Film Fund-amentals: How to Make A Movie

First published August 6, 2013.

In the past few months, I have seen some comments suggesting that I neither appreciate nor understand the wisdom of the Hollywood system. I have to confess, I didn’t know that there was such a thing.

But perhaps I have an attitude problem. Must be time for a little thought experiment. I need to take a few seconds to look at this issue from the other side. So I am going to pretend to be a studio executive. Heck, why stop there. I’m a mogul!

So first, I need a movie. Not really a script or anything. Just a title. Something that has been done before so I can build from the past model. It has to be something that I can purchase the rights to. So I ask an assistant to see what’s available.

As my assistant brings me my third caffè latte of the morning (well, more like late afternoon – moguls do not have to get up early), she also leaves me a list of titles. Great job!  I love these unpaid interns. I go through the list and first thing I see jumps out at me like a tiger. Fibber McGee and Molly. I love it!  It sounds so. . . so fibberish. I think I just coined a new word. I want the PR folks to use it in the campaign.

Now I need to get my other unpaid intern to research the material. I use to have an associate producer for that kind of work, but he got kind of funny with me. Suggested that my last hot idea was more dead than a pound of ground round with a two year old expiration date. So I had to let him go. Someday the world will be ready for the big screen version of I’m Dickens, He’s Fenster. We’re still waiting for Russell Crowe to be available. Don’t know why he’s not returning my calls.

Research comes back. It’s about five pages long, so I have another unpaid intern write up a single paragraph synopsis. Then I have one of my producers take a look at it. Once his intern reads it to him, he asks a sticky question: What’s a Fibber?  So I get another producer.

Just to be sure that this project will fly, I have PR conduct a survey. OK, I have heard that those bogus surveys done on Yahoo (in which the same pack of smart alecks submit answers over and over again) are not particularly scientific. But I don’t know anything about statistical analysis except that it sounds really dull. So we just do it the standard way and get a highly favorable response to the title.

Many of the kids who respond thinks that Molly has something to do with a synthetic drug, so we might have to work that into the script. Unfortunately, they also ask the same question: What’s a Fibber?

Now we need a script. I want the hottest writer we got, which is the guy that did the tenth and almost final rewrite on the last film we made. I schmooze him with a lot of chatter about his great creative talent. In truth, I don’t care because writers are a dime a dozen and I have already lined up the first five rewrite guys. But I make sure that he understands that the script has to be. . . fibberish. He rolls his eyes and says something about how it rhymes with gibberish. God I hate these guys.

While the screenwriter seeks inspiration (a three-day bender), I start to line up the cast. We need stars. Oh sure, a variety of financial studies have overwhelmingly suggested that stars do not really matter in regards to the box office return, but who has time to read these studies. Besides, they are pretty dull. A bunch of number-crunchers who don’t really understand the biz.

We need a hot couple. Maybe Brangelina. At least something like Brangelina. But I don’t know. Angelina is getting a bit old at 38. We need some one younger. Maybe some one more like Rooney Mara. Wait a minute. She’s 28. I’ll have the casting director start trolling through the high schools. Might be time for a new “star. ”

But Fibber is easy. Let’s see if Robert Downey, Jr. is available. Dang!  He’s booked into everything else and can’t do it for less than $100 million dollars. That’s OK. I can now up the budget to $300 million. And it will be in 3D. Just hope the script will give us a lot of stuff to blow up on the screen.

Then the script comes back. I tell the writer what a great job he did. Damn thing stinks. Some crap about a middle-age couple in Illinois. All warm and cozy. It’s like listening to a bunch of old farts chattering on the radio for crying out loud. This writer is never going to work in this town ever again. Immediately I get a new writer and tell him to put some action into the story. I like this guy. Without me even prompting him, he said he would make it fibberish.

Now the money people are making worrisome noises. Do I really think this film can work. I calm them down by explaining that it will be a cross between Die Hard and The Dark Knight. Nobody knows what that means but it makes everybody feel happy. Besides, the financial people don’t really understand how movies work, so we don’t have to listen to them. God I love this business.

Get an email from the new screenwriter. He wants to relocate the setting from Peoria to either Chicago or New York. Says that a major city makes more sense as the location for a terrorist attack by North Korean nuclear commandos. This guy is a genius or what!  I tell him either city. Doesn’t matter because we are filming in Cleveland. Parts of the south-side can stand in for Pyongyang.

Which is why the studio is upping the budget to $400 million. We may have to build a full-scale model of a city if we are planning to blow it up. Though we might be allowed to blow up parts of Cleveland. They are pretty cooperative. Meanwhile, PR tells me that there has been a sharp increase in chatter about the movie on social media. People are asking: What’s a Fibber?

So this film will be a major hit. Unless the critics do a Lone Ranger hatchet job on the whole thing.

God I hate those guys.

Film Fund-amentals: The Spike Lee Guide to Crowdfunding

First published in August 19, 2013.

Spike Lee had a hissy fit on Bloomberg TV.

Well, not really a full blown hissy fit. More of a “frank and open” exchange of views. To be honest, Trish Regan started the interview with a kind of “When did you stop beating your wife” approach. Reporters like getting Lee stoked up because it makes for good television. Having watched the reporter and Spike Lee routine in person, I’m quite aware that the results are guaranteed.

So let’s just clear up a few points. Yes, Spike Lee is running a Kickstarter campaign in order to rise $1,250,000 for his next film. Yes, he is another celebrity using Kickstarter. Yes, it is starting to get crowded with famous names over there. This has made some people mad at Lee. This is what prompted the opening question from Regan. Gee, anger is sometimes like the downside to the great circle of life.

However, Kickstarter is open to everyone and anyone. Any Joe Schmo alive can go on it and pitch. I’m not even sure about the “alive” part. Either way, Lee (and many other well-known people) can use it for fund raising. I have my own critical attitudes and concerns about the emerging high profile names barnstorming this system, but even famous people are allowed to go out there and make a pitch. So get used to it.

Likewise, Lee has a valid point about the current state of Hollywood financing. Hollywood does not want to make movies that cost less than $150 million and anyone, no matter how famous, who wants to do a movie for a mere couple of million bucks is just out of luck. Currently, most executives won’t even take a phone call if there aren’t seven zeroes attached to the price tag. So it is no surprise that Lee has turned to crowdfunding. It makes more sense than selling tube socks.

But what is unique is Lee’s approach to the process. Normally a filmmaker pitching on a crowdfunding site has to work at building a community of supporters. They have to woo the potential donors with fascinating details about the intended project. They build a strong web presence that links together Facebook and Twitter and other web sites in an attempt to create a strong and positive sense of engagement.

I don’t want this to sound like criticism or anything, and maybe I’m missing something, but basically Spike Lee’s Kickstarter campaign is something like: “I’m Spike Lee. Give me money. ” OK, it’s a little more complicated than that, but not by much. He is also offering old two-bit promotional stuff from such earlier movies as Mo’ Better Blues and School Daze. I am old enough to remember these films. Most people cruising through Kickstarter are not that old. I see a problem.

Actually, I see lots of problems. Usually the filmmaker wants (even needs) to pitch the movie like a crazy person. They have to tell the potential donors what the sucker is about and hope to intrigue folks into that magical state where they helplessly mutter “Tell me more!” Lee doesn’t tell you a damn thing. He vaguely implies that it might be kind of a horror/vampire/romantic something or other. But it ain’t no Blackula. Of course, that has left some of us assuming that it is going to be more like Vampire in Brooklyn (ironically, I’m one of only three people in North America who liked that film).

So basically, the pitch that Lee presents is based solely on the idea that it will be a Spike Lee movie. He is pressing extremely hard on his name value. He has successfully met his goal within the last stretch. But he has also presented a fantastic set of negative examples on how a person should not go about the crowdfunding process. Quick note: it is my understanding that I caught up with his Kickstarter page after he revamped it. Good grief!  I’m not sure if I even want to know what the first version was like.

But it is an incredible “teaching” moment. Many fine pieces have been written about everything Lee should have done from Aisha Harris’ excellent read at Slate to Bryce J. Renninger’s piece at IndieWire on the revamping of the campaign. It’s kind of like Crowdfunding 101 with Lee presenting a barely illustrated (he’s not much on the image thing) guide to everything you can do wrong.
For example, you can’t base a crowdfunding campaign solely on name value. It doesn’t matter if you are Ed Wood or Federico Fellini, your name by itself doesn’t mean squat. You have to build a community that extends beyond yourself. You have to connect and network. It’s all part of letting people feel somehow included into the project. Remember, they are giving the money not to you but to your project.

