we make change

I love my job.  I get to do the kind of stuff that you dream about when you're young - make movies, go to film festivals, work with great artists, hang out with cool people.  But this past week, the gig got even better.

WASHINGTON POST: The MPAA Makes Changes

This week, at the Sundance Film Festival, the MPAA announced that they are - after 40 years - making changes to the way their ratings system works.  The changes - though the MPAA is reluctant to admit it - came in great part because of an IFC Original documentary directed by Kirby Dick, called 'THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED'.

Almost exactly two years ago, we greenlit 'THIS FILM' at the Sundance Film Festival.  One year ago, we debuted the film at the Sundance Festival.  And now - at the very same festival - change has been made.  True, the rules have not changed nearly enough (read the post article above to see the specifics), but they have changed - and in ways that our film and our online petition demanded. 

We all work very hard at IFC.  We are all incredibly passionate about what we do.  But no matter how much you love your job, it's rare if your work actually affects change.  When it does, it's a surreal, amazing thing.

For this experience, I must thank the film's private investigators, Becky Altringer, Cheryl Howell and Lindsey Howell (who camped out for nearly a year at the MPAA), Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt (who made a great and important film), the thousands of you who signed our online petition (and posted such great stuff), and EVERYONE at IFC (who turned the film into a movement). 

We set out to change our corner of the world - if even just a little - and we did.  There's still MUCH more to do to free expression in the media.  But right now, let's take a moment to enjoy the accomplishment.  Ok, moment's over.  Back to work! 

I hope you join us in our efforts to Free Expression.  Don't think you can't be a part of making change happen... because you can. 

Free Expression - watch IFC.

e

Forgive me, I have sinned

Forgive me everyone, for I have sinned.

It's been a loooong time since my last post, and I have not been diligent in responding to your comments either.  I could give a long line excuses, but there really aren't any good enough to excuse me not keeping up something that I started.  Life just got in the way.

Over the past week, I've been rereading the posts from the past year, and your responses to them.  I have also been reading a number of articles and books about our growing worldwide digital community.  And I've come to some realizations.

First, I don't think this should be a forum for me to tell you what I am thinking so you can respond.  It should be just the reverse - a forum for YOU to tell me what YOU are thinking, so I can respond.  I've been pontificating all over these web pages for almost two years, whenever I feel like it, about whatever I want.  I've answered your questions and offered some insights as to why we do what we do, but it's been on my schedule, by my rules. 

No longer.  This is YOUR space.  Use it to ask questions or make comments about the network, our programming, the film industry or whatever you see fit.  I promise to answer all questions every single week until they fire me.

Second, there's an enormous amount of talent out there, all over the world, that is unheard and untapped.  We started Media Lab as a way to tap into that talent, but this year, we will take that even further, opening up our development process to include many more artists who don't come from the mainstream talent pool of New York and L.A.

These are my resolutions for 2007.  The last resolution I made was in 1988.  I resolved to cut my mullet.  I did.  I plan to keep these resolutions as well.  I imagine they will pay even more dividends - to me and to IFC.

We will be changing this space in the coming weeks to reflect these new goals and purposes.  Until then - please, PLEASE use this space to ask me or tell me anything at all about IFC, TV, the industry... whatever. 

I am at your service.

e

The F Word

The mainstream media likes to call every single election, the “most important vote in a generation”.   

It’s their business model – call something news and then get people to watch your coverage of it.  Calling something news gets more people to watch CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the networks, and then those networks sell ads into the coverage.  It’s important to note that these same companies make enormous amount of money from political ads themselves, giving them even more motive to build the hype.

I don’t mind any hyperbole that gets the electorate MORE interested in politics and more energized to vote.  The more people vote, the more representative our representative government becomes. 

But the money part of politics is, simply put, sickening.  More than a two-and-a-half billion dollars will be spent on political advertising in 2006 – a year with no Presidential candidates on the ballot.    Imagine on what that money could be better spent... New Orleans?  Schools?  Health Insurance  for the poor?  That's $2,500,000,000 – the vast majority of which comes from people who most definitely want something back in return. 

The “News” organizations charged with covering our political process are also those who benefit the most financially from it.  Each election cycle they produce inevitably earnest segments about the undue influence of special interest groups on the democratic process – while they raise their advertising revenue projections based on political spending.

