TAKE 61 by Danish Film Directors

JULI 2013

Hvorfor gå over for grønt, når man kan blive kørt over for rødt?

- NYE MÅDER AT LAVE FILM PÅ 1

Rum til DANSKE FILMINSTRUKTØRER Nørre Voldgade 12, 2th 1358 • Kbh K. Tlf: 33 33 08 88 • Fax: 33 33 08 80 mail@filmdir.dk • www.filmdir.dk Ansvarshavende redaktør Birgitte Stærmose Redaktionsgruppe Birgitte Stærmose, Marting Strange-Hansen, Klaus Kjeldsen, Camilla Solkær Buskov Design e-types & Benny Box Tryk Glumsø bogtrykkeri A/S • Oplag / 600 Forsidefoto Fra filmen ‘La Ciénaga - Afiche’ Foto: Hugo Colace Take udkommer 4 gange årligt. Take er både et informationsblad og et debat-forum for aktuelle filmpolitiske diskussioner. Alle indlæg er velkomne. Næste deadline: 1. september.

Filmmediet og filmbranchen er udfordret og samtidig i en rivende udvikling. En udvikling, der er uforudsigelig, og som truer filmbranchens nutidige forretningsmodeller og arbejdsrutiner. De betingelser, som branchen arbejder under, ændrer sig med så rivende en fart, at det også kan føles svært for den enkelte filminstruktør at få et arbejdsliv til at fungere og til at finde ens kunstneriske fodfæste. Men i denne angstprovokerende hujende udvikling er der rum til forandring. Der er et stort potentiale og nye muligheder for den ukonventionelt tænkende. Der er plads til helt nye måder at lave film på. Jeg var til Berlin Film Festivalen i februar, hvor jeg til dette nummer af TAKE interviewede to udenlandske filminstruktører: argentinske Lucretia Martel og amerikanske Matt Porterfield. Lucretia Martel er et internationalt arthouse-navn. Hun har instrueret nogle af Argentinas allerfineste film inden for de sidste femten år. Hendes sidste film havde premiere i 2008, som var det år, hvor krisen satte ind og tingene for alvor begyndte at ændre sig.

forandring Matt Porterfield er en amerikansk independent-instruktør, som har taget skeen i egen hånd og fået lavet sine film - også når finansieringen ikke lykkedes. Jeg har talt med begge instruktører om fremtiden, om at møde sit publikum, finansiering, kunstnerisk tilgang, alternative produktionsmetoder og om virkeligheden. Det er der kommet to inspirerende og ret forskellige samtaler ud af. Desuden er der i bladet en artikel, som beskriver setuppet i det nye danske instruktørdrevne selskab, Creative Alliance, og en opfølgning på vores medlemsmøde omkring konsulentordningen.

GOD SOMMER! BIRGITTE STÆRMOSE REDAKTØR

TANKER FRA EN AFGÅENDE FORMAND AF MARTIN STRANGE-HANSEN Natteluften var præget af december – der var frost i luften, og de øde gader genlød af min cykels skramlen. Et karakteristisk sounddesign fremelsket af 12 års daglig brug med et minimum af vedligeholdelse. Mit hoved summede: Af indholdet fra en af aftenens uddelte Champagneflasker, af dagens inspirerende oplæg, af treretters middagen og Medinas surpriseoptræden. Men mest summede det af konsekvenserne, af det ord jeg var blevet spurgt om min stilling til: ”Formand”. Vores daværende formand var netop blevet opslugt af Filminstituttets gange, og med medie- og filmforligsforhandlinger, som slog sig utålmodige ved startlinjen, var der behov for en ny rytter hurtigst muligt. Jeg reagerede, som mange typisk reagerer sat over for det ukendte og uoverskuelige, med et behov for kontrol – for at kunne overskue det hele, alle konsekvenser, faldgruber og deslige. For her kunne man virkelig fejle – tilmed til fuld skue for hele branche og alle sine kolleger. Men det slog mig, at mit behov for kontrol og overblik, for at tage stilling til spørgsmålet, også var et udtryk for frygt. Når jeg laver film, kender jeg mine værktøjer, mit sprog og mine svagheder. Det giver en fornemmelse af sikkerhed, af at have en base. Jeg kan udfordre mig selv, men kan styre processen. Her ville jeg blive tvunget ud af min comfort-zone. Anede ikke om jeg kunne bunde eller synke. Men i det øjeblik, jeg blev opmærksom på frygt-aspektet, var beslutningen let at tage. Selvfølgelig! For jeg er filminstruktør – og vi skal som filminstruktører være frygtløse i den ene såvel som den anden aftapning.

For hvad lærer vi om os selv, hvis ikke vi afprøver os selv netop dér, hvor vi ikke har fast grund under fødderne? Det værste der kan ske, er jo, at vi begår fejl – og fejl lærer man af. En fejl er kun en fiasko, hvis ikke man tør kendes ved den, eller se den i øjnene. Det er også det, vi mener, når vi snakker om risikovillighed. Risikovillighed er ikke kun et ord, som giver en god rungende lyd, når man slår sin producent eller DFI i hovedet med det. Det er et indholdsløst ord, hvis ikke vi starter med villighed til at bringe os selv i risikozonen. Set her på skrift synes jeg, det virker selvfølgeligt, men min erfaring er, at det er det ikke – slet ikke når man står midt i processen.

Jo mere jeg lærer om vores metier, jo mere må jeg respektere den og de fantastiske mennesker, som udfører den. Det er nu lidt over tre år siden, jeg kørte hjem fra champagnefesten i 2009 med hovedet fuld af tanker. Tre år som har budt på mange ”F’er”: Fantastisk, Frustrationer, Forhandlinger, Fremtidsvisioner, Fællesskaber, Fejl og Fuldtræffere. Men jeg har manglet plads til et meget vigtigt ”F” – det i ”Film”. Som i ”mine egne Film.” Derfor vil jeg gerne, her efter tre lærerige, gode år som formand, sige tak for nu for at få lidt tid til mine egne projekter. Tak for opbakningen, tilliden og en dybere indsigt i vores fag. Jo mere jeg lærer om vores metier, jo mere må jeg respektere den og de fantastiske mennesker, som udfører den. Og tak for indblikket og samarbejdet med bestyrelsen og vores sindssygt dygtige sekretariat. Til slut et varmt velkommen til Annette K. Olesen som vores nye formand. Det er en begavet, stærk ny formand, vi har fået. Jeg tror, det bliver et power-samarbejde.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE (who make film)

I WANT TO QUESTION REALITY 6

I met the Argentinian director, Lucretia Martel, at the Berlin Film Festival this year and talked to her about new technology, her audience, arthouse films, the future, distribution and her need to question reality. Lucretia Martel has written and directed three feature films: La ciénaga / The Swamp (2001), La niña santa / The Holy Girl (2004) and La mujer sin cabeza / The Headless Woman (2008). She debuted to great acclaim and La ciénaga was voted the greatest Latin American film of the decade in a poll of New York area film critics. Her next two features both premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. By Birgitte Stærmose

THE LIGHTNESS OF TECHNOLOGY Has your way of filmmaking changed because of new technology? It happens that when I started, most of the new elements of the technology were available, like online editing. I never had the experience of the previous ways, the Moviola. I never was very fond of 35mm. I don’t have this kind of fanatic idea of film. A film fetish? No. In fact for me when the things are bigger and the cameras are heavier, I don’t like it. I always prefer small things that you can carry, that you can move easily. Why? Because it is less heavy, so you are not tied. It is very simple. I like very much to put the things in the computer, very easily. Maybe because I am very lazy. I prefer not to have heavy things and not to do a lot of things to see an image. There are some things that are new, the social net and all those things. It is another way of exchanging movies and things. If you want to go in you get much more exposed and you have to accept that. Ok, I do want this broadcasting thing. You get exposed to a lot of other people, and your content is exposed too. There are ways to control this exposure, but the most popular networks that people use have this kind of problem that you don’t know what kind of access to your content and what kind of comments you get. You are too exposed for my taste. So what is it that is too exposed? I am curious about that. I don’t want to receive messages saying ‘I am in the bath having a warm, I don’t know …’ stupid things like this. All the time I see my friends with a lot of… like the tweets, no thoughts, just what comes to mind... I think what is happening in the huge social networks is that every second looks important.

The seconds are important, but maybe not what you are thinking every second, maybe that is not important. We need a week to think a little more. So I see this lightness… Is it the lack of reflection that bothers you? Not only the lack of reflection. Time is something interesting for developing ideas and emotions. So when it comes as quickly as you snapping your fingers. I don’t trust it. And if you want to go in the social networks you need to be in this trend. For me this is too heavy. Well, one thing that I like very much about technology and that I am very fond of is the idea of the identity that can change. And the copyright that has changed. This is something that I really like. This is a huge, huge thing. And what is it that you like about that? Another way to think about what belongs to you in terms of ideas. And a kind of freedom to pick something from someone and change it . Maybe you saw in YouTube, I have seen it many times, that someone takes a film and rearranges it and someone uploads something and another guy adds something or changes something in this. These are things I like very much. This possibility of taking something and changing it and sharing it with the same guy that is doing the other thing. So it is like a dialogue. I like that very much.

SALT OF LIFE I would like to know how you think of your audience. What is your awareness of your audience. My first question is, who is your audience? It is strange because when I am writing and when I am shooting, I am thinking of my village and of my city. The people of my city, the people that I know, my friends… Because it is difficult to think about someone that you don’t know. Almost impossible. Almost impossible, yeah. So I think of people I know. And of course, if you want to make a film you have a strong need to share a point of view with someone. Cinema has something very particular about its existence. Cinema is closely linked to the market, but at the same time it is a narrative. And I think that in the history of cinema and of what we saw, it is that narratives are not necessarily linked to the market. But some ideas remain around this. The idea of audience. Four people is enough of an audience. Two people, ten people, four thousand, maybe it is enough of an audience. But because cinema is linked to the market we have to think in hundreds of thousands to recover the money. So it is very weird. So how do you do that? How many people are in the town where you are from? 700.000. So it is enough!

Still fra Mechanical Love, 2007

That’s enough. If they all go. But they never go! That was my next question. Do they see your films? No, they don’t. Only very few of them go. But what I wanted to say is that when you make a film, it is because you want to share something. If you want to share something you are thinking of a group of people. You are also thinking about someone that you don’t know, but that you would like to know. So you think that making films is a way of connecting with people that you don’t know? Of course. The work of making a film or writing or whatever way we express ourselves is to connect with others. And not to tell them a truth that you have in your mind, but instead to try to understand what they feel. Not to tell anybody what is the truth, but more to see what the other people see in what you created. It is not to tell people this is what happened, this is the truth, but to see their vision of what you created. Their reaction to your work. It is a communication that does not happen directly, because you are not in the cinema asking ‘what do you think of this?’… No, you don’t do that. But you still get a response.

if you want to make a film you have a strong need to share a point of view with someone

Still fra La niña santa, 2004

How do you get a response? So many emails. People that stop me. I travel a lot. This is something that happens when you work in cinema. And in every strange city and country there is someone that saw maybe in the internet one of my movies and that tells me something. And for me this is the salt of life. This exchange. And sometimes people write me things, not about my films, how great or how bad I am, but about something in their life that is linked with something in my film. This is what I like the most. I have decided not to read the reviews, because reviews are another thing. It does not have the same purity maybe. It is another situation. I learned that before La ciénaga, because if it is something really bad that they write about you, it hurts. And if it is something really good, it is also a kind of hit. So it is better to be far away and to keep your mind focused on the first idea that made you go in the direction of cinema – that you tried to share. Not that you tried to be the best, that you tried to win something. Tried to share. Of course there are people that I cannot share with. There are millions and millions, but maybe I am not interested to share with them. But actually when you say that, just to get back to what you were saying about social media before, it makes me think about that. It is a different exposure though. It is completely different. Because it is too immediate? Is that what you are saying? Yes, and the logic of social network. You don’t choose many things. It is not that you choose things. Is it the randomness? I decide to make a film. And another person decides to see the film. It is a very different thing. So the choice in the meeting between the audience and the maker is important? Yes, of course. It is not that there is a meeting. It is a random crash. Well, that would be great. But there is something in the searching or finding something, that is important. The choice is important. That is true. So has your relationship to your audience changed in the course of your career? Or has it remained the same? Is this the way you have always felt? No, of course when you make a film, although you think that there will be this exposure, and until the moment that you have this exposure you really don’t know what does it mean. The first time that I came to the Berlin Film Festival, I was really surprised, in a good way. You learn a lot in the experience of showing your work to people. You learn a lot when it becomes public. And this is something strange. That it becomes public? When you think of your idea for a film, the idea of public is something anonymous. It is not exactly… 10

I think that this technology brings this hope. The hope that we can find things and be found by others. But we have to wait for some genius to come along…

Still fra La ciénaga, 2001

Public is not exactly what you had in mind! It is too intimate in a way? Yes, you are thinking of having a dialogue with someone that you know or with different people that you know. You are not thinking about a theater with 4.000 people that you don’t know. It is very weird because I think that from the beginning of times people are living with the very personal and the very anonymous. And both things are good things and interesting things to develop.

WAITING FOR THE GENIUS TO COME ALONG I completely understand what you are saying, actually. So do you have any opinions or thoughts on the way that your films have been distributed or will be distributed in the future? I think that everybody is expecting that being online with streaming and uploading could be a way to find audiences that with the mainstream market are impossible to reach. I think that maybe that could happen. I also think that it has not been solved yet. There is not yet a platform that works perfectly. If you want to know, where is Potsdamer Platz you go to Google maps. There is still not a platform like this. There is no branding. But I think that this technology brings this hope. The hope that we can find things and be found by others. But we have to wait for some genius to come along… 11

Still fra La ni単a santa, 2004

I like to compare film to football. If you only had the World Cup there would be no football in the neighborhood. No one could play in the street, no one could play on the square. In the end it would be very boring.We need diversity. In science diversity is the way that life works.

Some genius… I think that the market is a little bit in our way, maybe. So to get back to the question of audience. Who your audience is more specifically. Do you have a big local audience? How are you watched in Argentina? Like the auteur film in every country. You are in the smallest numbers of the huge films. Well, in Denmark the Danish films are watched quite widely. We have a big market share. In Argentina we have two situations, maybe three… One is the huge commercial success for a few Argentine films that are thought commercially from the beginning. Some of them are really good and some are just bland products. Then there is another segment, I think I may fall into this segment, of films that can stay in the theaters for maybe three weeks, exceptionally four or five weeks. That is the time that we can remain in cinemas. And there is another huge segment of movies that are coming out of corruption. They are released in some theaters to recover some subsidies and there is not interest in them, no one loves these movies. I don’t really understand… well, it is a business. And you make enough to make another film. But of course with some money from the state. So would you say that your audience is more of an international audience than an Argentinian audience? I would say that in all the countries that I have a release it is more or less the same. It is a portion of the people between the age of 25 and 50. This is the reality.

Still fra La ciénaga, 2001

My sense is that there are some very big transformations happening with the financing and what is possible to make and what can be financed. This is why I am talking about audience, obviously. So I am interested to hear how you have felt that or if you have felt that? I think that since I began in 2001 the financing of auteur films for theaters is difficult. Because the market is more and more under the pressure of the mainstream films and companies. So I see that the market is shrinking, but at the same time a huge opportunity has opened on the internet. In fact there are many young people watching old movies on the internet that are impossible to see in their cities in other ways. So I have a lot of hope in the evolution of cinema. For me it is very unnatural how the market works. What is unnatural about it? It is unnatural how you push, push, push movies and less and less it pays. I suppose in Argentina fra majors that produce the American blockbusters, so what much of the screens belong to theStill same La ciénaga, 2001

chance do you have? When I released La Ciénaga in one cinema there were twelve screens. Three with Jesus Christ (The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson, ed.). Three with Shrek. Shrek subtitled. Shrek in Spanish. Shrek… you know! And one other American blockbuster on three screens, I don’t remember which. Then there are only three screens left for the rest of the world including Argentina. This is not natural, I think. It is like football. I like to compare film to football. If you only had the World Cup there would be no football in the neighborhood. No one could play in the street, no one could play on the square. There would only be the huge stadium for the national teams. That would not make sense. There would be no players for that. In the end it would be very boring. You can compare it with that. We need diversity. In science diversity is the way that life works. I am reading this book on diversity, Far From the Tree. The author starts the book with his own personal story about how he was raised. His mother discovered at a very early age that he was dyslexic and started immediately to work on curing this disability of his. Make him normal. And he later in life he discovered that he was gay. Something that today is a central part of his identity. Of who he is. And he is very happy that he is no longer dyslexic and very happy that he is gay. He ponders in the book what would have happened had his mother instead discovered that he was gay at an early age and tried to ‘cure’ him of that instead of the dyslexia. Questions of how is your identity created, what do you become? And the idea that your difference is actually where your identity comes from. Not from the mainstream. You don’t get an identity out of being like everybody else! And the ideas of happiness are very standard. And happiness is not something that is standard! Sorry, I diverted, but when you said diversity and the importance of diversity… I have this idea that every time someone expresses his or her point of view the world becomes bigger. Every time. If we kill all the people who think differently we are really losing something. Not only the human life. Not to be dramatic, but what is the world to us? The point of view of everybody makes the world something really huge. Even time becomes huge. All of us want to live more and know more, so we need the others, we need the other views, the other things if we want the world to be huge. So, it is like with food and a lot of other things. When things became homogeneous….it is…

