2016 A Compelling Year

Cinematic Story TellingMillennials are now the audience that determines a filmmaker’s success. We all saw it coming, but didn’t realize it would get here so quickly due to the large Baby Boomer population (Generation X not being big enough to have made its own impact on the box office). The line has now been crossed and profitability is directly tied to whether or not a filmmaker is compelling in the eyes of the younger generation.

Compelling is defined as evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way. It also means inspiring conviction and not able to be resisted. To create compelling projects a filmmaker must first be relevant.

The content in faith-based films is the least relevant, as the market niche demands only stories that reflect their hope and not reality. This means that a faith-based film is not likely to ever show a protagonist in a cohabitation relationship – Known to Baby Boomers as fornication. The character will either be single and living alone or married.

However, USA Today published a recent article about those who call themselves Christian between the ages of 18 – 31. It turns out that in the national poll 65% of them were in cohabitation relationships. Since faith-based movies do not reflect the majority of the Millennials’ reality, the films are irrelevant and far from compelling.

It is therefore easy to project that faith-based films will disappear before generation Z influences the box office. The only caveat to the statement might come in the form of a new breed of filmmakers who shows cohabitation in its true light – Both the perceived good and the documented bad within the boundaries of spiritual conviction (Compelling = Inspiring Conviction). Not judgment, but conviction.

Not only is a compelling filmmaker required to be relevant in content, but he or she also must be relevant in platforms. During the Producers Guild of America’s “Producers on Producing” panel at the NAB, all four speakers shared on the importance of cross-platform strategy. Sesame Street Senior Producer Benjaming Lehmann said, “If you’re not on all the mobile devices, you’re not really compelling.”

Since platforms require different styles for success, the filmmaker has to become a great producer who can mold various parts of his product into a marketable story for various platforms. It’s no longer about making a great trailer, but making a connection with the audience.

Caitlin Burns, a producer and Vice Chair of the PGA’s New Media Council, shared on the changes in relationship between content creators and consumers. “There is a lot more understanding that you are going to be in dialogue with your audience,” she said. “We are seeing the audience less as an object and more as a subject.”

To be compelling in 2016 filmmakers must turn their film projects into conversations. The content must be truthful and relevant. Gone are the days of films built in a world of hope and dreams. They must now be first grounded in reality and then inspire the audience through compelling content to consider a better life for their future.

There is nothing wrong with convicting an audience on a topic when it’s based first in reality. Nor is there anything attractive about a future hope that doesn’t show the audience how to get there from their own reality. The key is to create a compelling story that is based in reality and inspires the audience to take a new action in their lives.

And, creating a series of related shorts (by branding) that work very differently than the film will allow the filmmaker to be compelling on various platforms. A cool trailer on YouTube promoting a film is no longer enough to generate an audience. To be compelling some form of the brand must be on all mobile devices and the top eight social sites. This requires eight different forms of branded content for success. Putting one short on eight platforms no longer works.

What are you doing this year to create compelling content?

Copyright © 2016 by CJ Powers

Don’t Boycott the Academy Awards®

Academy AwardsTwo factions are digging in their cleats to push their political agenda to the masses. One group suggests the Oscar® nominations must be more diversified. The other group suggests those receiving nominations did so on the merit of their work, not their skin color.

Side arguments have also risen suggesting that blacks shouldn’t complain, but instead “improve their craft to get nominated.” Still others suggest that “if you don’t like segregation, then close down the BET network.” More political strikes come from those suggesting it’s “the studios fault for not producing enough ‘black’ material.”

The arguments continue to divide the once unified art form, sending more professionals to television. Most shows are made with a universal audience in mind, but some are now suggesting that more “all black films” must be made. Diversity is now requiring more segregation for equality. Oh, the ebb and flow.

Everyone in the industry knows that audiences determine what films are made. If they support Star Wars to the sum of billions, then sequels will follow. If they don’t support the independent art film, then fewer art films will be made.

On average, white male actors dominate the box office. White females come next and then black men. The list continues through all nationalities, races and known orientations. It’s not rocket science. For some reason black actors like Denzel Washington (6 Oscar® Nominations and 2 Oscar® Wins) can draw a large audience of all races, while Tyler Perry (Zero Oscar® Nominations) draws a smaller mixed audience and a larger black audience.

Female leads draw fewer viewers than men, unless they happen to be Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Lawrence. Why? Because men and women both like watching men on screen and fewer men and women like watching women on screen. If you want people of color to have more lead roles on screen, you need to give the audience incredible talent to change their minds about what they prefer to watch.

Three factors can create a green light project: talent, money and distribution. But, only one factor can determine a film’s success: the audience. Whoever can build an audience can make whatever film-starring vehicle they want, but it doesn’t mean it’ll be award winning.

As for the Academy, it’s open by invitation to those who do great work for a universal audience. Those who create niche films typical don’t get invited. Why? Because they don’t reach a large enough audience for the Academy to notice them. That’s not to say the Academy doesn’t try to award great filmmakers who practice outside of the universal audience segment, they do with best short film and documentary categories.

The Oscars® are the best of the best based on wide distribution. The blacks that have won Oscars® in the past deserved it. To suggest that a poorly acted film like “Straight Outta Compton” should get a nomination because they’re black, only weakens the well deserved Oscar® received by blacks in prior years. Yes, Compton’s was a good film (although written by two white guys), but the acting was only up to the caliber of a music video, not an award level theatrical picture.

The Academy doesn’t give everyone a trophy for showing up to set. They keep things extremely competitive to raise the standards in the industry. You have to be “excellent” in the eyes of “all your peers” to win.

Now, some think Will Smith (2 Oscar® Nominations) should have received a nomination for “Concussion.” However, the story wasn’t as powerful as the “Erin Brockovich” story that landed Julia Roberts her Oscar®. While Smith may have performed well, Oscar® is usually associated with great stories.

It takes the right combination of audience, money, talent, story and excellence to land a nomination. And, it takes the admiration of ones peers to cash in the nomination for a win. By sticking a couple music video actors in the nominations reduces the weight the nominations carry among peers. If the nomination means nothing, the win becomes nothing more than political, which kills the awarding of the art form by peers.

Copyright © 2016 by CJ Powers

 

 

 

Screenplay Oscar Nominations

SpotlightHere are the two categories of screenplay nominations. I’ve included the links for your reading pleasure.

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)

The Big Short
Adaptation by Adam McKay, rewriting Charles Randolph
Based on The Big Short by Michael Lewis

Brooklyn
By Nick Hornby
Adapted from the novel by Colm Toibin

Carol
By Phyllis Nagy
Based on the novel The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith

The Martian
Written by Drew Goddard
Based on the novel by Andy Weir

Room
Written by Emma Donoghue
Based on the novel by Emma Donoghue

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

Bridge of Spies
By Matt Charman and Ethan Coen & Joel Coen

Ex Machina
By Alex Garland

Inside Out
Original story by Pete Docter, Ronnie Del Carmen
Screenplay by Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley

Spotlight
Original screenplay by Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy

Straight Outta Compton
Screenplay by Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff
Story by S. Leigh Savidge & Alan Wenkus and Andrea Berloff