Isn't that a headline we all would like to see in the world news? Greece possesses many of the elements to create such a miracle - and what's more, because of it's proud heritage of ancient drama, myth and epic, the world would be ready to embrace it.
In my mother country, Denmark, such a miracle took place throughout the '90s and is still more or less going on. The international film world suddenly noticed this little country with just above 5 million inhabitants. Lars von Trier's films, Festen by Thomas Vinterberg and many other films became export articles for the international market. But even more amazing, but less well-known, is that in the home market Danish films are consistently able to go head to head with Hollywood productions at the box office - as maybe the only European country. In any given week of the year you will find several Danish films in the top 10 of sold tickets, often ahead of American blockbusters.
What already exist in Greece is a dedicated film audience - the Greeks love cinema - and as any other nation, they like to see film in their own language, dealing with conflicts of their own culture. But on a regular basis Greek films fail to garner a real audience. There is the occasional Greek hit film, but it is too little. Every month of the year should feature a new Greek hit film - a hit with audiences and/or critics. So what's wrong here? Greece has both quality actors, cinematographers, directors, set designers and so on. In my eyes there are only two really weak links in the Greek film industry - the script and the production. And I believe that by focusing intensely on improving these two factors, Greek film could turn itself into a miracle of European cinema.
For Denmark the miracle was a great thing, not only for national pride, but also for the national budget. Money was made in more than one way. And when the Socialdemocrats, who had helped the miracle happen by advancing the state's financial support for film development and production, lost government power and was replaced by a right-wing government led by a party, whose ideology included a belief in a minimal state, there were people in the film industry who feared the celebration would come to an abrupt end. Because for a small nation like Denmark (and Greece) it is imperative for the film industry to have the state share a part of the risk of developing and producing films, as we can never establish multi-billion dollar studios like in Hollywood, who are able to carry the full burden of risk.
Luckily the new right-wing government in Denmark quickly realized that we now live in a world were the so-called creative industries become rapidly more important for the economy of a developed nation. Even though oil and other natural resources are still important, it is non-depletable creative commodities like films, music, novels and theatre which can add to and maintain a nations competitiveness. Apart from the immediate financial gain, they are invaluable in building the image of the nation, as well as to help to attract companies and highly skilled professionals in fields of IT, finance and medico-industries to choose the country as their place of operation. The old global powers arose by wealth of hard resources like oil and minerals supported by the hard power of military, the new global players wield soft power in the form of culture, knowledge and economics. In Denmark, a nation almost devoid of natural resources, this is understood better than anywhere else.
Greece is in a better position than almost any country I can think of to ultimately harvest the full gain of such an image-boost from a film miracle. First because the Greek nation has it's proud ancestry - it is as a matter of fact the place where western drama was invented - which means that the idea of a Greek film miracle, once it it happens, will be even stronger and convincing in the minds of the rest of the world. Secondly because one of the main industries is tourism - and even though it is nice for Greece that the new ABBA-film takes place on Skopelos, and Captain Corellis' Mandolin was filmed on Kefallonia, these films are not Greek, and therefore they don't really add much to an authentic image and branding of Greece as an exciting place to live, work, have fun and vacation. (As a side-note its worth to mention that Denmark's attractiveness as tourist destination has been steadily climbing since the film miracle happened - and this in a country who has much less to offer in terms of sunshine and amazing landscapes).
In the 80s no one was at all excited by Danish films, and if anyone had said that in 10 years there would be talk of a Danish film miracle, it would had been met by laughter or ridicule. In Greece I have often met an attitude, that something like the Danish film miracle could never happen here - for hundreds of different reasons. But guess what, in Denmark it didn't happen by itself. And it didn't happen just because the state gave some more money in support. It mainly happened because The Danish Film Institute and a string of clever new producers understood that the script is the all-determining factor for the success of a film - blockbuster or art-house. And because the producers understood to cooperate, despite being competitors, realizing that being in a small country, they had more to think of themselves as parts of bigger whole, than just small kings with each their small kingdom. And when it started happening they could gradually produce more and more films each year, making it possible for a greater group of directors to actually shoot a feature film more than once per 5 years - which in turn made them better and more confident directors - and the self-generating circle of success had begun. As it is now in Greece my guess is that most of the younger talented directors are just thinking about making one film in Greece that will make them get away from Greece and all the way to Hollywood or some other place of greater promise. It's up to the producers and politicians to make them wish to stay.
