Watched Triplettes of Belleville the other day and enjoyed it immensely. I don't normally enjoy cartoons, but this film worked because it was so imaginative and funny. With hardly any dialogue, the movie tells a wonderful story about a young man training to be a Tour de France rider with the help of a tough and loveable grandmother, with whom he lives. When kidnapped by the French Mafia, the grandmother goes to New York to save her grandson from a life of hard labor. Hilarious cultural statements about the French and the Americans, this was a film seemed to come entirely out of left field and I loved it.

Another good Drezner article on how to criticize Bush's foreign policy.

Maybe I should just forward readers to his blog, which is really good.

When Drezner talks about criticizing the processes used by the Bush whitehouse...here's an example of Clark's application...

I got this post on the strategic logic of suicide terrorism from Dan Drezner.

What an interesting and scary article. It is the first fresh perspective I've read about the war on terrorism in awhile. This has already go me rethinking my position on the Iraq war...

Well, this combined with the two recent attacks on Musharraf. These attacks have gotten some coverage, but not nearly enough...these attacks are VERY scary for a couple of reasons. One, they bear the seal of Al Queda. On 9/9/2001, two days before the World Trade Center, Al Queda assassins killed Ahmed Shah Massoud, a Northern Alliance commander in Afghanistan. This was a wise move because Massoud, a well respected and competant military leader, was going to ally himself with the US fight in Afghanistan. Who knows what his presense would have meant for this post-war period in Afghanistan?

With the orange alert and Air France cancellations, it is clear Al Queda was planning a big move - hit a big Western target and get rid of Musarraf at the same time, a strategy they have used before. The implications are scary. Hitting the West would veer our eyes in that direction, toward the small town in Virginia, or Vatican City, or LAX, or Las Vegas, wherever they were trying to go. In the meantime, getting rid of Musarraf throws nuclear armed Pakistan into chaos. Problematic? Hugely. Pakistan might be the scariest country in the world right now, beyond Iran and North Korea. They seriously hate the US, fundamentalists control much of the military and the nuclear program. And it is clear to everyone that if there were a popular election in Pakistan, the fundamentalists would win. Currently, they appear to be reluctantly helping us in the war on terror. But what if Musarraf was gone and a new administration more friendly to Al Queda were to take it's place? We would be steps back in the war on Al Queda and have a potential nuclear enemy on our hands.

And what does this have to do with the War in Iraq? Very little, because while Bush focused on the long term with rebuilding the middle east, Al Queda refocused on the short term, and trying to establish a new base and new source of weapons. I guess the good thing is that the assassination attempts failed and we seem to have averted some XMas terrorist attacks.

The bad thing is that Al Queda was close and we know they will try again. Fuck, who knows if we're winning or losing?

Just saw I Vitelloni at the San Rafael theatre, an art theatre sponsored by rich Marin folks...it's quite cool actually. The film was one of Fellini's first, a personal film about a group of 6 irresponsible young men, living off their parents, chasing women, boozing, and generally not interested in taking responsibility over their lives. It reminds me of the group I grew up with, many of whom I ran into the other night at a high school reunion type party at a friends house. Afterwards, I stuck around the theatre and watched The Station Agent. What I noticed most was the big difference between I Vitelloni and the Station Agent...the Station Agent was a nice film, I think it won best picture at Canne...but it was too feel-goody and formulaic for me. Granted, the protaganist being a dwarf was new, but beyond that, it was pretty standard fare. Further, I found many of the characters and their behaviour quite unbelievable. One, Patricia Clarkson at the beginning spills the coffee on herself and acts like it burns her for five minutes. Anyone who's spilled coffee knows it burns for a few seconds and then goes away. There are other little details, like why these women practically throw themselves at this dwarf who rarely speaks. I dunno, I wasn't buying it. I still think Micky from Seinfeld is the most genius dwarf character, and the episode about lifts and his insecurity about the kid actor he stands in for, is freaking brilliant.

But the big difference is that I Vitelloni hit me on a personal and emotion level the Station Agent couldn't. I related to these guys, from fifty years ago, in a foreign country, getting bullied by their fathers for not working, borrowing money without hope of paying it back, offering each other stupid bets of how much money it would take to jump in the water. Also painful was the scene in which the "artist/intellectual" of the group finally gets a famous actor to read his play and the actor merely tries to use him for sex. Brutal. The stupid guys chasing tail and money and having seemingly no purpose in life other than the two. Making fun of road workers when they themselves are too lazy and too proud to work in such jobs. Very poignant, and very funny. One can truly see the difference between a Fellini film and whomever made the Station Agent. Something else is going on there, whether it be Fellini or Fellini mixed with the time and structures and people he worked under and with. Who knows. Something more was going on in that film and felt more truthful.

This is scary.

I got this from Andrew Sullivan. It's weird, because my initial reaction is complete and utter fear that we'll be fighting this war against Islamic extremism and terrorism for my entire lifetime...and perhaps past it, so long as the other side continues to breed more terrorists.

The other, albeit childish, side of me wonders whether this is really to be feared. The arguments used for banning violent movies or garbage pail kids are the same ones being applied against Palestian kids playing with these cards.

I don't know...I guess the main difference is that the terrorist cards are real and movies and garbage pail kids are fake. I think that even children are able to distinguish.

So is Sharon responsible for the above?

It seems to me the Arab states who have fueled the flames of Palestian rage get off real easy in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. These are the same states who had no interest in helping the Palestinian refugees for the past 50 years if it cost them anything out of their own pocket. Instead, they view the Palestinians as cheap, exploitable weapons to fight their proxy war against Israel. Of course you get a Sharon in response. Of course! What does the world expect? Israel is a tiny country that has been fighting for it's survival since it's inception. Once it became clear after '67 that Israel could maintain it's own security the Arabs came up with a different strategy: terrorism. It's worked -- see this link.

I don't know. I can imagine standing in the shoes of an Israeli housewife while suicide bombers are going off day in and day out and understand why she would vote for Sharon...he'll hit back and hit back hard. We all know he's not the man to make the peace....but perhaps no one on the other side wants or can accept peace? If that's the option, what do you expect? If you're in a fight, and you want a partner, do you pick the tough guy you don't love or the guy you love, but can't fight a lick?

In the past couple days we've seen tons of reports indicating increased terror threats. Here's just one from CNN.

After 9/11 my biggest fear was that success would beget success. That is, because of the "success" of Al Queda on 9/11, they would have an easier time getting money, troops, etc. to rally to their cause. While Al Qudea has had a few successful attacks in Bali and Saudi Arabia since 9/11, nothing large, indicating "progress" has occurred. Al Queda operates like an international corporation, with autonomous sections operating towards a single goal. In the corporation, this goal is profit. In Al Queda, the goal is terror.

For a business to succeed, it needs to grow. If we are to win against Al Queda, it will not be a spectacular victory, but a slow, drawn out, fadeaway. If we keep chasing them around, frustrating their attempts to attack, we will grow emboldened and they will grow tired. Recruits and financiers will see the increased risk and lower chance of success and not have a change of heart, but rather lose their energy and zeal. They won't have anything to rally around.

Al Queda knows this. Every day they cannot mount attacks is in our favor. This is in contrast to the world before 9/11. Before 9/11, America was lazy in our fight against terror. Each day we did not counter attack Al Queda, they grew emboldened. They were patient and it worked well for them. Time was on their side. No more. Time is now on our side. They witness our success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. They know we have rounded up 2/3 of their leaders.

Needless to say, all this can change with another big attack. Let's hope we can avoid and or stop it, and then do the even tougher work to help build a world where terror because a less and less a practical option.

I think they got it backwards. The more I look at the democratic race, the more I think Clark might be the guy. (If not Hillary). He should be the one asking Dean to VP.

Last night we tried to shoot a short film called The Dinner Party [Logline: An experimental film with six characters meeting for dinner, a dj (sound), a cook (taste), an aspiring filmmaker (sight), a porn starlet (feel), a purfume saleswomen (smell), and a spiritual guru saviour.]

The shoot quickly devolved into a home video after shooting the opening scene. Shooting without a clear script was the fundamental problem, which was greatly intensified by a strong desire working style differences amongst old friends and alcohol. Whatever. I knew shooting without a clear sense of the story NEVER works, so I don't know why I thought this might be different. This idea we had that "something interesting will happen," is one of the most stupidly arrogant things rookie, psuedo filmmakers do.

I'll be looking at the footage tomorrow to see if we can piece something together, but overall, it was a disappointing experience.

Just watched Lord of the Rings and rather enjoyed it. I found it about equally enjoyable as the Two Towers and a little better than the Fellowship of the Ring. I also had the highest expectations for this one, so in an objective sense, it probably was the strongest film. It certainly had the most action. This entire project truly is impressive...the synthesis of technology, story, character, acting, production, etc is precisely what Hollywood, and only Hollywood, is capable of making.

Is this bigger than the capture of Saddam?

I'm not sure. Clearly, this is a great victory for the proponants of the war in Iraq. (I will post a write up I did in favor of the War that basically argues that the war in terror is two parts: 1. Against Al Queda and like minded groups and 2. Against the conditions that make those groups able to function. Autocrats in the middle east are the main cause of #2 and Iraq falls squarely into that category)

Khadafy owning up to his WMD and indicating an interest in dealing with the international community is a great step. It provides an alternative strategy for autocrats to deal with the West. Maybe Syria, North Korea, and Iran will take notice.

I'll try not to get too ahead of myself, though. No one was arguing that Khadafy was a major threat, we will have to see how the above countries react.

Just watched this show Teen Titans on the cartoon network with one of my little cousins and was impressed by a couple of things. I haven't watched cartoons in forever...or animation, whatever you want to call it. But regardless, they interestingly used fuzzy foreground and background animation to demonstrate depth of field. Nice. Very nice. Also, this during this episode they were being chased around an imaginary world based on Escher paintings. Cool. There were also references to Warhol and Picasso and I'm sure some I missed. Overall, just an interesting little thing to see.

This is what I like to see coming from the Dems.

Buffalo '66 was on HBO last night and a bunch of my film school classmates were tooting it's horn, so I took another look. I remember watching it on a plane once--yeah, sounds weird, huh. I believe it was on Virgin flying to England, when I first experienced the interactive TV menu on the back of the seat in front of me. Anyhow, I liked it then, but would not have thunk to recommend it.

