Ten Steps (Plus One) For How To Survive The Current Indie Producer Hell

In my indie film Black Light, porn star bella vendetta goes mainstream.
Two years of blood sweat and tears and Black Light is finished. When it was released on dvd six weeks ago at amazon.com, I was exhilarated. I'm proud of all the artisans who donated their time and talents for the love of the craft and for their belief in this film.Black Light was made in the seventies style of indie filmmaking. It had a ten thousand dollar budget.
Nikki Blue (Bella Vendetta) is a dancer at Club Castaway, a strip club hidden along a back road in rural New England. Further down the road, Alice (Jessica Conger), a burnt-out, neurotic college grad with no particular ambitions, spends her days working at a roadside fossil and rock shop.When Nikki and Alice meet a friendship begins that could change their lives forever. Shot entirely in western ma., Black Light is a sweet, sexy, romantic comedy about finding love in the middle of nowhere. See the trailer on youtube. I hope you like it! If you do, please tell a friend and help a fellow indie out. Thanks! http://www.youtube.com/watch#!....

I saw a lot of films in film school that one will probably ever want to see again. That's what film school is for though, watching what came before and influenced generations of filmmakers.

But, the fact is, Filmmaking is an art form unlike many others in that it must have a built-in or intended audience willing to pay money for it. And, the first money paid is going to be a distributor. The second money is going to be an audience. And you're not going to get that first money if it's not 'entertaining' first and foremost as 'entertainment'. That's what films are. Art and Entertainment (just not in that order).

Filmmakers have to be smarter and have an audience in mind. Think about marketing strategies and have an eye toward how your film can actually make money with today's audiences and multi-screen theaters in a world already crowded with way too many movies. It kind of doesn't matter if they're great or not. You're competing with them. So, yours has to be great!

I remember when theaters had one screen. It wasn't that long ago (or so I'd like to think) But, now if you're just making a movie and hope only one person is moved by it then you're completely wasting your time, and the medium. Film is a medium that can reach millions. And, with today's technology anyone can upload a trailer, clips..etc...to promote to those potential millions and begin creating/finding an audience.
Get on Youtube, GoogleVideo, Facebook, etc...

We have to be smarter as filmmakers and quite honestly if you're making films no one wants to see you might as well be painting in your living room and never show your art to anyone because you're having the same effect on the world. So, make the films, and tell the stories you want to tell in a more integrated commercially viable way that will appeal to a broader niche of filmgoers.

Otherwise, don't complain. Because the option for success is there. You just have to take advantage of those options.

To clarify just a little bit:
when I said budgets of $50 or $500 and "no one was paid" what it means is that one person, myself, is the producer/writer(if - I prefer to improvise)/cinematographer/sound recordist/editor/SFX guy/grip/schlepp etc. Of late my wife Marcella has been helping out, mostly editing and holding mike when useful.
The actors are not fed a line of future %, they are told up front that in all probability there will be no money, some fest screenings, and zip. However, because of the way I work it is interesting, creative, fun, good learning situation, and the results are serious and something worth being in and showing to others. I do not lack for eager actors willing to work under these circumstances - I wish I could pay them but it ain't in the cards. As it is, whatever a film does cost, it's out of my pocket, plus all the time, energy, work, and that goes on long after the film is over - burning DVDs at home, mailing them out, etc.

Now for those of you if you haven't seen these, who likely think these must be rough crude things and no wonder he can't sell them, let me say they are technically clean, inventive, formalistic, look for the most part like clean 35mm, sound is good, music if there's music is too. They get shown at major fests (Venice, Rotterdam, Berlin) and lesser ones too. And they don't make a dime.
And they won't make a dime.
Twenty years ago the same or similar films could count on sales maybe from $20-$100K; no more. Not in the cards. And so pay is not in the cards.
When you talk about sustaining an industry you are talking about making COMMERCIAL FILMS in the present cultural climate. COMMERCIAL work is the only thing which our wonderful Market Economy Religion will allow to survive. So if you want to sustain a community of PROFESSIONAL FILM INDUSTRY people, then go work commercial. They get paid very very well. But, pace the last comment from anonymous, you CAN choose to not join the corporation, live on less, and NOT STARVE. It is hard, it is costly in many respects, but it CAN be done.
If you want to read a bit about the films so made see www.jon-jost.com
Jon Jost www.jonjost.wordpress.com

You can make money if you make crap. This is a reflection of a larger problem in American society. Doing the wrong thing is highly rewarded. For someone from a middle class background your options are very limited, since many highly desirable jobs in medicine, law, education, foreign affairs, simply don't pay a living wage. Plus they require an expensive education.

