(photo by eye of einstein)

One thing is clear. For independent cinema to grow and thrive, it needs to find a more sustainable business model. And while there’s been a lot of hype around new forms of “alternative” (or “direct”) distribution, few people have an answer to …]]>

(photo by eye of einstein)

One thing is clear. For independent cinema to grow and thrive, it needs to find a more sustainable business model. And while there’s been a lot of hype around new forms of “alternative” (or “direct”) distribution, few people have an answer to the sixty-four thousand dollar question: “How does this new approach to distribution make me more money than the older more “traditional” approach?”

Akin to the old catch-phrase “Where’s the beef?”, today smart filmmakers are asking “Where’s the business model?”

Having spent the last three years analyzing all aspects of independent cinema in incredible detail (from production to marketing to distribution), I’ve developed my own answer to this question, which I put forth in the form of an equation. With the recent launch of BOND360, I’m calling it the “360 Equation”:

Community + Data + Content Bundling + Dynamic Pricing = $$$

Treated separately, none of these elements (Community, Data, Content Bundling, and Dynamic Pricing) will on their own bring financial success. They are only pieces of a much larger puzzle. But when you put all of them together, and execute them well (that’s the hard part), they form a very potent combination. And if you develop and distribute your film in a certain way, adopting the 360 equation will definitely bring in more revenue for an independent film than any of the alternatives, including the more “traditional” ones.

So first, let’s break down each component:

Community:  Today when people hear the word “community” they immediately think that their community equates to the number of fans and followers their film has on Facebook and Twitter. And while this is indeed a form of community, in itself its not at all what community is about. Today, filmmakers are being pressured by consultants to arbitrarily increase the number of their social media fans, all the while without being given any direction on how they should be using them most effectively. But how many fans is “enough”? 500? 5,000? 50,000? The number is completely arbitrary. The reality is that true results from a community comes from its quality, not its quantity. Having over the last twenty years worked on more community based projects than I can count, one thing that I do know is that the number of fans and followers your film has does not alone, in any way, equate to your future success. I’ve had films with almost no social media followers do EXTREMELY well financially and I’ve had films with tons of followers absolutely bomb. Communities need to be curated and nurtured, not “acquired.”  A community that will bring long term rewards is always earned and never bought. And the problem for most traditional releases is that this takes time. The process of building a sustainable community can’t be confined to the weeks that a social media agency has been retained by a distributor  Community is the by-product (the results),  that, after a lot of hard work, comes when your film starts to connect with audiences. It comes from goodwill, benevolence, and the creation of an environment that motivates people to get involved. It’s the rewards of your efforts, not the genesis of it. And it’s developed more offline that it is online.

For me, your community are those people who want your film to succeed as much as you do, and are willing to do anything and everything they can do to help it get there. They are the people who are willing to spend their Saturday afternoon putting up posters for you in their local towns. They are the ones who can’t wait to meet others who share a similar passion for your project. The real value of community is that these are the people who will tell ten others to go see your movie.  And there’s nothing more powerful (and inexpensive) than leveraging the passion of your community.

When people ask me what the “call-to-action” should be for their film, I always have the same answer – “Get your core fans to tell ten others to go and see it.”  And because of this, when I’m asked what the most powerful community building platform is for independent filmmakers, my answer is never Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr.  It’s the personal email lists of the filmmaking team. Nothing is more powerful when it comes to getting people to see a movie.

Data: When someone watches your movie on any of the older established transactional platforms (brick-and-mortar movie theaters, Cable VOD channels, Amazon, iTunes, Netflix, etc) you, as the content creator, are given ZERO access to an incredibly vast array of data that that platform has collected from the sale or rental of your film. Not only do you not have the ability to communicate directly to those who’ve watched your film, you’re not given any information as to who they are, where they live, what they like, etc. Because of this lack of transparency, a growing movement of content creators who are demanding to have direct access to their own customer data has lead to a whole new wave of more open (and not always film centric) dashboard based digital platforms like Kickstarter, VHX, and others. The real threat that the more established players in digital distribution face is not coming from any one of a host of new hot start-ups. Rather, it’s coming from all of them. The threat is not a company per se, it’s a philosophy is one of data portability. Companies like Apple will either become more open with their data, or eventually they will be left behind. What retailers have known for years is that owning the relationship with your customers means having the ability to reduce waste in your marketing. And in reducing waste, you will reduce your costs. And in reducing your costs, you will be increasing your profits. Its as simple as that. And the key to all of this is having access to your own data. The good news for filmmakers is that each month new start-ups are being formed where giving the content owner direct access to customers is a core principle of the platform.

Content Bundling: Filmmakers who will succeed in the new direct-to-fan model will be those who understand and maximize the bundling of digital content and physical goods to raise the average price point of their films when they’re offered direct through their own digital channels. To be successful, the value that is given to fans through your own website needs to be greater than what’s being offered elsewhere. And the best way to do this is to bundle digital content and physical goods so that a higher price point becomes not only justified, but something that fans desire because they’re getting exclusive materials directly from the filmmakers. Today, we’re giving away far too much good content for free as part of our marketing campaigns because we don’t have any other use for it. We’re still conditioned to think that all bonus materials that’s any good should be put on a DVD for your film. But when was the last time you purchased a DVD?  If you’re like me, you haven’t bought a DVD in years. Until companies like VHX and Vimeo began allowing filmmakers to sell direct, there was no commercial use for bonus content other than on a DVD. Today, smart filmmakers are bundling this content with their films when offering them for sale on their website and giving fans more value for their money. Today, nobody can compete on price with Amazon. And a a time where Netflix offers a month of unlimited access for less than the price of a single movie ticket, the only way filmmakers can make any money by going direct to fans is to offer them something that the other platforms can’t. And if done well this can come at a higher price as long as you are giving fans more value at the same time.

Dynamic Pricing:  For me, the most exciting aspect of new direct-to-fan video streaming tools like VHX and Vimeo is not simply that filmmakers can now offer their films directly to their communities through their own websites; it’s that they can control the pricing of their films without having to go through a third-party. Success in retail comes not from establishing a fixed price and then keeping it at that price until declining sales compels you to lower it. It comes from analyzing sales patterns and adjusting pricing to take advantage of opportunities that occur each and every day. Dynamic pricing is both an analytical and creative process that, if done well, can be the differentiator between making money and losing money. Today, “agility” is the key factor which determines success and failure. And because of this, putting the control of pricing into the hands of the content owner is, for me, the true “game changer” when it comes to VHX, Vimeo, and others in this category. Today, most people believe the statement – “Prices never go up, they only go down” But, for those who know how to use these tools, this is simply no longer the case. When you connect dynamic pricing with content bundling not only can prices go up, they can go up and down as often as you like.

$$$: From all of the work that I have done in this area, I’m convinced that signifiant revenue for independent filmmakers will never come from the current platforms that are based on the old models. Rather, to truly have a sustainable business model for independent film, we will need new platforms that were never a part of the old way of doing things.

And one thing is certain, they will be platforms that offer filmmakers a true “360 Equation”.

So to recap…

Community (Curating and nurturing those who are not only willing to pay more, but WANT to pay more… as long as they’re getting more value.

+

Data (Reaching your community directly, without going through a middleman, thus reducing waste)

+

Content Bundling (Offering a wide variety of versions of your product at different price points)

+

Dynamic Pricing (Adjusting pricing “on the fly”)

=

$$$ (Profit, baby!)

(An earlier more stream-of-conscious “draft” version of this article was shared with those on my personal email list. To subscribe, click here)

(photo by MOJO MOOMEY)

Every industry has a set of metrics to benchmark its success or failure. And while I haven’t been in the film industry long enough to know exactly when the “opening weekend per screen average” became one of the de facto metrics for success …]]>

(photo by MOJO MOOMEY)

Every industry has a set of metrics to benchmark its success or failure. And while I haven’t been in the film industry long enough to know exactly when the “opening weekend per screen average” became one of the de facto metrics for success or failure for independent films, what I do know is that our obsession with “per screen average” is slowly killing independent cinema.

Before you stop reading, I’m aware that’s this is a very strong statement that not everyone will agree with.

But let me explain:

Everyone wants their film to be judged a success (even when they know it may not be deserved). And the quickest way for a specialty film to be perceived as an instant success, is to achieve the highest per screen average for an independent film on your opening weekend. When you accomplish this, two things happen. First, you’re awarded with a wonderful attention grabbing headline in Indiewire and Deadline on Sunday afternoon (which then leads to a steady flow of congratulatory emails from colleagues and peers) and second, the phone starts to ring from exhibitors across the country who now want to book your film even though they may have previously turned it down.

Before you say it, I do know that it would be stupid for me to completely trash the value of both of these outcomes. Nobody can argue that its great to have those headlines, or that you’ll likely increase your gross earnings when you’re wanted by more theaters across the country.

But the question we should all be asking as an industry is – What price are we willing to pay to achieve these results?

Today, the “price” for a specially film to get an attention grabbing opening weekend per screen average is often outweighing the returns. In fact, the tactics that are now needed to obtain that headline in Indiewire are the same tactics that may eventually kill the film’s chance for future financial success.

It doesn’t take a genius to know that if you spend, say, a million dollars on marketing a film that’s in one or two theaters, you’re likely to get a higher per screen average than if you spend that million dollars to market that same film in ten theaters. Today, we’re often “buying” our per screen average by limiting the number of screens we’re in on opening weekend to artificially jack up the per screen average. Now, this alone isn’t a huge problem. If you hit it out of the park on opening weekend, many distributors and P&A funders will free up more budget to help expand the film to more markets than they had at first anticipated. If you can get the screens there’s no downside to this.

But what happens when you’re NOT the highest per screen average that weekend, but you’ve still achieved a decent, but not spectacular, per screen average (as most films do).

Here’s what happens: In the pursuit of that high per screen average you’re most likely front loading the majority of your marketing and advertising spend leading into opening weekend when you’re in the smallest, not the largest, amount of theaters in your release. What this most often means is that there’s very little left to spend after the first ticket buyers enter the theater on opening night. When 80% of your marketing budget is spent leading up to opening weekend when you’re in only two or three theaters, there’s obviously not a lot to spread around afterwards when you’re set to expand and you need that money the most. But if you don’t hit it out of the park in your first weekend agency retainers are dropped, internal resources are re-assigned to other films, and the movie that you just worked tirelessly on for months to set up, is now set on auto-pilot with minimum spends and little or no support in it’s expansion.

Today, if you’re releasing a documentary, to get the national press and to qualify for an Oscar, you need to open in both New York and Los Angeles. And to be efficient, both cities usually happen on the first weekend. But everyone knows that Los Angeles is an absolutely horrible market for documentaries. So to hedge against the likely scenario that the opening weekend per screen average will be lowered by terrible grosses in LA, we’ll often open a doc in one or two theaters in New York, get that amazing per screen average, and then open it the next weekend in LA when everyone has moved on to the next wave opening weekend films. Again, this – in theory – shouldn’t be a big problem. It’s only a problem when you’ve spent most of your budget leading into your one or two theaters in New York.

And this happens far too often.

The reality is that even with the best films, some theaters and markets perform a lot better than others. When you look at a Rentrak report, your top grossing theaters are often many multiples of the gross of your lowest grossing theaters. On the same weekend, you can be turning away people in Washington D.C but playing to half empty theaters in Philadelphia and Miami.  When you’re playing the per screen average game this could be a huge problem. But when you’re spending little to no money on your lower grossing theaters, this isn’t a problem at all if what you’re making from those theaters is more than what you’re spending on them.

But the real problem with playing Russian roulette and spending a ton of money to get a high per screen average is not only that you’ve spent most of your budget when you are in the smallest amount of theaters, it’s that it also completely decimates your social media strategy. And today, in an age where word-of-mouth on Twitter and Facebook has more impact on a specially film than any ad or commercial you can buy, flushing your social media strategy down the toilet can be the sole reason why your film underperforms.

More and more, we now access our social media channels from our mobile phones and tablets. The most effective period in your social media campaign is just after people see your film, not when they are being marketed to. When someone sees your movie and then tweets about how much they loved it, the impact that this has on getting others to see your film is more powerful than anything else you can do if your goal is “conversion”.  But if you’re in only one or two theaters, its not that easy to scale positive word-of-mouth. We lack what’s called “social proof” in the marketing world. And because its harder to scale word of mouth, if you didn’t screen your film extensively before your opening weekend, your positive word-of-mouth and social proof will be extremely limited. That’s why, as a marketing strategist, in the age of Twitter and Facebook, the first rule I have when a film is good and we’re opening in just a few theaters is to “screen the hell out of it” beforehand in major markets like New York and LA.

One of the best decisions John Sloss, Richard Abramowitz, and myself made on the release strategies for films like Exit Through The Gift Shop and SENNA was that we were not worried at all about “over screening” these films in major markets. Rather our goal was to get as many people as possible to see them before they came out. I’m a firm believer of John Sloss’ motto – “It’s impossible to over screen a great film.”

So if we as an industry what to save independent cinema, especially as more films open day-and-date, we need to find and agree upon, a common metric other than our opening weekend per screen average.

And for me, and others, that metric is obvious:

Gross sales across all platforms.

But unfortunately that’s not likely to happen anytime soon unless we all fight to make data from online and cable platforms more transparent and accessible.

(But that I’ll leave that subject for another article)

(photo by Bahman Farzad)

One of the most misleading labels associated with independent cinema today is the phrase “self distribution.”

As digital technologies provide filmmakers with a growing number of options for how they can bring their films to audiences, the phrase “self distribution” has quickly become a …]]>

(photo by Bahman Farzad)

One of the most misleading labels associated with independent cinema today is the phrase “self distribution.”

As digital technologies provide filmmakers with a growing number of options for how they can bring their films to audiences, the phrase “self distribution” has quickly become a catch-all term associated with any choice made by the filmmaker that’s outside of the traditional distribution deal.

But not only is the phrase “self distribution” demeaning, it’s also inaccurate. Today, as filmmakers become more entrepreneurial and want more control in how their films are released, going outside the system should not be akin to sitting at the kid’s table at Christmas dinner.

For filmmakers like Shane Carruth who embraced “self distribution” with the recent release of Upstream Color, your “Plan B” is his “Plan A.”

The reality is that a filmmaker who decides not to sell their film to a distributor often has the ability to put together a “dream team” of talent that the traditional distributors can’t. To create efficiencies that can accommodate their sheer volume of releases, distributors have locked themselves into a specific group of “vendors” (another demeaning word) – designers, publicists, social media agencies, etc – who work across an increasingly large slate of releases and are hired not always because they’re the right person or company for the job, but because they’re cheap and efficient for the distributor to work with.

As “alternative distribution” continues to rise as more and more films find success by going outside of the system, the talent pool available to filmmakers to release their films is becoming more diverse and more accomplished. When working with John Sloss and Richard Abramowitz on such films as Exit Through The Gift Shop, SENNA, The Way, and Brooklyn Castle, we were able to create a “war room” environment where the traditional silos between departments were removed and everyone working on the film was committed to one single goal – getting people to see our film no matter what it took, no matter what the idea was, and no matter where it came from.

Today, success for independent films comes not from buying awareness through advertising, or from public relations alone. It comes from meticulously building and nurturing your community through goodwill and benevolence. And there’s nobody better in the world to build and nurture community than the filmmaker. If given the right guidance and support, no agency or studio can match the social media marketing prowess of a filmmaking team. But no filmmaker can do it alone. And that’s why the phrase “self distribution” becomes so incredibly inaccurate and patronizing.

But lets be honest. When the traditional distribution system works, it works extremely well. The problem is that it doesn’t work for as many films as it used to. And as more-and-more good films that have real potential with audiences are offered no-cash advances, the need for a “Plan B” that’s more effective than the ‘Plan A’ that was offered, becomes increasingly important. Today, far too many good independent films are “bought”  with no-cash advances and then dumped into the marketplace with little more than a few weeks of publicity support. And we’re being conditioned to believe that because the film was bought, its outcome was a success. But was it?

The good news for filmmakers is that P&A funding is becoming increasingly available to them. More and more filmmakers are using crowd-funding platforms such as Kickstarter to not only fund their productions, but to also fund their releases. For many, grants to pay for outreach campaigns and social media activations are also becoming increasingly available.

But the real problem with the proliferation of the phrase “self distribution” is not that it’s inaccurate. It’s that “self releasing” is a badge that nobody wants to be associated with. The perception is that if you “self release” your own film you didn’t have an alternative. But many did and do. And the reason why they did was they wanted to retain the copyright to their films and have more input in how they were deployed. Until “self distribution” loses its stigma (which it won’t) many accomplished filmmakers with really good films will give their films to distributors with a no-cash advance rather than find an alternative, if that alternative is labeled as “self distribution”.

So if you’re in the media or in the industry and currently using the phrase “self distribution”, please reconsider and start using the term “alternative distribution”. Until you do so, you’re holding independent cinema back. And that’s something that nobody benefits from.

(photo by dneesespix)

As new digital technologies continue to evolve and disrupt the landscape for independent cinema, I continually get asked by filmmakers for my thoughts on how they should adapt.

My answer lately has been…

“Stop acting like a filmmaker, and start acting like a rock star”

And I don’t mean this figuratively. I mean it …]]>

(photo by dneesespix)

As new digital technologies continue to evolve and disrupt the landscape for independent cinema, I continually get asked by filmmakers for my thoughts on how they should adapt.

My answer lately has been…

“Stop acting like a filmmaker, and start acting like a rock star”

And I don’t mean this figuratively. I mean it quite literally.

Unfortunately there aren’t a ton of good examples and case studies on how the film industry is FULLY leveraging the convergence of social media (which in my mind is nothing more than “community building”) and digital distribution. For me “FULLY” means that the filmmaker, not only the distributor, is making more money from leveraging the new model than they would have if they had gone with the old model. While selling and renting movies on iTunes has been around for quite awhile, it’s only now that we have a truly viable set of diverse choices for how to digitally distribute our movies.

But when you look at the case studies that have indeed proven to be real success stories in this new distribution paradigm (INDIE GAME: THE MOVIE, BONES BRIGADE, and BURN to name just a few) you start to see that all of the filmmakers of these films took a page out of the book that rock stars have been reading for a long, long time.

1. Treat your fans like they are the most important thing in the world to you

2. Build your community of fans yourself and then sell directly to them without a middleman

For most bands, their recorded music (which is usually owned by their record label) is only one piece of a much larger pie of their annual income. And for the most successful bands, music sold through their record label is usually the smallest piece of that pie. The real money isn’t made from selling CDs and downloads. It’s made on the road doing live gigs and selling merchandise directly to fans.

For filmmakers, the idea of treating your film like its your latest album, and then “going on tour” to do a series of live in-person events directly with fans in support of the film is a completely new and foreign concept. Common wisdom has been that live events don’t “scale”. And because of this, it hasn’t been part of the current model for film distribution.

But this didn’t stop Lisanne Pajot and James Swirsky when they turned down down offers for their Sundance hit INDIE GAME: THE MOVIE, packed their bags, hopped into a van, and then took off on a fifteen city in-person US tour completely sponsored and paid for by Adobe. Not only did Lisanne and James act like rock stars, they BECAME rock stars, doing meet-and-greets with their fans each night just as a band would. They instinctively understood what most filmmakers don’t — that the key to their success was not going to come from selling their film to a distributor, but rather it would be achieved by bringing the film directly to the community of fans that they had built and nurtured while making their movie.

For most, the days when a filmmaker could earn a nice living by selling their film, immediately move on to a new project, and then return to the previous project for a couple of press days is, sorry to say, over.  Not only do filmmakers need to adapt to this new reality, so do the distributors. In the future, the real money from theatrical releases of indie films won’t be in traditional box office receipts. It’ll be made by going completely outside the current system. What bands know that filmmakers don’t, is that they can often make more money by taking a larger percentage of a smaller number of events. The key to doing this successfully is that the film itself becomes only one part of the larger attraction. Bands have known forever that what people want when they leave their couch is to be part of a live experience that feels like a truly spontaneous event where each and every night is different. And when that live event over delivers on your expectations, not only do you buy the ticket but you also buy the “t-shirt, cap, and jacket.”

