Film Festival Strategy Round-Up

Back when I started this blog in October (oh so long ago, eh?), my short term goal was to help filmmakers not be misguided as to what a festival, even Sundance, could do for their film.  We posted a bunch about film festival strategy and it is all collected here.

There is still a lot to say on the subject and we are open suggestion as to the topics.

Follow Ted On Twitter

I just took another step into the modern world and opened a Twitter account.

Follow me at TedHope.

Let's just call it an experiment for now.

How To Do Almost Anything With Social Media

Mashable has a great How To list to celebrate the closure of 2008.  Google, Facebook, Twitter, Online Video, Social Networking, Social Media.  It's all there.  Now you just have to find the time to read it and do it.  

And then you can save indie film before it's too late!

Tools Update: Theatrical Mapping Project

Jon Reiss writes:

I suggest TFF add the theatrical mapping project from the Workbook Project

"tools" section of the Truly Free Film site (consider it done, Jon! - Ted). This map was my first step in the theaters that I contacted for our theatrical release of Bomb It and as such was hugely instrumental in our release. We found other theaters that were not on the map and have since added them. The map was set up by the wonderful Lance Weiler - and it only expands if you contribute - so if you have a theater (or college campus) please add it - its very easy. I like Ted's idea of potentially having another list or map of college campuses that screen independent film. We are working on booking Bomb It currently into colleges - so if you have any suggestions - send them along!

jon@jonreiss.com

Hope For The Future pt. 5: The List #'s 18 -21

18.A feature film is no longer defined as a singular linear narrative told in under two hours. Filmmakers are recognizing the need to extend the filmic world beyond the traditional confines. Whether this is in Judd Apatow’s YouTube shorts for KNOCKED UP or in Wes Anderson’s prologue short for THE DARJEELING EXPRESS, the beginning of new models have emerged helping filmmakers continue the conversation forward with their audiences.

19.New models for production are being utilized. The most widely noted in this regard is “crowdsourced” work. Massify has recently brought together the horror film Perkins 14. This year brought us Matt Hanson’s and A Swarm Of Angels open sourced / free culture start-up THE UNFOLD; the trailer is mysterious (see below) and I am looking forward to the feature. These massive collaborative works are the ultimate union between audience and creator.

20. Grassroots has come to distribution. The Living Room Theater model advanced by Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Theaters empowers audience members and filmmakers alike bringing them together and invested in each others success. Filmmakers give the audience more power and control, and audiences recognize that they have to fight to preserve the culture they want. The Micro Cinema Movement's been at it longer and is still going strong.

21. The independent art house theaters are organizing. Sundance is hosting the first Art House Convergence this year prior to the festival, helping to build the knowledge base of these theaters and enhance their collaboration. This platform will be key to preserving the theaterical experience for films outside the domain of the major media corporations.

Worlds Will Shatter - The Unfold (A Swarm Of Angels) trailer

Email Is The Old Way

From Jon Reiss:

In the spirit of the holidays I thought I would share a thank you that one of my students from Cal Arts, Michelle Manas, sent out after completing the principal photography of her thesis film. I thought it was a nice way to use You Tube and to create a more personal thank you than the standard email thanks I am always sending out!:

Hope For The Future pt. 4: The List #'s 14 -17

My goal was to provide my friends, collaborators, and co-conspirators 52 Reasons Not To Feel Glum About The State Of Film Culture, and precisely that sector of independent art film culture I call Truly Free Film.  I figured with the economy in the toilet, traditional media stepping into the grave, and a business leader or politician being revealed as a crook daily, we didn't need more gloom poured on.

I didn't think I would have to do build the list alone though.  Isn't that part of the glory of the whole blogosphere?  That people collaborate?  I started the list and kept on adding to it until we go 25% there, hoping that the list would then write itself.  It didn't.  

I guess that is the bad news: either people don't like to participate or that the film world is a bunch of pessimists.  If you know which one it is, let me know.

The good news is that I had no problem completing the list solo.  Granted it took about an hour, but I stopped when I got to Number 52.  Taking it further might make us giddy.  As this year winds down, we can rest knowing we have many reasons to be cheerful.

And so, I continue this list in no particular order.  When I approach its end, I will provide it somewhere, if someone wants it, in its entirety, with an ordered logic and some other tasty filler.  But for now...

14. We have seen a perfect distribution model and its success: the Obama social network was nothing short of a thing of beauty. Its methods should be an inspiration for all truly free filmmakers. People had a reason to visit the site, to supply information, to reach out and connect to others. They were supplied the tools and a mission. Now go out and find someone to vote for the culture you want.

15. The DIY/Do It With Others model is now recognized as a real alternative to traditional make-it-and-pray-that-others-will-pay-to-distribute-it-for-you. Filmmakers are planning for it as a possibility from the start of production. This preparation becomes the key to success.

16.Filmmakers are recognizing the need to define their platform at early stage AND make it on-going. Be they producers like Bill Horberg or Jane Kosek , directors like Raymond DeFelitta and Jon Reiss ,or writers like John August and Dennis Cooper, creative filmmakers are taking upon themselves to find and unite their audiences at an earlier stage in the process. Okay, maybe it isn’t so Machavellian; maybe they just want to talk to people. Either way, it is going to lead to more people seeing better films.

17. A curatorial culture is starting to emerge. Creative communities need filters. Every year I have as many “want to see” films on my list as I do “best of”. It’s not that there is too much as some like to claim, but it’s that there is still too little discussion on what is best and why. We started Hammer To Nail (soon to debut in a new & improved form!) for this reason, but we are not alone. Although they tread in much different waters, popular email blasts/broadcasts like Daily Candy and Very Short List, these sites work as much as filters as they do identifiers. Social Networks most popular features are members “favorites” in their profiles. We are all being trained as curators, but are only now starting to share it publicly.

We Say: "Why Not?"

Screen International makes a good point in their post "Film must look to reinvention".

A Community Of Theaters: Film Circuit

How come it is the film festivals that pull together the theater operators?  I am very excited about the upcoming Sundance-organized Art House Convergence in SLC prior to Sundance and the potential it offers to weave together a group of sympathetic exhibitors.  We have so much great work in this country that currently goes under-screened.  There is fabulous international work too that we never get see or even learn about.  Don't even get me started about shorts.  

We lack meaningful ways to foster discussion about all this work without having it exhibited in a group context.  They have started to change this across our northern border with FILM CIRCUIT, and hopefully we can learn from their example.

A division of the Toronto International Film Festival Group (TIFFG), Film Circuit provides filmgoers in under-served communities, transformative experiences through access to Canadian and international independent films they would otherwise not have the opportunity to see. With over 190 groups in 169 communities across Canada, Film Circuit is essential in helping TIFFG lead the world in building markets and audiences for Canadian Cinema. 

Film Circuit promotes Canadian and international cinema through grassroots distribution, marketing, and exhibition. While providing filmgoers an opportunity to see films that may not otherwise be available, Film Circuit also provides distributors with an opportunity to extend the theatrical run of their films.

Recognizing that it is important that each individual community curates its own screening events to maximize community commitment and capitalize on knowledge of local demand, Film Circuit encourages collaborative programming between Film Circuit staff and individual Film Circuit Groups. Release schedules are issued throughout the year, and each group selects films according to local demand with the goal of enhancing awareness of and increasing exposure for independent cinema. The Film Circuit office then books films based on availability as determined by the distributor. Film Circuit staff arrange print traffic, provide development support, research and prepares film titles and availability lists, offer programming consulting, book guests and ensure cross-Circuit communication.
Films screened on Film Circuit are event based and generally classified as 'limited releases'; they require local marketing support to reach audiences. Some methods groups use to generate local interest in the programme include:

Flyers
Word of mouth
Membership and subscriptions
Local press (ie. Newspaper articles, radio/television interviews)
Sponsored advertising
E-newsletters

Check out the Film Circuit website.  They also feature American Independents.  Get in touch with them about your work.

Thanks to Lance Hammer for this tip!

They Now Admit They Were Wrong

A little more than five years ago, the creative film community rose up in rebellion against the MPAA and Hollywood Studios anti-trust violation known as "The Screener Ban".  It ended in what was a successful law suit that I not only got to testify in, but had the good fortune of meeting the love of my life in the process.  Quite a win, I say.

It was difficult initially to get some people to question the wisdom (or motives) of those that wrote the paychecks and controlled the gateways of distribution.  Producers, directors,and  organizations like the IFPs joined together and The Ban was rescinded by the force of law.  

Maybe The Ban really was initially enacted due to a fear of piracy, but the judge understood that the actions of studios and MPAA completely disregarded the realities and necessities of the independent sector.  In an effort to protect their revenues, the powerful might have crushed the independents for good.  

Their actions these days, as reported here by Variety,  indicate they now recognize they were misguided in their actions to institute The Ban.  The needs of promotion outweigh the possible repercussions of potential piracy.

It makes you wonder doesn't it?  What else might be attempted to be enacted in the name of the good of the industry that is neglectful of the needs of a smaller but incredibly vital segment of the larger picture?

How To Make Internet TV

The Participatory Culture Foundation has simple how to site worth checking out.  From what equipment to use, best techniques to capture stuff, licensing, publishing, and promotion, it's all here.

Locavesting: Is it applicable to film?

Mind you most of film finance is probably classifiable as Loco-vesting, but I was struck by one of the ideas cited in the NY Times' excellent YEAR IN IDEAS roundup.  Locavesting is simply the practice of investing in local businesses.  

A region's benefit in incentivizing locavesting is akin to the logic around state tax credits: money spent in film is again transfered to the region's other businesses generally.  Civic leaders recognizing this might come up with additional incentives to encourage it.  Certainly a savvy producer would be sure to foreground this with any locally-based investor-wannabe.  The promise of regional cinema could be grounded by such a locally based film slate investment fund.

This is that excerpt from the article:

Locavestors
By AMY CORTESE
Perhaps you’ve heard of locavores: people who eat only foods that have been produced within a 100-mile radius. Now some people — call them locavestors — are investing in much the same way. The idea is that, by investing in local businesses, rather than, say, a faceless conglomerate, investors can earn profits while supporting their communities. To help match mostly local investors with capital-hungry local businesses, regional stock exchanges are starting to spring up around the globe.

Consider InvestBX, which was formed to serve businesses looking to raise relatively small sums in England’s West Midlands region. In February, InvestBX’s first listed company, Teamworks Karting, which runs an indoor go-kart center in Birmingham, raised more than $735,000 to open a new track in nearby Reading. In November, Key Technologies, a high-tech firm with 232 employees and annual sales of some $26 million, floated shares worth nearly $3 million. To list on InvestBX, a company must be based in the United Kingdom and have a significant part of its operations in the West Midlands. Companies can raise about $3 million from “local and U.K.-wide investors.”

Local exchanges address a financing gap for smaller companies, which may not be able to attract venture capital and for whom the major exchanges may be out of reach. “Small businesses need funding options more than ever in today’s recessionary climate,” says Trexler Proffitt, a professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., who recently completed a feasibility study for a seven-county Lancaster exchange. (His conclusion: affirmative.)

In a way, we’re coming full circle. Until the 1950s, when they began to consolidate, there were thriving regional exchanges all across the country. “Globalization has been advantageous, but we’re starting to see the sacrifices we’ve made,” Proffitt says. “People are interested in figuring out how to connect to their local communities again.”

Web Marketing For Filmmakers

Jon Reiss returns!

Here's a great blog post about the very very basics of marketing your film'swebsite. I'm sure you know a lot of this - but a lot was news to me (post excerpted):

1. Go to Godaddy.com and purchase a domain name. Get one that ends with .com. Get your movie title. If it is unavailable add “movie” or “themovie” or “film” to the end. (You don’t need to purchase any other services during check-out.)
2. Sign up for WordPress.com. Make your blog the title of your movie/ domain. Start posting press releases and other articles, such as reviews.
3. Sign up for Youtube.com. Make your username title of your movie/ domain. Post your trailer, or you can do a video “pitch”.
4. Sign-up for an account on Facebook.com.
5. Sign-up for Flickr. Get your username title of your movie/ domain.
6. Sign up for an account at del.icio.us. Bookmark your domain, facebook page, blog page and you tube page.
7. Sign up for a google account, to use their alerts, place connect with people who talk about you.
8. Sign up for Box Office Widget. Place this on your website and on your blog. Use it as your signature on forums.
8. Sign up for Spottt. Place this banner code on your myspace page, blog, and the thank you page from Box Office Widget.
10. Go to Yahoo! Groups and find all the groups that may have interest to your film and join. Participate in the group, rather than just spam the group.

This was written by one of the co-founders of Neoflix. Neoflix themselves have set up a number of marketing tools for filmmakers - they are going to give me a tutorial in the coming weeks and I'll be passing that information along.

And this DIY Flix sites seems pretty amazing at first glance as well.

But back to marketing. I think marketing does not come easy for most filmmakers. Even filmmakers who pitch well - when it comes to the nuts and bolts business aspects of DIY filmmaking - they blanch. Its quite different from being creative. Very different. Doesn't feel right and doesn't feel fun. 

I have an extra handicap of coming from the punk era where this kind of straight business had a certain smell. But its time to get over that - web marketing necessary if you are going to create an audience for yourself and survive as an "independent" filmmaker in these changing times. My mission for then next couple of months is to become immersed in all manners of web marketing for filmmakers - I'm going to use Bomb It as a case study and I'll keep you posted.

-Jon Reiss (jon@jonreiss.com)

Who Is Really Prepared For Sundance?

If only I had more hands.  And more time.  And less things that really got me excited -- like movies I want to make.

Anyway, I have been wondering what films and what filmmakers had gone ahead and made a trailer, built a website, had been blogging, placing clips on line.  You know: all the sort of stuff that needs to be done so you can truly launch at Sundance.  

It currently looks like the list of Those Who Are Prepared is not surprisingly dominated by those that have the most funding (and thus the most hands).  But it really doesn't have to be so (I know that's a lot easy to say, than do, but still...).  

Cinematical has run with a good opening list of the trailers for Sundance films.  I hope someone does a list of websites soon too.

What's Needed Now? Chesanek contemplates

Brent had some thoughts to the question of what's needed now:

I completely agree about what's needed. If you notice, Pitchfork is a conglomeration of so many sections, from lists to music videos to interviews, etc., that it becomes a one-stop shop for visitors, or at least a magnificent starting point to news, reviews, features, interviews, videos, etc.