You can no longer choose to make less and live an ethical life, because these days it means choosing to starve. If you want to eat, you join the corporation, in Hollywood or on Wall Street. Creating art and shaping our society, is left to the children of the Oligarchy, who truly believe the system works.

Jon- Realistic is saying that it would be tough for a arty great movie to be seen enough to have an impact, or that no one is making these ground-breaking movies. Cynical is saying that it can't be done, with the implication being, why try.

I'm not as old as you, but I'm old enough to remember seeing All the Vermeers at the Nuart some time ago. I even remember liking it.

All I'm saying is that Breathless (1960, before the 68 revolution) was a reaction to the same banality that we see now, the same cronyism that we have now (he had it in France) and it couldn't have been much easier for him to have gotten that film made and in theaters then than it would be now.

To Anonymous: Very few artists in any field make any money. That's where the expression "starving artist" comes from.

I'd like to say a rousing "Here! Here!" to the Anonymous poster above, whose sentiments I completely share about the industry - and its need to be an actual *industry*.

I live and work in the film industry in New York. It's my job, my community, my family, my passion. It's an industry that I've seen bring in and support some of the most talented and all-round great people that I know from all walks of life, from all kinds of professional, economic and educational backgrounds, from all over the world and of all races and religions.

Even though I am (hopefully) much closer to the beginning of my career than to its end, I have already seen time and again the exciting (often terrifying) process of watching people enter and grow in the industry finding their niche as crew members, producers, directors (of all stripes) and I've watched myself grow along with my closest friends.

And yes, honestly, we've done plenty of projects that I'm proud of for $50, $800 or $2,000 - music videos that allowed us to be tremendously creative without the strings that large amounts of other people's money carry, short films and little goofs and exercises that let us try things out and grow as film-makers. If film-makers choose to work in this range forever - if it works for them and they create great work - more power to them.

But for me it is vital that there continue to be an independent film industry - yes, I mean money, manufacturing, making profits, all that good stuff - that can give film-makers and the wonderful cast and crew members they collaborate with the chance to, like other artists, make a living doing what they do.

I say "a chance" very deliberately - no-one that I know is demanding a guarantee, no-one in their right mind feels entitled, as a birth-right, to make films. We could never have made a quarter of our little labor-of-love projects without being able to make a living working on projects that made us money. We would have been far poorer film-makers if we'd never worked with other professionals, and on projects of much bigger scope. And you can bet your life we wouldn't have made anything half as good as we did if we couldn't rely on favors from experienced professional crew and performers and well-stocked kindly rental houses who we'd worked and often employed or used on projects that paid.

And that's why this discussion matters so much to me. Most of the films I love, most of the films I hope to make, are not the Hollywood blockbusters or straightforward genre fare (though I love a lot of these films, too!) and they are not "Primer" or "Slackers" (both of which I enjoyed). I want to make a living doing what I do and I want to able to work with a broad canvas for the projects that demand it.

I often say that money in film is like material for sculptors. It's great for beginners to start out with clay, and some artists will always work in clay, producing beautiful works throughout their life. But there's a time and a place for most talented sculptors when they may want to work in bronze or marble. I want talented, creatively ambitious film-makers to continue to be able to work in a range of budget levels, not be limited to the clay of no-budget film-making.

I don't know - I can't disagree with Ted...and at the same time...whether it's film making or anything else - half the battle is having the tenacity to stick it out and get the things done you want to do in spite of the obstacles. I was in the nuclear field prior to film making and I can tell you rising to the top wasn't any easier there. No matter what you do - it takes work - it takes really wanting it and doing what it takes to get there.

