As a 40 year working, professional veteran woman writer/director, access to TALENT has been the stumbling block - impossible without top agents.
I suggest a wheel of creatives, writers, directors, producers and ACTORS who share a common interest in making more films by and about women. ALL women. We need to figure out how to get the creative's material directly to the actors without the traditional gatekeepers. I have some ideas.
Yes! Was always such a huge stumbling block. I was caught in development hell many times where in order to get funding, I needed to put together a package the investors tracking us, liked. But in order to package it, we needed proof of funding. Round and round we went in a never ending loop.
A fair amount of this is operating in Europe and UK and Ireland. Mubi and Bfi player a little bit like the TV license and A list film festivals idea.
Reshifting the value system.
I think film makers retaining part or whole copywright is a great idea also....and I think the big film makers at the top of the Hollywood system have part ownership of their films also
I'd love to see #28 expanded to the people at studios who are barely scraping by. It would be great if people could work without going broke because the price of living in LA & NY has gotten out of control. If you want people to be happy and do right by your customers (talent), foster healthy work environments, fire the a-holes, and take care of the basics! Your people shouldn't struggle to rent a studio apartment.
Great list. Number 1, 'Government support for the arts' is really 'Public support for the arts.'
The Right (Republican leaders, Conservatives, Evangelicals, etc) has, for decades, done a loud job of demonizing public support of artists and the arts -- that side of America drank their Kool-aid and it stuck. How do you push the pendulum in the other direction? It's a question of priorities for our whole culture, isn't it?
Entertainment&TheArts are America's #1 export -- after the weapon industry. The Film Biz is jobsjobsjobsjobs. Hollywood is also coca cola -- selling the American way of life. Some like that argument too.
I love reading all your suggestions! Maybe we should get together and do the math. How many storytellers? How many movies? What do real salaries and security look like. What about transformational tech like dramatic VR storytelling or games (like Netflix?)- don't get me started on all the AI, but it will be an awesome tool and threaten livelihoods. And who gets to decide what gets made? Is this like the european model of subsidies?
I love this list and if it could happen, I'd be all for it. However, based on my assessment of what the U.S. government is and is designed to do, I'm charting another path.
Rather than relying on the government, we need to recognize that Hollywood is toxic and is not a destination we should set for ourselves.
This doesn't mean rejecting the means that are currently in place, but instead using them to our own ends. This means that producers (and those who finance do so with the understanding that the following are non-negotiable terms) only sign deals with the following criteria:
1. No exclusive distribution deals, but instead, licensing Cinema for a limited time, a limited regions, means, etc.
2. Require that the distributor makes it available"
a. Within a specified period
b. For a specified duration.
c. To a specified region
d. Via a specified means
e. With all marketing/distribution costs absorbed by the distributor's portion of the profits.
3. Contact theaters/chains directly and do deals with them (by way of a theater booker) and collaborate with them on promotion, with defined spending limits.
4. Work with non-traditional streamers (is streaming even old enough to have traditional streamers?) like Netflix, Amazon, Max, Disney, etc. Instead, go through companies like FIlmHub, which is non-exclusive.
5. Required 100% transparency on all aspects of distribution. If the distributor has the info, that gets shared. For instance, movie theaters don't track demographics, but they do track ticket sales. So, theaters would share ticket sales (as you suggested) and streamers would share anonymized demographics.
6. Require payment and data be delivered within a specified period of time or rights automatically revert back to the Producer, without notice (with the right to audit any aspect by the Producer).
I'm sure there's more but these are things that we as filmmakers can implement and force the industry to change simply by producing amazing Cinema people want to see and requiring the above in contracts. Either the system changes, or it goes bankrupt. In either case, the Artists thrive.
These are great tenets of a non-dependent independent film ecosystem Jon! But that wasn't my assignment here. I am with you. This was What An Ecosystem Prioritizing The Artist would be. Separate things. Separate purposes. Separate thought processes. Step by step let's look at the whole thing!
I keep thinking about your comment and the nature of this post.
Well I totally agree that what you describe is an ideal situation (an ideal actually realized in many European countries) I would suggest that an ideal in the United States would be a map or a mentorship on how to do what I described above. I think that would best support the artists in the United States.
Of course, it would also have to include how to raise money with the express purpose of distribution as described above. And not as an abstraction but a practical series of steps that can be taken by anyone. And since I’ve never actually done that, I have no idea where where to start other than the groping in the dark that I’m currently doing.
