SCAMMERAMA
Good old allmediascotland.com, thanks for alerting us to the latest scam from WarpX.
What’s she on about now, you wonder?
Whenever I go to see a film these days, which can be anything from the latest Hollywood schlockbuster to the standard British no budget dud, I’m amazed at the number of producer credits. These come in many stripes, e.g.
Producer – the guy who puts their house up for the movie and does all the work
Line Producer – the guy who hires their mates then pays the rest of the crew in Whoppers
Executive Producer – the guy who gets paid more than he chipped in and does no work.
Co-executive Producer - ditto
Associate Producer – who the hell knows?
I first noticed this trend years ago, on the credits for American TV shows, you know, the ones with names like Randy Fischfinger or Amy Dwong, that last through to the advert break? Credit where credit’s due, you’d suppose – at least you’re watching something they spent money on.
By comparison, the UK equivalent’s a bit pathetic because it looks like anybody who read the script gets a producer handle. Usually this means some eejit from the BBC or Channel 4, plus any number of payrolled public servants whose egos get the better of them where a screen credit’s concerned.
Which brings me back to WarpX.
As far as I know, Warp, a record company with lots of pals called Chris, managed to con the Film Council out of a pile of cash for a low budget film scheme a while back. They put out a call to hungry filmmakers asking for submissions that were a) genre, b) contemporary and c) set in the UK. The more sceptical among us already knew the films were a done deal with their mates, so didn’t bother to apply. And what did they commission? A period drama set in France. Good one, guys. Public money well spent and I don’t think.
But here’s the thing. Not content with kidding us on about a level playing field, WarpX has decided to jump on the horror bandwagon. On a premise flimsier than my knickers, they’ve hooked up with another dodgy outfit, Threshold Studios, whose one-page website looks like it was cooked up last night, to promote a scheme for female directors to make horror films. The reason? Because according to them, more women watch horror films than men, so it’s really sensible that women should be making them. It’s on a par with women making porn films, like they’ll bring some unique sensitivity to the genre, when all you want is a bit of horny titillation before the money shot. And it's vaguely insulting to women.
Before all you girlies rush to apply, a word of warning, because if you read the blurb it looks to me like WarpX and Threshold are a wee bit confused about what a director does. They say you don’t need to have a writer on board, but they still want not one, but three ideas for films from any budding director. Huh? Also troubling is the idea that through a ‘process of residential workshops, ‘specialised’ script editing and a lot of public fund-raiding fannying about, only two of the ideas will go ahead and if you’re lucky, in three years time you might finally get to make a crappy no-budget horror movie. Assuming the gravy train keeps on rolling for WarpX and Threshold, whose site promises they’ll be ‘broadcasting soon’. Broadcasting? Is that not another word for telly fodder? Of course it is – why else has Skillset got its grubby little moniker on it?
Where film and TV is concerned, here we have the biggest lie of recent times. It’s bad enough when a cheapo film boasts ten producers, but to have ten companies involved in so-called training when it’s unlikely that a film will come out the other end just shows how much of a mug’s game this ‘opportunity’ is.
What do aspiring female directors expect to get out of this scam? A couple of weekends in a crappy Ibis hotel in Sheffield, funded by taxpayers and Lottery money. If you're really lucky you’ll also get a weasly contract that steals your rights, pays you eff all and keeps the folks at WarpX and Threshold in salaries fatter than Jade Goody’s arse.
Quelle horreur…
8 Comments:
you still rule.
Love your blog.
But ... Warp managing to 'con' the money for a film fund?
Maybe they got the money because they had just made critically and commercially successful British film for less than a million quid?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419677/
Thanks for that.
I'm a bit dubious about the whole Warp X thing. To advertise a scheme for contemporary genre films set in the UK only to make a French period drama sounds to me like either they're hiring their mates or dissing every submission they got by moving the goal posts.
Warp's not the only outfit who's made a successful cheapie. Maybe the FC money had more to do with the deal they cut with Qwerty Films and Michael Kuhn...
Lx.
Take that point about the French costume thing. It was a bit odd, although they are following up with a film about allotments. Set in Liverpool. I dunno about you but that makes me very, very excited.
According to Warp themselves the reason why they got the money was because Dead Man's Shoes was turned over in a few months, with development almost non-existent. So the business model is lean, mean, quick, all that Mike Figgis stuff.
The big concern for me is that what worked for Shane Meadows will not necessarily work for everyone ...
Thanks for that. I love the idea of a movie about allotments too. As long as it doesn't involve fertilizing cabbages with corpses...
Interesting point about the lean, mean, quick business model. For about six years now a lot of production companies have tried (and mostly failed) to set up low-budget film arms, based around the idea of shooting on digital. I think the Figgis thing's been overrated and Timecode was a long time ago now. Like Shane Meadows, he was already well established before jumping on the DV/HD bandwagon. Same as the whole InDigEnt thing in the US a while back, where quoted talent made movies for next-to-nothing as a stop gap in their highly paid gigs.
For any aspiring but untried filmmaker trying to break through, nothing's changed. I notice Warp are also developing a project with Lynne Ramsay, who you'd think after two highly acclaimed features would have her pick of projects. The message seems to be - if you've already got track record, you're in, but if we've never heard of you then why should we back you? Same old, same old...
I got to backtrack on that allotments thing ... apparently that is Warp, not Warp X. As in ... it cost over a mill to make.
I guess that the business model is quite irrelevant to your argument though ... as for the accessibility thing, their slate isn't full yet. They have a couple of spaces left for projects that are interesting, and apparently they are open to ideas posted via the website. I say apparently ... whether or not anything comes from that is a moot point.
Ah stuff it. I need to declare my interest in this. I pitched to them last week. I don't have a credit to my name and it's the first time I met them so whether or not anything comes from this is, I guess, a bit of a test case.
Good luck with your pitch. I hope they treat you with some respect and not keep you hanging around for an answer, like they've done with a few people I know who put in submissions. What was meant to be a six week selection process turned out to be four months. Call me a cynic but how long does it take to read a two page outline? If they're disorganised at the pitch stage, you can't help but wonder what's going to happen if they ever get round to producing anything.
Thanks for that ...
I would say it depends on the two pager. If it were written in a font size below, say, 10, then it would take me about a week :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home