To do this the Greek Film Center and the greek producers need to invest heavily in script development. Create a pool of professional scriptwriters by educating them and paying them for any kind of work they do - also for synopses, treatments and scripts that doesn't get produced. Make any director who is not obviously talented at writing understand that they need a scriptwriter - if they don't understand this, simply tell them their film will not be produced without a solid script. This is of major importance: Stop producing films with weak scripts. Simply stop - invest the money in more scripts. Have far too many scripts in development. Every time you plan to produce one film, develop 10 scripts. One successful film will pay for the 9 other scripts. The script is the foundation for successful films - and the brilliant script doesn't just spring from divine inspiration, or a famous book or the mind of strong visual director - the brilliant script arises from a dedication to examine and resolve conflicts by adhering to a strict logic of drama. And that dedication and that logic was invented here - reclaim it.
The Greeks are wonderful people, full of life and therefore drama and stories. They are both tremendously proud, but also at times openly ashamed of their nation. I believe this gives a unique position to be the new century's cinematic storytellers, as we are entering a period where the kind of American blindness to own weaknesses are becoming increasingly out-of-fashion, even with a mainstream audience. Greek film producers and visionary politicians, who understands the value of cultural policy in the new world of soft power, need to come together and create the circumstances to unleash the Greek Film Miracle.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Synopsis, Outline, Treatment? Part 2
This time about the outline. This tool doesn't get mistaken and is virtually never used as a sales tool. It is pretty simple and straight forward. In my own process this is the tool I use consistently throughout. From beginning to end.
It is a short description of each and every scene. The basics. Where, who, action, conflict, essential information. As brief and to the point as possible. Sometimes I throw in a single line of dialogue, I find crucial.
In the beginning I sketch this out in a notebook. I separate the notebook into four acts and then I begin to fill in scenes. At first I'm looking for the important scenes. The plot-point-scenes, any scenes that have given me the inspiration in the first place and scenes that are essential in linking those together. From there on it becomes about filling in the blanks - creating the smaller stepping stones. Often I separate the acts themselves into smaller units - sequences each driven by one question, task or idea. I give everything - scenes, sequences and acts - titles to re-inforce what they are about. Some use the much beloved index-cards for the whole re-shuffling thing. This doesn't speak to me, but I see why it works. For me, when the re-shuffling becomes the main job, I move from notebook to computer, because its often the same time I want to expand my notes on each scene into something more concise and clearly written.
This process form the basis for the two other short-forms - the treatment and the synopsis. The treatment being the natural expansion of the outline and the synopsis being the condensation. I do the synopsis to demand of myself the discipline to focus on the drama's most essential plot movements, conflict and narrative strategy - and not getting lost in detail and darlings. To be able to later on verbally narrate the story within half an hour and below, without missing the key elements, but making it sound like a movie. Late in the process, working with a director, it will easily become the reference tool and your common road-map to the full treatment/script. So it's a real handy thing.
The outline is the spine of the development process in many ways. It lets you develop your whole script without actually writing it - and contrary to belief and our job title, we are really not writers in the, you know, author sense. We are more like composers, I think. The outline also lets you remain flexible, able to play and goof around with your drama (notice how I keep saying drama, instead of story - again because we are not story-writers, but composers of drama). The moment you have actually written those scenes as scenes with dialogue and all the stuff, you get bogged down by them. It becomes more difficult to change, to play and goof. I know it's tempting to get into the writing of scenes. I feel the urge. I see it all the time when I am a teacher or consultant, how people want to skip the development and just write those scenes. If you have not already become accustomed to the development through outline, synopsis and treatment - start getting there and save yourself some trouble.
It is a short description of each and every scene. The basics. Where, who, action, conflict, essential information. As brief and to the point as possible. Sometimes I throw in a single line of dialogue, I find crucial.
In the beginning I sketch this out in a notebook. I separate the notebook into four acts and then I begin to fill in scenes. At first I'm looking for the important scenes. The plot-point-scenes, any scenes that have given me the inspiration in the first place and scenes that are essential in linking those together. From there on it becomes about filling in the blanks - creating the smaller stepping stones. Often I separate the acts themselves into smaller units - sequences each driven by one question, task or idea. I give everything - scenes, sequences and acts - titles to re-inforce what they are about. Some use the much beloved index-cards for the whole re-shuffling thing. This doesn't speak to me, but I see why it works. For me, when the re-shuffling becomes the main job, I move from notebook to computer, because its often the same time I want to expand my notes on each scene into something more concise and clearly written.