“Anything Could Happen” by THE CLEAN released in 1981 on their Boodle, Boodle, Boodle EP on the Independent Flying Nun Label out of New Zealand. Take heed...
Ted, Bravo on your latest article. I could not agree more. Thank you time and time for again pointing out the inadequacies of a capitalist system.
I’ve been having a lot of conversations myself about a need for government engagement of the arts, modeling from Europe and integrating new ideas. Commercial outcomes can’t be the only metric for film distribution.
I want to get involved. There is a lot I don’t know, but I want to be a part of helping people. I’ve always also had a great interest in politics. I would go to DC, lobby, and fight for change. This isn’t just about supporting artists- it’s about who we are as a society and our ethics. The content, and without the “equal time” for indies as you mention, has turned the entertainment industry into the latest version of fast food. It’s addictive and unhealthy. We need to do better for ourselves and the generations to come. I have some ideas percolating on how to become a part of change, but would love to engage with more likeminded people and build on these ideas.
I listened to Stephen Murray's Twitter Space on Monday where he talked about using blockchain to give indie movie investors more confidence in investing again because of transparency, maybe this type of honesty and openess will encourage indie film investors to take risks again because they can trust the accounting.
There's a company called Filmchain that uses blockchain accounting for creative industries, they have partnered with the The Association of German Film Producers (VDFP) recouping revenues and gathering more data about their productions. Filmchain specifically say on their website "FilmChain is the fintech solution for money to flow from point of sale to Rights Holders' pockets. Transparent, real-time, no friction, no crypto." So separating crypto and blockchain is the first step, one is speculative the other is practical.
So just having blockchain companies that aren't feeding speculative investors and are actually building projects with real use cases to solve real problems will help with building trust.
It's also possible to use crypto for only a moment, in order to record the transaction on the blockchain. The transfer/exchange can even be automated by smart contracts (event-based programs) so the volatility of crypto is eliminated.
Ted, love keeping up with your blog. You 30+points of light are inspired and reminiscent of what Gary and I attempted to do with InDigent. Love to connect with you and have a proper catch-up. Thanks.
Well, one point is for sir am Issue. The Festival A list thing. As they're pretty much all about A-Lister and Nepo babies passion projects. So you can knock that one off the list. You've left off one absolutely major piece as well. Subsidies to theaters who set aside times for true independent films. And not the pretend bigger budget "indie" films with known actors backed by "indie" distributors and studios.
Ted: These are great suggestions, but given the fact that our government is now made up entirely of culturally illiterate individuals and only nominally overseen by a castrated Congress, it’s wishful thinking that anything approximating government support for the arts and artists is forthcoming. With the NEA, NEH, PBS, and NPR all on the chopping block, with the Kennedy Center being directed by board that regards culture as an ingredient in yogurt, and with the Library of Congress being accused of circulating inappropriate material despite being a non-circulating institution, all the evidence points to artists being cast back into the wilderness.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing and it’s certainly familiar. For most of America’s history, artists relied on patrons, subscribers, investors, and sales to support their work. Federal support didn’t appear until the WPA in the 1930s, but then ended during WWII and didn’t reappear until the 1960s when the NEA and NEH were formed. Assuming it’s going to vanish once again, artists will have find new funding sources, be that foundations, sponsorships, investors, crowdfunding, or the tried-and-true-but-oh-so-precarious model of patronage.
We’re at a point, as you have stated many times, where we need fresh thinking. The loss of federal funding for the arts is tragic, as well as symbolic of the state of the country, but at least it removes from artists the threat of government oversight. If they ain’t paying, they ain’t saying what gets created.
I applaud, as always, your vision and ideas. I just think we all have to start thinking about what comes next without any reliance on government support.
This is why I ultimately chose Canada over the US when given the choice. While we still have a long ways to go with a lot of these (and Europe), at least at the end of the day, there is government support for arts projects and health care. And that made a big difference in how Canada faired in the strikes vs the US literally losing their health insurance. Yes, union health care is better, but at the end of the day, at least we have MSP
I’m all for it, as long as we don’t follow Canada’s example of only funding movies that tick certain boxes on a government form. This leads to only projects that follow the path to funding and don’t seek to make something entertaining or enlightening.
