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.

Like most working independent film producers, I’ve pitched my projects to more potential financiers than I can remember.  I’m always relieved when they’re seasoned film investors because then I can focus on the creative aspects of the project, the production and distribution plan, and the recoupment structure.  When I pitch …]]>

Like most working independent film producers, I’ve pitched my projects to more potential financiers than I can remember.  I’m always relieved when they’re seasoned film investors because then I can focus on the creative aspects of the project, the production and distribution plan, and the recoupment structure.  When I pitch to someone who hasn’t invested in film before, most of my time is spent explaining how film investment works, the typical life cycle of a film, and the current industry landscape (often with historical context!).

I genuinely love educating people about “how film works.” It’s great to shatter the US Weekly version of the film world, and show people that it’s a serious manufacturing industry comprised of hardworking creative and technical professionals.  But honestly, how many more times am I going to have to explain this on an individual basis?  A girl’s gotta sleep (oh, and actually make movies too).  I’m guessing that for every 200 of these newbie film investors I pitch (and educate), 199 of them say “no.”  And pitching to them is so much more extensive and drawn out than pitching to an experienced film investor.  This doesn’t seem like a very efficient use of my time, right?  It isn’t.  I should be reading and developing scripts, making and executing production and distribution plans, figuring out how to innovate in a rapidly changing landscape.

A few weeks ago at the Creative Capital artist retreat, I was chatting with Philipp Engelhorn of Cinereach about the state of film financing and distribution.  He wondered why there were labs and training programs for screenwriters, directors, and now even producers, but no such programs for investors.  Indeed, why aren’t there any?  There are investor training courses in stocks, real estate, tech, and other industries. Why not in film?  Especially now that film budgets have plummeted, subsequently lowering an investor’s barrier to entry.  Not only would investor “labs” make producers’ lives easier, but they could potentially groom new classes of intelligent investors specifically for the film industry–more “smart money,” less “dumb money”!

An educated investor is primed to be a repeat investor.  I’ve met too many investors who never want to be involved in another film again because they were burned by their first one.  Their expectations were not properly managed, the risks not explained, the production was a nightmare, the distribution plan was stupid, the filmmakers neglected the film after its premiere, and so on.  If someone had explained to these investors how to identify� good directors and projects, assess deals, spot red flags, mitigate risk in a very risky type of investment, and effectively work with producers, perhaps they wouldn’t have made a doomed investment, and perhaps they would’ve invested again.

It’s understandable why producers are reluctant to lay out all the risks themselves. They want to paint a rosy picture of a film’s prospects because they want it to get financed.  But they’re doing themselves, the financiers, and the film industry at large a disservice by promising things that they’re not certain they can deliver.  This is where neutral third-party investor labs would come in handy.

These labs could help make investors proactive instead of reactive (how great would it be if more of them sought us out instead of the other way around?), and weed out the ones who want to be in it just for the money.  Did I mention that film is a very risky investment?  Well, it bears repeating.  Film investments are alternative assets like real estate, rare coins, artwork, or investment-grade wine that diversify an investor’s portfolio.  It’s rare for a film to hit it big, but when it does, it can hit it really big.  Ultimately, however, the best kind of film investor is someone who is not merely interested in financial return, but also in psychic return—that is, the unquantifiable joy of being part of an artistic endeavor, of learning about filmmaking and the film industry from the inside, of supporting a social issue or cause addressed by a film, of going to celebrity premieres and parties, of establishing relationships with promising filmmakers, and of helping to make something that will hopefully be seen by many and talked about for years to come.

So, who wants to start the first lab for film investors?

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.

Although Republicans and Democrats rarely agree on anything these days, Congress has passed and President Obama signed on April 5, 2012 the JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) Act, a collection of laws that dramatically relaxes regulations on raising capital for startup companies. The law was backed by Republicans, as well …]]>

Although Republicans and Democrats rarely agree on anything these days, Congress has passed and President Obama signed on April 5, 2012 the JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) Act, a collection of laws that dramatically relaxes regulations on raising capital for startup companies. The law was backed by Republicans, as well as tech companies and their venture capital backers. While encouraging independent filmmaking was not on the mind of Congress when it passed this law, it promises to dramatically expand the ability of filmmakers to raise financing for their projects.

In Silicon Valley, entrepreneurs often raise large amounts of capital for risky start-ups. However, the number of Initial Public Offerings is much less than it was before the dot com bubble burst. In 1996, there were 791 Initial Public Offerings (IPO) while from 2001 to 2008 the average was a mere 157 a year.  Of course, this reduced activity may be due to investors assuming a more prudent investment strategy after losing their shirts in the dot com crash, or it could be a reaction to new regulations.  Among other changes enacted, Wall Street firms are prohibited from promoting stocks with their own questionable research, an obvious conflict of interest.

