Documentary, Animation and Film Culture – NFB.ca

On Thursday night, I was lucky enough to catch Guy Kawasaki giving the keynote address at Challenge Your World here in Montreal. The subject of his speech was innovation and entrepreneurship and much of it was geared towards startup tech companies. I got a lot out of the evening, and found I was able to relate a lot of what he said to what we’ve been up to here at the NFB, especially in regard to the use of social media and marketing.

So here I give you a very abbreviated version of his Top 10 tips for starting a new business:

1. Build what you want to use. This was a great way to start off the talk, as it immediately turned the whole notion of market research/focus groups and consumer demand on its head. As Guy pointed out, some of the things we use and value most in our daily lives were created by a couple of guys (or girls) who wanted to build something they would enjoy using themselves.

2. Pay 0 dollars for tools. Guy mentioned that when we look back on this recession, he truly believes it will have been one of the most lucrative times in history for entrepreneurs. With all the free resources available online, there is no reason to spend money on tools when starting up a new venture.

3. Pay 0 dollars for marketing. If you’re reading this blog, you probably already have a grasp on the power of social media when it comes to marketing a product or service. With Facebook, Twitter, blogs and other social media sites, it’s never been easier to get your message across… without the expensive fees that come with PR firms.

4. Suck down and across… but never up. It used to be that you had to have the support of an influencer or someone in a position of power in order to succeed. That’s no longer the case. It’s not a celebrity that’s  going to sell your product – it’s a nobody. According to Guy, “Nobodies are the new somebodies.”  Someone will come along, try out your product and tell other nobodies about it. Groundswell is the new buzz word, so get your product out as widely as possible.

5. Use Twitter as a marketing platform. There is no other tool out there that allows you to listen in on real time conversations like Twitter. You can search for anything under the sun and instantly see what people are saying about it. As Guy said, “The closest thing to Twitter is the CIA.” He’s also a big advocate of Tweetmeme, and I agree.

6. Pay 0 dollars for people. In this time of economic downturn, people come cheap. Take advantage of that, along with free interns, etc.

7. Put everything in the cloud. Okay, so this one is really geared towards computer-based and tech companies, but it was a valid point. With companies like Rackspace and Amazon Web Services, there’s no reason anymore to keep your own servers on your own racks. Pay for what you use, and let someone else take care of it for you.

8. Ship then test. Unless of course you’re in life sciences… But Guy’s point here is that you don’t wait until your product is perfect before unleashing it on the world. Get your product out there and get it in people’s hands. You can always make improvements later.

9. Avoid Venture Capital. This one was a little odd coming from a Venture Capitalist, but he did make a good point. Given all of the above, VC’s are expecting companies to come to them that are a little more mature. He compares VC to a drug – that it feels great to have, but you shouldn’t depend on it. Bootstrap your fledgling business, and use VC to scale a proven one.

10. Niche thyself. Ideally, you will come up with an idea that is unique and has value. If you can find a niche for yourself in business that meets those two standards, you’re golden.

Tweet This Post 

The Label Free Zone is a new web project funded by the NFB that gives a voice to people who have been labeled with intellectual disabilities. I recently talked to Josée Boulanger, project manager, who told me a little bit about the site.

***

Julie Matlin: How did the Label Free Zone come about?

Josée Boulanger: It started in connection with the Freedom Tour documentary, a film about intellectually disabled people’s experiences living in institutions versus living in communities. For this project, I was working with People First, an organization/movement for those labelled with an intellectual disability.

During the filming of this project, so many people wanted to share their stories and it was obvious they couldn’t all be part of the documentary. That’s when the idea to build a website came up. The NFB was interested, so we took the time, developed the idea and wrote a proposal.

I then worked with a committee across Canada to get guidance in developing the website. The name, Label Free Zone, comes from the notion of labeling jars, not people.  The saying is very common to the whole disability rights movement.

JM: How are the videos for the site created?

JB: We collected content for the website while we were on the Freedom Tour, as it was our first opportunity to collect stories from institution survivors. We then visited 5 provinces: the Yukon, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia.

We visited People First chapters and spent 6 days with the participants in each province. We would sit around a table, go through photographs (which we asked the participants to bring ), and talk about their work, self-advocacy, their childhoods, etc. Then we came up with their short video stories.

Each person then had one day to shoot their story in whichever location they chose. Once edited, we consulted with the filmmaker to make sure the film reflected what they wanted to depict. It was important to ensure that they felt proud of their video story.

JM: Why did you create this site? Who is it intended for?

JB: The site is geared towards people within the community so that they can get a sense of solidarity and the sense that they’re part of a larger picture. But it’s also for family members, support workers and those working directly with this community.

People who have been “labeled” experience feelings of frustration and isolation – they are perceived as so different that they feel they’re not wanted anywhere. People in Canada are still very much marginalized and live segregated lives. Even those who live as part of the community are taking adapted transportation, going to day programs specified for them. There is very little contact between this community and the rest of society. We’re hoping the label free zone can help bridge that gap.

All of the stories on the site centre around issues like privacy, personal freedom, control and choice – these are issues that are common to everyone.

JM: How are the videos being rolled out?

JB: There are now over 10 videos online, with more being added over the course of the next year. Our idea is to release 1 new video per month, along with a specific question for people to think about and discuss. You can share your opinions and thoughts about each video, using either text or video comments.

There’s also a Speak section, in which people can discuss specific topics. For example, at the moment the topic is Institutions, and we’re encouraging people to share their thoughts, either by written or video comments, on that subject.

