Integrating Entrepreneurial Training Into Graduate Film Programs

"But in the 20+ years since I first became an independent filmmaker, I’ve been compelled to learn about VHS deals, sale leasebacks, foreign presales, negative pick-ups and all sorts of other arcane (and now mostly useless) business practices."

Believe it or not, these are the things that I find interesting! I started filmstank.com with a friend. He is a film/media student & interesting in the technical side of things. On the other hand, the 'business' of film is what fascinates me.

The purists would label me as a business-freak, rather than a film enthusiast- yet the entrepreneurial aspect to this course gives me hope! Surely the concept of starting with a sole idea, and watching it transform, evolve and be commercialized is a sight to behold. It's like that scene from Cast Away where Tom Hanks attempts, and eventually succeeds at, making fire. It's miraculous! This is the way I feel about the 'business' of film.

Am I crazy? Surely I'm not alone.

Dave @ filmstank.com

Ladies always follow their lifestyle, brand dotted with upper-class fashion extraordinary! Look at these gorgeous evening dress, red high heels, fashion handbag bag!
discount legerdiscount leger，cheap hervecheap herve，louis vuitton monogram vernislouis vuitton monogram vernis，cheap herve legercheap herve leger，herve legerherve leger，Louis Vuitton Monogram DenimLouis Vuitton Monogram Denim，Wedding ShoesWedding Shoes，christian louboutin Very Privechristian louboutin Very Prive，herve leger dressesherve leger dresses，Replica Louis Vuitton HandbagsReplica Louis Vuitton Handbags，herve leger bandage dressherve leger bandage dress！！
Do see！

Randy, I am just now catching up with your guest entry but I want to thank you for shedding some light on a world of filmmaking that you probably know I do not know much about. Would like to see regular update entires on the topic as changes continue to happen.

For all of the commenters here, I was so inspired by what Randy wrote about that I did my own interview about the UCF program for this month's Microfilmmaker Magazine. It is now live http://www.microfilmmaker.com/...

Fascinating essay and thread. Interesting that marketing and creativity become perceived as rivals, somehow battling for space in the zero sum that is supposedly the filmmakers brain. Marketing cannot supplant creativity,but it's a hell of an ally.

I feel very fortunate to have gained extremely valuable experience while working at a UCF Graduate Film. While being an undergraduate film student at UCF, I worked in Laura Lopez's feature film "Acts of Mercy." To know that it can be done and to see how is done will benefit me for the rest of my professional career.
That film provoked a great deal of growth in me and my fellow crew members, and I am so very proud of the film's accomplishments so far.
I am extremely thankful to have embarked in the wonderful journey of independent filmmaking, and to have received all the knowledge given to me by my beloved UCF professors.

How fortunate UCF film students are to have him teach them everything about independent film making. There's a reason the graduates of UCF's program are gainfully employed in the film business--they know what they're doing; all because of a marvelous teacher and experienced independent film maker named Randy Finch. Mr. Finch not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. UCFis blessed to have him on the faculty.

What a wonderfully innovative program!

For an explanation of why American independent film is what it is today, look no further than this thread.

There's nothing which prevents an "artist", who presumably is intelligent and capable, from learning about LLCs, insurance, viral marketing and spreadsheet modeling. But for independent film to work as medium in a private finance system like ours, we need reciprocity: if the filmmaker has to assume the role of entrepreneur, investors and the producers have to learn to see in ways they haven't before (become "artists"?), because beyond the micro-budget realm (and even within it) there's always a need to raise money. One without the other is meaningless.

But our investors and producers do not appear to be educating themselves, are not learning from their errors and misjudgments, show no inclination to reappraise what they know, and never (for example) submit to endless conferences and panels of exalted "artists" with water bottles telling them what they need to learn if they want to be respected for producing great films, as opposed to getting films made which no one admires outside their own circle and which promptly disappear. In Ted's many lists of what's wrong with things, never once has he listed the intellectual limitations of producers, investors and independent film entrepreneurs. It must also be said that the benighted entrepreneur and the would-be auteur are often the same person.

In other industrialized democracies countries, the art films tend to be as good (or bad) as the best and worst minds of the filmmakers, thanks to public subsidies and the film culture those subsidies sustain. In the U.S., the professionally produced and financed films are only as good, and more frequently as bad, as the producers and investors which brought them into being.

Could this be the reason American art-houses are full of foreign-language films?

I owned and operated two small businesses before I started working in film. I had to know about all aspects of the business, and this is no different than that. Most of us don't enjoy the "drudgery" work like establishing the LLC, paying taxes, setting up spreadsheets, getting insurance, etc., but somebody has to do it. Unless you get into this with money to hire a staff, you're probably going to have to do it yourself. How well you manage your business will make or break you.

In this changing world, we can no longer cling to the paradigms of the past. As an actor, I have been involved in many indie projects that fell victim to inadequate budgeting, poor planning, and a general lack of knowledge of what to do when the cameras stop rolling. Having an outstanding program like UCF's MFA film program that prepares film makers to carry their projects across the finish line is simply a treasure and one that aspiring artists should take advantage of. Often the difference between a "successful" film and one that sits on someone's shelf for years is simply knowing what steps must be taken to begin, shoot and finish the project. Without this knowledge, one may make many great films, but they will never see the light of day. And that is a loss for all of us.