This process form the basis for the two other short-forms - the treatment and the synopsis. The treatment being the natural expansion of the outline and the synopsis being the condensation. I do the synopsis to demand of myself the discipline to focus on the drama's most essential plot movements, conflict and narrative strategy - and not getting lost in detail and darlings. To be able to later on verbally narrate the story within half an hour and below, without missing the key elements, but making it sound like a movie. Late in the process, working with a director, it will easily become the reference tool and your common road-map to the full treatment/script. So it's a real handy thing.
The outline is the spine of the development process in many ways. It lets you develop your whole script without actually writing it - and contrary to belief and our job title, we are really not writers in the, you know, author sense. We are more like composers, I think. The outline also lets you remain flexible, able to play and goof around with your drama (notice how I keep saying drama, instead of story - again because we are not story-writers, but composers of drama). The moment you have actually written those scenes as scenes with dialogue and all the stuff, you get bogged down by them. It becomes more difficult to change, to play and goof. I know it's tempting to get into the writing of scenes. I feel the urge. I see it all the time when I am a teacher or consultant, how people want to skip the development and just write those scenes. If you have not already become accustomed to the development through outline, synopsis and treatment - start getting there and save yourself some trouble.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Synopsis, outline, treatment? Part 1.
Before ever writing a single scene or a single line of dialogue the scriptwriter should go through intermediary stages of sketching the drama. I don't know how it is in other corners of the world, but in many of the places I have been there seem to be some confusion about the different 'sketching'-formats. Fx. I hear producers, directors and writers use synopsis and treatment interchangeably. So I figured, I would describe my idea of them, their different incarnations and purpose. Here is my take on the synopsis.
The Synopsis
There are shorter formats - like a pitch or something in that neighborhood - but the synopsis is the shortest format, which is a real tool for the writer. The others tend to serve only the purpose of selling the story to producers.
The synopsis is short. But how short? In general I would say between 2-5 pages for a feature film. The synopsis of 2-3 pages is a presentation form and bordering on the verge of a sales tool, but can be useful in honing in on what your story is really about.
Being brought up in the Danish tradition I have been taught the 5-page synopsis, which has a really simple logic and formula. It goes like this:
Page 1: The first half page is used to describe the opening of the film, the hook or pitch, or what you want to call it, with some degree of detail. Then you spend the rest of the page on summarizing the action for the rest of the 1st act.
Page 2: The next half page is spend on what I call the initiating plot point - again with some detail. Rest of 2nd act is summarized on the remainder of the page.
Page 3: You guessed it, the next plot point - what I call the turning point - is again covered over a half page in detail - and then summary of the 3rd act.
Page 4: Do I really have to say it? Next plot point - I (and many others) call it the Point of No Return - in whatever detail you can fit in on half a page - and then a half page with the rest of 4th act (or almost the rest of it -- wait--wait...)
Page 5: The conclusion/climax - also a plot point - described in detail over a half page. That's it. Wait, it only tallies 4 and a half page? Well, it sounds awkward to say the 4-and-a-half-page synopsis - and anyway, the last half page, you are most probably going to use it up anyway, as you can't contain yourself to the strict half-page per plot point/act.
The obvious purpose of writing the 5-page synopsis is to flesh out the basic structure, get a feel for the rhythm and focus on the main story. Sometimes I start out with doing an outline and a rough treatment, and then I return to synopsis, to distill and purify the drama. Focus myself, before writing the first full treatment.
Later on in the process a sales synopsis might be written, either a short 2-pager or a full 5-page synopsis. Then it is the time to get obsessive about language. It really has to flow seamlessly. I often try to use some verbal language to soften up the highly condensed sentences. Especially when you find the exact right phrase, you can also reflect something about the tone of the film/situation.
Even if you don't use a 4 act model, you can figure out a similar way of writing a synopsis that fits your structure, where you detail the plot point and summarize the main body of action. Its all about rhythm.
The Synopsis
There are shorter formats - like a pitch or something in that neighborhood - but the synopsis is the shortest format, which is a real tool for the writer. The others tend to serve only the purpose of selling the story to producers.