If movie theaters started selling merchandise today, for most films it would be a complete disaster. The merchandise wouldn’t sell, and a lot of money would be lost. But what if that film was a true live event positioned as a  “limited engagement” where the filmmaker and cast present the film in the same way as when a band plays a gig? When you limit your audience, the average ticket price can be much higher and merchandise sales not only do quite well, they often become a significant part of the “take”. It works for most music tours and Broadway plays and, in theory, it can work for films too.

Today we live or die on a model that is completely dependent upon the amount of screens a film plays on. Common wisdom is that the more screens your movie is playing on, the more money you’re making. But for most films, this is a complete falicy in which demand is not meeting supply and costs are exceeding revenue. And because of this, for far too many good movies, the theatrical window has become nothing more than a loss leader.

But it does’t have to be this way.

As bands have learned long ago, the key to making money is to make things feel exclusive and special, and then work to get the “average spend per customer” higher. But today, when someone goes to the movies, the sole beneficiary of a higher “average spend” is the theater owner, as increased revenue can only come from the concession stand. But if that filmmaker “owns” the live events for their film, just as James and Lisanne did with INDIE GAME, and then sell merchandise directly to fans as Tom Putnam and Brenna Sanchez have done with BURN, the money they will make will be considerably more than if they had if they had sold their films to a traditional distributor.  Its not a model that will work for every film and every filmmaker. But for those that it IS right for, the rewards will be well worth the effort.

Today most filmmakers are still thinking that their interaction with the public is “film-by-film.” And because of this, the direct relationship they have with their fans is extremely limited and of very little value. But for those filmmakers who think that building community around their creative work is something that THEY need to be doing themselves 360 days a year, and not something that their distributor should be doing for them, the reward for this hard work and expense will be that as their community grows they can go directly to their fans to make money in a myriad of ways.

So if you’re a filmmaker who wants to be part of the new paradigm, stop trying to act like Quinten Tarantino  and start acting like Dave Matthews.

Missing Pieces is available 100% free online. It was not pirated illegally, and it’s not something we threw together overnight to give away.

Our team spent five years on it with the help of 600 volunteers and a work load of over 137,000 man-hours. It cost $100,000 and stars Mark Boone …]]>

Missing Pieces is available 100% free online. It was not pirated illegally, and it’s not something we threw together overnight to give away.

Our team spent five years on it with the help of 600 volunteers and a work load of over 137,000 man-hours. It cost $100,000 and stars Mark Boone Jr. of ‘Sons of Anarchy’/Batman Begins and Melora Walters of ‘Big Love’/Magnolia.

Now why would a filmmaker make such a silly decision?

Simple: so you’d watch it.

When we started this journey, our goal was- of course- theatrical. After a year of festival limbo and a shifting market, we set our sights a little lower: DVD. After another year of trying and failing to get a respectable deal, we just hoped to clear our music rights (with money we didn’t have) and we hoped someone would watch the film.

Without money for marketing, we knew no one would take a chance on something they’d never heard about. Since most films get pirated anyway, we thought our best bet to get the film to an audience would be “free” in hopes that it might spread via word of mouth.

We’ve exhausted everything we know to do to promote it, but no one seems to bite. It would take another article to fully outline the things we’ve done over the past couple years to spread the word, but there’s a time to let a project go and know you’ve done your best.

The movie doesn’t have the kind of viral quality it takes to make major waves online or in print, and the plot isn’t easily-explained. However, we’ve found people who discover it one-by-one and watch it all the way through truly love it. It touches their hearts and sticks with them (or so they say), and that’s why we made it.

As an example of another obscurity, Donnie Darko tanked in theaters. However, after years of slowly spreading around, it gradually built a fan base and seeped into “movie consciousness.” If Missing Pieces is ever going find its place, I think it would be that  kind of gradual way. We just don’t have the resources to make it spread quickly or traditionally.

Ideally, people would watch it, share it, and buy the DVD or donate so we can get out of debt. This may not happen as we’re realizing, but we’ll keep telling people about it one by one. So far our audience has been limited to mostly family, friends, and a few new faces.

Hopefully it does become a film that breaks through the clutter, but time will tell.

If nothing else, we just wanted to hobble to the finish line and make it easily available to whomever wanted to find it. There’s nothing worse than fielding that dreaded question, “So- how can I watch it?”

In the lulls since 2010, I’ve written three scripts, and we’re trying to find money to get one of them made. Maybe having a finished feature will be a way to attract actors or investors to show what we can do, and maybe having a budget on a second film would be a way to end the debt from Missing Pieces.

The distribution landscape is pretty bleak for art house and smaller films like ours. However, the economy was in the dumps when we started this project in 2008, and it’s never been easy. We didn’t let that stop us when we started, and we won’t let the way things are stop people from being able to see the film we worked so hard to make.

Hope you’re able to check it out and enjoy.

Happy filmmaking!
Kenton

Website: http://www.FindYourMissingPieces.com
HD Stills: http://bit.ly/MPHDStills

More and more filmmakers and producers are choosing to circumvent the traditional distribution system for a more dynamic, economical, and creative approach to getting their films seen. Call it Direct-to-Fan, Creative Distribution, D.I.Y. or Self-Release — what matters most is that before you head down this road, you better watch …]]>

More and more filmmakers and producers are choosing to circumvent the traditional distribution system for a more dynamic, economical, and creative approach to getting their films seen. Call it Direct-to-Fan, Creative Distribution, D.I.Y. or Self-Release — what matters most is that before you head down this road, you better watch out for the potholes.

Join Christopher Horton (Associate Director, ArtistServices, Sundance Institute), Erick Opeka (VP of Digital Distribution for Cinedigm Entertainment Group), Pablo Gonzalez (co-founder, TUGG) and Amanda McCormick (Jelly Bean Boom) for a candid breakdown of the top roadblocks creatives encounter when heading down the distribution road less traveled.

This discussion was part of IFP’s Independent Film Week.

Short interviews with the heads of some of the most exciting new companies such as Dylan Marchetti (Variance Films) and Josh Braun (Submarine Entertainment) working in independent film & media today. Hear about their work, and the ways they are working to make change for independent media makers. The panel …]]>

Short interviews with the heads of some of the most exciting new companies such as Dylan Marchetti (Variance Films) and Josh Braun (Submarine Entertainment) working in independent film & media today. Hear about their work, and the ways they are working to make change for independent media makers. The panel is moderated by Janet Pierson producer of the South by Southwest (SXSW) Film Conference and Festival.

This discussion was part of IFP’s Independent Film Week.

There’s a lot of discussion in the independent film world right now about how filmmakers can earn a living in today’s economic climate, as well as how distributors and art house theaters can continue being profitable in the increasingly-digital landscape.

But, there’s a rarely …]]>

Video Rodeo, Gainesville, FL’s independent video store

There’s a lot of discussion in the independent film world right now about how filmmakers can earn a living in today’s economic climate, as well as how distributors and art house theaters can continue being profitable in the increasingly-digital landscape.

But, there’s a rarely discussed part of the film world that seems to already be the first casualty of the modern film-watching era: the video store.

For some towns, the video store can be more crucial than the movie theater. I know it was when I lived in Gainesville, FL. I worked at a local video store, which is still in business, called Video Rodeo. It’s owned by filmmaker and professor Roger Beebe. Roger runs the store like a collective: the employees are paid through profit-sharing, and decisions are made as a group, instead of by the sole voice of the owner. The store has a huge selection of foreign and art house films, and it exposed me to a ton of great films I didn’t know existed until then. Not only that, but he let me use it as a major location in my first film.

I interviewed Roger to talk about the state of the local video store, and it’s relationship with the independent film community. This blog post, if you can’t already tell, isn’t “totally sillypants” like my others have been. If you’re disappointed by that, just pretend the following interview is between these two people.

Here’s the interview:

ADAM: Why don’t you talk a little about yourself first? I know you’re a filmmaker and a professor, as well…

ROGER: Sure, yeah. I am those things. I teach film and media studies at the University of Florida in the English department. I’ve been (in Gainesville) since 2000. I’ve been making films since 1994 or ’95.

And they’re more experimental.

Yeah, exactly. And, for the last six years or so, I’ve been making mostly muli-projector films that I perform live. 16mm, some loop-based stuff, but some other stuff that’s just, you know, made for three, or six, or eight projectors.

That’s so cool. And, you also run FLEX Fest.�

I do, yeah. And so, that I started eight years ago, and we’re having the ninth festival in February. That’s dedicated to experimental short films, but we do year-round programming that’s more expansive than that. So, like, on Thursday night, we’re showing five 35mm reels from five different Disney films, and combining them into one kind of crazy, Frankenstein’s monster of a film.

Wow, that’s awesome. Where did you live before Gainesville?

I went to grad school at Duke, so I was in Durham, North Carolina for six years before that.

Okay, cool. Because, I remember seeing one of your films that you must have made when you first moved there, I assumed, because it didn’t seem like… You were kind of talking how you just moved to Gainesville, and you’re like, “There’s no tall buildings, it’s really weird.”

Oh yeah, that’s THE STRIP MALL TRILOGY. So, that was 2001, right after I moved here. But, it’s not like I moved here from some amazing city. It was more of, like, a conceit than a reality.

What do you think of Gainesville? Do you enjoy the city?

Yeah. I think, you know, it’s a good college town. It’s not Berlin, it’s not Chicago. There are places I would rather be. But, I don’t know. I’ve got my doors and windows open right now, and it’s seventy-five degrees outside. Life is pretty easy. I like it well enough here. And, you know, as long as you confine yourself to a certain part of town, you don’t have to face the disgusting reality of sprawl and strip malls and all that stuff.

VIDEO RODEO

Inside Video Rodeo

Let’s talk a little bit about the store. The background of it, how long it’s been around, why you started it, that sort of thing.