I tend to live by the old tenant - if you think it's impossible then you're right - if you think you can do it - then you're also right. OK - well - that's not the exact wording - but the meaning is there.

Right now - I'm a nobody and I'm busting my butt every day to make things happen and slowly but surely it's working. That being said - not making it isn't an option in my head - so I just keep going. I do other things to make money - but they're all in the industry so that no matter what I'm doing - whether it's being a talent coordinator or production coordinator or even a PA or doing voice over work or whatever, it's all still leading to my goal because I make it my business to learn something on every shoot - no matter my capacity on that shoot. Is it hard? hell yeah! Do I struggle? Absolutely..and I could end all that tomorrow and go back to the utility industry and be comfortable....but then I would be true to myself and at the end of my life I'd be kicking myself saying I wish I would have hung in there just a bit longer.

If you're really a film maker - then you do what it takes because you have to - because something in you won't let you do anything else. That being said - this is a business - and we all have to make money - and that should be part of it. I figure if I'm doing my job right - If I'm picking the right scripts and finding the right cast and crew to bring them to life - then people will want to pay to see what I do. And if I don't and no one will fund my projects - then I'm doing something wrong and I need to figure it out and fix it.

When I started taking real personal responsibiity and really started looking at my own actions and choices and when I stopped worrying about what everyone else was doing or not doing - good things started happening. I know it sounds foo foo - but it's working for me.

Anyway - that's my two cents for what it's worth. :)

More than anything, for an indie producer to survive he or she needs to be excited about the work that they're creating. There's a lot of crap content flooding the market, and unless you truly believe your film (or filmmaker) is bringing something unique and wonderful to the market, there's no way you're going to be able to rise about the din.

Ted--Do you have any quick and easy top tens for driving traffic to your website or blog?

Pango: try sticking around 45 yrs of really independent filmmaking, and tell me I'm cynical.
Many of the comments here seem to be about films I would hardly call "independent" in any meaningful artistic or perhaps even philosophic terms. So what if a studio didn't write the checks if it's just another piece of cable crap?

RE: Breathless. Actually the films he made right afterward are much better - Vivre Sa Vie, Le Petit Soldat, etc. However you are a bit wrong about the times, and there was, not just in film, but in the broader cultural/political realm, a little opening at the time. Remember France 1968? All that stuff. It was in that large cultural universe in which, for a brief period, many things happened. I am not nostalic for it (just saw last night Jonas Mekas' Happy Birthday John, a true wallow in appalling star-fucking home-movie inanity) but I have to acknowledge things were very different from 1962-1978 or so, and there was a much wider cultural perspective than now, which made for more options. These were closed down, methodically and purposefully and for political reasons.

Stick around those extra 4 decades, plugging away at whatever independence exists, and let me know if you've grown "cynical." Or just realistic.

From Wikipedia: Although industry is a broad term for any kind of economic production, in economics and urban planning industry is a synonym for the secondary sector, which is a type of economic activity involved in the manufacturing of raw materials into goods and products.[1

Now making a film for $500 is a great accomplishment, but it doesn't keep businesses open, it doesn't help any of the crew that helped make your art project pay their rent. Lets be honest with ourselves here.

Currently the companies that could even begin to be called a part of the "indie film industry" one that sustains the people working on and for the project (barely) are as follows:

A list of companies financing projects and the budget ranges they work in are as follows:

Killer Films $5 - $40 Million
Big Beach Films - $5-$7 million
Overture Films - $5 -$15 Million
This is That - $5 - ?
SPC - $15- 40 Million
TWC - $15 - $40 Million
Fox Searchlight $15 - $40 Million
Focus Features $15 - $40 Million
(if you have some $ to spend on indie film and you were left off this list, apologies).