This could be done for our community, but adding a local basis with subdomains. So NYC film events and reviews of films playing here is one subdomain, LA, Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia, Orlando, Austin are others. They could all share content but arrange it based on the local scene and screenings and then could add local content.

Getting audiences to a specific time and place to see a film is just as crucial as getting them a review of that film. Imagine a public iCal or Google Calendar with film schedules, not showtimes necessarily, but dates and schedules, so we can see, for example, The GoodTimesKid is playing only FOUR DAYS this week at Anthology while Pleasure of Being Robbed is playing for the next 10 days at IFC. One calendar with all the theaters' schedules. Is there anything like this?

Right now in Google Reader I have all these feeds in a folder. But the problem is that things disappear as I read them, and then articles and features don't get the face time that they do on Pfork or in a more traditional magazine format. So I read a Hammer to Nail review and then the next day I don't have that review or that screenshot from the film there to remind me that the film is playing, nor do I have a schedule of how long I have to see that film. RSS readers and scroll-down blogs are magnificent, but again, they don't lend repeated viewing--they're designed to do the opposite.

Pitchfork is setup so well I prefer going to it rather than subscribing to its feed. It encourages browsing and promotes repeated viewing of its features. I think for our purposes, Pfork is arranged better than content in an RSS reader or scroll-down blog. If I go to Pfork, I get new content as well as another reminder of that record they loved and reviewed 3 days ago–while I didn't have time to seek it out and listen then, I do today. The more we see something, the more inclined we are to look into it or at least remember it.

Building something like this for my own use is possible if I scour the web daily and go crazy coding something myself or figure out how to customize iGoogle or My.Yahoo, but maybe it could be stronger if there was one central build of it, at least for each metropolitan area. I know the web is very much about letting users decide on their content, but I think it'd be more effective in promoting the lesser-talked about films if it was moderated by a party with that goal. Pfork is still not user-generated in the least, but it's absolutely a community and beyond, because record stores notice their sales heavily correlate with Pitchfork's content and because there is such a large anti-Pitchfork crowd.

I ask again, is there anything like this?
--Brent Chesanek

Brand Sponsorship: The Various New Tools

I got one of my first breaks in the film business over twenty years ago.  I walked into a production office and told them that I could raise over $100K of product placement for their indie film.  No one was doing it in those days and there was no how-to guide.  I told them they did not have to pay me unless I was successful.  I went to the library did some research on companies, and started cold calling.  It was pretty much a piece of cake.

Nowadays there are many product placement agencies that the brands contract with to seek out good placement opportunities.  On a typical indie film, you hire a rights clearance and product placement person to work with you clearing and obtaining trademarked items.  It's a labor intensive field based around relationships and know how.

With the ubiquity of user-generated content, new opportunities have risen not only for the brands, but also for filmmakers.  Although I don't know of any pot-of-gold stories, there are a handful of new services looking to bring efficiencies to the field by helping brands and creators utilize various online tools.  Granted no artist desires to turn their work into a walking advertisement, but brands also have an incentive to bring audiences to a work that they are featured in.  Careful consideration can yield a win-win situation.  

Which of these new services are the best?  What other ones are out there?  How do they differ?  I don't know, but maybe some of you do.  These are the ones that I have found so far:

PlaceVine

StoryBids

XLNTads

Wanted: A National Collection Agency

Over the years I have heard filmmakers, executives, and lawyers profess the need for a public collection agency to work with international/territorial film licensors.  The concept is that there would be a neutral party that the licensors pay their contracted fees to, and in return for both collecting these fees and dispersing them out to the contracted parties, the agency takes a small percentage.  Although there is no US body doing this on American filmmakers behalf, these collection agencies do exist in other countries.  It remains a good idea, but the need has morphed and expanded with all the activity in the DIY distribution arena.

It's hard enough to think all the bookers at the the various theaters want to hear from all the filmmakers eager to screen their work.  It's harder still to imagine the theater owners want to squabble with these filmmakers over how much they are owed.  What's needed is a neutral party to collect and distribute the theatrical receipts and a set of rules on what needs to be provided to demonstrate earnings.

This would be a great undertaking for either the IFP or Film Independent to embrace.  Frankly though it could be done just as easily as a for-profit venture and is the sort of low-cost infrastructure build that is perfect for the risk adverse type that still wants to be in the media space; I have to imagine that for less than the cost of another Sundance-wannabe feature, an investor could create a self-sustaining entity that benefits the entire community and our culture as a whole.

Such an agency would also be a very unique entity in terms of its data mining potential.  How great would it be if the funder embraced an open source attitude too?  Well, a guy can dream can't he?

Who Is Doing It Well?

What are some good examples of filmmakers, beyond our TFF Heroes, who are reaching out to audiences early, engaging them with good content, maintaining a rich dialogue with them, and then working with them to get their work seen?  Who are those artists who are providing more than the one way relationship of "here is my film to watch"?  Who has reach beyond the limits of a single film / single platform paradigm and climbed on the cross-platform cohesion engine?  

We want to know.  We want to help your work reach the audience.  We want to show how it can be done.  And we'd like to discuss it.  If you generate this work or just locate it and love it -- even if you hate it! -- please bring it to us.  Let's build this list too.

A Word On The Educational Market

Jon Reiss guests blogs again:

At the recent FIND conference on the state of independent film, I had the pleasure to meet Robert Bahar who made the wonderful Emmy Winning documentary Made in L.A. We were discussing the problem of releasing a film on DVD prior to or simultaneously with an educational release. 

I have learned since the release of Bomb It that it is traditionally difficult to have an educational release after or concurrent with a DVD release. This is because educational institutions will eagerly buy your dvd from Amazon for 19.95 rather than pay the educational rate of $195. 

Robert told me about his ingeneous solution which was to put a notice at the beginning of the film - similar to the FBI warning - that the film was for home use only and not for educational or public performance. In the authoring they disabled the ability for people to pause for a few minutes after this message or fast forward through it. Eg any teacher would have to play this warning - indicating to students that it was being shown illegally. Pretty smart!

Robert is smart in another way in terms of his film. He has set up with his fulfillment company (the wonderful Neoflix) to provide various community screening packages for sale on his site for various size screenings. Check out his site to see how he has set this up. Make sure to check out his amazing "Event Planning Toolkit".

Let us know what you think of what he is doing.

You can also respond directly to Jon at: 

jon@jonreiss.com

Slowing It Down: Chesanek's Counterpoint Concludes (Part 6 of 6)

Brent concludes...

Another scary thing about the NYC DIY Dinner discussion is that essentially it's asking filmmakers who've likely just worked for several years for no money to now take further losses and develop things they have no intrinsic passion for, just so that thing they do have passion for gains validity. 

Filmmakers like me already spend 70% of our time looking for permission (ie funds) to make our films from people perhaps not in the best position to be gatekeepers, and now that looks to be expanded to 90% or more. Our pay just went down, as if we were making enough to subsist on to begin with. Already, incomes in this country have been relatively stagnant for 30 years despite rapid growths in technology and productivity in most industries. 