You also have to give them a good sense of what the movie is about. You don’t have to tell them everything. But heck, you can’t expect people to give you money for a pig in a poke. A lot of people are not going to feel thrilled with simply giving you money for. . . er, whatever. But they might be excited at helping to finance a film that sounds like it could be good. Maybe something they will want to see. So you want to share some details with them.

Take time to study some of the more successful Kickstarter campaigns, such as the one for Fire City: the Interpreter of Signs. Notice how much effort they are putting into luring and intriguing the potential donors. Also notice how they are offering more in return than just minor publicity gimmicks from movies made over 25 years ago (sorry Spike, but when I saw the so-called goodies you were offering to your donors, all I could think was “Oh for God sakes’!  Get real!”).

People do not put money into a crowdfunding project because they have to. They will only put money into your project because they want to. You have to convince them that they want to do it.

And you have to do it with a smile. It’s called salesmanship.

Film Fund-amentals: The Audience Divide

First published in August 28, 2013.

Theater owners do not depend upon folks like me for their trade. After all, I prefer to watch movies in theaters that are largely empty. Quiet as the grave, and more deserted than a tomb. I love it this way. Too bad none of these places stay in business for long.

So the recent dust-up about rude audiences has sparked my interest. Especially since I have long felt that certain movies demand a loud and rude house in order to be properly appreciated. Heck, a misfire like Maximum Overdrive is only enjoyable with a rowdy audience.

Traditionally, the rude house debate has been mostly focused on the difference between a quiet, polite audience versus a boisterous band of total loudmouth jackasses who behave like a pack of Vikings on their way to England. The proper film audience stays reverentially silent while casting a studious glaze at the screen.After observing audiences for several decades, I can say without hesitation both sides of this debate are absolutely full of it. Both are invoking unconscious and half-bogus cultural and social myths and illusions. Which may help to explain why the digital tech blogger Anil Dash felt the need to address this issue twice. First in the pretty polite and straight-forward piece Respecting Cinema in the Digital Age, and again in the much more provocative Shushers: Wrong About Movies. Wrong About the World. Both are recommended reads. But before you read them, I would like to add some context to the material.

I have dealt with a wide range of audiences. Everything from the art house to general audience and special-focused groups. Like many others in this trade, I came to the deep realization that an audience – any audience – is basically a wild beast. You never know which way this critter will jump and no matter how well you think and plan, you will never succeed in second-guessing the crowd.

Fortunately, it is rare that the audience really turns hostile on you. But they can and, occasionally, they will. My own worse experience was with a mob of pissed off unemployed coal miners (I am not making this up) who grabbed my legs and tried to drag me out into the street (for what I am not sure). Fortunately, I had several assistants who held onto my belt and dragged me back in, bolting the doors as fast as possible.

Moreover, there are more ways to go wrong than there are to go right. I discovered this the first time I had to deal with a couple of guys getting into a loud and increasingly threatening fight during (believe it or not) a Truffaut movie. I asked them both to step out into the lobby with me. I had some stupid idea that we could achieve a happy and peaceful resolution. Once we were in the lobby, both idiots started tearing into me until I finally blew up and told them to shut their pie holes before I threw them both out. I should note that I had several assistants with me by that point. Having good assistants is very important in this business.

Also be aware that a lot of theater managers have problems knowing what kind of audience to expect for a movie. That was part of the problem with a recent incident that took place in Maryland during the opening of Lee Daniels’ The Butler. Most likely, the nitwits in charge had convinced themselves that the gangbangers were hot to see a movie starring Oprah Winfrey. Aside from the obvious latent racism (which is an issue I want to address in another piece), it is also a reminder as to how little (if anything) the average theater manager understands about their own audience.

Then you have to keep in mind that movie theaters are fighting for their very existence in the modern market. Based upon the most recent study by StudioDirect, the average theater is operating at 10 to 15 per cent capacity. The reasons for this are many (which again we will deal with in another piece). But it means there are a lot of empty seats out there.

So movie theaters are trying almost anything. Booze, food, and wall-to-wall dining experience (with wait staff). I half expect they will soon try disco night in the back rows. Oh sure, they always tell you in those cute ads before the feature to turn off your cell phone and hush up. But most theaters are not really that locked into this program. To be honest, the biggest concern the theater has about your cell phone involves its video capacity and piracy issues.

What theaters want is to increase their audience. Just as many TV programs now encourage active social media engagement with the shows, movie theaters may indeed seek a way of accommodating the digital crowd. Personally, I am not thrilled at this prospect. But I do understand the financial motivation. Besides, there have been an assortment of blockbuster movies so dull that the person texting next to me was more fun to watch.

Which gets to what I suspect is the real problem. Most major Hollywood movies are flat at a very fundamental level. Despite all of the elaborate CGI and big explosions, they lack virtually any level of emotional engagement. At best, the audience is only hanging in for the spectacle. All the in-between stuff is dull and predictable. Might as well check your emails until the next thing goes boom.

Trust me. I have seen first hand the difference that emotional engagement can make. I still remember attending the opening night of Edward Scissorhands. It was a packed and extremely urban house. Since I tend to be very split about Tim Burton, I figured the audience comments might be a plus.
For the first half hour, the house delivered. Lots of comments. All pretty boisterous and rude. Then I realized it was getting really, really quiet. By the last half hour, thuggish looking men were secretly wiping away tears. I almost expected by the end to see members of the Bloods and the Crips giving each other reassuring hugs.

Emotional engagement: it’s how you develop the dramatic phenomenon called catharsis and win your audience.

Film Fund-amentals: Which Way to the Future?

First published in September 10, 2013.

First, there was Y2K. Then came 2012. Now, the film industry is bracing for 2015 (according to the article 4 Reasons 2015 Could Be the Movie Industry’s Worst Year Ever).

OK. Y2K kind of flopped. Likewise, 2012 was a farce produced by an odd collection of New Age gurus who didn’t know the difference between Maya and mayonnaise. But the 2015 theory has a point, even if the provided link is to an article at Cracked.com. Sure, it’s a humor site. But to be honest, their articles are better researched than most of the stuff at The Washington Post. They are, by the way, describing the exact process that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were warning about.

These days, everybody has something to say about the future of the film industry. There are many different pathways to all kinds of different futures. Some are good and some are…well, not so good.
Of course it could be argued that all of the worries prompting these discussions are simply needless. Heck, the commercial industry is having one of its best summers ever, right?  That’s what I’m reading in Variety.

But most of that claim is horse hockey. The box office figures used are Hollywood claims, always a tad suspect since the industry has a notoriously unique system of accounting. Likewise, they do not reflect the actual, increasingly wide range of ticket price differences and other significant economic inputs. In reality, ticket sales have gone up while actual attendance figures continue to drop.

Moreover, no comparison is made to the actual cost of production. In most businesses, if you spend a $1.00 and make back a $1.01 in sales, that isn’t considered profit. But Hollywood refuses to look at it that way. They take raw data, proclaim success, then move on before the accountants go to work.

So all the recent reports about the great summer Hollywood had is just a lot of nonsense and most studio executives know they are whistling their way past the graveyard. That is also why everybody is sneaking around the internet, reading virtually every article available on the changing conditions of the industry and the marketplace.

One of the more engaging reads is the recent nofilmschool.com interview with producer Lynda Obst. Obst has depth of experience that makes her opinions valuable. Her comments are extremely insightful to both the commercial and indie markets. She is knowledgeable. She is thorough. I can’t believe that she is still falling back on a pile of false hopes and misbegotten assumptions as she wistfully describes a future for the industry that came and went over twenty years ago.

For example, she believes that the tent pole movie does not need to result in the dumbing-down of the script. Sorry Lynda, but you are wrong. The financial structure of these movies demands the largest available international audience and to achieve that, the script has to be kept incredibly simplistic. Take the example you used, Titanic. The script to that film was so simple, a deaf mute in Outer Mongolia could follow it. The same can be said of Avatar. Heck, I would even argue that among the many problems with The Lone Ranger fiasco, a key problem was that its script was too complicated for this type of movie. The I.Q, level of the script is forced to  drop in a direct relationship to the size of the budget.

