Too perfect

Well, I'm back in Denmark where I am born and lived the first half of my life (given I will live up until around 70). Here is a small snippet of conversation from the train platform of the airport, that I picked up:

Her: Great, the train is here 17.04
Him: Yes.
Her: How long for us to get to the central station?
Him: Hmm, I'm not sure, but I think we can catch the 17.25 from the central to Roskilde
Her: Then call your mother and tell her we will be in Roskilde 17.54

My greek friends wouldn't believe this. They would find it laughable, admirable or just plain weird, but they would have a really hard time believing it. The small conversation reflects some things about the DK.
1. The use of precise time measurements show a deep trust in the train systems ability to operate on time.
2. There are people who know the train schedule by heart.
3. They are going to announce to the mother the exact minute of their arrival. Every minute counts. Time must be precious.

This thing reminded me a little of why I'm certainly not moving back to the DK ever. I live very badly with this design of a country to attain operational perfection. It just doesn't sit well with my private psych system. I do like an amount of chaos and unpredictability. Denmark is just too perfect for me.

Disclaimer: Don't use the train times specified above, as they are quoted from my memory and almost certainly wrong. Read more!

Creating drama

My workshop continues. This time I began by talking principles again. How principles comes before the forms. And never to trust any rules or models or such stuff as the golden standard, but only use such as the simple tools they are - and then know your principles of Drama. Yes, I say drama and I don't mean the same as in the video store, where everything serious and with emotions as centerpiece is filed under that definition. Drama is the definition
for the whole mega-genre, as opposed to the mega-genres of poetry, music, dance and epos (the novel&short-story). And the founding principle of drama is simply that drama deals with conflicts. This is the raison d'etre of the genre. Yes, all the other mega-genres also has some elements of conflict and deal with them. But for drama this is our main issue - and this is so because in our form we have characters acting in the here and now - which is the recipe for conflicts. The novel in comparison has the basic form (writing) where thoughts and reflections can be presented in its natural form (without necessarily being boring) and this gives us, the audience, a perspective outside the here and now. But in our genre, Drama, we deal in the moment, of what is happening right now in front of us. This is our main strength and this is why in film scripts or theatre plays using flashbacks can be very tricky - because the moment you loose the moment you loose the audience. After talking about the very basic principle for our genre I introduced the 4 act structure I mainly use, but I kept stressing that this is just one of many forms. One that I find useful, but one that I by no means swear to as the only one. I told the workshop participants that its useful to get acquainted with as many models as possible, to better understand that none of them is the only one, and to be able to pick and mix depending upon your needs for a specific project.
Then it was time to talk about the participants own projects. And this part of the workshop I can't really refer to in any level of detail, because what is being discussed is confidential and stays between me and the participants. But each participant tells the rest of us about their project, what's its about, where they are, what problems they experience and then I try and deal with it, give the best questions and suggestions I can come up with - and also very important are the questions from the other participants - as a part of the workshop experience is to become better at working in a group dynamic. Read more!

The forge is glowing hot

And tonight it began. My workshop on scriptwriting. And - wow - it's good to be doing this again. It is for me the perfect combo of teaching, telling anecdotes, sharing stories (both fictional and personal) and a solid basis of hands on problem solving. Basically I'm trying to put all the elements inside that has been most beneficial in my own development as a writer - both in form and in material.
Teaching: For me teaching and learning should come in high intensity. It should be highly distilled insights into what make things work, how and why. I'm not a fan of lengthy discourse with a lot of theory and reference and so on. Let me get to core of things - both when I'm a student and a teacher. So I'm trying to get to the point and not talk about it for hours.
Anecdotes: because they can tell you so much about the real world. They are small condensed stories that convey moments of experience. And as a form they are great to digress into from the more abstract kind of teaching. They tell you not only about how to do things, but how to do things in the real world. Or: "what can happen to you in the industry and how to deal or how you shouldn't deal with it". Some of my best anecdotes are about times I have fucked up.
Sharing stories: Because this the fundamental passion if you are a writer. In the workshop you have a immediate outlet for that passion. Tell your stories and hear some stories. And I like to throw in the occasional personal story because I believe we have to remain anchored in the personal. To draw upon it - and being honest and direct about it, not hiding it - even for those script that are not evidently personal.
Hands-on: Yes, I'm a great believer in learning by doing. So much time in school was wasted on just listening, being a good student, while all the real lessons were picked up by actually doing things, writing stuff that had to be produced - and often failing but taking your lesson. So in the workshop the core activity is getting the stories on the table and regard them as projects destined for production. What are the problems, how to go about solving them and then back home and come with solutions for the next session of the workshop.
So right now I can't wait until next wednesday night and another session of the workshop. I always get curious about the participants and their stories. How will things develop. Lets see. I'm tuned in. Read more!