So, the transition from North Carolina to here is actually kind of appropriate in this discussion, because when I lived there, there was a video store called Visart.

It was just this model of a video store. It was this place where you’d go in, and they had everything, and stuff was arranged by the director. You know, it was just really thoughtful, and smart, and big. And, they actually had some of the dumb recent releases, too. I think that’s kind of how they sanctioned the rest of what they did. But, they were really a model for what I was thinking a video store should be like.

And, when I came here, there was just, you know, Blockbuster and Hollywood (Video). For the first few years, I was content just to use the facilities on campus. We had a media library for teaching, and then there’s the regular library. But, you know, they were no fun for browsing, and I found I was watching lots of stuff I didn’t really feel passionate about, but it was just the first thing you came upon. It was, “Okay, I’ll see that, sure.”

So, finally, I decided to quit complaining about there not being a good video store and just start one up. So, my friend Tim Massett in Jacksonville, who now runs Sun-Ray Cinema, he and I were going to start together. He had already done some market research, and was way smarter about it than I could have been at that point. I was going to bankroll it and he was going to put in this work to make it happen.

But, he ended up getting cold feet, I think, because he knew– he was right, that opening a video store in this day and age is not a way to line your retirement account. And, so he stayed on managing a theater in Jacksonville.

So, I ended up just doing it, not really entirely alone. I had a group of three really cool people at the start, who, you know, we went in there and did all the construction ourselves, we did the painting. You know, built the store from nothing. For about three or four months before then, I’d been collecting stuff, buying a bunch of used VHS to flesh out the collection. But, also, I had a targeted list where I was, like, “These are the– I can’t even remember– thousand movies I wouldn’t want to open the store without.” So, all those I just ordered myself, and fleshed out by getting used DVDs or super cheap VHS.

Again, we had so much space at first, we really needed titles to flesh out. It ended up being a curse because we were stuck with all these VHS tapes.

Films are organized by director

A COLLECTIVELY-RUN STORE

You were talking about the selection, which is kind of amazing. Is there, like, a specific standard or requirement you have for movies you carry? Because I know you also carry those, I’ll call them “not amazing movies.” Is it a personal thing? Or, is it really just, like, “Oh, people seem to want this one, so we’ll get it, because we have this back catalog.”�

So, I guess the first thing to say is that the decisions about acquisitions are still made largely collectively. It’s still run co-op style.

Yeah, it’s profit-sharing.�

But, also, each month… You remember this, right?

Yeah, totally.

Each month, I send out the list of possible titles. You know, all of the new releases or whatever. And we just weigh in. We used to do it face-to-face, now we mostly do it over email. So, anything that gets more than half of the staff voting for it, I’ll buy.

But, I’ll still look at thrift stores and pawn shops, and if I can get something that I know I’ll make a couple bucks and I only have to pay two or three, I’ll add it even if I having aesthetic objections to it. And, I think everyone is kind of guided by that, too, though. We’ve had this discussion really recently, actually, about like, “Oh, should we get this blockbuster because we think that’s what people want?” And, you know, when we look at the numbers, actually, our best-renting things are not blockbusters. As much as we try to sell-out and cater to what people want, it turns out that what people want is more, like, Wes Anderson, which is, again, a little less ambitious than some of the stuff we’d really love them to watch. But, I mean, it’s really cool that they want to watch Wes Anderson instead of, you know, Michael Bay.

Well, do you think that it’s partly because people who want to see a Michael Bay movie probably wouldn’t go to Video Rodeo? You what I mean? They wouldn’t go to a local art house video store.�

Sure. I mean, I think the landscape has changed a little bit since Blockbuster has gone away. You know, as bad as Blockbuster was, at least they had ten thousand movies. I do think for recent releases, a lot of people are just content to go the Redbox and just take whatever, to go rent WIN A DATE WITH TAD HAMILTON, or whatever.

Right. But, you guys outlasted Blockbuster. You’re the only video store in Gainesville now.�

I’ve never seen it with my own eyes, so I don’t necessarily believe it, but there’s technically another place called Go Video that exists inside of a gas station somewhere in northwest Gainesville. It’s not a thing of it’s own, it’s, like, shelves within a gas station. I actually called there once to see if they were real, and somebody answered the phone and said they were there, so…

But, still, you have that–

We outlasted the chains.

Yeah, you outlasted the chains. I remember when I was working there, I don’t know if you still have it, you had that bowl of Blockbuster cards. People would cut up their membership cards.

Yeah, we still have it. It’s actually overflowing. We stopped granting free rentals for people cutting up their Blockbuster cards, but we still like that testament to the damage we did to them.

(We laugh)

Totally. You got ‘em.

The bowl of cut-up Blockbuster membership cards that sits in the store

Now, we already mentioned that the employees work through profit-sharing, and you seem to have a very collective mindset. Why is that an important thing to you about running the business?�

Well, I never imagine it being “me being the boss-man,” and you know, writing checks… I just feel like a place like that doesn’t work if it’s just, like, minimum-wage slaves, just working there. And, I also felt like, to ensure the long-term viability of the store, it would have to have that flexibility to say, “Hey, this month was great. You guys made ten bucks an hour.” And, “Hey, this month really sucked. You guys made four bucks an hour.”

Yeah, I know that I personally cared so much more about the store, not just because of the profit-sharing thing, but because it made me feel like I wasn’t just working for this dude who would come in sometimes and didn’t care. So, it definitely helped me.

Well, that’s great. I mean, that’s always been my thinking about it. And, it seems to be the case. We all went in last month, and we had a really bad month. And, I broke the news to everybody, and they were like, “Alright. That’s fine.” You know, nobody works there as their primary job. We got, I think, seven people on staff right now, and I’m picking up shifts for free, so that boosts the overall wages, because my plan is that if I get any money out of the store, it’ll only be when the store finally shuts down. I put the money in to start it, but I just don’t take any out.

Has this sort of collective approach to it made operating the store harder, from a business standpoint?

I mean, if we had just, say, two people working there, instead of seven or eight, it’d be a lot easier to keep track of where things get fucked up. So, things like that, I think would be a little bit easier. But, I actually think having people only work there four and a half or nine hours a week, they come with a lot more energy to the store. So, maybe they’re a lot more inclined to do something cool while they’re there, like make a weird sign. And, I think having all these different people’s ideas represented is great, and I think the collection really benefits from… A couple months ago, we had a little extra money, and so I let everyone in the store take something from backfill to order. And, someone ordered 9 TO 5, which is a title I would have, you know, rolled my eyes at or whatever.

(We laugh)

But, you know, it’s been rented four or five times in the two months we’ve had it. I don’t know, I think it’s great to have that voice represented, and not have it be just, like, two people who are determining the vision of the– Because, again, if I did it, it would be all Criterion Collection or something. Like, the super nerd taste. And, you know, it’s like, this will serve certain people, but we want to serve more than just the hardcore film nerd. We kind of have to, to stay open.

A window display made by an employee

Do you guys ever have events? Like, you have birthday parties…

Oh, yeah. We started it as just kind of a one-off thing, and it was such a popular event that we realized we should do them regularly to kind of remind the community that we are here to sort of be part– you know, we’re friends with so many of them.

What are they like? I don’t think you were doing them when I was there.

Basically, it’s like, a keg party in the video store. We buy a keg and put it in the back of the store. People parade around, spill beers on everything, and hopefully, like, rent a movie or buy a t-shirt or something. We’ll always have some kind of sale, or, last time we did a drawing. We raffled off the soundtracks to HOLY MOUNTAIN and EL TOPO. So, we always have something special. This next one that’s coming up in 10 days is our eighth birthday. We’re also opening a book store inside of the video store.

Customers at Video Rodeo’s birthday keg party

Now, is that place in North Carolina still open?

No, they went out of business, I think, a year and a half ago, or something. I think they overextended themselves a little bit. They also had a newsstand, and they expanded. They opened a bunch of stores. I don’t know. I don’t know enough about their internal workings. They were actually great. Like, I put out a VHS tape of films from the film festival I was running in Chapel Hill (called Flicker), and I approached them about it, and they ended up buying, like, five copies of it. So, I mean, they were really supportive, and a really great local resource, and it’s really sad to see them go, still.

Yeah, that’s too bad…

VIDEO STORES AND THE INDIE FILM COMMUNITY

Now, okay, let’s get into some heavy stuff.

Uh-oh.

(We laugh)

Yeah, get ready. So, like, video stores… Actually, this isn’t really that heavy. But, something I wanted to talk about was that video stores aren’t something you really hear about in the independent film world. You know, there’s always talk about art house cinemas, and the struggles for them to stay open. And, there’s occasionally something about local video stores and stuff, but I feel like it’s kind of the unsung part of the indie film world. But, to me, the “Gainesville independent film community,” when I was living there, my vessel for all that, was Video Rodeo. I mean, you also had the Hippodrome (the art house theater in Gainesville), but the selection at Video Rodeo was so huge, and the price… you could get exposed to a lot of movies you otherwise wouldn’t see. Do you feel like a video store could play that role in towns that maybe don’t have a lot of options for art house films?�

Yeah, you know, I think that’s one of the things, again, that I lament about the move from Blockbuster to Redbox. Like, Blockbuster sucks, but in towns where you don’t have anything else… Blockbuster has ten thousand movies, there’s got to be some hidden Werner Herzog film in their collection, right? Like, you’ll never fucking find it. It’ll be buried in “drama,” that generic catch-all for anything you couldn’t fit anywhere else. But, at least there’s stuff there. I mean, I grew up in a town with just a Blockbuster, and I remember finding weird foreign stuff there. It wasn’t all curated, you know. They didn’t do anything systematic. It wasn’t like they were getting every good art film or whatever. But, with Redbox, you’re guaranteed not to find anything older than a couple years old. You’re guaranteed not to find anything too adventurous or too indie. And, even Netflix streaming is not much better, and I know that’s now what a lot of people are going to. And, all they watch is TV shows, and you know, that’s great for binge-watching. But, I just worry, that if you go in looking for a specific title… I’ve gone in to look for Godard, Truffaut, Herzog, whatever. It’s really depressing. They’ll have maybe one film of the fifty, sixty, whatever films these people have made.