This time around I found it quite moving. This guy has built such a bizzare wall around himself, fearful of being touched or loved, his only usefulness to society having taken the fall for another guy in prison. This character hovered perfectly between the Scorsce/Schraedor existential hero Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) and the Tarantino ironic hero Clarence (True Romance). He seems partially doomed but at the same time, a glimmer of dirty hope keeps popping up throughout the film. Great cast, Ricci made herself with this film, along with Ben Gazarra and Anjelica Houston playing his Buffalo Bills worshiping parents. Vincent Gallo directs, writes, stars, composes, shit, just about everything for the movie.

Also, love these films that capture locations...there's constant distanced traffic on big highways that reminded me of rest stops across America...I've never been to Buffalo, but you get a gloomy sense of the city.

My friend Gabe line produced a funny documentary on the Golden Globes. It aired on Trio, a small cable network owned by NBC, that gets in about 1 in 5 houses...nonetheless, it was all about the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, this bizarre amalgum of international "journalists" who preside over the entire Golden Globes. Within Hollywood the Golden Globes are viewed as this big joke--these members write for mostly unheard of publications and often times have real jobs between their writing gigs. Basically, the HFPA is a group of groupies who managed to bamboozle everyone into thinking their Award show has some relevance.

The greater, irony, however, is that they ARE relevant. The real story here seems to be a commentary on our entertainment culture than a criticism of a bunch of foreign poseurs. I mean, they've been "exposed" for a long time within Hollywood and no one seems to care. They've come to serve as a preamble to the Oscars and oddly enough, they somehow manage to make fairly sensible picks (other than the best actress controversy pointed out in the documentary -- i've forgotten the actresses name, but the speculation was that her rich husband bought her the award, I believe in the 70s or 80s...I'll correct this)

In the end, they can be justified the way Hollywood justifies every crappy piece of drivel it spits out: They make MONEY.

Something interesting happened to me after work today. I work at the Trojan Travel office, a small office that plans trips for USC alumni. It's a b.s. work study job that allowed me to work a bit over the winter break, something badly needed to help pay for my MFA. The office is across the street from campus, which everyone knows is not the best part of LA. It's considered South Central. The office is in the University Village, a strange mall whose clientele is a mix of USC students, middle and high school students, and poor, mostly African American folks. There's a food court, foot locker, radio shack, Wendy's, Subway, a tiny movie theatre, a store than sells car accessories, a crappy music store, a real shitty overpriced super market (big surprise--poor folks pay MORE for food than rich folks), and a Starbucks.

The Starbucks is the nicest place in the village, by far. The Denny's next door looks like a war time erected cafeteria. Now, I have my problems with Starbucks, being a corporate monolith, drastically overpricing their drinks, bullying their coffee suppliers, but I have to admit the innovative drinks Starbucks has developed - the Frappachino, the gingerbreak latte - those are some good tasting drinks. And that's why I sometimes go there.

So today, to celebrate the true beginning of my xmas break, I decided to indulge in a gingerbreak latte and LA times. Inside Starbucks, there's this big line, in front of me, an African American man wearing natty clothes - he could've been with Marley and the Wailers if it were the 70s in Kingston, but it ain't the 70s and South Central aint Kingston, so he looked liked a borderline bum. He was in front of me, with an LA times in hand (I've noticed a lot of the poor folks living on the north side of USC eating at subway, wendy's, etc. often are reading the LA times - moreso than the USC students I interact with. Why is that superficially less educated - this is obviously a completely racist and judgmental thing to say, but likely true in the context of the environment - read the newspaper more than the college and graduate students? Hmmm.

In any case, not to get off track, this guy is in front of me, nattily dressed, me in my GAP suede jacket and Levi's, looking like a preppy film student, standing in line together in Starbucks. He goes to the counter and has trouble (like me) reading and understanding the starbucks menu. It's clear he doesn't come in here often (like me), or ever, and ends up ordering a regular coffee.

Part of me thinks, dude, you shouldn't be buying a regular coffee at Starbucks...it's too expensive for regular coffee - and implicated in that, too expensive for YOU, a judgment I often find myself making on other people who look not very well off....likely more a reflection of my own poor spending habits than my true concern for others. Not that I would ever say anything, but I corrected myself for thinking it.

And then I realized that he wasn't buying the coffee because Starbucks coffee was the cheapest coffee, nor was he buying it because he loved Starbucks brand coffee vs. other coffee (tarantino's I buy the good expensive shit, because I like the taste...), he was buying the Starbucks because it was the NICEST store in the University Village. It is the same reason one likes to go out and be served a nice restuarant every once in awhile, paying a little more for service and presentation. That's what he was buying. I was buying the gingerbread latte, but I related, because I too was going into Starbucks because it was nice and comfortable and you feel like you're treating yourself well. I know it's a weird thing to think about...but as evil as Starbucks may be to some, here's this guy, clearly not wealthy, but he's treating himself as good as any 98% of American's are treating themselves right in that moment when he's purchasing that cup of coffee from Starbucks. I mean, it's a nice coffee shop. And Starbucks doesn't give a shit about that. They just care that people are buying their coffee....their motivations are strictly profit...but as an external benefit, here you have this semi-perfect example of an intergrated community. This upper middle class hapa MFA student, next to this poor African American rasta dude, both treating themselves to a Starbucks and LA Times. A little thing, I know, but it felt good, for some reason....and it made me think about 10 years ago, the LA riots after Rodney King and all this racial tension that seemed to be simmering and then the Newsweek photo of the OJ verdict contrasting Howard Univerity vs. Yale University student reactions to the verdict: Howard cheering, Yale saddened.

Living in LA, I don't feel the tension these days. I live right about K-town, where the Reginald Denny was killed. I go to school in South Central and it's undoubtedly a poor neighborhood. But it's tough for me to imagine anything like the LA riots happening. I have no sense that the Kobe trial will be anything like the OJ trial in terms of different reactions from different racial groups - Kobe's a weird one, because in his soul, he's more of a pretentious white boarding school kid than anything else - but nonetheless, that black white thing, while not gone, just doesn't seem to be as contentious these days.

Anyhow, that's my story. Exciting, huh?

I couldn't figure out a way to get the article in pdf to link up in the blog, but I think Jared's comments are interesting in and of themselves. Here's the letter:


Friends,

Here's an interesting article. NY Times, circa 1996. I just found it floating around the Blogosphere. You need Adobe Acrobate to view. Did you ever get tired of hearing about, say, the end of rock n roll, the collapse of western civilization, the 'death of God', all that other talk about 'endings' that seemed to reemerge among the chattering classes in the late 90's? I did. At Pomona I even wrote a very good paper attacking some assigned book called 'The End of the Nation-State', which was rewarded with a very poor grade by a teacher who seemed to want me to agree with her that the globalization of trade and capital flows had rendered national borders a 'destructive fiction'.

As I was walking to the library to write this email from my laptop, I was visited by an image from one of Rudyard Kipling's stories in which a colony of shrieking monkeys overtake an ancient ruin in northern Punjab and gleefully tear apart the abandoned city from top to bottom, hurling bricks from the roofs and balconies and smashing them in courtyards below. Maybe Kipling's fear of the centrifugal forces inherent in the British empire was a subtext to this metaphor. Maybe my fear of something similar brought the image to my own mind. But when I look at it carefully, I doubt that this is actually what is happening to our world and our civilization, if I may call it that. I doubt that we are decaying from within, in the manner of ancient Rome, eaten away by the corrosiveness of our own pessimism and decadence and despair as the culture mavens hurl bricks from above while we egg them on. Its something else, and its not, as I have also thought at times, simply the arrogance of someone wanted to puff himself up so much that he feels big enough to proclaim the death of this or that. No, I suspect this pundit is right in saying it was simply millenarian fever coupled with a lack of perspective. Our public intellectuals succumbed to it no more or less than anyone else. And now that the millenium has passed, I can feel America's optimism returning. I can feel more and more of the talking heads saying that while the thinkers are busy deconstructing everything, life goes on one way or another thanks to the action of those people - the great majority of humankind - who are actually engaged in the business of living it. One industry rises even as others fall; trends emerge while others disappear; the new is steadily replacing the old. So even though you see destruction and chaos all around you, be careful of making any conclusions about it until you look to see what's being created to take its place.

If you reply to this email, I think it will come to me alone. Type my address in your address field to be sure. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Jared

All right, a huge post on a business model for digital filmmaking forwarded to me by an actress in one of my student films. Good potential here. For students, I see no reason wasting money on film when digital is available....then again, I'm shooting on film this upcoming semester. Go figure.


I rarely do this. ok, well sometimes we stumble upon
a good cause, a good charity, but rarely something
that can benefit our filmmaking careers.

I've attached a long document. print it, read it over
the weekend. Also, please sign up at
movie-producer.net. Send him an email and tell him
Andrew at Jewels Filmworks sent you his info. He's
got some revolutionary ideas on distribution and
financing, and some great tools to help us all follow
our dreams.

I bought his budgeting software and it is fantastic!!
for $150 it kicks ass compared to Movie Magic. And
for that price you can't beat it. You don't have to
buy the software to be a part of this team, but you
should read his "thesis" if you are interested in
finding a new way to make films AND get distribution.
ENough said.
All the best,
-Andy

******************************************
Read Below
******************************************************

The Final Phase of the DV Revolution;
A Market Analysis and Economic Model for the
Development of new Distribution
and Financing Pathways for Independent Films

By Shiron Bell for Movie-Producer.net
For further information contact: Shiron Bell at
sbell@movie-producer.net or
323-449-3378

I've been involved in digital video technology since
the good old days of
1998. I've seen the hope and promise of a brand new
way of making movies
evolve into a sea of questions about how to make DV
entertainment viable from
an economic standpoint. Digital Video (and HD)
filmmakers are focused upon
ways to infiltrate the existing entertainment
distribution system with digital
content. In my opinion this is inappropriate means of
developing new consumer
demand. There is absolutely no way for the current
motion picture economic
model to absorb the vast supply of content that has
become available over the
past 5-7 years.