***

Check out the Label Free Zone at http://lfz.nfb.ca and let us know what you think.

Tweet This Post 

The following is the text of a public address given by government film commissioner Tom Perlmutter to the RIDM conference in Montreal on November 17, 2009

It may seem self-serving at worst and naïve at best for the head of a public cultural agency to pose the question of today’s debate. It is neither. It stems from my ongoing attempts to understand on what basis I can act. What are the valid arguments which both justify the continued existence of a National Film Board and which would guide its direction? When I have looked for guidance in the cultural sector I found none. What I saw was a sector that had, to all extents and purposes, abandoned debate and reflection in favour of a circling of the wagons. Their case for culture tended to be reactive and nearly always about the defence of funding of cultural activities.

Perhaps not a surprise in a sector that always has a sense of being under attack or underappreciated (regardless of the government) and with more than a little touchiness about its value: we have, it seems, a necessity to prove that we belong in the real world of grown-ups doing the real work of making money. In the process we have abdicated any serious discourse about the nature of culture and the public space. We’ve accepted the terms of reference of the so-called “real” world without ever challenging them. The defensive posture, the argument of the economic benefits of cultural activity, may be necessary as a tactical move, but if that is all there is, if it displaces the more fundamental questioning of the premises on which we build a foundation for the public realm and within it cultural activity than we have done ourselves grievous harm.

Not the least of the harm is in the narrowing of our spheres of thought. We do not pose questions that may render us uncomfortable because that kind of questioning is seen as undermining our case for the financial support of culture. For example, we repeatedly argue that culture is important because that is how we understand ourselves as a country. To me this is a cliché, one of those motherhood ideas that need to be rigorously questioned. How does it actually do so? What mechanisms are at work that distinguishes the impact of a Canadian work on our audiences from non-Canadian particularly when we note how overwhelming other cultural influences are? And so on. Yet, it is exactly that kind of questioning that is deemed taboo within the cultural sector because it would be seen to be granting aid and comfort to our perceived enemies.

Instead of debate, we take positions and we do so as collectivities. We tend to assert on behalf of a particular group representing artists, directors, producers, and so on. Again, an approach that may be useful tactically but, if that is all there is, it stifles the ability to think in a free and probing way. Innumerable times, I have had people say to me, “I can say this to you privately, but I couldn’t say it publicly.” That’s the nub of the problem. In a subsidized world with limited means of funding you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you. You keep quiet. Self censorship is rampant in our industry.

The debate around these kinds of issues is not new. Culture, national identity and the role of the artist were hot points in a debate that roiled mid to late 18th century Europe. A vigorous correspondence criss-crossed Europe and involved such luminaries as Kant, Herder, Hume, Boyle and Goethe. Artists, scientists, writers, philosophers. What is striking is the breadth and depth of the exchanges. What is distinctive about our age is how culture has become impoverished. It is no longer part of a broad intellectual current. It is limited to what we find in the culture pages of the newspaper and whom we privilege as artists.

This is not an attack on artists; it is an attack of how we have debased the issues of cultural engagement. If, as a sector, we have come under attack it is partly because of that narrowing in which we have willingly collaborated not least for self-interest. We have made an implicit Faustian contract. We have limited the scope of who participates (artists however we wish to define them) and in what they participate. In return we seek financial support. It is why all the discourse around support for the arts inevitably comes to a question of money. And everything else we say about the importance of culture is little more than window dressing repeating a series of unquestioned and banal clichés. It is our trahison des clercs.

If I cited the comparison with the 18th century it is also for two other reasons. It was in those extensive cross-fertilizing exchanges that the modern notion of the public realm was born, that which is so under attack and eroded today. Secondly, it was a period of rapid social and technological change brought about by the relentless momentum of the industrial revolution.

We are going through a not dissimilar moment now. The digital revolution is as profound as the industrial one and the shifting social terrain is as radical.

That is why it is urgent to rethink the world and in particular the nature of the public realm and the role of culture within it. This is a long term project; and we are not used to acting for the long term. But I think it essential. I think it essential to set our horizons in years and decades and not simply today and tomorrow. It’s time to start now. I hope this moment can be one small start. I would like to thank Marie Anne Raulet, Philippe Baylaucq and RIDM for joining me in the launching of this adventure. And I would like to thank our panellists who have accepted to join the fray—a process whose outcome we cannot define.

What do you think? Do We Need Public Cultural Organizations?

Tweet This Post 

A bunch of NFB and NFB co-produced sites were nominated for Canadian New Media Awards last week.

NFB.ca, the NFB Online Screening Room – Best Online Video Portal
Waterlife (waterlife.nfb.ca) – Best Cross-Platform Project

Congratulations also to our co-producers Eyesteel Film (Rip: Remix Manifesto, Best Social Media) and Kung-Fu Numerique (Who We Are, Best Online Video Portal).

Check out the full list of nominees here.

Tweet This Post 

I am absolutely thrilled to announce that Tying Your Own Shoes has won the Golden Dove – the grand prize for short documentary film at the Leipzig Festival! Hooray!!!!!

I am still in shock but wanted to share the happy news!

Congratulations and many thanks to all whose beautiful work made the film possible: Carrie, Luigi, Fred, Salim, Michael, David, and of course Ninah, Katherine, Matthew,Petra, their wonderful families, and the whole NFB Mediatheque crew!

Tweet This Post