via 17272dorsetave:

The Really Good Things In The Indie Film Biz 2012 by Ted Hope
  1. Direct distribution is really working.  
  2. Hollywood is taking more creative risks. As Ben Affleck noted about this year in film, “, “movies that involve taking risks by the filmmakers and the financiers have been successful.“
  3. The film industry is moving towards proportional gender representation in front of and behind the camera. 
  4. There is an appetite for acquisition from the distributors.
  5. Worldwide, the industry is asking questions if there is a better way.
  6. Technology is confronting the problem of our transition from an entertainment economy based on scarcity and control of content, to one recognizing the abundance of, total access to, and full distraction from that content.
  7. There has never been a better time to both preserve and advance the film culture I dearly love. That’s why I chose to change my life and focus not on project producing but on producing infrastructure and change.  I am not going to be able to do it alone, but working with the support of the organization that launched the oldest running film festival, should hopefully prove far more fruitful than from proclaiming on high from my private soap box.
  8. New financing options are both here and on the horizon for independent & documentary film.
  9. Transactional VOD Players hit the flashpoint.  VHX.tv, Vimeo PPV, Dynamo player, and many more.  Whether you want an aggregator or prefer to sell on your own, it is easy and painless to do now.  Just ask Louis C.K.
  10. We have our first VOD Superstar. You want big numbers on VOD?  Just cast Kirsten Dunst.  Bachelorette.  Melancholia.  All Good Things.  She’s beautiful.  She’s a good actor.  She’s fascinating to watch.  She’s funny.  She’s scary.  And she doesn’t have too many letters in her name, but just enough to stand out.  Hell, if Elizabethtown premiered on Ultra VOD today, it would set records.  Okay, this isn’t really the GOOD thing but just an aspect of a Good Thing.  The Good Thing is that VOD is becoming more marketable and people are not treating as a lesser product.  Once all media outlets start covering VOD premieres that will be an Awesome thing.
  11. Tech and film are talking to each other.  Soon they may even speak the same language.
  12. The dominance of the feature film form is starting to wain.  Whether it is great webisodes, a tremendous number of wonderful shorts, transmedia experiments, or just cross-platform experiments,  cinema is evolving beyond it’s historic constraints.
  13. The two films that I helped produce this year, DARK HORSE and STARLET got great reviews in the New York Times.  They also got great reviews many other places too. I can only state this here as a personal positive though.  Stay tuned, as this exact same fact will also be on my “What sucked in 2012″ list too.
  14. While I am on that double list tip, here’s another that will repeat on tomorrows list of the big and the bad.  To quote A.O. Scott of the NY Times: “By the end of this year, The New York Times will have reviewed more than 800 movies, establishing 2012, at least by one measure, as a new benchmark in the annals of cinematic abundance.”  From the point of view of the audience, right now this is a beautiful thing.  Conceptually speaking, we should be able to match audiences with the film that is most right for them.  Audiences don’t have to compromise.  There are more better movies than ever before.  Unfortunately, we have to build an infrastructure to support this, but that is a rant for another day (like tomorrow).
  15. There is a lot of real & meaningful support for indie writers, directors, and producers working in the genres & realms traditionally supported by indie film support organizations.
  16. The online community that supports the effort to advance a sustainable culture where the artist & their [supporters] benefit by the work they create, works to both preserve and advance the vibrant & diverse work that ambitiously reaches further, is committed to transparency, openness, opportunity, & our communal well-being, and knows that it is a team that builds the future and thus gives back in so many ways including posting, commenting, pointing, liking, and financial contributions. I know this as I am experiencing it daily.  Thank you.

Read the full list… 

(via zadi)

Source: etsy.com

ftomfilm:

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

Yesterday I gave the Keynote Address at the International Film Festival Summit in Austin, Texas.  You can read the speech on Indiewire here. I ended the talk with a host of questions — 12 to be exact, and they follow below. […] 

1. What is the full power of community and how do we transform our audiences into sustainable communities? Can we curate communities in a similar way? What if we connected like minded people in a more sustainable way and then allow audience to truly influence what is seen and discovered?

2. How doe we utilize cinema’s power to activate? What is our call to action? What is the call to action to our constituencies? How do we transition them from passive to action?