The new Act relaxes some restrictions for smaller emerging growth companies. It seeks to encourage entrepreneurs because most new jobs are created by small businesses, not large ones. Consequently, this new law could be the impetus for an economic boom – at least that is the hope of its backers. No doubt, some of the “reforms” in the Act are of questionable merit and could open the door to new abuses.  However, the current laws governing the raising small amounts of capital are unduly onerous for entrepreneurs, and have been for many decades. Furthermore, these laws have clearly not kept pace with technological change and the methods we use nowadays to communicate with one another. If anyone understands the potential of the crowd, it should be President Obama. In the last presidential election, he raised nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars from Internet solicitations, mostly small donations.

Most promising for indie filmmakers, the JOBS Act contains provisions that for the first time will allow internet crowdfunding for the production of films.  Crowdfunding is a method of raising capital by obtaining small amounts of money from a large number of investors. Although existing companies like Kickstarter.com and IndieGoGo currently enable filmmakers to raise funding through donations (i.e., gifts), this new law, when it becomes effective, will allow filmmakers to raise up to one million dollars in equity investments by soliciting the general public without the prior restraints.

The prime restriction that hampered filmmakers from raising funds using the internet was the prohibition on public solicitation for what are called private placements. Public solicitation is any form of advertising or approaching strangers such as by putting leaflets on their car windows. Up until now, the law has required a “pre-existing relationship” between the filmmaker and the potential investor. It was not always clear how much of a relationship was required. There are filmmakers today who have thousands of “friends” on Facebook. Some of these connections may be fairly tenuous and the filmmaker may have never met some friends in person. Do these contacts count as a pre-existing relationship if the extent of the bond is merely accepting an invitation to connect? Fortunately, these kinds of issues don’t seem to matter much anymore with the passage of the JOBS Act.

For many businesses, a million dollars is not a lot of money, but for filmmakers it can be more than sufficient to produce a feature film.  Indeed, with the use of digital cameras and a laptop with Final Cut Pro, many films are made for less.  Moreover, about 40 states now offer production incentives, enabling producers to stretch their funding.  And by spreading the risk among a large pool of small investors through crowdfunding, no one gets burned badly if the movie flops.

The major problem with film investments has always been their extreme risk and the expense involved in complying with the  laws that regulate investments. Filmmakers were free to go after an unlimited number of high rollers they had  relationships with, plus up to 35 middle class investors.  But most aspiring indie filmmakers don’t hang around the craps table in Vegas and don’t know many wealthy individuals.  So they often relied on friends and family, or their own resources, including borrowing money against one’s house, or at least in one celebrated instance, selling their blood.  Other filmmakers used various subterfuges to reach potential investors and hoped the SEC would not notice. Most of the time the authorities paid them no mind as they had bigger fish to fry. I once spoke to a federal prosecutor on behalf of a client who had been defrauded of several hundred thousand dollars in a fraudulent film investment.  The prosecutor confessed that unless at least a million dollars was at stake, the case was just too small for him to pursue. There are just too many bigger crooks out there.

Crowdfunding may hold another advantage for filmmakers unrelated to raising money. One of the major problems facing independent filmmakers is how to market and distribute their completed movies. Today it is a buyer’s market and distributors have thousands of films to choose from when deciding what to acquire.  Of course, self-distribution is always an option, and anyone can put their film up on YouTube or other portals. But without effective promotion the film may just sit there undiscovered. However, if a film is financed by a crowd, one starts with a community backing the project, and each member has an incentive to spread the word about the film. As the major studios have seen, a film that receives bad word–of-mouth on opening weekend falls faster and harder than ever before, while at the same time, an unknown title can quickly catch fire and become an overnight sensation.  Moreover, funds could be used for advertising and distribution provided that use is disclosed to investors.

The potential for crowdfunding looks promising. There are many examples of enterprising filmmakers who have already funded films with crowd sourced donations. In these instances, the donors have no expectation of sharing in any financial return, but have the satisfaction of supporting a project they believe in. They could also be given t-shirts, a DVD of the completed movie, a screen credit or an invitation to the wrap party or premiere screenings. In other words, they receive benefits not considered an equity interest and therefore not subject to state and federal security laws. However, filmmakers need to cautious if they decide to fund a film through crowdfunding. They need to make sure they do not overpromise what investors may receive or they could be liable for fraud. One of the major safeguards in the legislation for investors is that offers to investors need to be made through a Broker-Dealer or a funding portal that is registered with the SEC under rules to be developed. These intermediaries will be responsible for trying to keep the fraudsters out of the system and offer some comfort to investors that they are not investing with a Nigerian fraudster who last week was soliciting you for help in transferring  millions of dollars as part of some internet scam. .

