THE MAKING OF A “GRASSROOTS” MOVEMENT: INTRODUCTIONS

By Saskia Wilson-Brown

The Making of a ‘Grassroots’ Movement’ is a series of posts that are meant to serve as a case study on transmedia marketing, social engagement and distribution for an independent film called ‘Grassroots‘.

Stephen Gyllenhaal – my boss – says that running a film marketing and distribution campaign without studio distribution is a lot like running a grassroots political campaign. I am here to tell you that the two are, indeed, very similar: You live in the realm of hope, try to retain the project’s integrity, work with called-in favors, unguaranteed outcomes, creative work-arounds and half-truths. You court official-dom, but also keep the bootstrap approach very much alive. Whereas a budding politician’s constituency votes with a tick at the polls, ours votes with a ‘like’ on Facebook and eventually a purchased theatre ticket (or its digital equivalent). And – like the best of the politicians – the film’s producers and director hope to have an impact, at the very least in the cultural sphere.

This is the first of a series of posts that will detail the process behind the transmedia marketing and distribution campaign for a film called Grassroots. Directed by Stephen Gyllenhaal and based on the book Zioncheck for President by Phil Campbell, the movie stars Jason Biggs as Phil Campbell, an unemployed journalist who unwittingly becomes the campaign manager for an oddball Seattle-ite by the name of Grant Cogswell. Played by Joel David Moore, Cogswell is an unlikely candidate for the City Council. His predilection for profanity and polar bear suits cement him as an outsider candidate, as does his one deep, driving passion: The Seattle Monorail. The film is based on a true story. These posts will be, as well.

What I hope to elucidate in these blog entries is what works and what fails in the case of this one, specific movie. The focus will be on marketing and distribution, and the murky space where DIY strategies familiar to Filmmaker Magazine readers collide with more traditional methods of getting a feature-length movie into the world.

The behemoth task of getting Grassroots distributed is … Read the rest

PLEASE COMMODIFY ME

By Scott Macaulay

In a Brooklyn Rail piece titled “We Are All Scabs: Some Contradictions in U.S. Independent Film Culture,” Donal Foreman visits the IFP’s Independent Film Week and questions the debates over sustainability, marketing and audience-building that are rampant in our community. As we pursue DIY strategies, are we just implicitly and uncritically accepting the logic of the marketplace instead of conceptualizing more empowering, liberating structures?

The key grafs:

Whereas in previous times films were offered up to the distribution circuit to be either rejected or accepted as viable commodities, their makers are now being asked to lead that process of commodification themselves, to integrate it into their art and sometimes package themselves along with it. In a way, this “democratization” of the commodification process creates an opportunity for filmmakers to think more critically about how their work functions in, and serves, current social and economic arrangements—and ask how they might be able to interrupt and challenge these arrangements rather than feed them.

Simultaneous to the opening of Independent Film Week, Occupy Wall Street began its intervention in downtown Manhattan. Strangely enough, some of the same questions posed at Lincoln Center have been posed in this ongoing occupation. Questions like, “How can we spend more of our time doing what we love to do?” But while downtown the emphasis was how to free ourselves from monetized work, uptown it was how to turn our love into monetized work. And yet we all know that independent cinema wouldn’t exist without networks and affinities of cooperation, friendship, and trust—and new models of distribution do create new possibilities in this regard.

Read the whole piece at the link.… Read the rest

A YEAR WITHOUT RENT, PART 5

By Lucas McNelly

If you take a statistics class (or just take your fantasy baseball team really seriously), one of the first things you learn is that trends are largely a myth. When a team like the Red Sox starts the season 2-13, that’s probably nothing more than a few bad breaks strung together. Given enough time, they’ll right the ship. Unless their third starter is John Lackey. Then all bets are off. Our brains are wired to see patterns where none exist, to take statistical noise and turn it into something it isn’t (there’s a joke in there somewhere about movie critics, but I’ll leave it alone).

So when I work two films in a row where the director is also serving as the d.p. and camera operator — does that mean that there’s this great movement brewing on the West Coast? Of course not. Two films out of twenty-something does not make a sea change.