3. What do our audiences really want Film Festivals to be? What does it mean to be a communal gathering?

4. What do filmmakers really want from Festivals these days? Very few can be markets or premieres, even publicity machines. How can we deepen the utility of festivals for the creative community? Festivals deliver intelligent and engaged audiences to the films. Can we deepen the relationship between the fans and the creators?

5. If authenticity, participation, and customization are indeed what people want today, how do our programs provide that?

6. Can we work together so that films gain better momentum festival to festival and unleash the power of the combined festival community in some way?

7. Are we utilizing the strength of the festivals as an information gathering and dissemination tool as fully as we might? What information is not being gathered when we collect films and crowds and can we change that? This is the data age. Are we embracing transparency as fully as we might?

8. As trusted curators of this colossal heap of cinema culture, how do we really make a difference on a long term basis? Is a short burst of guidance enough? Growth requires consistency and do we provide that? We are the filter, the trusted source. Film festivals are discovery platform for films that might otherwise be ignored. How to carry that over to the online environment?

9. How do we transform young people into loyal cinema lovers? We are losing the youth. Can we stem the tide?

10. What is the broadest definition of film? Can we reflect that and help people embrace that? Have we forgotten what show business is and neglected the spectacle and event in favor of the practical and executable?

11. If we are moving away from the one film at a time business model towards one of artists forming long term relationships with their audiences, how do film festivals facilitate it?

12. The best thing the film industry can do to help ambitious and diverse work is to make sure that artists and their supporters are the direct beneficiaries of the rewards of the film. How do festivals do that?

We have an incredible opportunity before us. The only consistent is change. We can’t stand still. Never before have we had access to the tools that can change our world. But yet we don’t know where to go. We need to ask real questions and on a consistent basis. We will find the answers and the maps. There are no boundaries but ourselves.

Source: thingsilikeon

10 films to see before you turn 14

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

These are the BFI’s Top Ten To See Before You Turn Age 14:

[Also] Filmmakers Mark Cousins and Tilda Swinton made some great lists and then did it up one step better, helping really cool kids everywhere organize parties around great flix.  A party AND a movie?  Does it get much better than that.  Check out 8 1/2 Foundation now!!!!

A few notes. I love that Bicycle Thief, Night of the Hunter, and 400 Blows are on this list… I love it because it’s an important reminder that we, more often than not, treat that demographic as, well, as not typically interested in these kinds of stories; we assume that they have no attention spans, and no interest in things that happened before they were the age of 13.

For example, today, one of the people casting for something at work started talking about their love for Frank Sinatra… and that made me very happy. I’ve heard way too many people lately say their biggest inspiration is Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber. 

10+ Things To Think About If You Want To Make Better Films

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

  1. Empathy – Making movies is a privilege.  Our path and those of others could have easily gone a different way with a little bit of influence, good or bad.  There will always be so many good movies yet to be made because all characters can be related to.  Until you can walk in another’s shoes, you are not ready to begin the journey.
  2. Justice -Bryan Stevenson’s Ted Talk speaks well of the connection we feel when we see and combat injustice in the world.  What could ever be a greater good?
  3. Change/Growth – It is so easy to get stuck in a rut.  It is so easy not to see the forest for the trees.  It is hard to keep a perspective on things.  We can’t stand still.  I don’t think we can do it alone.  We need to check to make sure we are always moving forward, and are loved ones are doing the same.
  4. Emotional Truth – People forget how to live.  We model ourselves on the world around us.  The surface of things takes precedence over the depth if don’t commit to digging deeper. Simple is not what we are.  Go further. Creation requires an acceptance of responsibility for and with what is delivered.  
  5. Identity – Who are we?  Who are they?  Why are we unique? Why are we the same?  What’s not to celebrate?
  6. Specificity – There is a universal aspect to the culturally specific.   There is freedom in the commitment.  Freedom requires responsibility.  Limits expand horizons.  Make a commitment and embrace it.  Generalities, including this one, are all lies.
  7. Compassion – It is not easy.  It is not fair. No one has earned it.  We make mistakes.  The nature of human kind is to fail.  So get over it and let your heart lead your mind and body.  We can all relate.
  8. Generosity – It is not a zero sum game.  There is more than enough for everybody.  Getting yours does not means they can have more or get their first.  If we reach out and provide, everyone accelerates.  Nothing else feels better than giving it away.
  9. Curiosity – Does it need to be this way?  Could it be done another way?  Why them? Why then?  What lies beneath?
  10. Ambition – We all need something to aspire to and that is the role of art.  We show ourselves and everyone else what we could be.  If we refuse to settle, we lift everyone up with us.
  11. There is no end.  No list will be finished. No film truly completed.  It’s an ongoing story with many authors, collaborators,  participants, and proselytizers.  We are mayflies on the windshield of history.  Evolution is the way of everything.

