IFP » Uncategorized

IFP Alum @ SXSW 2013

Justin Ferrato — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:09:28 +0000

We’re so thrilled about the 2013 South by Southwest Film Festival’s line up and congratulate our IFP Alumni who will premiere at the festival!

IFP staff will be present throughout the festival, stay tuned for updates if you’ll be at SXSW and come say hi!

Below is a list of the filmmakers who have have participated in one of our IFP programs.

Congratulations to all of our filmmakers!

Before You Know It- WORLD PREMIERE

IFP Spotlight on Documentaries 2012
Director: PJ Raval

Three gay seniors navigate the adventures, challenges and surprises of life and love in their golden years.
(World Premiere)

Brothers Hypnotic- WORLD PREMIERE

IFP Spotlight on Documentaries 2009
Director: Reuben Atlas

Eight brothers, extraordinary brass musicians from Chicago’s South Side, test their brotherhood and their father’s legacy against mounting mainstream success.
(World Premiere)

Short Term 12- WORLD PREMIERE

IFP No Borders International Co-Production Market 2010
Director/Screenwriter: Destin Daniel Cretton

The film follows Grace, a young supervisor at a foster-care facility, as she looks after the teens in her charge and reckons with her own troubled past. An unsparingly authentic film, full of both heart and surprising humor.
Cast : Brie Larson, John Gallagher Jr., Kaitlyn Dever, Rami Malek, Keith Stanfield
(World Premiere)

12 O’Clock Boys- WORLD PREMIERE

IFP Documentary Lab 2011
Director: Lotfy Nathan

Pug, a young boy growing up on a combative West Baltimore block, finds solace in a gang of illegal dirt bike riders known as The 12 O’Clock Boys.
(World Premiere)

Big Joy: The Adventures of James Broughton- WORLD PREMIERE

IFP Documentary Lab 2012
Directors: Stephen Silha, Eric Slade

A documentary about embracing your passions and becoming the person of your dreams, disguised as an inspiring biopic about pioneering filmmaker and poet James Broughton (1913-1999).
(World Premiere)

Good Ol’ Freda- WORLD PREMIERE

IFP Spotlight on Documentaries 2012
Director: Ryan White

The story of Freda Kelly, a shy Liverpudlian teenager asked to work for a young local band hoping to make it big: The Beatles. Their loyal secretary from beginning to end, Freda tells her tales for the first time in 50 years.
(World Premiere)

Mr. Angel- WORLD PREMIERE

IFP Spotlight on Documentaries 2011
Director: Dan Hunt

Chronicles the extraordinary life of trans male porn pioneer and educator, Buck Angel. It’s a moving & provocative story of a man’s search for acceptance from his family and the world. An inspirational tale of an unlikely hero.
(World Premiere)

Our Nixon- NORTH AMERICAN PREMIERE

IFP Documentary Lab 2012
Director: Penny Lane

Recently discovered Super 8 home movies filmed by three of Richard Nixon’s closest aides – and fellow Watergate conspirators – offer an intimate and complex new glimpse into his presidency in this all-archival documentary.
(North American Premiere)

These Birds Walk- WORLD PREMIERE

IFP Documentary Lab 2012
Directors: Omar Mullick, Bassam Tariq

The film documents the resilience of a 6-year-old Pakistani runaway as he tackles one critical question: where is home? The streets, an orphanage, or with the family he fled in the first place?

2013 NYC Spirit Award Screening Schedule

IFP Staff — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:05:02 +0000

To Gain Access, Join IFP Today!

Use discount code SPRT13 to get 20% off Individual Membership.

Screenings are for IFP and Film Independent members only on a first-come, first-served basis. Member ID is required for admittance.

Screenings Added at reRun Theater!

147 Front St. Brooklyn, NY 11201

Friday, February 1
Moonrise Kingdom – 7PM
Silver Linings Playbook – 9:45PM

Monday, February 4
Amour – 7PM
Rust & Bone – 9:45PM

Tuesday, February 5
How to Survive a Plague – 7PM
Keep the Lights On – 9:45PM

Wednesday, February 6
Gimme the Loot – 7PM
The Color Wheel – 9:45PM

Thursday, February 7
Beasts of the Southern Wild – 7PM
Middle of Nowhere – 9:45PM

All other screenings take place at NYIT Auditorium

1871 Broadway, New York, NY 10023

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16
7:00 pm Bernie
9:15 pm Gimme the Loot

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17
7:00 pm Sister
9:15 pm The Perks of Being a Wallflower

FRIDAY, JANUARY 18
7:00 pm Middle of Nowhere
9:30 pm The Waiting Room

SATURDAY, JANUARY 19
2:00 pm The Central Park Five
4:45 pm Amour
7:30 pm Silver Linings Playbook

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22
7:00 pm Compliance
9:00 pm Seven Psychopaths

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23
7:00 pm How to Survive a Plague
9:30 pm Magic Mike

THURSDAY, JANUARY 24
7:00 pm Your Sister’s Sister
9:00 pm Moonrise Kingdom

FRIDAY, JANUARY 25
7:00 pm Keep the Lights On
9:15 pm The Sessions

SATURDAY, JANUARY 26
12:00 pm Once Upon A Time in Anatolia
3:30 pm Celeste and Jesse Forever
5:30 pm The Loneliest Planet
8:00 pm Gayby

SUNDAY, JANUARY 27
2:00 pm Safety Not Guaranteed
4:15 pm Fill the Void
6:15 pm Here
9:00 pm Robot & Frank

MONDAY, JANUARY 28
7:00 pm Sound of My Voice
9:00 pm Killer Joe

TUESDAY, JANUARY 29
7:00 pm The Invisible War
9:30 pm End of Watch

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30
7:00 pm Valley of Saints
9:00 pm Return

THURSDAY, JANUARY 31
7:00 pm Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present
9:30 pm Four

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1
7:00 pm Beasts of the Southern Wild
9:15 pm Starlet

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5
7:00 pm Ruby Sparks
9:15 pm Smashed

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6
7:00 pm War Witch
9:00 pm Rust and Bone

Celebrating George Gund III

Sandra Schulberg — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:31:51 +0000

The indie film world is mourning the loss of George Gund, and so am I. This modest magnificent man often pretended to not hear or not see, yet he absorbed and adopted the interests and needs of thousands whose worlds he crossed.

George Gund’s support for the Sundance Institute, San Francisco Film Society, Pacific Film Society, and Cleveland Film Society is well known and documented, and it was heart-warming to see Robert Redford show up to honor his friend. But what is less known, remembered by only a few of us, is that George played a crucial role in launching the American independent film movement by funding the filmmakers’ own self-help organization, the IFP, in its embryonic stage. When American indie filmmakers were being viewed as scruffy and illiterate and irreverent, George was there. When the indie film movement was anything but Sundance-glamorous, George was there. When we composed the unheralded “Eastern Europe” of American filmmaking, George was there. He helped us come out of the shadows just as he helped dozens of East European filmmakers come out of the shadows.

