OPEN-MINDED ENERGY
An Interview with Paul Pauwels
June 2009
By Željko Mirković, Optimistic Film
Željko Mirković:
You graduated from the Belgium Film Academy HRITCS (Hoger Instituut voor Toneel en Cultuurspreidingstechnieken) in production and directing. When you enrolled in the Academy, what did you know about film production?
Paul Pauwels:
Very little. It was a four-year training, and from the third year onward I spent more time on film sets than in the classroom. In those days that was perfectly possible, because the whole training process was meant to create one trick ponies: you made a choice about the direction in which you wanted your professional life to move, and you stuck to that. Because I had chosen film I ended up in a very traditional world with very little surprises. It might sound incredible for younger readers (and it also tells a lot about how old I am) but video hardly mattered then – actually it only started to be developed. So, the things I needed to know I picked them up the hard way making long and badly paid working days on Flemish film sets.
It was great fun, but in a way I regret it now. As you know I’ve known many career moves in my professional time, and certainly when things got serious I just felt a lack of theoretical knowledge and academic training. I’ve been lucky that I was always an early adapter and jumped on a new train when it was just gathering speed; I was always allowed to learn on the job. Today that would not be possible anymore. If I count the amount of costly mistakes I have been allowed to make when discovering the tricks of the trade of feature film production and advertising, while changing my situation from being employed to becoming and independent worker, when I launched myself in international documentary production and finally got involved in media management affairs… I know there must be an angel sitting on my shoulder. But nevertheless, If I were young today I would invest first in a top-level all-round media training. The way careers are being made today differs quite a lot from the way we functioned 30 years ago. Today one has to be versatile and flexible, able to function well in a wide variety of jobs and ready to perform at top efficiency from the very start. Doing that without a decent media training seems impossible to me.
ŽM:
Why did you choose to work in documentary film?
PP:
As so often in my life it was more or less a coincidence. I have been working in feature film for 10 years, and I got fed up with that artificial world. I’ve had some very nice times there, but in the end I was loosing out on the real things of life. I found it to be a very empty world with too many people who were convinced that the axis of the world went right through their ass. But maybe I’m mistaken and I just wasn’t fit for that world. The change occurred when I created my own production company, with the intention to produce commercials and corporate films. The reason why I did this had to do with the Flemish broadcasting market that was opened for commercial television after decades of monopolistic public broadcasting. In those days our public broadcasting system was really bad. Also it was a closed world. As I told you before, the RITCS created one trick ponies: either you became an “artist” and tried your luck in the feature film production or you became a civil servant and started working for the public broadcaster. That was literally a grey block of concrete in which you entered at 25 and 40 years later they carried you out, ready to be pensioned. Of course there were exceptions, but in general it was like this. So I saw a business opportunity and started my own company. This was my first encounter with the commercial world. Until than I had been working in a protected environment (all feature films were subsidized and once you were in the system you more or less stayed on the payroll…) and suddenly I had to compete. This was the first time that I experienced that I had a lack of business education. The school had in no way prepared me for the life of an independent, and this has cost me dearly. Not only did I had to launch a company, but I also had to do a lot of self-study to keep it viable and to keep up with (new) fast-changing technology. It was very hard.
The reason why I left the world of commercials was that it was also a world that didn’t please me. Although I have to be grateful to many people who supported me and my company by allowing us to work for them, it was never a place where I felt at home. I suppose that those who know me will understand why I didn’t fit into this world of glitter, hard money and – a bit too often to my taste – dishonesty.
I needed to produce commercials and corporate films to keep my company alive, but I was looking for something else, something to make my life worth while.
And once again I was lucky; now that the market was open for non-public television there was a need for factual programmes. Even the public broadcaster now was looking for external filmmakers to help them to refresh their programme schedule. Until then documentary had been exclusively produced in-house. It was even impossible to get subsidies for a documentary by the Flemish Film Commission; they acted as if it didn’t exist. Now all this changed: the broadcasters were looking for external content (although the commercials quite soon changed their taste to the horrible reality shows) and money could be found to produce the kind of documentaries I liked. I also discovered a world of nice people who cared about their subjects and about the quality of their work and suddenly I had the feeling that with my limited knowledge and “talents” I could help more talented people make their dream come true and contribute to a world in which democracy and solidarity counted. Later I discovered that the documentary world is not uniquely populated with nice people, but luckily it took a while before I ran into the first disappointment. By then I had gained a reputation and was well underway as a documentary producer. At the start it was a purely BENELUX affair (actually only Belgium and the Netherlands) but certainly with the launch of EDN it became an international game and I became seriously hooked at it.