We're all expected to do more for less money. That seems exponential with independent film, and as I said, we're now going to have to figure out how to do that part of it we love even less often for less money.

How do we improve this? Your idea about helping each other is a start. I suppose if it weeds out the ones with fleeting delusions of grandeur and dreams of wealth, that will help. If it means less films are fast-tracked, more time is spent on each film, then each becomes that much more focused and worthwhile in terms of individuality and distinction, then there is something to be hopeful for.

1000 True Fans

Kevin Kelly's articulation of survival on the long tail was one of the essential readings this year for anyone trying to figure out a new paradigm for Indie and Truly Free Filmmaking.  It may be old hat out in blogland, but it is a concept that still hasn't been discussed enough among indie filmmakers.  It promotes the notion that: 

A creator, such as an artist, musician, photographer, craftsperson, performer, animator, designer, videomaker, or author - in other words, anyone producing works of art - needs to acquire only 1,000 True Fans to make a living.

As a fan of a great deal of diverse artists, I regularly marvel at how musicians in particular do a good job of maintaining an ongoing dialogue with their fans.  Filmmakers, outside of Kevin Smith, don't seem to embrace this necessity.  I suppose it can be argued that prolific artists working in multiple formats, like Michel Gondry, do it well too.  The Safdie Brothers are another good example amongst the more emerging set.  But as Kelly points out:

The key challenge is that you have to maintain direct contact with your 1,000 True Fans. They are giving you their support directly. Maybe they come to your house concerts, or they are buying your DVDs from your website, or they order your prints from Pictopia. As much as possible you retain the full amount of their support. You also benefit from the direct feedback and love.

To ignore this advice and still hope for the industry to simply discover you and reward you, limits your options to mainstream tentpole pictures.  This may well be some filmmakers' dream, but they might as well plan to win the lottery.   What is so exciting is that there has never been a better time to plan on building the apparatus that allows you to be a Truly Free Filmmaker.  The tools to build your 1000 True Fan circle are there.  Kelly illuminates:

 The technologies of connection and small-time manufacturing make this circle possible. Blogs and RSS feeds trickle out news, and upcoming appearances or new works. Web sites host galleries of your past work, archives of biographical information, and catalogs of paraphernalia. Diskmakers, Blurb, rapid prototyping shops, Myspace, Facebook, and the entire digital domain all conspire to make duplication and dissemination in small quantities fast, cheap and easy. You don't need a million fans to justify producing something new. A mere one thousand is sufficient.
... This small circle of diehard fans, which can provide you with a living, is surrounded by concentric circles of Lesser Fans.

I have frequently feared that it is the dream of stardom and wealth that fuels both the indie production cycle and film school enrollment lists.  Maybe that is because the possibility of survival and being a true artist seemed so impossible.  But that does not have to be so, if you invest some time and energy in building your own support system.

Young artists starting out in this digitally mediated world have another path other than stardom, a path made possible by the very technology that creates the long tail. Instead of trying to reach the narrow and unlikely peaks of platinum hits, bestseller blockbusters, and celebrity status, they can aim for direct connection with 1,000 True Fans. It's a much saner destination to hope for. You make a living instead of a fortune. You are surrounded not by fad and fashionable infatuation, but by True Fans. And you are much more likely to actually arrive there.

Any way, read the article and take it to heart.  And for those of you who already know this gospel, please help to promote the word.

Lets All Watch Together

Part of the problem of the moment is that as we all retreat to our private screens and sound systems, we lose the glue that conversation brings, that thing that creates community.  Remember movie theaters?  Remember how you went out for a drink with your friends afterwards and spoke about what you last saw.  How great was that!  How are we going to do that when are watching on our computer screens and HD monitors?

As much as I will always love going to the cinema and talking about films afterwards, we all have to recognize that most media will not be consumed that way.  Without that, how are we going to facilitate conversation and appreciation about cinema?  It can't all be after the fact blogging.  We need real time discussions.

I recently got to see a new technology that addressed this, that allowed multiple viewers to watch simultaneously the same thing, see their friends who were doing the same thing, and communicate in real time while they continued watching.  Okay, so its a little different than sitting in a big dark theater with beautiful projection and downing some coffee afterwards.

Facebook's Connect site browser is a step though in this direction.  BBC news ran an article on it and its got me thinking...

The built-in socialising tools on sites such as MySpace and Facebook will mean that friends can virtually gather, for instance, to watch a video via Hulu and chat about it all in the same place.

Twitter Review (sort of)

I confess: I am truly new to all of this social networking stuff.  This blog is about two and a half months old.  I think I have only been on Facebook for 5 weeks.  Our film production company has a MySpace page but I am not a MySpace member.  I know I blog about some stuff here that the digi-elite embraced eons ago.  Let's just say although I am a newbie, I am passionate advocate -- and a textbook example of how you can teach an old dog some new tricks.  And I recognize how much my community has to learn.  Admit it: the film biz is filled with Luddites.

I was a very slow at making a commitment to the social network world.  I pondered FB membership for months.  And I mocked the young 'uns in our office who sang its praises.  I am a convert now, but I am still only using it to maintain a dialogue about the emerging new paradigm for non-Hollywood cinema (I hate describing things in contrast to, but ...).  To that end, I am have the same issues Pericles commented on the other day: I am confused whether I should just "confirm" everyone that friends me in an effort to expand the circle, or should I limit my connections to the people I actually know or do, or could do, business with, or at least those that have the courtesy to write and explain why we should be "friends".  I lean to the former but haven't jumped in yet.  Some of my hesitancy comes from my expectant embrace of the more social aspects of the technology -- and frankly I don't want to be more social.  I have been trying to figure out how to have more time to myself and my family for a long time.

Which brings me to my fears of using Twitter.  When I was looking for an article on how Twitter might be best applied to the film world, Beth's Blog led me to the OReillyRadar posting of some of their report "Twitter And The Micro-Messaging Revolution" .  I'd love to see the whole report; if you want to buy it for me for the holidays, you can do so here.  Reilly's preface documenting his adaptation to the technology echoed what I had suspected -- he joined for business reasons and soon found himself using it for social updates too.  It was inspiring though.  

I would like to hear further how filmmakers have effectively used Twitter to communicate with their audience, but this piece alone, got me a lot closer to embrace the present a bit more.  Any filmmakers out there with Twitter experiences to share?

Who Do You Really Need To Meet At Film Festivals?

Film Festivals are a bit like conventions or auto shows.   The bigger ones get the entire industry and they transform from a cultural celebration to one big networking showdown.   The energy is driven by the potential more than the reality: will your film be discovered and you be given a pot of gold and the keys to Hollywood?  Many try to adjust to reality and just hope to meet some agents and distributors that they can follow up with later?   The ambitious dream of meeting financiers or movie stars.

For years, I have recommended that filmmakers concentrate on just meeting other filmmakers that feel simpatico with, folks that they can share information with, that can become their de facto support group.  Forget about the distributors.  Forget about the agents.  I mean they each can be very helpful -- but mostly for a select few filmmakers.  And I still think that's good advice, but now there is another class of individual to add to the list of whom you should really want to meet.