…they lost their taste actually, very concretely… Yeah. It’s very boring. And besides the human rights and besides all that, thinking of beauty, that it is enough to respect a life. The diversity is beauty. That is why I think it is very stupid.. the mainstream goes against all the ideas of a huge world, an interesting world. There is something good. We can have some exposure. If you go to Korea and I say, ‘I am from Argentina’, they say ‘Maradona’! Maradona exists because he is in the mainstream of football. It is interesting. All around the world we can have something that is common, like Spiderman. In India and in Argentina, Spiderman! That is interesting. I think that if Spiderman makes all the rest disappear, like Maradona, it would not be good.

THAT CRAZY AMBITION Do you feel that with the financing becoming tighter and the mainstream cinema becoming more dominating, that the way you think about your films has also changed? Or the way that you think about what is possible? Yes… you know in 2008 in the United States I was releasing The Headless Woman. And they told me that in this year the market changed a lot. I suppose I released the film in October, so it was just the end of the year. And they said that this year the crisis began to grow. And they said in the next five years there will be only two kinds of films. Small small cheap films with the help of your parents and friends. And huge 3D films for 150 mio. And it happened this way. And maybe it will change after the crisis, I don’t know. But during the period of crisis the first thing that disappears is the segment in-between. For everything. For food, clothes, for everything. This is the first thing that disappears. Because everything in the middle goes down. A few go up, but most go down… So of course I felt that. For me it is easier. Well, I don’t know, because I was working on a project that was expensive, and in the end it did not happen. And now my new film that I am financing at the moment is twice the budget of my previous films. And I am still not sure that we can find all the money. I am not a filmmaker that makes films every year. So I am waiting till I really have an idea that I want to go forward with. So when that happens, if it is more expensive or less, it is a thing that I have to fight. So you think that it influences on how you think of what films to make? No, because I don’t think that I should make a comedy or something more… I don’t know. An independent film takes three years in South America. The fight takes three years more or less. For me sometimes it is longer. If you don’t really want to make a certain movie, being three years where you are not really interested… it is so boring. Yeah, it is not gonna happen. No, I think that you quit before finishing, because it is too heavy. 16

Still fra La niña santa, 2004

Personally, I am worried! I am worried about the films that I like being made in the future. I want to keep seeing new films of the type that I like. So I am concerned for myself as an audience. So I am not concerned for some bigger and more abstract situation. But I am concerned for the arthouse film because I want to go to the cinema and be inspired or be excited or be spoken to. You know what? There is something, maybe it is similar to what you asked before. What I found because I was on many juries in the world. And what I saw is that because of this lack of money or whatever, there are many less ambitious projects. You know? I suppose that some independents cannot get more money from the market. There is nothing like Apocalypse Now happening. These huge, crazy films with big ambitions. Maybe independent films have become a little timid? Yes, the same thing can happen in films with lower budgets. You can see that there is less ambition because it is expensive sometimes to have ambition. To have a crazy ambition. Yeah. Imagine just this situation. My new project is a period movie. In Latin America we make just very few period movies, because it is something that we cannot think about. We cannot recreate our past. You need more money than for an average movie or for my previous movies. Even though I am not doing Apocalypto (Mel

But during the period of crisis the first thing that disappears is the segment in-between. For everything. For food, clothes, for everything.

Gibson, 2006, ed.) I still need more money. I tried to figure out, thinking about this situation, why is it that we do not have many period movies? We are not going to our past to rebel, to rethink, to… So what is lost when you don’t do that? I think… I think freedom. We need to go to the past in search of freedom, as you do when you go to the future. To try to think in another way, to see the story from another point of view, many things. Maybe sometimes there are some kind of things that you cannot do, when there is not a more healthy economy.

TO ALWAYS QUESTION REALITY Ok. So another question I have for you is ‘what is reality’? You know for me that is the main question. I can say that for me the films that don’t put the reality into question are not interesting films. Not because I am very intellectual. No, because I am bored! If someone thinks that what we see is all that we can expect from the world, it is so sad. For me this is the main point of narrative. Reality is a construction, as you said about normality is another construction. Reality is impossible to find in the world. If we did not all agree that this place (the hotel bar ed.) belongs to the hotel then people who are cold outside could go in. But we agree that this is the door, and if people have no home they have to be outside. And this idea is very strong. There is no reason for this line, that if someone is cold outside, they cannot cross this line. Just to feel a little bit better… How can we stand this? How can we live with that? That is reality. We decide that this is very clear. You know in 2001 when there was this bankruptcy in Argentina, and we had a huge crisis. This situation happened. The middle class was affected because the banks took their savings. I was not in Buenos Aires, but I heard that there was this huge huge fight in the streets. Women like my grandmother and mother, women that were not used to take something threw things through windows, they did, they did that! They broke windows, they broke doors. Then, if you see the images, there was no longer this idea of being inside or outside, because people were breaking this line. No more this idea of the banks being these serious buildings made of marble, so serious. When you saw the image of the bank you could see that they were thieves. The reality changes the moment that we agree that things are other things, when we decide to cross that line. The most important desire of the narrative is to question what is reality. Not to accept what has been decided before, but to question it. It doesn’t mean that one has to film and just fight everybody else, but every time you put up a camera and frame, you can frame in a way where you are trusting or not in what you are seeing. And every time I am on the set I have this feeling that what I am seeing is not what it is. And maybe someone will find out. So are you sceptical or curious when you film? Curious. You also make it sound like you are sceptical. It is not scepticism. It is not that you don’t trust in nothing. It is more that you will not admit that things are like this, and that there is no other way. Like when you say: ‘well, this is what you have, this is our world’. No, I think that this is something that we can fight against. There are many many ideas

Reality is a construction

Still fra La ciénaga, 2001

and things, and we can stand and go to sleep, and you know that 200 km to the west there is a huge problem. I am not saying that we all have to go and help people and to put all poor people in our home. Well, that would be great, but that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that we don’t have to accept that this is the only way. And that this is reality. Reality makes you believe in the idea of reality. And that is why I do not support the idea of magic realism, because magic realism basically is constructed in this way that we accept a reality, this is reality, but then there could be a magical world. I don’t think so. In fact I believe in the opposite. I think that we have something that we can change. In that sense I always feel that my work is political. In that sense. Because I don’t trust reality. So do you think that films can transform or change the world? If that is possible, I think that would be a crazy world… No, I think that what we can do is to have doubts, to question things. Maybe some genius can change the world with a film. I still don’t know this genius. You haven’t met him or her. In films we have the set, the things that are supposed to be reality for everybody, but when you are making a film you are using this and reassembling all these pieces, and then something new appears. And if the movie works, it has to question the reality.

To question reality is more linked to the feelings than to the ideas. That is the tricky thing. Still fra La niña santa, 2004

But are you saying is that it has to question even the reality of the film set? To question reality is more linked to the feelings than to the ideas. That is the tricky thing. When for example a Hollywood reporter speak about a film like mine or other guys, they label them as intellectual films. But I have spent months thinking about, how can I express a certain emotion. In which way. Of course I can succeed or not succeed – that is another question. But if you make Pretty Woman, the script of Pretty Woman is like a clock. So this is more intellectual in a way. Every time that we think not of the average, not of the homogeneous, if we don’t agree with the standard ideas, we are intellectuals. But the other are ideas too. This is the way it is. That is intellectual. In the end it is a way to exclude and put films out of the market. Hollywood Reporter is used in this way. For them an emotion expressed in another way for them is intellectual. But if Richard Gere goes with Julia Roberts to buy things in order to make her happy, this is a natural idea.