However, Obst is right that the international marketplace is not only dictating the format for American cinema but may ultimately derail it; and indie cinema has gotten screwed in the process. The foreign market use to provide some (if limited) support for independent American movies. But those days are over. Today, foreign audiences mostly want American movies that are in 3D with lots of things that go boom. Hollywood is controlling the international market through its ability to dominate the technology. But that can – and most likely will – change. I personally suspect that we will see this shift within the next few years.

All the more reason to think that the 2015 “worst-ever” theory is plausible. And from an indie perspective, this could be a good thing. After all, the modern mainstream film industry has basically sent the indie world off to Siberia. Even the change to digital distribution is being strangled by the commercial industry in an attempt to choke off financing for small distributors, making it impossible for them to successfully operate within a system that is technically ideal for them.

Likewise, Hollywood is locked into a bitter fight with Silicon Valley over digital access not because of piracy concerns (though that is the official reason), but because Hollywood wants to control it. That is also why various major media companies are now making heavy handed moves into the online market. They are not there to help the future. They are there to own it.

The foregoing is one vision of the immediate future. A different vision can be found in a recent speech given by Kevin Spacey at the James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival.

The subject of Spacey’s address is the emerging combination of digital distribution and television production. A recent blog post by indie filmmaker Jay Webb also explores the interconnections between indie film production, digital distribution, and television. In their own ways, both Spacey and Webb are presenting a film/TV/digital synthesis as a direction for the future. I think they are heading in the right direction.

Film Fund-amentals: Is American Cinema Racially Biased?

First published October 3, 2013.

The question of racial bias in American movies is supposed to be over. You know, the product of some long-forgotten age. Way back in Antebellum time when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and we had just discovered fire.

However, almost every major study on this issue completely and adamantly disagrees. Take for example Andrew J. Weaver’s report, The Role of Actor’s Race in White Audiences’ Selective Exposure to Movies, published in 2011 by the Journal of Communication. Weaver’s study found that white audiences were largely less responsive to the concept of an African-American leading man, especially in a romantic role.

Other studies have not only confirmed Weaver’s results but have gone even further. Racial bias also appears in mainstream movie reviews, as was demonstrated in the report Racial Bias in Expert Quality Assessment: A Study of Newspaper Movie Reviews by Lona Fowdur, Vrinda Kadiyali, and Jeffrey Prince in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. They found a systematic and measurable review bias against movies with a leading black actor (generally by 6 per cent) that was consistent enough to rule out other critical factors.

Numerous academic reports clearly outlines racial bias with the audience and the press. My own first-hand experience showed racial bias with the average exhibitor. Most theater managers are convinced that any movie with a large black cast will bring in a crowd of gangbangers, and they hit the panic button. Some theater managers actually resent it when a movie is successful with a predominately black audience.

Once, when I was working as the lead reviewer with a weekly newspaper, someone phoned in a “hot” tip. Supposedly, local businesses near a theater showing Menace II Society were complaining of “problems” with the audience to the movie. The caller was suggesting that I should do a story on this in the hopes it would force the theater to withdraw the film. The caller was the guy who owned the theater and thought I would do him a favor. Privately, I wrote him off as a nut.

So, basically, we have an abundance of empirical and anecdotal data that overwhelmingly support the claim of racial bias in American movies. What is not clear is how much this plays out within Hollywood’s creative and decision processes. Actually, it is sort of clear and unclear at the same time: Hollywood is singularly blessed with the unique ability to speak out of both sides of its collective mouth in different languages and still manage to say absolutely nothing.

A quick overview of the history of ethnic presentation in American movie history would suggest that Hollywood has been pretty democratic in insulting all non-white races. Let’s be honest, at times Hollywood was pretty backhanded to the Irish and the Italians as well. Part of this was evidenced in the approach used in casting found in old movies. If the character was suppose to be Chinese, they would cast a Swedish actor (Warner Oland or Nils Asther). If it was a Western with an Indian in a speaking part, it would be played by an Italian-American actor.

But African-Americans were a problem. Especially once show biz had to give up on the blackface bit. For the first forty-some years of American movies, blacks primarily functioned as servants and crude comedy relief. The Production Code of the Motion Picture Industry restricted images that ostensibly might incite racial unrest or present issues of racial inequality. Basically, it pretty much restricted any presentation of blacks, period. Making them go away was seen as an “equitable” solution.

Some changes did take place. In the 1941 production of High Sierra, Willie Best catered to stereotype humor as a lazy, slow witted black guy. When the film was remade in 1955 as I Died a Thousand Times, it was decided that they had to cut out the  racist stuff. So the character was turned into a Mexican and made even dumber and lazier.

In short, the history of Hollywood on this point is not very reassuring. Their only defense is, they give what the audience will accept. Of course they also condition, manipulate and reinforce the audience’s expectations on what they have conditioned the audience to expect, resulting in a great circle of something or other. It’s a complicated relationship. But Hollywood is far from being blameless in this process.

Not that things haven’t changed. They have, big time, though paradoxically the changes are most noticeable in television. Mainstream American movies are still mighty slow to move. As always, Hollywood is fast with the finger pointing. They blame their dependence on the foreign market. Foreign audiences don’t want to see African-Americans in lead roles nor do they want to see inter-racial romances etc. etc. Damn those foreign bastards for holding Hollywood back.

Personally, I find that something just doesn’t smell right about this argument. OK, some of these films would not fare well overseas because they involve uniquely American social or political issues. Others might not fare well because they are very African-American in their cultural viewpoint and gee, guess what, that makes them extremely American in their codes and references. You see, most African-Americans have cultural and personal roots that go much further back in American history than those of us whose great-grandparents arrived around 1900 (all on the same boat, I hear).

But most of all, Hollywood is busy peddling tent-pole productions overseas and most movies headlining an African-American cast are not tent-pole productions. Arguably, the comparison becomes a bad case of apples and oranges. I have no doubt that Lee Daniels’ The Butler is not going to play as well overseas as, say, any movie showing Bruce Willis blowing up half of a city. This is not necessarily anything to do with race. We are talking about radically different kinds of movies.

We are also talking about Hollywood’s longstanding ability to completely sidestep a major issue. And yes, the Hollywood cinema is racially biased. It always has been.

Film Fund-amentals: Social Media for the Anti-Social Type

First published October 23, 2013.

Where ever you go, the topic is social media. It is the quick fix for everything from fund raising to film promotion and distribution. It is all things to all people, which is why it is a good thing we have so many self-professed experts online to tell us how to use it. It plays a bit like that scene with Groucho and Chico in A Day at the Races.

So let’s begin by stating that I am not an expert on social media. Never have been, and never will be. To be honest, I have a strong anti-social streak which works against the whole concept. I am even thinking of developing my own social media site based on the principle that people ought to mind their own business. I thought I would call it MySpace/Not Yours.


But for the indie filmmaker, social media is a necessary evil. You have to do it, and do it a lot. You have to develop a social media strategy. You have to reach out and attract people and network and build a community. And you have to act as if you enjoy doing it. For me, that’s the hardest part of all.
Fortunately, there are many sites available regarding various aspects of using social media in indie cinema. There are such individuals as the indie movie marketing and publicity specialist Sheri Chandler, who blogs away on so many social media sites, I’ve lost count. There are various groups such as the Raindance Film Festival and The Film Collaborative, which has numerous articles on issues related to social media and indie cinema. Over at the Global Center for Cultural Entrepreneurship there is an extremely useful piece called Social Media Resources and Inspiration for Independent Filmmakers. Check them all out.

You can easily spend several weeks on Google going through the listings on this subject. Or you can just spend a few hours banging your head with a two-by-four. Sometimes the effect will feel about the same.

Remember, I am really an intensely anti-social personality. I find social media to be a rude intrusion into my private space. Of course, I am also a shameless snoop and I truly enjoy looking at the social media sites of total strangers. I have a suspicion that this contradiction is not as unusual as it may sound. Ironically, the indie filmmaker’s use of social media has to attract weird people like me: total strangers snooping around the internet for movie projects that might sound fun.

As with everything else in life, there is a right way and a wrong way to use social media. I have done a pretty good job of following the wrong way. I have signed up on a wide variety of sites, most of which I have never gone back even to glance at. I have maintained a passing relationship with a few sites.  That means, once a week I pass through them. Most times, I haven’t a clue what is going on. When I look, I usually discover that the company has changed everything in the site’s design and I spend several weeks trying to figure out how to work it. This adds to my hostility to social media.