Sundance 2009 will be remembered (among other things) for the year that the programmer and booker became rock stars.  Now more than ever, we need curators.  We need people who can filter the stream of films that come begging for our attention.  With more and more filmmakers not just recognizing the need for, but embracing, filmmaker-driven distribution, filmmakers need direct interaction with these bookers and programmers.

How great would it be to have a party or something at Sundance where filmmakers and curators could actually get to meet each other face to face?  Great for the curators.  Great for the creators.

Now's the time for filmmakers to build their checklist and try to meet the bookers who truly love art film, indie film, truly free film.  Seventy independent theaters are getting together in Salt Lake in the days prior to the Sundance festival to figure out how to make all this work better.  The Art House Convergence is a promising program; you can't tell the players without a program.  Imagine if your sales agent and rep could introduce you to these bookers, instead of just buyers who might offer you tens of thousands for a twenty year license.  Then they'd really be working for their percentage.

Hope For The Future pt. 3: The List #'s 9-13

9. Plenty of DVD manufacture & Fullfillment places (see sidebar).

10. Plenty of places to place your content online for eyeballs to find (anyone want to generate a comprehensive list to share?).

11. Things like Netflix and Blockbuster.com make it possible for anyone with a mailing address to see any movie he or she wants. A lot of viewers who haven't had access to theaters or even video stores that stock smaller films can now get them if they know about them. (thanks Semi!)

12. The Major Media Corporations retreat from the “Indie” film business. This will open up distribution possibilities for entities not required to produce high profit margins or only handle films that have huge “crossover” potential and necessitate large marketing budgets.

13. A new turn-key apparatus is evolving for filmmakers who want to “Do it with others” in that they can hire bookers, publicists, marketers – all schooled in the DIY manner of working. Instead of hoping for a Prince Charming to arrive and distribute their film, TFFilmakers are seeking out the best and the brightest collaborators to bring their film to the audiences.

Hard Times: The Refrain Continues

Why do you need to plan to distribute your film yourself?  

Answer number 29: 

Because there won't be anyone left to do it for you!

One of the downsides of all of us being so well connected and tuned in, is the bad news gets to us all much faster.  Hopefully, the upside is we can react positively much quicker too.  Time will tell.

If you didn't notice, media in all forms is in a tailspin:  Layoffs at Universal and Paramount; NBC contemplating reducing nightly programming;  the NY Times mortgaging their building; The Tribune declaring bankruptcy;  publishers slashing employees and limiting releases.   I do hear that Jack Daniels posted high profits this quarter though.  My business partner's exit strategy of a liquor store in a fishing town is looking mighty wise...  When Barry Diller is the loudest voice calling out corporations on the greed inherent in firing 500 more people to save a few million dollars, we know the world is changing.

David Carr's "Stoking Fear Everywhere You Look" captures these times quite well.

It's Two Separate Schools: Chesanek's Counterpoint (Part 5 of 6)

Brent continues...

This discussion can't proceed forward until the two schools of thought here are separated. One school says traditional narrative is dead and new storytelling methods MUST be applied to new distribution models, while the other realizes there is still a market for narrative feature films that can be accessed through new technology and distro models.

If you want to expand your so-called brand while creating "content" and label yourself as a "creative" (in reality, it's not a noun) or just want to create infinite ways and media for telling a story, then you're in this field, so these are some options, these are the issues. If so, then it's likely none of these marketing terms seem pejorative to your craft.

But many do find these terms pejorative. If you lean towards uninterrupted, feature length art films that show restraint and dexterity in the information provided to an audience, believe in the quality of a screening environment, are not about pushing as much content and info as possible but rather about expertly pursuing a craft you and many others still love but realize there are new opportunities for these works to be seen, then there is this discussion over here, these are the issues on this side of the situation.

These two worlds remain very closely aligned in discussions, and it seems not fully distinguishable from each other just yet, but also not completely on the same page. We need to clearly delineate and grow from there, learning from both sides but never assuming these schools are the same.

Facebook Growth by territory and gender

Can social networks save the film industry?

I've only been on Facebook for about five weeks, and clearly still in the honeymoon period, but I found this O'Reily Radar post and analysis of FB's growth a reason for optimism.

Tools Review Needed

I have been adding updates to the Tools column as I find them or you recommend them.  What's really lacking though are explanations of what these tools actually do AND how they apply to the Truly Free Film paradigm.  I know we need that.  But I am a bit swamped these days actually trying to make a few more films before I expire (being a lover of list I have always thought that number 100 we would be a nice threshold to cross -- so I am only a little more than half way there).  So can you help?  

If you can't do a review can you locate one and let us know where to find it?  

How have you used these tools in your process?  

We all have a lot to learn but we will learn it much faster if we share some information.

Why Is It So Hard To Start A New Franchise?

io9 asked "Why Is It So Hard To Start A New Franchise".  This scifi site is more concerned with mass media studio product than what we've been discussing, but if you asked me their answer lies in The Search For The Word.  As we discussed there, not only do filmmakers have move beyond the limits of the film screen and bring their narratives into true cross-platform cohesion and true transmedialand, but we have to help audiences embrace it.  That union between audience and content will be greatly enhanced once we find that word.  We have to rename the entire galaxy of content focused around that specific story.  What is that word?!

io9 is a pretty swell site.  Check it out.

Hard Times: The Same Song Sung All Over

We do what we do and we like what we do.  It's our love for cinema and all that it can be that has lead us here.  Preservation efforts sometime require transformation too though.  The debates we've been having about the necessity of adopting new methods and forms are echoed in other media forms.  It's hard for everyone.

Virginia Heffernan's "Content and Its Discontents" for the NY Times Magazine has beautifully captured the quandary that print media finds itself in, but applies equally well to what are going through in indie film land.  Give it a read.

Lance Weiler Responds To Brent Chesanek

Scott Kirsner wrote a book called “Inventing the Movies” which details the history of cinema from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs. Within the book he describes three types of people - those who innovate, those who persevere and those who sit on the sidelines waiting. When I read your critique of the NYC DIY Dinner it is clear you fall into the preservation camp. Personally, I love films and prefer to see them projected when I can and when it makes sense. But I also grow tired of watching filmmakers struggle to get their work seen and to sustain. And the sad truth is that many talented filmmakers have fall prey to exploitation.

The reality is that the system is overloaded. Everyday 50,000 more videos are uploaded to YouTube. There are more choices (tv channels, countless blogs / sites, dvds, VOD etc.) that compete for peoples time. Theatrical bookings are very difficult. I know, I’ve personally booked my films into art-house and independent cinemas across the country. I’m a fan of independent cinemas and even though my work has cross-media components it will always have live event elements, and those live events will include theatrical screenings.

But this I think is our key difference and correct me if I’m wrong. But I don’t consider myself a filmmaker – I don’t shoot on film, I don’t cut on film and I don’t work on a single medium anymore. I believe in story and the emotional connection that an audience experiences from great writing, strong direction and wonderful acting. But I also believe that the form is changing and that is what excites me. It’s not one way or the highway. It’s a reality. Art forms change and audience’s relationships to the way stories are told change. The birth of 16mm cameras ushered in cinema verit. Desktop systems and advances in imaging technology have empowered a diversity of voices that have never had access. Last month, I was in Copenhagen for a film festival and I connected with friends from all over the world, many who I met online or via social networks. One friend is from the Philippines. In the last 12 months there’s been an explosion of DIY filmmaking there - doc, narratives, experimental works. The films are unique, artful and passionate. But yet they have not been seen here in the states. We live in a global film community, it is not just about the US it is about allowing voices to be heard all over the world. The social networks and online outlets that you consider to be nothing more than popularity contests are so much more. They are a voice, a way for people to connect. Yes some people use them for status but others use them as a way to understand other cultures and share experiences. It’s not a contest its a connection.