Is this the time to free Tibet?

It seems like the run with Olympic torch, is going to be a gauntlet run for the Chinese government. The scenario could well see pressure building along the route, as the torch passes through the capitals of the world. This is maybe the right symbolic event in which to apply decisive pressure for real changes to Chinese politics. The most obvious case that the international society has, is the case of Tibet. Obvious because Tibet can not be claimed as a solely internal affair for China. They are evidently suppressing a non-chinese people. They have clearly occupied a foreign country, which now yearn to become free and democratic. There is an international famous and respected leader of the Tibetan movement.

The populations of all democratic countries should now call out to their leaders for action. We want our governments to boycott the Chinese rulers and their use of the Olympics as propaganda and make-up for their suppressing regime. We should demand of China that they roll back their occupation of Tibet, allow Dalai Lama and other political refugees to return, free all Tibetan political prisoners and invite the UN to govern the transitional period until a Tibetan democracy can be established. This should be our demands for participating in the Chinese Olympics. No less.


The Tibetan liberation could be an symbolic event that opens the way for the Chinese people to realize that they can also become free. That the Chinese rulers are not so all-powerful and that there is hope.

The french president has already announced that he demands that the Chinese government begins talks with the Dalai Lama and that they free political prisoners. This is a good first step, and he should be encouraged to take further steps. As reported here by Danish newspaper Politiken.

Now the torch is approaching London and its time for the Brits to step up to the plate and show their character. What do they value? Freedom in Tibet or good financial relations with China? The leader of the Liberal Democrats has called on PM Brown to abandon plans to greet the torch. That would only be the first symbolic step. As reported here in The Guardian.

Americans should ask their presidential candidates, what they think of the matter. Here is an obvious possibility of using diplomacy to help a suppressed people. The liberation would come much cheaper for USA than their current liberation of the Iragi people.

Be sure that most of our democratic governments will not be quick to take this action. They need to be pressured by us, the population. The main forum for building this pressure is obviously the net. Please join me in this effort. Link to others writing about it. Write your own comments and articles. Do what ever you can find time for to build this pressure.. Read more!

From the Highway - Casting

Friday was a double script meeting day. That's a little hardcore for me because I spend a lot of energy in a meeting. Each of them runs 2-4 hours. And I'm totally invested at every moment. Last meeting was with Yorgos Siougas about the "Mountain"-project. We had a good start. Some obvious chemistry and shared references. I'm curious to see where it leads. The first meeting was with Giannaris and we concluded the character-phase, where we have been going over all the characters again, this time making sure that they all reflect our basic conflict and theme. Looking at how they mirror our main character. The work has produced a lot of great details and small corrections/clarifications. And has been fun, too. Our next phase is to go scene by scene from the top. We will check each scene for a) the sharpness of the characters' objectives b) connection to central conflict/theme c) montage-value.
By montage-value I refer to the value you accumulate in the way you set the scenes up against each, the connections of relevance you make when you cut from one scene to the next. In this respect we are trying to establish some basic montage rules for the film. We are still debating them. Guess it will be our first subject for the next meeting. And then we are trying to seriously discuss potential actors, especially for the two main parts, Jason and Kate. After this cycle of improvements the script should be ready to convince top-tier actors of the projects attractiveness. And we really need to find 1 or 2 names to carry the film into the international market. Maybe you have some casting ideas? The two characters are:
Jason is his early 40s, a man with a strong body, a face that tells you of experience after 20 years sailing all over the world on the oil-tankers his adoptive family owns. He is a captain and 'a good man'. Giannaris sees Jason as a mediterranean type (dark hair, dark skin - some passion under a civilized exterior).
Kate is his wife, just a little younger than him, she is a grounded woman, who has known loss and difficulties without losing her faith in life. She can at times be cynical, but her objective is always aimed directly at enhancing life. She is trained as a medical doctor, she has good instincts and a quick mind. Guts. Physically Giannaris sees her as a more north european type.
Suggestions and comments are more than welcome. Oh, and the title is now not going to be Welcome Aboard. New title suggestion is Overboard. See the new poll. Read more!

