If you want to build a multinational media empire
that, you know, partners with HBO and takes on
the heaviest political topics of the century,
the absolute last place you would probably start
is a single room office in Cold War era Berlin.
Right. I mean, it sounds like the setup for a
spy novel, not a film company. Exactly. Yet that
is exactly the anomaly we are looking at today.
Welcome to the deep dive. We have a really fascinating
exercise in information extraction lined up for
you today. Yeah, it really is an exercise in
Well, in reverse engineering, honestly, taking
this tiny, almost invisible digital footprint
and trying to figure out the mechanics of the
absolute giant that left it behind. Because our
source material today is highly unusual. We are
not analyzing a massive 100 -page white paper.
Right, no dense historical biographies. No, we
were looking at a single, incredibly brief Wikipedia
article. Specifically, it's what Wikipedia calls
a stub. So a short, incomplete page. A very incomplete
page. Just bare -bones facts. Exactly. And the
subject is a film production company called Velvet
Film. Our mission today is to show you how reading
between the lines of this sparse encyclopedia
entry can uncover the massive four -decade blueprint
of an international artistic powerhouse. And
it really is a powerhouse, as we'll see. It is.
OK, let's unpack this because the very first
paragraph of this text throws a massive geographic
and cultural curveball right at us. Oh, totally.
Right. So the facts laid out are these. Velvet
Film was created in 1986 in Berlin. Germany originally
listed as Velvet Film GmbH by Raoul Peck. And
the text explicitly describes Peck as a Haitian
filmmaker and political activist. Right. And
the company's first listed film, released a year
later in 1987, is called Haitian Corner. What's
fascinating here is the sheer density of the
contradiction in that opening sentence alone.
I mean, if we just pause and look at the intersection
of identities and geography, it's staggering.
It really is. We have a Haitian political activist.
And where does he establish his film production
company? In Berlin. In 1986. But wait, I have
to challenge this right out of the gate. Because
he's a Haitian activist telling Haitian stories.
Right. Why set up shop in Cold War Berlin? I
mean, that's like planting a tropical seed in
a European greenhouse. It seems completely counterintuitive
if your goal is to reach your own people or,
you know, tell stories about your own culture.
It does seem that way on the surface. Right.
So is it highly unusual for a filmmaker to start
a production company so far from their cultural
roots, or does the text suggest this was a strategic
move for survival and distribution? Oh, it's
absolutely the latter. The strategic value comes
down to the stark realities of survival, really.
and infrastructure. Okay, how so? Well, when
a historical text labels someone a political
activist, especially one operating in the global
landscape of the 1980s, it heavily implies that
their home environment might be deeply hostile
to their work. Or even dangerous, yeah. Exactly.
Dangerous to their physical safety. Activist
art requires a safe harbor to even exist. So
by setting up in Germany and specifically utilizing
the GmbH corporate structure, which the text
makes a point to mention, Peck wasn't just doing
administrative paperwork. He wasn't just filing
taxes. Right. He was building a legal fortress.
A legal fortress. I like that. Setting up a GmbH
in Berlin is almost like setting up a political
embassy. That's a great way to put it. Because
it gives you diplomatic immunity of sorts, legal
standing, and a stable currency to operate from,
even if your actual focus is a conflict zone
thousands of miles away. That is precisely the
mechanism at play. Because the GmbH is essentially
the German equivalent of a limited liability
company, an LLC. OK, right. It means the company
is a separate legal entity from the founder.
So if a controversial film project faces financial
ruin or, you know, legal challenges, the activist
doesn't lose their personal livelihood. Exactly.
They don't lose their house over a movie. And
in the 1980s, Europe had the resources, the robust
legal frameworks and the public funding mechanisms
to actually get an independent film made, which
you need. I mean activism itself doesn't pay
for crew members and lighting equipment. It doesn't.
If you are an activist trying to produce a film
like Haitian Corner in 1987, you need physical
resources. You need 35 millimeter cameras, expensive
film stock, editing bays and distribution networks.