The synopsis is short. But how short? In general I would say between 2-5 pages for a feature film. The synopsis of 2-3 pages is a presentation form and bordering on the verge of a sales tool, but can be useful in honing in on what your story is really about.
Being brought up in the Danish tradition I have been taught the 5-page synopsis, which has a really simple logic and formula. It goes like this:
Page 1: The first half page is used to describe the opening of the film, the hook or pitch, or what you want to call it, with some degree of detail. Then you spend the rest of the page on summarizing the action for the rest of the 1st act.
Page 2: The next half page is spend on what I call the initiating plot point - again with some detail. Rest of 2nd act is summarized on the remainder of the page.
Page 3: You guessed it, the next plot point - what I call the turning point - is again covered over a half page in detail - and then summary of the 3rd act.
Page 4: Do I really have to say it? Next plot point - I (and many others) call it the Point of No Return - in whatever detail you can fit in on half a page - and then a half page with the rest of 4th act (or almost the rest of it -- wait--wait...)
Page 5: The conclusion/climax - also a plot point - described in detail over a half page. That's it. Wait, it only tallies 4 and a half page? Well, it sounds awkward to say the 4-and-a-half-page synopsis - and anyway, the last half page, you are most probably going to use it up anyway, as you can't contain yourself to the strict half-page per plot point/act.
The obvious purpose of writing the 5-page synopsis is to flesh out the basic structure, get a feel for the rhythm and focus on the main story. Sometimes I start out with doing an outline and a rough treatment, and then I return to synopsis, to distill and purify the drama. Focus myself, before writing the first full treatment.
Later on in the process a sales synopsis might be written, either a short 2-pager or a full 5-page synopsis. Then it is the time to get obsessive about language. It really has to flow seamlessly. I often try to use some verbal language to soften up the highly condensed sentences. Especially when you find the exact right phrase, you can also reflect something about the tone of the film/situation.
Even if you don't use a 4 act model, you can figure out a similar way of writing a synopsis that fits your structure, where you detail the plot point and summarize the main body of action. Its all about rhythm.
A new experience
The treatment I worked on a while back is now out in the world, trying to meet some moneyed friends that might turn it into a fully fledged film. The director and me started out - modestly - by contacting smaller production companies, that we were somehow connected to. You know, just to have a chance of getting the treatment read within a foreseeable future. And also reasonable because, even though it is an action-comedy, we have tried to keep the budget down. No big explosions. Only expensive thing is many locations as the story is one long chase in Athens and surroundings.
Our local Greek companies have been abysmal in their response. Like, not even reading the damn thing. Nothing new there. But then things looked a little more promising with a small English producer and a Danish one. They read our synopsis and agreed to have a look at the treatment. Eventually, they both passed. But not for a reason I have experienced before. They were both enthusiastic about the treatment. The English producer called it near-perfect (to my amusement, as I have a lot of things I want to improve). They both went to great length in giving a response. And they both passed on the project because they felt it was too big for them. They were afraid they couldn't handle this type of film as it deserved. We should approach a bigger player - and they delivered the contacts for that. So now the treatment is being read by two major European production companies. And we are moving into a league where neither of us, the director and I, have set foot before. But I feel ready. More than ready.
Our local Greek companies have been abysmal in their response. Like, not even reading the damn thing. Nothing new there. But then things looked a little more promising with a small English producer and a Danish one. They read our synopsis and agreed to have a look at the treatment. Eventually, they both passed. But not for a reason I have experienced before. They were both enthusiastic about the treatment. The English producer called it near-perfect (to my amusement, as I have a lot of things I want to improve). They both went to great length in giving a response. And they both passed on the project because they felt it was too big for them. They were afraid they couldn't handle this type of film as it deserved. We should approach a bigger player - and they delivered the contacts for that. So now the treatment is being read by two major European production companies. And we are moving into a league where neither of us, the director and I, have set foot before. But I feel ready. More than ready.
Friday, February 13, 2009
My exact words
OK. So at the time being I'm trying to do my take on the structure of dramatic composition. After the intro and after the 4 act model, I had planned to write something more on how the structure of drama is very much like the structure of music. Been scribbling on it on and off during this week in between treatment writing for a feature and rehearsal for a theater production.
Then today I read this post over at The Rouge Wave. Of course it is not my exact words, but it expresses precisely my understanding and experience with structure. So instead of tiring myself out at this moment with a piece on the same subject - I want you to go and see what Julie L. Gray has to say.