What a thoughtful concise essay on what seems like a wonderful program!

Bravo Randy Finch for teaching, inspiring, and preparing students for not just film making but also solid business practices and self reliance; all which will serve the UCF film graduate well.

Thanks to everyone who has posted comments. Especially Jason Reed, who almost single-handedly keeps it going by providing an opposing view. The comment thread to this guest post has provided a great forum for sharing many of the ideas that inform the UCF MFA in Film. It will also make great source material for anyone interested in writing my eulogy. Don't get any ideas Jason. Really appreciate all the kind words from students and friends (old and new). Happy 4th of July.

Personal experience has always been my greatest teacher. My greatest film school of all was making my first real film, a documentary about two Bigfoot researchers in Ohio. The next best thing to personal experience has been learning from the experiences of others. I have always appreciated the spirit of the UCF MFA approach because it combines both. It’s like a feature film incubator, providing filmmakers with tools, resources, and mentors who can ask the right questions all to help them translate an idea into a feature film.

While I do not believe there is one fool-proof method that guarantees financial and personal success in filmmaking, I do believe there are case studies and tools that can help to increase the likelihood of success. And personally, I believe learning the business of filmmaking is just as important as learning the art of filmmaking. A complete, well-rounded film education should include business courses and practical discussions on matters like film financing, film distribution, audience-building, and social media. Some filmmakers may have little to no interest in these matters, but for those filmmakers who want to find an audience for their films, it’s essential to have at least an understanding of how they work.

I will conclude by sharing one of the greatest lessons experience has taught me: the importance of defining success for a particular film. Do you want to breakeven? Do you want to make money? Do you want to connect with audience? Do you want to make a name for yourself? Do you want the satisfaction of translating an idea into a finished film? It’s most important to be honest with yourself about what truly motivates you and how you will define success. For example, I knew with Not Your Typical Bigfoot Movie that my primary motive was to get the film out to the largest audience possible and thus it was an easy decision when Oscilloscope Pictures was interested in acquiring the film.

--Jay Delaney

Note: Although not a graduate of the UCF MFA program, I served as the producer of one of the MFA features (Hope for a Thorn dir. Erin Kitzinger) from the first class who graduated from the program. Furthermore, Randy Finch has been a friend and mentor for several years, most notably on my documentary, Not Your Typical Bigfoot Movie, which was released in 2009 by Oscilloscope Pictures.

I'm an undergrad in UCF Film and I've worked closely with Randy for the past few months on developing a project that is a tool for independent filmmakers entering the festival circuit. It's a totally unconventional tactic of guerilla marketing, but it's innovative beyond the measure of any project I've worked on and it emphasizes more than anything the intimately collaborative spirit that is more INDIE film than any other film... or art, for that matter.

To stay on topic with these discussions, I think the UCF MFA program should be respected by everyone, whether they are skeptical of our efforts or not. You can't honestly say that there is an "established" system when it comes to creating and marketing films. I don't think that process will ever be unified into a single-textbook format (and if it was, the textbook writers would have nothing to do!). Because what we're doing at UCF isn't going against the grain of an established system, there shouldn't be any sort of animosity towards our sometimes "experimental" program.

Randy mentioned THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, and with good reason aside from the fact that it's a UCF graduate film. They took the initiative to create a film that was marketable in a totally non-traditional way. The Blair Witch story had a place in the real world before the film came out. As skin and bones, hype was their marketing plan. The simplicity of the steps that this film took is (and ought to be) admirable and inspiring for all filmmakers. When considering how to market something - whether it's for Enzian, the Florida Film Festival, or an individual project - I often find myself asking, "What would Monello do?"

Jason - Keep your skepticism, but open your mind. We independent filmmakers love the battle when it comes to our "crazy" ideas, but we would also like a little appreciation for the creative effort we're putting into the business side of our work. What UCF Film is offering its students are tools that, if harnessed correctly and passionately, will allow us to enter the industry with not just experience, but FRESH experience. For this, I think there will be less UCF Film graduates back at mom's and the pizzeria they worked at in high school.

Now I love your argument with Randy because it's the kind of opportunity that allows us to explain ourselves, but as per your reference to film students being uncultured, unappreciative, art deprived college kids - that's a very despot thing to say. I can't speak for all film schools, but there is certainly a substantial group of students at UCF Film who have a strong understanding of and appreciation for all things art. The program is so well rounded that we are able to learn every possible implication of film in the world - as art, as business, as expression, etc.

I’m excited to be a part of UCF Film, and I hope to see more universities embrace the emerging mindset of independent film.

It's interesting that I can't make defensible and fairly obvious points here about the lack of commercial prospects of American independent film in its current form without being called dumb, inept, confused and (most recently) in need of a good lay, but that aside: since Randy is here in a semi-official capacity and since "Jason Reed", while real, is for all intents and purpose anonymous, sustaining this tennis match would seem a bit unfair (to Randy) without his express desire and consent. I'll be happy to rebut his points one by one, but only on further invitation.