The greatest oxymoron purported in Mr. Hope's post are the words 'indie film industry' if you are an 'indie film' extremist (they like to call themselves 'purists' but then they probably have a trust fund, some government grant program overseas, or are full time college professors with no real world industry experience). The words just don't go together contingent on people's interpretation of what "indie" film is. But the moment you call it an "indie film industry" you are talking about transactions, economic activity, and bottom lines. What distinguishes these companies as "indie film industry' is they work with indie producers who take all the risks to develop projects for the purposes of submission to these industry gate keepers. Other than that you have private equity financing from equity groups or individuals that can write a check for $5,000,000.

Now there are instances of these art projects making an industry impact and generating some minimal economic activity. I know Shane Carruth's PRIMER won the grand jury prize at Sundance and was made for 7K on the XL-1, but that is the exception to the rule.


$500 art projects does not an industry make. It is insulting to all of the professional crew and cast that work every day to support their families to expect them to work for free and then try and contextualize a project of this scope and scale as "industry." Asking a film professional to cut their rates to make a $500 vanity project is downright insulting especially if you are a newcomer to the industry, and having your film screen at a festival makes you a part of a film appreciation community,does not part of an industry, gross revenues and return on investment do. So for those of you hoping to pull a PRIMER, get your friends together and make your art project, but don't delude yourself, you are not participating in industry, you are making an art project.

11. Approach your crews and vendors and ask, not "How can you come down in your price to meet my reduced budget?", but rather "What smart things can I do/big mistakes can I avoid to help my team to make best use of these limited resources we can afford?"

Makes going back into the real estate industry sounds really sexy right now.

Wow Anonymous, way to be courageous and stand up for your convictions. Yes, I'm talking to you cowering over there.

You can make a living making movies for less than $500K a shot. There are several who do quite well creating movies for $100k or less. Yes, they do make about 4-5 movies a year - but each one sells to cable and VOD and has a near guaranteed sale to Japan.

How have they been doing this?

By knowing and cultivating their audience.
By knowing and cultivating their niche.
By leveraging experience and chutzpah to get it done.
By understanding where to put the money -- onscreen.

Yes, we are all going through a tough time right now. But as the shift occurs - you'll see more and more really good movies made for less than a million. The business model is developing.

Example: ANGEL OF DEATH.

Well said Jon Jost.
The world of 6 figure budgets I accept as being a world I will not make films in. Jeepers if I could get a 5 figure budget...

I would add:
-Find a story that is solid and true.
-Make films because you are passionate AND realistic
-Educate yourself, read, watch, listen, learn

I don't think it's as simple as choosing between going commercial or learning how to make a film for $500. There is middle ground that, for decades, producers have made a living in. I believe the best ones will continue to find it.

Sure, evolving distribution models have made things trickier now, but passion is what ultimately gets films made and released. The kind of passion that eventually pulls money, talent and a collaborative, original film together. And very often these films take artistic risks and somehow remain viable.

Is it harder to do this now? Probably. But there are also more tools and opportunities at our discretion.

Gary Lundgren

http://calvinmarshall.com/

"Once upon a time there were filmmakers like Godard Fassbinder Kluge Straub Rocha and a long list of others; these people couldn't make a film now, or if they did, they wouldn't be shown outside a festival or two."

That's just cynical.

It's a miracle they made those films when they did. It was just as much a miracle then as it would have been today. The French New Wave grew out a particular set of circumstances, but it was also a reaction to exactly the same things you (and I) complain about in the current state of film and indie film. Plus, they didn't have video rights or TV rights, and even though they had an adult audience, it was the younger generation that embraced it. If Breathless wasn't such a brilliant film, it wouldn't have had the impact it did, no matter how groundbreaking it was. Most of the other great art films didn't have much of an audience when they came out. It's always festivals, where film language is a little more sophisticated and understood, that these films are given their first shot. By the way, Godard still makes movies and they get shown at a festival or two, and maybe on French TV, and that's it - but it's challenging stuff and he makes a point of frustrating an audience. Imagine watching Breathless in 1959, or whenever it came out, compared to the rest of the movies at the time, it would have blown you away.

Actually, outside of America, there's some interesting films being made.

Only the rich can make a film? Give me a break. Anyone got a violin for this guy?