I am proposing a new economic model that will increase
the supply of digital
content to consumers and help to build new financing
pathways for the
independent filmmaker. This system, called the
Movie-Producer.net Independent
Producer/Distributor Network (IPDN), will launch in
Spring, 2004. The system
will include a series of virtual and live seminars,
group buying and cross
marketing systems, filmmaker content exchanges and
support systems to help
filmmakers to establish demand for their films through
innovative marketing
and sales programs. The cost to the filmmaker to join
this system if $0. It
is a free service to all users of the
Movie-Producer.net software product
called Cinetools. The system is described in depth
later in this document,
but to understand this new model you must first
understand the realities of
the motion picture industry from an economic
standpoint.

IMPERFECT COMPETITION

Today's motion picture industry is in an economic
state called "imperfect
competition." If an industry is in perfect
competition prices adjust as
consumer tastes change for that product. So if
consumers were to start
purchasing more DVDs, in a perfect market the price of
movie tickets would
fall, giving consumers more incentive to continue to
come to the movies. This
kind of price adjustments is impossible within the
current entertainment
industry, making it a text book "imperfectly
competitive" industry. The only
way for companies in imperfectly competitive
industries to compete is to vary
the supply of their products (for example make, fewer
movies as in the motion
picture industry) or use what is called "nonprice
competition." With
nonprice competition firms use options other than
adjusting prices in order to
influence consumers, such as spending enormous amounts
of money on
advertising. From an economic standpoint adjusting
price is a much more
effective tool to influence consumers than extraneous
advertising.

OLIGOPOLY

Add to the general state of imperfect competition the
fact that the movie
industry is characterized as an economic Oligopoly.
An Oligopoly is an
economic state where an industry is controlled by a
small group of companies
that are responsible for the majority of all sales
within the industry. In
the motion picture industry the major Hollywood
studios control nearly all of
the theatrical and retail windows that give consumers
access to motion picture
content, thus the industry is an Oligopoly. One of
the key components of an
Oligopoly is that it contains significant "barriers to
entry" for small
firms. In the motion picture industry a filmmaker or
small distributor who
attempts to access consumers through theatrical
distribution or retail
distribution (DVD and Home Video releases) is left
without many promotional
options. As stated above it is very difficult to vary
the price for products
within today's movie industry, thus a consumer pays
the same price of a small
independent film as they do for a Hollywood film.
Since small firms can't
vary price their only alternative is to try to use
nonprice competition such
as advertising spending. However there is no way for
a filmmaker or small
distributor to compete with Hollywood's huge
advertising budgets so there is
really no way for small firms to compete aggressively
in the current motion
picture industry. Thus consumers are only presented
with a small selection of
films to choose from. The enormous amount of content
produced each year that
can not gain access to traditional distribution is
left untouched and
consumers are never made aware of these options.

CONSUMER CHOICES

To be clear it is not that audiences do not want more
choices. If you are a
skateboarder you would be very interested in any film
about skateboarders but
the choices available to you are extremely limited
unless you attend every
film festival in the country seeking out such films.
The same thing is true
for people who are interested in Gay and Lesbian
films, or African American
films, or Asian films. There are films that have been
produced that can meet
the needs of these consumers, but these films have no
way to access the
consumer within the current motion picture
distribution model. Hence everyone
loses: consumers lack choices and filmmakers lack
opportunity while the
Hollywood industry as a whole continues to operate the
same way that is has
since the very earliest days of the movie industry.

CASE STUDY: HIPHOP MUSIC

Hiphop music is a world wide phenomenon that began in
the same way that the
digital video revolution has begun; With the
availability of inexpensive
turntables and mixers in the early 80s, artists found
that they had the
ability to create their own music very inexpensively.
In the early days the
music was raw and gritty and the production quality
was nothing like that of
major record labels. However rap music had an
advantage: the music was
influenced heavily by consumer tastes. In order to
build an urban music genre
the music needed to reflect the urban environment.
With founders such as Def
Jam Record Co-Founder Russell Simmons and breakthrough
artists such as Run
DMC, hip-hop gave consumers what they wanted. It gave
them new sounds that
both reflected the environment that the consumer
currently lived in and gave
them a vision of better life that they could aspire
to. But record labels had
no interest in hip-hop in those early days. Rap music
was written off as a
passing fad and everyone seemed to agree that
consumers would prefer more high
quality product delivered by record companies to the
lower quality hop-hop
music. Consumers thought otherwise. The rap pioneers
started to infiltrate
the industry by going directly to consumers and hence
the Mix Tape Phenomenon
began.

"I'd go on this block and make $100, go on that block
and make $100."
- Brucie B
(HIP-HOP DJ ON SELLING HIPHOP MIXTAPES TO
MAKE PROFITS)

What exactly are mixtapes? In the early days of
hip-hop (the 1970s) mixtapes
were Cassette tapes with a mix of music from different
artists put together by
a DJ. Before rap records were even made these DJs
would record their
performances and sell the cassettes in the streets for
$20 each. These days,
mixtapes come primarily as CDs, cost $5 to $10 and
feature unreleased songs
from major artists and new songs from up and coming
artists. As the industry
developed, the songs or artists from the best selling
tapes eventually landed
on radio stations and retail shelves. The same system
continues today.
Mixtapes serve as a way for hiphop artists to gauge
consumer demand and
influence consumer tastes for music at the street
level. No such system
exists within the film industry. The "B" movies of
old Hollywood are gone
replaced by softcore films for Skin-e-Max (Cinemax).
There is no way for
consumers to sample inexpensive films from new
filmmakers or to get films from
big name filmmaker that they can't get anywhere else.
The internet tried this
model but it is still too early for this kind of
system to work on the
internet. DVD has penetrated the consumer market much
faster than broadband
and it is with DVDs that this kind of filmmaking
mixtape revolution must
begin. Furthmore, as it did with hiphop, the
revolution must begin with the
artists themselves stepping in to create demand for
their products at the
local level.

The Movie-Producer.net IPDN system will assist
filmmakers in creating small
independent distribution systems for their films. The
goal is to create super
low budget DV films and create small profits from each
film release. As
consumers get used to this new, less expensive, more
disposable source of
entertainment, filmmakers will begin to break out of
the low budget realm into
Hollywood films, just as hiphop artists break out of
mixtapes and onto the
charts. With this system, a mixtape phenomenon
similar to hiphop could occur
with short films. Most consumers don't really even
know what a short film is,
so why would they spend $15.00 at the store to buy
one. They have to be
introduced to shorts at the local level. The movie
mixtapes have to make the
consumer feel like they're having an experience that
is different from a
traditional film experience, much like some of the
most cutting-edge films
from the top festivals of today.

This is where teenagers become very helpful. Teenagers
will try anything
once. So building mixtapes as a cheap underground
source of entertainment can
develop with teenagers. To get the teenagers
interested you might partner
with a local school and restaurant to have teenaged
"dinner and a movie"
nights. It would work much like school dances where
the teenagers could come
alone or with a date, they'd view some cutting edge
short films (approved by
the school) get dinner and dancing to follow for a
single ticket price (maybe
$20). The DVDs of the shorts in the screening would
be available for sale at
a very low price (maybe $6.50). That's cheap enough
that the kids should have
money to pay for them. Since shorts would be "new"
and "cool" to them in this
environment (particularly if you chose films that
really clicked with the
audience) they would probably want to buy one. If one
of the "cool" kids
bought one the whole lot would want one.

The individual filmmaker/distributor wouldn't make
much off of this promotion,
maybe $500-$1000. Now imagine if the filmmaker did
the same promotion at 20
different schools surrounding his home. The
$500-$1,000 he made from one event
now gets multiplied by 20. Plus he would introduce an
entire consumer
population to DVD shorts in a way that will probably
make them interested in
future series of shorts. He would have begun to build
consumer demand. Imagine
if 1000 filmmakers each do this at 20 schools. Now
you're talking about $10-
20,000,000 in revenue off of short films. On average
this type of system
wouldn't see returns anywhere near this level. The
actual sales would
probably be closer to $1,000,000 based on most of the
filmmakers failing to
hit sales goals. However, this system would create
$1,000,000 in revenue for
a collection of short films and would prime the market
for additional short
film releases to come. Eventually, the
filmmaker/distributors who succeed in
generating interest in DVDs with their own small
distribution companies will
be acquisition targets for Hollywood. Furthermore
this system would create
some breakout stars: filmmakers whose films would take
off at the street
level. These filmmakers would graduate quickly to big
Hollywood films.

"How do you jump start an industry with growing costs
and decreasing profits
at portions of the sales cycle? You remove barriers
to entry which act like a
sleave cover the industry. Then you give the industry
a shot of smart
entrepreneurs right in its arm..Nothing changes an
industry faster than good
old fashioned competition"
- Shiron Bell
Founder/CEO Movie-Producer.net

A SYSTEM OF MOVIE LABELS

The movie business is different from the music
business in that studios still
continue to finance productions themselves. The music
industry is primarily
composed of two types of companies: Music Labels and
Music Distributors.
Within the music industry it is the labels that pay
the artist, pay for videos
and do all of the other day to day processes of
producing music. The
distributors simply market and distribute music once
it is complete. The
concept being proposed in this document is to begin to
switch the motion
picture industry into a similar system.

The system would start with small independent
filmmaker distributors. As the
system conglomerates, these distributors will build
cash reserves and a
network of small private investors. As they return
profits to investors on
small films they will eventually earn the opportunity
to risk a larger amount
on a more expensive theatrical release through a
Hollywood distribution
system. Eventually Hollywood studios can acquire the
companies that succeed
in building significant revenue with direct to
consumer businesses. Overall
this system could have an extremely positive impact on
Hollywood. The current
Hollywood infrastructure is far too large to deal with
the approaching changes
in consumer demand such as the advent of DVD burners
and the approach of
downloadable films from the internet. To absorb new
innovation entrepreneurs
[independent business people] need to be released at
the street level to help
gauge consumer demand and shift consumer tastes. By
allowing small companies
to build new pathways, then acquiring these companies
later, Hollywood can
begin to absorb the changes in demand that are quickly
approaching for the
movie business. Without such a system Hollywood will
be in a position similar
to that of the music industry today, with downloadable
music eroding corporate
profits. Economically it is competition among
companies that produces
positive change. For Hollywood to ride past the issue
of piracy they need a
level of controlled competition outside of their
current retail pathways.
That is what our system will provide. Stopping Academy
screeners from being
released will not save Hollywood, competition will.