Stuff you might not be able to just casually
get in a hostile environment. Right. So Velvet
Film from day one was a necessary corporate vessel.
It was built to ensure a Haitian story could
actually be produced, financed and legally protected
on the global stage. That makes so much sense.
It establishes the company. DNA as inherently
cross -cultural and deeply displaced. And that
displacement is clearly a functional tool. Yes.
Because you don't get described in a brief encyclopedia
entry as a political activist unless that activism
is the defining engine of your work. No, you
don't. And that is the perpetual struggle of
the independent political filmmaker, right? How
do you fund resistance art without compromising
the resistance itself? Yeah, without selling
out. Exactly. And the text gives us the answer
by tracking the company's evolution. It shows
us how Velvet Film used this European legal structure
to systematically build industry leverage. Okay,
so if Berlin provided the legal and financial
fortress for survival, they still needed a battering
ram to break into the global market. Right. A
breakthrough. And looking at the timeline provided
in the stub, that breakthrough clearly happens
a few years later with a project called Lumumba,
l 'amour d 'un prophète. But I want to point
out a subtle discrepancy in the source regarding
this film. Oh, the dates. Yeah, the dates. The
main paragraph says it was a 1991 release. But
if you look down at the bulleted filmography
list right below it, the year is listed as 1990.
Yeah, I saw that. And that glitch is actually
a beautiful hallmark of the independent film
timeline. It tells us a lot about the mechanics
of how independent cinema actually enters the
market. How does a discrepancy explain the market,
though? Like, does it mean the Wikipedia editors
just made a typo, or does it reflect the actual
rollout strategy of the film? It almost certainly
reflects the rollout strategy. Really? Yeah,
because in the machinery of independent cinema,
a film might be finished and premiered at a small
niche film festival in 1990. OK. That is its
technical birthdate. But it often doesn't secure
a wider public or theatrical release until the
following year. Oh, because it takes time to
build buzz. Exactly. It has to spend months building
up critical momentum, finding regional distributors,
and physically printing reels Right, this is
pre -digital. Yes, physical film reels. So that
discrepancy tells you you're looking at a film
that had to fight its way into the broader cultural
consciousness over a long period. It wasn't just
dropped into thousands of global theaters on
a Friday night with a massive marketing budget.
No, not at all. It had to earn its audience.
And it clearly won that fight because the text
explicitly states this film was successfully
shown all over Europe and North America. A massive
win. Here's where it gets really interesting.
Because that success wasn't just about box office
numbers or critical acclaim. No, it opened doors.
Huge doors. The text states this success enabled
Velvet Film to partner in future productions
with JBA production in France, RT, which operates
across France and Germany, and HBO in the USA.
That is a massive institutional leap. Going from
an independent GMBH in Berlin fighting for festival
distribution to partnering with RT and HBO, that
completely changes the scale of what is possible
for a filmmaker. But again, I have to look at
the tension here. I mean, it's like an indie
punk band getting signed to a major global label,
but insisting on keeping their own garage studio.
Huh. Yeah, that's exactly what it's like. Arte
is a major European cultural network backed by
public broadcasting funds. And HBO is an American
premium cable giant known for massive commercial
reach. Huge reach. So if Velvet Film is fundamentally
an activist organization telling marginalized
stories, how do they navigate that partnership?
Doesn't taking HBO's money inherently contradict
the label of activist filmmaker? That's the big
question. Because usually, when a massive media
conglomerate controls the purse strings, the
activism gets watered down into generic entertainment.
Right. That is the classic trap for independent
artists. You get a breakout hit, a major studio
offers you funding for your next project, and
in exchange, they take ownership of your intellectual
property and dictate your final cut. They sanitize
it. Exactly. But if we look closely at the source
text, it tells us exactly how Velvet Film avoids
that trap, and it's hidden in plain sight in
a single sentence. Which one? It says, all later
documentaries, feature films, and TV dramas of
Peck have been produced or co -produced by Velvetfilm.
