VIRGIN MEDIA OFFERS UK FILMMAKERS SHOT AT THE BIG TIME

Aspiring British moviemakers will have the chance to have their work seen by millions under a new competition from Virgin Media.

Offering a £30,000 prize and a chance to have their work screened in cinemas across the country, the Virgin Media Shorts competition launches today, aiming to find the brightest film talent in the UK.

By submitting a film of no more than two-and-a-half minutes long before June 30th, budding directors who aspire to be the next Joe Wright or Sam Mendes could reach a final shortlist of 12 before a prestigious judging panel selects the winning entry in September.

All 12 shortlisted pieces will be screened before the main feature at 211 independent UK cinemas while 3.5 million Virgin Media customers will be able to access the film through the internet and phone provider's on-demand service.

And the winning filmmaker, as well as earning £30,000 and a premiere of their work on the Virgin 1 digital channel, will also get the chance to produce short film in conjunction with the UK Film Council.

Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson commented: "It's great to see home-grown British filmmaking talent being recognised and given such an amazing chance to be seen by millions of people across the UK.

"British filmmaking is now being honoured in awards ceremonies all over the world – all of those filmmakers needed a first break – hopefully Virgin Media Shorts will give unknown filmmakers out there the break they deserve.

He added: "My advice is simple - don't give up and believe in yourself."

James Kydd, Virgin Media's managing director of brand and marketing called the competition a "life-changing opportunity for filmmakers who have historically struggled to get exposure for their work" which would put them "in the spotlight to an audience of millions".

Censoring Canada's filmmakers

Arnie Gelbart, National Post Published: Tuesday, March 11, 2008

"Public financial support of the production would not be contrary to public policy" -- Bill C-10, s.120(1) (3), clause (a) (ii)

Just as the Canadian Senate was about to pass a 500-page Income Tax Bill (C-10) last week, an eagle-eyed lawyer spied the above-quoted 13 little words. These words would allow the Minster of Canadian Heritage and a committee of Department of Justice officials to decide if a completed film or television series is "contrary to public policy" and thereby to deny the production a vital tax credit.

Without such credits, many great shows and films simply would not get made. The potential for politically motivated, subjective censorship -- by government officials operating without any guidelines -- was immediately obvious to me and other members of the Canadian production community.

Since then, the shock and dismay has reverberated across Canada -- and around the world, to our co-production and co-financing partners.

What seems to have escaped Ottawa's attention is that television programs and award-winning feature films require an entire industry -- writers, directors, producers, actors, set designers, technicians, broadcasters and distributors. This is a $5-billion-a-year industry employing 127,000 Canadian creators and technicians working through 600 English and French, small and medium sized businesses across Canada.

This creates high value jobs, and produces significant exports. It also fulfills the cultural mandate of telling Canada's stories to Canadians and the world. The work they do affirms our personality as a sovereign nation.

This is a government that is supportive of entrepreneurship. So where are the Ministers of Industry, of Finance, of Foreign Affairs, of Human Resources and External Commerce -- people who, in the face of C-10, might have a concern about the economic health and survival of this industry?

We also have questions about the origin of these 13 words. Are we to believe Charles McVety, president of the socially conservative Canada Family Action Coalition, who claims paternity? He credits his unregistered lobbying efforts with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Ministers Rob Nicholson, as well as "numerous meetings" with the PMO.

Or are we to believe the Heritage Minister when she says that her "government is deeply committed to freedom of expression and will continue to support the creation of edgy, entertaining Canadian content" and that "Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the integrity of the tax system"?

Given the benign neglect of the cultural industries by this government in the last three budgets, some doubt is warranted. All Canadians -- not just members of the arts community -- should be concerned about the consequence of a measure brought in by stealth, side-stepping any opportunity for discussion about guidelines with those potentially affected.

By creating a climate of unpredictability in the funding system, this section of the Bill, has created an immediate censorship chill -- a chill to producers, creators and funders (including Telefilm and broadcasters).

The chill extends to the foreign investors who contribute to our budgets, and a chill to the banking system that finances our shows. Bill C-10 makes lending to film companies riskier -- because it makes it uncertain whether tax credits will be issued at the end of any production.

This is not to say that there should be no guidelines regarding what productions can qualify for tax credits. But these guidelines already exist: at Telefilm, at the provincial agencies, at the CRTC and even in the Criminal Code (which at least explicitly allows for artistic exemption, which C-10 does not). To create another, unpredictable, layer of oversight is unnecessary.

We can imagine that the potential effect of these rules might have been when The Boys of St Vincent, Crash, The Sweet Hereafter, Borderline or The Valour and the Horror were produced.

