new funded features.

[Chase]

Is John Moorden playing devil's advocate or just looking for a fight from anybody so he can gripe.

Thanks for the defense, Michael but I find it no need to defend what I said or even what you're film is doing.

John, you are right about quality in film but you are also right about british cinema not comparing to american cinema. The answer to that is money and studio system. The americans are run a certain way when they churn out films even independents. When a independent is picked up by a distributor they spend more money on completion funding then we can afford for the films we make.

So in the first place, we shouldn't compare but we should appreciate and rcognize how as underdogs, to make a film that is a feature length is an achievement worth noting, hence Jon's NW film fest and the original GFT.

The GFT was out to celebrate guys who were true lone wolves whom made interesting films for no money. BAd LAd, Looking for Lucky and even mine own One Way Love. Check the British film catalouge. Who were we to make our films and get in IMDB and have screenings that reach cannes and elsewhere. WE were mavericks.

Don't spout off about quality when we were only saying watch a little more public access. the anti-hollywood or anti-NWV films.

BAd LAd took his film further than the rest of us. Now Looking for Lucky is coming up behind them while I buried mine. I did so because it was an experiment that i didn;t need to continue riding. I moved on which is what I said I'm working on now.

I don;t think that makes me any less of a filmmaker, John. I think it makes me realistic but still willing to learn and push myself. Hence my new learned work.

What have you done, John? I'm not accusing you of not making anything its just that I;m curious about what you have done to be so judgemental of what others have done.

I just think your compliments are tinged with vinegar when we were all on the same side fighting the same evils. Your comments sound more like Chris Moll's asinine bllinking remarks thrown at us about directing amateur dramatics.

I aksed to move on from griping threads and here I am griping. You succeeded in getting my goat even if you didn't want it.

I hope I am wrong about your intention to fuel the fire because despite what you think, its not interesting reading.

Chase

 

[Booth]

Thanks for the defense, Michael but I find it no need to defend what I said or even what you're film is doing.

I wasn't really trying to defend but just to explain Chase. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I suspect some people may think what we've achieved is minimal over a four year time span. I suspect Peter Jackson got that too when he spent the same amount of time making Bad Taste.

Course the difference with PJ is that the New Zealand Film Board got behind him, obviously seeing raw talent in their midst.

And if it is minimal, then the rest of our piss-poor industry must have achieved absolutely f*ck all. And that includes everyone out there who talks about making a film but doesn't have the balls or the drive to actually go out and do it.

 

[Chase]

That's my point, Michael.

Remmeber our conversation about ROGER CORMAN and his eye for talent. I saw that Dinner for Five show you recommended. And got hooked in to watching as much of the series as I could on youtube.

Corman said he would scout student film festivals like Pennine actually and recognize something in the creative process of the directors. this is how he spotted Francis Coppola, Scorcese, Ron Howard, George Lucas. WHo were friends with the likes of Spielberg and Brian Dipalma as well as Jack Nicolson and dennis Hopper.

Why can;t this be true of the North west. These guys were given chances and opportunities to make Boxcar Bertha, Dementia 13, the rain people and the Terror. George was given the chance to make a feature version of his college short, THX 1138 which bombed at the studios and boix office but he was relieved that he made the demon he always wanted to make.

This freed his mind to create star wars.

I don;t want to fight with john moorden I just want him and people like Chris Moll to realize that filmmaking is subjective and you can;t put greatness on to a filmmaker who doesn't have said opportunities. Which mean, you are not gonna make a blockbuster on a minimal budget.

But you need to recognize that a filmmaker has determination and drive when they make their micro feature. They manage to run a crew for more than 10 days, arrange equipment for that amount of time and put together a beginning, middle and end. That is well an achievement worth celebrating.

When we now look at BAd Taste, Peter jackson, we don;t say what a great film we say what a great start.

Chase

 

[gepetto]

Chase

The notion of quality is personal but crucial.

Everyone can argue all day long about distribution - the who, what and the how and I completely understand how important that is. No point making the best you can if no one can see it.

But I agree with John Moorden in so far as that is all you have as a film-maker, cameraman, writer etc, whatever - you only ever compete with yourself. The rest is irrelevant. That's for others to fight over.