And when it comes to brands let us be honest. Many of the films that you love from well know writers and or directors were brought to you by some brand some where along the way. It might have been a critic, a well know film festival, or the publicity machines that rollout films both big and small or maybe even the art-house theaters that screened them. The fact of the matter is that “filmmakers” need to take some time to understand how various aspects of the process work. If you want to be a good director you need to understand the roles of your collaborators. And similar to how you crew up for a film ( producer, production designer, dp, ad, gaffer etc.) when we discuss the role of technology or branding or marketing we are calling attention to a part of the process that needs new “crew” positions. We’re not saying that an individual “must master” them or they are destine to fail. What we are saying is that if you ignore or consider it to be someone else’s duty or job then often you will be disappointed with the results. What is often ironic is that I’ve know many filmmakers who entered into deals with distributors only to find themselves doing a loin of the share of the work anyway. In some cases out of despration when they realized for whatever reason that their film wasn’t getting the push that it really needed. It is about understanding what is needed and having an open discussion about it. That way new processes can be discovered. Learning from each other is what will make the stories better, our work stronger. We need to build an infrastructure that will in turn help to establish a foundation for a truly free film community.

We are standing at an unprecedented time in history. We can for the first time reach and communicate directly with our audiences. There doesn’t have to be gatekeepers or middle men or filters. It can finally be about connections. People connecting to the stories that move them. So in some ways maybe you’re feeling overwhelmed by the possibilities - many within the industry are. But in uncertain times some amazing things have been innovated. In the economic downturn of the 70’s, apple computer which started in a garage and was born out passion, creativity and a desire to empower people. The beautiful thing is there are no rules, no right or wrong way. There is just progress. In the end the audience will decide what they want to see, how they want to see and where they want to see it. So I say its time to innovate and seize the opportunity instead of waiting for someone else to shape the future for us.

And Brent I’m more than happy to answer any technical questions you may have. And over at the Workbook Project we have a number of folks who know how to use social media, build audiences, create brands and release films in alternative ways - all of them would be willing to do the same. DIY DAYS, the Workbook Project and From Here to Awesome are based on open source philosophies, ones that encourage community and sharing. That being said, now seems like the perfect time for this new emerging truly free film community to help each other make great films - we just need a little bit of innovation to make it possible.
- Lance Weiler

We Need A Community That Respects Artists' Intent: Chesanek's Counterpoint (Part 4 of 6)

Brent's critique of the NYC DIY Dinner continues...
Still by the third video, the discussion is about filling a marketing niche or void, not telling a personal story in innovative ways. It feels like it's just making a film about a new subject in the same way, something I react very strongly against. 

Eleven minutes in to Part 3 you take on this point very nicely. Mr. Crumley especially seems to be missing the drive that many art-house filmmakers have. We're not particularly smitten with "creating content" or being web gurus or using all these marketing and advertising processes and terms (to some they're thrilling and exciting; to others, they're a necessary step but not what drives us in our work). 

And now there is an entirely new skill set to be learned, again another gatekeeping process. We no longer have to know how to expose film using an Aaton and splice film on a Moviola; the tools are simpler to use and attain, but now we have to learn additional tools. The tools are changing but they are now tools that we must master that we don't necessary enjoy using and that don't even affect the integrity of our product itself. Instead they affect the integrity of our "brand," as if we were Maxwell House or Lysol. 

The successful filmmaker is not the skilled filmmaker but the skilled marketer? Why bother reading theory or watching old films when one can take marketing classes and develop a web platform to screen something?

Unfortunately right now, when Arin Crumley and Slava Rubin make certain points, I don't feel they're talking to me or to the other people who are in independent film because they -- the filmmakers -- are  neither good at nor interested in marketing or commodities-focused careers, nor are they interested in being cool or popular--which is the image of a new-media-social-networking-guru-web-celebrity.

Further, I am not hearing a director with a distinct artistic vision when Arin talks at this dinner, and I'm unfortunately not interested in his films because of their popularity -- popularity based on Arin's new pioneering new distribution and crowd participation methods. So if I'm not his audience, then perhaps his audience isn't mine, and so my thinking then becomes one of retraction and distancing myself from the new mechanisms. Also, when Arin talks about reaching an audience, I feel like he is capitalizing on his marketing expertise to profit off them, not putting his soul on film--which is where my taste lies. I appreciate his work for filmmakers, but when he starts leaning towards telling a filmmaker how to be a filmmaker, he'll have trouble getting his message across.

Lance Hammer is clearly an artist with a distinct vision, an artist whose film I saw multiple times at Film Forum and recommended over and over to friends, posting on my website and Facebook to GO SEE THIS FILM. Same with Pleasure of Being Robbed and Wendy and Lucy. I've still not seen or heard anything from the makers of Four Eyed Monsters that makes me take interest in their work or view them as an artist. I've only heard that their distribution is what makes them impeccable. Cart before the horse?

I know Arin is very intelligent and successful in his own way, but some of what he says comes off as disrespectful of that thing so many of us fell in love with and have chosen to devote our lives to as viewers and filmmakers, and unaware of that much of the things we're told we must do to our films are things we find less than appealing and against the films' nature. 

As you've said many times, people gravitate to art-house films the more they're exposed to films. But some of the discussion seems to be saying that these art-house films are not wanted in their current form, what is wanted is a new You-Tube video game user-created content industry. But that's not the case. 

And by then using terms pilfered by the advertising world, much of this talk seems to present the idea that the idea of a 90-140 minute art film playing uninterrupted is dying along with the old distribution models. I'm sure the intent is honorable, but the first impression and unfortunately probably a lasting one is that this talk makes art-house film makers and lovers, the very ones who need these new distro models, feel outdated, unwanted, and unimportant. As if: "Be a video game and webisodes and extensions of your film or you have no place in film." This message feels very, well, George Bush. You're with us or you're against us. Join or die. Etc.... not about building a community that respects an artist's intent–especially if that intent is to run against the new media/ ADD generation trends. I know that's not the case, but only after carefully thinking through all the voices and claims being made.

Introducing Google Friend Connect

Something To Think About: Data Portability

I posted today at InfoWantsToBeFree on what should be one of the top concerns of all Truly Free Filmmakers in this coming year.  

Data Portability (and access) is something that should be built into contracts, particularly when the license fees are as low as they are these days.  It's the same question as owning what you generate.  It's a question of what is really free in a free market.  

There's a lot more to say on the subject and this will be a big topic for discussion here and elsewhere.

Helping To Amplify News

The Knight Citizen News Network site is a good resource for good advice on a lot of the issues that bloggers face.

The Knight Citizen News Network is a self-help portal that guides both ordinary citizens and traditional journalists in launching and responsibly operating community news and information sites and that assembles news innovations and research on citizen media projects.

It may be designed for journalism but it applies equally to Truly Free Filmmakers.