Produced or co -produced. That phrasing is doing
a lot of heavy lifting. It really is. Because
it implies they never handed over the keys to
the intellectual property. Exactly. The mechanism
of a co -production deal is the absolute holy
grail for an independent artist. Right. When
a text says a company co -produced every subsequent
project, it means they aren't just taking a check
from HBO and signing away the script. They're
staying in the driver's seat. Yes. A co -production
legally ensures that Velvet Film maintains a
percentage of ownership, back -end equity, and,
most importantly, crucial creative control over
the final product. Wow. So they used the critical
transatlantic success of Lumumba not to sell
out, but to buy a permanent seat at the table.
That's it, exactly. They used corporate money
to fund activist art, maintaining their independence
by insisting their name stayed on the contract.
It is a brilliant corporate strategy. It's incredibly
smart. They proved they could deliver a product
that played across Europe and North America and
then use that leverage to force giants like HBO
and Art -P to co -production models rather than
outright acquisitions. And securing both European
public funds through art and American commercial
funds through HBO gives an independent company
incredible financial agility. They aren't reliant
on a single domestic market. If funding dries
up in one country, they have a pipeline in another.
And we can actually track the results of that
financial agility by looking at how the company
physically evolved over the decades. Yeah, the
footprint grows. The text notes that Velvet Film,
which started in Germany, is now based in France,
Haiti and the United States of America. It evolved
from a displaced Berlin office into a borderless
enterprise. Which is a logistical necessity if
you are going to maintain long -term co -production
relationships with American and French networks.
You can't just do that over the phone. No, you
have to have a physical footprint in those legal
and financial jurisdictions to manage the contracts,
the tax incentives, and the local labor unions
required to make international films. Well, let's
look at how that physical expansion maps onto
the the timeline of their films. Because this
filmography list is incredibly heavy. It spans
from 1987 all the way to an upcoming project
slated for 2025. Almost 40 years. Yeah. And you
start with titles that are intimately focused
on Haitian narratives and existential struggles.
Yeah. You have The Man by the Shore in 1993,
Do Sunin, Dialogue with Death in 1994. Right.
Those early titles suggest a deep ongoing commitment
to the cultural roots of the founder. They never
abandoned the original mission established with
Haitian Corner. No, they definitely didn't. But
interspersed with those localized stories are
titles that suggest massive, unyielding political
and historical themes. Yes, the scope really
shifts. Right. We have Profit and Nothing But
in 2001. We have Moloch Tropical in 2009. And
then as we get into the late 2010s, the scope
seems to explode globally. It really does. We
see I Am Not Your Negro in 2016, The Young Karl
Marx in 2017. exterminate all the brutes in 2021,
Silver Dollar Road in 2023, and slate it for
2025. Orwell, two plus two of five. This raises
an important question about the mechanics of
filmmaking at this scale. When we look at that
evolution, we go from a localized focus to synthesizing
some of the largest, most complex sociopolitical
commentaries of The modern era. Yeah, Marx and
Orwell are not small topics. No. Taking on the
philosophies of Karl Marx, the warnings of George
Orwell, or the entire history of global colonialism
in Exterminate All the Brutes. And I should say
here, you know, we aren't taking any sides or
endorsing the specific viewpoints of these films,
of course. Absolutely. We're just looking at
the facts presented in the source. Exactly. But
as impartial analysts, we have to recognize the
sheer thematic weight and the global ambition
required to even attempt subjects of this magnitude.
Oh, 100 percent. This isn't just weekend entertainment.
It's a structural critique of global history.
It reads like a syllabus for understanding global
power dynamics over the last two centuries. Yes.