As Tom Bernard recounted at the memorial service in George’s honor on January 25, George inhabited many worlds. Often they coincided. Besides film, another of his great passions was hockey. One year they were at Cannes together, and Tom was surprised to learn George had produced a film of his own, set in Czechoslovakia, that was hidden away in the Market section. The next day Tom called George to ask, “George, why did you make that film, because it’s not very good.” “That’s all right,” George said, “because we were able to smuggle out four hockey players while making it.” That was George at his skulking best, prefiguring ARGO.

George’s niece Catherine Gund gave a masterful eulogy, holding us spellbound for more than an hour with her detailed evocations of George’s hilarious and sometimes frustrating foibles. While we sat in Grace Cathedral on Nob Hill in San Francisco, dwarfed within its towering dimensions, the afternoon light sparkled through the skyscraper-high stained glass windows just as George did. In his deep silent burly fashion, under the famously bushy eyebrows, George sparkled too.

Catherine evoked George’s legendary generosity. He would often shuttle filmmakers around the world in his private plane. I remember one trip home from the Munich Film Festival, a place where Eberhard Hauff & Ulla Rapp brought early practitioners of New German Cinema together with fledgling American filmmakers. It was one of George’s famous haunts. He treated us to late night dinners at his favorite hotel, and towards the end of the Festival would start to sort out who was going where next. You could hitch a ride on his plane, even if he wasn’t on it, as long as you were willing to make some unscheduled stops along the way. No one, the crew least of all, wanted to use the onboard bathroom with its folding cloth door, so that year we stopped to pee in Copenhagen. After a delightful lunch with the pilot and his wife in the Tivoli Gardens, we continued across the Atlantic. After I had set up the IFP in New York, director John Hanson had persuaded me to help him research and produce a movie on the Mesabi Iron Range, and we had settled in the tiny town of Eveleth, Minnesota, which happened also to be the home of the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, one of the points on George’s compass. That year, George’s pilot landed us in Hibbing, practically on our doorstep.

After the memorial, the party in George’s honor shifted to the Fairmont Hotel, where others rose to speak spontaneously. Touching and funny tributes came from his son, George Gund IV (aka Crunchy); his grandson, George Gund V; his brother Gordon Gund; and his widow, the indomitable filmmaker Lara Lee, whose Synthetic Pleasures poster is framed in my indie film archive.

Recollections about George have started to pile in. I cite just a few. Joana Vicente, producer of many indie movies and current Executive Director of the IFP, writes: “What a great loss for us all. I met George at a festival in Brazil many years ago. I won’t forget his passion for and dedication to our community. He was unique and will truly be missed.”

Nicole Guillemet, longtime Vice President of the Sundance Institute, writes: “So many fond memories with George — from a trip to Prague to meet with Havel, to the Olympics in Albertville, to the cowboys’ poetry gathering in Nevada, to smuggling lobsters at the June lab and films at Havana Festival…An extraordinary friend, patron of the Arts, and film scholar.”

Rob Nilsson, co-director with John Hanson of Northern Lights and our early partner in New Front Films, writes: “He was a hero to me, a man of the people who knew how to use his wealth for Art at the grass roots. He and Jeanette Etheredge were instrumental in support of the Tenderloin yGroup which made the 9 @ Night feature film series with homeless, inner city residents, actors and all comers in the San Francisco Tenderloin. I’ll always remember him, a man who didn’t say much but listened a lot, and who helped out countless ground level filmmakers, cowboy poets and visionaries of every stripe. Okunrin Meta to George!”

I will be eternally grateful to George Gund for his early support of the IFP, and to his staff at the time, especially Barbara Katz, for finding a way to channel his enthusiasm into our specific programs. But what remains in my heart is George’s vision, especially his desire to champion the underdog; this will endear him to me forever.

Sandra Schulberg

IFP Founding Director

Dream = Reality: Filmmaker Tim Sutton on Moving into Production at the Venice Biennale

Tim Sutton — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:00:06 +0000

Leaving Venice at 7am, I was planning to shlep my way to the airport via two vaporettas and a bus – you know, back to reality. Yet, by, divine intervention, I was lucky enough to hop a free ride in a water taxi with the Artistic Director of the Biennale Cinema College directly to the airport. It was glorious – the quiet, glassy water, the rosy morning light, a slight breeze to nurse my exhaustion. As we hummed along, he said, with poker face intact, ‘It is even more delightful in the summer.’ He went on to Berlin, I went to visit a friend in Rome and it crossed my mind that I was pretty much living in a dream – and later on that day the dream turned into my reality: Memphis would be one of the 3 films financed by the Biennale and will premiere at the 2013 Venice Film Festival. I’ll be honest, the first thoughts I had were guilt and fear – guilt because of the 12 incredibly daring film projects that did not get funding, and fear that 6 months is an insanely tight schedule to make something of quality. Over wine (and a serious plate of Roman lamb) that night, those feelings dissipated into a pure feeling of excitement. Both John Baker and I believe in our project – in our ability to truly realize this film – and now we had one of the most important art institutions in modern history believing in it too. An awesome realization to consider, and potent fuel to add to the fire that will be this film. We now get to make the film.

Aside from the intensity of the process of proving our film ready to be put into action, as well as the creative jolt of energy we put toward the story, the thing I will take away is this – and if it is a cliche, well, so be it: American indie filmmaking is just one fraction of the larger universe that is global independent cinema. There are so many new waves and new cinematic ideas coming from diverse spaces around the world: the (literally) first Arab science fiction film will hopefully be made this year and it will resemble La Jette more than Alien; Israeli and Lebanese films will creatively question identity and trust in ways that American filmmakers do not attempt; South African and Thai projects will (again, literally) expand the concept of cinema in its 21st century form…I guess my point is that telling cinematic stories on micro-budgets not only matters; it is the now…and the future. We’re just thrilled the Biennale Cinema College believes thatMemphis is a valuable part of this now, and that future.

Stream the Gotham Awards 2012

IFP Staff — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:30:07 +0000

The stream begins right here at 7:30PM, Monday November 26th.

