THE 72 PROJECT:
ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF FILM PRODUCTION
TO EMPOWER NETWORKS AND FOSTER
CREATIVE COLLABORATION.
MECCSA CONFERENCE – UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER (1211.13)
JAMES FAIR
SENIOR LECTURER IN FILM TECHNOLOGY
STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY
THIS PAPER CONSISTS
OF THREE PARTS
Part One outlines the aims, objectives, rationale and
methodology for the 72 project.
Part Two examines the case studies from Galway and
Melbourne using a SWOT analysis to examine if these
projects met the objectives.
Part Three projects forward to Derry/Londonderry in 2013.
PART ONE:
AIM
- To explore alternative modes of film production in light of
new technologies to empower networks and foster creative
collaboration.
PART ONE:
OBJECTIVES
-
To explore the existing traditional film production model
and the implications of new technologies.
-
To develop potential new models in light of new
technologies.
-
To test the model for applicability and develop case
studies.
PART ONE:
RATIONALE
Film production in an industrial context developed along
similar lines to any other industrial production; including
individuals having specialist skills in a certain field (e.g:
director, producer, cinematographer etc.) and unionization of
workers.
PART ONE:
RATIONALE
Film production has arguably gone through many paradigm
shifts already: the introductions of sound, colour and
different aspect ratios for example. However, the difference
with the digital paradigm shift is that the technologies for
production have become democratised by cost and
availability. This has greatly increased the number of films
made and competing for audiences’ attention, whereas the
means of production were previously too expensive and
distribution channels limited.
PART ONE:
RATIONALE
Film production has arguably gone through many paradigm
shifts already: the introductions of sound, colour and
different aspect ratios for example. However, the difference
with the digital paradigm shift is that the technologies for
production have become democratised by cost and
availability. This has greatly increased the number of films
made and competing for audiences’ attention, whereas the
means of production were previously too expensive and
distribution channels limited.
Whilst Hollywood is responding by creating new roles like
the Producer of Marketing and Distribution (PMD) (Reiss,
2010), these roles are all new additions expanding upon the
existing structure instead of redesigning of existing roles.
PART ONE:
RATIONALE
Smaller national cinemas are mimicking the Hollywood
model but much of it requires subsidy or Hollywood
intervention to exist.
PART ONE:
RATIONALE
How has this traditional model developed?
It is an assumption that efficiency was the only motivator for
the original model development, or that efficiency has been
the only motivator for organisational change subsequently.
For example, Murch (1995, 244) believed that production
roles dramatically changed as technology developed, with
new creative roles emerging as a by-product of the
miniaturisation, especially within his field of film sound. He
argued that the creative implications for individuals were
responsible for much of the adoption of new technologies
and that economic advantage was a by-product. In some
cases, films were costing more as a result of the artistic
freedom.
PART ONE:
RATIONALE
Figgis (2007, 112) argued that the roles within film production
have not been challenged in fifty years, and that new
technologies can liberate filmmakers from organisational and
financial restrictions.
Gaspard (2006, 12) argued that organisational and technical
innovation has been going on for years with low-budget
filmmakers motivated by low costs, but believed big budget
filmmakers had never had to develop such innovations as
they worked on bigger budgets.
However, Ouyang et al (2008) believed that there are many
barriers to innovation in the film industry, from an unusual
organisational structure through to the risk and expenditure
being tightly controlled.
PART ONE:
RATIONALE
There are evidently contradictions in these examples, which
establish various motivators behind the current
organisational structure and specific job roles within the
traditional filmmaking production model. Is it efficiency? Art?
Employment? Profit? It is a complex system with multiple
variables which are difficult to isolate.
Whilst the traditional film production model may have been
the neatest compromise in the past, it is currently reaching
its full potential in light of new technologies?
PART ONE:
METHODOLOGY
Swot Analysis of
existing model
Development of a
new model
Case Study 1:
‘Watching &
Waiting’ (2008)
SWOT analysis
of Case Study 2.
?
Semi Structured
Interviews with
Crew
Documentary
follows process
SWOT analysis
of Case Study 1.
Refinement of the
model
Case Study 2:
‘The Ballad of
Des & Mo’ (2010)
PART ONE:
METHODOLOGY
The case studies were to be shot, edited and screened in 72
hours within the framework of an established film festival.
This was for the following reasons:
• Forces collaboration
• ‘Disruptive’ environment challenges thinking
• Dissemination of ideas
• Cost
PART ONE:
METHODOLOGY
The case studies were to be shot, edited and screened in 72
hours within the framework of an established film festival.
This was for the following reasons:
• Forces collaboration
• ‘Disruptive’ environment challenges thinking
• Dissemination of ideas
• Cost
• THIS PROJECT WAS NOT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL
FILMS SHOULD BE MADE IN 72 HOURS! IT WAS A
TIMEFRAME THAT COULD BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE
THE PRINCIPLE.
PART ONE:
METHODOLOGY
The SWOT analysis was to be used after the case studies to
examine the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats within the model.
A new model would then be developed in light of the
analysis.