The SEC has 270 days to implement additional regulations, and it is not clear at this time how restrictive or liberal these rules may be. The SEC is inviting the public to send in comments on each of the seven titles of the law including the crowdfunding provision, which is Title III.   This is an opportunity for filmmakers to express their concerns about the rules that will be adopted to enforce provisions of the JOBS act.  Filmmakers can submit comments via either email or on the SEC website.

To submit comments go here.

To read comments submitted go here.

The Acts’ full text can be found on my blog here.

If you’re interested in this issue, please read my companion piece, located here.

Sometimes I feel like a traveling salesman, going from festival to festival selling my finished films, and from market to market pitching my new projects.  I recently participated in my ninth project market on the “filmmaker” side, and I’ve done four of them on …]]>

Film Independent's Fast Track project market

Sometimes I feel like a traveling salesman, going from festival to festival selling my finished films, and from market to market pitching my new projects.  I recently participated in my ninth project market on the “filmmaker” side, and I’ve done four of them on the “industry” side, so I figured I’d write about my experiences with project markets to try to demystify them a bit.

What is a project market, you ask?  It’s basically a matchmaking program between filmmakers (writers, directors, producers) and industry professionals, with the goal of getting the filmmakers’ projects closer to production.  They usually run over 2-3 days, and are often held in conjunction with a film festival.

Examples of U.S. project markets include: Tribeca All-Access (held during the Tribeca Film Festival), Film Independent’s Fast Track (held during the Los Angeles Film Festival), and IFP’s Project Forum (which, by the way, is currently accepting submissions).

Examples of non-U.S. project markets include: Cinemart (held during the Rotterdam Film Festival), Berlinale Co-Production Market (held during the Berlin Film Festival), Hong Kong-Asia Film Financing Forum (held during the Hong Kong International Film Festival), and OMDC Toronto International Financing Forum (held during the Toronto Film Festival).

If you are a filmmaker with few industry connections, project markets are a great way to start building your network of useful contacts.  A project market essentially “validates” you and your project, and prompts the industry to start tracking you.  These markets serve as curators of new talent, which is critical because industry professionals are so inundated with submissions that they need curators to help focus their attention.

However, filmmakers who get accepted to project markets should be careful to manage their expectations. If you think your film will get greenlit within the months following a project market, think again!  Chances are, as ever, slim—I think this is because project markets tend to favor first- and second-time filmmakers and less commercial projects, and because it takes time to build a relationship and mutual trust with an industry person.

But don’t dismay: there are, of course, a handful of films that I know found a chunk of their funding at a project market. And at the very least, you’ll get a chance to meet a lot of industry folks in a short period of time, and to start developing relationships that may later bear fruit.  The value of a project market has more to do with building relationships and a network for yourself than getting a green light for your project. Hopefully, you will have other projects in your back pocket so that if you meet someone who doesn’t like your drama, maybe they’ll like your comedy instead.

So…who the hell are these “industry professionals” anyway? Below is a breakdown of the industry types a filmmaker might meet at a project market:

Production Companies & Producers

• 1. Production Companies Backed by Investors: These companies have private equity, the holy grail for independent films. Some also have first-look or overhead deals with studios.
• 2. Production Companies Connected to Actors: Some have studio deals and connections to financiers. Sometimes, the particular actor must be attached, so if you don’t want to abide by that condition, look elsewhere.
• 3. Production Companies Connected to Directors: Some have studio deals and connections to financiers. Sometimes, the particular director must be attached, so if you don’t want to abide by that condition, look elsewhere.
• 4. Production Companies and Producers With No Backing: The vast majority of “producers” fall under this category. While these folks have no money, they do often have connections to financiers, talent agents, distributors, etc., and can help develop your script, do a budget & schedule, attach cast & crew, and shop your film. Every film needs a producer, so if you don’t have one, find one.
• 5. Development Companies Backed by Investors: These companies focus on script development only. They usually acquire material (books, articles, etc.) and seek writers to do adaptations.