10 Reasons for the Danish Film Miracle OR How Europe Can Beat Hollywood

During the 90s Danish film underwent a small revolution. From being a small nation that occasionally would get a film into the international market, as well as seeing it run away with the box office at national cinemas, the Danish film industry now has record setting statistics in all areas. Of all European countries Danish films does the best in their national market, often beating the more glamorous American productions at the box office. Every year several Danish films sell well in the international market. Almost every year there is a serious contender for the foreign film Oscar nomination. And all this in a very small country (5 mio+ population). It really shouldn't be possible. Its a case of the bumblebee that shouldn't be able to fly. Here is a look at some of the reason and circumstances that have made it possible.

1. Script is the foundation
By the late 80s or early 90s it became clear to both producers and the National Danish Film Institute that the script is the all-imporant foundation for a good movie. This should be self-evident, but in many countries the script is the weakest link. And also so in Denmark before early 90s. And not just realizing it, but acting upon it, the early 90s saw the establishment of two new national educations for writing - the script line at the National film school and the National Playwright Education (which also dedicate periods of its 3 years to film, TV and radio scripts), as well as a dramatic increase in the Film Institutes support for development of scripts. The institute changed its strategy on scripts - from selecting a few that they would eventually also support the production for - to supporting the development of too many scripts. The wisdom being that you have to get too many scripts to choose the best. This also meant more professional scriptwriters, as even the ones who didn't make it into production got paid (to some extent) for their hard work. It also became the standard that the consultants at the institute (who are the ones that single-handlely choose which scripts and film to support) would act as proper consultants, giving advice and know-how support to projects in development. Meanwhile the production companies also got the idea and began to develop more scripts.

2. Actors are real stars
The 90s also saw a new generation of actors entering the screens and stages. This was a generation who played more 'natural', meaning they would speak lines more organic and less artificially - but most of all they understood to reflect modern society in their acting. They became stars in a new way. They didn't become Hollywood glamour stars, but real stars, in the sense of remaining to be real people that the audiences could relate to in a more real way. The producers of both films and theatre understood to take advantage of this new generation, and make them stars - and thereby help to attract audiences.

3. Education is vital
Denmark has had a good National Film School since the 60s, but by the 90s it became upgraded with the new scriptline, and this also lead to the students learning to work in the all-important triangle of director-producer-writer. The scriptline excelled at teaching the students to work with 'the natural story', the concept of its scriptwriting-guru Mogens Rukow, who insisted on using natural stories - the family party, the dinner, the business meeting - whatever social structure who already has it's own fundamental natural story as a framework for all situations in a script - or even as the basic framework for a whole movie (like his own small masterpiece - Festen (The Celebration) which uses the celebration of big family birthday as its framework). The other areas of the Film School managed to attract the best Danish and international talent as teachers, as well as setting very high standards for the admittance of new students. In the same period Denmark also saw the opening of other schools around the country, which would teach film making at a lower lever, the entry level. They became the standard road to eventually being admitted to the National School.

4. Teamwork over auteur
Denmark has always been torn between the continental idea of the inspired genius and the auteur versus the anglo-saxon idea of solid work creates success. The anglo-saxon idea incorporates the concept that art can be taught, while obviously a genius can't be taught, but is something almost god-given. In the 90s there was a shift towards the Anglo-Saxon view, that manifested itself in a belief in teamwork - the institute stressed the need of a collaboration between the trio of producer-director-writer, and it more or less became a requisite for financial support. The production companies were quick to adapt to it, as well as most directors and writers. It became about teamwork - and this also went hand-in-hand with the new generation of actors, who were not prima-donnas, but mainly relied a lot on teamwork, playing with the other actors.