Always strive for the best in whatever you do is the only banner to hold because if you do and have, one day it will all have been worth the struggle.

And not a statistic.

 

[Booth]

That's my point, Michael.
Remmeber our conversation about ROGER CORMAN and his eye for talent. I saw that Dinner for Five show you recommended. And got hooked in to watching as much of the series as I could on youtube.

Corman said he would scout student film festivals like Pennine actually and recognize something in the creative process of the directors. this is how he spotted Francis Coppola, Scorcese, Ron Howard, George Lucas. WHo were friends with the likes of Spielberg and Brian Dipalma as well as Jack Nicolson and dennis Hopper.

Why can;t this be true of the North west. These guys were given chances and opportunities to make Boxcar Bertha, Dementia 13, the rain people and the Terror. George was given the chance to make a feature version of his college short, THX 1138 which bombed at the studios and boix office but he was relieved that he made the demon he always wanted to make.

It's like I said to you when we chatted last week. The UKFC is deliberately tying one hand behind its back as it's towing the Labour party line and pandering to Washington and allowing Hollywood to monopolize the cinemas. As Jonathan Gems told me, television has strict laws to restrict this from happening. Jon has worked in Hollywood, he knows the people there, he's a man on the inside not a conspiracy theorist. And this is really happening. The sad thing is, according to Jonathan G, our box office takings for Hollywood only amount to 6% so it's purely political. It's not even film political.

Now because the UKFC has toes which it doesn't wish to tread on, they have to be very careful. Any success story they fund is taking something away from their betters in LA. Have you noticed how films the UKFC have a hand in making don't actually get any kind of widespread distribution despite decent reviews in the likes of Empire and a few festival awards.

Like I said this is the reason that the likes of Loach and Meadows go to Europe to get their film funding. And the likes of Ridley Scott and Danny Boyle head to Hollywood. Digressing slightly, you may like to note that Danny Boyle began his film career by making a film for Film Four who not only funded films but distributed them. Coincidental that when the film council handed over our cinemas that Film Four stopped producing films. What would be the point if they had no theatrical distribution? So it was either a lucky coincidence, or someone had some good business sense over at 4. Not unlike the UKFC's position. Except the UKFC have to justify their existence somehow, they have to produce something with the money they are given. They just aren't allowed to be successful.

Now whilst we were having that chat you may remember one of my colleagues saying (partly in jest) that sometimes you have to go with the Status Quo. Perhaps that would be easier to swallow if other European countries were protecting their film industries, supporting old and new filmmakers (I have a Spanish friend who has just made her first feature thanks to the changes in Spain), making sure their films were shown in their cinemas, and domestic audiences were on the rise (for example in France and Spain). Don't we deserve this over here?

That's the reason the UKFC, and by proxy, NWV can't go 'scouting for talent'. What's the point when they are having to tow the party line? They may as well just grab the first script from the pile and produce it. It's never going to get anywhere anyway. That's their job.

Just to add that, NWV were rather clever with getting Terence Davies on board. They managed to make a film which was critically acclaimed, was shown as part of the official selection in Cannes, and to Joe Public that's well worth the money. However, funny how none of Joe Public have actually seen the film outside of about 30 people in Liverpool and a couple of hundred industry people in Cannes. But the UKFC got their PR, and to them that's all that matters.

 

[johnmoordon]

Does anybody watch QI? You know that bit when someone says the obvious answer and the alarms go off? Well I have been waiting for someone to say 'what have you done John'. The alarms have finally rung out loud. i knew it would be you Chase. What on earth does that matter? So if i had made 50 shorts and three ''''features'''''' my opinions would mean more? My opinion is the same regardless. I'm just expressing it and trying to add to a debate rather than back slap each other for making a film, regardless of whether it is any good. You remind of the Moll Chase, that is something he would say. There is no grading system for opinions with Ken Loach or Mike Leigh at the top. As it happens i have made many shorts and a number of features and earn my living from film and television. Infact i have been working in Leeds today and havn't had access to the web.

