By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

WOMEN IN FILM FOUNDATION OPENS APPLICATIONS FOR 2013 FILM FINISHING FUND GRANTS

Posted Wednesday, March 6th, 2013 - Comments Off on WOMEN IN FILM FOUNDATION OPENS APPLICATIONS FOR 2013 FILM FINISHING FUND GRANTS
Be Sociable, Share!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Past Grant Winners like Cynthia Wade and Freida  Mock have gone on to win Academy® Awards

Los Angeles, CA, March 5. Applications are now being accepted for the Women In Film Foundation’s 2013 Film Finishing Fund grants, it was announced today by FFF Committee Co-Chairs Betsy Pollock and Nancy Rae Stone.  The application period continues until April 29, 2013, and the winners will be announced in October, 2013.

Since its inception 28 years ago, the Fund has awarded more than $2 million worth of grants to over 170 films from all over the world.

Women In Film will grant to each winning project up to $15,000 in cash, in-kind and consultation grants. To qualify for entry, submitted projects must be by, for or about women.  Filmmakers must have completed at least 90% of principal photography, and have a rough cut at the time of application.  The program funds both short and long formats in all genres: narrative, documentary, educational, animated and experimental.  Entrants do not have to be Women In Film members to apply for a grant, and WIF encourages international applications. Detailed criteria for each category and a download of the application can be obtained at wif.org

The WIF Foundation is enormously proud of the Film Finishing Fund’s track record.  Selected films that subsequently went on to win major awards, distribution and network deals, include:

  • Cynthia Wade’s Freeheld, the 2008 Academy® Award-winner for Best Documentary Short Subject
  • Freida Mock’s Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision, the 1994 Academy® Award-winner for Best Documentary
  • Esther Robinson’s A Walk Into The Sea: Danny Williams and the Warhol Factory, 2007 Teddy Award Winner at the Berlin Film Festival
  • Maryam Keshavarz’s Circumstance, the 2011 Sundance Audience Award winner

In celebration of the Fund’s 28th year, and for each of the 8 weeks of the Grant Cycle, Women In Film is publishing an 8-part interview series with notable Film Finishing Fund recipients called “The Grant Is Only The Beginning”.   A list of the filmmakers being interviewed is available at www.wif.org

The 2013 Women In Film Foundation Film Finishing Fund Committee:

Co-Chairs:

Betsy Pollock, Associate Dean of Production,American Film Institute Conservatory

Nancy Rae Stone, producer

Members:

Randy Auerback

Lisa Gewirtz

Ellen Olivier

Chevonne O’Shaunessey

Marion Rosenberg

Paula Silver

Cathleen Summers

Diana Tauder

About Women In Film:

Women In Film, Los Angeles (WIF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping women achieve their highest potential within the global entertainment, communication and media industries and to preserving the legacy of women within those industries. Founded in 1973, WIF and its Women In Film Foundation provide for members an extensive network of contacts, educational programs, scholarships, film finishing funds and grants, access to employment opportunities, mentorships and numerous practical services in support of this mission. In the independent film world, the organization focuses on assisting female independent filmmakers who have exhibited advanced and innovative skills, specifically through its Film Finishing Fund and award-winning PSA program. www.wif.org

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Movie City News, Press Releases | Comments Off on WOMEN IN FILM FOUNDATION OPENS APPLICATIONS FOR 2013 FILM FINISHING FUND GRANTS

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon