Independent Film
Student vs Filmmaker
05/28/10 02:22 AM
Reading through Cassavetes on Cassavetes and thought this was interesting...
There's a distinct line between being a student and being a filmmaker that I don't understand and I don't see. I know that every filmmaker that I know personally, from Don Siegel to anybody - to anybody! - is still beset by the same problems on every single film, including how to overcome the commercial aspects of the film. And as you get older you make more complicated films. When you're young you make very simple films, and they're probably better. But as you get older those complications make you sell out much easier. Not your age, or you standing, or your money, or anything else, but the fact that you really don't have any ideas that aren't commercial. You really don't. - John Cassavetes
Comments
Fantastic Fest Bumpers
08/17/09 01:26 PM
Shot some Fantastic Fest bumpers and could use some votes for them! Check ‘em out!!!!
All films had to have a child, a monster and end with the word “Fantastic”
The Weiner Dog Gang
A Werewolf in My Bedroom
Monster Energy
A Big Day
I could really use the votes, I’m up against some steep competition...
All films had to have a child, a monster and end with the word “Fantastic”
The Weiner Dog Gang
A Werewolf in My Bedroom
Monster Energy
A Big Day
I could really use the votes, I’m up against some steep competition...
Notes from LAFF Film Financing Conference
07/06/09 08:02 AM
Living in LA has a positive aspect - I can now easily try out some new festivals. This was the first year that I've attended LAFF - it's a different fest than I'm used to, it's very geared to the exhibition of the various films more than being a conference. There's a few panels spread out over the course of the fest, but they're generally smaller and more specifically geared towards a subject (i.e. Mad Men or GLBT filmmaking)
The exception to this is the big Film Financing Conference, which is a whole event to itself. Starting at 8 those who purchased the separate pass for the conference take on a crash course in guidance and analysis. I was lucky enough to be one of the few who was able to attend the conference, so I felt the least I could do for others is to share my notes from the event.
Keynote Address
I don't really need to share my notes on the keynote as it's available in text form and in podcast form.
I will give a little bit of background for the keynote though - last year Mark Gill's keynote address entitled, "Yes, The Sky Really Is Falling" made waves as it was spread like wildfire through the internet and around independent production company offices across the world. While everybody was hoping that his predictions of doom and gloom would be wrong, he was proven very right.
The legacy of last year's keynote was floating over every speaker's head - would their prediction be the one that would find its way across the globe? Could they be the "guru" who puts out a negative prediction that becomes the mantra of those across the industry?
If you look back at Gill's speech, he delivers the negative message and then tries to spin it and show the upside towards the end (sadly after many had stopped listening or reading) - the panels and presentations were structured in a very similar way - we know the independent film world is in an awful place and it's not going to get better for a long, long time BUT we can try to look at the positive aspects of it. It's a very rational way of assessing the situation.
I doubt any of the panels I attended will be flooding inboxes or twitterstreams in either fashion, positive or negative. I came through the day with an odd positive feeling that was merely surrounded by the doom and gloom elements. Am I still worried about where independent film is going? Absolutely, but I have that kind of hope that says that a team-of-misfits came come through and make it to the playoffs.
Independent Financing Models: The Old and the New
(the alternate panel was written up here: "The World as we know it: Is it over?"
This was a fast paced presentation so I basically wrote down everything they said and hoped to make complete sense of it later. Some of the stuff is pretty basic, but I didn't have time to pick and choose)
Irwin Rappaport (P.C.)
2 Methods of Financing: Equity Financing and Debt Financing
Equity - Investors become part owners; profit participation, Usually through an LLC. Usually investors entitled to 110 - 125% of money invested as first money, then 50% of profits. All investors split this 50%.
Deferments - First pay back investors, then contingent deferments. "Post-recoupment basis" - great way to earn money for self, Above-the-line comes before profit part. Earn money before film goes into profit.
Vendors (i.e. Post production) can be deferred as well, but it's greatly difficult.
Preferred return: the 110-125% has various levels of participation (i.e. distributor choice, the deal, down to casting, etc. as all effects likelihood of ROI)
Get all equity investors before start; Raise all money before shoot; GET CONTRACTS, GET MONEY IN THE BANK - Then no excuses.
Include costs of Answer-print, video master and deliverables in budget as well as fest costs, publicists, producer's rep in the initial budget
In case of excess money (!) giving back to investors is always an option.
Debt Financing = Loan. Lenders get first money, even before equity investors
In indie-film loan world the film negative, content, screenplay, distribution rights & revenue stream are all collateral against your loan. Pre-sales are great collateral to obtain loan, however, distro must be "credit worthy".
This takes a LOT of time, lots of checks and balances, lots of lawyers. Gotta have shit together in a major way. 6 months MINIMUM before shooting.
Most and major sales are at the 3 markets - major part of getting the pre-sales.
Foreign sales agent will take 5-25% of the sale. Pre-sales tend to have name actor/name director or director with track record & producer with track record.
GAP financing - filling the gap between pre-sold & not-pre-sold. Loan secured on distro on deals that you haven't made. Has it's own fee and can have very high interest.
Loan fees and interest are loaned to you, as is legal fees.
Reason for debt is that you don't pay profit participation in this model. You keep all of it in success.
Tax incentives - last part of financing. Credit against income made in that state. Monetize it by selling it to local buisnesses. Can typically get 80-90% of credit.