The previous example with High School short film
mixtapes is just a small
example of what can occur within the IPDN model.
While some
filmmaker/distributors might create a business plan
that allows them to focus
on the high school market, others might choose to
focus on the college market.

For instance, a company could choose to put together a
small catalog of cheap
DV films and market it to local fraternity houses at
college campuses around
his home. If the prices for such a catalog of movies
were reasonable
(typically $5.99-$11.99 for a DVD feature) an
industrious
filmmaker/distributor could build quite a business
simply off of marketing to
those fraternities. This is because the fraternity is
full of college
students, the segment of consumers with some of the
highest disposable income
and the consumers who are early adopters of new types
of products. Now
imagine if the filmmaker distributed catalogs to every
fraternity at 20
different college and universities. Now imagine if
1000 filmmakers did the
same thing.

ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE

The final component of the Movie-Producer.net IPDN
model is film commissions.
We plan to partner with film commissions to offer
training and incentives to
help foster new production/distribution entities in
all 50 states. The US
Film Production industry is in crisis due to the
decreasing production and
loss of productions to Canada. Most people would
argue that US states need to
increase subsidies to film productions in order to
decrease film production
costs in order to keep productions in the US. The
people who say this are
wrong! The US can't put a band aid on runaway
productions by simply providing
additional subsidies. The theatrical opportunities for
films are getting
smaller and smaller. This decreases the chance that a
film will ever get to
theaters in order to return profits to investors. But
US states are trying to
solve this problem by increasing productions in the
face of narrowing
distribution options. US States need to restructure
the entire financing and
distribution landscape to allow for production costs
to fall by themselves.
Let the economy fix price changes, not the government.

How does this work? Well the logic goes like this:

1.) States incentivize people to begin to form their
own small distribution
businesses to distribute inexpensive DV productions in
conjunction with IPDN.
The incentives can come in the form of free or
subsidized classes and
workshops, grants, rebates or tax leniency for
start-up companies that are
successful in producing revenue. To begin with,
filmmakers can distribute the
enormous amount of content from film festivals that
has never been acquired by
distributors. This will allow them to begin to
produce cash flow immediately.

2.) These firms would eventually reinvest the money
from distribution into
production, increasing the level of production within
a state. Since these
productions will probably be ultra low budget, the
economics of traveling to
Canada or even out of state just don't make sense.
Hence the revenue would
stay in the state.

3.) The overall increase in production volume will
decrease production costs
overall. Vendors can decrease prices if equipment is
rented more often, crew
can decrease their prices if they are working more
often, businesses can
afford to provide more economic incentives to continue
to attract production
business and overall it becomes cheaper to produce
films within a given state.

Using this model a state could succeed in building a
sustainable production,
self-financing and distribution model for filmmakers.
This will allow that
state to capture tax revenue from the individuals
working on films as well as
all the new small distribution companies that are
housed within their state.

THE IPDN MODEL DESCRIBED

The work of building a small business isn't so much
difficult as it is time
consuming. You need to clearly identify your target
market and use low costs
methods to try to sell products to that market.
Filmmakers wishing to
distribute their films could come up with any
marketing/distribution plan for
their film that they want. Some people might
distribute films through local
churches and community organizations, some people
might create events where
people can view the films in a microcinema screening
environment, then
purchase the films on DVD after the event at a low
cost, other filmmakers
might setup displays at local truck stops, allowing
visitors to buy extremely
low cost DVDs (in the same way that many truck stops
sell cassette tapes),
finally other filmmaker/distributors might create
fundraiser promotions that
allow students or local organizations to raise money
by selling their low cost
DVD films. The only limit to the number of ways that
movies can be marketed
and sold is the imagination of the
filmmaker/distributors who take part in the
system.

The IPDN process works like this:

1.) Filmmakers join the system by purchasing the
Cinetools software
product from Movie-Producer.net

2.) Filmmaker/distributors build their knowledge base
by communicating
with other distributors online in the IPDN forms and
at Movie-Producer.net
networking events. They can also increase their
knowledge by taking part in
low cost online and live courses held throughout the
US or by purchasing
inexpensive ebooks on various subjects related to
building their new
distribution business.

3.) Movie-Producer.net will help filmmakers to create
business plans for
their new companies and will provide advice and
support on implementing these
new business plans. The network is not exclusively
for people who plan to
self-distribute their films. Movie-Producer.net will
also provide business
plan and financing support for larger budget films
seeking traditional
Hollywood distribution. However our entire model is
build upon a foundation
of solid business plans. Thus it is the filmmakers
who can design the most
innovative business and marketing plans that will see
the greatest success
from the IPDN system. To kick start this process we
will be launching a Movie
Business plan contest in 2004. The contest will
provide cash and prizes to
the filmmaker who designs the most innovative business
and marketing plan for
their company.

4.) When filmmakers are ready to begin distribution
they have two options:
they can distribute existing films from other
filmmakers within the IPDN
system by sharing sales revenue with the producer of
each film. Alternatively
they can produce their own low budget films and market
them directly to
consumers. Movie-Producer.net will provide legal
advice and support in
conjunction with a network of support organizations.

5.) The process begins to take root through the IPDN
movie exchange (much
like the early motion picture film exchanges). Here
filmmakers can take
advantage of the distribution pathways created by
other filmmakers within the
system. Movie-Producer.net will facilitate the
process of filmmakers renting
or exchanging films with other filmmaker/distributors
in order to expand the
revenue possibilities of each film.

6.) As the system grows Movie-Producer.net will serve
as an umbrella
organization, negotiating group deals for DVD
replication, marketing
materials, retail distribution deals and other vendor
services to help to
minimize the cost of all filmmaker/distributors. We
will also provide a clear
knowledge base that allows filmmakers to learn from
the mistakes and successes
of other filmmakers within the system.

7.) Overall the goal is to nurture thousands of new
direct to consumer
filmmaker/distributors in order to create extremely
fast market penetration
and growth for DV and eventually HD content.

As stated earlier, this is a new operating system for
the low budget DV
filmmaker. By creating an environment where
filmmakers can begin to generate
cash flows from screenings, DVD sales and
merchandising such as t-shirts we
will begin to create economic certainty for ultra-low
budget independent
films. We will accomplish this without name talent or
any of the other
marketing elements used for major Hollywood films. If
investors can evaluate
film investments based on a filmmaker's previous cash
flows and the
filmmaker's business plans, much of the guess work of
modern day film
financing would be removed. Furthermore, with new
direct to consumer
marketing systems in place, more of the movies that
are produced each year can
return sufficient profits to producers to attract
additional investment. By
releasing thousands of filmmaker/ distributors at the
street level an economy
forms that will eventually create new pathways for
film financing at ultra low
budget levels. Overall this will result in the
creation of a new "revenue
floor" for the entire film industry. Obviously not
everyone will succeed
within this system, but the filmmakers who do succeed
will be pioneers who
generate a new kind of "B" movie using inexpensive
digital video technology.

Within the next 12-18 months Movie-Producer.net will
enter the financing realm
by matching investors to business plans from within
the IPDN system. In order
to create a level of security for our investors, only
filmmakers who generate
sufficient cash flows and whose business plans are
approved by the IPDN board
of review are eligible to receive financing from IPDN
investors. However,
that's where the requirements end. Whether a
filmmaker made money on a $500
movie or a $500,000 movie, positive cash flows and
membership in the IPDN
network is all that is required for them to
participate in financing system.
(Obviously those with the highest cash flow will have
a much higher chance of
receiving financing). Additionally distributors
within IPDN will have the
option to reinvest all or a portion of their
distribution revenue in films
that have passed the IPDN cash flow and business plan
review process. This
will allow filmmakers to generate cash flows directly
from consumers and then
use those cash flows to create larger budget films
within the first 12-24
months of the system. By year 3, if our growth
estimates are correct,
filmmakers would have created a clear pathway for 5-10
low budget theatrically
released films per year simply by starting to sell
ultra-low budget DV
content. By year 5 they would clear the way for as
many as 20 or more new
theatrically released films. Rather than waiting for
investors to make money
in the real estate market or the stock market so that
they can invest in
films, filmmakers can generate distribution revenue
right now that can be
reinvested in their own films or films from other
filmmakers. Hence the
digital revolution will have fully begun

Movie-Producer.net's primary business is the
development of production
management software products and infrastructure
systems for independent
filmmakers and distributors. Therefore we will not
ask for any additional
fees or commissions to provide Cinetools users with
access to basuc
Independent Producer and Distributor Network (IPDN)
services. Access to the
network forums, chats, articles and business plan
development support is free
to anyone who purchases the Cinetools product.
Moreover Cinetools is sold
with a lifetime license so you will never need to pay
any additional upgrade
fees to use Cinetools as it continues to grow and
develop. If
filmmaker/distributors need services beyond the basic
IPDN support system such
as courses or consulting we will have extremely
affordable prices that work
within your budget and your business plan. Our goal
is to help this system
grow, not to rob filmmakers of large amounts of money
in the front end.

COMPANY GOALS

1,000 Active filmmaker/distributors by 2005 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $500,000
(Average of $500 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

3,000 Active filmmaker/distributors in 2006 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $3,000,000
(Average of $1,000 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

6,000 Active filmmaker/distributors in 2007 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $18,000,000
(Average of $3,000 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

9,000 Active filmmaker/distributors in 2008 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $54,000,000
(Average of $6,000 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

12,000 Active filmmaker/distributors in 2009 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $144,000,000
(Average of $12,000 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

There is much more to be told about how this system
will operate. This paper
was only designed to introduce the reader to the
reasoning behind the IPDN
system and give them a general understanding of how it
will work. Additional
information about the IPDN system and
Movie-Producer.net corporate
partnerships will begin to be released on
Movie-Producer.net on December 19,
2003. All people who purchase the Cinetools product
will receive the most up
to date information on the development of the IPDN
model and will have a part
in the design and implementation of some of the IPDN
programs.