Most of these "points" apply to some other world - the world of making commercial cinema. I read these things wonder where the "independent" is.
Of late my budgets (of course no one is paid) have run like this:

PARABLE (showing this week in first fest to take it, Split, where my Homecoming beat Hal Hartley's for 1st prize back 4 or 5 yrs ago), 2007, $2000 or so

LA LUNGA OMBRA (Italy, with some modest name stars in it), 2006, $50 (they bought me the meals etc)

OVER HERE (Portland OR, a number of fests showed it) $500 or something around there

HOMECOMING (Venice, Rotterdam etc showed it) $200 or so

These are all features done on DV. If it were 15 years ago probably I could have sold them to WDR or ZDF in Germany, Channel 4 in UK, and WNET might have picked them up. But that doesn't exist anymore. What does exist is a pervasive atmosphere which is designed to force you to make commercial work. And maybe call it "independent" (Like Ted's recent film, which I saw in Jeonju fest, Adventureland, which is a very nicely done film - good everything - except there's nothing about it I would call "independent". I'd like to hear the BO figures on it in a year.

Once upon a time there were filmmakers like Godard Fassbinder Kluge Straub Rocha and a long list of others; these people couldn't make a film now, or if they did, they wouldn't be shown outside a festival or two. That is the awful reality. It is a reality reflected in the economy of the day, in the fraudulence of our politics, in the cultural reality spelled in that old American axiom, Money Talks and Bullshit Walks.

So, go "commercial" or learn how to make films for $500 or $5000 and figure you won't make a living at it.

www.jonjost.wordpress.com
www.cinemaelectronica.wordpres...
www.jon-jost.com

Can you even call that survival? Why don't you just say, unless your rich or Ted Hope, don't even bother trying to make films. The fact you can list these items then call the film industry an industry is complete tripe, it would be more accurate if you called it a full time hobby.

Do you really buy the bullshit you are selling, Jesus

Boy, Ted, reading your list above has actually made me feel better about not keeping up with my own producing blog/website as I'd like! Your list above reads like all the electronic stickies cluttering my Mac's desktop - agh.

I think you should add to the list the ability to manipulate time and matter, so that we could expand time or clone ourselves to accomplish everything that needs to be done to make our work, as well as make sustainable revenue.

Like always, you're speaking my language, and I appreciate your efforts to foment and continue the dialogue. I'm on the bus; I'm just buried under a lot of baggage!

Thanks for posting this, Ted. Much of this list has been exactly what I have been working on for the projects I have been developing, and in my life-- it's good to hear some validation from your perspective.

See you soon...

I guess any one aspiring to be a "professional" filmmaker, meaning someone who sustains their family and lives from their craft is a pure pipe dream in this day and age.

Suggestions intended to accomplish #7:
1. Stripping - America's favorite past time.
2. Consider being a High Class Escort
3. Start Drug Dealing - marijuana gram for gram is worth more than gold!
4. Become Talent Agent
5. Join the Teamsters Union

Translation:

Only the rich can make indie film. Expect more masturbatory, self aggrandizing vanity projects about some oil man's childhood, or some well to do New York socialites brat's trifling curiousity! Can't wait! I guess it is a great time for those with an 8 figure equity fund or the trustafarians plaguing Tisch to enter the indie film game, be sure to take advantage of tax code 181, and write your whole film off!

Great list. Maybe also:
- if your cast/crew are on points then get them to be co-promoters on their media / social networks / tweets / etc. If they're not on points, then why aren't they?
- put all the resources a blogger or journalist could need (photos, vids, news stories) in easy reach under a clear Creative Commons Attribution license. The number of press releases that link to a Flash based website and no images or embeddable video available - it's crazy.
- and I guess it's obvious, but write to budget, and don't scrimp on getting the script right!

Number 10 is always true, isn't it? How many companies have died trying to keep up their overhead.

How does cutting the budget of your film help? I understand number three, making films for under 500K, but over a million, or as stars become required, budgets seem to take on a life of their own. The higher the budgets, apparently, the more interesting it is to investors and distributors. I'm sure that's changed, but how?

By the way, I remember eighteen months ago when you and Mark Gill were saying that we needed to make less films. Isn't this what you wanted?