ŽM:
How did you start with producing? What did you think it would be like?
PP:
I had no clue. In my opinion it had a lot to do with “practical” matters, with organization and making sure that all went smoothly on the set, and of course paying the invoices. But very soon I found out that the real work of a producer has to be done before the actual shooting. The game of raising money frightened me at the beginning. I was so used to work in an environment where films were made with subsidy money that I was convinced that it would be like this everywhere. I was soon to discover that in an open market the competition is fierce and money is expensive. But quite quickly I got the knack and started liking to chase funds. I had never given much thought about how powerful a producer is. Choosing the right subject, pitching it and developing it; picking the right director and team: being responsible for the organization of the shoot and the postproduction and – very important – deliver the promised goods to the financiers... it’s quite a handful. But the combination of all these tasks is great. Being a producer is one of the best jobs one can get. I also discovered the importance of the human relations, both inside and outside the company. If you’re not good in dealing with people, stay out of production. It’s not going to work. Never had I thought that a large part of my time would be spend at meeting tables, on the phone and behind a computer, writing endless letters and files. Once again, nobody had prepared me for that.
ŽM:
In the end, the finished film is offered in the international market, travels to various market events, etc. How did it work?
PP:
Because I started in the golden days, my first films were more or less fully financed by the broadcasters and with some subsidies. I had no clue that there was an international market out there and that some persons might be looking for films like mine. It was only when I made a film on Budapest and a foreign broadcasters showed interest, that it dawned on me that I might sell this kind of product abroad. Nobody had ever explained me how the festival market was organised, and certainly not how trade fairs like MIPTV or MIPCOM functioned. In my opinion festivals were places where people went to have fun and drink, and markets were not open for beginners like me. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
When I finally started going to the festivals and markets it was a horrible experience. I felt lonesome, badly prepared (which was true) and I had the impression I was loosing time and money (which was also true). I should blush now, but it has taken me about three years before I got the hang of it and attending markets started to make some sense. It took me this long to find out who the people where who mattered, and who were the nitwits I’d better avoid. Everything that had to do with marketing, I had to learn myself. Whereas today I’m convinced that marketing is the most important aspect of the commercial life of a media product. I don’t think that during my training at HRITCS the word was even mentioned. So to make it brief… my initial introduction to the market was not a success. I spent a lot of time and money and got little in return. But what I did get in return: contacts. And those have proven to be very valuable in the later stages of my professional life.
The markets were also very different from the ones we know today. I don’t mean in the way they are organized - not a lot has changed there - but the participants have changed. In the eighties and early nineties, most of the people attending where working for (public) broadcasters and huge distributors. Very few smaller companies would attend. This has certainly changed for the better. With the support of the Media 2007 Plan and professional organizations like EDN the independents have become a major player in the field, which is a good thing. These associations also train people and explain how the system works, so I suppose that younger producers will get results out of the markets in a far better way then I did.
ŽM:
How did you find the right recipe to succeed as an international producer?
PP:
Here I can be very brief. Trial and error. Thank you for saying that I was a “good” international producer – I leave that appreciation up to you - but I certainly was a busy one. Basically once one has developed a system that works, one can rely on that system for the next films. But if there’s one element that is really important it’s once again the address book and the list of contacts. Now, that having been said: this list doesn’t mean a thing if one can’t offer something good to the people in the address book and if the relations aren’t honest and based on mutual appreciation. Certainly for documentaries I dare to say that it’s a small world and that the human relations are at the center of everything. But here also the situation is changing. The media world is becoming a lot less “personal” and the business element is becoming much more important. When talking to potential partners one needs to have a lot of aces up one’s sleeve and knowledge of business administration and the essentials of economics is becoming a plus. Also technology is becoming increasingly important. We might grin because everybody is talking about 360° commissioning, but it has become a reality, and not in documentary alone. If I look at myself now and at the person I (think) I was 20 years ago, I see that I’ve developed very much. I’ve become much more business minded in my decision-taking process and I also manage to deal with a larger range of lines of business then when I started. If I had not done so, I would not have made it (professionally) through the last five years.
ŽM:
Then you started to work as a tutor at documentary forums. What was your main suggestion to young directors and what did you learn about European documentary film at these forums?
PP:
That’s a difficult one. It was so different each time. In most cases I did not have to do a lot, because the participants had done a great work preparing the files. I tried to tell them about the mistakes I had made, pointing out where they were risking to make the same mistake. The basic element of my work was sharing: sharing information, sharing enthusiasm, sharing contacts. Technically speaking, my main question would always be: where’s the story? Sometimes I saw a presentation about a very promising situation, but I didn’t see a story developing. If that was the case I would try to help the participants find the story. If we didn’t manage to find one, I would tell them to stop the project. Without a story there never is a documentary. All the rest was basically technical advice that is commonly known by now. No need to repeat them here.
What did I learn from these forums, apart from the fact that there is an awful lot of talent in Europe? I think I was most impressed by the determination of most of the participants. They would crash through a wall to get their films made. I really admired that attitude. Very often I felt a bit embarrassed because I understood how much easier it was for me to get results, than it was for them. It has helped me during difficult times when I wanted to give up a project that didn’t get up to speed. Just comparing my situation with theirs encouraged me again. I had the feeling I would let them down if I would give up. I also admired their willingness to listen and learn: in most cases the people I worked with were very open minded and open for criticism. They also were very forgiving when my criticism was wrong and they were proven right. I can’t remember one situation where I ran into trouble because of this. This makes me very hopeful for the future.
ŽM:
Why did you start working as a commissioning editor and manager in charge of international co-production?
PP:
Quite frankly, in 2004 – when I took that decision - I was exhausted. I had just finished a very hard-to-produce documentary ( that left some serious scars on my soul ) and before that I had finished another one that had kept me busy and worried for more than four years. I was not getting any younger and the many workshops I was allowed to do obliged me to travel a lot. But I was torn between two lovers. I loved the game of international production and the contacts it brought and I loved even more the tutoring and moderating. But doing both of them became quite a burden, and even a danger for my company. So when VRT invited me to come and work for them, with the purpose of creating a cell for international production and collaboration I thought I was dreaming. This job would allow me to combine the best of both worlds. And even when it wasn’t easy to give up my company after practically 20 years of independent production I decided to accept the offer.
ŽM:
Why is it important in your opinion to have international documentary co-production and broadcasters?
PP:
Media in general and certainly documentary offer a window to the world, and are therefore a cornerstone of democracy and solidarity. If this element of the media gets lost, we’re in trouble. Our world is becoming a global village; nobody can deny that. Personally I’m much in favour of this globalization, even if there are some elements in it that we should handle differently. But a village can only be a thriving society if all the inhabitants understand and respect each other. Therefore an exchange of information is of the highest importance. It would be nice if there would exist a form of objective information, but alas there’s not such a thing. Every form of information is biased and should be treated and consumed with care. The best way to get balanced information is to get it from different sources. What better way to do that than through co-productions and exchange? I am convinced that if I would come to Belgrade to make a documentary on a certain subject, and you would shoot the same subject you would show a completely different point of view; both our films would be very different in content. And still I’m convinced we would both have tried to make an honest film. Well, let’s show both of them and let the viewer draw his own conclusions. This is just one way of looking at it. Co-productions and international production allows more people to deal with the same subject in a different way, which I consider to be a good thing.
In my opinion it is so incredibly important to know what goes on in the hearts and souls of the peoples surrounding us. We should all be interested in what’s happening around the corner. Otherwise the village will soon change into a conglomerate of ever-fighting streets. Turning our attention upon ourselves and only being interested in what happens within our eyesight (which is happening in many places ) is the beginning of the end.
All to often we are convinced that we’re the best, the most beautiful, the wisest and whatever. Getting to know other people and countries and understand their worries and problems is essential for the process of understanding our own condition of life and seeing it in the right perspective. So my most important argument for co-productions is a social and political one. I really believe they contribute to a more open and tolerant world. I could talk about the practical and financial circumstances that make co-productions a necessity, but once again I believe that most people will know about these.
ŽM:
What did you learn about broadcasters from your job?
PP:
First of all I learned that hard work and talent is not always enough to be successful. Secondly that it’s very hard – coming from a life of independence – to fit within a huge and heavy system where thousands of people have to work for a common goal. Certainly, because within huge organizations the goal often changes very quickly. I also learned that there were an awful lot of things I didn’t know enough about. Once again it showed that my initial training had not been very good. In a large organization – at least at management level – there are many elements one has to deal with and one has to understand them to be able to bring them to a good end. There is no room for improvisation. Timing, budgeting, programming, legal and regulatory affairs, human resources management, strategic thinking, controlling, media operations and the daily running of a broadcaster, audience ratings, sales and advertising, marketing… and so much more. And it all has to be done in a coordinated way or things will go awry very quickly. Another element, but I can’t say too much about that, are the internal relations between colleagues. Coming from the documentary world in which when all boils down most people have the same ambitions and goals, this situation is not necessarily to be found in large media corporations.