Negative pickup - taking the package and selling it to the studio as a pre-sale. Fixed amount, used as collateral on a loan. Use studio check to pay bank back.
Production company - either equity investors, or introduce you to investors or filmmakers that will lend credibility.
Finders - Find money, want credit. Structure deal so that if a finder uses a friend of a friend of a friend that you pay ONE fee, not multiple fees.
Peter Broderick (Paradigm Consulting) - distribution strategist.
Vision of distro needed before you complete your movie; the reactive model is dead.
All-rights deals leave less than 2% of filmmakers happy.
He then referenced this article: “Welcome to the New World of Distribution”
Quadrants as Audience analysis are ridiculous and outdated in today's market.
Robert Greenwold (Outfoxed) is a great example of alternate distribution in his house party model and crowdsourcing BUT he had a track record.
The Age of Stupid - structured crowdsourcing as a loan that did not need to be repaid; 2 separate campaigns for production, distribution, and an Ad campaign. Donations above a certain amount were repaind (Donations WERE NOT structured as investments for those repaid, even though the term "invest" was used.)
Goal for the film was to get 250M people to see it and become climate change activists.
Traditional distro is at a worse state than thought; Hybrid distro has potential for new successes, however, works for specific projects.
Build individual relationships with potential audiences.
Gap lenders are taking larger than average risks.
Word meanings change between contracts.
Diversify revenue streams, but don't give out rights that will hamstring bigger deals (i.e. selling DVD too early)
Finders offer a less-structured way to get money; however it's important to know what the finder is telling potential investors - misleading them will bring a world of problems.
If a finder is unlicensed an investor can rescind their investment at any time; check SEC certificates.
Finder can be another word for co-producer.
Film websites need to evolve past being an online press kit - needs content/ reasons to come back.
For docs you can make twice the money on an acquisition over a pre-sale... it's not easy though.
Blue sky laws(laws limiting numbers of investors) do not apply as the crowd is contributing/donating NOT investing.
Always use an attorney when getting the right to a property and dealing with financiers.
A LOT of attorneys (and reps) are not up-to-date with the newest nuances of modern distro sources. Get multiple attorneys to look over the deal; you have to live with the contracts for a long time.
Lender gets money before the distributor.
Packaging Tips
(this was a panel devoted to hearing pitches from the LAFF pitch competition and giving them advice for structuring it when they had to pitch to investors and such. It really wasn't that helpful and no lie somebody pitched the basic plot of Raising Arizona unironically as a serious plot. I don't think they even realized it, it was kinda hilarious, but only to me. This wasn't a great panel, but it beat going to see state incentive people explaining that Montana is a good place to shoot because "You can go fishing between takes on some of the world's finest trout streams" - which is actually in Montana's handout they gave us)
Films are still being made, they just take more time and you have to be sure that it NEEDS to be made
Next 12 months - 3 or 4 years pricing will be the big issue of filmmaking.
The excuse after "No" is more for the person rejecting than it is for the rejectee.
Can't just send a script out anymore; a package is necessary
If you've done even the most cursory amount of research in a pitch session you're better than 90% (I think this was more from my frustration listening to the pitches instead of anything that was actually said...)
Harder to sell a film with female leads/female driven
Crossing Borders: Global Film Markets
Buyer's rep - Agent for international distribution
In some territories, like Germany, more money can be made by splitting rights - selling theatrical/TV separately
International TV market is currently "dismal"
VOD is still not consistanly monetized in any territory
DVD is down, VOD hasn't come in to make up for it.
Tyler Perry movies only make money domestically (perhaps the greatest reason why Obama should declare war on the rest of the world tonight; the cultural divide is just too great)
Strong theatrical markets are suffering from currency devaluation
Banks have VERY strong opinions on sales agents, call them before choosing one.
In current climate banks are more often getting involved on collections - both with and without permission
First time director films do not sell as much; all assets are needed.
DVD tanking is the real killer of the industry; no safety net.
The novelty of special features has expired - no longer a great selling force.
Big studios dropping their DVD prices caused indies to have to cut theirs and killed the margin.
Also - studios have outrun their libraries, have to release new films.
A film's cost has little-to-no relation as to what it's worth.
A slow limited roll out release is great in the US; disasterous globally due to piracy.
International release windows can be built, but international distributors can distribute a film pretty much whenever they want to.
Summit sells and collects, as do Mandate, Lakeshore, and Essential. There's probably less than 10 companies that do anymore.
We'll be hurting until independent distributors can make money on streaming/VOD and fill in the gap that DVD left.
With the leaving of Wall St. money new income is coming from Europe, India and high net worth individuals.
Production in LA will be slow for 12 months - 3 years
LA's incentive of 20% is not enough for most productions to even consider shooting there. (Note: Texas is currently at 15% with a 17.5% maximum.)
South Africa is the only place in Africa that has film infrastructure. SA is also very favorable for shooting.
Digital Distribution: The Future is here, but Where is the Money?
In 1997 Fox payed an unprecedented $80M for Jurassic Park 2's TV broadcast rights - Production of the film cost $73M
Fathom Events - IOUSA - 360 screens - $600K opening night
YouTube is not generating views or revenue for film
Watch Now is generating revenue
NetFlix instant streaming pays anywhere from $1K-$35K/year depending on DVD performance
If on Netflix, put your film in your queue - that counts as demand. Ever add counts.