Well, we accept that reality, and the minute you question that reality it becomes intellectual. I see what you are saying. It is a way of marginalising. That is interesting… I want to talk a bit about your films. One thing that is very distinct about your work is the way that you use off-screen space. In my opinion you may be the best filmmaker in the world at framing! There is something about what you do with the frame that is really different. It is very simple. What I am trying to do every time when I make the frame, is to not complete the idea. If I have to frame this door, I am not going to show exactly the door. And if someone is coming through this you say: ‘it’s a window or a hole’ and this is something that is not in the main storyline. When you work with these layers, what you have in the end is that you are not really secure about reality. This is why I don’t have a huge audience! You are not exactly sure how this is seen, where this sound comes from and because you don’t have a really concrete world in front of you other kinds of thoughts begin to appear during watching the film. That is why I think that if someone sleeps in the cinema it is ok. This person feels peace enough to sleep. I cannot sleep during Independence Day. Even though I don’t like the movie, I cannot sleep. During one hour and a half we can share, not ideas, but emotions and feelings that are another way of ideas. And this movie is not something that I show to you, but it is a process and during the movie you are in a process too. So you feel like you are engaging with the mind of the audience in a very concrete way. I need this process too. Of course some people don’t like to do that and of course some people they like to do that but with other kinds of films. This is taste! It is not that you are more or less bright. It is just taste. The word that defines cinema for me is ‘process’. It is something that means that every time you see a film, you will move or change in some way. Most of mainstream movies cannot allow you to do that during the screening and even less so after. Most of the films they stop and ‘phew’, you forget it… I am not saying that what we need are films like mine in all the theaters - I would kill myself! But we need diversity. We need different things to keep moving our minds. Well, some people who don’t agree with you would say ‘well, people know what they want, and if people choose to see Independence Day, they must think that this is what is good for them’. Maybe it is your idea that they need more than that. They are totally happy seeing what they choose to see. You could say the same thing about McDonalds. McDonalds is full of people. Are they all stupid? No, maybe they like it. But it would also be interesting to have someone Italian or Spanish in the street doing a chorizo. McDonalds is an extreme example because it could be better food. But if it is all the

same… I think diversity is really important. I am not judging people that go to see Independence Day, because many times I also want to see films like this. What I think is dangerous is, if the market only makes or buys this kind of films. When Batman was released in Argentina for eight months leading up this release we knew things about Batman. Something about the contract, the main actor, something about special effects, something about…. You know the big companies they can do that. So when Batman is released you are so stupid, if you don’t go and see the movie. It works like that. So how does a society secure the diversity. Let us just talk about films! Can you secure diversity? Or how do you ensure diversity? I don’t know because we need all kinds of soldiers. All kinds of people. Because we need people: intelligent producers, intelligent world sales agents, intelligent journalists to try to keep this cinema diverse. For ensuring diversity we need all kinds of people. Not just directors. To be a good independent producer or world sales agent you really have to be very creative. I wish we could stay on this very important topic for another hour! But I want to have a chance to talk about your filmmaking also. Your films are described as mysterious or hypnotic. And maybe you can talk a bit about that. When they are described like that somebody is talking about the result and what is on the screen and their impression of it. I don’t suppose that you sit at home thinking ‘I want to make a hypnotic film’. So maybe you talk about how you create a moment in a film? What is your process? I cannot say that ‘ah, now I will make a hypnotic film’. You are right I cannot say that. But when I watch your films you are one of these filmmakers where I wonder: how did this script look? Because it is so clear that there is a long way from what could be in a script and what is up on the screen. Which is what makes it a very cinematic experience for me. And maybe that is partly what is described as mysterious and hypnotic by critics. But can you say something about this… it has to be concrete. Like when you direct a scene how do you approach this? You know for me the first thing is sound. When I go to shoot I don’t storyboard anything because it doesn’t help me. What I really have clear in my mind is the soundtrack. The idea of sound that I have for this scene. So that helps me a lot, because I know that I don’t have to shoot all that. I think if you have a clear idea of the soundtrack you shoot less. I often end up shooting less than we budgeted for. Every director has his or her tricks. For me it helps to know in advance, what I want to do in the sound. If I don’t know, you can see it! You can feel it in the movie. I am very curious about this. How concrete is the soundtrack for you? Is it one sound that you know is really dominant, or what is it? It can be the idea of a sound that is dominant, or sometimes you have an idea of a rhythm, or the feeling of a space. If it is something open, or if it is closed. If you have the idea that the human voice will be the most important sound of the scene or not. For me this helps me a lot. When I know the sound, I know how to frame. I also work with different cinematographers. It was never a problem for me, but I always work with the same sound guy.

So do you prepare a lot of the sound with him? No, not in advance. On La Cienaga, my first movie, we had a meeting with Guido, my sound guy. In the meeting we talked about getting a certain tile for the terrasse and these old fashioned metal chairs. So we knew in advance that with this combination there would be a certain sound. So we found the house with a swimming pool, but no hard surface like cement or tiles around the pool. So we made it all tiled just to have the sound. It was the huge special effect of the movie! I also like to put old refrigerators or something like that in the set, just to have the noise. So it sounds like you like to create a lot of the sound on location, rather than just do it in the post? If you want that the sound works, you need some little details in the image. If not it doesn’t work. You have to be able to get a sense of where the sound comes from for it be believable to the audience. I like direct sound. I research a lot about sound beforehand. Like for this period movie that I am preparing, I am researching a lot about sound. Because what do we really know about the 18th century? We can say something about animals, but we have no proof from the Indian community. They were killed. They were killed before they were described anywhere. Can you say a little bit about your next film? It is a film based on a novel by a man that was written in the late 1950’s. It was before the boom of Latin American literature, Garcia Marques and all those guys. So this man was in the shadows until the last years of his life. And this novel is considered by many of the important writers, as one of the best novels written in Spanish. And the interesting thing about the novel is that, even if this happened in the past, it is not a historical novel. It is more an existential novel, but at the same time it is an adventure. The title of the novel is Zama and the writer is Antonio di Benedetto. The whole novel is written as a interior monologue. But I don’t want to use voice over, just scenes and dialogue. I will try to go through the experience of the novel, without the thinking of the guy. It is a very ambitious project. It is expensive, we need cows, horses, things from museums… The region where we are shooting looks like a nice easy place, but it is not. It is flooded six months out of the year. And I want to shoot during those months.

I really hope you get it financed. Me too. Because if not I lost two years. It can be worse than losing a lover. I think that depends on the lover!

RISK AND TRUST I have talked to the American independent director, Matt Porterfield, about his alternative approach to working with actors and amateurs, to working with extremely low budgets, and what it takes to still get his films made, even when the financing fails. By Birgitte StĂŚrmose

25 Produktionsfoto fra I Used to Be Darker, 2013

How would you characterize the type of films

to go ahead and shoot a different version of the

that you make?

film than what you had written in your script.

I’ve made three features to date -- Hamilton

Can you describe what happened and the crea-

(2006), Putty Hill (2011), and I Used to Be Darker

tive process you went through in changing the

(2013) -- all produced and filmed in Baltimore.

form of the film?

I consider myself a modernist working in the

I was developing a screenplay called Metal Gods,

traditions of observational cinema, posing que-

which I’d spent two years writing and intended

stions of craft, using formal devices that shatter

to shoot in the summer of 2009. It was approxi-

the illusion of reality, while honoring the poten-

mately 90 pages. When it became clear in May

tial for naturalism inherent in working with a

of that year that we probably wouldn’t find the

non-professional cast and real environments.

money we needed to make it, I wrote Putty Hill, an alternative 5-page scenario built around

What do you more specifically gain from work-

the cast I wanted to work with and locations I

ing with non-professional actors rather than

wanted to work in. We had around $15K and

working with professionally trained actors?

a free two-week camera package from IFP and

I like the notion of audiences meeting the cha-

Panasonic and so we scheduled a 12-day shoot,

racters in my films for the first time, more like

not knowing whether we’d have a short or a fea-

we meet people in life, forming impressions as

ture on our hands. The process of working from

we go along. This is the opposite experience of

a treatment with no pre-determined dialogue

recognizing an actor you’ve seen before, behind

was very liberating, and collaborative by neces-

the character, and evaluating their performance

sity. We built the film in a different way than you

as much as the character they play. Of course, I

do when you’re trying to make a certain number

could cast a capable, professionally-trained the-

of script pages each day. And it felt free because

atre or television actor that general audiences

there was less pressure, less to lose.

might not recognize… but what is the point of transplanting a professional actor from the

Is there something from this experience that

theatre or television into the world of my films?

you have carried over into the way you work

My first two films are about the neighborhood in

creatively now?

which I grew up. They’re an attempt to capture

I learned to trust the cast and not the script. And

the mood, energy, and physicality of a particular

that it’s never too late to throw an idea out, or

people and place. Dropping an actor into this

change directions, if something’s not working.

world seems disingenuous and counterproductive. I Used to Be Darker works a little differently.

How is your latest feature, I Used to Be Darker,

We cast professional musicians (Ned Oldham

financed?

and Kim Taylor), who play musicians in the

It was financed through a combination of priva-

film, and a young Canadian actor trained in the

te equity, crowd-sourcing, foundation and grant

New York theatre (Hannah Gross) to play a

money.

young woman studying theatre in New York. So, in this way, we met the challenge of working with

Would you like to work with bigger budgets in

trained professionals organically.

the future? What would that mean? Yes. It would likely mean more compromises,

When you were not able to garner the necessary

more conversations, more checks and balances.

financing for your film Putty Hill, you decided

On the flipside, it would hopefully mean I could

MATT PORTERFIELD An American independent fillmmaker, is the writer/director of I Used to Be Darker (2013), Hamilton (2006) and Putty Hill (2011). He studied at NYU, lives in Baltimore, Maryland, and teaches screenwriting, theory and production at Johns Hopkins University. In 2012, Matt was a featured artist in the Whitney Biennial. He has two feature scripts in development, Sollers Point and Metal Gods.

afford more time to shoot. It would mean I could

“by committee”, a process that results in mate-

pay my collaborators and myself closer to scale.

rial that is accessible to some non-existent com-

Without a doubt, it would mean casting “name”

mon denominator determined by Hollywood. It

talent, or recognizable actors, in principal roles.

would be incredibly frustrating to compromise for the supposed general line.

Can you imagine how that might influence your films?

How is risk and financing connected for you?

You’re always working with or against your par-

I tend to take the most risks in development

ticular economy. Whether you make a film for

and pre-production. I pick a shoot date, begin

$3,000 (ca. 17.000 dkk) or $3,000,000 (ca.17 mio

casting and assembling crew, locking locations,

dkk), you’re going to face challenges. So far, I’ve

etc., while still actively trying to finance the film.

made three films for less than $250K (ca.1.4

In the case of I Used to Be Darker, we were two

mio dkk). The film I’m developing now will cost

days from principal photography before we had

twice that, at least. I try to focus on the film first

any money in the bank. It involves bluffing to a

– the idea, the treatment, the screenplay – and

certain extent. You must behave, up until the

then figure out what it’s going to cost to make. If

very last hour, as if the film will be made. That

it seems like it’s going to cost more money than I

said, my producers and I make sure to create a

can raise, then I go back in and simplify the sce-

realistic budget; we are honest with investors

nario. I hope I can always work that way. I’d hate

about our expectations; we remain modest and

for a project to balloon out of reach. I want to

focused during the shoot and conservative in

make pictures. I don’t want to spend years trying

post.

to finance them. And I never want to make films

I learned to trust the cast and not the script

29 Produktionsfoto fra I Used to Be Darker, 2013

Risk creates conflict, which is dynamic, so I think it’s vital to build some into the process. afraid that after a while, if you keep making films But do you work creatively with the

on this scale you’re perceived less as ingenious

concept of risk?

and more as just obstinate, irresponsible, and

I think working with a non-professional cast

unwilling to play the game.

is always risky, because you don’t know what’s going to happen until you turn the camera on.

Have your 3 feature films been released on VOD

We embraced this in Putty Hill by allowing im-

or in national cinema distribution?

provisation to exist inside a rigid framing de-

Yes. My second film, Putty Hill. I Used to Be Dar-

vice. Formally, it was a gamble. But risk creates

ker will also see a domestic release that includes

conflict, which is dynamic, so I think it’s vital to

VOD and theatrical.

build some into the process. How do you think of your audience? What is the relationship between your artistic

It depends on the film. I made my first film,

freedom and financing? How do you find the

Hamilton, for myself. In the case of Putty Hill, I

balance in that relationship?

was imagining the kids in the suburbs who miss

I’ve been able to make three films because

out on stuff. When I wrote I Used to Be Darker, I

they’ve all been relatively inexpensive. My pro-

was thinking of the musicians that I know, my ex-

ducers and I have raised all the money oursel-

wife, and myself at age 19.

ves. I haven’t had to wait around for someone to tell me when I can begin. I want to keep work-

What success criteria do you operate with? What

ing this way and maintain my artistic freedom,

is a success for you?

but I’m not sure I can do that in the US without

Success for me is the continued ability to work,

increasing the budgets of the films I make. I’m

to make a film every couple of years, and to sup-

museum and university bookings. They will not, however, pay my rent. I will continue to teach, apply for grants, take an occasional commercial job. This will be the level of success available to me. If I want more – wider audiences, a house, a family – then there are different steps I must take. I feel successful now, given what I have, but I may not feel the same in 10 years. How do you relate to the world through your filmmaking? I think I come closer to offering an ideal gesture of respect for the world and the people in it through my work than I ever will in my daily life. I walk around in the world blinded by wonder and amazement at the things that I see. Filmmaking has offered me a way to get a little Still fra I Used to Be Darker, 2013

closer to the world and explore it more fully, to make sense of it for myself, and to share what I find with others.

port myself as a filmmaker – not necessarily

Can cinema change the world?

through my films, but through my practice.

Yes, I believe it can. It changed mine.

How do you support yourself through

How did cinema change your world?

your practice?

I had a very insular, solitary, childhood. But the

I support myself as a full-time professor at Johns

movies gave me a window to look out of. And as

Hopkins University and as an itinerant lecturer

an artist, they give me a way to communicate.

at other universities in the States, and through grants and residencies.

What is your responsibility to reality? Film is an object that is also a reflection, but the

Has what you consider success changed over the

process of making a film is not a reflection. It in-

span of your career?

volves real people, physical space, matter, light

Yes, I think so. I’m more practical now. On some

– it is of the world. As a director, I try to honor

level, before the experience of distributing Putty

this by facilitating a collaborative, respectful,

Hill, I really believed my films could be playing

open process and creating a real experience for

the American multiplex if just given the chance.

the actors in the moment. I think this is the most

Premiering I Used to Be Darker at Sundance and

ethical way to make a product that reflects the

seeing how it was received by the industry con-

world, if that is indeed your aim.

firmed that this is actually not possible. If I continue making films like Hamilton, Putty Hill, and I Used to Be Darker, they will have modest theatrical releases in the US and in certain internatio-

What is reality? Exactly.

nal territories, some VOD, healthy festival lives,

Om frygten for DFI

AN SØG NING

Den 8. maj 2013 afholdte Danske Filminstruktører et medlemsmøde om DFI. Årsagen til mødet var den undersøgelse Politiken havde lavet blandt medlemmerne (og Danske Dramatikere), som pegede på at 33% af deltagerne i undersøgelsen nærede frygt for at rette kritik af Det Danske Filminstitut i form af klager over afgørelser eller i form af åbent at være uenig i en konsulents forslag eller krav til ansøgerens projekt. Vi i bestyrelsen vurderede, at tallene i Politikens undersøgelse kaldte på, at vi indadtil og hurtigt fik undersøgt, om tendensen kunne udtrykkes i generelle oplevelser og ikke mindst: om de kunne konkretiseres og dermed ansvarligt debatteres direkte med DFI. Der var stort fremmøde - tusind tak! - og en bred repræsentation både aldersmæssigt og genremæssigt. Og der var klare retninger i kritikken og bekymringerne. Et medlem pegede klarsynet på, at DFI for 30 år siden var en institution bestående af 2 filmkonsulenter, der hvert år behandlede 60 ansøgninger. Det satte på mange måder samtalen i perspektiv, for der er vist ingen, der er i tvivl om, at dagens Filminstitut er en kolos af en helt anden størrelse. Dels er der i dag mange flere filmkonsulenter og øvrige ansatte på DFI, og dels er skaren af ansøgere vokset i takt med uddannelses og medie-billedet generelt: der er mange, mange flere, der ønsker at leve af at lave film. Det er en omstændighed og et vilkår, både vi og DFI må forholde os til, for det synes at være sket på bekostning af den nærhed og den åbenhed i sagsbehandlingen mange husker

eksisterede for ikke så mange år siden. Og det er klart, at hvis man er dørmand (konsulenten) på en stille bæverding, hvor man kan småsludre med stamkunderne i døren, opstår der et helt andet samtalerum, end hvis man er dørmand på et discotek i indre København og fredag aften skuer ud over 300 utålmodige mennesker, der maser på for at komme ind. Det risikerer at skabe en defensiv attitude fra dørmanden, som mest af alt må stemme imod snarere end invitere høfligt og nysgerrigt indenfor. Det er en tanke og et billede, vi synes det kan være klogt at holde sig for øje, også selvom omstændighederne ikke forandrer sig. Bestyrelsen vil viderebringe den konkrete kritik, og vi vil ligeledes medbringe bud på løsninger, så vi hurtigst muligt i fællesskab med DFI kan få vendt kritikken.