Hosted by Mike Birbiglia

Tributes

Matt Damon

Marion Cotillard

David O. Russell

Jeff Skoll

Best Feature

Bernie

Richard Linklater, director; Richard Linklater, Ginger Sledge, Celine Rattray, Martin Shafer, Liz Glotzer, Matt Williams, David McFadzean, Judd Payne, Dete Meserve, producers (Millennium Entertainment)

The Loneliest Planet

Julia Loktev, director; Jay Van Hoy, Lars Knudsen, Helge Albers, Marie Therese Guirgis, producers (Sundance Selects)

The Master

Paul Thomas Anderson, director; Joanne Sellar, Daniel Lupi, Paul Thomas Anderson, Megan Ellison, producers (The Weinstein Company)

Middle of Nowhere

Ava DuVernay, director; Howard Barish, Ava DuVernay, Paul Garnes, producers (AFFRM and Participant Media)

Moonrise Kingdom

Wes Anderson, director; Wes Anderson, Scott Rudin, Steven Rales, Jeremy Dawson, producers (Focus Features)

Best Documentary

Detropia

Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, directors; Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady, Craig Atkinson, producers (Loki Films)

How to Survive a Plague

David France, director; Howard Gertler, David France, producers (Sundance Selects)

Marina Abramović: The Artist is Present

Matthew Akers, director; Jeff Dupre, Maro Chermayeff, producers (HBO Documentary Films and Music Box Films)

Room 237

Rodney Ascher, director; Tim Kirk, producer (IFC Midnight)

The Waiting Room

Peter Nicks, director; Peter Nicks, Linda Davis, William B. Hirsch, producers (International Film Circuit)

Best Ensemble Performance

Bernie

Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, Matthew McConaughey (Millennium Entertainment)

Moonrise Kingdom

Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Jason Schwartzman, Bob Balaban (Focus Features)

Safety Not Guaranteed

Aubrey Plaza, Mark Duplass, Jake Johnson, Karan Soni, Jenica Bergere, Kristen Bell, Jeff Garlin, Mary Lynn Rajskub (Film District)

Silver Linings Playbook

Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker, Anupam Kher, John Ortiz, Julia Stiles, Shea Wigham, Paulie Herman (The Weinstein Company)

Your Sister’s Sister

Emily Blunt, Rosemarie Dewitt, Mark Duplass (IFC Films)

Breakthrough Director

Zal Batmanglij for Sound of My Voice (Fox Searchlight Pictures)

Brian M. Cassidy and Melanie Shatzky for Francine (Factory 25 and The Film Sales Company)

Jason Cortlund and Julia Halperin for Now, Forager (Argot Pictures)

Antonio Méndez Esparza for Aquí y Allá (Here and There) (Torch Films)

Benh Zeitlin for Beasts of the Southern Wild (Fox Searchlight Pictures)

Breakthrough Actor

Mike Birbiglia in Sleepwalk with Me (IFC Films)

Emayatzy Corinealdi in Middle of Nowhere (AFFRM and Participant Media)

Thure Lindhardt in Keep the Lights On (Music Box Films)

Melanie Lynskey in Hello, I Must Be Going (Oscilloscope Laboratories)

Quvenzhané Wallis in Beasts of the Southern Wild (Fox Searchlight Pictures)

Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You

Kid-Thing

David Zellner, director; Nathan Zellner, Producer

An Oversimplification of Her Beauty

Terence Nance, director; Terence Nance, Andrew Corkin, James Bartlett, producers

Red Flag

Alex Karpovsky, director; Alex Karpovsky, Michael Bowes, producers

Sun Don’t Shine

Amy Seimetz, director; Kim Sherman, Amy Seimetz, producers

Tiger Tail in Blue

Frank V. Ross, director; Adam Donaghey, Drew Durepos, producers

IFP at IDFA This Month

IFP Staff — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:35:20 +0000

IFP alumni are showing in full force at International Documentary Festival Amsterdam this week, the world’s largest documentary film festival. 11 features, all alumni of IFP’s Spotlight on Documentaries program, play in the festival. These include Alex Mellier’s Alias Ruby Blade (also an alumnus of IFP’s Documentary Labs), Jay Bulger’s Beware of Mr. Baker, Holly Hardman’s Good People Go To Hell, Saved People Go To Heaven, Kathy Leichter’s Here One Day, Daniel Anker’s Icebound, Jamie Meltzer’s Informant¸ Kahlil Hudson & Tyler Hughen’s Low & Clear, Lori Silverbush & Kristi Jacobson’s A Place at the Table, Peter Friedman’s Poor Consuelo Conquers the World, Lauren Greenfield’s The Queen of Versailles, Sasha Friedlander’s Where Heaven Meets Hell.

Four additional IFP alumni feature works in progress pitch in the IDFA Forum, the international Co-Production Market there: Yance Ford’s Strong Island, Yoruba Richen’s The New Black (SoD12), Hao Wu’s The Road to Fame, and Nancy Kates’ Regarding Susan Sontag.

In addition, IFP programmer Rose Vincelli Gustine will be at the Int’l Documentary Festival Amsterdam, participating in Doc Lab, Forum and other festival events there. For more information about IDFA, and the films, click here.

IFP seeking digital interns!

Justin Ferrato — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:25:17 +0000

IFP @ reRun Internship

IFP, the nation’s oldest and largest non-profit for independent filmmakers, is looking for an intern to work on our newest programming initiative – IFP @ reRun.

Beginning in November 2012, IFP and Filmmaker Magazine will curate and mentor feature films to play at Dumbo, Brooklyn’s reRun Theater (147 Front St.). This program will allow for filmmakers in the process of self-distribution to garner a much-coveted week-long theatrical run in New York City.

Responsibilities include:

*Assisting IFP’s programming staff with project tracking, application review, and press outreach.

*Assisting at screenings throughout the week.

*Assisting in social media, as well as digital and physical marketing efforts.

*Support of other peripheral IFP programs, potentially including our digital media team.

The internship will run 4 months between December 2012 and March 2013.

Qualifications:

- We’re looking for someone who LOVES independent film and would like to get a firsthand look at the theatrical distribution model here in New York.

- We would only consider those who can commit 2-3 days a week with scheduled shifts between 2pm and 10pm.

- This would be an ideal position for someone who would like to gain knowledge about the independent film community in New York, and is interested in the fields of programming, distribution, publicity, marketing, and film criticism.

This is an unpaid position, but college credit, IFP Membership and other benefits are available.

For More information, visit: http://www.ifp.org/jobs/job.php

Interested candidates should send cover letter and resume to Justin Ferrato, Digital Media Coordinator, jferrato@ipf.org

Digital Media Internship

We’re looking for an intern to be an integral part of the IFP digital communications team, working on all aspects of digital communications including:

- Writing and developing content for our social media channels including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube

- Working extensively on our YouTube channel to organize videos, manage release dates and promote through our other social media feeds

- Data entry for upcoming videos, scheduled tweets, scheduled posts etc.

- Research for potential outreach partners in the YouTube community and wider social community

- Light video editing including adding bumpers/annotations at the end of YouTube videos

- Opportunity for do camera and editing work for upcoming IFP original video content

- Possibly assisting in physically attending our reRun theater to track admission sales·

The internship will run 2-4 months between December 2012 and March 2013.

Qualifications:

Our ideal candidate would be:

- Savvy in the social media space or have a vested interest in improving their working knowledge of growing and engaging online audiences.