I also noticed that I was not the only one who had problems dealing with these different elements that influence the value chain of a media product. Many colleagues were struggling with the same difficulties. And it was not only within my place of work that I heard these complaints. Whenever I met foreign colleagues, it became clear that there was a general problem that had to do with media management. All of us were given generous amounts of time to attend in-house training and even specialized sessions were organized to deal with specific problems, but in the end nothing really changed.
If all this sounds very negative, I should make haste to add that I also discovered that media management is a fascinating world that offers lots of opportunities for personal development and satisfaction. But one cannot reach this stage without the right preparation.
ŽM:
Why did you choose to move on and establish etma?
PP:
Let’s stay discrete about the reasons of my departure, because they have to do with personal relations and as I said before: no information is objective. Since the other parties cannot defend themselves here we should leave it at that.
When I left VRT, quite frankly I was planning to start producing again, even if it scared me. I saw how in two years the world of international media had continued to change, and not in a way that pleased me. Did I really want to become an active part of it again? I was in doubt.
At that moment I was informed, by a very good friend, that in Alsace, France, some people had started working on the creation of a media management school. Those people were looking for a project manager to develop the initiative. I got in touch with them and had the project explained to me. I recognized immediately that they were dealing with the problems that I had recognized in the media environment during my time as a programme manager and immediately I was convinced that this was a chance of a lifetime. Some very serious development had been done before the idea for the school was launched and it was crystal clear that the school would respond to a real need. If this training institute would exist there would come an instrument available that would be of huge benefit to the European media world. How could I turn down the offer to take charge of the school? It allows me to stay close to the media world (of which I’m still very fond) and combine this with my love for tutoring and teaching. That angel must still be sitting on my shoulder.
ŽM:
What can etma offer young professionals?
PP:
Etma offers an excellent training in media management matters that will allow people to move faster and more successful in the development of their careers. They learn the tricks of the trade, not only to become more productive in their companies but also to get more personal satisfaction out of the work they’re doing. In my opinion that is very important.
They will be prepared for the fast-changing world of media and will have received the tools to deal with constant innovation and change, which in today’s media world is of the utmost importance. And let’s not forget the networking opportunities. The etma participants become member of a rather select group that tomorrow (or at least very soon) will occupy high positions in the European media world. They will be in a position where they have the right tools and knowledge to take the right decisions, to inspire the people they’re working with and together with them obtain great results, to actually change the course of things and to play a significant role in the success of the European media. What more could one ask for?
ŽM:
What makes etma different from other European academies?
PP:
Apart from the director of the school, you mean? If I have to pick one element it would be our international and European vocation. We want to make this a really European school with a lot of nationalities in the group of students, but also in the teaching corps. Our alumni will be able to work in whatever country and understand the needs of that specific region. They will be prepared to work in border-crossing operations and do that well. These personal contacts are so enormously important. Each day the students can learn from each other and use this information in their daily work, and profit from it. They get a treasure chest that every day becomes a bit more filled.
And if I’m allowed one more element, I would mention our democratic way of working. Even if the tuition fee is quite high we’re constantly looking for scholarships that would allow potential participants from less endowed regions to come and study at etma. It’s hard and that battle isn’t won yet, but making this happen is high on my priority list.
And now that you ask, we also work a lot on ethics and morals. This might sound frightening, but in my opinion it’s an essential element of our education. The externality value of media (= their potential influence on the political, social and cultural life of a society) is something every dedicated media person should constantly consider. We offer the ideas and the instruments to allow our participants to do that in a very profound way.
ŽM:
What is etma's main role in the European market?
PP:
We’re bringing together people from different nationalities and cultures and we’re constantly exchange good practices. We also bring together companies and trade associations from different nationalities and platforms, who often even have different objectives and goals. Together I think we’ll develop a common langue of good media management that will contribute a lot to the success of all and to the European media market as a whole.
And also, etma is a kind of a safe haven where delicate subjects can be put on the table and can be analysed in an academic way, but with sufficient professional input. By doing so we should become a kind of an international think thank that will offer guidance to managers in many countries. Turning etma into a touchstone of good media management practices is one of my main objectives.
ŽM:
To what extent is etma involved with documentary films?