DFI var for 30 år siden en institution bestående af 2 filmkonsulenter, der hvert år behandlede 60 ansøgninger... der er vist ingen, der er i tvivl om, at dagens Filminstitut er en kolos af en helt anden størrelse Enkelte medlemmer foreslog på mødet, at der i stedet for det nuværende konsulent-system kunne være et tre-mandsråd som i statens kunstfond. Det kan den siddende bestyrelse ikke støtte. Det er vores holdning, at vi bakker op om konsulent-systemet. Vi mener til gengæld, at både DFI og den enkelte instruktør har ansvar for kontinuerligt at stille kritiske spørgsmål til ordningen og holde den ajour, så den fungerer i overensstemmelse med DFI’s raison d’etre: filmloven til fremme af dansk filmkunst. Det er instruktørers ret og ansvar at klage over konkrete behandlinger eller afgørelser, hvis instruktøren finder det nødvendigt - det er DFI’s pligt og ansvar at modtage og behandle klagerne seriøst. Konsulenterne må agere med tillid - også selvom det til enhver tid vil indebære risiko for fejlvurdering - mens instruktørerne må agere med forsvar for værket - også selvom det indebærer risiko for afslag. Hvis ens projekt har fået et afslag, og hvis man oplever, at man er blevet fejlbehandlet, eller at konsulenten har overskredet sine beføjelser, er det vigtigt at klage og at gøre det åbent. Det har et par medlemmer besluttet at gøre efter mødet. Tak! Der er respekt om den, der møder systemet med åben pande. Man bevarer sin stolthed, forsvarer sit projekt, og det styrker immunforsvaret! Husk også, at sekretariatet og bestyrelsen kan hjælpe med vurdering, formulering og eksekvering - man behøver ikke at føle sig alene.

BESTYRELSEN AF DANSKE FILMINSTRUKTØRER

Hvad er

Creative Alliance ? Nikolaj Vibe Michelsen, Ole Christian Madsen og Per Fly, alle bestyrelsesmedlemmer i Creative Alliance

Dette indlæg er et forsøg på at åbne op og fremvise maskinrummet i Creative Alliance: At delagtiggøre Jer i de tanker og diskussioner, som vi har haft over de sidste to år om filmudvikling – og vise hvad resultatet er endt med. Med etableringen af Creative Alliance forsøger vi at starte et udviklingsselskab af en type, der ikke er set før i Danmark. Vores nystartede selskab er baseret på en model for udvikling af danske spillefilm med internationale ambitioner, der gør det muligt at udvikle film og efterfølgende sælge dem, når de er klar til at gå i produktion. Samtidig sikrer modellen, at instruktøren kan fastholde styringen, mens filmen indspilles. Når vi taler om at udvikle og efterfølgende sælge en film, så taler vi som hovedregel om at sælge en samlet pakke, der både består af et grydeklart manuskript, en instruktør og et producerteam. Ofte vil væsentlige skuespillere, scenografi og en væsentlig del af finansieringen også være på plads. Salget kan have mange købere. I den ene ende af skalaen er der den mulighed, at vi sælger projektet til os selv, hvor vi selv rejser den fulde finansiering via en kombination af private investorer, Det Danske Filminstitut og fonde mv. og dermed sikrer, at udviklingsarbejdet også betyder en færdig film. Her vil producere og instruktør bestemme over den fulde udvikling og produktion.

I den anden ende af skalaen er der den mulighed, at et af de større studier er interesseret i at købe den udviklede pakke og selv stå for finansieringen. I det scenarie vil instruktøren og producere være tilknyttet som work for hire. Og i mellem de to yderpositioner er der alle mellemmulighederne – fx at sælge til et konglomerat af mindre produktionsselskaber eller i et setup, der minder om en international co-produktion. Vores idé er hverken eksklusiv eller helt færdigbagt – selvom vi nu er startet op, så er der fortsat plads til forbedringer. Vi har bare ikke fundet dem endnu. Det vil være spændende, hvis andre tog handsken op og gjorde noget lignende – måske endda noget, der viste sig at være smartere. Og vi tillader os at håbe på, at flere af Jer vender tilbage med indsigter og indsigelser for og imod vores tanker. Det vil bidrage til at forbedre Creative Alliance – og forhåbentlig gavne filmbranchen i sin helhed. Men inden vi forsøger at forklare Creative Alliance – så lad os starte med at få udryddet en mindre misforståelse, der opstod i kølvandet på vores lanceringen. Lad os bruge et par linjer på at forklare, hvad Creative Alliance ikke er. Creative Alliance er ikke et opgør med producentens rolle eller et signal om, at vi som instruktører kan klare al udviklingsarbejde alene. Tværtimod er Creative Alliance et forsøg på at stadfæste treenigheden mellem producere, instruktører og manusforfattere som ligeværdige parter. Helt konkret fremgår det af vores vedtægter, at ”Selskabsdeltagerne skal være sådanne filminstruktører, producere og/eller forfattere af filmmanuskrip-

ter, med hvilke selskabet har indgået en aftale om at udvikle et filmprojekt, som den pågældende i det væsentlige er indehaver af rettighederne til.” Vi anerkender nemlig, at godt udviklingsarbejde kræver andet og mere end en instruktør - og som det fremgår ovenfor, så har instruktører ikke forrang.

FOKUS PÅ UDVIKLING Creative Alliance er et udviklingsselskab – ikke et produktionsselskab. I modsætning til hvad der er ’normalt’, så er vores fokus på udvikling af film – og ikke nødvendigvis på produktionen. Vi har naturligvis produktionen i bagtankerne, når vi udvikler filmprojekter. For det er ikke anderledes med udviklingsprojekter fra Creative Alliance end udviklingsprojekter fra andre selskaber. Hvis ikke de bliver produceret, så har det været spild af tid og penge. Men fokus er udvikling. Creative Alliance skal udvikle filmprojekter og efterfølgende sælge projekterne og på den måde skaffe finansiering til yderligere udviklingsprojekter. Konkret betyder det, at vi deler den ’normale’ proces med at lave en film op i to: 1) Udvikling og 2) Produktion. Dermed bliver investerings-horisonten for udvikling af film kortere, da investeringen tages hjem efter udviklingsfasen, i stedet for efter filmen er blevet produceret, distribueret og set i biografen, som det normalt sker i filmbranchen i dag. I dag er udvikling en omkostning på vejen mod den egentlige forretning, der enten ligger i produktionen eller distributionen af filmprojektet. Men ved at insistere på at et udviklingsprojekt skal sælges, så muliggør vi en kapitalisering af den kreative kapital i projektet. Vi sætter en prislap på det kreative arbejde og forsøger at gøre kreativitet til en forretning. Så lidt forenklet forsøger vi at gøre en forretning ud af udvikling. Det er ikke nogen speciel god forretning. Men bare det at gøre det til en lille forretning er godt nok. For dermed bidrager vi med at gøre udvikling til et mål – og dermed til andet og mere end en omkostningspost i et produktionsbudget.