- An aspiring filmmaker with a passion for both film and the filmmaking community.

- Someone who can dedicate 2-3 days a week to be in the office, with a chance of receiving a 2pm-10pm shift on occasion.

- Either in school or someone who just finished school.

IFP has been a launch pad for many successful films and industry professionals, and there is room for growth in many intern positions.

This is an unpaid position, but college credit, IFP Membership and other benefits are available.

For More information, visit: http://www.ifp.org/jobs/job.php.

Interested candidates should send cover letter and resume to Justin Ferrato, Digital Media Coordinator, jferrato@ifp.org

Domestic Distribution Part 3: Home Video Formulas

Mark Litwak — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:06:14 +0000

There are many formulas for home video deals, but most fall within three patterns. The first deal allows the distributor to retain a percentage of Gross Receipts as a distribution fee, and to recoup certain designated marketing expenses from film revenues, with the remaining balance, if any, paid to the filmmaker. I will call this formula a “standard distribution deal,” although there is nothing standard about it except for the fact that these deals calculate the distributor’s fee as a percentage of Gross Receipts. Another type of deal, sometimes referred to as a “50-50 net deal,” allows the distributor to first recoup its expenses from Gross Receipts off the top, and then share the remaining amount 50/50 with the filmmaker. A third type of deal is known as a “royalty deal,” where the filmmaker gets a percentage of the wholesale price of every DVD sold. The percentage is negotiable, but often is in the range of 20-25%. Here, all expenses incurred are irrelevant in calculating the filmmaker’s share because they are borne by the distributor.

Which type of deal is best for a filmmaker? That depends on how much revenue is generated, the amount of expenses and whether they are capped, and the size of distribution fees. Let us consider three different scenarios.

First, suppose $1,000,000 is generated in Gross Receipts from sales and rentals of DVDs. Gross Receipts for the home video media are generally defined as the wholesale revenues received, less any returns. If the suggested retail price of a DVD is twenty dollars, the wholesale price would be about half or ten dollars. However, prices are negotiable and Wal-Mart is known to drive a hard bargain and pay substantially less for DVD’s.

Under a standard distribution deal with a 25% distribution fee and recoupment of $100,000 in expenses, a filmmaker would receive $650,000. Under a 50/50 net deal, with the same Gross Receipts and cap on recoupable expenses, the filmmaker would receive $450,000. Under a royalty deal with a 20% royalty, the filmmaker receives $200,000. Clearly the standard distribution deal appears to be the better choice.

But now suppose the film generated $175,000 in Gross Receipts. With the same distribution fee and expenses, the filmmaker receives $31,250 under the standard distribution deal, $37,500 under a 50/50 net deal, and $35,000 under a royalty deal. In this case, the 50/50 net deal delivers the most revenue to the filmmaker.

Now, consider a third scenario with only $100,000 in Gross Receipts and the same distribution fee and expenses. Here, the filmmaker receives zero under either a standard distribution deal or the 50/50 net deal. However, under a royalty deal, the filmmaker receives $20,000. The fact that distribution fees and expenses now outweigh Gross Receipts is irrelevant in a royalty deal, because the filmmaker gets 20% of the wholesale price, no matter the extent of fees and expenses incurred. Moreover, under a royalty deal, there is little room for a distributor to engage in creative accounting. Once you determine how many units have been sold, and determine their price, a simple calculation reveals what the producer is due. Many creative accounting disputes concern the deduction of expenses which is irrelevant in a royalty deal, since expenses are not counted in calculating the producer’s share of revenue.

Consequently, the best choice for the filmmaker depends on a number of factors especially how much revenue is generated; which is unknown when the deal is negotiated. Since none of these types of deals is always best, it is important for the filmmaker to pencil out the numbers before deciding which formula they want. Most deals are more complicated to assess because they cover multiple media, and the distributor’s fee varies by media (i.e., 35% for theatrical, 25% for broadcast television). Moreover, domestic distributors usually insist on cross-collateralizing expenses among media. Thus, if there is a loss on the theatrical release but a net gain on television, then the revenue and expenses are pooled. This enables the distributor to recoup its theatrical loss from television revenue. Particular care must be taken when the home video arrangement is a royalty deal that does not allow deduction of expenses. These royalties should not be offset against expenses incurred in other media.

DVD’s are sold on consignment, meaning the buyers can return any product for a 100% refund. Sometimes large numbers of DVD’s are returned. Therefore, most distributors insist on holding back some revenues as a reserve to make sure they do not pay the filmmaker a share of revenue based on sales that are returned. DVD sales are dominated by mass merchants like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target. However, only a few companies have a direct relationship with Wal-Mart, therefore the other distributors have to go through an intermediary such as Anderson Merchandisers.

One should also keep in mind that while home video sales have been declining VOD sales have grown. Some home video companies manufacture a limited number of DVD’s, or none at all, and focus on distributing the film digitally through NetFlix, Amazon, and other outlets. Without the cost of manufacturing, these deals can be quite profitable. However, one has to be careful in licensing rights to avoid conflicts and maximize revenues. The filmmaker may only want to grant VOD rights on a non-exclusive basis. Moreover, filmmakers can often negotiate with a home video company to retain the right to sell their film directly to the public from their own website.

Let me offer one final piece of advice. Filmmakers should never sign a short form deal memo to be followed by a long form contract. Once you sign a short form, you may have a binding contract with the distributor. When the long form arrives, if you do not like some of the provisions, you may have a big problem. If the distributor refuses to make the changes you want, you have an agreement but not on the terms you want. Your options are not good. You cannot easily disavow the deal memo, yet you may not want to proceed without certain terms in the long form. A short form deal memo is short because many terms are left out. By agreeing to the short form, you are agreeing to a deal without knowing all its terms. Therefore, you should insist on going directly to a long form. If you are unable to work out all the terms to your satisfaction, you can walk away with all your rights unencumbered. Many distributors try to get filmmakers to commit to a short form deal memo because it is easier to negotiate. Nonetheless, if and when the long form arrives, the filmmaker cannot just walk away. The short form often does not include such provisions as a detailed audit and accounting clause. If there is a dispute between the filmmaker and a distributor, a judge will not insert terms that he/she thinks are fair. The contract is only those terms agreed upon by the parties.

Mark will be speaking about distributing independent film at the SPADA (Screen Production and Development Association) annual conference November 22, 2012 in Wellington, New Zealand.

Call for Entries: Rotterdam Producers Fellowship 2013

IFP Staff — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:04:42 +0000

Through its long-standing partnership with CineMart, IFP annually selects two producers to participate in the Rotterdam Lab, which runs concurrently with the CineMart co-production market, January 27-30, 2013. The Fellowship is open to producers with at least one narrative feature producing credit who are current IFP Members at any level.