Canadians are fortunate to have a film and television industry that, while econimically fragile, is culturally vibrant. Bill C-10 could change all that. At the very least, Canadians deserve a chance to debate those 13 little words before this clause in the Income Tax Bill is applied. - Arnie Gelbart is CEO and executive producer of Gala-film, an independent film and television production company based in Montreal.

India's alternative filmmakers campaign against censorship

Sixty-four films, targeted at the country's youth, are currently being screened at a film festival in New Delhi. The films highlight themes like communalism, 'destructive' development, globalisation, the environment, women's rights and the oppression of the marginalised

September 2004 has been declared the 'Month of Free Speech' by a forum of over 300 documentary filmmakers currently campaigning for the right to freedom of expression in the Indian capital, New Delhi . They are screening over 60 powerful independent films, most of which have been rejected by the country's censor board for various reasons.

Targeting the young, the independent films are being screened in collaboration with academic departments and student bodies in three of Delhi 's most prestigious universities -- Delhi University , Jamia Milia Islamia and Jawaharlal Nehru University .

Screened in protest against rising government censorship, the festival includes a package of 64 films revolving around the themes of communalism, 'destructive' development, globalisation, the environment, women's rights and the oppression of marginalised communities.

The filmmakers are protesting against India 's 1952 Cinematograph Act that regulates both the production and screening of films in the country. The Act empowers a Central Board of Film Certification to decide whether a film is suitable for restricted or unrestricted viewing. Very often, the board rejects avant-garde films depicting stark social and political realities.

The package of 64 films was drawn from Vikalp (Alternative), a film festival that ran parallel with an International Film Festival held in India 's film capital, Mumbai, in February 2004, called the Mumbai International Film Festival (MIFF).

Vikalp screened a slew of documentaries rejected by the MIFF as a mark of protest against the mandatory pre-condition of censor certificates for Indian documentaries demanded by India 's ministry of information and broadcasting.

Explains documentary filmmaker Rahul Roy: "It made sense to sustain the movement (that began with the MIFF) and enlarge the debate on censorship that affects not just filmmakers but the common man. A festival such as this widens our platform."

The festival took off this month with a three-day seminar appropriately titled 'Resisting Censorship/Breaking Silences and Celebrating Freedom of Expression' where filmmakers, media persons, activists and students engaged in heated debates on issues ranging from the rights of sex workers, women's movements and the media, to censorship and hate speech, privatisation and censorship and the judiciary.

One of the more controversial documentaries on view at the festival is the poignant A Night of Prophecy by noted documentary filmmaker Amar Kanwar, which depicts songs of protest signifying oppression, pain and broken promises in an unequal society. Explains Kanwar: "It's a journey through different regions of India , which takes a look at its various problems as a nation like the issue of caste, class, poverty, nationality and terrorism."

Kanwar is a recipient of the Golden Conch (best film award) at the 1998 MIFF for his film A Season Outside.

Slamming the censorship law as "extremely draconian", filmmaker Saba Dewan says people should be given the freedom to decide what they want to see. "A handful of people now decide what a nation of million should see. The law was introduced under the colonial regime and is outdated and archaic."

"Political parties have vested interests in preventing the truth from coming out. This was apparent by the fact that any film critical of the government would be rejected," says Kanwar.

Not all the films screened at the festival have been rejected by the censors. The MIFF accepted around 15 of them, but they were withdrawn from the MIFF in a show of solidarity.

Predictably, given their provocative themes, many of the films have triggered violent protests from fundamentalists. For instance, members of the rightwing Hindu Jagran Manch (Hindu Awareness Group) tried to halt the public screening of a bold internationally-acclaimed film called Final Solution in the south Indian city of Bangalore this July.

Final Solution explores the anatomy of hate and violence between the Hindu majority and minority Muslims during the February 2002 riots in the western Indian city of Gujarat .

The Delhi festival has received an overwhelming response from university students. Claims one of the organisers: "People want to see and talk about the films, and college auditoriums are always packed, forcing many enthusiastic viewers to return. We feel that a healthy, social and educational movement has emerged."

Source: www.oneworld.sa , September 22, 2004

Film Industries

The film industry consists of the technological and commercial institutions of filmmaking: i.e. film production companies, film studios, cinematography, film production, screenwriting, pre-production, post production, film festivals, distribution; and actors, film directors and other film personnel.

Though the expense involved in making movies almost immediately led film production to concentrate under the auspices of standing production companies, advances in affordable film making equipment, and expansion of opportunities to acquire investment capital from outside the film industry itself, have allowed independent film production to evolve.