I admire anyone who makes repeated attempts at filmmaking but we are all adults here and surely we need to be taken to the next level. Chase you speak about making a feature. I have had the misfortune to see 'one way love', and it is shambolic. I'm sorry to resort to saying that but the fact you made it doesn't mean anything other than showing others how to gather a group of friends, borrow a Z1, and shoot a bad script. Nothing more than that. It is comendable bringing people together for a common purpose, but come on chaps lets do something better. Your wife is right go back to 'Land of nod', that is by a million miles your best work, although i havn't seen everything you have done.

My compliments are genuine, but don't put so much inference on them. I am only a person with an opinion. You came onto this site when you heard from somewhere what was being said and wanted to join in. Then you suggest everyone should stop, and find it imposible to stop yourself. Just don't read it if you don't like it. Maybe look in the mirror for a reason for the decline of NWPD.

As for looking for a fight Chase physical, intellectual or otherwise, i wouldn't dream of it. It would be like getting in boxing ring with a kitten.

 

[johnmoordon]

Michael

Get the work right and everything will fall into place. A good example is 'London to Brighton'. No-one wanted to make that film but Paul Williams persisted and shot it on a very low budget. It had a limited release and because of its quality word about it was positive and it became a 'hit' through rental and purchase. It was the quality that shone through, not that the finance was in place, or the distribution pushed it. You cannot push a turd, it will always be a turd. Then Paul got the attention and it became his 'calling card' to make the cottage, which i'm sure was a comfortable experience with a larger budget etc. However i think he nearly shot himself in the foot with it, and he is lucky to still be around and financed. Never sacrifice anything for the sake of getting something made. If you are happy with something then that is all that matters. Who gives a shit what i think or anyone else thinks if you are truely happy. If you can't grasp that, then there is no point. It is all about the script. Ken loach has worked with Paul Laverty because he knows the quality is there. He like others(Woody Allen, Mike Leigh even Shane Meadows) make films that they like, and don't sacrifice anything for the sake of anyone else. Of course it doesn't always work(personally i thought Ae Fond Kiss was terrible), but they get back up and start again. I may sound contradictory in what i am saying, but it is all about the script. Get that right and we are in with a chance.

I totally agree that getting Terrence Davies involved was a master stroke that Hurricane should be very proud of.

 

[Booth]

Your wife is right go back to 'Land of nod', that is by a million miles your best work, although i havn't seen everything you have done.

Where can I see Land of Nod guys?

Well I have been waiting for someone to say 'what have you done John'. The alarms have finally rung out loud. i knew it would be you Chase. What on earth does that matter? So if i had made 50 shorts and three ''''features'''''' my opinions would mean more? My opinion is the same regardless. ....

As it happens i have made many shorts and a number of features and earn my living from film and television. Infact i have been working in Leeds today and havn't had access to the web.

To be fair John I think it's a fair question from Chase. If you're going to be throwing criticism and advice around like you have been doing for the past few days I think it's only fair to at least announce who you are and what you have done. Even if it's just a summary, no one's asking for a CV

"What on Earth does it matter?"... You asked. Well it matters a lot. A person with experience is obviously going to be speaking from that experience. A person without is going to talk theory or hypothesise.

 

[johnmoordon]

Michael don't be silly. A valid point is a valid point. Ive spent over fifteen years in filmmaking. The point is the same whether i am Ken Loach or John Mordon(the extra O was a mistake but i like it). It is all based on experience. I'm not throwing criticsm or advice, just opinion. If you disagree thats fine, just continue and prove me wrong. Although the last 4 years havn't really been too fruitfull.

Years ago i would sit in the fantasy of being a filmmaker, like the majority on here, and blame the lack of equipment and edit facilities for my inability to make films. It was always 'them' who were given the opportunities, those people in the BBC or the more privilaged. It is no longer like that, anyone can access a camera and edit from home. There are actors everywhere willing to get involved. So we decide to say its the promotion, the lack of screenings, the big studios, thats the problem. Utter nonsense, its the product. If it is poor then it will never go anywhere. Most films here are poor, that is the problem. Myself included. I havn't made anything that i am entirely happy with, or that i would stand up for as being brilliant. I have been involved in the making of great films but my stuff has never been that great. But i am not delusional, some here obviously are.