The only major aspect that she doesn't touch upon in her well-written and well-supported piece is how the tonality of comedy and tragedy also plays into the musical understanding of dramatic structure. So there will be a bit left for me to expound on. Later.
Then today I read this post over at The Rouge Wave. Of course it is not my exact words, but it expresses precisely my understanding and experience with structure. So instead of tiring myself out at this moment with a piece on the same subject - I want you to go and see what Julie L. Gray has to say.
The only major aspect that she doesn't touch upon in her well-written and well-supported piece is how the tonality of comedy and tragedy also plays into the musical understanding of dramatic structure. So there will be a bit left for me to expound on. Later.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Picasso's Desire and Fear
”Then I understood what painting really meant. It’s not an aesthetic process, It’s a form of magic that interposes itself between us and the hostile universe, a means of seizing power by imposing form on our terrors as well as on our desires;” - Picasso
Picasso states clearly – not only what painting is about – but also what all art is about. Specifically we come to the drama to experience in action, the forms of those terrors and desires that cannot be expressed in plain words.
For some years now this has been one of my most precious quotes. We make drama out of conflicts. They arise from the clashes between fear and desire. It is where I turn to when I am stuck in my process. It is my constant touchstone, where I test my ideas. Are they born out of my desire? Out my fears?
This dichotomy of what we want and what we run away from is engraved in our two basic nervous systems, the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. They function in opposition to each other. This opposition can be understood as both complementary and antagonistic. The sympathetic system is responsible for our 'flight-or-fight'-reactions. When fear strikes us, it will pump out adrenalin, it will withdraw blood from the surface of our skin, it will accelerate our heart-rate and make us breathe quicker and more shallow. The parasympathetic system takes care of all things pleasurable. It will relax our muscles, send blood to the surface of our skin (making it more sensitive), make our breathing deeper, stimulate digestion and prepare our sexual organs for love-making.
This is our hard-wiring as organisms. Our ancient battlefield of internal conflicts and by proxy our external conflicts. Tune into it and let it be your guide to drama.
Picasso states clearly – not only what painting is about – but also what all art is about. Specifically we come to the drama to experience in action, the forms of those terrors and desires that cannot be expressed in plain words.
For some years now this has been one of my most precious quotes. We make drama out of conflicts. They arise from the clashes between fear and desire. It is where I turn to when I am stuck in my process. It is my constant touchstone, where I test my ideas. Are they born out of my desire? Out my fears?
This dichotomy of what we want and what we run away from is engraved in our two basic nervous systems, the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. They function in opposition to each other. This opposition can be understood as both complementary and antagonistic. The sympathetic system is responsible for our 'flight-or-fight'-reactions. When fear strikes us, it will pump out adrenalin, it will withdraw blood from the surface of our skin, it will accelerate our heart-rate and make us breathe quicker and more shallow. The parasympathetic system takes care of all things pleasurable. It will relax our muscles, send blood to the surface of our skin (making it more sensitive), make our breathing deeper, stimulate digestion and prepare our sexual organs for love-making.
This is our hard-wiring as organisms. Our ancient battlefield of internal conflicts and by proxy our external conflicts. Tune into it and let it be your guide to drama.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
10 Reasons for the Danish Film Miracle OR How Europe Can Beat Hollywood
During the 90s Danish film underwent a small revolution. From being a small nation that occasionally would get a film into the international market, as well as seeing it run away with the box office at national cinemas, the Danish film industry now has record setting statistics in all areas. Of all European countries Danish films does the best in their national market, often beating the more glamorous American productions at the box office. Every year several Danish films sell well in the international market. Almost every year there is a serious contender for the foreign film Oscar nomination. And all this in a very small country (5 mio+ population). It really shouldn't be possible. Its a case of the bumblebee that shouldn't be able to fly. Here is a look at some of the reason and circumstances that have made it possible.