And, it’s always, like, the minor work.

It won’t be BREATHLESS, or PIERROT LE FOU. It’ll be, like, NOTRE MUSIQUE. You know?

Yeah.

It’s sort of like staying at your friend’s house, and you’re stuck there during the day, and you look through the DVD collection, and it’s like, “Oh, there’s something I can watch.” But yeah, the less longwinded version of the answer is, you know, I definitely feel like a well-curated video store can really be the nucleus for a film scene, or a way for people to self-educate. It’s a great pedagogical resource. And, I think you can do that if you use Netflix disc delivery, which hopefully people in rural Kansas are still doing, and haven’t switched over exclusively. Because Redbox and Netflix streaming is a real impoverishment. It’s like, the future looks worse than the past.

Right, yeah.

It used to be… You know, for me, I lived in an era… Whatever, this is dinosaur talk.

(We laugh)

But, before everything was available on home video. We didn’t have a VCR until I was maybe ten, and then when we got it, how many titles were available? So, it seemed like we were moving in the direction of more and more is suddenly available. It was amazing. The whole history of cinema, and now you don’t have to wait for decades, or just read about these things. They’re no longer fabled. Suddenly, you can go down to the video store and rent a lot of these things. So, it seemed like it was moving in that direction. And, Netflix initially looked like that to, where it was like, “Holy shit. They’ve got 40,000 titles you can get.”

But now, again, because of the way they changed the pricing structure, and because they want to go to only online, and because the way the rights issues are working with that, and the dividing up of the digital marketplace with Hulu Plus, and Amazon Prime… Now it’s looking like less and less is available. That’s a real depressing trend.

Filmmaker Caveh Zahedi posing with his section in the store

VIDEO STORES AS PART OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY

You talked about the video store being a nucleus for a film community, which I think is a cool idea, especially for smaller towns, like I mentioned. But, also, when I was living there, I always kind of felt like the store was one of the important parts of living in that neighborhood, and being connected to that neighborhood of Gainesville. Not even, like, film, but also just the people in the neighborhood. Do you get that feeling at all from people who frequent it? Do you feel like there’s support from those local people and stuff?

Yeah, I guess I feel that. You know, like, we’ve made ads talking about, you know, like, one of the reasons we hope we’re a vital institution, is that, you know, if you have a band, and you’re playing a show, and you want to put up a flier, you can put it up in our window. Or, if you have a tattoo parlor and you have business cards you want to put out, you can put that on our counter. You know, like, all that stuff, we really want to help cross-promote, and we want to be a place where they know that a certain kind of person will come in there and see their stuff. And, it’ll all feed each other. Yeah, I guess I feel like the neighborhood function– and again, as opposed to Netflix, where it’s like, you know… I don’t know where their headquarters is.

Right. It’s like in the North Pole or something.

Right. Probably.

Customers and employees hanging out at a special event

Is the store involved with other parts of the community? Like, do you do stuff at the Palomino (a pool hall in Gainesville) or anything?

Well, because of all my programming with FLEX, we technically brand any screening we do as FLEX as opposed to Video Rodeo. It’s always seemed like, in some ways, it would be better business for us if we branded it as “Video Rodeo presents”… You know, we use the Video Rodeo Facebook page, which is a lot more active than the FLEX Facebook page, for promoting those events.

Yeah, the Facebook page of Video Rodeo is pretty solid, I think. I think you guys are doing a really good job with that sort of stuff.

Well, we also frequently use the Facebook page to sort of sabotage our own business. To say, like, “Hey, here’s something awesome going on in town tonight that we have nothing to do with. Go do that instead of renting a movie.” So, like, right now HOLY MOTORS is showing at the Hippodrome, and we were really excited they took a risk on that.

Definitely. That’s cool.

We pushed it once. I’m getting ready for Thursday. I’m going to push it again, because that’s going to be the last night.

Do they return the favor?

They do. They actually run a slide for us in their slideshow before the screenings. You know, just a slide that says we exist, which, surprisingly… In a town this small, you’d think everyone would know, but it’s always shocking to find out how many who would be interested still don’t know.

Do you feel like that sort of sharing, local businesses supporting each other… Do you think that’s helped you guys?

I do. I think it could always be more. Whitney Mutch does a thing called Indie Gainesville, and she always promotes “buy local” and stuff like that. And, I think that’s as close as we get to a kind of central forum for local businesses where they’re supportive. But, I don’t quite know how to make it work where there’s even more synergy than there is now. I think there’s some, but I think there could always be more.

Well, do you think that–

I hate saying “synergy,” by the way.

(I laugh)

It’s business-speak or whatever.

Yeah, totally. You sound very professional.

Right?

The store holds fun little contests

VIDEO STORES ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Do you feel like it’s a better place for the store to be, in this smaller town, than it would be to be in a big city? Not in terms of where you’d prefer to live, but do you think the store serves a better purpose, or does better than it would if it was in a bigger city, or some other type of town?

I don’t know. I’d be interested to compare notes with stores… I don’t even know which ones are still open, but like, Le Video in San Francisco, or…

There’s no communication between other video stores, is there?

Not really. I’ve talked sort of informally, there’s a video store in Chicago that I used to go to. And, I talked a lot to the guy who owned that place about how the store worked, and how he made it work. I went out to Santa Monica to see my parents, and there’s a video store there, I’m forgetting their name now.

Vidiots?�

No, it’s the place where the guy created those Cinemetal t-shirts. The ones where it looks like Metallica but it says “Fassbinder” instead. Black Flag but it says “Bela Tarr.”

Oh, right.�

So, when I go into a place like that, I’ll mention, “Hey, I own a video store. I’m kind of curious about” you know… And, it’s always, you know, “Times are tough, we make it work, blah blah blah.” But, I think L.A. is probably a hard place to do it, just because everyone’s so dispersed. But, I think if you were in the right neighborhood in New York or Chicago or San Francisco… If you’re in the Castro, you probably have enough people within foot traffic distance to sustain you in the same way that we do in Gainesville. You might have more density, and a more stable base of people. So, I think each place comes with it’s own challenges, but I wouldn’t say we’re especially privileged here, to have this kind of situation.

Yeah, I bet it would be tough to figure out where it would thrive more.

Yeah.

The “staff picks” shelf, above selections from filmmakers who had just died

THE FUTURE�

Cool. If you could see a future for the store, where you didn’t have to worry about anything, what would you hope the store would be able to do? If it could become the thing that you would be, like, “Wow, that’d be awesome.” If you were about to do that.

I guess first, I think, there’s not an unlimited time horizon for this. You know, I don’t know how long people will have optical media players.

Oh, yeah.

There will be a day when it’s, like, “Oh, you still rent physical media? Because we just get everything streaming.” Whether it’s Netflix or whatever. But, I would love to buy a building, for the rent we pay to be flexible, like the staff salaries are, right now, flexible. And, where it would have more space, because we’ve got a bunch of sections that are… We try to put everything face-out, but stuff is starting to be spine-out a lot, in certain sections. So, it’d be nice to have more room for the store, but also, if the book store starts to work, I’d love to be able to expand what that is. And, have a screening space attached, too. I know Videology (in Brooklyn) just converted the back of their space into a small screening space. That would be wonderful, too, to have. I’ve fantasized about that for awhile.

Yeah.

That’s, you know, when the revolution comes, or when the rich benefactress comes to me to underwrite my future endeavors. That’s what we would do: buy a building and house all of those things, and make it a real destination, and have that kind of… again, I don’t want to say “synergy,” but…

(I laugh) You can say it.�

Like, really positive energy that feeds off of each other, or whatever.

What do you think the half-life of the store is, or of video stores in general?

I mean, I’m surprised we made it this far. We could have gone out of business the first year we were open. I had no idea, really, how it worked. But, I don’t know. I could imagine still doing this three years from now, five years from now. Beyond that, it’s really hard to imagine for me. I think when new computers are built, and they don’t have built-in DVD players, that would really be a tipping point. Mac has already decided they don’t want Blu-Ray. They’re not interested in ever having a Blu-Ray player in their computers. So, we’re really at the mercy of those corporations.

Yeah. Well, it sounds like a lot of cool stuff in Gainesville is kind of going away. So, hopefully, it’s a little while before it happens.

Yeah, well, if it doesn’t last forever, it doesn’t mean it didn’t do something good while it lasted.

Totally.

A customer browses DVDs

FINAL THOUGHTS

I had something, I thought, sort of smart to say, that you didn’t ask about.

Oh, okay. Please, go ahead.

You know, about indie film and the relationship between Video Rodeo and the indie film world… I think there is a way in which we’re still kind of a slave to the market. I would really love to stock a lot more films, like your film. Things that don’t have a giant theatrical release, that don’t have giant advertising budgets behind them, that cost almost nothing, that nobody’s really heard of. But, it’s proven sort of impossible. Like, when I said I have a certain disappointment about Wes Anderson being our bread and butter. It’s that disappointment, that, like… Oh, well these have TV commercials. You know, they’re indie films, but they’re underwritten by corporations.

So, there’s a way in which we’re filling a market niche that’s still very much a part of the market, and it would really be nice to be a store that was more committed to true independent filmmakers. And, I get emails from time-to-time from people who are like, “Hey, we just made this film. It played at these three festivals. We’d love for you to stock it. We’ll sell it to you for half what we normally charge for it.” It sort of breaks my heart, but I have to tell these people, “Look, ten bucks for this DVD that nobody’s ever heard of. It’s still probably more than we can afford.” If we were more flush with cash, I would do that in a second. If this were fifteen years ago, when video stores did really make money.

But, I don’t know. It’s a disappointment. I feel like this fantasy of true independence, of us being real outsiders and fighting the power and all that… I still feel like we’re beholden to those studio indies, and that kind of hipster marketing or whatever, in a way that I wish we could kind of transcend.

Yeah, that’s a hard thing to figure out how to break out of.