The greatest thing a large film company could do is instead of investing £20 000 000 on one 'major' picture is to divide it and invest in a 100 pictures for £200 000. I'm sure of that 100, 70-80 would be poor, maybe 10-20 would be average or watchable, and maybe 5-10 would be works of true greatness, like London to Brighton. The only important thing would be to allow the filmmakers to make their own vision, don't get involved in the creative process. An industry would be created and jobs too. Those involved could be honest enough to admit their mistakes and learn from them.

Come on Michael don't be naive, if you think i'm talking rubbish, just ignore it and go back to your fantasies of filmmaking and 'networking' that way you'll never have to aknowledge the truth. You can sit in on a Kino guerilla film tour, back slap and prop each other up to you hearts content, but you will not progress. All that is fine if thats all you want.

As for 'Land of Nod' i'm sure chase will have a copy. It is really rather good. I can't for the life of me remember where i saw it, the cornerhouse, i think but i remember being excited and wanting to know more about the filmmaker.

 

[Booth]

Haha John, you're a character. You dodged that question very well. Keep on trucking with your 15 years of experience, it's done you well enough to ask for advice to ask us naive folk on here advice about prosumer video cameras

"Don't be silly." It's not being silly. No one has a clue who you are. For all we know you could be some 14 year old posting this stuff for kicks. On the flip-side, are you Ken Loach in disguise? I think that's all Chase wanted clarifying. Now either tell us who you are or expect people to be wary of you. Also, I don't believe you did have a valid point that it's the quality of work that's at fault. If you disagree with me fair enough, but don't call me a fantasist for disagreeing or then it'll just get into petty name-calling. I'm sure we're above all that.

The last four years... I feel like I'm in an episode of Lost. Exactly where did you get that dossier on me? I haven't literally just been doing this you know I've never craved a career in telly, and if I'd wanted to I could have gone there. Still could probably but would rather do my own thing while I can. Don't worry though, it's water off a ducks back. Ooh Boothy's an under-achiever. Why don't we get some t-shirts made

Seriously, no one said it's just the exhibition. It's everything from funding to exhibition to promotion.

Come on Michael don't be naive, if you think i'm talking rubbish, just ignore it and go back to your fantasies of filmmaking and 'networking' that way you'll never have to aknowledge the truth.

John, I don't think you are talking absolute rubbish. I totally agree with what you said about making many features with funding spread to a wider range of filmmakers. I believe Alex Cox tried it with his Capital of Culture film fund, then NWV nicked his idea and made less films for the same amount of money. So he got fed up and went to America to make films for Roger Corman and in his position I'd have done the same.

I just think you have your head in the sand because you haven't been there and done it for yourself (as in finding a distribution deal, getting one and then being fucked over). My point to you was (and leaving the quality of our work aside), what's the point in making something at all if you can't get it out there? And your reply was that a good film will always find a willing distributor. That's just bollocks for anything financed with the British pound under our present government. You didn't make a valid point there, you made a point, but it wasn't valid in my opinion. The only way you would have a valid point is if you managed to get Universal or another major to distribute it in the UK, because then it becomes an American production. But then that's defeating the point even if they did bother to watch your Z1 shot piece of genius (that's not taking the piss by the way). The point being that we should be able to put out our own films in our own country.

Don't take my word for it, there are many more experienced less naive people than I with serious careers/bodies of work who have lobbied the government. Some who don't need this as much as say, you and I, but still cannot sit by and watch their industry be shafted for political reasons. The funding fell through three times on This is England which had Mark Herbert scrabbling about in Europe for cash.

Fantasies about filmmaking? I'd go back and read what you said in your post. Anyone can get a camera, edit in their bedroom and there are lots of actors willing to be in your film. So that's all it takes eh? Makes me wonder why more people haven't done it.

Fantasies about networking? They are all true and based on fact not fantasy.

At the end of the day you want a fund so that you can indulge your filmmaking, and I want a film council that will support filmmakers with the journey of their whole productions. I don't see why having a go at Chase's attempts at a feature film, or my four years of making two micro-budget films is relevant to this.