PP:
Well, it’s not our main focus. Of course I and some of the participants know a lot of the lines of business that together lead to the creation of a documentary and we do mention those in the programme, but as such it’s not our main focus. Don’t forget that we don’t concentrate on television alone, but that we work on all forms of content creation and delivery. That means that automatically we talk about alternative ways of financing, producing and distributing documentaries, but the same goes for formats, fiction, news, entertainment, sport …
ŽM:
How do you see the future of documentary film?
PP:
Reality is always stronger than fiction, certainly when filmed and edited by professionals. Documentary will never disappear. There will come good times, there will come bad times, but it will always survive. I suppose that you’re question really means: how do you see the future of creative documentaries? Well, there I’m also optimistic about the fact that they will always be there and will warm many hearts, but I’m less optimistic about their production circumstances. I fear that the percentage of creative documentaries on traditional tv-screens will quickly diminish and certainly they will be banned from prime-time. But… another big but… thanks to the new platforms (VOD, IP-TV …) there will be other forms of financing, production and distribution available. There is a niche audience for them that can be served through alternative channels and believe me, the commercial world (who often has to come up with the money to produce them) will be very interested in this audience. Apologies if this sounds too much business-like, but that’s the reality that will keep people like you in the business. On the other hand it is the responsibility of commissioning editors to keep fighting to keep documentaries on the traditional main channels too. So I see a lot of fighting and hardship, but I’m certainly not pessimistic: there are so many creative and talented people around that they will always find ways to surprise and seduce audiences, and they are the blood and the force of documentaries.
ŽM:
How can small companies survive in creative documentary production?
PP:
I think their salvation is to be found in the new ways of financing, producing and distribution, but I do have my doubts about the business plan behind them. I fear that we will see a lot of cheap user generated content that is innovative and challenging but that in the end will not lead to a viable company. In my opinions we’ll see a lot of acquisitions and take-over’s, and film makers will have to diversify. They will have to be prepared to work on less creative subjects to be able to finance and finish the more difficult ones. I predict that many small production companies will disappear soon or be pushed into the corner of expensive hobbyists. I’m aware this sounds harsh, but I mean it.
ŽM:
This job requires a lot of travelling and time. What is your recipe for the family life of people in this business?
PP:
If I had that remedy I’d put on my sandals and walk the world to preach it. There is no remedy, I fear. Being honest in what one does is an important element in keeping good human relations with those close to you, and accepting that this wonderful work we can do is in many cases only possible because of those who work in the background and who put up with our traveling and constant worrying. Knowing that and showing your gratitude is of the essence. Humility. We don’t do what we do because we’re so god-damned good at it, but because we’re surrounded by people who – often unnoticed – create the circumstances that allow us to do so and be good at what we do.
Also being aware of the fact that it’s not the quantity of time spent together that counts but the quality of it is also an important element. Easier said then done, believe me. Very often, the fact whether time is quality time or not, lies entirely in your hands. Put the same amount of energy in making that happen as you do in your job and you’re on the right way. I dare to say this, because my job keeps me away of my family for 80% of my time, and still I’m enjoying a nice marriage.
This being said there are people amongst us who are of the opinion that their work and the message they want to spread is the purpose of their life and they’re ready to sacrifice all for that – sometimes even their life – and we have to respect that. But thank god I’m not married to one of those.
I can only speak for my personal situation, but the fact that after 30 years of working in the film and tv business I’m still a happily married man, a proud father of a great daughter and an even more proud grandfather, has a lot to do that many times I’ve been forgiven for very stupid things I did, for wrong choices I made and for very bad behaviour. So in fact I have no credit to it, it all goes to the people who never gave up on me.
Paul Pauwels worked as a production manager and unit manager in feature film production until 1987 when he founded Periscope Productions. In 2005 he left Pericope Productions NV to become programme manager at VRT/CANVAS. In 2006, he founded a new company, Perception. Currently serves as director of etma - European Television & Media Management Academy. He has been active as a tutor and expert for several organizations and training programmes, including Documentary Campus, Greenhouse or Ex Oriente Film. Chairperson of the European Documentary Network (EDN); member of the General Assembly of the new Flemish Film Fund (VAF).
Željko Mirković is a Serbian documentary filmmaker and co-founder of the production company Optimistic Film. His latest film The 21st Second has received numerous awards at international festivals. For more information, please click here.
Related articles:
PROFESSIONAL DOCUMENTARY HELPER: INTERVIEW WITH TUE STEEN MÜLLER