But, I guess that’s separate from the narrative of the video store’s continued survival, but it is about… again, our relationship to the indie film community.

Cool. Well, is there anything else you want to add?

No, I think that’s all I got the breath for now.

(I laugh) Well, thanks, Roger.�

—

Follow the links for more info about Roger, Video Rodeo, and FLEX.

Keiko: I came to this country to study fine arts and my main interest was video, so I bought Sony’s first black and white …]]> DCTV Co-Founders Jon Alpert and Keiko Tsuno discuss their beginnings in filmmaking during the early days of video and what drove them to start DCTV in 1972.

Keiko: I came to this country to study fine arts and my main interest was video, so I bought Sony’s first black and white camera. It was very expensive back then. It cost $1600.

Jon: Rent was $65 a month. So it cost the equivalent of two years’ rent.

K: I was living in a loft building on Canal Street. I wanted it to be a kind of Zen retreat. Everything was painted white, with little more than a picnic table for furniture. I wanted to make my life very simple–to put all my energy into my artwork. Then Jon came into my life.

From the beginning, Jon wanted to use video to effect change. He thought that artists were self-centered. He would say, “I want to do something to help society.” Jon was organizing for a taxi drivers’ union. He asked if I wanted to videotape their strike. I agreed, but the equipment was very heavy and I needed someone to carry the deck while I worked the camera. So Jon and I went to the Bronx and videotaped the strike.

Later, we invited the drivers to a screening in Manhattan. About 50 showed up. The reaction was instant. It inspired debate and action. At the time people still didn’t know what video was. It was very new to see ordinary people’s stories being told in such a manner, with such immediacy.

J: The early creative ideas came from Keiko, but I was more reactive. When I saw the catalytic power that video had, I thought it would be a useful tool to accomplish the goals we were trying to reach. We were trying to improve healthcare and schools in lower Manhattan, to improve the quality of life of the city’s taxi drivers, to end the Vietnam War. We weren’t having much success.  But once we began using video, our efforts started working.

The equipment in those days was so new and primitive. There was a real pioneer feeling to it.

K: Tape spooled out of the machine haphazardly. Editing the tape required cutting it with razors.

J: When the first editing machine came out, ours would always catch on fire. A fire extinguisher was a key part of our editing station. We were inventing our own equipment. Other people were also. It was a time of experimentation. Someone invented a method for getting a second audio track by using a piece of paper over the audio erase head. I made a directional mic by wrapping cardboard–the kind that comes with shirts from the cleaners–around a cheap mic.  It didn’t work very well.

K: There was a lot of bonding between video artists at that time. Everything was so new and everyone was so hungry. Video had a kind of magic power. Knowing that we were involved in video bonded us together.

J: There were around a dozen video collectives in lower Manhattan. We were all pushing the envelope, learning from each other, going to watch each other’s tapes. There was a spirit of collectivism at the time.

In those days it was hard to reach an audience. Broadcast TV thought we were all crazy. We decided to make TV by the people, for the people, and bring it to the people. Using an old mail truck and televisions, we set up a mobile screening unit. It was a harsh and unforgiving environment for exhibiting our videos. There was poor lighting. We were usually parked on Canal Street, so it was noisy. All of this yielded an audience with a pretty short attention span.

Sometimes we thought we had made something great, only to realize it didn’t resonate with the public. It pushed us to try to tell a story in a concise fashion, in a way that connected with the audience. It was a great learning experience that kept us humble.

When we saw how effective video could be, and real change coming from our tapes, we felt it was our duty to do this work. But there was only so much we could do ourselves. We started DCTV to deputize others to join our cause. If people wanted to learn how to use equipment, we taught them. We let people use our cameras. All for free.

K: Over at Paper Tiger TV, there’s a quote attributed to me, although I don’t remember if I said it: “Give everyone a camera and change the world.” That was the ethos of what we were striving to do.

Support and celebrate 40 years of filmmaking at DCTV’s 40th Anniversary Celebration on October 11th! http://www.dctvny.org/40th

I’m very fortunate to be friends with many accomplished independent film producers–people whose films have screened at the best festivals, won significant awards, gotten picked up by major distributors, earned healthy gross receipts, and …]]>

Summit of independent creative producers hosted by MoMA, Indiewire, and Zipline Entertainment in December 2009.

I’m very fortunate to be friends with many accomplished independent film producers–people whose films have screened at the best festivals, won significant awards, gotten picked up by major distributors, earned healthy gross receipts, and received accolades in the mainstream press.  We hang out sometimes, one-on-one or in groups, to catch each other up on our projects, share recent experiences, exchange opinions on companies and people we’ve worked with, etc.  But essentially, we get together for emotional support against an industry and an economy hostile to our work.  At any given time, half of us will have one foot out the door, ready to escape an occupation in which the appreciation and financial rewards we get have zero correlation with the insanely hard work we do and intense emotional stress we endure.

I was recently struck by three things I read that echoed some of these sentiments: Ted Hope’s forlorn blog post in which he catches up an old friend to where he is now, Brian Newman’s post about how YouTube stars are disrupting the old indie film model, and the Huffington Post article on Jay Van Hoy and Lars Knudsen.  I deduced a common theme running through all three: innovate or die.

Ted’s post lamented, “It is very frustrating watching what I love crumble away. I see many people with their fingers in the leaks, but few that want to build a new city higher up on the hill.” Brian said that filmmakers need to find innovative ways to connect to their audiences before the latter start to liken Sundance to the Metropolitan Opera, “a place you go to see a wonderful artform that you know you should respect, but that no one cares about anymore and which very few can afford to make or attend.” And the HuffPo article quoted Jay and Lars saying that too many indie producers “are too busy adapting when we should be innovating.” Film may be the new theater (or Metropolitan Opera), TV the new film, online streaming the new TV, but any way you frame it, the world of content creation, distribution, and consumption is changing–dramatically.

Independent producers are entrepreneurial by nature. Each feature film we undertake is a distinct startup, with rounds of financing to raise, a team to build, development and production phases, a launch (premiere), and an exit strategy (sale). We are, essentially, serial entrepreneurs, except–as a matter of survival–we have to run multiple businesses simultaneously, being in some combination of development, production, post, and distribution on different films, all at once. So why don’t we take our creativity, penchant for hard work, and entrepreneurial chutzpah, and put it all toward innovation?

Let’s figure out how to reconcile the artfully crafted 100-minute narrative with the public’s growing appetite for cheap and quick content.  Let’s make sense of the confusing array of social media and alternative distribution tools out there.  Let’s build on the examples set by folks like Louis C.K. and Ed Burns (except let’s try to remove the “be famous already” prerequisite to their success). Let’s see if we can’t operate outside Hollywood’s lottery system, outside its control, and sustain ourselves as “middle-class filmmakers” who continue to make films that speak to people.

If we don’t innovate the way we make and sell our movies, the independent film space will become further dominated by two groups: young first-time filmmakers who are willing and able to work for free (and who haven’t yet maxed out the favors they can call in), and filmmakers who are already rich and don’t need a paycheck or a return.  Writers, directors, and producers who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, those who are older, those from immigrant and minority groups, and those who are trying to make their second, third, fourth features (to which they could apply the expertise gained from making their previous ones) will leave the business–and the scope of stories being told will become severely limited.

Fellow producers, I know you’re busy. I know it’s hard to tread water in a vast sea of emails, calls, contracts, scripts, screeners, budgets, schedules, financing plans, accounting statements, tax filings. I know you’re juggling so many projects, you sometimes confuse the names of your protagonists. I know you wish you were doing a better job of absorbing the continuous stream of industry news. I know there are a ton of writers, directors, composers, actors, cinematographers knocking at your door, hoping to introduce you to their work and pick your brain (and I know you’d love to meet with many of them). I know you waste a lot of time talking to “potential financiers.” I know dealing with agents, managers, and lawyers exhausts you. I know it’s maddening to hustle for paid short-term gigs in the midst of prepping, posting, or delivering your feature, or traveling to festivals and markets. I know you never get enough sleep or have enough time with your loved ones.

But, my dear producer pals, the next time we meet up to kvetch about work and life, let’s put our  heads together and figure out how to sustain not only ourselves, but ultimately, the art that we love so dearly, and the diversity of artistic voices that make it. There is a better way, and we’ve got to find it soon.

With the start of the Festival De Cannes and accompanying Marche Du Film, one is reminded that film is both an art form and a business. The festival will exhibit approximately 22 feature films in competition, another 20 in Un Certain Regard, 6 Out of Competition and 10 in Special …]]>

With the start of the Festival De Cannes and accompanying Marche Du Film, one is reminded that film is both an art form and a business. The festival will exhibit approximately 22 feature films in competition, another 20 in Un Certain Regard, 6 Out of Competition and 10 in Special Screenings. Then there are the parallel sections or sidebars that are not officially part of the festival, but exhibit at the same time.  Director’s Fortnight, which was created by the French Director’s Guild, will exhibit 19 features. International Critics’ Week (la Semaine de la Critique) run by the French Union of Film Critics, will show another 10 features. Add these up and you have 87 feature films in the festival and its sidebars. Only a relative handful of these films are from filmmakers based in the USA.  On the other hand, the market (Marche Du Film) will screen 1465 feature films, and many of these are from the USA. Few of the market films are also in the festival. Many are more commercial fare that festivals often ignore.  However, they generate substantial revenue.

With that in mind, filmmakers fortunate enough to receive distribution offers for their films are often confronted with complex deals to distribute their films. These can bewilder those unfamiliar with the customs and practices of the industry.   Let’s begin with a discussion of international film sales.

International sales agents are distributors, although they usually do not own a single theater, home video label or television outlet. They are essentially distributors that license films to territory distributors (“buyers”). Territory distributors acquire rights to exhibit a film within their country although sometimes they may license rights for several different countries. They often find out about films from sales agents whom they meet at various markets held throughout the year. Sales agents and buyers typically attend the three major film markets, which are at Cannes, Berlin and Santa Monica (AFM) as well as TV markets such as Mip and MipCom. The May 2012 edition of the Cannes Market will have more than 1100 sales agents and 10,000 participants from almost one hundred different countries.