Example: PASSCHENDALE
2. Government intervention to reset the rules, particularly anti-trust.
Yes. We used to have a strong producer presence in television and movies that guided a production.
We no longer have that same eco-system so fewer “outlier” projects get made.
3. UBI, free education, public transportation, & health care, child care, elder care.
That’s a bit of a push there, but UBI, education, and universal healthcare should be the focus.
This creates a stronger, more prepared workforce, and job creator economy than what we have currently.
4 - 7. Limit the financial participation that networks have with the financing and production of programming.
Program development should be in the hands of producers who offer these products (shows, movies) to networks (with or without advertising support attached) for their acceptance or rejection.
Take development, production, and syndication out of their hands.
8. Require “equal time” for independent work on Streamers (25%) (This is why Indies flourish in UK)
Or open the opportunity for independents to set up their own streaming platforms to curate the content they wish to pursue.
Example: SHUDDER
9. Require public television to have a mandatory minimum license fee for any film that plays an “A” list festival — with variable fees in relation to what window they take.
Not sure this one would work, and may actually limit the proceeds back to the producers.
10. Institute Award campaign finance limits.
Distributors contribute to a central fund which is split equally amongst all nominees?
This would require nominations early.
11. Outlaw predatory pricing in pursuit of market share and dominance.
???
12. Partial public funding for a Think Tank on the future of Cinéma & storytelling
Industry funding.
Not public funding. Done through Associations, Guilds, Unions. If the industry wants to be better, and develop its talent pool then it should be done at every level - not just at the academic level of “storytelling.” Develop the next gen of DPs, Grips, Electrics, Script Supervisors, Sound mixers, etc…
Develop the next gen of financial entities that service the maker economy exclusively.
13. Require transparency of data each project generates.
Transparency of viewing numbers, downloads, etc…
Financial transparency to producers and their investors - not the general public - unless they wish to release that data.
14. Require reporting of admissions (not just box office).
Easily done with barcodes on tickets.
15. Require corporate funders to pay for preservation.
Develop a better conservation system through the Library of Congress?
16. Free touring screening series for high schoolers.
Make it part of career day at high school?
17. Arts education in all high schools.
I want to make this arts AND TRADE CRAFTS in all high schools
18 - 20. Incentivize overhead deals- development deals - film slates
Incentivize tax shelters to create independent development and production funds.
Decentralize filmmaking to all over the country. Hollywood should not have a monopoly on film / TV production.
21. Public funded lobbyists for the Arts.
Don’t we already have these?
22. Like the French, require authors to be the copyright holders (in whole or in part).
Yes, this would revise the whole residuals situation the WGA is currently mired in.
23. Proclaim an artist a living national treasure annually.
Okay.
24. Revive the WPA projects where different artists are funded to document America every year.
Also funded to film plays, murals, architecture, farms, conservation efforts.
25. Fund Artists to teach arts to public high school students each year.
Student filmmaking projects. Media education.
26. Check box on taxes each year if you do not want money going to the arts (otherwise a specific amount goest to “the arts”).
???
27. Check box on Frequent Flyer statement if you don’t want 1% of miles to go to artists in need.
???
28. Public housing & rent control for artists
Decentralize “Hollywood” and create various hubs around the country to make movies. Bring the maker economy to areas undergoing a slump. We want more film "factories" around the country to create jobs, economic leverage.
29. Greater national & regional celebration of artists
More touring artists, seminars, workshops, and conferences to get people making stuff.
I suggest we forget about the government supporting artists. I suggest we forget Art for Art's sake. I suggest we concentrate on Art for Humanities Sake and make films and other entertainment that follow this premise. We get rid of all the gatekeepers and the bureaucracy of the business. Make it easier for filmmakers to make films that are important. Important not just to the filmmakers, but to the audience at large. Let's work together to make these types of productions and we will be a force to be reconned with.
Smart. North Star.
I have another perspective. ACCESS to talent.
As a 40 year working, professional veteran woman writer/director, access to TALENT has been the stumbling block - impossible without top agents.
I suggest a wheel of creatives, writers, directors, producers and ACTORS who share a common interest in making more films by and about women. ALL women. We need to figure out how to get the creative's material directly to the actors without the traditional gatekeepers. I have some ideas.