The Rotterdam Lab, a four-day training workshop for producers, is designed to build up their international network and experience. It is an initiative of the International Film Festival Rotterdam’s CineMart in cooperation with its international partnering organizations. The Rotterdam Lab consists of panel discussions illustrating the process by which a project in need of financing is completed and brought to its audience, as well as speed dating sessions in which selected producers meet with industry delegates in person and receive advice about their own projects. In addition, Rotterdam Lab producers participate in all other aspects of CineMart, including networking lunches, cocktails, and other panels.

IFP’s recent past participants have included: Matthew Parker (Higher Ground), Adele Romanski (The Myth of the American Sleepover), Jason Orans (Night Catches Us), Nekisa Cooper (Pariah), Alicia Van Couvering (Tiny Furniture), Anish Savjani (Meek’s Cutoff), and Mynette Louie (Children of Invention).

For more information about the Rotterdam Lab, go here.

For selected producers, IFP covers the cost of accreditation and hotel accommodations; producers must cover their own airfare and additional expenses.

To apply for this fellowship, please send your one-page letter of inquiry stating relevant producing experience, as well as why you are uniquely qualified to receive this fellowship and resume to IFP Producer & Program Manager Rose Vincelli Gustine, rvincelli@ifp.org by Friday, November 16. We will notify all applicants of their acceptance status by Friday, November 30.

Producer Peter Phok on the job of being a Producer

Dan Schoenbrun — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:45:37 +0000

Producer Peter Phok talks to the National Film Society about his love of producing and his lack of sleep.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more videos like this!

www.youtube.com/ifpdigital

Domestic Distribution Part 2

Mark Litwak — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:27:55 +0000

The goal for many filmmakers is nothing less than to see their film shown in a theater. Theatrical distributors typically advance all marketing and distribution costs and, for highly desirable films, may provide the producer with an advance payment or minimum guarantee (“MG”). These payments are recoupable but not refundable. That means the distributor can reimburse itself its advances from revenues before paying the filmmaker his share of revenue, but if the film bombs and there is not enough revenue for the distributor to recoup its advance and expenses, the filmmaker does not have to refund payments received. If the advance is sufficient to repay one’s investors, then the filmmaker has effectively transferred all financial risk to the distributor. This is a desirable but increasingly rare occurrence. Nowadays, many distributors will only offer a small advance or no advance when seeking to acquire a title for distribution. The distributor will argue that it is advancing marketing and distribution costs and that is enough, thank you.

If a domestic distributor is willing to take the plunge and release a film theatrically, it will almost always insist on securing ancillary rights for home video and television media. A theatrical release, even for a hit film, often generates less revenue than its costs because of the substantial expense for prints and advertising (P & A): a 35 mm print costs $1200 to $1500. Thus, a major studio releasing a film on 4,000 screens will spend $6 million dollars. Shipping heavy film canisters has cost major studios up to $450 million a year. On top of that, the price of a single full page advertisement in the New York Times can add another hundred thousand dollars.

However, print outlays are plummeting as theaters convert to digital projection. 77% of screens in the USA now have systems that can exhibit a digital copy, which costs about $150. The savings are so enormous that the studios have been subsidizing the conversion to digital projectors by paying exhibitors “virtual print fees.” While many theaters have taken advantage of this subsidy, the studios have announced that they will soon phase out this support. Smaller theaters face a terrible dilemma. If 35 mm prints are no longer available, and they cannot afford a digital system, which can cost $150,000, they will go out of business. In a few years, it may be difficult to view a movie on celluloid. Eastman Kodak has filed for bankruptcy, and hundreds of art house cinemas are predicted to go out of business. This can only make it more difficult for independent filmmakers to secure a theatrical release. Screen Digest predicts that almost all screens will be digital by 2015.

Aside from wide releases, even a limited release to a hundred theaters can cost a million dollars or more. If a film is released digitally, the print costs are dramatically reduced, but the advertising outlays remain the same. Consequently, a distributor that bears the financial risk of a theatrical release will insist on securing the rights to home video and television media to offset any theatrical losses. These so-called ancillary media are usually more profitable than the theatrical release. A film that becomes known to the public as a result of its theatrical run does not require much more publicity for its home video release. And, television exhibition is the most profitable of all.

When a distributor licenses a film to a cable channel it does not incur any advertising expenses because the channel promotes its own programming. The seller simply negotiates the deal and delivers a copy of the film, which is often returned after the cable television window expires.

The sequence of release windows is also changing. Traditionally, films were first exhibited in theaters, followed months later by home video (DVD’s), followed by a release to television beginning with Pay TV, VOD, and eventually free television. The order of these windows was intended to maximize revenue. However, a release that generates maximum revenue for a distributor does not necessarily do the same for the exhibitor. Distributors want to capitalize on public awareness arising from the theatrical release by quickly issuing the film into the home video market. A short delay also inhibits piracy because illegal sales are more likely as long as there is no legitimate way to buy a DVD.

Some distributors have gone so far as to experiment with a simultaneous release in theaters and in home video. However, theater owners strongly object to such releases or any shortening of the gap between windows, arguing that moviegoers are less likely to buy box office tickets if they know the film will soon be available on DVD. The gap from the end of the theatrical release to the start of the home video release has been falling and now is in the range of 90 to 120 days.

In 2011, Universal Pictures attempted to release its movie “Tower Heist” on Comcast’s Video–on-Demand three weeks after its theatrical debut. The Regal and AMC theater chains objected and the third largest theater chain, Cinemark, refused to book the picture at all if it was available on VOD so soon after its debut. This caused Universal to back down and cancel the VOD release.

As mentioned earlier, exhibitors and distributors have competing interests. The exhibitor and distributor enter into a lengthy and complex agreement, which sets out how they share revenue. The agreement may require the exhibitor to give certain advances or guarantees to the distributor to secure a film. Additionally, the exhibitor may agree to play the film for a minimum number of weeks. In the past, a distributor releasing a major motion picture would split revenues on a sliding scale, with a 90/10 ratio for the first few weeks after the theater owner deducted its overhead costs. The distributor received 90% of the revenue and the exhibitor 10%. In subsequent weeks, the split would become more favorable for the exhibitor, shifting to 70/30, 60/40, or 50/50.

This sliding scale formula gave exhibitors an incentive to retain the picture for a long run. As the weeks pass, the exhibitor’s share increases. Of course, for major studio films, revenues tend to drop sharply after the initial few weeks. Giving the exhibitor a larger share of revenue in later weeks makes sense because the distributor wants to encourage the theatre owner to exhibit the film as long as possible.

However, major studios have now adopted a new formula for sharing revenue with exhibitors. The revenues are split according to the magnitude of the overall national box office. The distributor receives 48% to 63% of box office receipts, with more receipts earning the distributor a larger percentage. On average, a major studio receives 53% of the box office gross. For art house fare, distributors average around 45%. The exhibitor no longer has the same incentive to hold a picture, and pictures tend to be released wider and pay off faster. For major studio films, 80% of the box office revenue is often received in the first two weeks of a picture’s release.