To get started visit: http://www.movie-producer.net or
email ipdn@movie-
producer.net

Free Software Trials
Free trials of Cinetools are available at:
http://www.movie-
producer.net/cinetools.php

About Shiron Bell
Shiron Bell is an African-American entrepreneur and a
graduate of the Wharton
School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.
Shiron has worked as an
analyst for the investment bank as well as serving as
a producer, film
festival director and self-distribution consultant for
numerous independent
films. As a Marketing Executive Shiron has worked
with Fortune 500 companies
such as Anheuser-Busch and various other companies.
Most recently he was the
Director of Marketing for the Los Angeles Film School
in Hollywood. Shiron
developed an innovative business planning, financial
projection, budgeting,
scheduling and production software application called
Cinetools that makes
high end film financing and production software tools
available to filmmakers
at less than 20% of the cost of most of the budgeting
and scheduling software
currently available on the market. With Cinetools he
founded Movie-
Producer.net in 2002 and continues to work to develop
innovative ways for
filmmakers to compete aggressively in the areas of
motion picture commerce.

About Movie-Producer.net
Movie-Producer.net (MPdn) provides education and
software technology that
empowers filmmakers to think in practical terms and
incorporate sound business
and marketing praxis. With MPdn's knowledge base and
technology, filmmakers
plan their films and business based on audience tastes
and the use historical
precedents and relevant marketing metrics. MPdn
instills objectivity into and
streamlines the filmmaking process while creating
filmmakers who think and act
entrepreneurially. Movie-Producer.net's goal is to
facilitate a community of
educated, savvy and resourceful filmmakers who support
and share resources
beyond the technical production aspects, such as
marketing, distribution and
financing.




=====
www.JewelsFilmworks.com
--Jewels Filmworks is a collaboration of artists and filmmakers who enjoy working together and supporting one another through all stages of production. Partnership information available online.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

All right, a huge post on a business model for digital filmmaking forwarded to me by an actress in one of my student films. Good potential here. For students, I see no reason wasting money on film when digital is available....then again, I'm shooting on film this upcoming semester. Go figure.


I rarely do this. ok, well sometimes we stumble upon
a good cause, a good charity, but rarely something
that can benefit our filmmaking careers.

I've attached a long document. print it, read it over
the weekend. Also, please sign up at
movie-producer.net. Send him an email and tell him
Andrew at Jewels Filmworks sent you his info. He's
got some revolutionary ideas on distribution and
financing, and some great tools to help us all follow
our dreams.

I bought his budgeting software and it is fantastic!!
for $150 it kicks ass compared to Movie Magic. And
for that price you can't beat it. You don't have to
buy the software to be a part of this team, but you
should read his "thesis" if you are interested in
finding a new way to make films AND get distribution.
ENough said.
All the best,
-Andy

******************************************
Read Below
******************************************************

The Final Phase of the DV Revolution;
A Market Analysis and Economic Model for the
Development of new Distribution
and Financing Pathways for Independent Films

By Shiron Bell for Movie-Producer.net
For further information contact: Shiron Bell at
sbell@movie-producer.net or
323-449-3378

I've been involved in digital video technology since
the good old days of
1998. I've seen the hope and promise of a brand new
way of making movies
evolve into a sea of questions about how to make DV
entertainment viable from
an economic standpoint. Digital Video (and HD)
filmmakers are focused upon
ways to infiltrate the existing entertainment
distribution system with digital
content. In my opinion this is inappropriate means of
developing new consumer
demand. There is absolutely no way for the current
motion picture economic
model to absorb the vast supply of content that has
become available over the
past 5-7 years.

I am proposing a new economic model that will increase
the supply of digital
content to consumers and help to build new financing
pathways for the
independent filmmaker. This system, called the
Movie-Producer.net Independent
Producer/Distributor Network (IPDN), will launch in
Spring, 2004. The system
will include a series of virtual and live seminars,
group buying and cross
marketing systems, filmmaker content exchanges and
support systems to help
filmmakers to establish demand for their films through
innovative marketing
and sales programs. The cost to the filmmaker to join
this system if $0. It
is a free service to all users of the
Movie-Producer.net software product
called Cinetools. The system is described in depth
later in this document,
but to understand this new model you must first
understand the realities of
the motion picture industry from an economic
standpoint.

IMPERFECT COMPETITION

Today's motion picture industry is in an economic
state called "imperfect
competition." If an industry is in perfect
competition prices adjust as
consumer tastes change for that product. So if
consumers were to start
purchasing more DVDs, in a perfect market the price of
movie tickets would
fall, giving consumers more incentive to continue to
come to the movies. This
kind of price adjustments is impossible within the
current entertainment
industry, making it a text book "imperfectly
competitive" industry. The only
way for companies in imperfectly competitive
industries to compete is to vary
the supply of their products (for example make, fewer
movies as in the motion
picture industry) or use what is called "nonprice
competition." With
nonprice competition firms use options other than
adjusting prices in order to
influence consumers, such as spending enormous amounts
of money on
advertising. From an economic standpoint adjusting
price is a much more
effective tool to influence consumers than extraneous
advertising.

OLIGOPOLY

Add to the general state of imperfect competition the
fact that the movie
industry is characterized as an economic Oligopoly.
An Oligopoly is an
economic state where an industry is controlled by a
small group of companies
that are responsible for the majority of all sales
within the industry. In
the motion picture industry the major Hollywood
studios control nearly all of
the theatrical and retail windows that give consumers
access to motion picture
content, thus the industry is an Oligopoly. One of
the key components of an
Oligopoly is that it contains significant "barriers to
entry" for small
firms. In the motion picture industry a filmmaker or
small distributor who
attempts to access consumers through theatrical
distribution or retail
distribution (DVD and Home Video releases) is left
without many promotional
options. As stated above it is very difficult to vary
the price for products
within today's movie industry, thus a consumer pays
the same price of a small
independent film as they do for a Hollywood film.
Since small firms can't
vary price their only alternative is to try to use
nonprice competition such
as advertising spending. However there is no way for
a filmmaker or small
distributor to compete with Hollywood's huge
advertising budgets so there is
really no way for small firms to compete aggressively
in the current motion
picture industry. Thus consumers are only presented
with a small selection of
films to choose from. The enormous amount of content
produced each year that
can not gain access to traditional distribution is
left untouched and
consumers are never made aware of these options.

CONSUMER CHOICES

To be clear it is not that audiences do not want more
choices. If you are a
skateboarder you would be very interested in any film
about skateboarders but
the choices available to you are extremely limited
unless you attend every
film festival in the country seeking out such films.
The same thing is true
for people who are interested in Gay and Lesbian
films, or African American
films, or Asian films. There are films that have been
produced that can meet
the needs of these consumers, but these films have no
way to access the
consumer within the current motion picture
distribution model. Hence everyone
loses: consumers lack choices and filmmakers lack
opportunity while the
Hollywood industry as a whole continues to operate the
same way that is has
since the very earliest days of the movie industry.

CASE STUDY: HIPHOP MUSIC

Hiphop music is a world wide phenomenon that began in
the same way that the
digital video revolution has begun; With the
availability of inexpensive
turntables and mixers in the early 80s, artists found
that they had the
ability to create their own music very inexpensively.
In the early days the
music was raw and gritty and the production quality
was nothing like that of
major record labels. However rap music had an
advantage: the music was
influenced heavily by consumer tastes. In order to
build an urban music genre
the music needed to reflect the urban environment.
With founders such as Def
Jam Record Co-Founder Russell Simmons and breakthrough
artists such as Run
DMC, hip-hop gave consumers what they wanted. It gave
them new sounds that
both reflected the environment that the consumer
currently lived in and gave
them a vision of better life that they could aspire
to. But record labels had
no interest in hip-hop in those early days. Rap music
was written off as a
passing fad and everyone seemed to agree that
consumers would prefer more high
quality product delivered by record companies to the
lower quality hop-hop
music. Consumers thought otherwise. The rap pioneers
started to infiltrate
the industry by going directly to consumers and hence
the Mix Tape Phenomenon
began.

"I'd go on this block and make $100, go on that block
and make $100."
- Brucie B
(HIP-HOP DJ ON SELLING HIPHOP MIXTAPES TO
MAKE PROFITS)

What exactly are mixtapes? In the early days of
hip-hop (the 1970s) mixtapes
were Cassette tapes with a mix of music from different
artists put together by
a DJ. Before rap records were even made these DJs
would record their
performances and sell the cassettes in the streets for
$20 each. These days,
mixtapes come primarily as CDs, cost $5 to $10 and
feature unreleased songs
from major artists and new songs from up and coming
artists. As the industry
developed, the songs or artists from the best selling
tapes eventually landed
on radio stations and retail shelves. The same system
continues today.
Mixtapes serve as a way for hiphop artists to gauge
consumer demand and
influence consumer tastes for music at the street
level. No such system
exists within the film industry. The "B" movies of
old Hollywood are gone
replaced by softcore films for Skin-e-Max (Cinemax).
There is no way for
consumers to sample inexpensive films from new
filmmakers or to get films from
big name filmmaker that they can't get anywhere else.
The internet tried this
model but it is still too early for this kind of
system to work on the
internet. DVD has penetrated the consumer market much
faster than broadband
and it is with DVDs that this kind of filmmaking
mixtape revolution must
begin. Furthmore, as it did with hiphop, the
revolution must begin with the
artists themselves stepping in to create demand for
their products at the
local level.

The Movie-Producer.net IPDN system will assist
filmmakers in creating small
independent distribution systems for their films. The
goal is to create super
low budget DV films and create small profits from each
film release. As
consumers get used to this new, less expensive, more
disposable source of
entertainment, filmmakers will begin to break out of
the low budget realm into
Hollywood films, just as hiphop artists break out of
mixtapes and onto the
charts. With this system, a mixtape phenomenon
similar to hiphop could occur
with short films. Most consumers don't really even
know what a short film is,
so why would they spend $15.00 at the store to buy
one. They have to be
introduced to shorts at the local level. The movie
mixtapes have to make the
consumer feel like they're having an experience that
is different from a
traditional film experience, much like some of the
most cutting-edge films
from the top festivals of today.