What’s more, the coverage American elections – the longest standing democratic elections in the world – pay little or no attention to the actual democratic process itself.  When was the last time your candidates for the Senate or House debated in prime time on a major broadcast affiliate in your town?  When was the last time a local “News” program aired more than a sound byte from a speech by your Senatorial or House candidates? 

But the good news is, Katie Couric is using this mid-term election as her big, first test as anchor!  Who cares about control of the Senate, what color is Katie's pants suit?!?   

The major networks don’t even show the Democratic or Republican Party Conventions during the Presidential elections anymore.  They show a speech or two and ignore the entire nomination process itself.  They hone everything down to cool graphic packages and inane phone-in polls to hype the conflict, while eliminating anything that isn’t TV-friendly. 

Personally, I believe that media should be offered for free to politicians – removing the need for all that money, all that fund raising, all those special interests and their influence over our elections.

That is one of many reasons we decided to join forces with Director Jeb Weintrob to present “The F Word”, Monday night. 

The F Word

It’s a great fictional narrative, mixed with terrific documentary filmmaking – shot during the actual Republican National Convention in NYC in 2004.  Josh Hamilton plays a radio talk show host, whose show is being shut down by the FCC.  On his last day, he decides to take the show, live, out of the studio and onto the streets.

Weintrob shot during all of the protests and arrests surrounding the Convention, and perfectly captured the chaos and the craziness of that weekend (I was here, in my own world that weekend, blogging away… but that’s another story).  Hamilton perfectly represents the frustration felt by many at that time, and his rants against an oppressive state of affairs – in retrospect – are chillingly prophetic.

If you are like me – nostalgic for the Democracy of the democratic process, longing for politics without filter and eager for some truth from the media – you will love this film.

That said – here comes the cliché – this IS an important election.  Nothing will change, if you don’t use the most important element of your freedom of expression – the vote.  Freedom of expression, freedom from fear, freedom for dissent and a transparent government for and by ALL the people, are on the ballot this week.

If you don’t vote on Tuesday, don’t complain about the results afterward.  But if you do, maybe we can all work together to change the democratic process and the media that covers it.

e

I Speak for the Dicks

Having spent the past couple of years studying censorship in all its forms, there's one thing that has become remarkably clear to me - the penis is under attack. 

For some reason, our dicks make politicians, religious conservatives and "concerned parents" very uncomfortable, and the thought that someone, somewhere might actually be exposed to a penis on television gets them into a lather.  This makes censorship organizations, like the FCC and the MPAA very nervous about man meat, which in turn makes media executives shrivel up like a ball sac in a cold YMCA pool.

The latest example is the reediting of a documentary to air this Monday on PBS.  "Marie Antoinette", a documentary about the whimsical and doomed Queen of France, is directed by David Grubin, and apparently included - until this week - two cartoon images of shvontzes.

Side Note:  Shvontz is Yiddish for Putz, which is Yiddish for Shlong, which is slang for Rod, Prick, Flesh Flute or Cock. 

Grubin was asked to "blur" the images in his film prior to broadcast, as PBS and its stations feared a fine from morality czars on the FCC.  He complied, and the documentary has been castrated.  Strange, though, he was not asked to edit other cartoon images, which show the Queen's bare breasts.  Apparently they are either not much to look at, or the FCC is populated by breast men.

Honestly, though, I am facinated by this aversion to cock.

I'm NOT advocating that we add a bat and set of balls to Spongebob Squarepants to make him anatomically correct (do sponges have shlongs?), but I really don't see the harm in allowing a historical cartoon image of a penis show up in a serious, two-hour documentary about the last Queen of France, airing from 9pm to 11pm on a Monday night. 

In fact, if the promise of seeing a penis actually gets some kids to watch a historical documentary, and actually learn something from television - I say let it swing! 

Even more confusing to me - in light of this penile retraction - is that producers must restrict male genitals, but are free to exploit the use of guns on television whenever they want.  Jack Bauer pulls out his gun at least twice in every episode of 24.  Often, he uses it to kill people.  That show is on at 9pm, on FOX TV, and does remarkably well with young men, aged 12-17.  His gun is used to portray him powerful, cool and tough.  The FCC has never fined FOX or their affiliates.