1. Script is the foundation
By the late 80s or early 90s it became clear to both producers and the National Danish Film Institute that the script is the all-imporant foundation for a good movie. This should be self-evident, but in many countries the script is the weakest link. And also so in Denmark before early 90s. And not just realizing it, but acting upon it, the early 90s saw the establishment of two new national educations for writing - the script line at the National film school and the National Playwright Education (which also dedicate periods of its 3 years to film, TV and radio scripts), as well as a dramatic increase in the Film Institutes support for development of scripts. The institute changed its strategy on scripts - from selecting a few that they would eventually also support the production for - to supporting the development of way too many scripts. The wisdom being that you have to get too many scripts to choose the best. This also meant more professional scriptwriters, as even the ones who didn't make it into production got paid (to some extent) for their hard work. It also became the standard that the consultants at the institute (who are the ones that single-handlely choose which scripts and film to support) would act as proper consultants, giving advice and know-how support to projects in development. Meanwhile the production companies also got the idea and began to develop more scripts.
2. Education is vital
Denmark has had a good National Film School since the late 60s, but by the 90s it became upgraded with the new script-department, and this also lead to the students learning to work in the all-important triangle of director-producer-writer. The script-department excelled at teaching the students to work with 'the natural story', the concept of its scriptwriting-guru Mogens Rukow, who insisted on using natural stories - the family party, the dinner, the business meeting - whatever social structure, which already has it's own fundamental natural story, as a framework for all situations in a script - or even as the basic framework for a whole movie (like his own small masterpiece - Festen (The Celebration) which uses the celebration of big family birthday as its framework). The other areas of the Film School managed to attract the best Danish and international talent as teachers, as well as setting very high standards for the admittance of new students. In the same period Denmark also saw the opening of other schools around the country, which would teach film making at a lower lever, the entry level. They became the standard road to eventually being admitted to the National School.
3. Teamwork over auteur
Denmark has always been torn between the continental idea of the inspired genius and the auteur versus the anglo-saxon idea of solid work creates success. The anglo-saxon idea incorporates the concept that art can be taught, while obviously a genius can't be taught, but is something almost god-given. In the 90s there was a shift towards the Anglo-Saxon view, that manifested itself in a belief in teamwork - the Film institute stressed the need of a collaboration between the trio of producer-director-writer, and it more or less became a requisite for financial support. The production companies were quick to adapt to it, as well as most directors and writers. It became about teamwork - and this also went hand-in-hand with the new generation of actors, who were not primadonnas, but mainly relied a lot on teamwork.
4. Critical mass
In the 70s and 80s most directors would go years between making a feature film. This is not good for developing your art and skills. During the 90s the Film institute and the companies managed to increase the number of yearly productions dramatically, due to their success - as they made more money and also managed to pressure the politicians into increasing the budget for the Film institute - to support the Danish Film Miracle. And it is necessary in the small country to have a substantial state support to carry the burden of risk, as a small country can't have the big money of major studios that allows for risk taking. Also the critical mass applies to the number of production companies, which increased throughout the 90s, both in numbers and in the number of 'continually producing companies'. The critical mass also has an impact on the audiences as they get used to going to the cinema to see a Danish film, they come to expect it, even to expect that a new Danish film has always just opened its run.
5. Companies help out new talent
A tradition already existed in Denmark for established companies to give a helping hand to young talents' no-budget productions by lending or renting out equipment for free or at a very low cost. This tradition became all the more important as the 90s saw a steady growth in the amount of young people seeking a life in film-making. By staying in touch with the new talent the companies were able to both stimulate them and harvest the best of them. The Lars von Trier company, Zentropa, is especially famous for this, as well for employing a big number of volunteers, often working a year without pay for the company. At the same time Zentropa and other companies were often quick to take a chance on new talent.
6. Actors are real stars
The 90s also saw a new generation of actors entering the screens and stages. This was a generation who played more 'natural', meaning they would speak lines more organic and less artificially - but most of all they understood to reflect modern society in their acting. They became stars in a new way. They didn't become Hollywood glamour stars, but real stars, in the sense of remaining to be real people that the audiences could relate to in a more real way. The producers of both films and theatre understood to take advantage of this new generation, and make them stars of a new kind - and thereby help to attract audiences.
7. Mainstream and art
The famous division between art and mainstream is not so divisive in Denmark. Many films which could be considered art house material are just about mainstream enough to do well in box office. Also the institute support both types of films, as the philosophy is that the two oft-estranged cousins of cinema actually help each other out. Its all one big pot - if the companies make money on mainstream they are better situated to take a chance on art.
8. Dogma
There's no way around mentioning the event of Dogma-films. The stunt played a major role in re-inventing Danish cinema. It brought everything down to earth, back to basic, and maybe most importantly it made it possible to produce more films, as they were quite cheap, because the rules of the Dogma-manifesto decreed the absence of all the superfluous, expensive stuff like effects, lighting and so on. It became all about the story and the actors. The fundamentals. The general lesson here is to focus for a while on some core values of film-making that can inspire and propel forward a new generation of filmmakers.