PART TWO:
SWOT ANALYSIS
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
PART TWO:
SWOT OF EXISTING MODEL
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
-
-
Repeatable
Scalable production
Potentially profit making
Established
-
-
Insecure employment for most
Low paid for majority of staff with no
scalable exposure to movie success
High financial risk requires
dependency on repeatability and
leads to lack of innovation in
storytelling
Few roles have creative involvement
Production is often linear and time
consuming (roll on/roll off staff)
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
-
-
-
Huge profit for staff with scalable
exposure to movie success
It’s easy to network upon
productions
Technical skills no longer exclusive
Insecure revenue streams
selecting employees with good soft
skills is difficult in competitive field.
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 1 - GALWAY
- Keeping the strengths – Repeatable, scalable.
- Addressing the weaknesses – Secure employment, scalable
exposure to movie success, lower financial risk, creative
involvement across the production, reduce time consumption.
- Retaining the opportunities – scalable exposure to movie
success, easy to network upon productions, technical skills no
longer exclusive.
- Eliminating the threats – Insecure revenue streams, selecting
employees with good soft skills is difficult in competitive field.
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 1 - GALWAY
- Keeping the strengths – Repeatable, scalable.
- To achieve repeatability the roles would require codification that
identified responsibilities. The process of filmmaking would be
broken down into different tasks that required doing, and then
assigned to different people. In Galway the traditional model
would be kept largely intact, but with a group of generalists
(instead of specialists) making up a larger proportion of the
crew, with only a few key heads.
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 1 - GALWAY
Hierarchical
Model
Producers and
Director
Flow of
information
comes down
Responsibility
goes up
Assistant
Producers and
Assistant
Director
Heads of
Departments
Specific
Assistants
General
Assistants
General
Assistants
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 1 - GALWAY
- Addressing the weaknesses – Secure employment, scalable
exposure to movie success, lower financial risk, creative
involvement across the production, reduce time consumption.
- It is difficult to achieve secure employment within the one case
study. Scalable exposure to movie success is a co-operative
principle* and was factored into contracts.
- The creative involvement across the production came through
the flexibility and freedom to move across horizontally across
the production.
- The flexibility meant that fewer people were needed. However,
it improved time consumption instead of worsening it! (fewer
people employed, but busier in their employment)
* What effect would this have on piracy?
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 1 - GALWAY
- Retaining the opportunities – scalable exposure to movie
success, easy to network upon productions, technical skills no
longer exclusive.
- The flexibility of generalists meant it would be easier to move
across the production without territorial infringement. E.g.;
sound person can help camera person without fear of union
rebuttal.
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 1 - GALWAY
- Eliminating the threats – Insecure revenue streams, selecting
employees with good soft skills is difficult in competitive field.
- Can’t solve insecure revenue streams with one project. Finding
good soft skills is always difficult within any industry, but
reducing the competitiveness is one possibility. Does fear of
failure affects soft skills?
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 1 - GALWAY
Watching & Waiting (2008) Final run time: 70 mins
P2 workflow with FCP6. Filmed on HPX500 and HVX200
67 scenes. 77 page script. 10+ locations. 8 cast.
Screened at 20th Galway Film Fleadh, Ireland
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 1 - GALWAY
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
-
-
-
Empowering process
Transparent and shared experience
Audience connection
Formed a network that continues to
collaborate, not compete
Workflow was successful
-
-
Accountability for responsibilities and
confusion over roles
Pareto effect (power law of activity)
Equity is difficult (smoothies)
Some skills take time
(wardrobe/make-up)
Film lacked cohesion and too short
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
-
-
-
Inspirational empowering tool
Creative involvement can be spread
throughout crew and across the
process
Use to create networks?
Social engagement/ demystification
of film production
-
Professionalism versus amateurism.
Social skills don’t equate to
filmmaking talent
Repeatability?
Film loses individuality (designed by
committee)
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
- Keeping the strengths – Empowering process, transparent and
shared experience, audience connection, formed a network that
continues to collaborate (not compete), workflow was successful
- Addressing the weaknesses – Accountability for responsibilities
and confusion over roles, Pareto effect (power law of activity),
equity is difficult (smoothies), some skills take time
(wardrobe/make-up), film lacked cohesion and too short.
- Retaining the opportunities – Inspirational empowering tool,
creative involvement can be spread throughout crew and across
the process, create networks, social engagement/ demystification
of film production
- Eliminating the threats – Professionalism versus amateurism,
social skills don’t equate to filmmaking talent, repeatability, film
loses individuality (designed by committee)
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
- Keeping the strengths – Empowering process, transparent
and shared experience, audience connection, formed a
network that continues to collaborate (not compete), workflow
was successful.
- Developed a mission statement to identify the empowerment
process.
- Made transparency the key and shared the production
development upon social media.
- Factored in events to foster collaboration.
- The workflow was to be revisited to build upon the success.
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
- Addressing the weaknesses – Accountability for
responsibilities and confusion over roles, Pareto effect (power
law of activity), equity is difficult (smoothies), some skills take
time (wardrobe/make-up), film lacked cohesion and too short.
- Job titles would change entirely from the traditional taxonomy,
responsibilities would be identified.
- The crew size became smaller to address the Pareto effect.
