- This is how it goes…
- Decreasing global value of non-blockbuster filmed content
- leads to decreasing funding which
- leads to decreasing budgets
- which leads to decreasing scope of execution
- which limits content & style
- which often reduces audience size & impact.
- Lower budgets lead to
- lower fees which leads to
- reduced access to international stars, which
- lowers value estimates of the film
- which reduces budgets and fees further,
- which reduces creative individuals ability to support themselves in the field.
- Which reduces availibility of quality product
- Which reduces audience satisfaction and faith in the industry
- Decreasing global value of non-blockbuster filmed content
- Which gets us to the world we live in today.
Category: Truly Free Film
We are on the verge of a new film culture and infrastructure.
We have a bit of a redundancy in the recognition of those that create good work, but that good work does not end with what is up on the screen — which is the part that everyone seems to want to write about. I feel however that we must recognize those that focus not just on the development and production of good work, but those that commit themselves to ALL of cinema, including discovery, participation, appreciation, and presentation — what I consider the other 4 pillars of cinema.
Last year at this time, I put forth a list of inspiring folks, people who by their acts and ideas were giving me the energy to keep striving for a better film culture and infrastructure, one that was accessible to all, and slave to none. We are closer to a truly free film culture this year than we were last year, and I remain optimistic that we can be a hell of a lot closer next year than we are today, thanks in no small part to the 40 I have singled out these two short years.
This list, like last year’s, is not meant to be exhaustive. Okay, granted I did not get to the quantity to the 21 Brave Thinkers that I did last year, but the quality is just as deep. Regarding the lesser amount, I don’t blame the people — I blame the technology (of course). I wish I had better tools of discovery that would allow me to find more of the good work and efforts that are out there. I know I am overlooking some BTs again this year. But so be it — one of the great things about blogging is there is no need to be finished or even to be right (although I do hate it when I push publish prematurely — like I did with this — when it is still purely a draft).
I know I can depend on you, my dear brave thinkers, to extend and amend this work into the future. I do find it surprising how damn white & male & middle aged this list is. And that I only found two directors to include this year. Again, it must be the tools and not the source, right? Help me source a fuller list next year; after all, it is as Larry K tweeted to me about regarding who are the most brave these days: “Those whom you don’t know but who continue, despite the indifference of all, to create work that is authentic,challenging and real.” How true that is!
Last year I asked and stated: “What is it to be “brave”? To me, bravery requires risk, going against the status quo, being willing to do or say what few others have done. Bravery is not a one time act but a consistent practice. Most importantly, bravery is not about self interest; bravery involves the individual acting for the community. It is both the step forward and the hand that is extended.”
This year, I recognize even more fully that bravery is a generosity of spirit, as well as a generative sort of mind. It is extending the energy inside ourselves to the rest of the world. I often get asked why I blog (or why so much), and I have no answer for those folks. It can’t be stopped, for I believe if we love the creative spirit as much as the work it yields, if we believe we create for the community and not for the ego, how can we not extend ourselves and turn our labor into the bonds that keep us moving forward. In other words, no one can afford to create art and not be public (IMHO). If you want a diverse and accessible culture of ambitious work, you can not afford to simply hope it will get better — you have to do something (or get out of the business, please).
So without any further adieu, here’s my list of the nineteen folks who have done more on a worldwide basis
to start to build it better together,
I got a kick out of Hollywood’s Reporter’s recent article on the WikiLeaks cables. There they put forth the realization that George Clooney, Desperate Housewives, and Late Night With David Letterman do more to prevent jihad than the $500M the US State Dept dumped into funding the TV station in Saudi Arabia.
I have long thought we damn the perception of America by only allowing the market to decide what films travel overseas. Okay, granted that is a bit of an oversimplification, but when so much money is spent marketing The Studios’ product, the overseas audiences basically get to see that Americans like to drive fast and blow shit up. I know we are a wee bit more diverse than that.
If the films from Sundance or any other regional festival were given away to developing nations, the people of the world would have a much different impression of whom we are, culturally speaking. Okay, maybe they’d think we are a bit obsessed with coming out and perhaps made up of predominately junkie moms trying to go straight, but they still would be presented with a much greater tapestry.
If the US State department funded a giveaway of US Indie films, not only would Indie’s have access to audiences, communities, and markets that they currently struggle to find, but hey, what’s so funny about getting a little world peace in the windfall?
Guest post by Thomas Mai www.thomasmai.net
There are many advantages to Crowdfunding, but one of the less known is that you actually get to test if there is an audience for your film BEFORE you make it. We filmmakers are driven by passion (clearly not the money) and often we spend 2-4 years on making a film, just to find out that nobody really cares about it.
By Crowdfunding even smaller amounts you send a clear signal to potential investors/ film funds that you know who your audience is (and often where they live) this makes it so much easier for investors/film funds to believe in you because you have have proven that the audience believes in you.
In the traditional way of making films, audience was this magical thing that entered the life of the film once it was completed. Sure, we thought about the audience while making the film, but there was no direct audience participation. Yes, we could do test screenings and go back to the editing room but the film was ALREADY shot.
The US has a healthy supply of “bookers” and for-hire distro/marketeers who can help you navigate the theatrical waters when you are looking at DIY or hybrid approaches, but are there the same folks in Europe, Asia, and other territories? There’s got to be right? So where are they and how can we access them easier?
Many a filmmaker in the US have now decided it makes better sense to split up rights across media, license on a short term or non-exclusive basis, and essentially handle the theatrical themselves on a non-traditional basis. But why would what makes sense in the US, not also make sense in other territories?
This is one of my wishes for the new year: let’s demystify hybrid distribution internationally and build up a good list of companies and individuals to partner with. If you are out there, let us know!
Movies don’t have the same value as they used to, but they now cost much more to market.
Okay, maybe this simple observation is not as simple as I first thought.
When I started out in the film business, it was considered reasonable to value North American rights on a feature at 50% of negative costs. If I was asked to value such rights today, on the average, I would say they were either zero or they would be a negative.
When I started producing movies, a well packaged and developed project could anticipate get 80% of it’s negative cost from licensing foreign rights. The value of foreign rights has been dropping consistently for years. What were once major territories in terms of revenue they returned, now seem virtually impossible to do deals in. Television rights abroad supported acquisition prices for years, but now those slots are increasingly difficult to obtain everywhere. If an independent film can piece together 50% of its negative cost from international, I think they are pretty fortunate.
Guest post by Wendy Bernfeld, Managing Director, Rights Stuff
It’s no surprise for producers and distributors, that revenues from traditional sources such as TV and DVD have generally been declining, along with minimum guarantees for international sales. Despite earlier disappointments, we have seen that the digital marketplace (web, mobile, IPTV/vod, etc) has now become a source of real revenue, although requiring careful attention to suitable platforms, ’windowing’ and deal structuring.
Rights Stuff has spent the last decade dedicated particulary new media platforms , or traditional platforms expanding into new media dealings, as well as filmmakers/distributors/ content owners, helping them in content acquisition/licensing and maximising revenue streams. There are a wealth of opportunities arising from non-traditional/digital platform buyers and funding sources, outside the comfort zone of your usual buyers database .