Wanted: Web Strategists & Consultants

We have gotten several requests from filmmakers regarding whom they could hire to help them design plans for their films.  First, I think those filmmakers need to move beyond the focus on the film itself, and ask how they can design a web strategy for their work in general.  But moving beyond that issue, I unfortunately don't have many people to point them to (I would love to hear any recommendations you have).   Fortunately, once again, a lot of great resources and individuals have been gathered over at The Workbook Project.

If you are looking for a consultant or strategist for your web plan, check out Motive on the WBJ site.  Alex Johnson, Ana Domb, Micki Krimmel, Jon Reiss, Hunter Weeks, Liz Rosenthal, and of course Lance Weiler and Arin Crumley are available for hire.  If you are going to Sundance, you best get them on your team sooner rather than later.

Hope For The Future pt. 2: Building The List

We started the list here (click to link).  Now we continue onwards.  We will only get to 52 with your help.  What else gives you reasons to be hopeful for film culture?

5. Giving it away for free is good business.  Anderson's essay is required reading.  Look at Google who gives away 90% (est.) of what they create (the search engine) and drives a good advertising business in the process.  For years The Greatful Dead were one of the top grossing concert acts, driven in a good part by their willingness to allow their fans to "bootleg" their concerts and "distribute" them themselves.  The question is what do you give away and what do you use to produce revenue.

6. Film Festivals are evolving.  Local film fests have already identified the core film lovers in every region.  For decades these festivals have been content to live in a single period each year, overloading their audiences with too many choices come festival time.  Now festivals are giving theatrical bookings as awards (help us build a list of these).  Some are moving to a seasonal subscription model.  Some are even paying significant screening fees.  And then there are the cash awards (those are still around somewhere, aren't they?).

7. Internet Streaming is being used by filmmakers to build A WORLD of Word Of Mouth.  Slamdance has announced that they will stream films right after the festival.  For years we have know that word of mouth is the primary way that a specialized film succeeds.  But it is costly, but now that has changed.

8. 2008 is the strongest year for under $1M EVER.  I have seen almost 20 films this year by filmmakers who clearly will develop a great body of work.  Only a few were at Sundance. They keep on coming.  They may still be hard to find, but the films are out there and at a quality and quantity  as never before.  Check out Hammer To Nail's list of top 13 films of the year and get watching.

Preparing For Sundance

Eugene Hernandez had a good post regarding festival prep on indieWIRE yesterday.  Click on it here if you missed it.

A Moral Imperative To Articulate Our Path

"I think there is a moral imperative to articulate our path towards something better. Not to leave it a vague post-modernist muddle. Not to shirk from the complexity and realities of costs. And not even to expect everyone to consent."

I was catching up and reading Kevin Kelly's great blog The Technium. Although his post "The Missing Near Future" was about this world in general and all the various problems facing us, it is equally true about the state of independent film worldwide.  His quote above could be our  new mantra: we have to all articulate a plan.

Read Kelly's NYTimes Mag article from 11/24/08 "Becoming Screen Literate" where he futurecasts the requirements and results of a world awash in screen ubiquity.  I particularly look forward to image data search he sees a few years away:

With full-blown visuality, I should be able to annotate any object, frame or scene in a motion picture with any other object, frame or motion-picture clip. I should be able to search the visual index of a film, or peruse a visual table of contents, or scan a visual abstract of its full length. But how do you do all these things? How can we browse a film the way we browse a book?

There's a lot of effort going on to blaze the path into the new future for film.  I would have loved to have attended the MIT "Futures Of Entertainment" Conference.  IndieWIRE ran a good story on it, focusing particularly on the "collaborative filmmaking" movement that they have also covered well in the past.

Reel World Survival Skills: Reiss' CalArts Class Goes Viral

Jon Riess returns to TFF!:
I developed and teach a class at Cal Arts that addresses Ted's concerns about making a living as a filmmaker. It's called "Reel World Survival Skills: Everything I Wish I Had been Taught in Film School". I developed the class because I as the title suggests, I would have been greatly served at the beginning of my film career had I been taught some very practical skills while I was attending the UCLA film school -at that time in my case - pitching.

While teaching for the past 8 years at LMU and I Cal Arts I noticed that the curriculums were still not teaching skills to prepare students for making a film career once they left school. So I developed this class - in addition to pitching it covers literary rights optioning and development, basic film contracts, financing, LLCs and web fund raising, grants, getting a job out of film school, writing resume's and cover letters (which most people are shockingly deficient in), music videos, commercials and webisodes and then of course the fun wide world of film distribution - making a career from the films you make. The distribution component includes an overview of old distribution models but then leaves those behind for the new hybrid approach to distribution including: new film festival strategies, DIY theatrical and non theatrical distribution, DVD distribution, digital rights, traditional and non traditional marketing, Web 2.0, and most importantly new strategies for developing audiences - for your film and the film community at large.

I am currently in the process of writing a book based on this class - which I hope will be out next year. I am also preparing a weeklong crash course to offer to film schools based on the class and weekend seminars to offer to non film school folks. For the class I have assembled a ton of documents, contracts and articles that I give out on CD Rom. I am actually going to start posting these to my website by the time my 2nd article comes out in the next issue of Filmmaker Magazine. You will be able to sign up and download these documents for yourself. If you have any interest in any of this drop me an email at jon@jonreiss.com. You can also sign up for the mailing list on my website www.jonreiss.com to be notified of when the documents will be loaded, when the book is coming out or any seminars.

- posted by Jon Reiss

Chesanek's Counterpoint (Part 3 of 6)

Personally, I was initially resistant to social networking for a couple reasons. One was that it feels like a celebrity culture or popularity contest. I can see that my friends have hundreds and hundreds more Facebook friends than I do. So I see their friends count and think, wow, they should make a movie instead, since they have more people who'd go see it. Only it's usually superficial friendship, just as popularity and celebrity appeal is. So then I think, is this person I'm asking to be friends with really my friend, do I really want to catch up with them after ten years out of high school, or am I only requesting their friend status because I know that once my film comes out I can put a message on their Facebook wall? If I want to be honest with myself, then how do I come to terms with having to strive for superficial popularity, something I jettisoned in high school as I was, well, coming to terms with not wanting it and forming my artistic temperament? Is this still a world where the most popular people are offered the widest financial rewards and/or avenues of self-expression, just like Hollywood, television, and high school? Is art film no longer a venue for the introverted artist seeking personal expression in a way that maybe socially he or she could never achieve? Isn't that the core of art and artistic language? Aren't a large amount of artists poor with social skills--choosing to express themselves other ways--probably for a reason that manifests itself in their work? Do we not care to hear their voices? Of course we do, but if this audience building is truly as it is shaping up to be, how do these artists with less than impeccable social skills compete?

As a viewer I'm not a populist. I seek out artists and works with dexterous intent, control over form, style, and content that shows the artist knows his or her stuff as well as has a distinct individual voice. How do we preserve and embrace our individuality if all we're doing is becoming advertisers who seek popularity? If auteur-driven films is one's passion, audience participation in their creation is a tough sell at any meaningful level. I'll see Lance Hammer film or a Bresson or a JP Melville film, but not a crowd-sourced film because of what it will lack: a singular honest soul.