One aspect of exhibition has not changed. The exhibitor retains 100% of all sales at the concession stand. This is a major profit center for theaters; it can be said that theater owners are really in the fast food business. The candy and popcorn they sell have huge profit margins. However, nobody goes to the theater for the food. So, theater owners have an incentive to fill the house with a lot of moviegoers, even if they only earn a relative minor portion of the ticket price. This is why they prefer major studio films designed for mass consumption rather than art house fare that appeals to a niche audience.

Another ongoing struggle is whether movies should be released on DVD before being offered for digital download. The major studios find digital downloads quite profitable because they avoid all manufacturing and shipping costs. 20th Century Fox released Ridley Scott’s sci-fi thriller “Prometheus” for HD download on Sept. 18, 2012, three weeks before its release on DVD. The film was made available through Amazon, iTunes, Vudu, Xbox, and CinemaNow. Sony and the Weinstein Company have also experimented with early digital releases.

The economics of independent films have become increasingly tricky. Due to a flood of independent films, licensing fees have declined, and many specialty distributors have disappeared. Filmmakers can no longer expect to auction their film off to the highest bidder at Sundance or Toronto. This occasionally occurs for a breakout film, but it is hardly the norm, even for films shown at top festivals. Hence, instead of an all-rights deal with one domestic distributor, many filmmakers end up opting for “split rights” deals. Rather than one deal with a domestic distributor that controls all media in North America, the filmmaker enters into a series of deals with different distributors, each of which is granted limited rights. This can benefit the filmmaker, because with several distributors, there is no cross-collateralization of expenses against revenue. So, if the home video release loses money, those losses would not be recouped by the home video distributor from TV sales controlled by a different company.

Although a theatrical release is risky, it is important for building awareness and prestige that filmmakers sometimes book their films directly into theaters. A rent-a-distributor or “service” deal is an arrangement in which the producer bears the marketing costs of releasing a film theatrically. Traditionally, distributors cover these costs, whether the title is one they produced or acquired from an independent producer. With a service deal, the producer is essentially renting the distribution apparatus and bearing all distribution costs. The distributor is willing to receive a reduced distribution fee — perhaps half of the traditional 35% — in return for not advancing any expenses. The producer assumes all financial risk. One of my clients recently self-released a documentary on 80 screens at a cost of $600,000. While it did not earn back its distribution costs from the theatrical release alone, the film became a best-selling documentary on Amazon and received substantial license fees from Netflix and other outlets.

For a distributor, such a deal makes sense if there is an open slot in its release schedule. Many distribution and marketing staff are full time permanent employees, and if the distributor does not have a title to release one month, the staff must nevertheless be paid. Why would a producer bear the financial risk of releasing a film theatrically? Often, it is because there is no other alternative as no distributor is willing to bear the costs to release the film in the traditional manner. It bears noting that relatively few independent films nowadays secure a theatrical release. Indeed, many indies are unable to secure distribution in any media.

Another reason a filmmaker may desire a theatrical release is because it will generate more attention than if the picture is released directly to home video and television. Many publications will not review a film unless it opens theatrically in their region. Therefore, a theatrical release, even if unprofitable by itself, can boost television and home video revenues. There have been some spectacular self-release successes including Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” This picture cost $30 million to produce, $15 million to market, and generated more than $600 million. In its first weekend, the film reportedly earned $83 million in the United States.

Another method used to get films into theaters is known as a “four wall” release. This is an arrangement between the producer and theater owner that bypasses the distributor. Here, the filmmaker rents the theater from the exhibitor and takes the financial risk that is normally borne by the distributor and exhibitor. The filmmaker, in turn, retains all the box office receipts. If a lot of tickets are sold, the filmmaker can do well. However, if ticket sales are meager, the filmmaker can suffer disastrous losses, since the filmmaker is paying for the theater, as well as bearing all print and advertising costs.

Self-distribution not only requires money, but enormous time and effort. Most successful campaigns require the filmmaker to be available for media interviews, develop a rich website, conduct research to find and reach out to their audience, and accompany the film to openings. Some filmmakers earn additional income through speaking fees, websites, and DVD screenings.

The theatrical release, while often difficult to secure and expensive, can significantly help a filmmaker advance their career. The exposure gained from one film can induce investors or a studio to finance their next project.

Self Defense Seminar with Mark Litwak, Date: October 20, 2012

This seminar explains how writers and filmmakers can prevent problems from arising by properly securing underlying rights, and by encouraging the other party to live up to agreements by adding performance milestones, default penalties, and arbitration clauses. Details available here.

An Independent Filmmaker at the Firehouse

Francisco Bello — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:08:12 +0000

I came to know DCTV as many New York based filmmakers do. I’d attended some panels hosted by groups like IFP. I’d rented gear on the 2nd floor for some local shoots. I walked by the firehouse and marveled at the architecture of that old building flanked by drab government buildings to the south, and the kinetic energy of Canal Street to the north. In those days I honestly didn’t think much of it beyond its existence as a part of the landscape of other filmmaker co-ops and such groups, sadly, most of which are no longer around today. DCTV was certainly alive and kicking, that much I could tell from these brush encounters. But that changed when I ended up forming a closer relationship with DCTV and its team.

Along with one of my filmmaking partners, Tim Sternberg, we were commissioned by HBO Documentary Films to make a piece about a salsa dance school in Spanish Harlem, Santo Rico. Tim and I being sort of “rookies” in the HBO stable of doc producers, Sheila Nevins thought that Tim and I would work well with some of her regulars, Jon Alpert and Matt O’Neill. And so we set up an office in the atrium with Matt, Jon, Shannon Sonenstein, Reina Higashitani, a fireman’s pole and a stable of dogs of various sizes (Big Al being the biggest of them all – may he rest in peace). A few months later, Tim, Jon, Matt and I came out with the film, “El Espíritu de la Salsa.” Jon was, and is, a force of nature; Matt whip smart and diligent. We became friends and together made a fun little movie.

While the salsa film was wrapping, I was being brought back into the final round of work on another film I had been producing and editing with another filmmaking partner, Rebecca Richman Cohen. That movie, “War Don Don,” had been in the making for over two years at the time, and we needed to get back to the final round of editing. So for the sake of convenience (and probably my sanity) Rebecca and I set up an edit suite on DCTV’s 2nd floor. I would split my time between the production office upstairs for salsa, and the edit of “War Don Don” below. I got a lot of exercise running up and down the stairs. It was a hard film to make, but “War Don Don” ended up having quite a run. This was certainly aided by the ease with which we were able to work on our edit at DCTV in those final challenging (aren’t they always?) weeks of work.