Yes! Was always such a huge stumbling block. I was caught in development hell many times where in order to get funding, I needed to put together a package the investors tracking us, liked. But in order to package it, we needed proof of funding. Round and round we went in a never ending loop.
I think they are great suggestions!
A fair amount of this is operating in Europe and UK and Ireland. Mubi and Bfi player a little bit like the TV license and A list film festivals idea.
Reshifting the value system.
I think film makers retaining part or whole copywright is a great idea also....and I think the big film makers at the top of the Hollywood system have part ownership of their films also
I'd love to see #28 expanded to the people at studios who are barely scraping by. It would be great if people could work without going broke because the price of living in LA & NY has gotten out of control. If you want people to be happy and do right by your customers (talent), foster healthy work environments, fire the a-holes, and take care of the basics! Your people shouldn't struggle to rent a studio apartment.
Great list. Number 1, 'Government support for the arts' is really 'Public support for the arts.'
The Right (Republican leaders, Conservatives, Evangelicals, etc) has, for decades, done a loud job of demonizing public support of artists and the arts -- that side of America drank their Kool-aid and it stuck. How do you push the pendulum in the other direction? It's a question of priorities for our whole culture, isn't it?
Entertainment&TheArts are America's #1 export -- after the weapon industry. The Film Biz is jobsjobsjobsjobs. Hollywood is also coca cola -- selling the American way of life. Some like that argument too.
I love reading all your suggestions! Maybe we should get together and do the math. How many storytellers? How many movies? What do real salaries and security look like. What about transformational tech like dramatic VR storytelling or games (like Netflix?)- don't get me started on all the AI, but it will be an awesome tool and threaten livelihoods. And who gets to decide what gets made? Is this like the european model of subsidies?
I love this list and if it could happen, I'd be all for it. However, based on my assessment of what the U.S. government is and is designed to do, I'm charting another path.
Rather than relying on the government, we need to recognize that Hollywood is toxic and is not a destination we should set for ourselves.
This doesn't mean rejecting the means that are currently in place, but instead using them to our own ends. This means that producers (and those who finance do so with the understanding that the following are non-negotiable terms) only sign deals with the following criteria:
1. No exclusive distribution deals, but instead, licensing Cinema for a limited time, a limited regions, means, etc.
2. Require that the distributor makes it available"
a. Within a specified period
b. For a specified duration.
c. To a specified region
d. Via a specified means
e. With all marketing/distribution costs absorbed by the distributor's portion of the profits.
3. Contact theaters/chains directly and do deals with them (by way of a theater booker) and collaborate with them on promotion, with defined spending limits.
4. Work with non-traditional streamers (is streaming even old enough to have traditional streamers?) like Netflix, Amazon, Max, Disney, etc. Instead, go through companies like FIlmHub, which is non-exclusive.
5. Required 100% transparency on all aspects of distribution. If the distributor has the info, that gets shared. For instance, movie theaters don't track demographics, but they do track ticket sales. So, theaters would share ticket sales (as you suggested) and streamers would share anonymized demographics.
6. Require payment and data be delivered within a specified period of time or rights automatically revert back to the Producer, without notice (with the right to audit any aspect by the Producer).
I'm sure there's more but these are things that we as filmmakers can implement and force the industry to change simply by producing amazing Cinema people want to see and requiring the above in contracts. Either the system changes, or it goes bankrupt. In either case, the Artists thrive.
These are great tenets of a non-dependent independent film ecosystem Jon! But that wasn't my assignment here. I am with you. This was What An Ecosystem Prioritizing The Artist would be. Separate things. Separate purposes. Separate thought processes. Step by step let's look at the whole thing!
You're right. My bad.
I guess I'm now in complete agreement with you. What you described, if it could be enacted, would be amazing!
I keep thinking about your comment and the nature of this post.
Well I totally agree that what you describe is an ideal situation (an ideal actually realized in many European countries) I would suggest that an ideal in the United States would be a map or a mentorship on how to do what I described above. I think that would best support the artists in the United States.
Of course, it would also have to include how to raise money with the express purpose of distribution as described above. And not as an abstraction but a practical series of steps that can be taken by anyone. And since I’ve never actually done that, I have no idea where where to start other than the groping in the dark that I’m currently doing.