Helvetica has generated $60K on iTunes and is considered a "Grand Slam"
In early years SnagFilms supplies films to Hulu. Snag gets a 50/50 split on advertising, 8.5% on DVD sales referred by the site (standard Amazon referral rate) and 50/50 sales on Hulu.
iTunes - Apple 30%, Filmmaker/Supplier - 70%
Targeted marketing - newamericanvision.com
The average demographic of a SangFilm user - over 30
Digital distribution (For films) is currently 90% iTunes, 10% everyone else
Be careful about your rights, there's always a new platform around the corner that may be better (But tomorrow may never come...)
CreateSpace on Amazon - 70/30 towards the filmmaker (self distro)
FAST - SnagFilms program to take film from fest circuit easier
If you can crack a "Top X downloaded films" list, you tend to stay there, it's incredibly effective advertising.
iTunes has stopped/slowed buying shorts.
Filmmakers, from now on, MUST get involved on the marketing of their films
Waterbourne's digital release was a disaster - Google claimed the hits reported were inaccurate and were really only 1/10th of what was reported, paid on the lesser number.
SnagFilms provides audit rights. The tracking is difficult to count plays/ads played. Contract with advertiser determines how many seconds counts as an Ad play. Currently it's 5 seconds; Ad rates are radically different between films.
IODA - iTunes aggregator, Cinetic
Don't go to an aggregator unless you think they can do better than you can.
Theauteurs.com - distro outlet.
Snag shifts the brand trust to the sites that embed the movie and gets a target audience that way.
Movie titles are more important than ever - there's a HUGE value in being top result in Google.
Free availability kills piracy.
powertools.wikispaces.com
(That's the last of my notes. Some of it makes more sense in context, to say the least. That said, I think it was a valuable conference. More than anything else, it makes me just want to get in there and do it!)
The exception to this is the big Film Financing Conference, which is a whole event to itself. Starting at 8 those who purchased the separate pass for the conference take on a crash course in guidance and analysis. I was lucky enough to be one of the few who was able to attend the conference, so I felt the least I could do for others is to share my notes from the event.
Keynote Address
I don't really need to share my notes on the keynote as it's available in text form and in podcast form.
I will give a little bit of background for the keynote though - last year Mark Gill's keynote address entitled, "Yes, The Sky Really Is Falling" made waves as it was spread like wildfire through the internet and around independent production company offices across the world. While everybody was hoping that his predictions of doom and gloom would be wrong, he was proven very right.
The legacy of last year's keynote was floating over every speaker's head - would their prediction be the one that would find its way across the globe? Could they be the "guru" who puts out a negative prediction that becomes the mantra of those across the industry?
If you look back at Gill's speech, he delivers the negative message and then tries to spin it and show the upside towards the end (sadly after many had stopped listening or reading) - the panels and presentations were structured in a very similar way - we know the independent film world is in an awful place and it's not going to get better for a long, long time BUT we can try to look at the positive aspects of it. It's a very rational way of assessing the situation.
I doubt any of the panels I attended will be flooding inboxes or twitterstreams in either fashion, positive or negative. I came through the day with an odd positive feeling that was merely surrounded by the doom and gloom elements. Am I still worried about where independent film is going? Absolutely, but I have that kind of hope that says that a team-of-misfits came come through and make it to the playoffs.
Independent Financing Models: The Old and the New
(the alternate panel was written up here: "The World as we know it: Is it over?"
This was a fast paced presentation so I basically wrote down everything they said and hoped to make complete sense of it later. Some of the stuff is pretty basic, but I didn't have time to pick and choose)
Irwin Rappaport (P.C.)
2 Methods of Financing: Equity Financing and Debt Financing
Equity - Investors become part owners; profit participation, Usually through an LLC. Usually investors entitled to 110 - 125% of money invested as first money, then 50% of profits. All investors split this 50%.
Deferments - First pay back investors, then contingent deferments. "Post-recoupment basis" - great way to earn money for self, Above-the-line comes before profit part. Earn money before film goes into profit.
Vendors (i.e. Post production) can be deferred as well, but it's greatly difficult.
Preferred return: the 110-125% has various levels of participation (i.e. distributor choice, the deal, down to casting, etc. as all effects likelihood of ROI)
Get all equity investors before start; Raise all money before shoot; GET CONTRACTS, GET MONEY IN THE BANK - Then no excuses.
Include costs of Answer-print, video master and deliverables in budget as well as fest costs, publicists, producer's rep in the initial budget
In case of excess money (!) giving back to investors is always an option.
Debt Financing = Loan. Lenders get first money, even before equity investors
In indie-film loan world the film negative, content, screenplay, distribution rights & revenue stream are all collateral against your loan. Pre-sales are great collateral to obtain loan, however, distro must be "credit worthy".
This takes a LOT of time, lots of checks and balances, lots of lawyers. Gotta have shit together in a major way. 6 months MINIMUM before shooting.
Most and major sales are at the 3 markets - major part of getting the pre-sales.
Foreign sales agent will take 5-25% of the sale. Pre-sales tend to have name actor/name director or director with track record & producer with track record.
GAP financing - filling the gap between pre-sold & not-pre-sold. Loan secured on distro on deals that you haven't made. Has it's own fee and can have very high interest.