 

[johnmoordon]

Yes that is all it takes to make a film. But for a film to be any good it takes much more. It takes talent, a good script, etc. There's a difference between making films for the sake of it and making something good. Something that people want to see. It just seems like you want to now blame it on promotion. If a films is good enough it will be picked up. London to Brighton had great distribution given it was his first major film, what do you expect?

I have gone into distribution many times and got deals etc. But so what?

As for Alex, he isn't making films for Roger Corman. Roger Corman exec produced 'searchers' and that is all. Repo chick is being produced by the same team that produced searchers for far less than the recent digital scheme. Alex keeps control and shot the whole thing on green screen. He can go and do that because of his past films and because he is highly connected and regarded by true artists. You will see the people appearing in repo chick for next to nothing and see that they are doing so, because of the script and alex's reputation.

You come across as delusional. Strange that you reply to all of my points and posts, given that i am an unknown in your eyes. I didn't think i was so important. Thank you though.

I am just John Mordon, a man with an opinion. If the film is good enough it will get distributed. It is as simple as that. You would think that a film like 'my kingdom' say would have been distributed, given it was Richard Harris's last film with an established cast etc. It didn't because it was shit,plain and simple. that is the problem you with have until something is good enough. Maybe Bar Stewards is good enough. Who knows.

 

[Chase]

Corman said he would scout student film festivals like Pennine actually and recognize something in the creative process of the directors. this is how he spotted Francis Coppola, Scorcese, Ron Howard, George Lucas. WHo were friends with the likes of Spielberg and Brian Dipalma as well as Jack Nicolson and dennis Hopper.

Why can;t this be true of the North west. These guys were given chances and opportunities to make Boxcar Bertha, Dementia 13, the rain people and the Terror. George was given the chance to make a feature version of his college short, THX 1138 which bombed at the studios and boix office but he was relieved that he made the demon he always wanted to make.

This freed his mind to create star wars.

I just want him and people like Chris Moll to realize that filmmaking is subjective and you can;t put greatness on to a filmmaker who doesn't have said opportunities. Which mean, you are not gonna make a blockbuster on a minimal budget.

Chase

How could you totally miss my point, MOrden. I can't even find you on imdb or google so maybe the hwole name is a blind, eh! But you certainly seem to know me and waited for your moment to have a go.

Well first of all, I never said One way love was my crowning achievement, I said I'm glad I made it. It had mixed reviews which I'll now add shambolic once I figure out what that means exactly. And it actually made me stop and wait a couple of years before i now have returned to making films hopefully like Land of Nod, good review thanks. With my new Static Kiss so look for that. I made more films and mainly make music videos so maybe you should check those out before you assume I can;t do anything.

I love it how you also accuse my of bringing down NWPD which was a sinking ship when I came on board.

Also I knew Mike from way back at athat GFT which you seem to think was simply a backslapping session and been on here before but had lost my password,

Anyway, once again I'm going to say pointless arguments and now personal attacks are not my idea of debate.

You are not chasing this kitten out of the ring, my friend, you are merely causing me to ignore you because as BOoth says, you and everyone else knows who I am and I refuse to argue with shadows.

They have no substance.

chase

 

[Booth]

You can sit in on a Kino guerilla film tour, back slap and prop each other up to you hearts content, but you will not progress. All that is fine if thats all you want.

You edited your post...

What do you propose we do then apart from complain that we don't have any funding and we should all give £50 to a fund to create some kind of collective.

Don't get Jon Williams on 'collectives' - he's had bad experience of such things.

 

[johnmoordon]

Just a suggestion. As for imdb Chase, i think i am on there. But so what? Its not the be all and end all....

 

[Booth]

It just seems like you want to now blame it on promotion.

Nooooooo, that's not what I'm saying John. I've officially given up.

You come across as delusional. Strange that you reply to all of my points and posts, given that i am an unknown in your eyes. I didn't think i was so important. Thank you though.

Well this is our site... I have a free evening and am flitting between this, the tv, a bit of editing, messing about on Facebook and a few other sites...

I am just John Mordon, a man with an opinion.

It sounds more like a shadowy flight into the world of a man that does not exist. Actually no, that was Knight Rider.

If the film is good enough it will get distributed. It is as simple as that.