Modern film industry

The film industry as it stands today spans the globe. The major business centers of film making are concentrated in the United States, EU, India and China.

Distinct from the business centers are the locations where movies are filmed. Because of labor and infrastructure costs, many films are produced in countries other than the one in which the company which pays for the film is located. For example, many U.S. movies are filmed in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand or in Eastern European countries.

United States

See also: Cinema of the United States

Hollywood, California is the primary nexus of the U.S. film industry. However, four of the major film studios are owned by East Coast companies. Only The Walt Disney Company and owner of Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, Miramax Films, and the Pixar Animation Studios is actually headquartered in Southern California. The same can be said for Sony Pictures which is headquartered in Culver City, California, although the corporate side of Sony Pictures is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.

Networking

Networking and establishing strong relationships are a vital part of Hollywood. The town is scattered with talented artists who do not possess the means to pitch their ideas or acquire representation. Reading the trades, Hollywood jargon for reading Daily Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, and joining a networking group or tracking board are ways to stay on top of the job market as well as the project market. This helps them take advantage of knowledge spillover. Studiosystem.com[1] and trackingb.com[2] are the two most widely used tracking board sites.

India

See also: Cinema of India

The Indian film industry is multi-lingual and the largest in the world (1200 movies released in 2002).^{[citation needed]} The industry is supported mainly by a vast film-going Indian public (the largest in the world in terms of annual ticket sales), and Indian films have been gaining increasing popularity in the rest of the world — notably in countries with large numbers of expatriate Indians. One third of the India's film industry is mostly concentrated in Mumbai (Bombay), and is commonly referred to as "Bollywood" as an amalgamation of Bombay and Hollywood. The remaining majority portion is spread across west & south India (in Marathi, Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu speaking areas). However, there are several smaller centers of Indian film industries in regional languages (Apart from Hindi, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam) centered in the states those languages are spoken. Indian films are made filled with action, romance, comedy, dance and an increasing number of special effects.

China

Zhuangzi Tests His Wife (1913) is credited as the first Hong Kong feature film

See also: Cinema of Hong Kong

Hong Kong, China is a filmmaking hub for the Chinese-speaking world (including the worldwide diaspora) and East Asia in general. For decades it was the third largest motion picture industry in the world (after Indian and Hollywood) and the second largest exporter of films.^{[citation needed]} Despite an industry crisis starting in the mid-'90s and Hong Kong's return to Chinese sovereignty in July 1997, Hong Kong film has retained much of its distinctive identity and continues to play a prominent part on the world cinema stage.

Unlike many film industries, Hong Kong has enjoyed little to no direct government support, through either subsidies or import quotas. It has always been a thoroughly commercial cinema, concentrating on crowd-pleasing genres, like comedy and action, and heavily reliant on formulas, sequels and remakes. Typically of commercial cinemas, its heart is a highly developed star system, which in this case also features substantial overlap with the pop music industry.

Nigeria

See also: Cinema of Nigeria

Also known as "Nollywood".

Nigeria was ushered into modern film making by a film known as Living in Bondage, which featured Kenneth Okonwo, Kanayo. O. Kanayo, Bob Manuel Udokwu, Francis Agu, Ngozi Nwosu, Nnena Nwabueze, etc. This movie, which hit the market in 1992, marked a turning point in the Nigerian Movie Industry and heralded the trend in modern day movie making in Nigeria.

The movie capital of the country was in Lagos. However, over the years, there has been a shift from Lagos to Enugu, in the eastern part of the country. This shift is said to be championed by Pete Edochie - a veteran in the communications industry who turned an actor and has become one of the most successful in Nigeria.

Now, with the launching of TINAPA Studios in Cross River State of Nigeria, we expect yet another shift in the regular base of the movie industry in Nigeria, considering the attractive ultra modern facilities, and beautiful scenery and location of Calabar, the capital of Cross Rivers.

The movie industry in Nigeria would not be complete without a mention of those behind the movies. Not the actors this time, but the sponsors or producers who are mostly based in Onitsha, the commercial capital of Anambra State, of Nigeria.