FOKUS PÅ SAMARBEJDE Creative Alliance er også et fællesskab. Det har fra starten været ambitionen og målet, at vi som filmudviklere skulle sidde sammen og hjælpe hinanden med filmudvikling. At vi ikke bare sidder i hvert vores hummer med et projekt, men at vi også er involveret i hinandens projekter på en systematisk måde. Mange af os gør det i forvejen, fordi vi ved, hvor stor betydning det har for filmene, men ideen om at få et fysisk sted, hvor vi sidder sammen og hjælper hinanden – og tanken om, at vi også gør det i så stort og systematisk et omfang, at vi kan tillade os at få en token for det gennem udviklingsselskabet -er ny for os. Mere om det senere.

FOKUS PÅ INTERNATIONALE IDEER Ideen om at dele processen op i to er formentlig kun muligt for film til det internationale marked. For der findes ikke et marked eller en reel efterspørgsel i Danmark efter færdigudviklede projekter. Danske produktionsselskaber vil hellere udvikle deres egne projekter, og det er vores umiddelbare vurdering, at det danske filmmarked er for lille og risikoen ved filmudvikling for stor til, at eksterne investorer vil turde investere i konkrete udviklingsprojekter. Prisen på kreativitet er fortsat for lille til, at det er en god nok forretning. Vi håber dog, at vi med internationale, positive eksempler på salg af udviklingsprojekter kan skabe noget tillid, så det på længere sigt vil være muligt at gøre eksterne investorer eller den etablerede branche interesserede i også danske filmudviklingsprojekter.

INSPIRERET AF DEN KLASSISKE DANSKE ANDELSBEVÆGELSE Creative Alliance er etableret som et andelsselskab (a.m.b.a.), der drives efter andelsprincipperne, som de kendes fra den traditionelle danske andelsbevægelse. Populært sagt er bønderne erstattet med filmudviklere. I stedet for at tage mælk og kærne det til smør, så er ambitionen at tage filmideer og udvikle dem til konkrete produktionsklare og salgbare manuskripter. • Det betyder, at Creative Alliance som udgangspunkt består af en række filmprojekter, der er under udvikling, og som er ejet af en række andelsmedlemmer. • Andelsmedlemmerne kan være filminstruktører, producere og/eller forfattere af filmmanuskripter. • Medlemmerne har medbestemmelsesret over væsentlige prioriteringer i selve Creative Alliance i forholdet: et hoved = en stemme. • Medlemmernes ejerskab af Creative Alliance baseres på, hvor meget medlemmerne leverer – jo flere succesfulde projekter, jo større ejerskab.

MED INDBYGGET KAFFEKASSE Creative Alliance er anderledes end andre filmselskaber både i sin organisering (andelsselskab), sit fokus (kun internationale film), men måske især i sin måde at finansiere udviklingsfasen – og fordele ejerskabet på. Vi arbejder med udviklingsbudgetter, der gennemsnitligt ligger på 2 millioner kroner. Og vi arbejder med den plan, at vi er i stand til at sælge udviklingsprojekterne for det beløb, som vi har brugt på at udvikle dem. Det vil sige 2 millioner kroner. Inde i selve Creative Alliance har vi etableret en udviklingsgenerator, der skal medfinansiere udvikling af film. Vi kalder den Kaffekassen. Kaffekassen er fyldt til randen med klingende mønter.

Planen er, at Kaffekassen skal kunne støtte et filmprojekt med op til 25 pct. af filmprojektets udviklingsbudget – mod at få 40 pct. af hvad filmprojektet sælges for. Såfremt et filmprojekt bliver solgt, så vil en lille del af de 40 procent – omkring 6 procentpoint –blive fordelt ligeligt mellem alle andelsmedlemmer, som betalingen for at have bidraget til hinandens projekter. De resterende omkring 34 procentpoint skal bruges til udvikling af nye projekter. Hvis filmen bliver færdigudviklet og sælges til samme beløb, som den har kostet af udvikle, så vil Kaffekassen med andre ord modtage en tilbagebetaling, der er større end støtten. Håbet er, at Kaffekassen reelt bliver selvfinansierende og dermed vil kunne støtte et væld af filmudviklingsprojekter i fremtiden. De resterende 60 procent fordeles ligeligt mellem den ansvarlige instruktør på den ene side og de involverede producere på den anden. Det skaber også et incitament for at lave et udviklingsprojekt, der kan sælges (figur 1). Figur 1: Creative Alliance som generator for flere film – og fordeling af tilbagebetaling på solgt projekt

Kaffekasse (DKK 25 pct.)

Kaffekasse modtager 34 % af salg til investering i nye projekter

Filmprojekt X Andre investorer (DKK 75 pct.)

Udvikling

SALG

Kaffekasse -heraf til projekter Instruktør Producere

40 pct. 34 pct. 30 pct. 30 pct.

Filmudviklere (Kreativ investering) Filmudviklere modtager samlet 66% af salg note: Kaffekassen står for 25 pct. af investeringen, men modtager 34 pct. ved et salg. ’Andre investorer’ er eksempelvis private investorer, der tidligt i processen støtter filmproduktionen eller udviklingsstøtte fra DFI, Media eller lign. De fleste af de private investorer skal som udgangspunkt først tilbagebetales efter produktion og distribution – som med traditionel filmproduktion. Det er på kort form den model, vi har skabt til udvikling af internationale spillefilm. Den er næppe perfekt, men i vores øjne god nok til at blive prøvet af. Over den næste årrække vil modellen blive testet med i første omgang op til seks spillefilmsprojekter, og vi vil løbende opdatere interesserede med vores erfaringer.

”Vi er historiefortællere, og det er vores ansvar at publikum hænger ved vore læber”

NYT BESTYRELSESMEDLEM Jeg vil prøve at støtte den meget stærke og dynamiske bestyrelse, som foreningen er så heldig at have. Jeg har en bred vifte af erfaring, som jeg håber, foreningen vil kunne drage nytte af. Jeg vil have et fokus på udviklingen af instruktører – både når det gælder udviklingen på filmskolen, og hvordan de nye talenter kan trænge igennem. Det er vigtigt for mig at styrke relationen mellem skolen og branchen, fordi den dialog kan styrke det fælles sprog, som jeg mener, er en stor del af forklaringen på det høje niveau i den danske filmbranche. Jeg vil i lighed med bestyrelsen holde fast i, at instruktørens rolle skal styrkes fagligt, men også at vi kunstnerisk skal udvikle os. Vi er historiefortællere, og det er vores ansvar, at publikum hænger ved vore læber.

RUMLE HAMMERICH APRIL 2013

Annette K Olesen

Klaus Kjeldsen

Formand

Martin Strange-Hansen Organitatorisk næstformand

KÆRE FILMINSTRUKTØRER En vedtægtsændring på generalforsamlingen i marts gjorde det muligt at udvide formandskabet i vores smukke forening med en ekstra næstformandspost. Tak for det! For det betyder, at formandsskabet og bestyrelsen nu står stærkere. Med udsigten til de kommende filmforligsforhandlinger, med erfaringen fra sidst om hvor stor indflydelse hårdt, stædigt arbejde kan afstedkomme og med den store respekt og betydelige stemme Danske Filminstruktører siden har fået, har det føltes vigtigt både at sikre positionen og samtidigt være realistiske. Sandra Piras, Martin Strange-Hansen og Christina Rosendahl lagde i fællesskab mange, mange arbejdstimer i forbindelse med det forrige forlig – også flere, end man kunne forvente. Især når man medtager, at det er en meget stor kvalitet, at både bestyrelse og formandskab består af arbejdende filminstruktører. Mennesker med hands-on viden om hvordan vores branche fungerer lige nu og her. Vi har derfor straks benyttet os af muligheden for at fordele opgaverne. Christina er således nu politisk næstformand, og Martin er organisatorisk næstformand. I praksis betyder det, at Christinas fokus bliver vores relationer til de politiske samarbejdspartnere - DFI, producentforeningen, distributørerne, Danske Biografer, tv-stationerne, teleudbyderne og de politiske ordførere på Borgen - og arbejdet med formuleringen af vores visioner i forbindelse med det kommende filmforlig. Martin har – gudskelov – takket ja til at garantere hukommelsen og kontinuiteten i samarbejdet med vore organisatoriske makkere i Dansk Kunstnerråd, Copy Dan og på de filmfaglige uddannelser.