Yet, if Bauer were to take a shower in an episode, and we caught even a glimpse of his heroic, hairy scrotum, religious zealouts, conservative talk show hosts and Dr. James Dobson would mount a campaign to have the show yanked off the air, and the FCC would slap a fine on FOX so fast, it would make Brit Hume's head spin.

I personally don't think either penises OR guns should be censored from television programs that are primarily targeted at adults, and carry the proper warning for parents.  But consider this: Used properly, a penis hurts no one.  Used correctly, a gun is lethal.  If the FCC forces us to censor our dicks, should they not also consider concealing our guns?

If you agree, the next time you see a guy pull out his pistol, call, email or fax the FCC:

Email: fccinfo@fcc.gov
Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
Fax:  1-866-418-0232

I may be crazy, but I think if TV had more dicks and fewer guns, the world might be a better place. 

e

The Little F*CK That Could

Holy crap!

This Film Is Not Rated not only opened this weekend, it opened really big.  First, just some of the reviews:

NY Times:
New York Times Review by A.O. Scott

Entertainment Weekly:
Entertainment Weekly Review by Owen Gleiberman

TIME:
Time Magazine Review by Richard Corliss

Rolling Stone:
Rolling Stone Review by Peter Travers

Also, the film was "The Pick of The Week" in People Magazine. Go figure!!

The critical notices were really, REALLY great - but the reaction of movie-goers was even better.  The film took in more than $37K on just two screens this weekend - more than $18K per screen!  An amazing opening for a film that cost about $700K to produce.  AND, more than 2,000 people have signed our anti-censorship petition to the MPAA.

Hopefully, this is just the beginning.  This weekend, we expand to more screens in NYC and LA, and next weekend we should be coming to a theater near you - including Philly, Chicago, Boston, DC, San Francisco and Portland - with more theaters every weekend this month.  See the whole list at: thisfilmnowplaying.

If you don't see your city listed - POST HERE!  We are fielding calls from many markets and want to go where there's a demand!  You all already help program the network, every day!  Now you can help us distribute a film.  Yes, we will be playing the film on IFC - in January.  But if this little, unrated documentary - about the MPAA istelf - can actually run in theaters, it will send a major statement to Hollywood. 

Visit the "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" site (This Site Is Not Yet Rated)!  Watch the trailer, sign the  petition, see the film - make your voice heard! 

e

Your Life Is Not Yet Rated

Who decides what is decent and what is not?  Who gets to determine what is appropriate and what is obscene?  I grew up thinking that I was allowed to make those decisions for myself.  When I had kids, I assumed that I would get to choose what was right for my family and what was not.

But I was wrong.

There are people in this country who want to make those determinations for me and my family.  They believe that it is their right - their duty, even - to dictate what I allow my family to see, and when.  They do not believe that my wife and I can be trusted with the hearts and minds of our children, so they are hard at work to remove all temptations from our lives, and to destroy our ability to make these choices for ourselves.  They are the same folks who claim that any dissention against them or the current prevailing moral hierarchy is unpatriotic.

They strive to stifle the freedom of expression, guaranteed to all Americans by the founding fathers, when they wrote and signed the Constitution.  So important was this right to the men who created this country, they made the FIRST civil right in the Bill of Rights, and combined it with the Freedom of Religion.  Wars have been fought to defend this right and secure it for others.

There's such a war being fought right now.  It's a fight between those who would guarantee your freedom of thought and speech and those who would limit it.  And it's time to choose sides.

At IFC, our core belief is in the Freedom of Expression.  It starts with the films we show and extends to the artists we support - artists such as Ted Demme, Richard LaGravenes, Henry Rollins, Laura Kightlinger, Lesli Klainberg, Lisa Ades, Rosie Perez, Xan Cassavetes and Kirby Dick.  It also extends to the way we run our business.  This space is a prime example - we want to you tell us what you think of our work, even if you hate it.