Cameroon

The film industry in Cameroon is still developing with a few films produced here and there. This delay in the taking off of the Cameroonian film industry, as opposed to other African countries, is due principally to lack of finance and film schools to train the personnel that can pilot the growth of the industry. The modern Cameroonian film industry started slowly about 1995 with the production of the first Cameroonian home video on VHS, Love Has Eyes by Mfuh Ebeneser, One of the first Actors in the movie was Felix LeShey who now resides in the United States. Other Cameroonian productions include: Potent Secrets, Last of the Serpents, Heaven Forbids, Peace Offering, Wendy, Blues Kingdom, Public Order, Sweetest Bitterness, Paris at all Cost, & most recently, The Good Mother of Abangoh[3]. Having been in the film industry for about 14 years since the production of Love Has Eyes, and identifying that lack of trained personnel (besides finance) is the main reason why the film industry is not taking off, Mfuh Ebeneser has created a film academy accredited by Cameroon's Ministry of Employment and Vocational training with the support of the ministry of culture. The academy called KM Professional Film Academy, is the first of its kind in Cameroon.

History

Still image from The Story of the Kelly Gang

The first feature film ever made was that of The Story of the Kelly Gang, an Australian film based on the infamous Ned Kelly. In 1906 Dan Barry and Charles Tait of Melbourne produced and directed The Story of the Kelly Gang, a silent film that ran continuously for a breathtaking 80 minutes. It was not until 1911 that countries other than Australia began to make feature films. By this time Australia had made 16 full length feature films.^{[citation needed]}

In the early 1900s, in the earliest years of the industry, motion picture production companies from New York and New Jersey started moving to California because of the good weather and longer days. Although electric lights existed at that time, none were powerful enough to adequately expose film; the best source of illumination for movie production was natural sunlight. Besides the moderate, dry climate, they were also drawn to the state because of its open spaces and wide variety of natural scenery.

Another reason was the distance of Southern California from New Jersey, which made it more difficult for Thomas Edison to enforce his motion picture patents. At the time, Edison owned almost all the patents relevant to motion picture production and, in the East, movie producers acting independently of Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company were often sued or enjoined by Edison and his agents. Thus, movie makers working on the West Coast could work independent of Edison's control. If he sent agents to California, word would usually reach Los Angeles before the agents did and the movie makers could escape to nearby Mexico.^{[citation needed]}

Hollywood

The first movie studio in the Hollywood area, Nestor Studios, was founded in 1911 by Al Christie for David Horsley in an old building on the northwest corner of Sunset Boulevard and Gower Street. In the same year, another fifteen Independents settled in Hollywood. Hollywood came to be so strongly associated with the film industry that the word "Hollywood" came to be used colloquially to refer to the entire industry.

In 1913, Cecil B. DeMille, in association with Jesse Lasky, leased a barn with studio facilities on the southeast corner of Selma and Vine Streets from the Burns and Revier Studio and Laboratory, which had been established there. DeMille then began production of The Squaw Man (1914). It became known as the Lasky-DeMille Barn and is currently the location of the Hollywood Heritage Museum.

The Charlie Chaplin Studios, on the northeast corner of La Brea and De Longpre Avenues jusl south of Sunset Boulevard, was built in 1917. It has had many owners after 1953, including Kling Studios, who produced the Superman TV series with George Reeves; Red Skelton, who used the sound stages for his CBS TV variety show; and CBS, who filmed the TV series Perry Mason with Raymond Burr there. It has also been owned by Herb Alpert's A&M Records and Tijuana Brass Enterprises. It is currently The Jim Henson Company, home of the Muppets. In 1969, The Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Board named the studio a historical cultural monument.

The famous Hollywood sign originally read "Hollywoodland." It was erected in 1923 to advertise a new housing development in the hills above Hollywood. For several years the sign was left to deteriorate. In 1949, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce stepped in and offered to remove the last four letters and repair the rest.

The sign, located at the top of Mount Lee, is now a registered trademark and cannot be used without the permission of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, which also manages the venerable Walk of Fame.

The Hollywood Sign as it appears today.

The first Academy Awards presentation ceremony took place on May 16, 1929 during a banquet held in the Blossom Room of the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel on Hollywood Boulevard. Tickets were USD $10.00 and there were 250 people in attendance.

From about 1930, five major Hollywood movie studios from all over the Los Angeles area, Paramount, RKO, 20th Century Fox, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Warner Bros., owned large, grand theaters throughout the country for the exhibition of their movies. The period between the years 1927 (the effective end of the silent era) to 1948 is considered the age of the "Hollywood studio system", or, in a more common term, the Golden Age of Hollywood. In a landmark 1948 court decision, the Supreme Court ruled that movie studios could not own theaters and play only the movies of their studio and movie stars, thus an era of Hollywood history had unofficially ended. By the mid-1950s, when television proved a profitable enterprise that was here to stay, movie studios started also being used for the production of programming in that medium, which is still the norm today.