BUILDING COMMUNITY… ONE PROJECT AT A TIME

By Gregory Bayne

As the practice of ‘crowd-funding’ has come of age over the past couple years, so has the wide array of opinion about it. Some have called it a ‘game-changer’, especially when it comes to funding films, others seem to think of it as a magical place where free money simply appears from thin air, and yet others are wholly unconvinced, if not fully disdainful, of this practice of ‘organized-begging’.

I can sympathize with the latter, seeing how crowd-funding has contributed to the advent of incessant self-promotion via social media sites, and the fact that you feel like everywhere you turn someone is asking you for a dollar whilst waving the banner of “support indie (insert art form here)” in your face. It can quickly begin to turn into noise, that you’ve soon trained yourself to immediately tune out. I’ve been on both sides of this proverbial coin and completely understand the frustration.

At the same time I also see the value, and personally find value, in helping support my fellow artists. Sure, I can’t financially commit to supporting everyone whose work I enjoy, or would like to see, but I definitely do what I can because I see the writing on the wall. Over the past couple years it has become very clear that if we want to continue to see, experience or view new and innovative works across a wide variety of mediums, from visual art, comics, and music to film, we’re going to need to get involved with our pocket-books at a much earlier stage. The old days, and old ways, of discovering new artists and their new work as a passive end-user is, and has been, eroding, if not fully on the decline for some time. Direct interaction between artist and audience is quickly becoming the new normal, and direct patronage of the work is following suit.

That said, this business of crowd-funding is a tricky, difficult endeavor to pursue.

My first outing in this arena came out of sheer necessity in early 2010 when all traditional funding efforts for my documentary film JENS PULVER | DRIVEN… Read the rest

WILL THE SECTION 181 FILM TAX INCENTIVE BE EXTENDED?

By Scott Macaulay

The film tax incentive known as “Section 181″ is due to expire at the end of this year, removing one enticement producers have been using to convince investors to finance independent feature films. Part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Section 181 allowed investors to write off the complete cost of a qualified film in the first year. (Normally, this write-off is amortized, occurring in future years as a film demonstrates that it is money-losing.) If and when profits then occur, they are treated as ordinary income by investors.

At the close of 2009, Section 181 was similarly endangered, but after a hiatus Congress signed an extension. Could the same thing happen this year?

Matthew Savare, an attorney at Lowenstein Sandler PC, isn’t holding his breath. “Although I’m hopeful Congress will renew Section 181 as it did last year, I’m very skeptical that will happen,” Savare says. “The political climate is very different – and even worse – than it was a year ago. Also, the economic climate is gloomy and with several states rolling back or discontinuing their incentive programs – such as New Jersey – I just don’t think Congress will have the appetite to extend this. I hold out hope, though, especially if an extension can be incorporated into a larger jobs bill to reduce the high unemployment rate.”

Filmmakers who have been pitching their projects using Section 181 as an incentive have one option to still qualify — begin production by the end of the year. “Filmmakers seeking to take advantage of Section 181 must commence (not necessarily complete) principal photography before December, 31, 2011, so they should get their cameras rolling right away!” advises Savare. “Also, they obviously need to ensure that their production otherwise qualifies. The most important condition is that at least 75% of the service wages need to be performed and paid in the U.S.”

At Indiewire, Dana Harris outlines other requirements, most importantly the formation of an LLC able to accept investors. At Film Closings, Jeff Steele stresses that filmmakers shooting just a day on their film to qualify … 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

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

YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING IN THIS BUSINESS

By Gregory Bayne

I have been thinking about Kevin Smith quite a bit lately. Beyond the obvious happenings with his film Red State and his decision to follow in my footsteps (wink) by embracing the Topspin platform to go about his business of building a media empire, I’ve been a bit in awe of how this guy from New Jersey, who began his journey with a $27,000 ’90s Sundance hit that many in the artistic film world passed off as garbage, has weathered many a storm, some arguably manufactured, to be quite possibly the last man standing and perhaps most forward thinking in an independent film industry that can’t seem to get fully back on track.

I know there are many a ’90s & ’00s Sundance alum out there still working, making films, making TV, making it, but none (that I’m aware of) have taken such distinct advantage of their first outing to have turned it, and/or themselves, into such a full force media-making machine so in control of their own destiny that if they cut off ties with everyone they know in the industry today they would be able to continue working, making exactly the type of film/tv/art they want to, while making a very healthy living at it. Smith and Co. have done that.

My “history” with Smith begins all the way back in Vancouver, B.C., where we both attended film school in 1992/’93. He in Class 23 with my fellow Idahoan David Klein, and me in Class 24. Our only interaction was being on an elevator together and only connection was my friendship with Klein, who shot Clerks and many other of Smith’s films, and Scott Mosier, who produced them. When they hit in 1994, I was back in Idaho attempting to wrangle together my own ’90s indie hit to no avail. After the requisite amount of youthful envy, I stepped back and just enjoyed watching these guys capture early success and in that was able to witness the early steps toward where Smith finds himself today. Say what you will about the films — I know I’ve … Read the rest

THE MICROBUDGET CONVERSATION: DIRTY WORD

By John Yost

It seems that this column is really starting to draw out a conversation from us micro-budget folks, and beyond; I couldn’t be happier. There seems to be a lot of dialogue happening in the comments, and I’m getting constant feedback from filmmakers from all over the world who are trying to make a new DIY model work. Every once and a while I get requests from some folks who want to contribute to the column itself. Many times these requests come from publicists, or folks just looking to sell themselves, but every once and a while a real dialogue is jump started, and a new friend made. Christopher Boghosian is one of those folks. Chris is a filmmaker who works and lives in L.A., and our first conversations were about the no-budget scene in one of the biggest film cities in the world. Chris is currently working on his first feature Girlfriend 19 (pictured below), and was eager to share his thoughts on micro-budget budgets.