7 Reasons To Release Your Film For Free

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film, by Todd Sklar

  1. I’m supremely bored by most of the traditional routes people have taken when distributing smaller movies. I’m really not interested in selling the rights to the movie to somebody for no money and then at best, getting a bullshit release, but more than likely, not getting one at all. We set out to make an interesting movie because we were excited about making movies, and I think we should take the same approach in the release and do it in an interesting way that we’re excited about. Let’s rattle the cage a bit even if it means we don’t make back quite as much money.The opportunity to shake things up is worth whatever the shortfall is. That’s the cost of doing it the right way — you taught me that on the first Range Life tour, and just like with those films, creating exposure and getting the movie to a wider audience is our only priority right now. What better way to accomplish that than making it free and making it accessible to literally anyone with an internet connection.
  2. Speaking of the internet, it’s awesome. I spend most of my time on the internet and it’s where I learned much of what I know about filmmaking, and I know for a fact that’s even truer of you, and it’s where both of us have connected with the majority of our audiences.It’s where we both live, and I think that’s true of a lot of people, especially ones that will like this film. You took your movie to college campuses because that was your wheelhouse and that’s where your target audience was. Same goes for this one and the internet. Quite simply, this is where my movie belongs, we just took a roundabout way of getting here.
  3. And if we agree that it should be on-line, then I know we both agree it should be free. Cause that’s what the internet is all about. And I think the fact that this movie didn’t cost us a ton to make puts us in a unique position that we have a bit more freedom to be adventurous when rolling this out. We’ve made back enough of the money that even if we don’t make another dollar on it and none of the people who watch it on-line buy a DVD, or make a donation, or give us their money in some other way, it won’t be much of a loss.
  4. This movie is the product of the crowd sourced, internet 2.0, ‘other buzz word’ culture of the internet through and through. We raised money on Kickstarter, garnered an audience and fan base on Tumblr and Reddit connected with fans on tour through Twitter and Facebook, and if Google+ made any sense, I’m sure we’d find a way to utilize that too. Now it seems fitting to stay true to that spirit and bring it all back full circle and put this motherfucker on Vimeo or YouTube right?
  5. One of the other major benefits of putting it online is that we can reach people all over as opposed to a traditional release of a smaller film like this, which would in a best case scenario play 3-5 markets? If that? We probably wouldn’t do any screenings in Scottsdale, AZ but the residents there are crying out to see this movie (Maybe) (Probably not) (THEY COULD BE THOUGH). And even if we continued touring, how many colleges can we hit before it’s not worth the work anymore? Let’s buck the trend and not just focus on major cities. OR college campuses. OR both. Let’s get EVERYONE
  6. We can have the option for people to donate money if they so feel inclined. We can’t do that at Target, or on Comcast, or at the multiplex. I know we’re both big fans of bands that have done this and I don’t see why it’s not more prevalent in film. It should be as unobtrusive and nag-free as possible, just a button somewhere below the video that’s quietly sitting there. I really think that if we give the movie away for free that people will respond to it and if they like the movie maybe they’ll chip in a few bucks or whatever they feel it’s worth. Did you read the Chris Anderson book “Free” that I told you about? He outlines pretty eloquently how in the past when artists have given their product away for free that it’s worked out fantastically.
  7. Torrents. Piracy is viewed as a huge problem in the film industry but what if we turn it into a boon? If you go on Pirate Bay there are over 10,000 people who are currently downloading The Hunger Games, who I’m sure the studios view as villains but we should view them as potential audience members. They’re our friends! This is a huge untapped group that I think it would be a mistake to ignore. They’re going to download movies no matter what we do, so we should at least provide them with OUR movie to download and watch versus one of the other ones. Let’s put a super hi res version of the movie on torrent sites and try to get something from them. An email address, a donation, a DVD sale or them blogging or tweeting about it or using that X-Box headset thingy to tell their Halo friends about it. That’s better than nothing.