But still, there’s something there, a desire to simplify the wheels of production and make the process leaner and smaller. You see this a lot on productions around the country. Filmmakers either want the crew to be a lot bigger, with all the toys, or a lot smaller. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard someone say how great it is when its just five people wandering around, making a movie. It hearkens back to our fond memories of when we were starting out and too dumb to know any better. Plus, the smaller the production, the less likely the cops will notice you, right?

Well this month, I got to do both.

On the small side, I went to L.A. and worked on Paul Osborne’s second narrative feature Favor. It was your classic DIY set with five lights and four C-stands. Only we had one C-stand and three light stands. Quick and dirty in the indie film tradition.

And then, I drove back up to Seattle to work on Matthew Lillard’s directorial debut Fat Kid Rules the World, complete with a whole grip truck full of all the bells and whistles … Read the rest

PLATFORMS, PMD’S & PERPETUATING OBSCURITY

By Gregory Bayne

Our innovation is stagnant. Stagnant and boring. Really. Boring.

The movies themselves are one thing having long been locked into a race to the bottom with their Hollywood counterparts in an often times futile effort to just be noticed, but most stagnant and boring is the proliferation of new ‘platforms’ on which filmmakers can ‘launch’ their careers. Everywhere I look there is some new upstart looking to get into the digital distribution realm touting how their platform puts the power in your hands and provides a direct gateway for your film to reach an audience. A claim which, of course, begs the question, “what audience?”

Yes, the internet is a grand and amazing vehicle to get your work seen, but in reality its promise is akin to the phonebook being a vehicle to see your name in print. Just because you can put your film on Facebook, stream it on YouTube, or even give it away via P2P, doesn’t mean people will seek it out and/or watch it. If nobody is looking for you then nobody is looking for you and the new platforms emerging to date, in and of themselves, are not truly assisting you in tipping the needle beyond obscurity and toward sustainability as they themselves have yet to attract the very thing you’re looking for… an audience.

Contests. Gimmicks. Audience engagement tools. Interactive. Cross platform. Wheel-spinners, all. There is not one single emergent platform that appears to ‘get it’ evidenced in large part by their primary marketing push being directed at the filmmakers and not the end user, and accentuated by the fact that many times their technical approach outweighs and/or inhibits the overall user experience.

Quantity, when it comes to strictly-independent, low budget, off-mainstream film, does not attract. Technological wizardry does not attract. Gimmicks are usually non-starters, interactive and cross platform come off as convoluted, and I as audience member will decide how I want to ‘engage’ thank you very much. Bottom line, if you have to explain it to me then it doesn’t make sense, and if your primary market is an audience of … Read the rest

FIVE QUESTIONS FOR “URBANIZED” DIRECTOR GARY HUSTWIT

With Urbanized, filmmaker Gary Hustwit brings his celebrated documentary trilogy to a close. Beginning in the world of typography by exploring a single font in Helvetica, the series gained weight by moving to the world of objects in Objectified and now telescopes miles overhead to examine contemporary urban design. We spoke to Hustwit about what’s changed and what’s stayed the same as he has produced — and distributed — these stylish and intellectually engaging films.

Filmmaker: Your previous two design oriented docs have wound up dealing with subjects other than the the explicit ones of their titles. For example, Helvetica deals in part with corporate messaging, and Objectified about commodity culture and the future role of the object. What areas of discussion does Urbanized lead the viewer into?

Hustwit: I’m always fascinated by how design affects our daily lives, and how a lot of people are oblivious to it. When you walk out your front door, the path of your life that day is controlled by the design of your city: where you work, how you get there, what you do after work, the conditions you live in… it’s all determined by design. So I guess the main area of discussion is why do cities look and work and feel the way they do, and how does it affect all of us, every minute of every day.

Filmmaker: The subject of your film — the design of cities — seems almost a utopian one given the levels of dysfunction in our current political and economic landscape. Is progressive, intelligent city planning a realistic possibility today?

Hustwit: There’s so much political and commercial influence on the shaping of cities, versus really designing them for a better quality of life for citizens across socio-economic lines. Cities can be designed to make peoples lives better, and that’s what we look at in the film, creative solutions to universal issues that face all cities today. I think if citizens demand smarter approaches to urban issues, and get involved in the public discourse, better cities are definitely possible.