This Friday, we are taking that core belief to the next level, and taking an enormous risk as we do.  September 1, we open Kirby Dick's documentary, THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED, in New York, Los Angeles and London, with many cities and theaters to come  (find out where at: http://thisfilm/whereplaying).  The film investigates the inner workings of the Motion Picture Association of America - one of the country's most powerful lobbying organizations, operated by the six major studios that run the film industry (you know, the one we rely on for our living).

In the film, Kirby works with a Private Eye, to uncover who decides which films you do and don't get to see.  It's done with great humor and even some suspense - but it's an important undertaking, nonetheless.  If you see it, you'll see Kirby, his producer Eddie Schmidt and Becky the Private Eye actually 'out' the raters one by one, as well as the Clergymen who sit in judgment over these ratings on the appeals Board.  If you love movies, this film was made for you.

To accurately portray the system (and its flaws), Kirby submitted THIS FILM to the MPAA - who first realized they were IN the film when they sat down to rate it.  It got an NC-17.  We're releasing it unrated. 

While we've been showing the film at festivals around the world, we've found that this subject has passionate followers, of all ages - everywhere. That's why we're also collecting signatures on a petition, which we plan to submit to the MPAA.  We're not asking to destroy the ratings system, just to reform it - for the first time in nearly 40 years.  The film has yet to open, yet the petition already has nearly 1,000 signatures.

If this tiny, unrated film, by a truly independent filmmaker can circumnavigate the 'system' and find some level of success; it could be the first true victory in the culture wars for the good guys.  If you love film but hate censorship, sign the petition.  If free speech is as important to you as it is to us, see THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED.   

e

Reality Bullshit

I was asked by none other than indie-blogger-and-gadfly The Reeler to pinch-hit on his blog this week.  The guestblog, which talks about the pros and cons of "reality" programming, is currently live...

"I loathe “reality programming.” I harbor no disrespect for the hundreds of people who produce “reality” TV--I know it’s a very difficult job, and realize that the shows can often be entertaining. But, ever since the arrival of Survivor and The Amazing Race and Project Greenlight, and Project Runway and The Contender, and, and, and, and... I have feared that we are on the precipice on the demise of Western culture itself"...

Shapiro Pinch-Blogs for The Reeler - Click HERE

I'd love to know what you think.

e

THE VIEWERS HAVE SPOKEN. IFC'S NEW IMPROVED ONLINE SCHEDULE - THANKS TO YOU!!!!

You bitched.  You moaned.  You cursed.  You hated our old online schedule.

We listened.

While it took a while - we wanted to do it RIGHT - we can finally unveil our new, improved, tricked out interactive schedule...

IFC Schedule

With credits for every film we air, user-generated reviews and ratings, an interactive personalized calendar and more, the IFC Schedule has taken a major leap.  And we owe it all to you.  The thousands of emails and blog comments from viewers have helped us shape the IFC Schedule in your image.

As anyone will tell you, it's impossible to please EVERYONE, but we tried.  If you like it - please let us know!!!  But, if you think there's still more to do - PLEASE TELL US - we can't fix what we don't know.

Thank you all for your honest input, and thank you to the amazing webmasters at IFC who always do amazing work.

e

There's a new Girl in Town...

This Friday, at 11pm est/pst, IFC will premiere a new show, "The Minor Accomplishments of Jackie Woodman".  I've been proud of shit I've done before, but this is something really special.

TIME MAGAZINE says Jackie Woodman has "the kind of drawling feminist sarcasm rarely seen since Roseanne left sitcomdom".  (Read the TIME review)

The AUSTIN CHRONICLE says "Move over, Carrie Bradshaw. There's a new dame on TV.  Minor Accomplishments is an unflinching look at the Hollywood machine from those living on its fringes".  (Read the Chronicle review)

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY says "the cringe-worthy moments make us strangely (and guiltily) want to come back fo more".   (The goofballs at EW don't put their reviews on line)

And, for those of you (like me) that loved our show, "The Festival", from last season - you are in luck.  The kids who made that show are back, with a spin-off, called "The Business".  I hope they're not insulted when I say this, but, this show is better.  It's funnier and the story is drum tight - the indie film business gets skewered in ways even I didn't think possible.

Making good tv is fucking hard.  Making great tv is near impossible.  For the past eight months, everyone on both series, has almost killed themselves - working with budgets that would not even cover the catering truck on Entourage or My Name is Earl.  The work was grueling and intense - but it has been an amazing experience I would not trade for all of the money in the world.