The sales agent not only licenses the films they represent, but also services their buyers by providing them with various materials and elements, including film and video masters, key art, photos and trailers. An honest and competent sales agent can be extremely helpful to a filmmaker. Most filmmakers have no clue how to go about licensing their film, for instance, to a Turkish buyer, and what terms would be acceptable. Moreover, they don’t even know who the buyers are in most territories.

According to the latest 2011 Box Office statistics, two-thirds of all film revenue now comes from abroad. International sales (those outside of North America) grew 35% from 2007 to 2011. Revenue in North America, by comparison, increased a mere 6%. So while foreign sales have been expanding quickly, domestic sales have grown modestly. Over the past four years, the number of screens in China has doubled to more than 6,200, a number that’s expected to double again by 2015. Chinese box-office receipts hit a record $1.5 billion last year, according to their State Administration of Radio, Film and Television. With China and other rapidly developing countries building thousands of new theaters, this trend is expected to continue.  Indeed, for many independent filmmakers, even today, 90% or more of their revenue is derived from foreign sales. That is because the North American market is by far the toughest market to crack for a low budget indie film without stars.

It can be difficult to select a sales agent. Reputable sales agents should be willing to accept terms in their contract with filmmakers that protect their interests. Many such provisions do not cost the sales agent anything, as long as the sales agent lives up to the terms of its contract. A requirement for interest on late payments, for example, costs the sales agent nothing as long as payments are made on time. Such a clause is important because it will encourage a sales agent to live up to its commitments, and provide the filmmaker with a viable remedy in case the sales agent defaults. While a competent sales agent provides valuable services, one should always remember the importance of what the filmmaker brings to the table. Without a good film, the sales agent has nothing to sell. Most sales agents produce few if any movies themselves.

Here is a list of some of the most critical ways for filmmakers to protect their interests in contracting with sales agents. The following list should not be considered exhaustive. There are other provisions a filmmaker may want to include such as clauses dealing with advances, guarantees and reservation of rights.

NO CHANGES: The film should not be edited, nor the title changed, without the filmmaker’s approval. Editing for censorship purposes, television broadcast and changes made for a foreign language release, such as adding subtitles and translating the title and dialogue, is permissible.

MINIMUM ADVERTISING SPECIFIED: The contract should specify in writing the minimum amount the sales agent will spend on advertising and promotion of the film. These expenses are often incurred at various markets. They could include advertising in the trade papers, a billboard on the Croissette or payment for a screening room for the film. The sales agent should commit to payment for the creation of a poster, one-sheet and trailer if these items do not exist.

EXPENSES LIMITED: There should be a floor and a ceiling on expenses. Market expenses (the cost to attend film and TV markets) should be limited to the first year of release and capped per market. Promotional expenses should be limited to direct out-of-pocket costs spent to promote the film, and should specifically exclude the sales agent’s general overhead and staff expenses.

TERM: The term should be a reasonable length, perhaps five or even 10 years, but not in perpetuity. The filmmaker should be able to regain rights to the film if the sales agent gives up on it. Thus, it is best to have a short initial term of two or three years and a series of automatic rollovers if the sales agent returns a certain amount of revenue to the filmmaker. If the sales agent does not meet or exceed these performance milestones, all rights should revert to the filmmaker. If the sales agent is doing a good job and paying the filmmaker his share of revenue, there is little reason to switch to another sales agent. Indeed, for movies that have been out in the marketplace for a few years, it is very difficult to find a sales agent willing to take on  an older  film.

INDEMNITY: Filmmaker should be indemnified (receive reimbursement) for any losses incurred by filmmaker as a result of the sales agent’s breach of the terms of the agreement, violation of third party rights, and for any unauthorized changes or additions made to the film.

POSSESSION OF NEGATIVE: The sales agent should receive a lab access letter rather than possession of the original negative and other master elements. The sales agent should not be permitted to remove masters from the laboratory.

ERRORS AND OMISSIONS (E&O) POLICY: While it is generally the filmmaker’s responsibility to purchase an E & O insurance policy, sales agents sometimes may be willing to advance the cost of this insurance and recoup it from film revenues. In such an event, the filmmaker should be added as an additional named insured on the policy, which is a minor cost.

TERMINATION CLAUSE: If the sales agent defaults on its contractual obligations, the filmmaker should have the right to terminate the contract, and regain rights to license the film in unsold territories as well as obtain money damages for the default. It is only fair for the filmmaker to give the sales agent reasonable prior notice of default before exercising her right to terminate.

RIGHT TO INSPECT BOOKS AND RECORDS: The sales agent should maintain complete and detailed books and records with regard to all sales and rental of the film. Filmmakers should receive quarterly (or monthly) producer statements accompanied by any payments due the filmmaker. Filmmakers should have the right to examine the books and records of sales agent during reasonable business hours, on 10 days’ notice.

LATE PAYMENTS/LIEN: All monies due and payable to the filmmaker should be held in trust by sales agent for the filmmaker. The filmmaker should be deemed to have a lien on filmmaker’s share of revenue. The sales agent should pay the filmmaker interest on any late payments.

LIMITATION ON ACTION: The filmmaker should have at least three years from receipt of any financial statement, or discovery of any accounting irregularity, whichever is later, to contest accounting errors and file a Demand for Arbitration.

ASSIGNMENT: It is best to prohibit assignment unless filmmaker consents. If assignment is permitted, the sales agent should not be relieved of its obligations under the original contract.

FILMMAKER DEFAULT: The sales agent should give the filmmaker 14 days written notice of any alleged default by filmmaker, and an additional 10 days to cure such default, before taking any action to enforce its rights.

WARRANTIES: The filmmaker’s warranties, in regard to infringement of third party rights, should be to the best of the filmmaker’s knowledge and belief, not absolute.

SCHEDULE OF MINIMUMS: Foreign sales agents should agree to attach, to their contract, a schedule of minimum acceptable license fees per territory. The sales agent is not permitted to license the film in any territory for less than the minimum without the prior approval of the filmmaker.

ARBITRATION CLAUSE: Every contract should contain an IFTA arbitration clause ensuring that all contractual disputes are subject to binding arbitration with the prevailing party entitled to reimbursement of legal fees and costs. The arbitration award should be final, binding and non-appealable. The IFTA personal guarantee Rider can be used to bar a company’s chief executive from attending future American Film Markets if the company refuses to pay an arbitration award.

For a more detailed discussion of distribution deal terms read my article here.

Mark Litwak will next be offering his Risky Business seminar in San Francisco on June 16^, 2012 through California Lawyers for the Arts. For more info, click here.

I’ve been in theatrical distribution for 5 years (a short time by some standards), and have already seen the playing field shift dramatically.  5 years ago, I interned at a reputable distribution company that no longer exists. 3 years ago, I placed trailers in art house theaters that …]]> By Sara Kiener

I’ve been in theatrical distribution for 5 years (a short time by some standards), and have already seen the playing field shift dramatically.  5 years ago, I interned at a reputable distribution company that no longer exists. 3 years ago, I placed trailers in art house theaters that have since changed owners multiple times or…no longer exist. Throughout, I worked on great films that wouldn’t find their way to a theater today and I worked on campaigns that were banking on ad buys and (fingers crossed) strong reviews. Those days are over, for the most part. And I’ve joined the band of noisemakers encouraging filmmakers to consider alternative means of marketing and exhibition.

But my heart still belongs to the independent theaters, so I’m a bit torn.

That’s why I was so thrilled when I first read about Tugg in indieWIRE. Their mission couldn’t be more straightforward: “Tugg brings the movies you want, to your local theater,” yet its’ approach is up to speed with cutting edge social media tactics (crowdsourcing and crowdfunding are at the heart of their model).  Here’s how it works in a nutshell: a promoter or a hardcore fan can create an event at a theater, pick a date and time, and then they have to pre-sell a set number of tickets in order to lock-in the event. Everyone gets a percentage of the ticket sales (the filmmaker, the theater, Tugg and even the promoter!) so it’s win win. As an outreach gal, I was particularly interested in how this new model could lend itself to documentaries and niche issue narratives. So I put it to the test, and helped set up an event for Julie Wyman’s new film STRONG! about U.S. Olympian Cheryl Hayworth. I am thrilled with the results and can assure you that there are more screenings in the pipelines.

STRONG! Directed by Julie Wyman

So should you be thinking about TUGG? Does it make sense for your film? Here are some questions you should ask yourself before pulling the trigger:

*Does your film have a regional audience that is locatable and reachable?

*Do you feel confident that you and your team can locate regional partners and engage them?

*Do you have partners on board who want to help you spread the word but can’t support you financially (i.e., help pay for traditional theatrical distribution and/or pay rental fees)?

*Do you have your theatrical rights?

*Is your film being distributed in NYC and LA?  Do you know what to do with it regionally after that?

*Do you believe there’s a home and an audience for your film outside of or in addition to the classroom and the community center setting?

If the answer to most of the questions above is yes, then you should probably start looking into Tugg! Some other films are already hip to the approach and doing rather well. Here are a few examples:

#ReGENERATION
This documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement (narrated by Ryan Gosling) had 10 screenings across the country over the course of one evening, promoted by the filmmakers themselves and people who had read a Huffington Post article about the film and wanted to get involved.  The screenings featured Q&As with the filmmakers as well as members of local communities including professors and figures of the Occupy movement.

ONE DAY ON EARTH
On Earth Day this documentary was shown throughout the US via Tugg.  It was filmed in every country across the globe over the course of one day — a crowd-sourced film utilized a crowd-source platform (Tugg) to play in theaters in 11 cities, selling over 1800 tickets without spending $1 on traditional marketing.

INCENDIARY
The filmmakers of this critically-acclaimed documentary about the death penalty have utilized Tugg to arrange screenings in partnership with death penalty orgs across the country.  To date, Tugg has provided theatrical showings of INCENDIARY in more than double the amount of markets it reached during its traditional theatrical run.