Loan fees and interest are loaned to you, as is legal fees.
Reason for debt is that you don't pay profit participation in this model. You keep all of it in success.
Tax incentives - last part of financing. Credit against income made in that state. Monetize it by selling it to local buisnesses. Can typically get 80-90% of credit.
Negative pickup - taking the package and selling it to the studio as a pre-sale. Fixed amount, used as collateral on a loan. Use studio check to pay bank back.
Production company - either equity investors, or introduce you to investors or filmmakers that will lend credibility.
Finders - Find money, want credit. Structure deal so that if a finder uses a friend of a friend of a friend that you pay ONE fee, not multiple fees.
Peter Broderick (Paradigm Consulting) - distribution strategist.
Vision of distro needed before you complete your movie; the reactive model is dead.
All-rights deals leave less than 2% of filmmakers happy.
He then referenced this article: “Welcome to the New World of Distribution”
Quadrants as Audience analysis are ridiculous and outdated in today's market.
Robert Greenwold (Outfoxed) is a great example of alternate distribution in his house party model and crowdsourcing BUT he had a track record.
The Age of Stupid - structured crowdsourcing as a loan that did not need to be repaid; 2 separate campaigns for production, distribution, and an Ad campaign. Donations above a certain amount were repaind (Donations WERE NOT structured as investments for those repaid, even though the term "invest" was used.)
Goal for the film was to get 250M people to see it and become climate change activists.
Traditional distro is at a worse state than thought; Hybrid distro has potential for new successes, however, works for specific projects.
Build individual relationships with potential audiences.
Gap lenders are taking larger than average risks.
Word meanings change between contracts.
Diversify revenue streams, but don't give out rights that will hamstring bigger deals (i.e. selling DVD too early)
Finders offer a less-structured way to get money; however it's important to know what the finder is telling potential investors - misleading them will bring a world of problems.
If a finder is unlicensed an investor can rescind their investment at any time; check SEC certificates.
Finder can be another word for co-producer.
Film websites need to evolve past being an online press kit - needs content/ reasons to come back.
For docs you can make twice the money on an acquisition over a pre-sale... it's not easy though.
Blue sky laws(laws limiting numbers of investors) do not apply as the crowd is contributing/donating NOT investing.
Always use an attorney when getting the right to a property and dealing with financiers.
A LOT of attorneys (and reps) are not up-to-date with the newest nuances of modern distro sources. Get multiple attorneys to look over the deal; you have to live with the contracts for a long time.
Lender gets money before the distributor.
Packaging Tips
(this was a panel devoted to hearing pitches from the LAFF pitch competition and giving them advice for structuring it when they had to pitch to investors and such. It really wasn't that helpful and no lie somebody pitched the basic plot of Raising Arizona unironically as a serious plot. I don't think they even realized it, it was kinda hilarious, but only to me. This wasn't a great panel, but it beat going to see state incentive people explaining that Montana is a good place to shoot because "You can go fishing between takes on some of the world's finest trout streams" - which is actually in Montana's handout they gave us)
Films are still being made, they just take more time and you have to be sure that it NEEDS to be made
Next 12 months - 3 or 4 years pricing will be the big issue of filmmaking.
The excuse after "No" is more for the person rejecting than it is for the rejectee.
Can't just send a script out anymore; a package is necessary
If you've done even the most cursory amount of research in a pitch session you're better than 90% (I think this was more from my frustration listening to the pitches instead of anything that was actually said...)
Harder to sell a film with female leads/female driven
Crossing Borders: Global Film Markets
Buyer's rep - Agent for international distribution
In some territories, like Germany, more money can be made by splitting rights - selling theatrical/TV separately
International TV market is currently "dismal"
VOD is still not consistanly monetized in any territory
DVD is down, VOD hasn't come in to make up for it.
Tyler Perry movies only make money domestically (perhaps the greatest reason why Obama should declare war on the rest of the world tonight; the cultural divide is just too great)
Strong theatrical markets are suffering from currency devaluation
Banks have VERY strong opinions on sales agents, call them before choosing one.
In current climate banks are more often getting involved on collections - both with and without permission
First time director films do not sell as much; all assets are needed.
DVD tanking is the real killer of the industry; no safety net.
The novelty of special features has expired - no longer a great selling force.
Big studios dropping their DVD prices caused indies to have to cut theirs and killed the margin.
Also - studios have outrun their libraries, have to release new films.
A film's cost has little-to-no relation as to what it's worth.
A slow limited roll out release is great in the US; disasterous globally due to piracy.
International release windows can be built, but international distributors can distribute a film pretty much whenever they want to.
Summit sells and collects, as do Mandate, Lakeshore, and Essential. There's probably less than 10 companies that do anymore.
We'll be hurting until independent distributors can make money on streaming/VOD and fill in the gap that DVD left.
With the leaving of Wall St. money new income is coming from Europe, India and high net worth individuals.
Production in LA will be slow for 12 months - 3 years
LA's incentive of 20% is not enough for most productions to even consider shooting there. (Note: Texas is currently at 15% with a 17.5% maximum.)
South Africa is the only place in Africa that has film infrastructure. SA is also very favorable for shooting.
Digital Distribution: The Future is here, but Where is the Money?