Thanks to Cole Abaius at Film School Rejects for posting Ted’s tweets:

  1. Set the agenda.
  2. Beware of their unexpressed agenda.
  3. Use passion to open doors.
  4. Find your community and activate.
  5. Create tools now for use later.
  6. Be honest in your communication.
  7. Walk on a tightrope with conviction.
  8. Be strategic.
  9. Don’t ask for permission.
  10. Embrace the fullest definition of cinema.
  11. Help people envision themselves as a force of change.
  12. Know the someone you make the movie for.
  13. Find a way or make one.
  14. Let the audience ripple wider.
  15. Create atmosphere of inevitability.
  16. Must have great intention.
  17. Be authentic to yourself.
  18. Be distinct in the marketplace.
  19. Make sure you have friends to support you emotionally.
  20. Look beyond the feature film form.
  21. Support each other.
  22. Do your research.
  23. Build a coalition.
  24. Establish your brand (what makes you unique).

Source: nofilmschool.com

Demand The Government To Incentive Job Creation and Support The Arts

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

America is in danger of losing a critical part of it’s culture: Independent Film. All throughout this year I have heard one producer or director after another complain they can no longer afford to stay in the business. I know I too feel this on a regular basis. Yet, here in New York, I have seen the crafts and support elements run at close to full employment. Why? The New York State Tax Credits keep television and other productions going at a steady pace.

There is no question that effective tax policy can also be job stimulus.

Without any policy for funding of the arts in America,it is critical that we incentive potential investors to consider backing the arts. It was great to hear (via Entertainment Partners’ Film Incentive Services) that there is a movement afoot to reinstate Fed 181. They pointed out:

Congressmen Howard Berman and David Drier co-sponsored a bill (HR 5793) to extend the federal film incentive program aimed at keeping film production in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code section 181 expired at the end of last year. The current proposal would extend the election to treat film costs as an immediate deduction rather than a capital expense. To qualify, productions must spend ≥ 75% of the compensation on services performed in the U.S.

The Hollywood Reporter points out the many benefits for the country…

“Berman and Drier point out that runaway foreign production has become a national issue. With production of movies and TV programs now occurring throughout the United States, this industry creates well-paying jobs and generates tangible economic benefits to cities and states nationwide. A typical motion picture employs 350-500 people. Production jobs have an average salary that is 73 percent higher than the current nationwide average. A major motion picture shooting on location contributes $225,000 on average every day to the local economy, so it is no surprise that it is seen as a critical engine of economic development in many places across the country.
Thus, the lawmakers argue, extension of the tax not only will help to promote well-paying film industry jobs but will have a ripple effect across broad sectors of the economy by generating revenue and employment opportunities for a wide range of local businesses, such as caterers, dry cleaners, lodging, equipment rental facilities, transportation vendors and many others.”

If you live in the States, and work in the arts, the least you can do is call your representatives and urge them to support the bill, HR 5793.

Direct Distribution vs DIY

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

If you are making a film and able to sell / license it to an (in-direct) distributor, great for you. Start writing your next script. But if you are like the 95% majority of Indie filmmakers, please accept that marketing and distribution is now a part of the job, but luckily you don’t have to DIY it. Start your own distribution label (of course raise this money during your production finance stage itself), subcontract pieces of the workflow to enthusiastic and knowledgeable people, make your own output deals for now and the future, and embrace the free-market model of Direct Distribution.

Some may argue, that it’s all the same with different names but DIY is really just mind-set predisposed to failure IMHO. Direct Distribution not only sounds better and more respectable but its the accurate definition of the process of marketing and releasing independent film, which we Hope everyone will start using with a lot of confidence.

Q:Mike, I forgot to directly tell you how great that post was that I reblogged. At first I thought "Why isn't he running one of the studios?". Then I realized how silly that was and reframed it properly:

If a lot more film makers thought the way Mike Ambs does then there will be no more studios.