Why do filmmakers continue to get lost in the budget abyss?  Why do they talk about thousands, even millions of dollars as though it were nothing? Like a massive bear trap, unrealistic budgets continue to seize and maim far too many filmmakers.

I too was trapped. After leaving law school to make films, I spun my wheels conceiving of and writing scripts that demanded way too much.  Frustrated and ashamed, my break-through came when I stopped thinking “outside” the box and embraced it instead! If excellence is doing the best with what one has, then I needed to accept my limitations, especially finances. I call it “thinking outside the box, inside the box.” This paradox is the single biggest reason I made three short films in two years and I am now in post-production on a feature.

The value of art lies in execution, not materials, thus, a small budget does not necessarily mean a bad film. The elements that make a film great have little to do with budget, e.g., narrative craft, camera placement, and acting. I know what you’re thinking: to place the camera a certain way, or hire … Read the rest

WE ARE THE NIGHT

By James Ponsoldt

The Myth of the American Sleepover has seduced audiences from Austin to Cannes with the intimacy of its look at a group of teenagers during one long, magical summer night. Writer-director David Robert Mitchell and his team discuss the film’s journey to the screen. By James Ponsoldt

INDUSTRY BEAT: THE NEW STUDIO INDIES

By Anthony Kaufman

The New Studio Indies. By Anthony Kaufman

THE MICROBUDGET CONVERSATION: JAMIE HEINRICH SAYS, JUST DO IT

By John Yost

This column usually focuses on one subject per post that tackles one specific aspect of micro-budget filmmaking. I never wanted it to be a place where we talk about the latest gear or tips on how to get a film done; There are other awesome sites for that. However, after talking with filmmaker Jamie Heinrich, about no-budget filmmaking, he sent me the list of important things to remember below. Jamie recently completed his film I Like You, and after seeing the trailer I can’t wait to check it out. Jamie’s advice is funny, to the point, and no nonsense. I felt I needed to share it as it aligns with my outlook to an obscene level. (#4 is my favorite.)

Here is what I’ve learned, and how I made my first feature film for free. If you’ve never made a feature, and want to make one for free, then you just hit the jackpot here. If you have made one for free, then we should start a club. These are my tactics. I’m a pro at making a first feature film for free and complete novice at making a second one. I’ve listed bullet points of the steps for you readers, so you can get a little notebook and have a guide to accomplish a feature film. If you’re cutting edge and own a printer then print it out. I appreciate the opportunity to share some of my tactics with fellow striving human filmmakers.

SARAH PALIN DEFENDS FILM TAX INCENTIVES

By Scott Macaulay

In my review of 2010 in film, appearing in the Winter issue of Filmmaker soon to depart newsstands, I predicted controversy in 2011 over state film tax credit and incentive programs. That controversy has today landed on an unlikely target: Sarah Palin. First, here’s what I wrote:

In December, Wall Street analyst Meredith Whitney made waves when she predicted a wave of municipal bond defaults, highlighting the perilous financial position of recession-strapped state and local governments. Indeed, independent filmmakers might find their beloved film incentive and rebate programs impacted in 2011. The seeds of this began in late 2010, with the Incentives Office sending out an email blast headlined, “Dark Day for Incentives Programs.” The head of the Massachusetts Film Office, Nick Paleogolos, was terminated when his office was merged with the Office of Travel and Tourism. “There is speculation that his successful campaign to stop a $2 million talent cap from being implemented led to his departure,” the Incentives Office wrote. Iowa’s program is in melt-down, with former commissioner Tom Wheeler on trial and one filmmaker being indicted for first-degree fraud and another pleading guilty to first-degree theft. Governor-elect Terry Branstad has vowed to scrap the program. It should be said that there was good incentives news in 2010 as well, with New York’s controversy-free program being re-upped after a three-month limbo period caused by State budget issues. Still, reports are trickling in of other state governments delaying promised film incentives payments. Even more distressingly, the 2010 elections and Tea Party fervor have turned film incentives into political footballs. In Florida, a provision in the state’s film tax incentive bill proposed denying funds to films that promote “non-traditional family values.” And while Danny Trejo may have said, “Don’t Mess with Texas” in Robert Rodriguez’s Machete, Governor Rick Perry messed with the film’s credit, revoking $1.75 million under a clause allowing the State to deny funds “because of inappropriate content or content that portrays Texas or Texans in a negative fashion.” Expect stories like these to accelerate in 2011.

On Tuesday, the conservative Tax Foundation linked to an Anchorage … Read the rest