I guess the point here is, how do we clearly, firmly, and concisely establish that the net should not be determining the content nor the artist's temperament, that films like Ballast will always have a market, that artists are always needed and appreciated for their individuality? The fear and resistance comes when feature length art-house filmmakers start hearing their content must be dictated by a market and then their film is only valid if they're famous in some way.

-Brent Chesanek

Outsourcing The Process

One of the questions that comes up a lot is "How am I going to manage and afford all the additional marketing outreach that is required to be a Truly Free Filmmaker?".  I don't have a good answer for that beyond teamwork.  I have always wondered why so many film school grads want to jump right in and make a first feature.  Why not make mistakes on someone else's movie?  Why not learn by watching others make a lot of mistakes?  Isn't that part of what teamwork is?

Seriously though, how can you get it all done? That is the question.  There was that article and podcast I heard about the guy who outsourced his life completely.  It made for a good story, but it has haunted me in a good way too.  I still have not heard any stories of filmmakers trying some of these techniques.  That would make for some good stories too.

Sunday's Maureen Dowd Op-Ed piece in the NY Times "A Penny For My Thoughts" brought it all back home.  She covers the outsourcing of local reporting; it's funny and horrifying and the same time.  But maybe it is also an answer to some of the problems we are having.  

I raise this while at the same time I take some pride in the fact that they I have never taken a production out of the country to save money.  I have always found that you can make a film just as cheaply stateside where the filmmaking team is more invested in the success of the film -- and believing that communal spirit begets a better movie.  Which isn't to say that the right film couldn't achieve the same thing overseas.  But production and outreach are not the same thing.  It would be an interesting experiment to see what could be achieved.

"I am committed to destroying the myth of the starving artist"

In reading the recent NYTimes article "Shifting Careers - Making Artistic Careers Lucrative", it feels like a revolution is taking place in the art school curriculum -- a transformation akin to what will transform the Independent Film Community into a Truly Free Film Culture.

I have wanted to start an ongoing column "If I Ran A Film School...".  I had been thinking I would post it over at LetsMakeBetterFilms since a lot of my concerns are on an aesthetic level, but truth be told you can never separate the art from the commerce when it comes to filmmaking.  And further, and more to the point, I just haven't found the time.

That said, where is the film school that is going to start to provide courses designed to enable this step to Truly Free Film?  Any film school that doesn't have mandatory classes on DIY marketing, entrepreneurialship, cross platform cohesion, and basic Web 2.0 skills is just not preparing their students for the real world.  In fact, if you ask me the whole general film school curriculum needs a drastic overhaul.

I love the sound of what Larry Thompson (that's his quote titling this post) is doing at Ringling College of Art and Design.  I would love to see what that class structure looks like.  To start with, it sounds like the film schools should try to adapt it for their students.  It's also great that they are in Sarasota; I got to visit the film festival there last year and was very impressed with the programing and community support.  With forward thinking institutions like this in place, you have to imagine that a vibrant film culture could grow there.  But I digress...

Regardless of the film schools though, stories like this, of Claudine Helmuth, are an inspiration and we should look at them for clues for not only survival but transcendence from having to create for the current mainstream outlets and demands.

Tips From The Gotham Breakthrough Directors

Scott Macauley of Fimmaker Mag Blog moderated a discussion between the The Gotham Awards Breakthrough Director nominees. They are a great group of directors and a great group of films. Many of them also made the Hammer To Nail list too. They all had different approaches to their filmmaking. 

We don't usually focus at all on production related issues here at TFF as our efforts are towards finding a new way to get films to audiences (and how that in turn will shape the film you make). I have been preparing a post on all you need to do when and, well, it is surprising how much of it needs to be done even before pre-production and continued into the production and post process. 

I wasn't at the panel so I can't vouch why the same concerns did not appear to reach these filmmakers - maybe they did and you needed to be there. I wish the IFP put video of these events online.  Nonetheless I like the takeaway synthesis Scott put together. It clarifies that really is no common template.  Read about it here (click to link).

More On How It Feels From The Front

Brent Chesanek continues his reflections on the NYC DIY Days Dinner:

I see Stephen Rafael's point when he said "Make a good film." I think you do too while you acknowledged the trouble with that statement. I also agree with what you said about the The Pool. But I think everyone at that table has the resources and could contact Chris Smith directly, or invite him and the handful of other directors of the movies you loved this year to a private roundtable. But why did you shoot this and put the video on the web for everyone to see it? (I know why, but hypothetically.) The people who are accessing this video are just as likely to be making bad films. I feel like, if someone makes a worthwhile film and has the necessary industry awareness, they can get it to you or Raphael or Jay van Hoy and Lars or someone else who can help them formulate their distribution models and make connections.

I know the distro process must be democratized, and I know that in the scenario above, you and the other guys listed are also gatekeepers who would essentially dictate a filmmaker's ability to reach an audience, but does this make sense? If all 4950 films that didn't get into Sundance or any other festival or aren't distributed were as good as The Pool, then everyone would just be watching this DIY Dinner video to find out what to do next and there'd still be a glut in the market. But most of them should be focusing on where they've taken missteps earlier on.

This discussion was feeling a bit like: find an audience, then make a film to profit off them by giving them what they say they want, regardless of whether or not you're making a film that has any merit or personal distinction. So many of the bad films that actually do get distributed are rehashes and remakes, unoriginal but based on successful formulas (essentially, they're crowd-tested). Here, I know the discussion is about distribution, but so much of it just leads right into: Here's how to harness an audience to make money off of regardless of the quality of your film. And I think what Rafael may have been thinking was that this discussion was often putting the cart before the horse--more geared as a way to get exposure to the glut of films that aren't distributed regardless of quality, because that is still the problem--most films are indeed not worthy. But the ones that are worthy are having trouble. This needs to be stressed more and more until it becomes a given. I think there is common ground between your point and Rafael's point: First make the good films. You picked up on that later in the video talking about the lesbian film. (I originally thought you were talking about Working Girls, but that was about prostitutes).

All Facebook pages look the same. After 3 years, so many films will be Twittering it will be total overload and audiences on Twitter and Facebook will not see a difference in these methods, they won't pay attention to what's being said in any of them, and the mechanisms themselves won't be any newer or more special than television commercials or trailers, and certainly no more effective (Twitter is less invasive–a short text message–so it requires an active audience to respond to it. But how can one in fifty of them from different films be effective when the content drives the audience to the film? At least a trailer offers a glimpse of the actual film that can hook a passive audience member). So we will have an over-crowded marketplace of bad films that are Twittering and crowd-sourcing and all this stuff, and again, like Lance Hammer asks Arin, "How do you cut through the noise?"

So much of the talk about social networking and going viral and doing all this stuff ignores the notion that you have to really really really kill yourself making a distinct film first. The glut of films out there is a problem first of quality in development and production, not distribution. Quality, not execution of the methods. That's what's scary. You mentioned on some blog somewhere that despite digital video and computer-based editing, there is still the same number of new voices emerging as there was 20 years ago. Will a glut of new distribution models really bring about new voices? [I think you know the answer is more about salvaging the new voices, preserving and exposing them to audiences via new methods, but this point mustn't be under-stressed.] We need to focus on nurturing the voices.