To those talented, passionate and crazy mother-fuckers who worked on both of these shows, I can only say thank you.  You really raised the bar.

Now - PLEASE FUCKING WATCH!  Tune in (or tivo) - this Friday at 11pm.  For the casts, crews and everyone at IFC, it would mean a great deal if you all watched.

e

Change the MPAA - Sign Today!

THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED will be in theaters on September 1.  I cannot tell you how much we need your support on this.

This film, from day one, was a pretty big risk for us – a network dedicated to film, that does an enormous amount of business with the film industry, making a film about the film industry’s lobbying and trade organization, against their will and without their cooperation.

For the uninitiated… Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt set out to make a film about the MPAA and the hidden truth about their subtle censorship of America’s Movies.

No one knows who rates our films – the MPAA has always kept their identities, their deliberations, their training and their ‘system’ for rating films a secret.  No one is sure why they won’t tell us the names of the raters, they just won’t.

Kirby and Eddie filmed the raters coming and going from work.  They hired a Private Investigator to ‘out’ their identities, and then they submitted the film to the MPAA for a rating.

The first time that the raters and the MPAA learned that they were in the film, was when they sat down to rate the film.  We got an NC-17… And Kirby and Eddie kept filming.

The result?  A kick ass film that unearths a dung-heap of hypocrisy – including a disparity of NC 17 ratings for sex over violence, gay films over straight, and indie films over studio movies. 

THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED was accepted at Sundance and SXSW and score of other festivals, and on September 1, we are opening it in theaters in NYC (IFC Center) and LA (Nuart) – September 15 in many more markets.  We are releasing the film UNRATED.

We’ve relaunched the film’s web site today, to include theater locations, a new sneak peek of the film (in the trailer section), an MPAA timeline, a page for our PI and – most importantly… A PETITION TO CHANGE THE MPAA’S RATING SYSTEM.

THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED

If you think the ratings system needs to be changed. Sign the petition.  If you think that filmmakers should have a greater say in HOW their films are rated, sign the petition.  If you really want to help make change – sign the petition and then forward it to friends. 

If you want to know more about the secret system of censorship baked into YOUR movies, take a look at the site – or better yet GO SEE THE FRIGGIN' MOVIE. 

They are YOUR movies, it’s time for you to take them back.

e

Gays Attack Marriage!!!

The recent defeat for gay rights in Georgia came as no surprise to me.  But defeats in San Francisco and New York - where courts endorsed a ban on gay marriage - took me aback.

Is America - after all this time - really so against civil rights for all?

Last month, the President of the United States and the Leader of the Senate proposed a Constitutional amendment, banning marriage for gay couples.  FORTY-NINE SENATORS - FORTY NINE - voted to write discrimination into the Constitution.

"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected."
                                                                              Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

I have one question for the straight people of the world:  Are our marriages so bad that the mere sight of another couple can tear it apart?  Are we - the ‘breeders’ - so unhappy ourselves, that someone else’s happiness can destroy our families?

Wow.

My wife, one of my daughters and I went out to dinner with a gay couple and their son on Friday night.  So far, we don’t have any signs of familial deterioration… Maybe Dr. Frist can tell me - what are the side effects of “being too close to gay marriage”?

All law-abiding, tax-paying Americans share the same civil rights, right?  Our government has no more authority to stop the marriage of a gay couple than they do a couple of mixed races.  Or is that next on the agenda for the Republican Majority?  Then mixed religions?

At IFC, we take this discriminatory movement very seriously.  Gay and Lesbian films are the most censored by the MPAA and the most targeted by socially conservative special interest groups. But Queer Cinema has been an important - if not the most important - part of the independent film movement.  Warhol, Waters, Robinson, Peirce, Haynes and many, many others have often lead the way toward complete freedom of expression, by opening doors to the previously taboo.

Last week, IFC’s newest documentary, FABULOUS: Tbe Story of Queer Cinema, at OutFest in Los Angeles.  This Sunday, at 10 pm est/7pm pst, it premieres on IFC.