ECTASY OF ORDER: THE TETRIS MASTERS
There was a sold out show in Austin for a documentary called ECSTASY OF ORDER: THE TETRIS MASTERS about Tetris World Champions. The promoter, who saw the film at a festival and had to share it with his friends and community, arranged a unique screening through Tugg with an in-theater Tetris competition on the big screen following the film.  He has a great recap on the event here.

And this is just the beginning, IMHO. I’m really excited to see what other filmmakers and distributors do with this platform. If enough clever filmmakers and promoters dabble with Tugg, we may be looking at the next phase of theatrical distribution…one ticket at a time.

Not every director is suited for low-budget indie filmmaking, and that’s OK if you’re Terrence Malick or David Fincher. But chances are, you’re not…or not yet, anyway. I get a fair number of calls from biggish directors and producers who are having trouble raising money for their …]]>

Video Village, Indie-Style

Not every director is suited for low-budget indie filmmaking, and that’s OK if you’re Terrence Malick or David Fincher. But chances are, you’re not…or not yet, anyway. I get a fair number of calls from biggish directors and producers who are having trouble raising money for their films and want to explore how to make them on the super-cheap. I’ve entertained some of these requests, collecting funny anecdotes along the way, like the director who wanted to fly in stars from another country and rent large trailers for them, but forego unions and production insurance. Or the producer who wanted to cast an actor whose agent demanded $12,000 worth of perks, when our entire costume budget was just $4,000. As much as I want to work with these namey folks, I usually end up politely declining because I know that it will be difficult for them (and for me, especially) to make a movie on a fraction of the budgets to which they’re accustomed.

I’ve now worked with twenty different directors on mostly low-budget indie projects–some of whom I’d like to work with again and again; others, never again. By now, I can tell when a director is lying, even if he or she doesn’t realize it–”it’ll be 70% handheld,” “we can just run and gun it with a skeleton crew,” “all I need is an extra half day for second unit stuff.” Yeah, right. Most of the director foibles I’ve dealt with are due to inexperience and will likely resolve themselves with time. But sometimes, I wonder if some people just weren’t meant to direct–at least not low-budget indies.

So what are the traits that I think make a director “indie-friendly” (and more generally, “producer-friendly”)? Besides the usual traits that all directors should have–passion, confidence, focus, a high E.Q., a collaborative spirit, a sense of humor, the ability to command respect, an openness to feedback balanced with decisiveness–here are the traits that are especially important when working with limited resources:

1. Fast Writer

I’ve worked mostly with writer-directors, which offers an efficiency that’s often missing when the writer and director are different people. So much rewriting is done not just during development and prep, but also during production. Some of my directors have had to rewrite whole scenes minutes before shooting them. There is probably a lot more production-directed rewriting in the indie world since we are constantly trying to figure out how to stretch a budget. Development periods are also a lot shorter for us because they have to be–typically, no one gets paid during development; we only get paid if we’re in production. As such, it’s nice to work with speedy writers who can discuss, digest, and incorporate notes quickly to produce a shoppable draft.

2. Adaptive

Anything can happen in filmmaking, especially if you have limited resources–extras stand you up, location owners change their minds at the last minute, the G&E truck takes a wrong turn and shows up 2 hours late. So it’s critical for a director to be able to adapt to these exigent circumstances and figure out how to make lemonade from lemons. I’ve worked with directors who refused to shoot because a featured extra didn’t show up. Even after I’d come up with workable solutions, the directors still resisted, insisting that the entire film would be ruined without this extra. Really? You have a set, a camera, equipment, and a cast and crew of 50 at your fingertips, and you’re just going to cross your arms and pout? You’re a creative person…create something! If it ends up sucking, then reshoot it. But for now, use what’s right in front of you and try to make something. (By the way, I’ve never had to reshoot any scene that called for an unexpected last-minute fix like this.) Being adaptive and thinking on your feet also helps when there are happy accidents. Filmmaking is organic and unpredictable, and when the right mix of elements strikes on set, a good director will know how to capitalize on it.

3. Editing Experience

It is so valuable for a director to have editing experience because she or he will know on set what’s important and what’s not, what can be sacrificed and what can’t. Indie films are scheduled so tightly that it’s often very tough to make the day. All of my feature productions have been between 19 and 24 days, shooting between 4-7 pages and 15-35 setups per day. Sometimes, shots and even scenes have to be cut on the day of shooting. A director who also edits will have a much better sense of which shots are expendable, and how to make up for losing them.

4. Ability to Visualize

This seems obvious, doesn’t it? But you’d be surprised how many directors can’t do this. Many indie directors I’ve encountered come from writing or theater backgrounds–they can write great dialogue and work well with actors, but they have no idea how to compose a frame. Yes, this is what cinematographers are for, but it’s much more efficient when a director can actually visualize what shots will look like before crew and cast go through the trouble of setting them up.

5. Doesn’t Sweat the Small Stuff

This is probably the most controversial trait on the list. Artists are, by their nature, perfectionists–and they should be!  However, the reality is that perfection is tough to achieve on a small budget. Of course, we should always work very hard to achieve it, but the obsession over minor details–like the way a curtain drapes over a windowsill in the background–should not compromise more important things like the actors’ performances or the entire shooting schedule. Except, of course, if you’re making an art film in which the position of curtains is paramount. But if you’re making a traditional narrative film where the writing, acting, and storytelling are the main events, then those are the things you should focus on. A production’s budget and schedule are a zero-sum game. It’s rare to get everything you want; it’s usually very give-and-take. So it’s important for directors to choose their battles wisely.

6. Highly Prepared

One of my favorite first assistant directors,� Nicolas D. Harvard, has a great motto: “Fix it in prep.” Indie films benefit immensely from directors who are incredibly diligent about doing research, shot lists, storyboards, and the like during prep. Some directors I’ve worked with have refused to do shot lists because they don’t want to be “locked in” to doing those particular shots on the day of shooting. This is silly because a good producer and crew understands the importance of being flexible on set and allowing for the organic nature of filmmaking to take its course, and would not pressure a director to stick strictly to his or her shot list. On the contrary, a shot list is what allows a director the freedom to improvise on the shoot day. Going into production without a shooting plan is very dangerous because it could easily throw the entire schedule (and consequently, the budget) off the rails.

7. Solid Work Ethic & High Stamina

Making a movie is hands down the hardest work I’ve ever done. That’s why I’m so picky with my projects. I cannot imagine working so hard on something I don’t care about. So when I take on a project, I expect to work very hard on it, and I expect no less of my director. Once, during late-stage prep on a film, the director kept checking into bars and restaurants on Foursquare, and tweeting about how much fun he was having hanging out with his friends. I did not like this one bit. If I and your crew are working our asses off on your film, then you should be too. Indie directors must have a very solid work ethic, and a high stamina for long hours spent doing what will likely be the most intellectually, physically, and emotionally challenging work they’ve ever done.

8. Vast Knowledge of Film

It’s important for all directors to know the language of cinema. By knowing what’s been done before and what certain shots have traditionally communicated, a director doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. He or she can then more easily pay homage to, do variations on, or reject conventions. Being able to refer to certain films, scenes, or shots also makes it much easier and quicker for a director to articulate his vision to the crew and cast.

9. Articulate

In all productions, but especially indie ones, a director often has to defend the creative decisions that conflict with budget or schedule limitations. As such, a director should be able to clearly articulate why he needs 5 picture cars instead of 2, or 21 shoot days instead of 20, or a Steadicam instead of doing it handheld. A good producer will listen and OK the expenditures if the director provides a strong rationale for them. Of course, it’s also beneficial when directors can clearly and efficiently communicate what they want to their actors and crew, and woo financiers with a pitch. Directors should practice untangling the creative jumble in their heads to form coherent thoughts and actionable requests (that, or find a producer who can translate for them).

10. Publicity-Friendly

Being articulate also helps when a director is promoting a film. Communicating your vision to the media and the public can be a difficult thing to do, especially if you can’t afford fancy publicists to guide you. Some directors I’ve worked with are great at making movies, but can’t write loglines or synopses, pitch their own films, or conduct coherent Q&As, so I’ll have to pinch hit. But it’s really nice when they can do these things, because no one cares about the producer! Distributors also expect directors to play an active role in film promotion, especially now that the landscape is so difficult, and so much rides on the cult of personality. Bonus points for the director who is active in social media. There is no substitute for authenticity, and when a director can tweet in his or her own voice, it generates a lot more interest and engagement.

11. Technically Adept

Knowing how to use Twitter and Facebook is part and parcel of the overall technical aptitude that’s important for an indie director to have. Indie directors and producers often have to be jacks of all trades–more so than ever now that so much of marketing and distribution falls on our shoulders. When you can’t pay your Web designer, graphic artist, or assistant editor enough to be on call (or when you can’t afford these folks in the first place), you should be prepared to do the job yourself. So if you have some spare time, learn how to use video editing, photo editing, illustration, and web design programs, and of course, social media tools. You should also try to stay abreast of the latest camera and post-production technologies because in indie land, post supervision often falls to you and your producer.

12. Appreciative

Directors can be spoiled, bratty, entitled people. There is no place for that in the low-budget world, where everyone is working very long hours at very reduced rates. Directors who consistently show appreciation and respect for their cast and crew effectively motivate them, and that motivation is necessary fuel for low-budget productions. The director–not the producers or the actors–is the one who ultimately sets the tone of the production. If he or she is an unappreciative jerk, then everyone is miserable and left to wonder what all the suffering is for. An appreciative director also shares the limelight, and gives credit where it is due. And if/when Hollywood comes a-callin’, an appreciative director will remember the “little people” and “give back” by continuing to work with those who believed in his or her vision before anyone else did.

So there you have it! If you don’t possess most of these traits, please don’t call me–unless you are David Fincher or Terrence Malick. Actually…no, never mind, not even then. I will just enjoy your brilliant films from afar.

From the 2011 Independent Filmmaker Conference.

From the 2011 Independent Filmmaker Conference.

From the 2011 Independent Filmmaker Conference.

From the 2011 Independent Filmmaker Conference.