This is where teenagers become very helpful. Teenagers
will try anything
once. So building mixtapes as a cheap underground
source of entertainment can
develop with teenagers. To get the teenagers
interested you might partner
with a local school and restaurant to have teenaged
"dinner and a movie"
nights. It would work much like school dances where
the teenagers could come
alone or with a date, they'd view some cutting edge
short films (approved by
the school) get dinner and dancing to follow for a
single ticket price (maybe
$20). The DVDs of the shorts in the screening would
be available for sale at
a very low price (maybe $6.50). That's cheap enough
that the kids should have
money to pay for them. Since shorts would be "new"
and "cool" to them in this
environment (particularly if you chose films that
really clicked with the
audience) they would probably want to buy one. If one
of the "cool" kids
bought one the whole lot would want one.

The individual filmmaker/distributor wouldn't make
much off of this promotion,
maybe $500-$1000. Now imagine if the filmmaker did
the same promotion at 20
different schools surrounding his home. The
$500-$1,000 he made from one event
now gets multiplied by 20. Plus he would introduce an
entire consumer
population to DVD shorts in a way that will probably
make them interested in
future series of shorts. He would have begun to build
consumer demand. Imagine
if 1000 filmmakers each do this at 20 schools. Now
you're talking about $10-
20,000,000 in revenue off of short films. On average
this type of system
wouldn't see returns anywhere near this level. The
actual sales would
probably be closer to $1,000,000 based on most of the
filmmakers failing to
hit sales goals. However, this system would create
$1,000,000 in revenue for
a collection of short films and would prime the market
for additional short
film releases to come. Eventually, the
filmmaker/distributors who succeed in
generating interest in DVDs with their own small
distribution companies will
be acquisition targets for Hollywood. Furthermore
this system would create
some breakout stars: filmmakers whose films would take
off at the street
level. These filmmakers would graduate quickly to big
Hollywood films.

"How do you jump start an industry with growing costs
and decreasing profits
at portions of the sales cycle? You remove barriers
to entry which act like a
sleave cover the industry. Then you give the industry
a shot of smart
entrepreneurs right in its arm..Nothing changes an
industry faster than good
old fashioned competition"
- Shiron Bell
Founder/CEO Movie-Producer.net

A SYSTEM OF MOVIE LABELS

The movie business is different from the music
business in that studios still
continue to finance productions themselves. The music
industry is primarily
composed of two types of companies: Music Labels and
Music Distributors.
Within the music industry it is the labels that pay
the artist, pay for videos
and do all of the other day to day processes of
producing music. The
distributors simply market and distribute music once
it is complete. The
concept being proposed in this document is to begin to
switch the motion
picture industry into a similar system.

The system would start with small independent
filmmaker distributors. As the
system conglomerates, these distributors will build
cash reserves and a
network of small private investors. As they return
profits to investors on
small films they will eventually earn the opportunity
to risk a larger amount
on a more expensive theatrical release through a
Hollywood distribution
system. Eventually Hollywood studios can acquire the
companies that succeed
in building significant revenue with direct to
consumer businesses. Overall
this system could have an extremely positive impact on
Hollywood. The current
Hollywood infrastructure is far too large to deal with
the approaching changes
in consumer demand such as the advent of DVD burners
and the approach of
downloadable films from the internet. To absorb new
innovation entrepreneurs
[independent business people] need to be released at
the street level to help
gauge consumer demand and shift consumer tastes. By
allowing small companies
to build new pathways, then acquiring these companies
later, Hollywood can
begin to absorb the changes in demand that are quickly
approaching for the
movie business. Without such a system Hollywood will
be in a position similar
to that of the music industry today, with downloadable
music eroding corporate
profits. Economically it is competition among
companies that produces
positive change. For Hollywood to ride past the issue
of piracy they need a
level of controlled competition outside of their
current retail pathways.
That is what our system will provide. Stopping Academy
screeners from being
released will not save Hollywood, competition will.

The previous example with High School short film
mixtapes is just a small
example of what can occur within the IPDN model.
While some
filmmaker/distributors might create a business plan
that allows them to focus
on the high school market, others might choose to
focus on the college market.

For instance, a company could choose to put together a
small catalog of cheap
DV films and market it to local fraternity houses at
college campuses around
his home. If the prices for such a catalog of movies
were reasonable
(typically $5.99-$11.99 for a DVD feature) an
industrious
filmmaker/distributor could build quite a business
simply off of marketing to
those fraternities. This is because the fraternity is
full of college
students, the segment of consumers with some of the
highest disposable income
and the consumers who are early adopters of new types
of products. Now
imagine if the filmmaker distributed catalogs to every
fraternity at 20
different college and universities. Now imagine if
1000 filmmakers did the
same thing.

ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE

The final component of the Movie-Producer.net IPDN
model is film commissions.
We plan to partner with film commissions to offer
training and incentives to
help foster new production/distribution entities in
all 50 states. The US
Film Production industry is in crisis due to the
decreasing production and
loss of productions to Canada. Most people would
argue that US states need to
increase subsidies to film productions in order to
decrease film production
costs in order to keep productions in the US. The
people who say this are
wrong! The US can't put a band aid on runaway
productions by simply providing
additional subsidies. The theatrical opportunities for
films are getting
smaller and smaller. This decreases the chance that a
film will ever get to
theaters in order to return profits to investors. But
US states are trying to
solve this problem by increasing productions in the
face of narrowing
distribution options. US States need to restructure
the entire financing and
distribution landscape to allow for production costs
to fall by themselves.
Let the economy fix price changes, not the government.

How does this work? Well the logic goes like this:

1.) States incentivize people to begin to form their
own small distribution
businesses to distribute inexpensive DV productions in
conjunction with IPDN.
The incentives can come in the form of free or
subsidized classes and
workshops, grants, rebates or tax leniency for
start-up companies that are
successful in producing revenue. To begin with,
filmmakers can distribute the
enormous amount of content from film festivals that
has never been acquired by
distributors. This will allow them to begin to
produce cash flow immediately.

2.) These firms would eventually reinvest the money
from distribution into
production, increasing the level of production within
a state. Since these
productions will probably be ultra low budget, the
economics of traveling to
Canada or even out of state just don't make sense.
Hence the revenue would
stay in the state.

3.) The overall increase in production volume will
decrease production costs
overall. Vendors can decrease prices if equipment is
rented more often, crew
can decrease their prices if they are working more
often, businesses can
afford to provide more economic incentives to continue
to attract production
business and overall it becomes cheaper to produce
films within a given state.

Using this model a state could succeed in building a
sustainable production,
self-financing and distribution model for filmmakers.
This will allow that
state to capture tax revenue from the individuals
working on films as well as
all the new small distribution companies that are
housed within their state.

THE IPDN MODEL DESCRIBED

The work of building a small business isn't so much
difficult as it is time
consuming. You need to clearly identify your target
market and use low costs
methods to try to sell products to that market.
Filmmakers wishing to
distribute their films could come up with any
marketing/distribution plan for
their film that they want. Some people might
distribute films through local
churches and community organizations, some people
might create events where
people can view the films in a microcinema screening
environment, then
purchase the films on DVD after the event at a low
cost, other filmmakers
might setup displays at local truck stops, allowing
visitors to buy extremely
low cost DVDs (in the same way that many truck stops
sell cassette tapes),
finally other filmmaker/distributors might create
fundraiser promotions that
allow students or local organizations to raise money
by selling their low cost
DVD films. The only limit to the number of ways that
movies can be marketed
and sold is the imagination of the
filmmaker/distributors who take part in the
system.

The IPDN process works like this:

1.) Filmmakers join the system by purchasing the
Cinetools software
product from Movie-Producer.net

2.) Filmmaker/distributors build their knowledge base
by communicating
with other distributors online in the IPDN forms and
at Movie-Producer.net
networking events. They can also increase their
knowledge by taking part in
low cost online and live courses held throughout the
US or by purchasing
inexpensive ebooks on various subjects related to
building their new
distribution business.

3.) Movie-Producer.net will help filmmakers to create
business plans for
their new companies and will provide advice and
support on implementing these
new business plans. The network is not exclusively
for people who plan to
self-distribute their films. Movie-Producer.net will
also provide business
plan and financing support for larger budget films
seeking traditional
Hollywood distribution. However our entire model is
build upon a foundation
of solid business plans. Thus it is the filmmakers
who can design the most
innovative business and marketing plans that will see
the greatest success
from the IPDN system. To kick start this process we
will be launching a Movie
Business plan contest in 2004. The contest will
provide cash and prizes to
the filmmaker who designs the most innovative business
and marketing plan for
their company.

4.) When filmmakers are ready to begin distribution
they have two options:
they can distribute existing films from other
filmmakers within the IPDN
system by sharing sales revenue with the producer of
each film. Alternatively
they can produce their own low budget films and market
them directly to
consumers. Movie-Producer.net will provide legal
advice and support in
conjunction with a network of support organizations.

5.) The process begins to take root through the IPDN
movie exchange (much
like the early motion picture film exchanges). Here
filmmakers can take
advantage of the distribution pathways created by
other filmmakers within the
system. Movie-Producer.net will facilitate the
process of filmmakers renting
or exchanging films with other filmmaker/distributors
in order to expand the
revenue possibilities of each film.

6.) As the system grows Movie-Producer.net will serve
as an umbrella
organization, negotiating group deals for DVD
replication, marketing
materials, retail distribution deals and other vendor
services to help to
minimize the cost of all filmmaker/distributors. We
will also provide a clear
knowledge base that allows filmmakers to learn from
the mistakes and successes
of other filmmakers within the system.

7.) Overall the goal is to nurture thousands of new
direct to consumer
filmmaker/distributors in order to create extremely
fast market penetration
and growth for DV and eventually HD content.

As stated earlier, this is a new operating system for
the low budget DV
filmmaker. By creating an environment where
filmmakers can begin to generate
cash flows from screenings, DVD sales and
merchandising such as t-shirts we
will begin to create economic certainty for ultra-low
budget independent
films. We will accomplish this without name talent or
any of the other
marketing elements used for major Hollywood films. If
investors can evaluate
film investments based on a filmmaker's previous cash
flows and the
filmmaker's business plans, much of the guess work of
modern day film
financing would be removed. Furthermore, with new
direct to consumer
marketing systems in place, more of the movies that
are produced each year can
return sufficient profits to producers to attract
additional investment. By
releasing thousands of filmmaker/ distributors at the
street level an economy
forms that will eventually create new pathways for
film financing at ultra low
budget levels. Overall this will result in the
creation of a new "revenue
floor" for the entire film industry. Obviously not
everyone will succeed
within this system, but the filmmakers who do succeed
will be pioneers who
generate a new kind of "B" movie using inexpensive
digital video technology.