Agencies and Management Companies

• 6. Financing Agents: The major Hollywood agencies (UTA, WME, CAA, ICM, Gersh) and Cinetic have financing divisions that specialize in packaging and finding financing. These agencies work on commission when shopping a project to their network of financiers, and reserve the right to sell the finished film domestically. It’s rare for an agency to take on a low-budget project unless the director or actors attached are repped by that particular agency.
• 7. Domestic Sales Agent: Also called producer’s reps, these companies or individuals work on commission when trying to sell your finished film to a distributor at a festival, market, or directly. Most of them who aren’t one of the aforementioned financing agents don’t have the deep network of financiers necessary to greenlight your film (though some do). As such, these agents are most likely just tracking your project in anticipation of representing it when it’s done.
• 8. Foreign Sales Agent: These guys are responsible for selling the foreign rights for your project. Some of them can offer financing in the form of minimum guarantees (MGs) at the script or financing/casting stage, but this usually requires a big star or big director attachment, or other elements that have specific commercial appeal for certain territories. Even if you can’t get that rare MG, these agents can provide foreign sales estimates that you can show to your potential financiers.
• 9. Talent and Lit Management Companies: These companies can assist with cast attachments, and possibly represent you as a writer or director, thereby opening up their network of connections to you.

Studios and Distributors

• 10. Studios: A major Hollywood studio has the power to fully acquire and finance your feature, but chances are, they won’t do that if you’re a filmmaker early in your career. More likely (though still pretty unlikely) is a negative pickup deal in which a studio promises to pay you an acquisition fee upon your delivery of the film to them. You would still have to cashflow this deal through a bank or other financier. Note that you should expect to give up a degree of creative control in a studio deal, especially in a full acquisition. A studio executive might attend a project market to track you as a director or writer, or your project as a potential future acquisition after you’ve finished the film.
• 11. Mid-Sized and Smaller Distributors: Companies like IFC and Magnolia don’t typically finance production, but in very rare cases, they may put up a portion of the budget in exchange for certain distribution rights. But these companies are still useful to get to know since they’re among the most likely to buy your finished films.
• 12. Other Distributors: There are a whole slew of smaller specialty distributors and newfangled platforms (cable VOD, online streaming sites, etc.) that are helpful to know.
• 13. Distribution Service Companies & Consultants: Distribution service companies will release your film for a fee, and consultants and PMDs (producers of marketing & distribution) will advise you or manage your distribution, also for a fee. These guys won’t help get your film greenlit, and are probably just tracking potential future clients.

Debt Financiers

• 14. Banks and Debt Financiers: These guys can cashflow your negative pickup deal, foreign MG deal, tax credit, or similar collateral.  It’s rare for very low-budget films to use debt financing because a portion of the financing fees (bank, attorney, completion bond, etc.) are flat, so they’ll suck up a bigger percentage of a smaller budget.

Non-Profit & Government

• 15. Grantmaking Organizations: Generally, grants represent a small fraction of a film’s budget, but they’re still great if you can get ‘em!  Most focus on special interests (women, social issue, etc.).
• 16. Government Film Commissions: Whenever possible, “soft money” should be a part of every film’s financing plan as it can mitigate financiers’ risk and give you some “free” money for your budget.  In the U.S., various states have tax credits (NY, NC, LA, CT, AK, to name a few), and in Canada and elsewhere in the world, there may be loans and grants in addition to tax credits. Sadly, soft money is disappearing due to the state of the world economy.
• 17. Project Markets & Labs: Project market organizers sometimes troll other project markets for submissions.  It’s good to do multiple project markets to widen your industry network, but note that like festivals, project markets don’t like to take projects that have already “premiered” elsewhere, though there are of course exceptions. These guys primarily want to meet and track up-and-coming filmmakers, and see what other projects they might have that may be more suited to their own project markets. Also sort of related to project markets are screenwriting, directing and producing labs, which can be helpful in developing your craft and connecting you to more potential collaborators.
• 18. Film Festival Programmers: They don’t have the power to greenlight your film, but it’s good to develop relationships with programmers since so many indie films are launched and acquired at festivals. These guys want to meet new filmmakers and track future films.

Services

• 19. Post-Production Companies: Some post-production companies grant post services, or do in-kind equity deals.  Note, however, that post equity deals will value services at full rack rates.
• 20. Production Service Companies: It’s helpful to get to know the production service companies that have a lot of experience shooting in the region where your film will shoot, particularly if you’re not familiar with shooting there.
• 21. Completion Bond Companies: These companies oversee the production of a film and provide assurance to financiers that a film will be completed on time and on budget (and they’ll cover any overages). But it often doesn’t make sense to bond a small-budget film because these companies require a minimum service fee and 10% contingency.
• 22. Attorneys: Attorneys attend these things to track new potential clients. This is a good time to start shopping around for an attorney so you’ll have one when you’re ready to make deals. Note that some of them also represent investors.

* * * * * * * *

I think that about covers it!  Notice anything missing?  I do: high-net-worth individuals, who are the primary financiers of very low-budget films in the U.S.  You’ll have to find those folks elsewhere.

