Senses of Cinema 2018 World Poll

My contribution to Senses of Cinema's 2018 World Poll.

Favourite fifteen films including retrospectives, in alphabetical order:

Ex Libris: The New York Public Library (Frederick Wiseman, 2017)
Fail to Appear (Antoine Bourges, 2017)
Foxtrot (Samuel Maoz, 2017)
Island of the Hungry Ghosts (Gabrielle Brady, 2018)
Kuro (Tujiko Noriko & Joji Koyama, 2017)
La casa lobo (The Wolf House, Joaquín Cociña and Cristóbal León, 2017)
Los silencios (Beatriz Seigner, 2018)
Lumapit Sa Akin, Paraiso (Come to Me, Paradise, Stephanie Comilang, 2017)
Madeline’s Madeline (Josephine Baker, 2018)
Moriyama-San (Ila Bêka & Louise Lemoine, 2017)
Netemo Sametemo (Asako I & II, Ryūsuke Hamaguchi, 2018)
Sorry to Bother You (Boots Riley, 2018)
Tara moartă (The Dead Nation, Radu Jude, 2017)
Western (Valeska Grisebach, 2017)
Zama (Lucrecia Martel, 2017)

Senses of Cinema 2017 World Poll

My contribution to Senses of Cinema's 2017 World Poll.

Favourite fifteen films including retrospectives, in alphabetical order:

L’Avenir (Things to Come, Mia Hansen-Løve, 2016)
beDevil (Tracey Moffat, 1993)
La caméra de Claire (Claire’s Camera, Hong Sang-soo, 2017)
Canyon Cinema Curt McDowell Retrospective: Stinky Wieners and Dreamy Beavers
Canyon Cinema Women Filmmakers Retrospective: Always Something There to Remind Me
Le Concours (The Graduation, Claire Simon, 2016)
Dawson City: Frozen Time (Bill Morrison, 2016)
The Florida Project (Sean Baker, 2017)
Fuocoammare (Fire at Sea, Gianfranco Rosi, 2016)
La idea de un lago (The Idea of a Lake, Milagros Mumenthaler, 2016)
The Killing of a Sacred Deer (Yorgos Lanthimos, 2017)
Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016)
The Silent Eye (Amiel Courtin-Wilson, 2017)
Ten Meter Tower (Axel Danielson & Maximilien Van Aertryck, 2016)
The Work (Gethin Aldous & Jairus McLeary, 2017)

Films by UWA video art students

In the first half of the this I taught some classes at The University of Western Australia (UWA), for a so-called ‘broadening unit’ titled ‘Video Art: Methods and Means’ (coordinated by Joseph London). Despite the title, there was no restriction on form, and students could produce any kind of film they chose – video art, experimental film, documentary, animation, narrative, etc. – although very few opted for the latter. That said, there was an inclination towards experimental film (particularly structural film) in most of the lecture content.

Each week, there was a pair of very short and simple lectures: the first would introduce students to a particular artistic/aesthetic approach, point them towards a handful of relevant films and filmmakers (which they were free to chase up or not), and excerpt a brief reading; the second lecture would introduce a particular technique, usually relating to editing and post-production (such as using green screens and keyframes). In the workshops, students would spend most of the time playing with the ideas and techniques introduced in that week's lecture; again, they were free to test those that they felt were useful and could ignore others, although they were encouraged to try everything at some point. There were also several classes dedicated to workshopping film ideas and sharing feedback.

Students had two themed videos to produce: dialogues, which explored the notion of dialogue (be it literal/verbal, gestural, structural), and the self-explanatory frames within frames (both assignments had some additional constraints and guidelines which I won't bother posting here). Some basic equipment (consumer-level video cameras and sound equipment) was made available, but students could film on their mobile phones or their own gear if they preferred to do so.

Overall, I was impressed with the quality of the work produced, and by the students' enthusiasm for the unit – particularly given that they’d come from a huge variety of different disciplines that had little to do with film (engineering, commerce, law, science, architecture, archeology, etc.; UWA doesn’t have a film school), and that only a small number had any prior interest in film and video (or in visual arts in general). Many students hadn't so much as picked up a camera that wasn't their mobile phone before undertaking the unit.

It made me think that this open approach is far more conducive to students engaging with film for the first time. Like child actors who have certain habits ingrained into them through early training, I've often found that it's quite difficult for film students who had already undertaken a couple of years of study to see experimental and non-narrative films as anything other than academic exercises. But in the context of this unit, film could constitute (almost) anything, and students embraced this openness – even though they had barely any grounding in film practice, history or theory to speak of.

Below is a small selection of work produced by the students, in no particular order.

Ah Ma (Charmiane Joy Khor Le Yi & Goh Jun Lun)

Life (Charmiane Joy Khor Le Yi)

En route (Bradley Morgan)

The Third Eye (Eunsun Choi)

Movements (Jhan Fung Siah)

Do You Sense What I Sense? (Samantha Hopson)

Conscious (Angus Cunningham)

Place in Space and Time (Christina Englund)

Paying to Work: The Perth Film Network and The Action Film Plan

Although its name may suggest a community initiative or some kind of co-op, The Perth Film Network is a business modelled on Hollywood and aimed at filmmakers with Hollywood-like aspirations, in which everything comes at a price. The organisation runs filmmaking and acting courses but is better known for its corporate-style networking events, which bring ‘Perth's professional, indie and student film community together’ at a cost of $10 per head, or at no cost if you've forked out $45 for an annual membership ($130 for businesses). You can also pay extra to have your showreel projected at the event, set up a display booth, hire extra floor space to promote your film, etc. ‘You are there to sell you and your product... being you,’ the website advises. ‘Don't try and be something you are not.’