Within the next 12-18 months Movie-Producer.net will
enter the financing realm
by matching investors to business plans from within
the IPDN system. In order
to create a level of security for our investors, only
filmmakers who generate
sufficient cash flows and whose business plans are
approved by the IPDN board
of review are eligible to receive financing from IPDN
investors. However,
that's where the requirements end. Whether a
filmmaker made money on a $500
movie or a $500,000 movie, positive cash flows and
membership in the IPDN
network is all that is required for them to
participate in financing system.
(Obviously those with the highest cash flow will have
a much higher chance of
receiving financing). Additionally distributors
within IPDN will have the
option to reinvest all or a portion of their
distribution revenue in films
that have passed the IPDN cash flow and business plan
review process. This
will allow filmmakers to generate cash flows directly
from consumers and then
use those cash flows to create larger budget films
within the first 12-24
months of the system. By year 3, if our growth
estimates are correct,
filmmakers would have created a clear pathway for 5-10
low budget theatrically
released films per year simply by starting to sell
ultra-low budget DV
content. By year 5 they would clear the way for as
many as 20 or more new
theatrically released films. Rather than waiting for
investors to make money
in the real estate market or the stock market so that
they can invest in
films, filmmakers can generate distribution revenue
right now that can be
reinvested in their own films or films from other
filmmakers. Hence the
digital revolution will have fully begun

Movie-Producer.net's primary business is the
development of production
management software products and infrastructure
systems for independent
filmmakers and distributors. Therefore we will not
ask for any additional
fees or commissions to provide Cinetools users with
access to basuc
Independent Producer and Distributor Network (IPDN)
services. Access to the
network forums, chats, articles and business plan
development support is free
to anyone who purchases the Cinetools product.
Moreover Cinetools is sold
with a lifetime license so you will never need to pay
any additional upgrade
fees to use Cinetools as it continues to grow and
develop. If
filmmaker/distributors need services beyond the basic
IPDN support system such
as courses or consulting we will have extremely
affordable prices that work
within your budget and your business plan. Our goal
is to help this system
grow, not to rob filmmakers of large amounts of money
in the front end.

COMPANY GOALS

1,000 Active filmmaker/distributors by 2005 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $500,000
(Average of $500 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

3,000 Active filmmaker/distributors in 2006 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $3,000,000
(Average of $1,000 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

6,000 Active filmmaker/distributors in 2007 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $18,000,000
(Average of $3,000 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

9,000 Active filmmaker/distributors in 2008 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $54,000,000
(Average of $6,000 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

12,000 Active filmmaker/distributors in 2009 -
PROJECTED TOTAL DISTRIBUTION REVENUE $144,000,000
(Average of $12,000 in distribution revenue per
filmmaker/distributor)

There is much more to be told about how this system
will operate. This paper
was only designed to introduce the reader to the
reasoning behind the IPDN
system and give them a general understanding of how it
will work. Additional
information about the IPDN system and
Movie-Producer.net corporate
partnerships will begin to be released on
Movie-Producer.net on December 19,
2003. All people who purchase the Cinetools product
will receive the most up
to date information on the development of the IPDN
model and will have a part
in the design and implementation of some of the IPDN
programs.

To get started visit: http://www.movie-producer.net or
email ipdn@movie-
producer.net

Free Software Trials
Free trials of Cinetools are available at:
http://www.movie-
producer.net/cinetools.php

About Shiron Bell
Shiron Bell is an African-American entrepreneur and a
graduate of the Wharton
School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.
Shiron has worked as an
analyst for the investment bank as well as serving as
a producer, film
festival director and self-distribution consultant for
numerous independent
films. As a Marketing Executive Shiron has worked
with Fortune 500 companies
such as Anheuser-Busch and various other companies.
Most recently he was the
Director of Marketing for the Los Angeles Film School
in Hollywood. Shiron
developed an innovative business planning, financial
projection, budgeting,
scheduling and production software application called
Cinetools that makes
high end film financing and production software tools
available to filmmakers
at less than 20% of the cost of most of the budgeting
and scheduling software
currently available on the market. With Cinetools he
founded Movie-
Producer.net in 2002 and continues to work to develop
innovative ways for
filmmakers to compete aggressively in the areas of
motion picture commerce.

About Movie-Producer.net
Movie-Producer.net (MPdn) provides education and
software technology that
empowers filmmakers to think in practical terms and
incorporate sound business
and marketing praxis. With MPdn's knowledge base and
technology, filmmakers
plan their films and business based on audience tastes
and the use historical
precedents and relevant marketing metrics. MPdn
instills objectivity into and
streamlines the filmmaking process while creating
filmmakers who think and act
entrepreneurially. Movie-Producer.net's goal is to
facilitate a community of
educated, savvy and resourceful filmmakers who support
and share resources
beyond the technical production aspects, such as
marketing, distribution and
financing.




=====
www.JewelsFilmworks.com
--Jewels Filmworks is a collaboration of artists and filmmakers who enjoy working together and supporting one another through all stages of production. Partnership information available online.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Here's a massive essay I wrote to my friends debating over the Iraq war. It started as a short commentary and turned into this.

1. The hard connection.

The daily telegraph is reporting about documentary evidence on a direct connection between Atta and Saddam…this was published before his capture.

Clearly this article is not conclusive, since we’ve seen forged intelligence documents before. But it is also important to not conclude that all documents indicating an Iraq-9/11 connection are forged…

I think the most important thing to recognize in the “hard connection argument” is that it is inconclusive BOTH ways: we do not have proof that Saddam knew or was involved with 9/11, but that we also don’t have proof that Saddam was NOT involved or knew about 9/11. Perhaps with his capture, we will be able to find out.

Obviously, I do not think hazy-possible connections are reasons for going to war in Iraq. We all fundamentally believe that one is innocent before proven guilty, not the other way around. However, we are talking about the murky world of untrustworthy spies, international relations with rogue regimes, and war, and not a criminal trial in the United States. In this area “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not only rarely possible, but the consequences of inaction does not mean 10 guilty men go free before 1 innocent man goes to jail. It can mean thousands of innocent people murdered while we wait for conclusive evidence …see any case of inaction against genocide, any cases of not sufficient action against terrorists groups. The stakes are simply different.

But as I mentioned before, I do not think the hazy-possible connections were or are sufficient reasons for going to war in Iraq. The hard connection argument worked for getting rid of the Taliban and would have a lot of weight for deposing the Saudi Royal family and all the terrorist financiers under their protection.

Which brings me to the legitimate reasons for going into Iraq…

2. The soft connection

Clearly, terrorism is not as simple as a group of well-organized fanatics running around with bombs. Nor is it simply an international criminal organization. Al Queda is a product of conditions in the Middle East, poverty, religious fanaticism, hopelessness combined with the talents of an especially talented individual: Osama Bin Laden.

Bin Laden’s leadership, organization, and fund raising skills are astounding and some folks have credited him with being the single biggest factor behind driving the Soviets from Afghanistan…the Phil Jackson of guerrilla war and terrorism. One end of the war on terrorism battle is being fought against Bin Laden: in Afghanistan and by the CIA and FBI’s covert war

The other end of the battle is the fight against the aforementioned conditions in the Middle East: poverty, religious fanaticism, and hopelessness. Autocratic governments in the Middle East are the most direct cause of these conditions.

Clearly, the world dependence on oil since WWI has contributed to the West viewing the Middle East as strategically important…our main concern for the region was keeping the oil flowing consistently. This was not an inherently bad position…the lifeblood of the world economy is oil. A cut off of Middle East oil means dropping into worldwide recession...which is good for no one, particularly politicians of any stripe. (alternative energy sources and reduced consumption are the only long term solutions to this problem --another topic entirely).

In this sense, the West’s blind eye towards the people in the Middle East has contributed to the conditions that have been ½ of the equation that made Al Queda. (Ironically, the U.S. also has contributed to the other ½: supporting Osama and the Afghan mujehedeen against the Soviets…building up the idea of jihad as an inspirational tactic against the Red Army in order to serve the USSR with “its own Vietnam”)

The West bears some blame for autocratic governments in the Middle East, especially the British-American coup of a democratically elected PM in Iran in favor of the Shah in 1953.

Acknowledging the above does not change the fact that now, the number one reason the Middle East is in a condition where terrorism thrives, are the autocratic governments. Hussein in Iraq, Assad in Syria, and the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia have consistently lined their pockets with oil revenue for the past 25 years without any regard to the people of their country. A combination of greed (for money and power) combined with ineptitude led these autocrats to fuck over their own people. It has also inspired other autocrats on a lesser scale: Arafat in Palestine, Khadaffi in Libya and autocrats of different stripes: Ayatollahs in Iran, Musheref in Pakisan, and of course, the Taliban.

These autocrats have consistently supported different terrorist groups: Syria runs Hizbollah, Arafat runs Al Asqu Brigades, Khadaffi had his own terrorists hijacking airplanes in the 70s, the Taliban had Al Queda (although this was a unique relationship because it seems like Al Queda ran the Taliban, rather than the other way around). Al Queda successfully blackmailed the Royal Family. Hamas was a “start up” that eventually got financing by Hussein.

These organizations do not always see eye to eye. In fact, if left completely to themselves, without any outsiders to focus their hatred upon, (ie Israel, the West) I’m sure they would find a way to completely annihilate each other. See the Iran-Iraq war. Arafat vs. Hamas, Osama vs. Saddam, the first gulf war: Osama wanted to fight Saddam himself and not involve America. Saddam vs. Kuwait (and eventually Saudi Arabia).

However, the point of the “soft argument” is not that all of these guys are partners, because clearly they are not. They hate anyone who disagrees with them. What seems to occur amongst autocrats, are two things: one, their people are neglected and poor and hopeless and two, they encourage the rise of other autocrats. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that similar abuses of power, views on Israel, views on the West, use of particular tactics—specifically terrorism, all occur in the same region. Nor do I think these views are inherent or historically necessary.