Some other suggestions

- Write a project summary that includes: logline, synopsis, director’s statement, bios of all cast/crew attached

- Bring a look book, or at least some visual references

- Don’t hand people a full paper script

- If your project has both a director and producer, you should both attend because I find that pitching as a team is more effective

- Be conversational and keep any formal presentations short and sweet

- Follow up over email, and include links & attachments presented at the meeting, even if you’ve already given them physical material

One last thing: before you start pitching to the industry person sitting across the table (whether at a project market or not), figure out exactly which of the above categories they fall into, and adjust your pitch accordingly.  Happy networking!

From the 2011 Independent Filmmaker Conference.

From the 2011 Independent Filmmaker Conference.

A film fund and non-profit production company dedicated to supporting women filmmakers passionate about the craft of storytelling, as well as social justice, environmental and human rights issues. Funding opportunities …]]> Do you know of a granting opportunity that isn’t listed on this page? Let us know by emailing dschoenbrun@ifp.org.

Chicken and Egg

A film fund and non-profit production company dedicated to supporting women filmmakers passionate about the craft of storytelling, as well as social justice, environmental and human rights issues. Funding opportunities available through partnerships with Working Films, The Fledgling Fund, Impact Partners, and Good Pitch.

Cinereach

Cinereach is a not-for-profit film production company and foundation that champions vital stories, artfully told. Created and led by young philanthropists, entrepreneurs and filmmakers, Cinereach empowers fiction and nonfiction filmmakers from all over the world through Grants & Awards, The Reach Film Fellowship, an internal Productions department, and through partnerships with the Sundance Institute and other organizations. Since 2006, Cinereach has disbursed close to $5 million in grant funds to more than 100 projects at the intersection of engaging storytelling, visual artistry and vital subject matter.

Film Independent

Each year, Film Independent awards a number of annual grants and fellowships to filmmakers and Felliows.

JAMESON FIND YOUR AUDIENCE GRANT

New in 2011. Awards $40,000 to a FIND associated feature film for marketing and distribution.

SPIRIT AWARDS GRANTS

Every year at the Spirit Awards, Film Independent gives out three Filmmaker Grants of $25,000. The three awards are:

Acura Someone to Watch Award: recognizes an under-appreciated filmmaker. Past winners include Ramin Bahrani (Chop Shop), Marc Forster (Everything Put Together), Andrew Bujalski (Funny Ha Ha), and Larry Fessenden (Habit).

Truer Than Fiction Award: presented to an emerging director of non-fiction features who has not yet received significant attention. Past winners include Bill and Turner Ross, Adele Horne (The Tailenders), Ross Kauffman and Zana Briski (Born into Brothels), and Errol Morris (Fast, Cheap & Out of Control).

Producers Award: honors emerging producers who, despite highly limited resources, produce quality independent films. Past winners include Karin Chien (The Exploding Girl), Gina Kwon (Me and You and Everyone We Know), Caroline Baron (Capote), and Effie Brown (Real Women Have Curves).

Sloan Producers Grant

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation awards $25,000 to one science/math-centric project from Film Independent’s Producers Lab.  Past films that received this grant include Future Weather, The Man Who Knew Infinity, and Basmati Blues.

Sloan Fast Track Grant

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation awards $15,000 to one science/math-centric project  from Film Independent’s Fast Track financing market.  The first film to receive this grant was 2010’s Future Weather.

Ellie/Garnier Directing Fellowship

Film Independent awards a $10,000 production grant to one filmmaker from its Directors Lab. Former fellows include Jennifer Arnold (A Small Act), and Bridget Bedard (Operation June Black).  Funded by ELLE and Garnier.

Elizabeth Pena Fellowship

A $10,000 production grant to a Latino filmmaker participating in Film Independent’s Project:Involve program.  The 2010 fellow was George Reyes (La Muñeca Fea (The Ugly Doll).  Funded by Target.

Kodak Film Grants

Each year, Film Independent awards a limited number of grants of Kodak film stock to filmmakers in production on their feature films. These grants are only open to alumnus of FIND’s programs.  Former recipients include Amreeka, Circumstance, Dear Lemon Lima, Jack and Diane, Mississippi Damned, and Pariah.

Rooftop Films

Offers production, post-production, and short film grants. Open only to Rooftop Film screening alumni.

San Francisco Film Society

Offers documentary, screenwriting, and production grants to US-based filmmakers. Over $700,000 awarded in 2011.

Sundance Institute

Grants offered by the Sundance Institute can be divided into three categories – those with open applications, those offered only to Feature Film Program participants, and the Documentary Fund grants.

Grants with open applications:

Alfred P. Sloan Commissioning Grant

-Established in 2005 to support the development of screenplays with science or technology themes.  The annual grant includes:

*A cash grant of up to $20,000 to provide support during the writing period

*A stipend of up to $5,000 for a science advisor

*Creative support during the writing process from a select group of Creative Advisors

*The possibility of a Fellowship to a Screenwriters Lab

*Strategic and practical support from the Feature Film Program staff

Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship

-Awarded annually to an emerging screenwriter to support the ongoing development of a narrative, feature-length screenplay with science or technology themes.

-The fellowship includes:

*Attendance at a Screenwriters Lab, Directors Lab, Creative Producing Lab, Creative Producing Summit, or Sundance Film Festival as a Fellow

*A stipend of up to $5,000 for a science advisor

*Creative and strategic support from the Feature Film Program staff

Grants offered only to Feature Film Program participants:

Sundance Institute Indian Paintbrush Fellowship

-Five or more filmmakers each year receive a grant to support the development, pre-production, post-production, distribution and/or marketing of their work.

-In addition, Indian Paintbrush underwrites a Producer’s Award with accompanying $10,000 grant to a producer whose film premieres at the Sundance Film Festival.

The Honda Power of Dreams Lab Fellowship

-An annual stipend awarded to participant in the Feature Film Director’s Lab.

Sundance Institute/Annenberg Feature Film Fellows Program

-An annual $5 million grant that provides financial support and ongoing creative and strategic support for selected participants in Sundance Institute’s Feature Film Program toward the realization of their projects.

The Cinereach Project at Sundance Institute

-Started in 2010, a $1.5 million, three-year initiative, the Sundance Institute Cinereach Feature Film Fellowship awards grants to Lab alumni whose projects push the boundaries of conventional storytelling.

NOTE: This grant is also open to Documentary Program projects.�

Time Warner Storytelling Grant

-A $5,000 grant given to select Lab Alumni.  Fellows are chosen for the uniqueness and diversity of the project’s voice and narrative, and the particular timeliness of the story and its perspective.  Fellows include Dee Rees (Pariah), Andrew MacLean (On the Ice), Elgin James (Little Birds), and Cherien Dabis (May In The Summer).

Lynn Auerbach Memorial Screenwriting Fellowship

-Provides concentrated support to one screenwriter being supported by the Feature Film Program.

-The Auerbach Fellow receives a cash stipend, dedicated yearlong mentorship from two Screenwriting Advisors, and a produced reading of her or his screenplay.

Maryland Film Fellowship

- Presented in partnership with the Maryland Film Office, the Maryland Film Fellowship provides a Directors Lab Fellow with a $10,000 bridge grant as a means to move his or her project forward during advanced development and preproduction.

Adrienne Shelly Women Filmmakers Grant

-Provides $5,000 to be awarded annually by the Sundance Institute to a female filmmaker from the June Directors Lab.

-Previous recipients have included Maryam Heshavarz, Dee Rees, and Liza Johnson.

Zygmunt and Audrey Wilf Foundation Award

-Provides a $15,000 annual grant to a Directors Lab Fellow.  Past recipients include Fellipe Barbosa and Maryam Keshavarz.

Documentary Fund Grants

-Grants $1-2 million per year.

-Established in 2002 with a gift from the Open Society Institute, and is currently supported by grants from the Ford Foundation and Open Society Institute, among others.

-More than 500 awards have supported documentary filmmakers in 61 countries globally.

-This is an international program.

- A committee of human rights experts and film professionals make recommendations from projects submitted by filmmakers from around the world. The Fund reviews between 1,400 and 2,000 proposals annually, choosing 35-50 for support each year.

-Applications are accepted in two funding categories:

Research/Development funding is provided to projects that are between development and preproduction. Grant amounts for this category are up to $20,000.

Production/Postproduction grants provide funds to filmmakers in various stages of the production and postproduction stages.

Tribeca Film Institute

The Gucci Tribeca Documentary Fund

The Gucci Tribeca Documentary Fund provides finishing funds to feature-length documentaries which highlight and humanize issues of social importance from around the world. Funded films are driven by thoughtful and in depth storytelling, bolstered by a compelling visual approach.

-Grants range from $10,000 – $25,000.  This grant must be used as finishing funds for production (and not for marketing, outreach or distribution).

-Applicants must submit a proposal/treatment, an artistic statement,  and either a 7 minute trailer or rough cut of the project.

TFI Documentary Fund

-Starting in 2011, the TFI Documentary Fund will provide over $100,000 in fellowships and grants to “engaging, character-driven documentaries.”