Rebecca and I ended up coming back to DCTV for the final round of editing our next film, “Code of the West.” DCTV was familiar territory by this point, and we were able to get the same room we’d used for “War Don Don,” an accommodation that was greatly appreciated. Cutting a film is an exercise in the unknown, so any way to sneak in a little bit of the familiar into the process is a big deal to me. After an emotional production full or tragic twists and turns, “Code of the West” continues its festival run to this date, and has had some unexpectedly positive effects in the lives of one of its main characters, medical marijuana lobbyist and former business owner Tom Daubert (you can learn more at the film’s website: www.codeofthewestfilm.com, in the News tab).

I’m not sure how many folks have been able to experience DCTV as both a producing partner and as an editorial client, but what I’ve learned makes DCTV what it is, is the people that work there. I’ve worked in a bunch of shops over the years, but what makes this place different is the level of passion you feel in the air. Between the youth media education programs, edit suites, professional development courses and rentals on the second floor, to the screening room, and production offices on the third floor and atrium, it’s hard to believe there’s so much going on in that old firehouse. I hope DCTV continues to do what it’s done for the past 40 years, and I’m grateful to have been (even a tiny) part of it.

If only they could put that fireman’s pole to better use…

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

Nekisa Cooper on Financing Pariah

Jacob Appet — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:59:01 +0000

[See post to watch Flash video]

Nekisa Cooper on being relentless about funding.

Conference Keynotes Live Broadcast on YouTube

IFP Staff — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:16:35 +0000

Click Here to Access the Video Stream (will be active Sunday, 9/16)

September 16-20

IFP has launched a new YouTube channel premiering with live broadcasts of the IFP Conference.

Keynotes streamed live include:

James Schamus (CEO of Focus Features)& Christine Vachon (Producer, Killer Films) Sunday, September 16^th @ 4PMET

JC Chandor (Director, Margin Call) Monday, September 17^th @ 10AM ET

Michel Reilhac (Transmedia Producer)- Wednesday, September 19^th @ 10AM ET

Orlando Bagwell (Ford Foundation)- Thursday, September 20^th @ 10AM ET

Subscribe to IFP Digital for reminders of these events AND for new videos on filmmaking every Tuesday and Thursday!

Apply Now for IFP’s Rio Market Fellowship

IFP Staff — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:55:03 +0000

The IFP / Rio Market Fellowship is a week-long program which runs concurrently with the Rio International Film Festival in October 2012. Conceived to boost international co-productions and encourage production in Latin America, the fellowship with LATC will be offering many formal and informal networking opportunities specific to our IFP delegation to assist U.S. producers in finding partners for their projects and expanding their international contacts.

IFP will select up to three American independent producers to participate in their Rio Market; Open to emerging and established feature producers and filmmakers, the Fellowship will cover the cost of full program registration fees and 4 nights hotel accommodations for the selected participants (airfare not included).

Applicants should have at least one feature-film producing credit and be a current IFP member. Applicants should clearly state why they are interested in participating by citing either a history of Latin American co-production experience OR current projects in their slate that require Latin American and/or Spanish Language co-production partners. Documentary and Narrative producers are welcome.

If you – or someone you know – is interested in consideration for the program should apply with a one-page letter of interest describing the project(s) that would be presented and a resume to Amy Dotson, Deputy Director, IFP, at adotson@ifp.org by Tuesday, August 14th.

Distribution 101 – Foreign Sales Agents

Mark Litwak — Wed, 23 May 2012 17:48:51 +0000

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.

Could Tugg Be For You?

filmpresence — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:53:11 +0000

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.

The Benefits of a Music Supervisor :: Interview with Carrie Hughes

Jordan Passman — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:42:30 +0000

Music supervisors are a tremendous resource for any type of media project. This interview is dedicated to displaying their value in our current industry. Carrie Hughes may very well be the QUEEN music supervisor for reality television.

She has worked on such TV Shows as The Sing Off, Fashion Star, The Hills, The Hard Times of RJ Berger, The Real L Word, America’s Best Dance Crew, Braxton Family Values and upcoming projects Wake Brothers and Buck Wild as a music supervisor.

——————————————-

Jordan Passman: Let’s start with the basics: What is a music supervisor and why would I need one for my project?

Carrie Hughes: A music supervisor oversees all aspects of music in a project. This includes creative decisions such as shaping the signature sound of the show. This is done often in conjunction with a composer and based on direction from the executives. We work to clear all the songs used in a project. We track the cost of all music related expenses to make sure the production does not go over budget. We also manage delivery schedules with composers etc..

Every project should have a music supervisor, no matter what. I can’t tell you how many times I have been called to “clean up” a show that didn’t hire a music sup initially. The bottom line is most producers and editors (love em all) don’t know any real truth about clearance…there are so many mis conceptions out there…”I thought we could use it for like 10 seconds before we have to clear it”…”but the network has an ascap license isn’t that all we need?”..”but they are my friend and said it was cool”. I could go on and on!

I have also encountered multiple projects that just have artists sign materials releases, which is completely different than a master or sync license and completely invalid for music licensing. If you need a financial reason Music Supervisors have the experience and knowledge to know what things cost so when you have a music supervisor on a project you can rest easy that you are getting the best deal.

Lastly there is the creative aspect, we can offer insight on music that the average person can’t. We can take a project to the next level musically and have a substantial impact on the show overall. I like to give The Real L Word as an example, season one did not have a music supervisor it was basically all library music. Season 2 they brought me in and we completely revamped the shows musically. It’s one of the projects I am most proud of, there were so many comments online about how much better the show was with the new music direction, that was such a great feeling for me and really shows how a show can benefit from someone thinking about music. Additionally we are in constant contact with labels and publishers so we know what is being released before the general public and can incorporate that into a project to give it a fresh sound. I also think we as music supervisors are generally less biased when it comes to music placement. We are trained to step back and examine the placement and how it works for the project overall versus just putting in a favorite song. Anyway there are about a million more reasons why you should always hire a music supervisor but I’ll stop there.

JP: How much money should I set aside for licensing music and hiring a music supervisor on my tv show? (I’ve heard your music budget should be 10% of your total budget– is that an accurate rule of thumb?)

CH: It depends, every project is different. I have heard that 10% number before as well but I have no idea where it came from. It really depends on the creative vision of the show and the type of show. Show’s like America’s Best Dance Crew or The Sing Off had to have a decent music budget because they are very music driven whereas shows like Around The World in 80 Plates has a much smaller music budget and relies primarily on composed score. This is another reason you should hire or at least consult with a music supervisor before you budget your project. You need to determine what the musical vision for the show is, how many songs do you plan to use and for what rights do you need to clear, all that factors into the budget. You may determine you can’t afford the music you want for the rights you need so maybe the show needs to do a rescore in which any pop music is replaced with library music for dvd’s or syndication airings. That is what we did with the hills, they used all major label pop songs in the main broadcast version and then I had to rescore everything with cheaper alternative songs for the dvd’s, so there are just many factors and discussions that should happen before you budget a show that it is impossible to give a general number or percentage.