The Documentary is directed and produced by the lovely and talented team of Lesli Klainberg and Lisa Ades - who also directed IFC’s Indie Sex, which our viewers seem to like so much.  FAABULOUS documents the complete history and impact of Queer Cinema on the American Culture - From Warhol to Brokeback and back.

It celebrates the greatness in gayness and - for the first time in film - tracks how the movement has moved from “GAY FILMS” to just plain “GREAT FILMS”.  It’s an important and unbelievably entertaining story, told by fascinating people.

FABULOUS is part of Queer Month of IFC - both of which are meant to demonstrate and reinforce our support for the civil rights of all Americans, Gay and Straight.  It’s a year round commitment that we thought deserved a month of its own - and it should be noted that we chose the hottest month of the year.

Check out our Queer Month schedule here: IFC Queer Month   
Get more information of FABULOUS here: http://ifc.com/ifc/fabulous/

The family with which we spent last Friday night was just that - a family, and a very happy one, at that.  If half of the straight couples in this country were in such good shape, the sanctity of marriage would be far safer.  Perhaps we shoud just ban BAD marriages..?  I'll call Senator Frist.

e

Puerto Ricans and Uncut Radio

UPDATE IN RED - CORRECTION...

It's been a pretty crazy few weeks.

Two Sundays ago, I rode in the Puerto Rican Day Parade in NYC with Rosie Perez and Jimmy Smits, to promote our documentary, "Yo Soy Boricua!"  It was one of the most amazing days of my life.

The Parade is something of an anomaly to white folks, I have to admit.  We usually watch it from afar, a bit confused as to what all the rukus is about and hoping that 5th Avenue can return to normal the next day. 

But, once again, I found that getting inside something helps to understand and appreciate it.  Rosie and "Yo Soy Boricua" helped me get inside the hearts and minds of Puerto Ricans.  But it wasn't until that Parade that I really understood how amazing the Puerto Rican Community is.  Welcoming, warm, close knit and so fucking happy!  I rode the float, danced in the streets, shook about ten thousand hands and was completely blown away.  And riding with Jimmy and Rosie is literally like riding with Royalty - they are more than loved - they are revered. 

I will never forget that experience.  And the film did AMAZING for its premiere on IFC.  It airs this Tuesday at 7:30pm est in case you missed it.

RADIO, RADIO

This monday, FROM 7PM TO 9PM PST (10PM-12AM EST), I am again hosting Radio, Uncut - two hours of UNCUT, COMMERCIAL FREE music and talk - on Indie 103.1 in Los Angeles, the best radio station in the nation.

As my guests, I'll have Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt, the director and producer of the IFC documentary THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED.  We'll be talking about the film - which is screening at the LA Film Festival on Friday, June 29 - and about the MPAA and their particular form of censorship.

I'll also be featuring the music of Daniel Johnston - with songs by the best singer songwriter you've never heard of, performed by him and covered by other bands.  You can find a collection of both at eMusic (emusic.com), and YOU can listen LIVE in LA on 103.1 FM or on the web at indie103.com.

Please listen if you can - I hate talking to myself.

Thanks.

e

A Poet with Balls

Recently, I have come to expect that our government - when given the chance - will attempt to restrict Free Speech and Dissent.  I had resigned myself to a world where freedom of expression was left to those of us on the fringes - digital cable, in my case.

And then, yesterday, the Library of Congress announced their choice for America's new Poet Laureate.  His name is Donald Hall, a remarkably prolific and talented writer and poet. 

Donald Hall - click here

I first knew of Hall because he wrote one my favorite poems - a small list, considering I am not a HUGE poetry aficionado - called "Baseball".  I like it because it is unbelievably disciplined - nine sections, each with nine lines - and because it demonstrates the true poetry of baseball in a way that "Casey at The Bat" never did.

But recently, he's come to my attention as a member of the advisory board to the National Endowment for the Arts, where he has been a remarkably outspoken critic of the mainstream media and the influence of religion over government sponsored arts programs.  In fact, his first published quote after the announcement of his appointment, speaks volumes...

"If I see First Amendment violations, I will speak up."

Not that the opinion of a television schmuck means a hell of a lot, but I would like to congratulate the Library of Congress for having the cajones - in this political environment - for perhaps the best governmental appointment in the last six years.  Donald Hall embodies everything that's good about America - he is talented, visionary and truthful about the challenges we face as a country.