-Three fellowships will be awarded to documentaries in development, production, or post-production:

1. The TFI/HBO “Documentary Screen Test” Fellowship – $50,000 awarded to an emerging filmmaker in production on his or her first feature-length documentary.

2. The TFI/HBO “House I Live In” Fellowship – $25,000 awarded towards the completion of a documentary focused on a filmmaker’s personal story.

3. The TFI/HBO “Outside Looking In” Fellowship – $25,000 awarded to a character-driven documentary.

-Additional grants of 10,000 will be given out to four other documentary filmmakers.  These grants are sponsored by Insurgent Media (owned by Andrew Karsh, Erik Gordon, and Fischer Stevens.)

-The Fund will also arrange one-on-one meetings with key HBO Documentary film executives for recipients.

TFI Sloan Filmmaking Fund

-Provides grants of $10,000 – $40,000 in support of narrative feature film projects that explore scientific, mathematical, or technological themes in their storylines, or that feature a leading character who is a scientist, engineer, innovator or mathematician.

-In addition to funding, TFI provides guidance, introductions and industry exposure to help move the selected projects closer to completion.

TFI Latin America Media Arts Fund

-The TFI Latin America Media Arts Fund supports independent film and video artists who are living or working in Mexico, Central and South America.

-The Fund will administer $20,000 in grants to a minimum of two artists working in documentary or hybrid forms in 2011.

-In addition to funding, each grantee will receive a U.S. based advisor and guidance from the Tribeca Film Institute.

The following annual grants are open to TFI program alumni only:

Tribeca All Access Grant

-All projects selected for Tribeca All Access receive a $10,000 grant.

Tribeca All Access Ontrack Grant

-Two $5,000 grants to assist alumni with the completion of their TAA project or further development of a new work in progress.

-Recipients are accredited to the Tribeca Film Festival to take part in additional Tribeca All Access activities

Tribeca All Access Trans Media Award

-Two $3,000 grants to assist alumni in the completion a short media project that has the potential to activate audiences across multiple platforms.

-Grantees work closely with TAA staff and its partner organizations to explore new ideas for the marketing and sustainable distribution of short form content.

The TAA Adrienne Shelly Foundation Filmmaker Grant

-A $5,000 grant to a female alumnus to further her narrative project towards completion or distribution.

-Eligible projects can be at any stage.

The Games for Change Fellowship for TAA Alumni

-Games for Change (G4C) collaborates with TAA to provide one alumnus with strategic services to help refine their thinking around the creation of a game as part of their filmmaking process.

-Fellowship includes a preliminary consultation session with G4C’s Co-­President, Asi Burak, as well as an introduction to one of G4C’s Advisory Board members.

Audience Activation Grant

-One filmmaking team works closely with the TAA staff and Push Creative, a full service-branding agency, to encourage audience development, fund raising, marketing, and/or distribution of their project through a media-ready newly designed website.

-Projects can be at any stage of development/production.

It was a day that alternated between beautiful snowfall that excited all the visitors and rain that made getting around just plain annoying. Main Street was much quieter, with many of the vendors and sponsors of the festival having packed up already.

Indoors, though, it was a good day for …]]> i

It was a day that alternated between beautiful snowfall that excited all the visitors and rain that made getting around just plain annoying. Main Street was much quieter, with many of the vendors and sponsors of the festival having packed up already.

Indoors, though, it was a good day for filmmakers. Many deals were going on, and sales continued throughout the day. Sundance Selects picked up the AIDS documentary, “How to Survive A Plague”; Roughhouse Pictures acquired “The Comedy” ; National Geographic Channel acquired the TV rights to “Chasing Ice” ; Entertainment One took “Wish You Were Here” ; and Magnolia Pictures has picked up “V/H/S”.

IFC continued to be active. They purchased the thriller “The Pact”, and as of this writing were still negotiating to acquire Antonio Campos’s dark drama “Simon Killer”.

What did I do on this weather challenged afternoon? Instead of seeing another new film, I went to see Ira Sachs’s drama “Keep The Lights On” for a second time. Having seen the film last week, it has stayed with me throughout the festival. Pauline Kael once said to Roger Ebert, as recounted in his new memoir, ” I go into the movie, I watch it, and I ask myself what happened to me”. This is how I feel about KTLO. The characters are richly drawn and recognizable to many people I have known through the years. It is a deeply moving drama that recounts a 10 year relationship between two successful gay men, in both it’s ugliness and beauty. It is also very much a New York film, in both it’s setting and feel. Although I have not yet heard about any deals being struck to distribute this film, I have no doubt it will find a wider audience in the near future.