Obviously, what I am recounting is not the right way you do it. But, I feel that I have learned much from my negative experiences with social media. The same could be said about my experiences in travel and graduate school. I have much to offer in the world of backhanded and belated knowledge.

For example, I have become intensely aware that the first thing an indie filmmaker will want to do is to pick a few social media sites that are most relevant. After all, you have only so much time to devote to dealing with them. You really can only handle a basic range of about three to five sites. For better or for worse, Facebook and Twitter are pretty much obligatory. Some people have a high regard for Pinterest and Google+. I have accounts on both sites. I have never used them. Nothing personal, I just haven’t gotten around to it. And remember, you have to be working all of these sites virtually every day. No wonder I just give up.

You have to focus on your objective with these sites. Are you promoting yourself as a filmmaker and/or scriptwriter? Are you promoting a specific film? Do you want the site to be more personal or professional? You can’t really have it operating every which way. Too confusing. After all, potential investors do not need to know about your Aunt Milly’s meat loaf.

You will need to enforce a strict separation between your personal life and the projects you are promoting. Even though, as I mentioned, you have to be working all of these sites virtually every day. I am afraid that I cannot overemphasize this point. You need to network with other sites that have a shared interest in the subject matter of your film. It is the first step in building a community. You need to engage with people at these sites and you need to do it in a positive manner. Insulting and embarrassing folks on social media  isn’t exactly the way you want to go (unless that is some how productive for your project – though if that’s the case you might want to rethink your project). Let a smile be your umbrella. You have to do it virtually every day.

Every piece of advice on using social media will tell you about the need of building a community. This involves understanding what your film project is about and finding people with shared interests and values who might want to know about your project. This means getting a strong handle on what it is that you are trying to do. Sounds easy, but it isn’t. You are promoting both yourself and your film. A lot of people are lousy at doing this type of self-promotion. To be honest, I stink at it. That’s why I am quite aware of how lousy other people are at it, too.

Which means the real secret to social media is the amount of time and effort you have to devote to the process. Hopefully, you can give up your personal life and get to work barnstorming the digital social scene.

Film Fund-amentals: The Generals of Genre

First published November 1, 2013.

The romantic comedy genre is dead. The horror genre has received numerous obituary notices over the past ten years. Film Noir is pretty much an historical concept used for stylistic flourish and the occasional directorial hommage.

Genre film-making – a major backbone to the low budget and indie cinema – is often treated as a dead commodity. Reports on the demise of various forms of genre appears almost as frequent as rumors of Bill Cosby’s death. They are also about as accurate.Arguably, genres don’t really die. They mutate. They evolve. They move and develop in a direct relationship to the shifts and variations in the audience’s tastes and sociological sensibilities. It is a process that is impossible to predict. Often, the changes to a genre are not even recognized until late in its development. Even then – despite the glorious clear vision of hindsight – the key reasons for the change are often murky.

Take for example the modern horror genre. Death notices for the horror film is practically a sub-genre of film reporting. However, most of the reports are largely on the general collapse of the 1980s style slasher flicks. The modern horror movie has developed into such forms as the lost-footage presentation (e.g. The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity) and  extremely revamped versions of the zombie narrative (such as 28 Days Later) as well as the rise of torture-porn (Hostel and Saw).

In reality, the horror genre is still rapidly changing and every example I have given is now passe. The future of this genre is still evolving and is, I suspect, about to enter another radically divergent phase. Add in the covert but extremely political nature of horror movies (and yes, they are often very political), and the range of possibilities before us is virtually endless.

The romantic comedy genre is also officially dead. Heck, I’ve been to its funeral twice already. However, the reports may be a tad exaggerated, a quick glance through the top ten titles on the BoxOfficeMojo list of  romantic comedies since 1978 reveals both strength and the emergence of new variables in the genre.

Not surprisingly, My Big Fat Greek Wedding is number one. This movie is about as old fashioned as you can get without attaching a social security check (and this is not meant as a negative thing; I liked the film). Number 5 on the list is There’s Something About Mary.  OK, any genre has room for a stretch.  In this case a long, long stretch. At 9 is Knocked Up. We may now be entering the post-romantic comedy genre where we cease to care about how the couple gets together. We now want to know how they keep from killing each other.

The many changes taking place within contemporary romantic comedy require extensive study. After all, issues about gender, gender roles, gender identities etc. etc. are undergoing massive change and revision. It would be very difficult to second-guess what the audience will find romantic (or even comedic) at this point. The genre isn’t really dead, but it is getting hard to recognize.

However, the list also suggests an interesting development that has been largely ignored.  If you look at the top 50 titles, there is a noticeable drop in movies made in the current decade.  Many major titles are from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s.  A couple of recent titles that made it to the upper tiers are Hitch and Think Like a Man; likewise certain movies like Something New have produced mediocre box office results but surprisingly strong cable and DVD viewings.  The African-American romantic comedy is a distinct and developing form.

If any genre seems to be dead, it is the Western. The mythic cowboy saga suffered a lonely brutal death decades ago. I hear it was buried somewhere in the High Country of Nevada. The traditional Western with white hats and black hats is also dead, which was one of several problems with the recent Lone Ranger fiasco.

On the other hand, the Coen Brothers milked True Grit for $251 million at the global box office a few years ago.  Their version was an extremely gritty and realistic presentation, much like Clint Eastwood’s production of Unforgiven. So while old-school Western is dead, a modern form has emerged: raw, naturalistic, totally unflinching in its presentation of the harsh details.  Box office results can still be hit or miss, but the genre isn’t actually dead. The Western has completely mutated.

Which is how genre film-making survives.  Sometimes, it even thrives.

Film Fund-amentals: VOD Revenue: TS/SCI or OII

First published November 21, 2013.

Should companies make public the revenue generated by films distributed via video on demand (VOD)?

According to The Hollywood Reporter, this question is a hot topic among indie filmmakers. I’m not so sure that’s true, but it ought to be.  Since VOD is the most probable distribution venue for many indie filmmakers, it would be really nice if they had some sense as to the financial possibilities of this approach. But most VOD distributors are not very forthcoming with the information.

In his report for IndieWire,  Anthony Kaufman outlined The Six Reasons Why You Don’t Know More About VOD Numbers. The core reason is that VOD distributors are, quite simply, unsure how to represent the numbers. VOD distribution is new and rapidly expanding. There is a market. It may be a boom market. Nobody actually has a clue where any of this will go and they are still trying to figure out how it compares to traditional forms of distribution.

Just look at some of the numbers that are available. About a year ago,  Gravitas Ventures  released figures for several films they had released VOD. One of the movies, AMERICAN: The Bill Hicks Story made $90,000 in its theatrical distribution. But during a three-year run on VOD, it took in $600,000. Obviously that is a pretty good increase.

But what does it mean? Inevitably we will try to compare and contrast the VOD release figures to the box office reports and there are really a lot of differences between the two. First-run theatrical is spread out over a time period of roughly 2 to 18 weeks. VOD may span years. Theatrical rolls out on a systematic release through theaters with a quick report on ticket sales. VOD goes through multiple channels, platforms and venues, which also means that the financial reports are often slow in coming and fragmented. Likewise, VOD is increasingly moving into an inter-connection with the TV market, and this linkage is radically shifting the distribution strategy.

With the little bit of information that is available, we can make some basic observations. The first is simply that VOD is commercially viable. Viable? Heck, it is inevitable. Though some indie filmmakers still question this notion, VOD will become the main means of distribution for low budget films.

The second is that comparisons between VOD and box office reports will require enormous adjustments and may really be pretty much meaningless. The business models are extremely different. It would be a bit like comparing the cost of a first-run movie ticket to the admission price to a major league baseball game. Of course, the MPAA  makes that comparison every year, but that is little more than a self-serving exercise in gibberish.

The big questions remain: What is the real break down between the cost of the various channels involved and the platforms required for large scale distribution on VOD, and what is the final split in return between distributor and producer. Ultimately, how many ways is the pie sliced. It is not impossible that a movie could make $500,000 in several years of VOD release and the filmmaker still ends up seeing only a $1.50 in return. These things happen. Almost every day.

So I do understand why many people in the VOD business would like to keep their figures TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information). But the successful development of VOD practically begs for OII (Open Information Interchange). That is why an increasing number of indie filmmakers are asking for greater transparency in the VOD business. The more VOD becomes the primary focus of indie distribution, the more the producers of indie movies need to know how to determine the film’s economic potential.