In 1997 Fox payed an unprecedented $80M for Jurassic Park 2's TV broadcast rights - Production of the film cost $73M
Fathom Events - IOUSA - 360 screens - $600K opening night
YouTube is not generating views or revenue for film
Watch Now is generating revenue
NetFlix instant streaming pays anywhere from $1K-$35K/year depending on DVD performance
If on Netflix, put your film in your queue - that counts as demand. Ever add counts.
Helvetica has generated $60K on iTunes and is considered a "Grand Slam"
In early years SnagFilms supplies films to Hulu. Snag gets a 50/50 split on advertising, 8.5% on DVD sales referred by the site (standard Amazon referral rate) and 50/50 sales on Hulu.
iTunes - Apple 30%, Filmmaker/Supplier - 70%
Targeted marketing - newamericanvision.com
The average demographic of a SangFilm user - over 30
Digital distribution (For films) is currently 90% iTunes, 10% everyone else
Be careful about your rights, there's always a new platform around the corner that may be better (But tomorrow may never come...)
CreateSpace on Amazon - 70/30 towards the filmmaker (self distro)
FAST - SnagFilms program to take film from fest circuit easier
If you can crack a "Top X downloaded films" list, you tend to stay there, it's incredibly effective advertising.
iTunes has stopped/slowed buying shorts.
Filmmakers, from now on, MUST get involved on the marketing of their films
Waterbourne's digital release was a disaster - Google claimed the hits reported were inaccurate and were really only 1/10th of what was reported, paid on the lesser number.
SnagFilms provides audit rights. The tracking is difficult to count plays/ads played. Contract with advertiser determines how many seconds counts as an Ad play. Currently it's 5 seconds; Ad rates are radically different between films.
IODA - iTunes aggregator, Cinetic
Don't go to an aggregator unless you think they can do better than you can.
Theauteurs.com - distro outlet.
Snag shifts the brand trust to the sites that embed the movie and gets a target audience that way.
Movie titles are more important than ever - there's a HUGE value in being top result in Google.
Free availability kills piracy.
powertools.wikispaces.com
(That's the last of my notes. Some of it makes more sense in context, to say the least. That said, I think it was a valuable conference. More than anything else, it makes me just want to get in there and do it!)
Fights are exciting.
01/22/09 06:16 AM
If you've been following Sundance, there's no doubt you've heard of the bizarre story about a fist fight breaking out at the fest. If not, here's Karina Longworth's chaotic retelling (really makes you feel like you're there and the middle of it.)
In this cynical world we live in, I have to get this out of the way - I believe the conflict to be legit, not staged. The people involved are all above that sort of malarky, and it's not really such a great go-out-and-tell-all-your-friends story like the Adolf Hitler birthday cake thing.
Now, taking a closer look, this is a pretty fun, pretty exciting news item for people who follow the happenings in the film world. Just look at all the elements: you have the man who is the basis for one of the more beloved characters in recent film history, you have a film critic - which brings in people's feelings of criticism and judgement, you have somebody standing up for himself, and you have random elements attached (Jackie the Joke Man). It's everything you could want in a word-of-mouth story. Without the event happening at a press-heavy event such as Sundance, it'd be sure to mutate into an absolutely insane story as the real life telephone game was played.
So, is this an instance of "No such thing as bad publicity"? Not really. If this is all sort of sham (which, again, I highly doubt), it's a poorly put together one. The story emphasizes the wrong elements (The producer of the film, rather than the film itself), hinges on the film not being great, and the story can be told without even mentioning the name of the film (see?). Everybody remembers the ad where the Gorilla plays the drums for "In the Air Tonight", nobody remembers it's an ad for milk.
So, if it's not a good promotional tool, why is it so exciting? Simple - it brings back the feelings of a time when independent film's edge wasn't just on the screen. The edge came from the people involved and it was exciting. I distinctly remember being very young and watching Harmony Korrine on Letterman talking about butts and being surprised that they could get away with going the places they did on TV. It stuck with me, I didn't know his name, but I knew that the guy who wrote Kids was absolutely nuts.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not making the tired old, "Indies have lost their edge" argument. First of all, I don't believe that it's necessarily independent film's responsibility to be edgy, second, on the screen in the past few years you've had movies ranging from Joe Swanberg's Kissing on the Mouth, to Todd Solondz's Palindromes - two films that pushed boundaries that mainstream film wouldn't. That said, the elements outside the films are nothing but edgy - Swanberg is one of the nicest people you could meet, Solondz is terribly shy and awkward. Neither one is going to leave an indelible mark on a young person's brain should they be on Letterman (and they should, but that's for a different time).
To expand, I can't really think of any sort of real craziness that has emerged in recent years. Those who are pushing boundaries in interviews are the same people from a decade ago - Korine is still telling his outlandish stories to where you're not sure what you're going to get, Larry Clark is still hanging out with some very young kids, Crispin Glover is still nuts, etc. In recent years, there hasn't been the strong personality coming from off-camera that really captures people's imaginations.
And yes, Dowd has been around for quite some time, and has let his personality show for his whole life. But the incident brings back the sort of "anything can happen" mentality that indies showcased throughout the 90s, instead of the current "studio flicks, but quirkier" image that is held by the zeitgeist now. The whole thing reminds me of the '97 incident where Quentin Tarantino beat up Don Murphy for his handling of Natural Born Killers. It allowed QT's passions to be seen extending beyond film geek minutiae and the incident quickly became legend.
