Recently on my TrulyFreeFilms blog, Michael Walker of Pangofilms asked why more producers don’t invest in their own movies.
This question first assumes that there are producers who could even afford to consider this possibility. Right now, when it comes to financial matters, I don’t know of any producers that aren’t first and foremost concerned about their immediate survival (even the concern of long term survival now looks like a luxury). The business once supported prolific quality producers with overhead deals, but those days are now dead and gone. A financial investment in a movie is not something most producers can afford.
I have made financial investments in my films, but mostly in terms of bridge loans and never with any reward for it. Usually the director didn’t even know I was doing it. And once I got burned and came very close to watching it spiral and thus losing a great deal more as a result. I have also “invested” in filmmakers I believed in, whether to help them complete their movie, or just to survive, but never in a structure that had expectation for financial reward -- more as a friend or family member would. But generally, the reason why, as a Producer, I haven’t invested financially in my projects, is because I, like most producers, can’t afford to. Sad to break it to you, but Indie Film producing is not a lucrative profession. We don’t do it for the money honey.
To be frank, I think investing in films is counter to what a producer should be doing. Investors generally are looking for a financial return, albeit one that contributes something to the culture too. A director is trying to make their movie. A producer has to balance these multiple interests. One of the most difficult things about producing is making sure all collaborators share a common agenda. As much as folks claim to be on the same page, their behavior frequently betrays this goal. The director and the financier both need to know the producer is looking out for their diverse interests.
Producers have a fiscal responsibility to their movie, but it is not their only responsibility. I am surprised that a director would want a producer who by way of their investment was declaring the fiscal responsibility their primary one. I would be surprised that investors would want to go forward without someone to balance their needs with that of the director’s. How would such an investor ever get a great film? Unfortunately, a film’s financial success is dependent on far many things beyond the quality of the script, so even if the producer who developed it had infinitely deep pockets, the intersection of art and commerce would create an imbalance of power. Movies thankfully will never just be about these interests; it is the blend that really makes each film find new heights.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I know most indie producers can't afford to get into investing - most of the producers I know can't even afford an office, or are going broke paying the phone bill - but you have to start somewhere. If I remember correctly, you were asking why filmmakers aren't more entrepreneurial, like they are in Silicon Valley. The only producers that came to mind, Saul Zaentz and George Lucas, because both came from near Silicon Valley. I don't think Saul Zaentz does anything unless he's pretty sure he'll make money on it. He's a notoriously money hungry guy (remember Zaentz Can't Dance, but he steal your money). I know producers put money in for bridging the gap and development and almost always get nothing for it, which was why I wondered why they don't take the leap from there. Couldn't you at least get Bulgarian TV rights or something for your gap financing?
My question, which I thought was yours too, was why don't they invest IN ORDER TO make money. I always find it strange that there is this credo in the industry that you should never pay for your own film, but you should always be asking someone else to pay for it. Obviously if you don't have it, you can't, but films don't have to cost tons of money, which I think is part of the point of this blog. I don't know of any professional sources for financing the 100K film. Like I said, you have to start somewhere.
There's another side of this, which is that directors often pay for their films. Charging up your credit cards used to be the great myth of indie filmmaking, fueled by films like CLERKS and EL MARIACHI, which were paid for by their filmmakers and didn't cost much. I met a guy once who spent years paying off his first film, which didn't go anywhere. Even after directing his second film, he still couldn't pay for the first.
I think maybe entrepreneurs require a special kind of vision that doesn't always jibe with filmmaking. Wouldn't Coppola's Zoetrope be the ultimate example of what could have been? Having a vision for a film, maybe, isn't the same thing as having a vision for making millions of dollars.
What about Saul Zaentz?
He often develops out of his own pocket, sometimes covers production.
He's made some good films.
I absolutely agree. I actually have invested in every movie I have made but only on the smallest level as my financial future depends on me remaining solvent so I can support my films during the potential decade of work that is necessary to develop and produce a film. I can attest to the fact that producers do not make films for money. There are much easier and less stressful ways of making a living. And when you look at the pay scale for an indie producer, it's rather depressing when you think that meager salary has to stretch over the decade of producing that film. I know I am living at the poverty level when you really compare work output to income. And I agree that if I had a large sum on the line that it would naturally shift my thinking to the financial goals of the film, not the creative ones.
I think the reason why most indie producers don't invest their own money is because a) they don't have it, and b) if they did, it's not money they feel they can lose without financial pain.
I invested in an ultra-low-budget film I produced; without my investment, we wouldn't have been able to finish our shoot. I liquidated a retirement fund to get the cash. I believed in the limited revenue viability of my project. I'm not sorry I did it. I wouldn't do it again. We have not yet been able to pay any principal back to our investors (including me), and I don't have another retirement fund to liquidate.
When soliciting monies for film, I emphasize to potential investors that they need to be completely comfortable with the likelihood of losing all their investment. Even if we, the film team, do everything per our plans and perfectly "right," there are still NO guarantees that the film will earn its potential/projected revenues.
If I, personally, had enough assets to qualify to be an accredited investor, then I would likely invest in my own project - one at a time and very deliberately. But, I'm not. I can't afford to keep losing my own money, on top of not being paid sufficiently for the amount of work I do (IF at all).
Post a Comment