Now, transparency is a tricky thing in the movie industry. The mainstream commercial film industry often prides itself on being economically transparent. Of course, that is an Urban Legend.  In reality the entire Hollywood industry is built on figures so fudged, so finagled, and so largely mangled that nobody actually has a clue if they are making money or going broke (for more on this, I refer you to the book Sleepless in Hollywood by Lynda Obst – a must read).

But that’s OK. Hollywood has millions of dollars to blow out of their collective wazoo. Indie filmmakers are often forced to panhandle for lunch money. So they need really precise information in order to create a rational business model for their films. Many indie movies can easily forgo a business model regarding theatrical release because they are not going to get a first-run theatrical release. But they do need to know the figures regarding VOD.

The immediate future (which is happening right now) is one in which theatrical and VOD distribution will co-exist in parallel but separate business models. Theatrical is basically the domain of the mainstream media industry. VOD becomes the primary venue for low budget indie film-making. Separate and basically unequal. Or, at least unequal until the VOD approach surpasses theatrical, which will probably happen within the next few years.

So yes, indie films need open information on VOD distribution.  Of course they will also need some guidelines as to interpreting these figures.  I have no doubt that someone is already working on a book called VOD Distribution for Dummies.

It’s bound to be a bestseller.

Film Fund-amentals: The Bible of Filmmaking

First published on May 13, 2014.

And on the seventh day, God rested. He kicked back and relaxed. Maybe went to a movie.

At least that is the hope of an increasing number of people in the film industry. The religious movie is back. Sort of. The issue is extremely split and no one really knows what any of it means. Heck, religious views are contentious enough that if you give me a random selection of true believers, I can give you a full-blown riot within ten minutes. As a child, I went with my family to an extremely conservative Lutheran church and we spent lots of time in Catechism class learning why all other Christian denominations were a pack of heretics (it was a Lutheran church with a strong Calvinist streak; the elect were chosen by God before the world was created and those not chosen were essentially helpless to do anything about it). So I learned a lot of useful pointers for dealing with aggravation.

But it doesn’t matter at the mainstream level. The current Hollywood interest is doomed to failure. The reasons are pretty simple. They are mostly hoping to attract an audience that hates their guts, doesn’t trust them, and believes that Mel Gibson is the victim of a Satanic Hollywood conspiracy.

OK, I admit that I have been trolling through the internet’s back alleys. Many self-professed Christian film goers are not brain-dead zealots. But as Paramount recently discovered with the release of Noah, the religious audience is not something that Hollywood is accustomed to handling. Heck, they even had problems with the Pope and normally the Vatican has been more flexible.

However, the greatest influence of the new religious movement is taking place within the indie trade. The “faith-based” spiritual movie is booming. Whether it be a full-blown biblical production such as Son of God or a slip-it-through-the-backdoor presentation like Heaven Is For Real, the Christian cinema is carving an unusual niche for itself in the indie market.

The niche largely ignores the traditional indie audience. The basic demographic portrait of an indie film viewer tends to be young, college-educated (or at least some college), with a more than occasional film-going habit (at least once every couple of months). The audience who would identify themselves as Christian film viewers tend to be older, slightly less college educated (though not by that much), and less prone toward going to theaters (once or twice a year). They are more likely to order a cola than a caffè latte and are likely to mistake the title The Brown Bunny for a nature film. If indie is the alternative to mainstream, then the faith-based spiritual movie is the alternative to the alternative. In some ways, these movies exist in their own parallel universe.

So these movies are actually going completely around the traditional indie market. However, there is a lot of open room in that “around” space. There is very little market comparison that can be made between a movie like God’s Not Dead and something like Nymphomaniac, Vol. One, and it’s not just about the sex. It’s more like the difference between pad see ew in New York and meatloaf in Iowa. It’s not really a question of which is better. They are just totally different.

However, there are some things that indie filmmakers can learn from the faith-based crowd. For example, branding. This is a tough one since the faith-based folks are tapping into a brand that has been on the market for over 2,000 years, aided by the legacy of St. Paul (one of the most underestimated publicists in history). Many indie filmmakers have problems figuring out a brand, period. The first step in creating a brand is knowing your audience and many indie filmmakers have a problem with that first important step. It’s as if they think the audience will just magically appear.

Doesn’t work that way. Something about a tree falling in the forest and nobody is around to hear.
Once they figure out the audience, they can also start the process of community building. Many of the people working on faith-based productions are already part of a large system of evangelical and religious social networks. Part of Mel Gibson’s success with The Passion of the Christ was his own ability to link into these networks and be accepted as one of them (since this was at that magic moment when he was sounding just crazy enough to be taken seriously as non-Hollywood but not so crazy as to be considered deranged). Part of Paramount’s failure with Noah was their inability to connect with these networks. Sure, they tried. They tried really hard. But they were always viewed as dubious outsiders attempting to fleece the flock.

Then they made the second mistake by trying to coddle them. The obvious insincerity of the process simply confirmed the worse fears of the faithful.

This process of community building has become absolutely essential for the success of indie filmmaking. Part of the success of the faith-based crowd is that they have a brand and they know how to network with their audience and the rest of us need to take some lessons. I am not advocating that indie filmmakers should turn to faith-based productions. Heck, I don’t even go to these movies.

But sometimes you have to give the devil his dues. So pay attention. There is a method to this system.

Film Fund-amentals: A Whole Lotta Scamming Goin’ On

First published January 20, 2014.

Every year I have to take a moment to remind folks of some very basic rules. Real simple rules that are easy to forget.

Unfortunately, there are legions of people out there hoping that you do forget. That’s why the rules are always worth repeating. Especially since the scam operators seem to be multiplying. Heck, in the past year I have gone through at least four direct and indirect incidents of outright scams or, at the very least, extremely questionable business operations.

Except for some bruised egos and deflated hopes, we have been pretty lucky. No cash, no dash. But many others have not been so fortunate. They have gotten fleeced. It is not because they are unusually dumb nor even particularly greedy. It’s because they were just gullible enough to believe that someone was really sincere about investing in their movie. They trusted a stranger in hope of achieving a dream.

First tip about real investors. They don’t hang around social media sites advertising themselves as investors. Really, they don’t. Anyone at a social media site claiming to be seeking indie movies that they can invest in must be viewed with extraordinary suspicion. Oh sure, I suppose it is always possible that some kind of half-nutty Warren Buffett type has nothing better to do with his or her time than troll these sites in hopes of giving away free money, but…. You are much more likely to be hit by a bolt of lightening six times while standing in the same spot.

Some of the people claiming to be film investors are really just fronting for various types of high-risk loan services. Others are seeking people they can hook with so-called “production fees.” You pay them to “produce” your movie. Mostly, they are hoping to take you to the cleaners before you catch on. It is mean and nasty and it is happening all the time.

One tell-tale sign is how fast they will try to force the issue. Most scammers have to get you baited, hooked, and gutted before you have time to really think the deal through. That’s why they first pump you up with the exciting news that they want to help your project. Then explain how everybody will make lots of money from this film. Once you are floating on air, they make their move. If possible, they will try to make the score within a week.

I am aware of a few exceptions to this time-line. Some will drag it out for months before making their play. I don’t know if this is supposed to be some type of reverse psychology or if they are simply not very good at their own racket. But it does happen.

When any would-be investors approach you must check out their credentials. What types of investments have they previously been involved in? Who exactly are they and what is their background? For crying out-loud, do they even actually have any money?

For example, do they or their company actually have a web site? They do. Great! Is it a “real” web site or more of a Potemkin village operation? What I mean by this is: Does the web site actually say anything about what they do or does it drift around in a lot of generalizations with non-working links and bogus material? Heck, I know of one company that claims to invest into advance digital development and then tries to pawn off links to various freeware systems (none of which they had any involvement with) as “support” material to their claim.

Yes, there are such things as bogus web sites. Pieces of eye candy for the scam. Even better are the (equally) bogus offices and mailing addresses often used in these operations. Most American cities now have virtual offices where a person can rent or lease (by the day or the hour) a well equipped and very nice looking space for use. In theory, the virtual office provides the occasional needed meeting place for someone who is working their online business from their home. But it also provides scammers with oodles of legitimacy. Hey, they must be real since they have an office with really nice furniture. Even better, they can clear out within minutes, which is a plus when pesky investigators show up.

Always check out the address they use. Twice in the past year I have encountered the virtual office operator. At least one of these outfits worked out of a combination office and casino in Vegas. It would be a hoot if it were not for all the people getting stung.