For one day, at least, my cynicism abates...

e

Meet a Fluffer

Any of you who've been to our user-created-and-rated short film site, Media Lab, know that we've got some of the best shorts on the web.

I'm now proud to announce that our top rated film in May is "Who Makes Movies" a hysterical satire of the MPAA's anti-piracy trailers, written and directed by Chris Luccy.

Do yourself a favor and spend 4:44 minutes with Randy Palmer, Fluffer for Hire:

Media Lab: Who Makes Movies?

e

Wonder-LUST

For those of you without subscriptions to the NEW YORK TIMES, check out this great piece in Today's NYT about how IFC is taking up the cause of the documentary filmmakers and free speech in our use of Fair Use...

No Free Samples for Documentaries: Seeking Film Clips With the Fair-Use Doctrine

By ELAINE DUTKA
New York Times

Published: May 28, 2006

THE film producer Alicia Sams viewed "Wanderlust," a documentary about American road movies, as a way of introducing a new generation to Bonnie and Clyde, Thelma and Louise, and other giants of the genre. Films like "Five Easy Pieces," "Easy Rider" and "The Grapes of Wrath," she was convinced, offered  a window into the American character.

The 90-minute documentary, to be broadcast Monday night on the Independent Film Channel, was also a window into the frustrations of making a clip-intensive film dependent on copyright clearance, which has become hugely expensive in the past decade. Initial quotations for the necessary sequences came to more than $450,000, which would have raised by half the cost of the IFC film, directed by the Oscar-nominated team of Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini ("American Splendor").

"Paramount wanted $20,000 for 119 seconds of 'Paper Moon,' " Ms. Sams said. "The studios are so afraid of exploitation that they set boundaries no one will cross. Even after the prices were cut, we were $150,000 in the hole."

Unwilling to pay those fees, IFC's general manager, Evan Shapiro, helped Ms. Sams pursue another, more aggressive, tack, which may point the way for documentarians who want to tap movie iconography without paying studio prices. Its strategy involved some negotiating hardball, backed up by a willingness to fall back on the tricky legal doctrine known as fair use.

Mr. Shapiro called in a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer, Michael C. Donaldson, who drilled him on copyright law. Under the 165-year-old fair-use doctrine, Mr. Shapiro was told, filmmakers, news gatherers, critics and educators can access material at no cost if they add something to it (like a voice-over), don't undermine its value or use more than needed to make a point. Free speech trumps private property when a project is in the public interest, a term broadly defined.

"Fair use is the lubricant that allows creativity and copyright law to coexist," said Mr. Donaldson, a former president of the International Documentary Association.

Though many public-affairs programmers employ the fair-use concept, cable outlets — the major producers and distributors of documentaries — have been reluctant to do so, as budgets for documentaries are low and litigation expensive. And it's hard to get insurance for "errors and omissions," the media version of malpractice, unless everything is licensed.

Mr. Shapiro had vowed never to embark on another clip-heavy film after Xan Cassavetes's "Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession," a costly 2004 profile of a cable network that used scenes  from movies like  "Salvador" and "400 Blows." Rights had to be purchased separately for home video and film festivals, and renewed periodically. But "Wanderlust," set in motion by a predecessor, was a chance to set a precedent.

"We're taking on the fight not only with 'Wanderlust' but also with the upcoming 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated,' " said Mr. Shapiro, referring to a clip-dependent critique of the film ratings system set for release in theaters later this year. "That was made, from the start, under the fair-use doctrine, as all of our documentaries will be from now on."

Mr. Donaldson began contacting the studios at the Berlin film festival in February, initiating talks that dragged on for months. Accept $1,000 a title, he said, or IFC will move ahead anyway. Though Paramount held firm, 13 of the 18 copyright holders accepted the offer, including Sony Pictures Entertainment, MGM, Universal Studios, Miramax Films and Warner Brothers Entertainment, whose price was cut from $149,850 to $8,000. In the end the clips cost IFC less than $50,000. The holdouts advised IFC to rely on the fair-use argument, which, after viewing the film, they said they might legally challenge. (Mr. Shapiro is ramping up his insurance and putting away money in case that happens.)