9. Film, TV and theater are connected.
In Denmark there is not a great division between the three, which means a lot of the same talent, especially actors, work in all three fields, but this also goes for some directors and writers. This means several things. The talent are able to earn a living, because they have more options. They are more well-rounded in skills. And they can bring the experience in one field to enhance the others.
10. Lars von Trier
As with Dogma, its impossible not to mention Lars von Trier as a major influence for the blossoming of Danish Film. By his personal example, by his Dogma-initiative and by the activities of his hugely successful insurgent company, Zentropa, led by famous pretend-maverick Peter Ålbæk (always sporting a big cigar) he has brought inspiration and helped open doors for other Danish filmmakers. No matter how you rate his films, there is no discussion that he has made a huge impact on the Danish film industry and his fellow filmmakers. And unlike Sweden, were Bergmann was a huge national symbol that almost blocked out anybody else (not intentionally of course) Lars von Triers personal success seems more generous for others, more like a catalyst, than an unreachable standard.
There are of course other reasons and circumstances. But these are the 10 most important in my opinion. Some of these are easily copied by other (small) nations, who wish to stimulate their film industry. And they should do so - because the smaller countries of Europe and around the world need to step up and challenge the hegemony of Hollywood. Smaller countries can't beat Hollywood at it's own game. The country and the film studios are just too big. The money too big. They can't compete with that. This is why they most look at different strategies. There should be a healthy competition. And USA and Hollywood became big by rigging the playing field in the post WW2 situation, where USA took its payment for the famous Marshall-help by forcing European countries to embrace the American industry. Pre-WW2 European films were dominant in Europe. This all changed after the Marshall-plan had helped the war-torn countries back on their feet by force-feeding the American products.
1. Script is the foundation
By the late 80s or early 90s it became clear to both producers and the National Danish Film Institute that the script is the all-imporant foundation for a good movie. This should be self-evident, but in many countries the script is the weakest link. And also so in Denmark before early 90s. And not just realizing it, but acting upon it, the early 90s saw the establishment of two new national educations for writing - the script line at the National film school and the National Playwright Education (which also dedicate periods of its 3 years to film, TV and radio scripts), as well as a dramatic increase in the Film Institutes support for development of scripts. The institute changed its strategy on scripts - from selecting a few that they would eventually also support the production for - to supporting the development of way too many scripts. The wisdom being that you have to get too many scripts to choose the best. This also meant more professional scriptwriters, as even the ones who didn't make it into production got paid (to some extent) for their hard work. It also became the standard that the consultants at the institute (who are the ones that single-handlely choose which scripts and film to support) would act as proper consultants, giving advice and know-how support to projects in development. Meanwhile the production companies also got the idea and began to develop more scripts.
2. Education is vital
Denmark has had a good National Film School since the late 60s, but by the 90s it became upgraded with the new script-department, and this also lead to the students learning to work in the all-important triangle of director-producer-writer. The script-department excelled at teaching the students to work with 'the natural story', the concept of its scriptwriting-guru Mogens Rukow, who insisted on using natural stories - the family party, the dinner, the business meeting - whatever social structure, which already has it's own fundamental natural story, as a framework for all situations in a script - or even as the basic framework for a whole movie (like his own small masterpiece - Festen (The Celebration) which uses the celebration of big family birthday as its framework). The other areas of the Film School managed to attract the best Danish and international talent as teachers, as well as setting very high standards for the admittance of new students. In the same period Denmark also saw the opening of other schools around the country, which would teach film making at a lower lever, the entry level. They became the standard road to eventually being admitted to the National School.
3. Teamwork over auteur
Denmark has always been torn between the continental idea of the inspired genius and the auteur versus the anglo-saxon idea of solid work creates success. The anglo-saxon idea incorporates the concept that art can be taught, while obviously a genius can't be taught, but is something almost god-given. In the 90s there was a shift towards the Anglo-Saxon view, that manifested itself in a belief in teamwork - the Film institute stressed the need of a collaboration between the trio of producer-director-writer, and it more or less became a requisite for financial support. The production companies were quick to adapt to it, as well as most directors and writers. It became about teamwork - and this also went hand-in-hand with the new generation of actors, who were not primadonnas, but mainly relied a lot on teamwork.