Many scammers will not pass this type of simple test. But some will. That is not good because it shows that they are better organized. Oh boy! This is why you need to keep a few basic things in mind. Nobody is likely to get rich off of your movie. When they keep spinning stories about all of the money you can make, dump ’em. Yes, occasionally a small indie movie hits it big. These are the exceptions, not the rule. Any one who says otherwise is either a crook or an idiot. Doesn’t matter. You don’t need them.

Investors make investments. They do not charge fees. It is that simple. I don’t care what their story is, the minute they want you to pay them, dump ’em.

They represent investors who wish to remind anonymous but who are looking to back your movie. Most people who invest in films do so, in part, because they want to be associated with the filmmaking process. As a general rule, movie investors do not seek anonymity. Many of them want to see their names on the big screen. Some are hoping to date the leading lady. If they want to be anonymous, they can just go to any major crowd funding site and donate there.

And always keep in mind one of the key signs of any con artist. They are all extreme narcissists. It is a standard part of their pathology. OK, it is true that this is a tough call in the film business. But trust me, con artists are the worse. They can’t stop talking about themselves. Good grief! I once had to call one of these bozos regarding the mysterious death of one of their “clients.” The official verdict was “suicide” (it was one of the state investigators who kept putting quotes around the word). Either way, I called the guy to inform him that we had found the body. All I got back was a long-winded description of his recent vacation trip to Las Vegas (most likely paid for by the deceased).

They can’t help themselves. But you don’t need to enable them. You just need to dump ’em.

Film Fund-amentals: Back to Basics

First published February 7, 2014.

It’s always the same set of questions. Is there any way to tell if a movie is going to be good? How can we tell if a film will be successful at the box office? How can we tell if a movie is worth investing in? By the way, are my pants even on right?

To be honest, the answers to these questions are all quite simple. We can’t. Don’t know. Who knows. And by the way, what kind of pants do you have that could some how go on wrong?

No one knows what it takes to make a good film, especially in the pre-production stage. Heck, much of what made Citizen Kane an important classic is its unique combination of time, place, and visual sensibility. The same is true of virtually every significant film in the history of cinema. These are all pretty elusive factors.

Box office success is a mysterious thing as well. Currently a modest action-comedy called Ride Along has made close to $100 million and has shot way past its break even mark. Meanwhile, a major franchise flick like Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit has made just over $100 million and is still short of its break even point. Jack Ryan is performing as well as could be expected. Ride Along is beyond any form of expectation. It is all a reminder that the box office is made by audience desire.

What films should potential investors put their money into? Based upon the current logic of the system, I would be tempted to tell potential investors to simply flush their cash down the toilet. Then they will have the giddy fun of watching the greenbacks swirl around for a few seconds. This process can be more emotionally moving than many films.

Does it have to be this way? Of course not. But you have to stop asking all of the wrong questions.
You may not be able to guess what will make a movie good, and especially not the things that will make it great. But what you need to focus on are all of the elements that can make a film really bad. Greatness is often hard to define, but bad is often quite painfully obvious.

No one can tell if a film will be a box office success. But more often than not, we can predict if it will financially function at a core level that has reasonable possibilities. Yes, that can be predicted. The usual mistake made by people when they think about the use of metric measurement in predicting a film’s box office is the fallacy that such systems would be used to predict the film’s actual box office. This is not the point. The method is designed to allow you to chart the core- and most fundamentally low ranges of the movie’s possibilities.

In many regards, the use of data-driven performance measurement systems is a guide to how little it will make: the base figures, not the high figures. You cannot measure the unknowable. But you sure as hell can measure and chart the core figures and data involved in film financial management. It is a means for discovering a series of benchmarks that will tell you what you need to know, not what you wish to hear.

The real question is not in the measurement. It is in the analysis. Well, that, and also the parameters used for the measurement. Of course, to identify the right parameters, you have to determine what elements of the process are quantifiable; and to do that, you need to sort the tangibles from the intangibles; and so on. There are still a few folks who feel the entire film-making process is an intangible. Privately, I view such thinking with the same wistfulness that I have when reading the current proceedings of the Flat Earth Society.

Since various people have begun working on various versions of this measurement process, there is actually a mounting body of hard core evidence to support the theory.  An increasing number of filmmakers and companies are adapting to different but similar approaches along these lines. Some approaches are better than others. A few may really be mostly a mix of smoke and mirrors. Some are actually quite useful.

Over the next several weeks, I will be seeking out ideas and impressions from a selected group of other professionals and see what they think about various aspects of such processes in relation to the current issues in indie film financing. Maybe it will start a dialogue. Maybe not. But what the heck. It might be an eye-opener.

Either way, it might finally put to rest the often quoted (and largely misunderstood) remark by William Goldman that “Nobody knows anything.”

Film-Fund-amentals: Tangled Nature of the Tangible

First published February 24, 2014. This was an informal prologue to an academic paper I and a colleague were working on regarding the FilmScore database project.

The first step toward metric measurement with issues concerning the film business is determining what elements within the process can be quantified. In other words, what can be measured, and what sort of parameters are you using for these measurements.

Easier said than done. The film-making process is full of loose threads and slippery details and the whole thing starts to sound like another paradox about knowing “the dancer from the dance.” The simplest response would be to insist it can’t be done.

That was my first response about ten years ago. In a series of long conversations, I expounded at some length why the filmmaking process was way too complex and extremely intuitive and that it was beyond any form of quantification. I even quoted William Goldman. I gave it the works.

While I was doing this, I slowly came to realize that it could be done. The more I lectured on the intangible nature of cinema, I more I realized I was talking pure bunk. It is not magical. Oh sure, great art should feel magical. But the basic key to film-making is craft, and craft is tangible. That is why any form of metric measurement on the filmmaking process will be focused on craft, not art.

Likewise, the financial value of indie films is eminently quantifiable. Low budget movies are much easier to analysis than so-called tent pole productions. The lower the budget, the more you are dealing with hard figures that are pretty consistent and rational. The bigger the budget, the more the financial process gets very…well, strange. Quite bluntly, the financial structure of any big budget production is designed to confuse accountants. Once a movie goes past a budget of $100 million, the figures largely become a piece of fiction.

Quantifying the craft and the financial package are key, but value relationships cannot be extrapolated in a straight line. For example, the box office results of the director’s previous two or three films do not necessarily mean anything in terms of the box office outcome for the director’s next movie. Oh sure, it’s useful information. But it does not tell you all that much.

The valuation process involves layering different elements, ranging from script to scriptwriter to cast to other assorted parameters, and analyzing different combinations of them. That is why the final results (or what is sometimes called the score) will not be a single figure. It will be a range of statistical probabilities. And they will not necessarily be final. In fact, they are rarely final.

Filmmaking is a fluid process. Changes made during that process will effect the analysis and will need to be accounted for within the analysis.

I want to emphasis this point because many people make two major mistakes about this type of metric measurement. The first is the notion that the projected outcome (i.e. box office returns) is some kind of absolute prediction. It isn’t. Such a prediction isn’t even possible and certainly is not the point of the process. It can only give you a range of expected results for the most basic, core-level of limited release. In the past I have characterized the process as best designed to tell you how much you can afford to lose, not how much you will gain. If the film becomes a hit, then that’s fine. Just deal with it. But you have to know and work with the most realistic, basic results. In the case of indie movies, that is most likely all (at best) that you will ever receive.

The second mistake is the notion that these figures are written in stone. The outcomes are process-determined. The many shifts and changes that occur in making a film will have an impact on the projections–as they should. In a full blown application of metric measurement in film-making, the scoring process will be done over and over again to reflect the evolving conditions of the production.

There are no absolute outcomes, only results based on information, iteration and assumption.
What does the filmmaker gain with all of this? Quite possibly, a discovery that the project is not economically viable. Sad news, but essential. Or, that it is extremely viable. In my own scoring experience, I have seen it go both ways. Sometimes the process has allowed me to discover one or two elements that, if changed, could noticeably improve the film’s prospect.

One of the biggest points of resistance to scoring is the belief that such measurements will destroy the creative process. And yes, it could. If the people doing this job are real heavy-handed and extremely pushy, and like to act as if the results generated by the computer are the equivalent of Moses coming down from the mountain top, they could screw up lots of things. Such people obviously think they are producing results written in stone and are hopelessly (and mistakenly) focused solely on some type of fixed outcome.