Of your favorite indie filmmakers this decade, who's really standing out off-set? Which breakout filmmaker makes you say, "I want his life?" Who out there really excites you and makes you just wonder what they're going to do next?
I'm hard pressed to think of anybody.
What incident recently has made you really interested in a film - not a trailer, or still, or positive review - but something outside of the film made you interested in the independent film world?
Outside of some sale somewhere or the whole Slumdog story, nothing really stands out.
And why is this? It's hard to believe that there isn't an eccentric, outgoing filmmaker these days. There has to be crazy stuff going on out there besides this. Has the desperado element of filmmaking translated from doing whatever it takes and not giving a fuck to just making a film without money? Yes, a lot of this has to do with what is getting picked up (the Frozen Rivers over the Frownlands), and all the other issues I belabor and gripe about here... but, of what we have, should we be making it exciting?
Just a thought.
The Name on the Marquee.
01/13/09 03:31 AM
It's that time of the year again - people are packing up their bags and heading out to Park City, Utah for the most important festival in the United States - Sundance. I'm not headed out this year, so I get to sit on the sidelines and be jealous of my friends who are (although all of them have reported extremely high stress levels in conjuncture with the fest).
The Sundance Film Festival is seen as the forefront of American Independent Film, mainly for the headline-grabbing reports of huge sales, discovered talents, glitzy star-power and big scene that's put on. The image has mutated from being a small, but important film festival tucked away in the middle of a snowy ski retreat. The exponential growth and commercialization has attracted a number of attackers to the fest - often railing against the implied image of the festival - claiming that it's lost it's "Independent" nature.
I hear this attack often for a number of festivals - Cannes, SXSW, etc. A lot of my colleagues have subscribed to the false paradigm of film festivals being solely intended for the independent film and see any sort of studio or corporate involvement as a breach of some sort of implied social contract. Recently, I was talking with the director of a film that I was working on, discussing his festival strategy. Naturally, as anybody in film does, his inclination was to imagine the biggest, brightest, best-case scenario he could and then work his way down the ladder, working his way to more reasonable and more achievable goals (but, of course, still tossing the money towards the largest festivals - which, if you ask me, the submission fees to those are worth it just to dream about getting in). This director, who I consider a smart guy, completely shocked me when he said, "While I'm sure it'd be fun, I don't really know what the value of a Sundance premiere is anymore - didn't they play Be Kind Rewind this year?"
While Be Kind Rewind certainly gets no love from me, the assertion that a film festival is of a lesser status because of its marquee screening is downright unfair. I've heard the same accusation lobbied at Cannes for their marquee screening of Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith - which, for the detractor, the association of the fest and that film must be particularly satisfying.
But it's not so out of place.
With Episode 3, yes, you do open yourself up for criticism, but the bemoaning from my fellow independent filmmakers is unwarranted. As cool as it is to accuse others of selling out, it's simply not the case - it's always been this way.
A quick look at the history of Cannes tells us the original intent of the festival. Born from the severe political climate that was Europe in the 30s, Cannes emerged to showcase films without bias or political censorship. In, other words - film nerds of the 30s just wanted to watch films from all over the world that they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. It's easy to take the anti-regulatory, anti-censorship nature of the statement and claim that it was in support of "alternative" cinema, but the argument doesn't really hold water. In 1945 there weren't too many filmmakers making films "outside the system". Plus, the first Cannes lineup included The Lost Weekend (Paramount), Notorious (RKO), Make Mine Music (Disney) among others.
As the film industry has evolved so has the festival, but the intent of showcasing and honoring films that might not be seen otherwise hasn't changed. However, instead of the fear of fascistic censorship, the fears are of lack of distribution and the fear of not "finding an audience" even if you do have a distributor - a fear that nobody is immune from.
Today's marquee films are a vital part of the film festival. Whether the marquee is Star Wars or from an indie darling such as Michel Gondry, it's primarily
The other popular jab regarding the marquee is the idea that the film takes up a slot, so by virtue of the large film being at the festival somebody's small film isn't. Simply put, it doesn't work that way. Like with other categories, say a category for regional filmmakers, if you don't fit the criteria, you can't get in. No matter how good your movie is, you can't be programmed into a "Shorts from North Carolina" package if you're from and shot your movie in Oregon. Likewise, your film made for under $3,500 isn't going to premiere opening night in the largest theatre even if it is the best film that the festival has ever received. The marquee position is reserved for a movie that's friendly to the festival's audience from a distro that will put up a decent amount of money (Of course, the mental image of George Lucas burning off a DVD of Episode 3, eagerly filling out the submission forms and writing the check, sending it all off and praying to get in is amusing).
Now, while that may upset some that there are positions up for sale (at some, not all festivals), it's important to remember that the slots are very limited (mostly to prevent that amount of anger, and to focus on the other films) and it's pretty much always been this way (which, admittedly, in and of itself is not a justification, but a reminder that the pristine image of a completely free-of-outside-influence festival is an image of a festival that pretty much never existed). The money paid in isn't lining some rich programmers' pockets, either. Festivals are increasingly more expensive to put on and badges and submission fees often do not cover the cost of operations. Without marquee films, many film festival simply wouldn't exist, at least not in their modern form.