“Anything Could Happen” by THE CLEAN released in 1981 on their Boodle, Boodle, Boodle EP on the Independent Flying Nun Label out of New Zealand. Take heed...
https://youtu.be/7tf1wzg4rdE?si=wT6X9Aj-ovG5wkxS
Ted, Bravo on your latest article. I could not agree more. Thank you time and time for again pointing out the inadequacies of a capitalist system.
I’ve been having a lot of conversations myself about a need for government engagement of the arts, modeling from Europe and integrating new ideas. Commercial outcomes can’t be the only metric for film distribution.
I want to get involved. There is a lot I don’t know, but I want to be a part of helping people. I’ve always also had a great interest in politics. I would go to DC, lobby, and fight for change. This isn’t just about supporting artists- it’s about who we are as a society and our ethics. The content, and without the “equal time” for indies as you mention, has turned the entertainment industry into the latest version of fast food. It’s addictive and unhealthy. We need to do better for ourselves and the generations to come. I have some ideas percolating on how to become a part of change, but would love to engage with more likeminded people and build on these ideas.
I listened to Stephen Murray's Twitter Space on Monday where he talked about using blockchain to give indie movie investors more confidence in investing again because of transparency, maybe this type of honesty and openess will encourage indie film investors to take risks again because they can trust the accounting.
but how do we develop trust with crypto? Can they and blockchain be separated in the public's mind. Confidence is key.
There's a company called Filmchain that uses blockchain accounting for creative industries, they have partnered with the The Association of German Film Producers (VDFP) recouping revenues and gathering more data about their productions. Filmchain specifically say on their website "FilmChain is the fintech solution for money to flow from point of sale to Rights Holders' pockets. Transparent, real-time, no friction, no crypto." So separating crypto and blockchain is the first step, one is speculative the other is practical.
So just having blockchain companies that aren't feeding speculative investors and are actually building projects with real use cases to solve real problems will help with building trust.
https://filmchain.co/
thanks for sharing Patrick. I will check it out. We can find or build all necessary solutions!
It's also possible to use crypto for only a moment, in order to record the transaction on the blockchain. The transfer/exchange can even be automated by smart contracts (event-based programs) so the volatility of crypto is eliminated.
Thank you, Patrick. Our studio is set up like a DAO, so I am going to investigate filmchain, it looks interesting.
Ted, love keeping up with your blog. You 30+points of light are inspired and reminiscent of what Gary and I attempted to do with InDigent. Love to connect with you and have a proper catch-up. Thanks.
Well, one point is for sir am Issue. The Festival A list thing. As they're pretty much all about A-Lister and Nepo babies passion projects. So you can knock that one off the list. You've left off one absolutely major piece as well. Subsidies to theaters who set aside times for true independent films. And not the pretend bigger budget "indie" films with known actors backed by "indie" distributors and studios.
Ted: These are great suggestions, but given the fact that our government is now made up entirely of culturally illiterate individuals and only nominally overseen by a castrated Congress, it’s wishful thinking that anything approximating government support for the arts and artists is forthcoming. With the NEA, NEH, PBS, and NPR all on the chopping block, with the Kennedy Center being directed by board that regards culture as an ingredient in yogurt, and with the Library of Congress being accused of circulating inappropriate material despite being a non-circulating institution, all the evidence points to artists being cast back into the wilderness.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing and it’s certainly familiar. For most of America’s history, artists relied on patrons, subscribers, investors, and sales to support their work. Federal support didn’t appear until the WPA in the 1930s, but then ended during WWII and didn’t reappear until the 1960s when the NEA and NEH were formed. Assuming it’s going to vanish once again, artists will have find new funding sources, be that foundations, sponsorships, investors, crowdfunding, or the tried-and-true-but-oh-so-precarious model of patronage.
We’re at a point, as you have stated many times, where we need fresh thinking. The loss of federal funding for the arts is tragic, as well as symbolic of the state of the country, but at least it removes from artists the threat of government oversight. If they ain’t paying, they ain’t saying what gets created.
I applaud, as always, your vision and ideas. I just think we all have to start thinking about what comes next without any reliance on government support.
This is why I ultimately chose Canada over the US when given the choice. While we still have a long ways to go with a lot of these (and Europe), at least at the end of the day, there is government support for arts projects and health care. And that made a big difference in how Canada faired in the strikes vs the US literally losing their health insurance. Yes, union health care is better, but at the end of the day, at least we have MSP
1. Government support for the arts.
I’m all for it, as long as we don’t follow Canada’s example of only funding movies that tick certain boxes on a government form. This leads to only projects that follow the path to funding and don’t seek to make something entertaining or enlightening.