But it is all about process. Process is ever changing and full of many variables. Sometimes, the analysis of the figures are just as important (even more important) than the figures themselves. It is a dialogue, not a monologue. It is even open to debate. Like anything else in science, it is honed through experience and observation. So, although there should be reproducibility, there is never any absolute answer.

Instead, it is about asking the right questions.

Film Fund-amentals: Beyond Measure

First published March 15, 2014.

Having spent many articles pounding on the issue of metric measurement and film finance and production, I need to take a moment to admit that not everything is about measurement. I have to make this admission. Otherwise, I end up sounding like one of those stupid spam e-mails for cheap Viagra.

Last time, I explained why many elements in film-making can be handled with metric measurement and data analysis whereas some aspects are more fluid and need to be treated differently. The whole process of getting a movie financed, filmed, and ultimately released has a quality that often resembles an unraveled ball of yarn. Lots of crazy loose ends and countless tangles. Sometimes when you give it a yank, a nice long piece easily untangles. Most often, it just knots up.

That doesn’t mean these other aspects cannot be evaluated; they simply require judgment and interpretive guidance, to go along with the numerically quantifiable elements. This is not the first time I have cautioned that the numbers are not the final step or advocated for the role of solid human analysis of data results. 

Some of other non-data elements were neatly summed up in a recent e-mail exchange I had with Sheri Candler. If you are an indie filmmaker, you ought to know her name. If not, you might want to make yourself real familiar with her ideas. She has a surprising habit (at least surprising in this business) of knowing what she is talking about (as demonstrated in her book Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul. Candler is extremely expert in the rapidly changing field of marketing and promotional work for indie movies, which is why her thoughts (all her quotes below are in bold italics) went straight into the areas that exist largely outside the metric zone:

I think the analysis should take into consideration not the age of those involved in the production so much as their social following. That is becoming increasingly important to distributors who want talent to help push the films, and not just the onscreen talent. 

Most approaches to metric measurement in film will factor in various versions of the age range. Age is a number, so it is measurable. Social following isn’t. It could, maybe, be factored in, but the process is going to be complicated. 

Also take into consideration if the production will be crowd-funded by donation because that indicates an early success with audience outreach. If they have a significant number of people who have given money to see a production made, that indicates a willingness to spread the word later on its release, no matter where that release occurs, digital or theatrical. Number of donors could be an indication of potential audience revenue later.

Again, Candler makes an extremely important point (and you should take note). However, this process (crowdfunding) is still new enough that I personally would distrust the validity – at this moment – of any statistical model built from it until there is more data. This needs to be factored in, but I feel it will (for now) involve the human analysis, not the statistical.

Also an affiliation with film-making labs. Is the producer/director/writer an alum of a major lab in the US or even overseas (Sundance, IFP, FIND, San Francisco Film Society, Rotterdam etc)? As an alum, certain filmmakers and their projects have early recognition as having merit and the ability to make early connections to the industry that might either bring money to the table, preferential consideration at major festivals premiere, early sales shopping to more prominent distributors, talent agents who can bring higher profile names to the project. Those labs are hotbeds for agencies, festivals and distributors looking for the new blood talent and they keep those filmmakers on a tracking board so to speak. If I were an investor, it would sway me to know that a filmmaker or a project is showing an early trajectory for success based on how recognized they are already by industry insiders.

In other words, solid networking. Networking is all part of the human side of the process. So this is the moment when the computer analysis takes a very long coffee break.

Basically any kind of pre recognition for the audience is going to help in the ability to get people interested in seeing the film. Does the production have any affiliation with large organizations? Having a verified partnership with Komen, Heart Association, Greenpeace etc means that the film will have significant help before it reaches the market. This is not just advice for documentaries. Narrative films with an issue or interest group affiliation will also benefit and especially if the film is made for under $1mil.

Privately, I have given the same advice to many filmmakers. This is both networking and promoting.
Finally, Candler kind of summed it all up:

Take most successful independent films and trace back to where they started. Probably in a filmmaker lab, probably a recipient of some kind of grant, probably an alum by way of a short film at a prominent festival (only Sundance), Cannes (in competition, not SFC), Toronto, Berlin or a student Oscar or Oscar nominated/winning short, probably based on a pre existing story that gained some prominence. You’ll start to see that most successful indie films don’t really come from ‘nowhere,’ they received some kind of nurturing well before they were made and premiered. Doesn’t guarantee success, but it sure does separate them from MANY of the others being made without any kind of past validation.

And again, this represents some of the many factors that the human analysis has to make while accessing the figures achieved through the metric measurement process. Obviously, I view metric measurement analysis as an important and necessarily part of the filmmaking process. But the numbers do not exist in a sterile universe.

They have to interact with these other factors as well. And this set of relationships are best understood by people who can analyze and understand both the numbers and the process.

Film Fund-amentals: Science, Movies, and A Little Bit of Hooey

First published April 4, 2014.

Science has an important place in the study of movies at virtually every stage of the film-making process. But movies are also about illusion, a shadow box of dreams. Perhaps that is why a lot of the science that gets applied to film is sometimes a collection of smoke and mirrors.

Take for example the Bechdel Test. Conjured up in 1985 by cartoonist Alison Bechdel in her seminal comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For, the test was a pretty savvy and extremely on target dig at the mainstream Hollywood narrative structure.

For years, the Bechdel Test was a major reference in feminist critical analysis. It was a loosy-goosy but pretty quick opening move in critiquing material. It was a half-satiric but incredibly accurate jab. In the right hands, it was even fun to use.

Then, something happened. By 2010, the concepts underlining the Bechdel Test moved increasingly into the mainstream. That was largely good. It raised awareness of the celluloid glass ceiling in the film industry. It brought wider focus to issues that many of us have brought up over the years about the film industry and its treatment of women. It also still provided a nifty satiric point.

By late 2013, some of the major cinemas in Sweden began using the Bechdel Test as part of their rating system.  That’s OK since the Swedish approach to rating films is so strongly based in a distinctive Scandinavian cultural attitude that we neo-Puritans in the States are always baffled by them anyway.  It’s like shopping for furniture at IKEA.  Half the time I don’t even know what you are supposed to do with the thing (but the Swedish meatballs in the cafeteria are mighty good).

Now, Ted Hope wants indie filmmakers to pledge themselves to the Bechdel Test.  It’s a bit like the no liquor pledge from the old Temperance movement (minus the axes and wild storming of saloons). Again, I guess that is sort of OK if you are into doing it. In my experience, talk is cheap and these sort of pledges are utterly meaningless. So go ahead and sign. Whatever.

But this does force some questions about the Bechdel Test itself. The first and most important question: is it valid? The answer is pretty easy: nah. Not really. I mean, how do you define valid anyway? In and of itself, the Bechdel Test is simply designed to be a informative educational tool that playfully pokes at a complex series of ideological structures that have dominated Western narrative tradition since The Epic of Gilgamesh.

Ages ago, Hollywood co-opted a crude (one might even say debased) version of this tradition.  Everything was a love story.  Granted, everything was a male-dominated love story exclusively predominantly written, produced, and directed by lots of guys. But they were all love stories. Heck, back in 1976 when he was producing his gawd-awful remake of King Kong, Dino De Laurentiis kept referring to it as a love story. You know, ape meets girl, ape loses girl, ape drags girl off to the top of tall building till he gets gunned down. I get choked up just thinking about it.

In turn, this narrative tradition is all part of an ideological structure. The Bechdel Test (which is based on an ideological theory, not a scientific principle) touches on this much larger issue ever so slightly. At its best, it can be somewhat enlightening. Mostly, it has provided a lot of web sites with long lists of the major movies that flunk the test. (Word to the wise: most movies will flunk this test – in fact, some of the movies that pass  only do so because somebody stretched the rules.)

So yes, there is an extremely valid point to the Bechdel Test. Part of it has to do with the narrative structure. Another part involves the entire nuts and bolts of the industry. Even though women are now moving more than ever into various important positions within the film business, it is still a recent phenomenon. But this has yet to result in any noticeable change in the movies themselves. Even a recent film like The Heat is primarily an adaptation of the buddy-buddy genre rather than a radical change. We are still a long way off from seeing an American version of Daisies.  

What is Daisies, you ask? This 1966 Czech New Wave movie by Vera Chytilová was an experimental satire in narrative deconstruction that lampooned the psycho-social ennui of Eastern Europe in the 1960s. It also made fun of men. Especially men of the official type. That may have been the real reason why it was banned for a while. It was also a key step toward the development of the modern feminist cinema. Ironically,  Daisies would not be able to pass the Bechdel Test. Go figure.

