FILMMAKER BLOG  Monday, September 01, 2008
BREAKING IN
In the last weekly newsletter I wrote the following: Last week Filmmaker gathered a small group of producers, sales reps and a distributor to talk about what some are calling a crisis in the funding and distribution of independent film. Our panel mixed generations, comprising veterans who remember independent film in the ’70s and ’80s as well as relative newcomers who have begun producing in the post-Pulp Fiction/Blair Witch era. I won’t go into all the details of our conversation here because the comments will run as a roundtable discussion in the next issue of Filmmaker. One thing was clear, though – we talked for about two hours and could easily have gone on all night. And while we jumped around a lot, skipping from production issues to distribution ones, we kept circling back to a few basic questions about today’s independent film scene. Has the money that sustained independent film in the ’80s and ’90s left the sector entirely or are we just at a low point in a cyclical business? Have the desires and viewing patterns of our audiences changed permanently, or can they be reawakened by better films and a more concerted effort to build a sense of community around independent film? Is the recent departure from the independent sector by several studios a blessing because it will create opportunities for more nimble players or a curse because it is destroying opportunities for films to be acquired? Are filmmakers fighting a rear-guard action in their quest for theatrical play, or should they accept the small-screen logic of the Internet and perhaps even change their work accordingly? I’m waiting for the transcript so I can begin to edit all of this, but, in the meantime, if you have any thoughts you are always welcome to email them to me at editor AT filmmakermagazine.com. One filmmaker -- Marc Maurino of White Light Film Works, who directed the short film Trigger Finger -- sent in the following reply, which I know many people who are contemplating a career (?) in independent film will relate to. Considering my own future as a director and getting a first feature made, the idea of a microbudget feature with no-stars, while potentially artistically rewarding, doesn't seem to be something that I can imagine leaving my very stable day job and risking my house for; likewise, even getting something off the ground at the next level, i.e., $2-5M with a name or two doesn't seem a guaranteed route to financial stabilty or, with any certainty, distribution.
I naturally consider the dizzying array of possibilities available via the Internet, webisodes, serials, and streaming ultra-short films, but since I aspire to directing features, and creating work that both prepares me for and displays my aptitude to do so, I'm about to go out to festivals with a 20 min. short, featuring multiple characters, storylines, arcs, and plot/subplot; in short, not a realistic work for streaming, but, under the "old economy", perhaps is a calling card . . . but a calling card for what, and to whom?
Presumably and predictably, I'll ultimately look for a producer who can help me shepherd the short and loosely-related feature script to the same dwindling cadre of financiers who seem to be leaving the game in droves. And as hard as it is to get financing at all, even at the microbduget levels, as an adult (ie, no longer single in my early 20s), I have a few other challenges.
With the family and the mortgage, to be frank, I can't devote two years of my life to produce, post, and then nurture (ie, self-distribute, tour, etc.) a project unless I can guarantee myself, quite literally, about 250K (ie, give up my government health insurance, 401(k) matching, car, and biweekly paycheck.) I'll be focusing on trying to leverage the short plus loosely-adapted feature script (in the vein of Gowanus, Brooklyn/Half Nelson, Five Feet High and Rising/Raising Victor Vargas, Frozen River/Frozen River) but I wonder/fear if that is the "old model", not to mention that I just referenced some insanely talented and fortunate directors.
So barring the fortune to mimic their patterns, I'm also looking at breaking in to television directing--perhaps equally if not more difficult--but beyond these two models (and I use that term loosely, because they are more just hopeful paths) I am, along, perhaps, with the rest of the aspiring director corps, wondering what the future holds.
I'm fairly certain that keeping costs down in order to maximize the profit margin on any possible distribution deal/DVD/foreign territory sale is mandatory, perhaps moreso than ever before. But I'm also trying hard to think outside of the box, and imagine a successful future as a director which is not contingent on multi-million-dollar budgets and distribution deals.
One model I think about a lot is the theatre--my wife works for and is an actor at a major regional theatre (Shakespeare and Co.) which this summer has mounted some fantastic productions (Othello got glowing reviews in the NYT) and all of which will end tomorrow. They employed a slew of actors and technicians, paid the rent on a sprawling campus and multiple theatres, had multiple 400-seat sellout crowds, and have not gone bankrupt doing so. I wonder if the indie film community would be served by looking at theatre models while also looking at digital/Internet venues, and what that might look like . . .
For instance, could a no-budget feature recoup its costs via a 3-5 night a week summerlong run at a regional exhibition space, bolstered by word of mouth and regional press and marketing, ie, the same thing that draws a crowd to The Ladies' Man or The Goat Woman of Corvis County, just to mention a pair of non-Shakespeare plays that are performing well this summer?
Of course, I don't know. These are just the things I'm thinking, and I don't know if you usually get more erudite or solution-based responsed to your postings, but you certainly have gotten me thinking--the question no longer is just "how do I break in?", but also, "what am I breaking in to?"