4. Critical mass
In the 70s and 80s most directors would go years between making a feature film. This is not good for developing your art and skills. During the 90s the Film institute and the companies managed to increase the number of yearly productions dramatically, due to their success - as they made more money and also managed to pressure the politicians into increasing the budget for the Film institute - to support the Danish Film Miracle. And it is necessary in the small country to have a substantial state support to carry the burden of risk, as a small country can't have the big money of major studios that allows for risk taking. Also the critical mass applies to the number of production companies, which increased throughout the 90s, both in numbers and in the number of 'continually producing companies'. The critical mass also has an impact on the audiences as they get used to going to the cinema to see a Danish film, they come to expect it, even to expect that a new Danish film has always just opened its run.
5. Companies help out new talent
A tradition already existed in Denmark for established companies to give a helping hand to young talents' no-budget productions by lending or renting out equipment for free or at a very low cost. This tradition became all the more important as the 90s saw a steady growth in the amount of young people seeking a life in film-making. By staying in touch with the new talent the companies were able to both stimulate them and harvest the best of them. The Lars von Trier company, Zentropa, is especially famous for this, as well for employing a big number of volunteers, often working a year without pay for the company. At the same time Zentropa and other companies were often quick to take a chance on new talent.
6. Actors are real stars
The 90s also saw a new generation of actors entering the screens and stages. This was a generation who played more 'natural', meaning they would speak lines more organic and less artificially - but most of all they understood to reflect modern society in their acting. They became stars in a new way. They didn't become Hollywood glamour stars, but real stars, in the sense of remaining to be real people that the audiences could relate to in a more real way. The producers of both films and theatre understood to take advantage of this new generation, and make them stars of a new kind - and thereby help to attract audiences.
7. Mainstream and art
The famous division between art and mainstream is not so divisive in Denmark. Many films which could be considered art house material are just about mainstream enough to do well in box office. Also the institute support both types of films, as the philosophy is that the two oft-estranged cousins of cinema actually help each other out. Its all one big pot - if the companies make money on mainstream they are better situated to take a chance on art.
8. Dogma
There's no way around mentioning the event of Dogma-films. The stunt played a major role in re-inventing Danish cinema. It brought everything down to earth, back to basic, and maybe most importantly it made it possible to produce more films, as they were quite cheap, because the rules of the Dogma-manifesto decreed the absence of all the superfluous, expensive stuff like effects, lighting and so on. It became all about the story and the actors. The fundamentals. The general lesson here is to focus for a while on some core values of film-making that can inspire and propel forward a new generation of filmmakers.
9. Film, TV and theater are connected.
In Denmark there is not a great division between the three, which means a lot of the same talent, especially actors, work in all three fields, but this also goes for some directors and writers. This means several things. The talent are able to earn a living, because they have more options. They are more well-rounded in skills. And they can bring the experience in one field to enhance the others.
10. Lars von Trier
As with Dogma, its impossible not to mention Lars von Trier as a major influence for the blossoming of Danish Film. By his personal example, by his Dogma-initiative and by the activities of his hugely successful insurgent company, Zentropa, led by famous pretend-maverick Peter Ålbæk (always sporting a big cigar) he has brought inspiration and helped open doors for other Danish filmmakers. No matter how you rate his films, there is no discussion that he has made a huge impact on the Danish film industry and his fellow filmmakers. And unlike Sweden, were Bergmann was a huge national symbol that almost blocked out anybody else (not intentionally of course) Lars von Triers personal success seems more generous for others, more like a catalyst, than an unreachable standard.
There are of course other reasons and circumstances. But these are the 10 most important in my opinion. Some of these are easily copied by other (small) nations, who wish to stimulate their film industry. And they should do so - because the smaller countries of Europe and around the world need to step up and challenge the hegemony of Hollywood. Smaller countries can't beat Hollywood at it's own game. The country and the film studios are just too big. The money too big. They can't compete with that. This is why they most look at different strategies. There should be a healthy competition. And USA and Hollywood became big by rigging the playing field in the post WW2 situation, where USA took its payment for the famous Marshall-help by forcing European countries to embrace the American industry. Pre-WW2 European films were dominant in Europe. This all changed after the Marshall-plan had helped the war-torn countries back on their feet by force-feeding the American products.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