Filmmaker: Along with big conversations … Read the rest

WHEN SHOULD YOU CALL BULLS@#T?

By Gregory Bayne

I’ve been pondering Scott Macaulay‘s post WHEN SHOULD YOU GIVE UP? as it’s a question I’ve asked of myself on several occasions, quite recently even. It’s a question that hangs heavy on the psyche of anyone with a will to create and grow beyond the confines of their own feeble inheritance. I know this because I know that anyone who has ever made any attempt to do, or create, or make, anything, ever, has failed. Many times miserably and likely to the point where it feels as if hope has not just vanished from the horizon, but has finally revealed itself to be the self projected mirage it truly was.

When should you give up? It’s a scary question. It’s a question that by simply asking it, you’ve admitted to failing on some level… and that sucks. Over the years though, I’ve come to realize there is a question that precedes this one. It’s an equally honest, pragmatic and logical question in the face of presumed failure, impasse or impending doom. It’s this. When Should You Call Bulls@#t?

Don’t mistake this as a ‘fight the power’ fueled question, I mean it goes there for sure, but the first bulls@#t to call out is your own. Our biggest threat to individual growth as artists and to achieving any level of success in our careers is often times rooted in our complete lack of objectivity. About our work, about our abilities, and so many times, about the full scope of what it actually takes to create, complete and ultimately share our work with others.

Look, here’s the hard truth. Your movie most likely sucks. If it’s genuinely your first film, and you’ve yet to live, therefore been beaten up by, life, and aren’t some one in a million filmmaking savant, yes, it’s probably garbage. Your friends and family aren’t going to say it to your face, so I will. Trash it, move on. Hopefully you at least had the sense to not spend too much on it.

Over the past 2 decades, I have personally made 4 ‘first’ features, before finally landing on … Read the rest

KEVIN SMITH TO SCREEN “RED STATE” IN NATIONWIDE SIMULCAST

By Jason Guerrasio

Kevin Smith continues his maverick release strategy of his latest film Red State by announcing today that he’ll be screening a one-night only nationwide simulcast of the film on Sept. 25. at Quentin Tarantino’s New Beverly Cinema in L.A.

The film will screen at select theaters nationwide through a unique partnership with Ira Deutchman‘s Emerging Pictures theater network, including the post screening Q&A with Smith which will be digitally streamed live from the New Beverly into all of the participating theaters, allowing audience members to interact directly with Smith utilizing Twitter.

Red State had its VOD premiere yesterday after grossing over $1 million to date in 22 single engagements, according to the release. The film is currently undertaking an Oscar-qualifying run, though Smith has tweeted that it’s for the actors not him.

Smith’s unique DIY release of the film began at this year’s Sundance when after putting together an auction for the rights to the film dramatically bought it himself $20. Then in March, Smith began a 15 city tour that kicked off at New York’s Radio City Music Hall, which grossed $162,000 during one show. Though the film is currently available on VOD and will be release on DVD and Blu-ray through Lionsgate on Oct. 18, Smith has tweeted numerous times that he plans to screen the film at arthouses for years to come.

To learn more about the Red State simulcast and stay up to date on screening dates go to coopersdell.com.

KENTUCKER AUDLEY LAUNCHES FILM, NO-BUDGET STREAMING SITE

By Scott Macaulay

Memphis-based filmmaker Kentucker Audley (Team Picture, Open Five), selected for Filmmaker’s “25 New Faces” list in 2007, is releasing today online his new film, Holy Land (pictured here, with stars Bunny Lampert and Cole Weintraub), and with it a platform for fellow directors working in the no-budget trenches. The site is called “No Budge Films,” and it is described simply as “a place to watch no-budget films… Post your short film or feature // for a short run or indefinitely.” Why such a simple site? “Because most films don’t get distributed + it’s cool to give away your film for free + you don’t owe anyone money because you raised your budget on Kickstarter,” Audley writes in his site’s mission statement.

After Audley told me about the site, I asked him a couple of questions which he answered by email. Our conversation is below.

Filmmaker: Why did you decide to become a de facto distributor?