The Perth Film Network's latest venture, called ‘The Action Film Project,’ is what appears to be either an exploitative form of crowdfunding, or an unethical business scheme masquerading as a golden opportunity for aspiring filmmakers. You can read the brief on its website, here.

To summarise, the scheme invites filmmakers to pay to work in assistant roles for a short action film, Code of Silence, under the mentorship of a professional in their chosen department. The cost ranges from $350 (to just ‘watch and learn’) to $1100 (director's assistant, assistant editor, etc.) for a three-day shoot. The filmmakers will purportedly be paying for the experience of working with professionals, a ‘VIP invite’ to the screening, and a credit on the film and on IMDb. ‘There is no classroom, you are learning on the go and you need to be alert and on the ball,’ the brief states, ‘as time is money.’ That is to say, time and money supplied by the paying filmmaker. There's also an option for people uninterested in participating directly to donate to the film in $20, $50 and $100 denominations, à la regular crowdfunding.

The key selling points here – to ‘experience the reality of a pro set, be mentored and learn’ and ‘create strong contacts with professionals in their field’ – lead to a twisted logic in which the number of hours the filmmaker contributes on set is used to rationalise the bargain fee that he or she is paying, rather than a wage that he or she should be receiving (‘That's over 30 hours of learning and being mentored from under $30 an hour... You won't get that anywhere else’). By extension, when the brief states that the film will be shot over a period of two weekends, which may be extended, the prospective mentee is presumably supposed to be excited that he or she'll be getting more bang for the buck. Putting aside the question of whether one should or shouldn't be paying to be ‘mentored’ in an industry where unpaid work experience placements are common, the idea of this scheme being a mentorship program has only so much credibility because the film will presumably go ahead with or without all of the roles being sold. In other words, it's unlikely that Code of Silence will become a silent film just because the position of assistant sound recordist isn't filled.

One of the most worrying things about this scheme is that it's vague in its purpose. It's unclear whether Code of Silence is designed around the business model or vice versa. Is it a film that is bound to be made in any case, and The Perth Film Network has devised an exploitative strategy to help fund it? If financial profit is not the key aim, and assuming that the organisation doesn't need to sell every crew position to make the film viable, it'll at least recoup some production costs via the financial input of its own crew members. Or, is this simply another of the organisation's courses, which takes the form of a film that wouldn't otherwise exist, and which would be exploitative nonetheless?

View fullsize

The way the scheme is designed and pitched means it can be both of these scenarios at once. The Perth Film Network claims that this is a non-profit venture and that the money raised ‘goes into making the film, insurances and paying for your mentors, food, etc.’ Besides the fact that the cost of ‘making the film’ can refer to almost anything, including the three costs listed after it, the claim is a dubious one. Firstly, there's no specified goal for the budget – ‘the more money we can raise, the more we can play and do,’ the brief says – suggesting that production costs, including mentor fees, will simply increase according to how much money is raised. Secondly, the top-billed mentor is the owner and director of The Perth Film Network (billed as producer/writer/director), who will therefore benefit directly from the sales of these crew positions.

Additionally, The Perth Film Network claims that any profit made after the film is completed will go to the charity Lifeline, a crisis support and suicide prevention hotline. However, it's well known that it's almost completely unlikely for a short film, especially a 20-minute action film, to turn a profit, so this also appears to be a disingenuous claim. ‘If the film comes together well,’ the brief mentions, ‘it will be entered into film festivals and showed at other public events.’ This may suggest that Code of Silence is designed to be a standalone film which will have legs after its completion, like most films. But the clause (‘If the film comes together well’) leaves open the possibility that the film can simply be shelved after having served its immediate purpose. The Perth Film Network makes no promises: it hints that it may push the film and grant exposure to the filmmakers involved, and also hints that it may not even attempt to do that. This part of the brief also negates the earlier claim that all the proceeds go toward making the film, because showing films at festivals and public events costs money, and both are expenses incurred after a film is made.

There's even a section in the FAQ titled ‘CAN'T AFFORD THE PRICE?’ which bizarrely encourages those who can't meet the costs to crowdfund their own attendance – that is, rely on favours to be able to give favours, or be crowdfunded to be able to crowdfund. The Perth Film Network also provides filmmakers with the option of buying cheaper tickets to the premiere, which they can then sell on to family and friends at a higher cost – a common strategy for pyramid schemes, and similar to the one used by the controversial arts organisation, RAW: Natural Born Artists (see here and here).

View fullsize

It's unfortunate enough, though it may be understandable in the mutually-beneficial context of work experience, that many starting filmmakers are often not paid for working on ‘professional’ film sets. But nowhere else will you find a program that requires trainees/interns to pay to work, for an outcome which can have clear benefits for those being paid. This is categorically different to paying to participate in a training program or to attend a course. If this isn't merely a poorly conceived moneymaking venture, then it's a concerning way of funding a film by exploiting those who are desperate for opportunities and don't know better. At the very least, The Action Film Plan is indicative of a toxic and corporate view of filmmaking whereby one can simply pay for (supposed) industry advantages, and those who are unable to afford it simply miss out.

Nanook haikus

With apologies.

A quiet weekend
Not much to do around here
Snow eating contest

The strange white guy says
Again, for the camera
Really can't be arsed

A friend challenged me
Spend the afternoon shoeless
Thanks for frostbite, friend

My third eldest son
Jumped me with a wet willy
Harpoon punishment

Slaughter a walrus
Eat that shit sashimi style
With no condiments

Don't need no TomTom
Google Maps is for cowards
Huskies will guide me

Frank Zappa once sang
Don't You Eat That Yellow Snow
The fuck would he know

Blizzard's on its way
The igloo ain't behaving
No complaints from me