But looking at this nearly 40 year lifespan and
looking at this filmography as the sort of curriculum
of global history, I wonder about the causality
of this growth. What do you mean? Well, does
the physical expansion of the company into France
and the U .S. drive these broader, more global
film topics? Or did the massive ambition of the
films themselves force the company to expand
physically just to get them made? That is a fascinating
paradox, and I think the answer is a synthesis
of both. It comes back to the functional mechanics
of how you make a sprawling historical documentary
or a sweeping political drama. Right, the logistics.
Exactly. To make a film about... Karl Marx or
George Orwell, you need massive archival access.
You need researchers operating in multiple languages,
international funding sources, and global distribution
networks. You can't do that from a tiny room
in Berlin. You simply cannot execute a project
like exterminate all the brutes from a single
small office. You need to be operating in France
and the United States to access those institutional
archives, secure the rights to historical footage,
and manage the massive budgets required. So the
ambition of the art demanded a larger multinational
corporate footprint. Yes. But inversely, once
you are operating simultaneously in Port -au
-Prince, Paris, and New York, your daily corporate
reality is steeped in global geopolitical dialogues.
Oh, that makes sense. You are constantly translating
ideas, both literally and figuratively, across
borders. So your lens naturally widens. The company's
multinational footprint fueled its ability to
synthesize global history. And its global ambition
necessitated that massive. It's a feedback loop.
When you think about the stamina required to
keep an independent company running from 1986
to 2025, nearly 40 years in an industry known
for bankrupting creators. Oh, it's brutal. It
is staggering. Most indie production companies
make one or two films run out of capital and
dissolve. Yep. They vanish. The fact that Velvet
Film is still producing heavily researched, complex
work like Orwell... 2 plus 2 equals 5 decades
later speaks to the durability of that original
GMBH structure they set up in Berlin. It really
speaks to a deeply disciplined approach to the
business of art. They didn't just scale up blindly
and lose their identity. They built a structure
that allowed them to toggle between intensely
personal cultural narratives and sweeping global
critiques, all while keeping their name on the
co -production line to ensure their voice was
never diluted by their corporate partners. So
what does this all mean? We started with a tiny
Wikipedia stub that takes maybe 30 seconds to
read. A couple of sparse sentences about a German
company founded by a Haitian activist, a glitchy
release date for a 1990 movie, a short list of
corporate partners, and a bulleted list of film
titles spanning four decades. Just bullet points,
really. And yet, when you... pull those threads
and look at the functional mechanisms connecting
them, you uncover a 40 -year blueprint of a fiercely
independent, borderless filmmaking enterprise.
It really is incredible. Velvet Film figured
out how to use the European legal system for
shelter, use early critical success on the festival
circuit to leverage American and European capital,
and use a co -production model to retain absolute
creative control. It shows that the data is always
there if you are willing to look at the relationships
between the facts rather than just reading the
facts themselves. Exactly. The timeline alone
tells a story of survival, leverage and global
expansion. It really reinforces a core belief
of mine. Knowledge is most valuable when you
connect the dots and multiple perspectives fundamentally
enrich our understanding. Absolutely. Velvet
Films ability to stand in Haiti, France, Germany
and the USA gave them a vantage point on history
that a purely domestic company simply could never
achieve. Their geographic displacement didn't
hinder them. It defined their artistic legacy
and allowed them to synthesize global events
from multiple angles simultaneously. Which brings
me to one final deeply ironic thought for you
to mull over. If you scroll to the very bottom
of this Wikipedia page, there's a little automated
box. Oh, yeah. And it reads, this article about
a film production company or film distributor
is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing
information. the ultimate irony of the Internet.
Wikipedia literally flags this as incomplete,
barely a footnote. And it leaves you with this
question. If an international company that partnered
with HBO spanned four countries, retained its
financial independence and produced heavily researched,
world spanning films about Orwell and Karl Marx
over the course of 40 years is just considered
a stub online. Just a few lines of text. Right.
What other massive, world shaping cultural forces
are hiding in plain sight on the Internet right
now? just waiting for you to dig deeper and expand
their story. Thanks for joining us on this deep
dive.