As for budgeting to hire a supervisor it can vary, some sups get paid weekly, some per episode and everyones rates are different. It’s similar to producers, both parties just have to negotiate to where they are happy.

JP: Allow me to play dumb for a moment–If I am currently using a very famous song, and it works perfectly with my scene, can I just use it? What are the repercussions if I don’t pay for it? What’s the broad range of fees for music licensing (from baby bands to stadium rockers)?

CH: No you can not just use it. Repercussions would be rather expensive lawsuits. Licensing fees have such a broad range because it all depends on the level of the artists, the type of use, the rights you are requesting it can be as low as $500 for an indie band up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for bigger bands.

JP: The price of a song will always vary depending on the terms of use within the project…what terms of use do you suggest going after for lower budget indie projects?

CH: Well you can deal with lower budgets a few ways. For TV if you can reduce the rights you are clearing for to maybe TV only for 2 years that is significantly cheaper than clearing for All Media/World Wide/Perpetuity, but then you do have to figure out a plan if you intend to put the show on itunes or dvd and what you will do once the 2 year term is up. You can also reduce the number of songs you use, If you were hoping to use 5 per episode maybe you can only afford 2 but cleared for the broad rights. Lastly you can use cheaper music, there is so much great indie music that works just as well as major label pop music but can be licensed for significantly less. Certain shows can’t get away with that like Dance Crew, Sing Off, Fashion Star, those are big stage shows that people want to hear big recognizable pop songs in but we use all indie stuff in Real L Word and it works very well. So there is always a way to work with a small budget it’s just a matter of prioritizing.

JP: Do you still see value in music soundtracks? Are these a potential moneymaking avenue for a show or indie film today?

CH: I think there is definitely value in soundtracks, just look at the Twilight soundtrack or Glee. I think the key is having something special to offer and making sure that the project is the right project to put out a soundtrack. Not every show should do a soundtrack, it should be a show where music is a key element otherwise it doesn’t make sense. It should also be mutually beneficial to the artists and the company putting it out. For example we discussed putting out a soundtrack for The Real L Word but given our low music budget we use all unsigned artists on that show so would that make for good soundtrack sales? I don’t know. I’d like to think it would do well just based on the reaction of the audience to the music in last season but at the end of the day there is more to it than that. We wouldn’t have a custom track by Bruno Mars to help promote it and we are also not a network powerhouse show like Glee so is the money we would have to put into marketing it worth it? We decided no at this point but maybe we’ll re-evalutate after season 3, who knows!. But I do think if done right they are great for fans of music and as another tool to promote a project or have an additional revenue stream.

JP: What song is stuck in your head right now?

CH: Gotye “Somebody That I Used To Know”…because it’s on the radio every two seconds, it’s ok though I am not sick of yet.

JP: What are some of your favorite bands right now?

CH: I have quite a few I feel like there is a lot of great music out right now

Gotye

Fun.

The Cadillac Black

Chiddy Bang

Of Monsters And Men

Gary Clark Jr

Ghost Beach

A Silent Film (this is a band I have known for years and licensed for a few projects they recently got signed to EMI and are putting out new material, I love them)

Firefox AK (used them on Real L Word last season, they also just got signed to EMI! I get excited when indie bands I have used get signed!)

Stepdad

Amtrac

Sammy Adams

I guess I’ll stop there.

JP: Where is the best music on TV right now?

CH: I loved song selections in How To Make It In America, Shameless, Sons Of Anarchy, The Secret Circle, just to name a few. Those are the shows I am most excited about as a music supervisor I feel like every single song placement on those shows is perfect! The music sups on those do a phenomenal job!

JP: THANK YOU!!!

IFP Congratulates Its Alumni at Hot Docs

Dan Schoenbrun — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:29:42 +0000

IFP would like to congratulate its alumni filmmakers with IFP-supported projects at the 2012 Hot Docs International Documentary Film Festival and Hot Docs Forum, taking place April 26th to May 6^th in Toronto:

Festival

Beware of Mr. Baker; dir. Jay Bulger

Brooklyn Castle; dir. Katie Dellamaggiore

Call Me Kuchu; dir. Malika Zouhali Worrell & Katherine Fairfax Wright

Finding North; dir. Kristi Jacobson

Herman’s House; dir. Angad Bhalla

High Tech, Low Life; dir. Stephen Maing

Inocente; dir. Sean Fine & Andrea Nix Fine

Laura; dir. Fellipe Barbosa

The List; dir. Beth Murphy

Low and Clear; dir. Kahlil Hudson & Tyler Hughen

The Queen of Versailles; dir. Lauren Greenfield

The Revisionaries; dir. Scott Thurman

United in Anger: A History of ACT UP; dir. Jim Hubbard

Welcome to the Machine; dir. Avi Zev Weider

Where Heaven Meets Hell; dir. Sasha Friedlander

Wildness; dir. Wu Tsang

Hot Docs Forum

Let the Fire Burn; dir. Jason Osder

These Birds Walk; dir. Bassam Tariq & Omar Mullick

For full festival schedule and more information, click here.

IFP Alumni at Tribeca 2012

Dan Schoenbrun — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:48:19 +0000

IFP would like to congratulate its alumni filmmakers with projects at the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival, taking place April 18th to the 29th in Manhattan:

Don’t Stop Believin’, Everyman’s Journey, dir. Ramona S. Diaz

Fame High, dir. Scott Hamilton Kennedy

Future Weather, dir. Jenny Deller

High Tech, Low Life, dir. Stephen Maing

Joe Papp in Five Acts, dir. Tracie Holder

The List, dir. Beth Murphy

Nancy, Please, dir. Andrew Semans

Portrait of Wally, dir. Andrew Shea

The Revisionaries, dir. Scott Thurman

Una Noche, dir. Lucy Mulloy

IFP has also partnered with the Tribeca Film Festival to co-present screenings of two of its alumni films – Lucy Mulloy’s Una Noche and Stephen Maing’s High Tech, Low Life.

An alumni of the 2011 Documentary Labs, High Tech, Low Life tells the story of two rogue citizen journalists in China who challenge the status quo and push the boundaries of free speech by reporting on censored news stories. Premiering Thursday, 4/19 in Tribeca’s World Documentary Competition, more info on showtimes and tickets can be found here.

An alumni of the 2010 Narrative Labs, Una Noche is the harrowing tale of two Cuban teens tantalized by the idea of fleeing the confines of their broken-down country for a new life in Miami.Premiering Thursday, 4/19 in Tribeca’s World Narrative Competition, more info on showtime and tickets can be found here.