Following the film, I stopped into a local bar, The Spur (most of the local establishments try to play up the Western atmosphere here), having been drawn by their promise of live music all day & all night. Interestingly, they were hosting the 9th annual Access Film Music Showcase, which plays the length of the Sundance Film Festival every year. The showcase is to introduce new Indie music acts to up and coming filmmakers to use for their films. It is a great idea, and I was lucky enough to catch “Songwriters in the Round: Beth Wood, Gina Sicilia and Gigi Love”. They were all terrific singer songwriters, each with different styles, but displaying very unique talents. Access Film has a schedule set for each day, giving one hour slots to each act. Very much worth the stop.

At the closing night awards ceremony for then18th annual Slamdance Festival, the following awards were announced:

Grand Jury Awards

Grand Jury Sparky Award for Feature Narrative: “Welcome to Pine Hill”

Special Jury Award for Bold Originality: “Heavy Girls”

Grand Jury Sparky for Feature Documentary: ” No Ashes, No Phoenix”

Audience Awards

Feature Narrative: “Bindlestiffs”

Feature Documentary: “Getting Up”

Well, as a young filmmaker, let me give it to you straight from the horse’s mouth (which is currently the only …]]> I’m hearing a lot of talk about how independent filmmakers need to be paid for their work, whether it’s regarding distribution deals, online piracy, or their tip percentage at Fuddruckers.

Well, as a young filmmaker, let me give it to you straight from the horse’s mouth (which is currently the only place I can afford to live): filmmakers don’t need money. Why would we? We’re ARTISTS, people. Knowing us, we’d just blow it on Tom Waits albums and lofts.

We need struggle. We need that feeling of scraping by, with nothing but our wits to save us. Trust me: whenever a filmmaker talks about how they don’t have money and please can you help them because their heat has been shut off, they’re just being funny. Be sure and play along, responding with, “You should have had something to fall back on.” Then, enjoy laughing with another human being, because that’s exactly what you’ll be doing.

“But,” you ask, “aren’t we supporting their art by giving them monetary compensation for it?” HARDLY.

Think about it: when do filmmakers make their best movies? When they’re at their most miserable and desperate. Raging Bull pulled Scorsese out of his biggest career slump, and Beethoven’s 4^th saved David Mickey Evans after the disastrous Beethoven’s 3^rd, which obviously suffered from too many studio notes (“Can we have him destroy FEWER dining rooms?” What idiots!). So, if you really want to help a filmmaker create their masterpiece, the least you could do is slash their tires. I’ve currently got a Kickstarter going to make that happen for myself.

Not only that, but money just makes us out-of-touch; turns us into “the Man.” I mean, how can you understand the fragility of the human condition when you drive around in a limousine with a hot tub in it (which is what I assume everyone who makes over $30,000 a year does)? No, filmmakers need to constantly keep their fingers on the pulse of the working class. I’ve personally been told that’s the only part of the working class I’m still allowed to touch. Otherwise, we risk becoming disconnected from the average person (or in my case, threatened with a sexual harassment lawsuit by an entire economic section of our country).

So, instead, let’s emulate some of the great filmmakers of today who have come from humble beginnings and stayed there, like Jason Reitman and Sophia Coppola (Note to self: Be sure and fact-check this part because I might be getting it wrong [Other note to self: Make sure you don’t leave this note-to-self in the blog post]).

Careful filmmakers like these know that the best thing they could do to ensure that the quality of their work remains intact is to stay completely broke. To finance their films, they max out credit cards and sell all of their belongings, and when the movie is finished, premieres at a major festival, and sells for millions of dollars, they make sure to only skim over the part of the distribution agreement that tells them they’re going to be paid in Rolos. This way, they can hold onto that sweaty desperation that made their first film come out so successful. It’s called a “career plan,” people.

Now, the problem of filmmakers being able to financially support themselves and their families (and it’s a SERIOUS problem) isn’t a new one. It’s been threatening the art of film for decades. Many a filmmaker has committed the rookie mistake of accepting smart and financially lucrative distribution deals, only to see it ruin their careers with the curse of consistent work. May God have mercy on their souls.

(Just look at these poor bastards.)

It’s time that we, as a community, come together on this and say “No more.” We need to let the world know that we’re artists, and artists use a different currency than regular people.  Our pennies are the looks of wonderment on audiences’ faces. Our nickels are theaters full of laughter. Our quarters are when someone is so caught up in a story that they’ll sit for two hours with a bladder full of Mountain Dew.

So, you can keep your millions of dollars, because us filmmakers have something that will always be more valuable: our art.

(Unless you actually want to give me millions of dollars, in which case, I desperately need it. I’m dying here.)