Thanks again.

life20

Hey Peter - thanks for the reblog and the kind comments, I didn’t see that you had shared it until Ted Hope had linked to it through his site, but what you said was very, very flattering. I wouldn’t say that seeing *all* studios fail and collapse would make me happy on a personal level or be good for filmmaking in a general sense, but studios and the people who run them have a lot of bad habits to break. To be blunt, and at the risk of glossing over things, there are a lot of douche bags out there looking to spend their way out of yet another mid-life crisis by perfecting the mix of Twilight meets National Treasure meets Jersey Shore, and it’s hurting the people who have real stories to share. 

via Truly Free Film

There are many reasons to think, even to believe, that there is an alternative to this dark vision. Mike Ambs was right when he mused that the short form online crowd was building their side of the bridge much faster than the indie film side.  As true as that may be, it ignores the fact that that progress is rarely done professionally.  Yes it is done passionately, but it still requires those so driven that they have found an alternative way to afford a creative life than financial support from the industry they focus on. 

Very flattered to be mentioned by Ted Hope in his post on indie film sustainability titled Should We Accept That Indie Film Is Now A Hobby Culture?

why won’t [the internet] make indie film profitable?

When writing my response to a Filmmaker Magazine post by Anthony Kaufman titled Why Won’t Kickstarter and Twitter Save Indie Film?, I kept finding myself deleting areas of discussion that separated “saving” from profitability in indie film, to the point where I wanted to write a follow up post: 

The word “save”, to me, is nonspecific, yet it always seems to suggest profitability to indie filmmakers - as if profits were the only area of indie filmmaking that ever needed saving in the last 30 years. In a response to a sharply-written comment from Mynette Louie, I made the point that,

Asking the question of “will” these tools save indie film is a bit late, they have saved indie film - they have given thousands [and thousands] of storytellers a real chance at sharing their films when only 6 years ago it would have been nearly statistically-impossible. 

And the above point is the most important to me when I see the word “save” in context of independent filmmaking; the ability for a storyteller to create and then share that creative work with people immediately. The weight that I give to sharing might come from thinking of myself as a storyteller more than a filmmaker, and my interest in the internet above that of the cinema. This doesn’t mean I have no interest in film, and that I would pass up an opportunity to share a film in a theater, but these are secondary interest to my love of stories and my love of the internet. The internet is a far more powerful tool for entertainment, change, intimacy and engagement than the cinema has ever been or could ever be. 

Having said that, the internet’s role in profitability is not limited in funding as much as it’s often over-shadowed by filmmakers not creating within their means. As an example, if a filmmaker raises $30,000 for production and post expenses, but then spends $27,594 over 9 days of filming with a crew of 24 people - claiming that the internet [Kickstarter, Twitter, Facebook…] isn’t the savior of indie film because they’ve run out of funds, well, it’s not exactly addressing the real issue. And to be fair, I am learning these mistakes the hard way as well, I have gone through budgets quicker then expected and found myself cornered financially. 

Kaufman mentions several filmmakers in his piece - Scott Kirsner, Lance Weiler, Ted Hope, Peter Broderick, Jon Reiss - most of them with roots in traditional film who have recently been strong advocates for social media. While I do follow most of the filmmakers mentioned above, I have a tendency to listen more closely to people who have been working online in shorter formats. 

When bridging the space between traditional film and the internet, I feel that shorter format creators and indie filmmakers are both working toward the same connecting point, but people working in shorter formats are building their half of the bridge at a much faster pace than feature filmmakers who are experimenting online have been able to keep. I think storytellers working to create within the boundaries of 5-30 minutes are in a position to more quickly learn lessons / adapt to financial limitations / build a workflow that produces *more* with less / etc. 

Steve Woolf often talks about the differences between, ”People who view themselves as filmmakers” vs “people who view themselves as creators” and how each group views “web video” differently, especially when it comes to, what he refers to as, “independent sustainability”. 