For the die-hard rebellious "fuck that man" types, here's how to look at it. When you make your film, the one that's going to take down the system, and you manage to get it into festivals - it'll be the big boys' money that's paying for the theatre rental and your free badge.
Now that's cool.
The Sundance Film Festival is seen as the forefront of American Independent Film, mainly for the headline-grabbing reports of huge sales, discovered talents, glitzy star-power and big scene that's put on. The image has mutated from being a small, but important film festival tucked away in the middle of a snowy ski retreat. The exponential growth and commercialization has attracted a number of attackers to the fest - often railing against the implied image of the festival - claiming that it's lost it's "Independent" nature.
I hear this attack often for a number of festivals - Cannes, SXSW, etc. A lot of my colleagues have subscribed to the false paradigm of film festivals being solely intended for the independent film and see any sort of studio or corporate involvement as a breach of some sort of implied social contract. Recently, I was talking with the director of a film that I was working on, discussing his festival strategy. Naturally, as anybody in film does, his inclination was to imagine the biggest, brightest, best-case scenario he could and then work his way down the ladder, working his way to more reasonable and more achievable goals (but, of course, still tossing the money towards the largest festivals - which, if you ask me, the submission fees to those are worth it just to dream about getting in). This director, who I consider a smart guy, completely shocked me when he said, "While I'm sure it'd be fun, I don't really know what the value of a Sundance premiere is anymore - didn't they play Be Kind Rewind this year?"
While Be Kind Rewind certainly gets no love from me, the assertion that a film festival is of a lesser status because of its marquee screening is downright unfair. I've heard the same accusation lobbied at Cannes for their marquee screening of Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith - which, for the detractor, the association of the fest and that film must be particularly satisfying.
But it's not so out of place.
With Episode 3, yes, you do open yourself up for criticism, but the bemoaning from my fellow independent filmmakers is unwarranted. As cool as it is to accuse others of selling out, it's simply not the case - it's always been this way.
A quick look at the history of Cannes tells us the original intent of the festival. Born from the severe political climate that was Europe in the 30s, Cannes emerged to showcase films without bias or political censorship. In, other words - film nerds of the 30s just wanted to watch films from all over the world that they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. It's easy to take the anti-regulatory, anti-censorship nature of the statement and claim that it was in support of "alternative" cinema, but the argument doesn't really hold water. In 1945 there weren't too many filmmakers making films "outside the system". Plus, the first Cannes lineup included The Lost Weekend (Paramount), Notorious (RKO), Make Mine Music (Disney) among others.
As the film industry has evolved so has the festival, but the intent of showcasing and honoring films that might not be seen otherwise hasn't changed. However, instead of the fear of fascistic censorship, the fears are of lack of distribution and the fear of not "finding an audience" even if you do have a distributor - a fear that nobody is immune from.
t
here as a promotional tool, both for the film and for the distributor. When New Line brought Be Kind Rewind (which I just noticed is a title lacking in much-needed punctuation) to Sundance, it symbiotically attracted a lot of attention to the film and to the film festival. New Line brings in the director, stars, producers, execs, etc. and makes a presence at the festival, saying that New Line cares about smaller film and independent film and might even buy your film someday. The media writes up about Jack Black or whomever being there, who he's with, how much he weighs, etc., mentioning the film and Sundance in every write-up. While it's far from the only reason that Sundance is a part of America's film-related consciousness, the annual mentions in US Weekly do help a lot to establish a sense of importance for the festival in the minds of the people - even people who would never ever be interested in going. The other popular jab regarding the marquee is the idea that the film takes up a slot, so by virtue of the large film being at the festival somebody's small film isn't. Simply put, it doesn't work that way. Like with other categories, say a category for regional filmmakers, if you don't fit the criteria, you can't get in. No matter how good your movie is, you can't be programmed into a "Shorts from North Carolina" package if you're from and shot your movie in Oregon. Likewise, your film made for under $3,500 isn't going to premiere opening night in the largest theatre even if it is the best film that the festival has ever received. The marquee position is reserved for a movie that's friendly to the festival's audience from a distro that will put up a decent amount of money (Of course, the mental image of George Lucas burning off a DVD of Episode 3, eagerly filling out the submission forms and writing the check, sending it all off and praying to get in is amusing).
Now, while that may upset some that there are positions up for sale (at some, not all festivals), it's important to remember that the slots are very limited (mostly to prevent that amount of anger, and to focus on the other films) and it's pretty much always been this way (which, admittedly, in and of itself is not a justification, but a reminder that the pristine image of a completely free-of-outside-influence festival is an image of a festival that pretty much never existed). The money paid in isn't lining some rich programmers' pockets, either. Festivals are increasingly more expensive to put on and badges and submission fees often do not cover the cost of operations. Without marquee films, many film festival simply wouldn't exist, at least not in their modern form.
For the die-hard rebellious "fuck that man" types, here's how to look at it. When you make your film, the one that's going to take down the system, and you manage to get it into festivals - it'll be the big boys' money that's paying for the theatre rental and your free badge.
Now that's cool.
The Golden Globe that almost wasn't: Slumdog Millionaire
01/11/09 11:48 PM
I'm not one for the award shows really, but, every once in a while do I get behind a film and really root for it. Like everyone else on the planet, one of my favorite films of the year is Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire - which took home the Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director Golden Globes I first got exposed to the film by working a press day with Danny himself at Austin Film Festival. You better believe it was a great day. I'd always thought that Danny was one of the best working today (Yes, before it was cool!) and just being around him and hearing him talk about movies made me feel like a better filmmaker just by being nearby.