The conditions of the people in the Middle East, ie ½ of the equation of the Al Queda strand of terrorism, can be directly tied to the type of governing structures that do not adequately supply the people with economic and political opportunities via arbitrary justice, unfair distribution of resources, etc.. Granted, we have supported those regimes in the past because we benefited from “stability.” But in post-9/11 world, those regimes present a greater threat to the West.

This summarizes the soft connection of Iraq to 9/11…Iraq, like all other countries in the Middle East with autocratic governments, contribute to the conditions that give rise to terrorism.

Why Iraq vs. The Others?

I don’t think this means we need to invade every autocratic country to “liberate” the people. Certain regimes seem bound for internal change, see Iran. In other regimes, the risk of invasion seems to outweigh the risk of staying put, see North Korea with their massive army and nuclear weapons. Other countries show some desire to interact with the international community, despite being autocratic, see Pakistan and Syria.

In Iraq, however, Hussein consistently showed no intention of cooperating with the international community, both before and after 9/11. The fact that he murdered nearly a million of his own people adds further fuel to the fire. The fact he had a history of trying to get his hands on weapons of mass destruction and continued to evade inspectors adds more fuel to the fire. The fact that he has a history of invading his neighbors adds even more fuel to the fire.

But there are also other good reasons for deposing Hussein and having a more West-friendly Iraq: 1) Iraq’s citizenry is the most highly educated in the Middle East and 2) Massive oil reserves. Because Iraq is the most highly educated country in the Middle East, it stands the best chance of transforming into a democracy and hence, West-friendly. Because there are massive amounts of oil reserves in Iraq, the war will not need to be completely funded by taxpayers…but will be partially paid for by oil revenue. In short, while reconstruction of Iraq was not adequately planned, the basic assumption from these realities is that Iraq would be easier to reconstruct than say, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

And while it’s obviously difficult to measure the “worst” of these regimes, but I think Hussein would be the leading contender.

OKAY, We Agree, but what about the UN?

The Bush administration was clear about one thing: they were going after Iraq. In essence, they said: no more games. Hussein has been successfully playing the West off each other for years: playing the “practical” Arab countries off of the idealist Westerners who wanted Hussein gone in 1991; using the Palestinian suicide bombers as a proxy fight against Israel; leading the weapons inspectors around in circles, not coming clean, kicking them out when he thought the UN didn’t have the balls to do anything about it; laying low when he thought he was in trouble, and then biding his time to make another move. It didn’t have a major impact on the West—a few innocent lives in Israel lost, hundreds of thousands of Kurds massacred. Horrible things, but no one was shouting to depose Hussein. No one. Not liberals, not conservatives, not the media, not the French, not the Russians, not even human rights groups, who simply logged the numbers. No one thought between 1991-2001 that any organization, the UN, and certainly not the US, should invade and depose Saddam. (I’m sure there were a few, but those who did, should be happy that he has now been caught-better late than never, right?) In 1998 Clinton developed plans to invade Iraq after he kicked out weapons inspectors, but again, this was based upon not complying with UN resolutions, not with the humanitarian reasons.
9/11 changed everything. People became scared shitless of terrorism and for good reason. The prospect of state-sponsored terrorism and hooking up with WMD became an immediate problem.

Bush took the position, and I think correctly, that the burden of proof now falls on Hussein’s shoulders. He needs to prove to us, by allowing in inspectors that he is following the cease-fire agreement of 1991. If he does not, we will find him in materiel breach and get rid of him. We aren’t going to chase him around for 10 more years, knowing the first time we turn our backs and get complacent, he’ll try to do something damaging. Furthermore, with Hussein gone, other autocratic governments in the Middle East have one less government with a mutual distaste for democracy. Now Syria finds itself surrounded by fairly liberal states: Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and a US occupied Iraq. The Iranian student movement grows, knowing the future of autocrats in the region is limited.

The French, Germans, and Russians took another position: give the inspectors more time. We have successfully contained Hussein in the past by chasing him around. In the absence of a direct 9/11 connection, or evidence of WMDs, we can’t justify getting rid of him.

The idea of waiting “two more months” was a tactic to maintain this position. In two more months, Saddam would not have fully opened his books. The French, Germans, and Russians would have said the same thing: In the absence of a direct 9/11 connection, or evidence of WMDs, we can’t justify getting rid of him.

There is no logical reason to think Saddam would have opened up the books to demonstrate he did not have WMDs with more inspections. As it was, he was faced with the US invading his country…if that wasn’t enough prospect to open his books, I don’t see how Hans Blix would have gotten him to do it, backed up with a UN peacekeeping force.

So we said, screw the UN, they’re making a mistake. We will establish a coalition of the willing and get rid of Saddam ourselves. If we wanted to get dark, we accused the French of being cozy with Saddam and benefiting from his existence…after all, they were the ones who were building his nuclear reactor in 1981 that Israel blew up. Or, we accuse the French of trying to wrestle against the hemegony of the US by crippling UN action and forcing the US to go at it alone. While the French may have a point that a unipolar world is problematic, I think they are extraordinarily misguided if they think US power is a greater threat to the world than international terrorism. (Dean himself acknowledged this position in 1998 with respect to foreign policy, he said, characteristically, that the US can always count on the French to oppose our position…this has been a foundation of French foreign policy since De Gaulle).

And so we go at it alone and anyone who wants to join can, by providing troops and money. If a country provides troops and money and support, they will be in the short term rewarded with contracts. Long term, they along with the rest of the world will benefit from a freer Iraq, trading oil and participating in the world economy. They will also have done the correct thing: liberating Iraq, not for altruistic reasons, but for selfish reasons, because a “free” Iraq means a lower likelihood of international terrorist acts against Western targets. Furthermore, Hussein won’t be killing any more Iraqi’s, Kuwaiti’s, Israeli’s, or anyone else he could get his hands on.

This is my current position. I think we should continue to try to muster international support for the war, and I think it is important to graciously ask for help in the right moment. I’m not sure if Bush is capable of doing this. He might be too spiteful.

It will take time to measure the success or failure of the US lead invasion…the bottom line will be in ten years time when either international terrorism has grown to new heights, or people in Iraq and the Middle East are making strides towards modernism with some semblance of political and economic freedom, rights for women, and schools training for jobs as opposed to religious fundamentalism.

You Sort of Addressed Motivations…But I Disagree with you about Bush’s…he did it so he could make his buddies rich.

Maybe. But so what?

Well, his motivations for going to war will be reflected in how he conducts the war, ie his actions.

Exactly. We can only judge his actions. So let’s talk specifics. Should he ban the French from participating in contracts? Or put differently, should he reneg on the position he put forth when assembling the coalition of the willing that stated: your take a risk with us, and we’ll reward that risk to the extent we can. (fuck the idealistic stance, we should do this together because Hussein is a bad guy. Not a single known politician has put forth that position…not anyone in France, not any democratic candidate, no one, so while I love the idea, the fact that no one has picked it up demonstrates how unappealing and unrealistic that position is…I can go into the ethical questions, but I think you get the point)

I think the proper understanding is that the French took their position and we disagree. If they change and show a willingness to prioritize change in the middle east vs. the conservative position to do nothing in the region, we will listen. That is not to say we don’t stop making gestures to the UN for help, but recognize the limitations of doing so.

Another article that I feel the tone, but don’t agree with all the points:


This weekend I talked about the problem with the anti-war position is that there is a desire for failure in Iraq to prove the point that war was wrong all along. The Vietnam stuff in here gets pretty strong…but the general points he’s making are legit. I also like Card, him and Phillip Dick are really the only sci-fi writers I’ve much enjoyed…although I’d probably like Sagan, I’ve just never read him.

Here’s an interview with Dennis Miller, which is too simplified, but again, correct in tone

All in all, there are two major and scary ironies I have found in foreign policy related to terrorism. One, the progressive position is the Republican position, while the conservative position is the Dean/Snowcroft/Gore/Clark position. For a progressive, the best criticism of Bush is one from the right: Why haven’t we gotten Osama? Why haven’t we been able to shut down terrorist financing? What are we going to do about Syria and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? These are the hard questions that Bush likes to deflect by talking about Iraq. Hussein is a lightweight compared to Osama and the fanatics in Pakistan. We still have a lot to be worried about. The fact that the $25 mill was offered for both Osama and Hussein is reflective of a mistaken prioritizing of bad guys. Osama is at least twice as problematic to the US as was Hussein.

In any case, the other irony is that Osama might actually defeat his enemy with our support. His grudge is not truly against the West—it’s really a civil war in Saudi Arabia pitting religious fanatics against the corrupt Royal family. He started out realizing the Royals had to go, they are corrupt despicable people. Instead of appealing to modern ideas of democracy, he looked around at his country and realized, they aren’t ready for democracy and won’t be for a very long time. Furthermore, democracy and freedom aren’t all that great—see what it’s done for the Arab world, they are the bottom rung of a worldwide economic system living in poverty and hopelessness. If this is globalization of democracy, fuck it! I’ll take something else. So he retreats to a cave and fundamentalism. He knows he can’t defeat the Royals while the US supports them. So what does he do? He hits the root cause of his people’s anguish, knowing he won’t win, but to stimulate a reaction. They do similar things in medical procedures. This is the basis of ultrasound treatment, sending in sound waves to torn muscles to expedite healing. The sound waves encourage the muscles to start healing faster than they ordinarily would. The direct cause of healing is more blood flowing to the muscles or something like that, but you hit the muscles, stimulate the blood, and cure the symptons – pain, inability to walk, weakness. In the Middle East, the symptoms are poverty, hopelessness, and corruption…the direct cause is the autocrats, the root cause a capitalistic system dependant on oil from a region ill prepared to modernize.

So Osama builds and plots. He’s fanatical, yes, but that’s just a role and a tactic. He sends airplanes instead of sound waves and hopes to stimulate a reaction…to cut off the US support of the Royal Family. In the long run, I think with regard to the Royals, our interests converge…the US (and I mean the people, not the Halliburtons or oil traders) will be better off without the Royals and so will the Saudis and Osama. But he’s gonna fight us until they, and any other manipulative capitalists taking advantage of the Middle East are gone. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening, and so it’s us or him.

It’s our decision to live with corruption and do our job to fix the system from within….because the sound waves Osama decided to use were cancerous…terrorism. So while talking about the intricacies of how and why we want to cure the torn hamstring (global capitalism) are relevant and important, they won’t be if we ignore the cancer…