Taking a look at the average production budget (APB) for film in the last 60 years - in the 1940s the APB was $400,000, by the 1960s it reached $2 million, $13 million by the 80s, and over $50 million since 2000, with some recent blockbusters costing as much as $190 million - it’s difficult to track exact numbers for truly independent film, but it’s safe to say that indie film’s APB has also increased, albeit not as sharply. But “independent sustainability” is key if, as storytellers, we want to create a system that won’t simply crash and burn before it’s been given a chance to really expand and set new examples, this means structuring stories and budgets within what we are capable of funding online. 

As storytellers we are only going to move forward if we learn to build more with less, learn to not simply juggle multiple roles but understand how to efficiently mesh them together. There is no one business plan online, that is both a benefit and a downside to the internet; budget within your means and decide on how you are going to distribute and sell that creative work. Your budget / distribution plan could be broken into any number of different creative approaches, as long as you always create within your means. 

If Shane Carruth was able to write, direct, produce, score, and edit Primer in 2004, an entire year before YouTube was even launched, on a budget of $7,000 - then the only limitations filmmakers face are self-impossed limitations. 

Source: blog.mikeambs.com

Why Won’t [the Internet] Save Indie Film?

Earlier yesterday Ted Hope twittered a link to the Top 12 post of 2010 rundown on Filmmaker Magazine - I sent all 12 post to my Instapaper queue, as I had somehow managed to not read a single one of the listed post, but - one that caught my eye was an article by Anthony Kaufman titled Why Won’t Kickstarter And Twitter Save Indie Film?. I’m not really quite sure why of all the film-related post written between the months of January and December that this stood out on anyone’s radar in particular, but it was amazingly frustrating to read. I was surprised to later find that Kaufman is fairly young, at least young enough to know better, not the 70 year old disgruntled film-vetern he first appeared to be. 

I’m going to list a few of my favorite snippets from the post: 

via The Filmmaker Magazine Blog

Internet-enabled DIY filmmaking-and-distribution model is far from guaranteed. At this early stage, the successes are few and far between.

“I think it’s completely overwhelming and totally worthless,” says [Joe Swanberg]. “I don’t think a Facebook message or a Twitter update translates to asses in seats.”

“Doing the distribution took a lot of precious time away from our other projects,” says [Mynette Louie]. And the team’s Kickstarter campaign to help fund self-distribution failed, garnering just $1,430 of a $5,000 goal. “We [were] sort of relieved about it,” Louie adds, “because we were dreading having to ship large posters and signed DVDs to [our contributors].”

It is possible I’m reading this entire post all wrong, perhaps for every counter-argument made against Kickstarter / Twitter / Facebook / a.k.a., the Internet as a whole, there shouldn’t be an assumed argument in favor of traditional marketing and distribution for indie film. It does read that way - but in his defense, Kaufman is never specific on why the internet, when compared side-by-side with an assumed traditional marketing and distribution approach, why the internet fails. Apparently, it just fails. 

In no particular order of misinformedness, I’m going to start with Joe Swanberg and his claim that twitter and facebook updates don’t translate into audience - even if we ignore the reality that just 5 years ago Google was the top referrer of traffic, compared with today and Facebook being the top referrer of traffic, i.e., people now control distribution - aside from that, what does this say about the importance of word of mouth? Or does word of mouth just not count when it’s online? 

Then there is Mynette Louie, quoted as being actually relieved when her own Kickstarter campaign was unsuccessful - I have yet to see her film, Children of Invention, and I’m sure it’s a wonderful independent film, but I’m sorry, if you, as a storyteller, are too damn lazy to directly communicate and build a real relationship with your audience and supporters, then you really have no place on Kickstarter or Facebook or Twitter or any other number of sites built for doing exactly that. Considering that Louie wasn’t ready to snail-mail DVDs and posters directly to her audience, *even* when her audience paid her in advance to do just that, I think it’s safe to say she and the team behind Children might not have put their full-effort into promoting their Kickstarter campaign. 

And now for my favorite bit of wisdom from Kaufman: 

“…successes are few and far between.”