Go for it then, good luck

 

[Jon Williams]

Hi John,

I just wanted to reply using your own logic. I haven't seen London to Brighton. Some people say it's a good film. But it didn't play in Blackburn and I couldn't find it being on anywhere else. At the same time there were a lot of foreign films on at my local multiplex - some of these films even pretended to be British by using British actors, although sometimes there were British actors pretending to be American. Most of these films were complete crap. At least I now know that they were all better than London to Brighton because it would have been shown if it was any good. Some reviewers did lament the fact that it soon disappeared without a trace, but those must have been the ones who couldn't recognise crap when they saw it.

There have been some other low budget films on at my local cinema. I remember one which I would have given a 'C' to if it had been made by any of my students. It was too silly for words and could only possibly have worked for impressionable juveniles. It was called the Blair Witch Project. Still, at least it wasn't as bad as London to Brighton; it was shown worldwide and made lots of money which must have been what it deserved.

Of course Paul Williams' second film, The Cottage, did get considerably wider distribution, so it was obviously very much better than London to Brighton. But I've not bothered to watch it - not my cup of tea I suppose.

What I really am glad about though is how film distribution and exhibition is run by people with a truly magical sense of what audiences want to see and who make virtually flawless decisions about everything from which scripts should be made to what should (and how it should) be exhibited. These people are mainly lawyers and accountants.

There, I think I managed to reply without compromising my own standards of good and courteous behaviour.

 

[gepetto]

Jon..

I agree with the point about solicitors and accountants - bean counters as labelled by Mr Moorden (sorry - Morden).

But I think there's a juxtaposition here between the heavy debate of distribution and making a good and wholesome piece of work.

Yes the films you mention received distribution deals but I don't think this is entirely John Morden's thread - he'll have to correct me here!! (I'm sure he will). I think what he means is that if your work is good..some day you will be found. I know you could say if it never gets distributed it never gets a chance to be seen and so it's a vicious circle...BUT.. what is wholly controllable by film- makers before any of that occurs is the quality of their content.

The point is From London to Brighton was such as good film that in the end it organically filtered through and people started talking about the film and Paul Williams. Anyone who saw The Cottage knows it is a vastly inferior film - probably at the interference of the people you mentioned earlier - the bean counters and Chris Moll's - but the quality and no compromise of his debut still stands.

In the end Jon, and it may be hard to accept given all your accurate figures, stats and facts, but the greatest maxim to uphold is what you are about and once that becomes solidified into a complete arc and is finished then it stands on its own - with or without distribution.

Art and character worth anything has always had to weather that.

 

[johnmoordon]

No Jon! Not you too.

The cottage was made on the back of London to Brighton. London to Brighton got a distribution deal and had large DVD viewing figures and sales because of quality. It was made for 40-60 000, so the recognition it got and screenings was fairly big considering it was a first feature. The deal for the cottage was off the back of that film. A larger budget, bigger 'stars' etc. It was a much more comfortable filmmaking experience etc. It got the distribution from A.being a horror(a niche market), b. The actors in it. C. obviously the money invested, and most importanty off the back of London to Brighton. That was my point, i think Paul Williams nearly lost all credibilty through it and indeed the chance of making anything else. i would argue he took the blame, whilst the 'execs' were waiting in the wings to take the credit. From what i understand he was unhappy with the finished piece and didn't have final cut or choice of actors. He didn't want Jennifer Ellison. He wanted Jesica Hynes to play a wife and not a daughter. He should have been left to do what he wanted.

Its incrediably naive to think that when a film has been made the only possible reason for its lack of success is the distribution and promotion. We have to look to ourselves for the blame. If you think about the distribution London to Brighton had, it was fairly large given it was a first feature with no recognised 'stars' and no reason for film viewers to go and see it, other than those you look for a genuinely good and origional film. the only reason it got the deal it did was because it was good....oh and the fact that paul was sleeping with the members of the film council...(a joke in a vain attempt to lighten the mood).

 

[gepetto]

And he knew Chris Moll of course....nah only messing

 

[Booth]

Plan 9 from Outer Space was distributed more widely than London to Brighton. That was an amazing film.