Audley: In the last couple years, I’ve seen so many deserving films fall through the cracks. There’s this film Wishful, Sinful made by this filmmaker Brad Bores. Nobody knows about it but I saw it last year and it’s incredible. I wanted to help people find it but I was in no position to do so. Brad posted the film on Vimeo earlier this year and I reblogged it, but that was all I could do.

I was already interested in internet distribution. Last year we released our film Open Five online and it was a success. We got great press and 5,000 views in three weeks — more people than would have seen it at three years worth of film festivals.

I wrote down this list of reasons to start No Budge when I began the site in February.

-as an experiment

-to understand the world of film distribution better

-to try to help films I like

-to establish and develop relationships with filmmakers

-to find filmmakers I wanna work with

-to help validate no-budget films

-as an alternative to DVD or theatrical distribution

Filmmaker: Who is the audience … Read the rest

SUNDANCE ANNOUNCES NEW ONLINE DISTRIBUTION INITIATIVE

By Scott Macaulay

At a Los Angeles press conference today, Sundance Institute Executive Director Keri Putnam announced an expansion of the organization’s Artist Services Initiative that will bring independent films to digital platforms. Exclusively partnering with aggregator New Video, Sundance is offering its festival and lab films distribution opportunities on iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix and SundanceNOW. Filmmakers will retain ownership and control of their titles, will be free to publicize and market them, and Sundance will conduct its own marketing efforts as well as leverage the potency of its brand to gain the films wider audiences.

Commented Putnam, “By acting as a conduit between filmmaker and distributor, we are presenting an alternative to traditional distribution while building knowledge about online distribution strategies that will benefit the broader field of independent film. We’ve worked with these leaders in online distribution to make it easier for filmmakers to present their work to the widest audiences possible.”

Also announced as part of this initiative is a deal with Topspin Media, who will provide filmmakers with direct marketing tools and fulfillment services.

Today’s programs are part of the Artist Services Initiative, which supports filmmakers engaging in “creative distribution” as they seek new ways to finance, produce and release their films. At the festival in January Sundance announced other components of the Artist Services Initiative, including a collaboration with Kickstarter and a relationship with Facebook.

Commented Sundance Institute Founder and President Robert Redford, ““When I founded the Institute in 1981, it was at a time when a few studios ran the industry and an artist’s biggest concern was whether their film would get made. Technology has lessened that burden, but the big challenge today is how audiences can see these films. The Artist Services program is a direct response to that need. We’re not in the distribution business; we’re in the business of helping independent voices be heard.”

Today’s announcement makes a Sundance selection even more valuable. In addition to the visibility a festival berth brings, and the education and mentorship provided by the Labs, the Sundance imprimatur now means eligible Sundance filmmakers have not only a fast … Read the rest

IT’S ALL UPHILL FROM HERE

By Gregory Bayne

“It’s always a battle. Everything…everyday. It’s like,…can I just get off the battlefield for one day? Step out of the war-zone for a minute?” – Jens Pulver from JENS PULVER | DRIVEN

This confession from Jens has rung through my head almost daily over the past year as I’ve worked to make, complete and subsequently market and release our film, JENS PULVER | DRIVEN. With the film being fully crowd-funded, having garnered festival play and just released nationally on nearly every major VOD network in North America it can be legitimately counted as a marked success in the micro-budget independent feature film world. Though, the day to day efforts put forth to get to this point do at times give one pause and beg the question, “at what cost?” Nearly 7,000 hours and over 21 months committed to this film, and the work is still far from done.

This is not meant to be read as a complaint, rather an honest contemplation of what it actually takes to see an endeavor like this through until the end when that ending point can be elusive, at best. There are many times along the way that you stop and realize exactly why so many give up along the way, or why so few truly, and fully, embrace what is currently described as DIY, and why those who can, many times, hand their films off completely no matter the content of the deal as they receive one thing that those of the DIY stripe never do…a definitive end.

I’ll be honest in that I truly did not know all I was getting into when I began this film, I simply proceeded headstrong in my belief in Jens, his story and the way in which I wanted to tell it. I was aware enough of the scene around me to understand that the ‘heyday’ of indie film had come to a close and that no matter what making this film, or any film, and ultimately getting it seen would be a battle. What was surprising, and encouraging, was how along the … Read the rest