Right now it's a tough market for smaller films - so tough that Slumdog nearly didn't get a release.
Warner Independent Pictures picked the film up for five million dollars initially, but then began to run the projections and they didn't like the commercial prospects. The film was put into the film festival circuit where Danny and this style of movie is popular, but essentially the film was dead in the water. However, the film absolutely killed at Toronto and Telluride film festivals causing Fox/Searchlight to enter into the scene and partnered with WIP to get the film out there.
It's far from the first time that this sort of thing has happened - most notably it happened to Little Miss Sunshine, too (although, it was the foreign sales that put LMS into doubt).
So what can we learn from this?
There's really two ways to look at it - The pessimist sees the turmoil and difficulty of getting a film released. That films that went on to make a gajillion dollars at the box office and DVD and racked up the awards by the bushel almost didn't make it to American audiences. The optimist sees films that resonate with audiences rising up and overcoming the current obstacles facing them (especially in Slumdog's case).
But really, these stories illustrate the frustrations in predicting audiences' appetites. Many times these prediction formulas are deadly accurate, but that doesn't mean they're really working. So often does a film seem to do everything right - cast big, be a really great movie, get great reviews but fizzles at the box office. Just as often a film comes from nowhere and "breaks out".
So what do we do with this? If you could figure out how to semi-accurately predict a box office gross you'll be richer than you can ever imagine.
I tend to take it as a point of encouragement.
Look at Slumdog - look at all the arguments going against it - Americans don't like subtitles. Americans don't like foreign films. Americans don't like movies with non-American leads. Americans don't care about India. Americans don't like movies that deal with depressing concepts (Indian poverty). American's don't care about "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" anymore. Etc., etc. etc. A lot of these arguments apply to the brilliant Let The Right One In, which is outperforming expectations as well, but not to the Slumdog degree.
While it doesn't mean that these arguments are dead - it does mean that a surprising segment of the moviegoing audience will shed their inhibitions every once in a while for a film that really reaches out and touches people. Will they go to every one of these real and genuine movies? No, not at all.
But every once in a while... they will come out, despite having all the baggage of unmarketability on top of it.
Isn't that really what a lot of all of this movie malarky is all about? Reaching out and connecting with people who wouldn't be reachable otherwise?
Just another way that Slumdog is inspiring. From a film that almost didn't get released (I think this effectively kills the "Film Festivals are irrelevant in a non-buying market" argument pretty well).
WIP picked up Slumdog Millionaire for $5 Million and nearly didn't release it. As of right now it has grossed $34 Million and won 4 Golden Globes.
Right now it's a tough market for smaller films - so tough that Slumdog nearly didn't get a release.
Warner Independent Pictures picked the film up for five million dollars initially, but then began to run the projections and they didn't like the commercial prospects. The film was put into the film festival circuit where Danny and this style of movie is popular, but essentially the film was dead in the water. However, the film absolutely killed at Toronto and Telluride film festivals causing Fox/Searchlight to enter into the scene and partnered with WIP to get the film out there.
It's far from the first time that this sort of thing has happened - most notably it happened to Little Miss Sunshine, too (although, it was the foreign sales that put LMS into doubt).
So what can we learn from this?
There's really two ways to look at it - The pessimist sees the turmoil and difficulty of getting a film released. That films that went on to make a gajillion dollars at the box office and DVD and racked up the awards by the bushel almost didn't make it to American audiences. The optimist sees films that resonate with audiences rising up and overcoming the current obstacles facing them (especially in Slumdog's case).
But really, these stories illustrate the frustrations in predicting audiences' appetites. Many times these prediction formulas are deadly accurate, but that doesn't mean they're really working. So often does a film seem to do everything right - cast big, be a really great movie, get great reviews but fizzles at the box office. Just as often a film comes from nowhere and "breaks out".
So what do we do with this? If you could figure out how to semi-accurately predict a box office gross you'll be richer than you can ever imagine.
I tend to take it as a point of encouragement.
Look at Slumdog - look at all the arguments going against it - Americans don't like subtitles. Americans don't like foreign films. Americans don't like movies with non-American leads. Americans don't care about India. Americans don't like movies that deal with depressing concepts (Indian poverty). American's don't care about "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" anymore. Etc., etc. etc. A lot of these arguments apply to the brilliant Let The Right One In, which is outperforming expectations as well, but not to the Slumdog degree.
While it doesn't mean that these arguments are dead - it does mean that a surprising segment of the moviegoing audience will shed their inhibitions every once in a while for a film that really reaches out and touches people. Will they go to every one of these real and genuine movies? No, not at all.
But every once in a while... they will come out, despite having all the baggage of unmarketability on top of it.
Isn't that really what a lot of all of this movie malarky is all about? Reaching out and connecting with people who wouldn't be reachable otherwise?
Just another way that Slumdog is inspiring. From a film that almost didn't get released (I think this effectively kills the "Film Festivals are irrelevant in a non-buying market" argument pretty well).
WIP picked up Slumdog Millionaire for $5 Million and nearly didn't release it. As of right now it has grossed $34 Million and won 4 Golden Globes.