-
Crew would be treated equally where ever possible.
- A script would be prepared that reduced wardrobe and make
up. Two protagonists that could split units if necessary.
- Clearer identification of film style would be established and
higher script count.
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
- Retaining the opportunities – Inspirational empowering tool,
creative involvement can be spread throughout crew and
across the process, create networks, social engagement/
demystification of film production.
- The mission statement was to be articulated throughout all of
the promotion and production.
- Creative involvement was to be identified as part of everyone’s
role.
- The social media platform created a network and engaged an
audience whilst sharing the production process (transparency
as a value).
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
- Eliminating the threats – Professionalism versus amateurism,
social skills don’t equate to filmmaking talent, repeatability, film
loses individuality (designed by committee)
- Repeatability was being tested by repeating the test!
- Redefining the roles to address professionalism versus
amateurism.
- Conduct interviews with each member of crew to articulate
project, but also to assess their skills.
- The film would have a clearer visual style (driven mostly by
camera leader) and script was rehearsed more thoroughly.
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
Focus
Camera
Assistant
Camera
Leader
Project
Leader
Shadows
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
Focus
Camera
Assistant
Camera
Leader
Shadows
Workflow
Manager
Sound
Leader
Project
Project
Leader
Leader&
Manager
Performers
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
Shadows
in
wardrobe
Shadow
In office
Shadow
In edit
Shadows
in transit
Shadow
on set
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
Shadows
on set
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
The Ballad of Des & Mo (2010) Final run time: 75 mins
RED workflow with FCP6. Filmed on RED One MX.
44 scenes. 82 page script. 10+ locations. 15 cast.
Screened at 59th Melbourne International Film Festival, Australia
PART TWO:
CASE STUDY 2 - MELBOURNE
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
-
-
-
Empowering process
Transparent and shared experience
Audience connection (Top 10)
Formed a network that continues to
collaborate.
Workflow was successful.
-
Accountability for responsibilities and
confusion over roles
Not everyone felt appreciated
Not equitable (double rooms)
Film too short.
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
-
-
-
Scope for experimentation (stories,
freedom to fail)
Potential for network building activity
Potential for localisation.
Social engagement/ demystification
of film production
-
Threat to established roles and pay
hierarchy.
Progression routes undermined.
FACEBOOK USERS
FACEBOOK USERS
THE 72 WEEKEND
FACEBOOK USERS
BERLINALE
THE 72 WEEKEND
FACEBOOK USERS
BERLINALE
THE 72 WEEKEND
STOKE YOUR FIRES/
BIRMINGHAM
INTERACTION
PART THREE:
REVISITING THE OBJECTIVES
-
To explore the existing traditional film production model
and the implications of new technologies.
-
To develop potential new models in light of new
technologies.
-
To test the model for applicability and develop case
studies.
PART THREE:
REVISITING THE OBJECTIVES
-
To explore the existing traditional film production model
and the implications of new technologies.
-
As new technologies are ubiquitous it means that basic
competencies are democratized and specialism (i.e.
professionalism) is threatened.
-
Cheaper cost of production raises the potential for localisation
in filmmaking.
-
Social media provides productions with a potential to connect
with audiences and share the production experience. However,
there is little to suggest that this translates to actual paid
consumption. Piracy remains a threat.
PART THREE:
REVISITING THE OBJECTIVES
-
To develop potential new models in light of new
technologies.
-
Filmmaking is a flexible process anyway, but it is important to
educate filmmakers that the filmmaking production process is a
pragmatic occupation. Barriers to innovation include the fixed
idea of production, the inconsistent revenue streams and the
fear of failure.
-
A new model can exist whereby creative input is shared across
productions and exposure to profits shared. This is essentially
a co-operative model, albeit based on creative involvement as
well as financial remuneration.
PART THREE:
REVISITING THE OBJECTIVES
-
To test the model for applicability and develop case
studies.
-
The two films have demonstrated that alternative models are
possible, but haven’t tested the final and perhaps most crucial
element of the original model – the profit potential.
PART THREE:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DERRY
-
Ensemble narrative
-
Multiple crews
-
Wider audience for screening
REFERENCES
Figgis, Mike (2007) Digital Filmmaking London: Faber & Faber.
Gaspard, John (2006) Fast, Cheap & Under Control California:
Michael Weise Productions.
Murch, Walter (1995) ‘The Dancing Shadow’ in Boorman, John.
Luddy, Tom. Thomson, David. Donahue, Walter (ed.) 1995.
Projections 4, London: Faber & Faber.
Ouyang, Chun et al (2008) Camera, Set, Action: Process
Innovation for Film and TV Production. Cultural Science Journal
(Vol. 1 No. 2) http://www.culturalscience.org/journal/index.php/culturalscience/article/viewArticle
/17/59
Reiss, Jon (2010) Think Outside the Box Office: The Ultimate
Guide to Film Distribution in the Digital Era, Los Angeles: Hybrid
Cinema Publishing
CONTACT
www.the72project.org
j.e.fair@staffs.ac.uk
www.facebook.com/the72project
Developed at part of a PhD on Alternative
Models of Film Production
Supervised by Prof. Stella Mills, Staffordshire University