But this film is a lot closer to what I am talking about. A real change to the current situation will involve something more than adding a few women to the mix. It will involve major, substantial, even (dare I say it) revolutionary change. The rest is just window dressing.

However, I do make one little request of anyone who signs the pledge. If you are a male filmmaker and sign this thing, please fire yourself as the director and hire a woman instead. That way, you can show your commitment.

Oh, you don’t want to do that? I had a hunch that was the case. So never mind.

Film Fund-amentals: Film vs. Television

First published April 25, 2014.

In the past year, I have seen the hoary old question of film versus television come up in a variety of contexts regarding indie cinema. To be honest, I thought that the whole issue was a no-brainer. But people still ask. Should indie filmmakers be more focused on possible theatrical distribution or some form of television presentation for their movies?

There are two ways of looking at this question. One is to view the glass as half-empty. The other is to simply ask: “What glass? What water? Why are you even thinking this way?”

Virtually every technical difference between film presentation and television is gone. OK, that is a bit of an overstatement, but not by much these days. The visual gap between the sharp bright movie image and the dim fuzzy box is no more. In some cases, your high definition TV set will provide a much better picture than your local theater. Just depends upon where you live.

Unfortunately, the same is true regarding distribution access. It’s marginal at best. Basically the same companies that control and lock out most indie filmmakers at theaters also own all of the network and cable systems. So it is pretty much the same either way.
 
Except for a few differences. The IFC cable channel provides a much-needed outlet for indie movies. Other cable systems provide an occasional outlet. Though this is extremely limited, it is still more than is possible in theatrical release outside of a few of the largest cities. Any indie movie picked up for broadcast via a cable system will, at least in theory, reach a wider audience than it could achieve through theatrical release.

Which brings up the next question: Does the average indie movie stand to make more money through theatrical distribution or television presentation? That’s another easy one. Neither. You see how simple it is. In principle, there are many ways that an indie movie could be handled for theatrical distribution. There are also many, many issues that have to be negotiated before a deal is even signed.
A few, and I do mean a very few, filmmakers will get a great (or at least great-sounding) offer. That has become the magic Sundance event. But the average indie filmmaker will be lucky to break even. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but not by much.

So how about television? Who knows? It varies. Like crazy. There are many different ways that a movie can be contracted into a TV presentation with lots of variables and only one consistent factor for the average indie filmmaker: You will be looking more for exposure than profit. The difference between movies and TV was best summed up years ago by Mel Gibson (and yes, I can’t believe I am quoting Mel Gibson) when he hosted Saturday Night Live. Movies are low effort, high reward. Television is high effort, low reward. Write this down. It’s the key to the whole thing.

What really makes this ironic is the fact that the television industry basically props up the entire movie industry. More people watch TV than ever go to the movies. The television audience is a larger and more diversified market. TV programs produce a relatively high and surprisingly steady stream of income. The average movie, if it’s lucky, will break even once it is sold for cable TV presentation.

So TV is basically the breadwinner of the media industry. It doesn’t get much respect for that, but it is the main profit generator. It is also a system in which the short-term ad profit is played off against the long-term revenue (DVD and syndication) that only a handful of participants in a production will ever see. At their most successful, movies are still just a flash in the pan. But television is more of a long, slow grind. And despite all of this, TV people are still largely treated as second-class citizens within the industry.

Despite the major differences between theatrical distribution and TV presentation, they both share a common problem. The digital revolution. Over the last several years, major movie companies have been torn between buying into digital distribution and fighting against it. Meanwhile, TV broadcasters have just gone before the US Supreme Court in their fight against Aereo while also trying to decide just how much they hate Netflix and what, if anything, they can do about it.

This is just the tip of the massive iceberg of contradictions and incoherent policies being pursued by virtually every major media company in town. It is a state of media corporate chaos, and for the indie filmmaker, chaos may indeed be opportunity. The foundations of the commercial film and television industry are in the process of crumbling. Heck, Disney isn’t slapping down $500 million for Maker Studios because it is worth that kind of money. They are doing so because they think it might become worthy of that amount. In reality, Disney doesn’t have a clue and they are simply anxious to be in some future position that might, just maybe, be the right spot.

Indie filmmakers are going to have to work the same way. They need to find their foothold in the digital universe and go for it. So I think we can skip any more questions about film vs. TV. That is just so 1990s.

Film Fund-amentals: The Emerging Crossroads

First published May 31, 2014.

Winston Churchill once said, “There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction.”
Of course the issue of “right direction” is an imponderable. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the indie film business. All of the standard rules of the past are changing. Did I say changing? They are vanishing with every passing day.

Many indie filmmakers are living in a state of denial regarding these changes, as Chris Dorr noted some months back in his blog piece “The Denial at the Heart of Indie Film.” Others are trying to create online forums for discussing these changes, such as the upcoming Reinvent Hollywood that will take place this summer at Reinventors.net.

Meanwhile, various new approaches to indie distribution are in the works. The International Film Festival Rotterdam has launched the IFFR! Live program in an attempt to combine theatrical release, pay-TV, and VoD in a grand experiment. Other alternatives range from such programs as Rooftop Films in New York to wide-ranging combinations of film, dance, and musical performance.

Considering the extreme difficulty any indie film has in getting an actual theatrical release, these emerging alternatives are promising. But only barely. No matter how much these alternative venues try, they can only accommodate a fraction of the large indie world.

There is a perceived glut of indie productions. By one estimate, during the 2009 to 2010 period alone, at least 50,000 indie movies were made, ranging from low budget features to various shorts.

Of this total, fewer than 10 percent will actually get some amount of festival play. Of that 10 percent, only a small group (roughly another 10 percent) will actually get picked up for theatrical release. By the end of this process of attrition, only about six to ten titles will ever get widespread national release. The remaining titles will play for between three and nine weeks at select theaters in a few of the largest cities (mostly New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles). This reality of marginal possibilities is one of the main reasons why many indie filmmakers are turning toward online digital distribution.

Eventually, all indie films will be released through some form of digital online distribution. This will be especially so as the commercial mainstream movie theater business continues its strange evolution into a special events and hi-tech stage for exclusive use by the Hollywood system. Of the 39,662 commercial movie screens in the US (the official 2012 count by the National Association of Theatre Owners, which sounds very low to me), at least 90 percent of these screens will be showing the same six movies on any given day. Fewer than 10 percent of these screens will be devoted to anything else. Fewer than 5 percent will be showing anything that might truly be classified as indie (and this is actually a high-ball estimate). This is another reason why indie filmmakers are turning toward digital distribution.

Though the digital revolution is barely taking its first steps, it is already under siege. For the last several years, I have repeatedly warned about the efforts of the major media companies to take control of the internet and, ultimately, control of content. I keep getting the impression that some folks have found these warnings slightly shrill or even alarmist. At best, I’ve experienced a “so what” reaction.

With the impending end of net neutrality, as well as the recent series of massive mergers among the major communication providers, my warnings are proving to be pretty accurate. This is unfortunate. Sometimes, I would love to be wrong. This was one of those moments. But no. It is happening, right now.

First, let’s keep in mind that thanks to the current business model used in the US for internet access, the country ranks 26th in broadband speed. We are outclassed by South Korea (where the government has been heavily involved in developing public access). We are also beaten by both Romania and Bulgaria. As control over the internet system continues to be dictated by a few massive US companies, I strongly suspect that we will eventually be fighting it out with the Democratic Republic of Congo for the bottom of the list.

But that is half OK. After all, Americans must love lousy service since we keep supporting business and political structures determined to reward poor service. However, the more that major media companies take over control of the internet, the more we will lose in innovation and creativity. Digital innovation and creativity will continue, but it will more likely continue in places like South Korea, Romania, and Bulgaria. Over here, we will just end up with overpriced and extremely slow internet service designed to feed us costly streamings of Iron Man 1, 2 and 3.

And this will be very, very bad for everyone. The wide-open frontier of the internet has become the last refuge for indie funding, filmmaking, and distribution. But this open wilderness is being threatened with the digital version of barbed wire fences.

Both the internet and the indie film business are at an extremely critical crossroad. One path will lead to a promising, perhaps even prosperous future. The other path goes absolutely nowhere. Only the first path is in the right direction.