit paid by the investor of development capital would be forfeited. (According to industry practice, the agent for the talent would be legally required to hold the deposit in escrow so as to be refunded in the event of non-performance–basically meaning not showing up for duty on the specified first day of principal photography.)

With these options secured, raising the production capital would be made much, much easier as the contingencies that deter most investors would be obviated.

What are the sources of development capital?

Private investment is always the best. Any producer that does not have potential investors for development capital is at a distinct disadvantage. I cringe when I hear creative talents mutter the mantra that they are “creative types”, not “business types”. Well, if that is what you are, I hope you have:

a) A business type friend who is willing to invest their time on a long shot project.

b) A rich relative who believes you walk on water and will take the plunge.

Government finance is another possibility. Australia and Ireland have outstanding programs. Austria, Belgium and Canada (three countries who border on much larger same-speaking language countries that provide enough content that the entertainment needs of the forementioned three could be met without them producing a minute of content) have good programs. Almost every country other than the USA has some film promotion scheme in the form of tax subsidies or outright grants..

Why not the USA? The USA is perceived to produce enough content without help that government subsidies are considered unnecessary. And, unlike most countries in the world, the domestic market alone for most content is large enough to turn a profit. Can’t exactly say that about Iceland or Ireland or New Zealand, can you?

Crowd funding. I was slow to accept crowd funding as a means of raising development capital. Is not the perfect solution for many or most. But, you can see my assessment of possibilities at http://michaeltgeorgeonmedia.blogspot.hk/2014/05/crowdfunding-and-creative-community.html

What are the necessary elements to attract development capital? This is the even more subjective part of this missive.

a) A compelling treatment. You must convince a potential development capital investor that the project will keep the audience engaged from the very beginning to the very end. Thus, it must have elements that you can point to that are new and compelling without being so avant-garde that the audience will become alienated.

b) A business plan. You must clearly articulate what you want from the development capital investor, what same will receive as compensation. Your potential investor may not be saavy on the nuts and bolts of production and distribution. But, shall likely have people who have.

Virtually every investor has heard horror stories about movies that have grossed millions, but whose investors were wronged by producer criminality or negligence or robbed by distributors via “creative accounting”.

Be able to make a case for either your knowledge of negotiating distribution agreements or the expertise of your retained counsel that does. Wouldn’t hurt to look at the exalted essay entitled Fundamentals of Distribution for Producers at http://michaeltgeorgeonmedia.blogspot.hk/2014/05/the-fundamentals-of-distribution-for.html

c) A top sheet budget. The proportion of producer compensation to the remainder of the budget will be the first thing an investor will look at. Too big and you are asking the investor to bear too much of the risk. Too little and you won’t be taken seriously as a business person.

d) An advanced draft of the screenplay. Would not provide same to an investor if possible–and then only if you can judge the interest of same to be very serious. Everyone has an opinion. Invariably, an investor with enough capital to take a flutter on the risky prospect of providing development capital must be financially successful. Financially successful people think they can be successful in any trade, and that their creative input into a screenplay would be indispensable to your success.

That said, William Goldman is famous for saying “Nobody in this business knows anything”. Is probably the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in this business. Good screenplays actually have two things in common:

1) They are consistently engaging from beginning to end. To do so, they must be sufficiently innovative to lead the reader to terra incognita. Anything conspicuously derivative hurts.

2) The protagonists must inspire sympathy, amenity or empathy. Otherwise, we don’t care what happens to them, and lose interest. Never understood the appeal of Oliver Stone’s Midnight Express. Drug mule gets caught carry drugs and languishes in Turkish prison? Who gives a shit what happens to him?

Hemingway famously said that a story cannot be better than its villain. I would cite Iago (Othello), Frank Booth (Blue Velvet) and master-at-arms Claggart (Billy Budd) as my most compelling arguments in support of Papa.

e) A revenue forecast. By territory and media. Citing the high, low and most-likely grosses for the 17 largest territories (which constitute about 95% of worldwide revenue). Make sure that the “low” is below break even. I know someone who can help you with this.

f) Cash flow timetable. Quarterly. For five years.

g) Lastly, some appeal to the vanity of the investor is to be allowed. Their name will forever be on the credits of an important motion picture. The IMDB entry will immortalize them as a bona fide member of the entertainment media family.

Some last caveats. Don’t waste your time with investors that:

a) Only make blue chip investments. The project may appeal to the following remarkably common country club fantasy: “Well, Sam, you ask how my picture is coming along? Things were not going very well. But, I’m now taking a more active role, and things seem to have turned around for the better.”

Once they see the real risk involved, reality will dissipate the fantasy. Venture capitalists and successful real estate types understand risk/reward. Pursue investors of any stripe that understand these as well.

b) Confuse an investment with a loan–or want some kind of hybrid that will give them a guaranteed return with the hope that they may also make the big score. The laws of most countries–especially the USA–clearly define what constitutes each. An investor that is set on a guaranteed return is unlikely to be satisfied whatever arrangement you offer. Don’t waste your time.

Thanks for reading. Comments are welcome.