Example: PASSCHENDALE
2. Government intervention to reset the rules, particularly anti-trust.
Yes. We used to have a strong producer presence in television and movies that guided a production.
We no longer have that same eco-system so fewer “outlier” projects get made.
3. UBI, free education, public transportation, & health care, child care, elder care.
That’s a bit of a push there, but UBI, education, and universal healthcare should be the focus.
This creates a stronger, more prepared workforce, and job creator economy than what we have currently.
4 - 7. Limit the financial participation that networks have with the financing and production of programming.
Program development should be in the hands of producers who offer these products (shows, movies) to networks (with or without advertising support attached) for their acceptance or rejection.
Take development, production, and syndication out of their hands.
8. Require “equal time” for independent work on Streamers (25%) (This is why Indies flourish in UK)
Or open the opportunity for independents to set up their own streaming platforms to curate the content they wish to pursue.
Example: SHUDDER
9. Require public television to have a mandatory minimum license fee for any film that plays an “A” list festival — with variable fees in relation to what window they take.
Not sure this one would work, and may actually limit the proceeds back to the producers.
10. Institute Award campaign finance limits.
Distributors contribute to a central fund which is split equally amongst all nominees?
This would require nominations early.
11. Outlaw predatory pricing in pursuit of market share and dominance.
???
12. Partial public funding for a Think Tank on the future of Cinéma & storytelling
Industry funding.
Not public funding. Done through Associations, Guilds, Unions. If the industry wants to be better, and develop its talent pool then it should be done at every level - not just at the academic level of “storytelling.” Develop the next gen of DPs, Grips, Electrics, Script Supervisors, Sound mixers, etc…
Develop the next gen of financial entities that service the maker economy exclusively.
13. Require transparency of data each project generates.
Transparency of viewing numbers, downloads, etc…
Financial transparency to producers and their investors - not the general public - unless they wish to release that data.
14. Require reporting of admissions (not just box office).
Easily done with barcodes on tickets.
15. Require corporate funders to pay for preservation.
Develop a better conservation system through the Library of Congress?
16. Free touring screening series for high schoolers.
Make it part of career day at high school?
17. Arts education in all high schools.
I want to make this arts AND TRADE CRAFTS in all high schools
18 - 20. Incentivize overhead deals- development deals - film slates
Incentivize tax shelters to create independent development and production funds.
Decentralize filmmaking to all over the country. Hollywood should not have a monopoly on film / TV production.
21. Public funded lobbyists for the Arts.
Don’t we already have these?
22. Like the French, require authors to be the copyright holders (in whole or in part).
Yes, this would revise the whole residuals situation the WGA is currently mired in.
23. Proclaim an artist a living national treasure annually.
Okay.
24. Revive the WPA projects where different artists are funded to document America every year.
Also funded to film plays, murals, architecture, farms, conservation efforts.
25. Fund Artists to teach arts to public high school students each year.
Student filmmaking projects. Media education.
26. Check box on taxes each year if you do not want money going to the arts (otherwise a specific amount goest to “the arts”).
???
27. Check box on Frequent Flyer statement if you don’t want 1% of miles to go to artists in need.
???
28. Public housing & rent control for artists
Decentralize “Hollywood” and create various hubs around the country to make movies. Bring the maker economy to areas undergoing a slump. We want more film "factories" around the country to create jobs, economic leverage.
29. Greater national & regional celebration of artists
More touring artists, seminars, workshops, and conferences to get people making stuff.
Demystify the process through all of these.
30. Gov’t funded artists’ retreats
Government funded artist advancement.
Never retreat. Never surrender. ;)
This post immediately brings to mind the WGA - ATA battle.
Talent agencies’ bundling practice needs to be made explicitly illegal.
The Wall Street invasion saw talent agencies become production companies and it is the very definition of conflict of interest.
I suggest we forget about the government supporting artists. I suggest we forget Art for Art's sake. I suggest we concentrate on Art for Humanities Sake and make films and other entertainment that follow this premise. We get rid of all the gatekeepers and the bureaucracy of the business. Make it easier for filmmakers to make films that are important. Important not just to the filmmakers, but to the audience at large. Let's work together to make these types of productions and we will be a force to be reconned with.