It’s hard to tell if by “success” Kaufman means financially, or in theatrical release, or something else - but success for a filmmaker working outside of traditional studios is like any ambition in life, you get out what you put in. There is a reason that months before Avatar or Transformers is released, everywhere you look you see billboards, TV spots, action figures, cross promotion with cereals and drinks and fast-food and coloring books; there is a return on investment, RIO, for what these major studios put in to promotion. So, yes, in a very narrow sense, what Swanberg said above about “asses in seats” is correct, an individual tweet or update will most likely not translate into an additional ticket-sale for your film. It requires a consistent and honest level of engagement to build an audience - and I mean that mostly for indie storytellers, honesty isn’t necessarily an important aspect of promotion for larger studios. 

“…DIY filmmaking-and-distribution model is far from guaranteed…”

What in the hell has ever been guaranteed in filmmaking? What golden age model of filmmaking and distribution is Kaufman comparing the internet with? Because I wasn’t aware there was a guaranteed era of filmmaking in Hollywood until the Internet came along and pissed on everyone’s parade. 

The progression of the Internet has been *the* closest we have ever come to a guarantee in not only filmmaking but storytelling as a whole; there is no gamble of hit-or-miss pitch meetings with producers on the Internet, there is just you and the story you are passionate about sharing, and access to the entire world and a mass of people who might just being willing to invest their time, energy and even budget behind your film if you only care enough to build a relationship with them. 

Source: filmmakermagazine.com

Thoughts On Audience Building

In a recent post here, Ted Hope listed “38 More Ways The Film Industry is Failing Today“; many of the questions and points made among the 38 stood out to me, and I’ve spent the last several days trying to openly brainstorm steps that could lead towards change. But today, I wanted to write about one in particular: Ted asked why we don’t encourage, or even demand, that a film build it’s audience (say, 5,000 fans) prior to production and greenlight.

For starters, I love the idea of audience builds. I think the practice of audience builds before a film gets too far off the ground would be a great shift in how we think of films, how we approach them, how to involve the audience long before they ever sit down in a theater – but it raises a few key issues:

Filmmaking is storytelling, and stories are told many different ways and take very different paths. Because of this, it might not be the best idea to mandate audience builds. One reason for this is it could, if taken advantage of, create yet another “door” that is opened easier only for some.

So the real question is, “why” take this route? If you had a fork in the road, would you, as a filmmaker, only take the path of audience building prior to production because it was the path less traveled? Or would it come with it’s own real incentives outside of “popularity”? For example, would studios honor and take seriously independent films that have done the hard work of pre-building their audiences? Or would certain grants and financial benefits kick in at such a watermark? It’s important to help build that distinction and give filmmakers real incentives at thinking of storytelling in this way: your supporters are your foundation, build that first, then your film.

This topic of audience builds is interesting to me because, as much as I agree with the idea of pre-building your supporters, I’ve been very hard at work on For Thousands of Miles for six years now, always with a strong interest in the community that can grow around a film, and I still fall short of that hypothetical benchmark of 5,000 supporters. Even with Facebook, Twitter, mailing list, Kickstarter, production-blog subscribers, Vimeo community, etc: we are not above 5,000 people. Have we overlooked the importance of forming a relationship with the audience beforehand? Does our film’s approach and idea need more work before people really begin to relate on a larger scale? And on top of this, these supporters overlap: people who follow the film on Twitter, also might be subscribed to both our blog as well as our mailing list. Which raises the questions:

How do we keep proper tally of the numbers during an audience build without counting one person two or three times? How would an outside review separate individual supporters across multiple social tools? And more importantly, who would do this validating? Should we be building stat tools and options for keeping these aggregated numbers public, letting the film’s own growing base self-check it’s own real-world size? Does this public display beg for popularity contest, where growing your numbers by any means necessary as fast as possible becomes the focus, instead of slowly and steadily reaching out to people who will really follow and support your work over the longterm?

Measurement can be relative when it comes to films, support can vary wildly depending on how a filmmaker goes about engaging people beyond their film. So how do we really measure this? Hitting a set number of followers / supporters / fans / backers could be one way, or if anything, the first step in audience building. From there it’s what you do with these people: how you involve them in the process, what they get out of supporting your project. As filmmakers we cannot change the future of storytelling without the audience’s full support – we need them to fall in love with a new “norm” of getting involved and be right there next to us when going head-to-head with the old ways of industry.

Source: trulyfreefilm.hopeforfilm.com

Top