5. Companies help out new talent
A tradition already existed in Denmark for established companies to give a helping hand to young talents no-budget productions big lending or renting out equipment for free or at a very low cost. This tradition became all the more important as the 90s saw a steady growth in the amount of young people seeking a life in film-making. By staying in touch with the new talent the companies were able to both stimulate them and harvest the best of them. The Lars von Trier company, Zentropa, is especially famous for this, as well for employing a huge number of volunteers, often working 1-2 years without pay for the company. At the same time Zentropa and other companies were often quick to take a chance on new talent.

6. Critical mass
In the 70s and 80s most directors would go years between making a feature film. This is not good for developing your art and skills. During the 90s the Film institute and the companies managed to increase the number of yearly productions dramatically, due to their success - as they made more money and also managed to pressure the politicians into increasing the budget for the Film institute - to support the Danish Film Miracle. And it is necessary in the small country to have a substantial state support to carry the burden of risk, as a small country can't have major studios big money that allows for risk taking. Also the critical mass applies to the number of production companies, which increased throughout the 90s, both in numbers and in the number of 'continually producing companies'. The critical mass also has an impact on the audiences as they get used to going to the cinema to see a Danish film, they come to expect it, even to expect that a new Danish film has always just opened its run.

7. Mainstream and art
The famous division between art and mainstream is not so divisive in Denmark. Many films which could be considered art house material are just about mainstream enough to do well in box office. Also the institute support both types of films, as the philosophy is that the two oft-estranged cousins of cinema actually help each other out. Its all one big pot - if the companies make money on mainstream they are better situated to take a chance on art.

8. Dogma
There's no way around mentioning the event of Dogma-films. The stunt played a major role in re-inventing Danish cinema. It brought everything down to earth, back to basic, and maybe most importantly it made it possible to produce more films, as they were quite cheap, because the rules of the Dogma-manifesto decreed the absence of all the superfluous, expensive stuff like effects, lighting and so on. It became all about the story and the actors. The fundamentals. The general lesson here is to focus for a while on some core values of filmmaking that can inspire and propel forward a new generation of filmmakers.

9. Film, TV and theatre are connected.
In Denmark there is not a great division between the three, which means a lot of the same talent, especially actors, work in all three fields, but also to a great degree this goes for some directors and writers. This means several things. The talent are able to earn a living, because they have more options. They are more well-rounded in skills. And they can bring the experience in one field to enhance the others.

10. Lars von Trier
As with Dogma, its impossible not to mention Lars von Trier as a major influence for the blossoming of Danish Film. By his personal example, by his Dogma-initiative and by the activities of his hugely successful renegade company, Zentropa, led by famous pretend-maverick Peter Ålbæk (always sporting a big cigar) he has brought inspiration and helped open doors for other Danish filmmakers. No matter how you rate his films, there is no discussion that he has made a huge impact on the Danish film industry and his fellow filmmakers. And unlike Sweden, were Bergmann was a huge national symbol that almost blocked out anybody else (not intentionally of course) Lars von Triers personal success seems more generous for others, more like a catalyst, than an unreachable standard.

There are of course other reasons and circumstances. But these are the 10 most important in my opinion. Some of these are easily copied by other (small) nations, who wish to stimulate their film industry. And they should do so - because the smaller countries of Europe and around the world need to step up and challenge the hegemony of Hollywood. Smaller countries can't beat Hollywood at it's own game. The country and the film studios are just too big. The money too big. We can't compete with that. This is why they most look at different strategies. There should be a healthy competition. And USA and Hollywood became big by rigging the playing field in the post WW2 situation, where USA took its payment for the famous Marshall-help by forcing European countries to embrace the american industry. Pre-WW2 European films were dominant in europe. This all changed after the Marshall-plan had helped the war-torn countries back on their feet by force-feeding the American products. Read more!