Søren Kragh-Jacobsen

Rumle Hammerich

Mette-Ann Schepelern Christina Rosendahl Politisk næstformand

Birgitte Stærmose

Med den nye struktur i formandsskabet kan vi prale af to respekterede næstformænd, som i løbet af det kommende år og en sjat også har premiere på hver deres nye film. Det er ikke så ringe endda! Bortset fra dette arbejder både sekretariat og bestyrelse med ildhu, højt humør og fuldkommen, som vi plejer: hovedopgaven er at sikre instruktørers løn, rettigheder og kunstneriske autonomi især nu, hvor de traditionelle forretningsmodeller er i sammenbrud, og nye perspektivrige skal formuleres.

FØLGENDE ER DERFOR EN MEGET VIGTIG OPFORDRING: • Husk at bringe jeres kontrakter forbi juristerne inden I skriver under. • Husk at der kan søges støtte til manuskript på DFI uden en producent. Man kan have det sådan, at man er i tvivl om, om man har fundet den bedste til den film man ønsker at lave, og så behøver man ikke binde sig. • Det er instruktører og ikke producenter, der støttes på DFI. • Ingen film finansieres uden en instruktør. Det er derfor instruktører, der finansierer film.

MANGE SOMMERHILSNER ANNETTE 41

LEGATUDVALGET UDDELER MIDLER FRA DEN KOLLEKTIVE 1/3 AF BLANKBÅNDSMIDLERNE FRA COPY-DAN. De kollektive båndmidler kan søges af ophavsmænd og kunstnere indenfor alle genrer, herunder navnlig de, som yder væsentlige og nyskabende bidrag til dansk musik og film, men som ikke har mulighed for at leve af deres kunstneriske virksomhed.

Næste ansøgningsfrist er fredag den 27. september 2013 inden kl. 12.00. Der skal udfyldes et ansøgningsskema. Ansøgningen må højst fylde 4 A-4 sider inkl. budget. Ansøgningen skal afleveres i 7 eksemplarer. Skemaet kan downloades fra vores hjemmeside www.filmdir.dk (filmstøtte) eller rekvireres hos sekretariatet.

RÅD OG UDVALG Danske Filminstruktørers Legatudvalg:

Dansk Kunstnerråds post i DFI’s kontaktudvalg:

Jesper Jargil, Klaus Kjeldsen, Malene Vilstrup,

Franz Ernst

Henrik Ruben Genz, Katrine Borre, Caroline Sascha Cogez

Filmkontakt NORD/Nordisk Panorama Cæcilia Holbek Trier

DFI Rådet for kort- og dokumentarfilm:

(suppleant til bestyrelsen)

Klaus Kjeldsen FERA: DFI Rådet for Spillefilm:

Birgitte Stærmose

Birgitte Stærmose SNF: DFI Festivaludvalget for kort- og dokumentarfilm:

Sandra Piras

Max Kestner Statens Kunstfonds repræsentantskab: COPY-DAN:

Klaus Kjeldsen

Fællesbestyrelsen – Martin Strange-Hansen AVU-medier – Martin Strange-Hansen

Nye medlemmer:

Verdens TV – Sandra Piras

Thomas Strøbech, Ala’a Basem, Aske Bang,

Blankbånd – Sandra Piras

Theis Mølstrøm Christensen, Kasper Birch, Jakob Gottschau, Mikkel Munch-Fals,

Dansk Kunstnerråd:

Christina Clausen, Michael Madsen,

Martin Strange-Hansen (FU)

Jannick Dahl Pedersen (elev), Tobias Grundorff Boesen (elev)

FOTOKREDITERING: Portræt af Martin Strange-Hansen & Birgitte Stærmose Tobisch & Guzzmann photographers Billeder fra La Cienaga Hugo Colace Billeder fra La Niña Santa Félix Monti Billeder fra I Used to be Darker Deragh Campbell & Eddie Winter Portræt af Matt Porterfield Andrew Laumann Portræt af bestyrelsen Mike Lamb 42

LEGATUDDELINGER FEBRUAR 2013 NAVNE

EFTERUDDANNELSE/SEMINAR

FORMÅL

Trier, Cæcilia Holbek, Rasmussen & Bonfils Blicher, Marianne

deltagelse i kurset Skuespiller & Instruktør på Den Danske Filmskole etablering af et intenst final-cut kursus

Dyekjær, Christian

deltagelse i Improvisation og metode Workshop med Frank Corsaro deltagelse i Improvisation og metode Workshop med Frank Corsaro deltagelse i Intensiv skriveworkshop og Kommunikation i kreative processer deltagelse i Copenhagen skrivemaraton på Filmskolen

Wellendorf, Kassandra Boye, Ulla

REJSER

Rygård, Elisabeth

rejse til London Feminist Filmfestival ifm. filmen Ta det som en mand Frue rejse til Japan ifm filmen Havets børn

SØGT KR.

BEV. KR.

2.500,00

17.000,00

14.000,00

2.100,00

13.275,00

8.475,00

1.700,00 38.675,00

1.700,00 30.875,00

8.000,00

5.000,00

20.000,00

15.000,00 13.650,00

7.500,00 10.000,00

32.960,00

16.480,00

28.350,00 20.000,00

14.000,00 15.000,00

Rais-Nordentoft, Aage

researchrejse til Irak ifm. kortfilmen Our Screens researchrejse til Kairo ifm. I lyset af revolutionen - om kvinder og kunst i Kairo resaerchrejse til Grønland ifm. kortfilmen Kineserne i Grønland researchrejse til Ålborg og NY sammen med fotografen researchrejse til Mauretanien ifm. dokufiktionsfilm Into the Unknown tur/retur til Klitmøller ifm. filmen Det kolde Hawaii

4.500,00

Blaakilde, Esben

researchrejse til Rusland ifm. dokumentarfilmen Costa

10.000,00 152.460,00

5.000,00 97.480,00

udvikling af hybridfilmen Sig noget, Pierrot! støtte til treatment til filmen Operation Celeste

15.000,00 15.000,00

7.500,00 8.000,00

støtte til udvikling af billed-filmen Skillelinjer

30.000,00 60.000,00

13000,00 28.500,00

produktion og bearbejdning af optagelser ifm. filmen Democrazy produktion af filmprojektet Historier fra kysten færdiggørelse af filmprojektet Little Vulvah & Her Clitoral Awareness produktion af afgangsfilmen Turtle fra American Film Institute Conservatory produktion af dok.filmen Det halve liv produktion af dokumentarfilmen Theodor - Filmpioneren produktion af en dummy til dokumentarfilmen A Better Life produktion af kortfilmen Dancing with Goats produktion af kortfilmen Søn

30.000,00

20.000,00 25.000,00

10.000,00 25.000,00

57.000,00

10.000,00

15.000,00 25.000,00

15.000,00 13.000,00

11.000,00

Wilmont, Simon Lereng & Hellström, Monica Tawfik M. Saed, Mohammad Falster, Lone Møller, Nanna Frank Bonke, Christian Holten Vium, Christian

RESEARCH/TREATMENT/MANUS/BØGER Friis, Maja Kristensen, Nadja Nørgaard & Brügger, Mads mf. Rex, Jytte

PRODUKTION

Dalsgaard, Andreas & Byrge, Signe Fox, Robert & Faurskov, Jørgen Koppel, Sara Kragh-Jacobsen, Daniel Dinesen, Michael Roos, Ole Johnsen, Ditte Haarløv Oettinger, Johan Kiørboe, Kristoffer

EFTERARBEJDE

Søby, Ada Bligaard Frandsen, Niels Rosenring, Nønne Katrine Brandt, Carsten

DIVERSE

Schwalbe, Niels Ussing, Oliver Bodil Fox, David BUSTER

I alt

30.000,00 10.000,00 15.000,00 7.500,00 228.000,00 131.500,00

støtte til dvd-udgivelse af dokumentarfilmen Petey & Ginger redigering af dok.filmen Ramt af polio for anden gang første gennemklip af dokumentarfilmen Stodderbarn engelske undertekster til filmen Den milde smerte

10.000,00

5.000,00

20.000,00 17.000,00 40.000,00 87.000,00

10.000,00 17.000,00 10.000,00 42.000,00

digital genopretning af negativet ifm. filmen Filmdagbog fra Thy og verden udenom støtte til sikring af rettighederne til romanen ABC støtte til prisuddelingen VideoMarathon 2013 støtte til BUSTER 2013

20.000,00

5.000,00

20.000,00 6.000,00 30.000,00 22.500,00 40.000,00

15.000,00 6.000,00 15.000,00 22.500,00 20.000,00

606.135,00 350.355,00

Danish Film Directors 44 www.filmdir.dk ISSN 1601-5843