Copyright law is not being used to stonewall filmmakers but to protect corporate assets, argues a licensing executive from one of those studios, who was granted anonymity because of his company's press relations policy.

Because of the proliferation of clip-generated programming, movie clips are in great demand. The executive said his department had no problem when broadcasters use unlicensed sequences to mark the death of an actor, and it has a lower rate for "nonprofits." But "Wanderlust" is a commercial product that will, undoubtedly, have a shelf life.

"Fair use is a defense sometimes used, after the fact, to justify the appropriation of footage without asking," the executive said. "The producers could have used shorter clips, or even still photographs. If someone can't afford a Mercedes, that doesn't mean he can't drive."

One copyright holder, James Velaise, the president of Pretty Pictures, ultimately agreed to license a clip from François Truffaut's "Breathless" for $1,000, a fraction of his usual asking price. Still, he said he took issue with IFC's take-it-or-leave-it approach and the introduction of fair use. Using the argument to save "a few thousand bucks" is "thoroughly dishonest," he wrote in e-mail messages sent to Mr. Donaldson's firm. It's tantamount, he said, to stealing. "I was simply blackmailed," Mr. Velaise said from his Paris office. "And why pay anything if that lawyer is so sure of the law?"

No such confusion with Kirby Dick's "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." While "Wanderlust" employed a hybrid approach, fair use was the only option because of the volume of clips and the provocative subject matter. Licensing 135 excerpts at an average of $10,000 each would have doubled his budget, Mr. Dick said. And projects that ruffle the feathers of the media establishment, he suggested, face insurmountable challenges. Some licensing agreements prohibit negative portrayal of copyright holders, he observed. And others preclude the use of the clip in films rated NC-17, which no one 17 or under can attend. He would be sued for breach of contract on both counts, he said, because his documentary takes aim at the studios and carries the NC-17 tag.

The enemy is not the copyright holders but ignorance of available options, other filmmakers and their advocates maintain. To address the problem, IFC is formulating its own fair-use guide, and last November, Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, communications professors at American University, coordinated a statement of fair-use practices drawn up by a coalition of filmmaking groups. Ms. Aufderheide has since met with the History Channel, Court TV and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, among others, teaching them the value of fair use, economic as well as creative.

"IFC is positioning themselves as hard-charging rebels," she said. "But by lowering their clearance costs, they're actually canny businessmen."

Because fair-use boundaries are seldom clear, lawyers are needed to interpret each case, said Prof. Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School. Earlier this month he announced the formation of a co-op of lawyers based at Stanford that will donate services to fair-use filmmakers.

"Shapiro is fighting the good fight," Professor Lessig said. "But the danger of drawing a line in the sand is that others will try to erase it."

"Wanderlust" is an amazing documentary about the filmmaking fascination with the American Road. If you like movies that take you on a journey, even a little bit, you will LOVE this film.  Check out this site http://www.ifc.com/ifc/wanderlust/ and check out our favorite Road Films of all time.

As to the issue of Fair Use...  The money we saved on Wanderlust, by going with the fair use honorariums versus the full freight asked for by the studios is enough to produce an entire new documentary.  But it's not all about saving money.  The clips in "Wanderlust" in no way detract from the value of the films honored in the doc.  In fact, they enhance those films greatly.  They show off just enough to make the filmmakers point and whet the appetite of the viewer to see them - all of them - again, or for the first time.

Corporations have bastardized the interpretation of Copyright law for their own means, using the "Mickey Mouse" extension, to have corporate Copyrights extended to 95 years.  The original law was for 14 years, and was designed to encourage artists to KEEP working.  The studios desire to charge filmmakers again and again for short clips used to make new art and new thesises is typical puts the "lazy" in "laissez-faire". Frustrated by diminished ticket and dvd sales, they would rather collect checks for other people's work, rather than let documentarians ply their art.

Additionally, they intimidate young filmmakers from even trying to make these films, by threatening expensive legal action.  Interestingly enough, when/if these suits ever get to trial, the studios almost always lose.

Art is open source - each generation adds to what has come before.  By following the Copyright law to the letter - as it was intended - we protect both the original artists and those who follow.

e