# posted by Scott Macaulay @ 9/01/2008 08:50:00 PM
Comments (8)
It's rare to see a director talking so candidly about his/her reality of working a steady job while trying to make films. So I'm often left wondering how many of these independent filmmakers truly sustain themselves from their films or if they must work other jobs too.
I'm currently directing a documentary series about this very issue -- artists with day jobs. The site is www.keepingthelightson.tv. I hope to include a filmmaker or two eventually.
#
posted by Danny @ 9/02/2008 5:36 PM
Welcome to the real world. Artists aren't appreciated. That's why they call them starving artists. You don't get a 501K plan for being an artist. Sacrifices have to be made. Sometimes you have to live in a smaller apartment in a lousy neighborhood so you can do what you want to do. Tough. I don't remember anyone saying that being an artist was easy, or that you somehow get a middle class lifestyle for being a filmmaker. It's not so tough. Musicians have it harder.
#
posted by @ 9/02/2008 8:56 PM
Like the generation of independent filmmakers before (think Jarmusch and Haynes) I think we will have to let go of the term "independent" as we remember it. Now we are talking globalization, internet and everything in-between. When I hear quotes from filmmakers I admire like Paul Schrader talk about making films for cell phones I know we are far from what was.
Frownland to me is an example of a true independent film. It's almost a throwback to the early 90's here in NYC. How's Bronstein's situation changed since making that film?
This subject deserves a real well thought out rumination. I like Mr. Maurino's honesty and think what he's articulating is one case scenario that a lot of people can identify with.
Scott -- Hopefully I can piece something together for you when I'm not hustling to write, plan a short and take care of my family.
#
posted by William @ 9/03/2008 8:45 AM
I agree, Marc's comments are rare in this business, which is why I posted them. I think the concerns he has are ones shared by a lot of people trying to break into this business.
I think Anonymous's blunt post is perhaps more reflective of the real world, however. Speaking as a producer, I will say that it's very, very difficult to imagine a first-time director making 250K in salary on his first film -- at least in the specialty film world. A pretty standard formula to budget a screenplay acquisition is 2.5% of the budget. For a $2 million film, that's 50K. DGA minimum for a film between $2.5 and $3.6 million (I'm rounding these numbers) is 75K. Below $2.5 the rate is negotiable. If a director doesn't have a previous quote, many mini-majors will say that their precedent is not to pay over DGA minimum. So, that's 125K for a writer/director.
Obviously, a director who is bringing more to the table -- success in another field, relationship with cast, or, perhaps, a script that multiple companies have bid on and that is viewed as highly commercial -- will have the clout to push these numbers up. But a director with what is viewed as a "risky" project for the arthouse market will have a hard time challenging these numbers. In fact, many financiers will argue that they are giving the director a break and will try to push these numbers lower. (DGA minimum only formally applies if the director is a member of the DGA, and most first-time directors aren't.) A director who I have worked with told me that he received an offer from another set of producers -- ones with financing -- for his first feature but that he'd have to agree to take a 10K fee. He turned them down because he couldn't live on that.
And with regards to the 501K, again, if you're in the DGA or WGA there is a pension and welfare program. Otherwise, no.
With film, as with many other businesses, the goal of most first timers is to get that foot in the door any way possible and then to work up the ladder, hoping that remuneration and ability to get work made increases as time goes by.
William -- look forward to your comments if you're able to send them. As for Ronnie Bronstein, if you haven't read his follow-up comments on one of the "25 New Faces" on this blog, check them out.
#
posted by Scott Macaulay @ 9/03/2008 12:57 PM
Correction: the DGA minimum number I quoted above should be 70K, not 75K. That's for features budgeted between $2,570,00 and $3,605,000.
#
posted by Scott Macaulay @ 9/03/2008 1:00 PM
Scott -- I always assumed first-timers did it for the love - meaning if they got 10k that was generous or they were getting a flat number for the purchase of the screenplay. Another situation was getting a producer credit. It was more about getting the privilege to see your first film to completion. I don't agree with this philosophy, I think a filmmaker should always be paid. A working filmmaker shouldn't be expected to focus on directing a feature if they're coming home to an eviction notice.
I remember poring over budgets printed in Christine Vachon's book along with the IFP's Filmmaker's Manual. I'm not sure how many first-timers are actually given a 2.5 million budget but I guess ever situation is different especially when that writer/director is bringing more to the table like you mentioned.
The new film economy has definitely made me rethink the way I work and the projects I'm looking to develop. I'm always looking to do it cheaper, more scaled down but not at the expense of telling a good story. I think that's what filmmakers are told; write it cheap, make a 90 minute film in one location or at least that's what they used to be told.
#
posted by William @ 9/03/2008 1:33 PM
Hey William,
Yes, you're right -- many first-timers are making films for far less and with much less compensation. I was just using industry numbers because those provide a kind of benchmark.
I've produced a few first-time features in the $2 - $3 million range, and those numbers are not out of line with what some of these directors have received.
#
posted by Scott Macaulay @ 9/03/2008 2:03 PM
Independent filmmakers make money?
#
posted by @ 9/03/2008 11:13 PM
|