One note, however: nobody ever said Randy teaches because he can't do or isn't making films. The point was, he can't teach what he doesn't know (and which nobody knows). There's a difference.

"Nobody knows anything." - William Goldman

As a former student of Randy's and now a newly minted film instructor at UCF, I can testify that no one ever told me I would be successful if I followed any particular set of principles. I imagine Randy would probably agree with William Goldman and add, "But hey, we gotta try and guess," so he gives us his best guesses, along with the best guesses of a lot of other smart, experienced, and yes, financially successful people. Will these guesses work for me? Probably not. A lot of this stuff works only once, but I don't think that's the point. Learning business strategy is not about learning what worked for one person and copying it, it's about learning to THINK STRATEGICALLY. MBA students don't learn what worked for one business and assume that such techniques will work for their own businesses. No, they learn what worked for many businesses, so they can begin to create the new synapses their brains will require to think in these patterns. That's all Randy is doing with filmmakers.

Jason -- who I'm just going to say it, would probably benefit from meeting a nice girl -- seems to hate the idea of ANY educational program that may not result in the student acquiring fame and fortune, or at least a steady income. Okay, that's fair, but it isn't why anyone, ever, got an MFA in anything. The pamphlet for our program doesn't say, "Join our MFA, and make a living doing what you love." It might say, however, "Learn how to do what you love, no matter how you make your living."

Thanks to my MFA, I'm now making a living as a film instructor (something I enjoy) and have directed a quality feature film (something most of my friends working in Hollywood have not had the pleasure of doing) and have strategies to make another film in the future. Will I ever be internationally renown, as seems to be Jason's idiotic benchmark for success? Probably not, but why would I care about that. I like making movies.

Oh lordy, Randy. No one is claiming that marketing never works. But the fact that any given film is successful does not mean anyone actually understands the mechanism.

Yes, "Blair Witch" employed unusual marketing techniques, but if the case study is so valuable, why haven't those filmmaker and those marketers replicated their success? And why hasn't any one else replicated that success on a rational, predictable basis? The fact that some films are successful proves nothing if the success is the result of factors nobody really understands.

I'm also surprised that you cite films such as Ballast (theatrical gross, $60,000?) or "The Talent Given Us" (which lost money) as examples of successful or innovative marketing. They may be worth studying for their failures, but that gets us to the real difference of opinion here.

Nobody much likes American independent film, beyond those who want to succeed in it and work in it. Your program can't address this question and remain in business, because you can't tell anyone how to make movies people will want to see, because if you knew that, you'd be making them (presumably?).

But it's deeply misleading to suggest to that the reason American independents don't make money is poor marketing, or that the films which emerge from the typical MFA program are saleable. Of course, mediocre films can also make a lot of money (though this rarely happens in the indie world) but there's not much to be learned from freak success.

And yes, I concede that Hollywood understands marketing, but am not sure what applicability that fact has here, to $<50,000 features with diminished marketing budgets and (we assume?) pretensions to offering something Hollywood doesn't.

As for being foolish -- well, I may be a fool, but since there's no rational basis for anyone to get an MFA in film these days, and since you can't point to the successes of your program, there are apparently bigger fools around than me.

There are rational reasons to get into an MFA in film; they just don't appear rational in your mind, and that's ok. Everyone is at a different place in life and their needs and aspirations are different. The program isn't for everybody, but it does fit well for others.

Jason: I wasn't holding my breath waiting for an acknowledgement that I had directly answered your last set of challenges. It's OK. Even though I thought Charlie Chaplin was a pretty good example of a film artist who had spoken to the central role of business in his decision to pursue filmmaking, I didn't really expect the happy concession you promised. But your need to find failure and pretension all around you, even in the face of numerous examples of how an education in sales and marketing can be a part of filmmaking at any budget, is bordering on the obsessive. I doubt you'll be convinced, but I'm hoping someone else is still reading, so once again I'll wade into the mire in the hope that a few useful points can be made:

In your most recent post you argue that the marketing techniques that The Blair Witch Project helped to advance are a failure. If I follow your reasoning (?) it's because subsequent films using those techniques have failed. Actually the lessons from The Blair Witch marketing campaign have been replicated by many successful films (big and small budget) and have even crossed over into retail. My teaching colleague and Blair Witch producer, Mike Monello, is not producing films today (although, last I checked, he still consults on their marketing) because the sales and marketing skills he honed on The Blair Witch have become so valuable to so many other businesses. Mike and I would readily admit that many films and products marketed online will fail. But for you to suggest that viral marketing is something that "nobody really understands" or that Mike hasn't been able to replicate his success, when he has moved on to marketing huge studio films and major national brands, in addition to mentoring microbudget filmmakers, is just plain dumb.

I cited Ballast and The Talent Given Us as two small films that have decided to go forego traditional distribution in favor of new sales and marketing techniques. For you to point to their theatrical box office to show how they are not successful is sophistry. These films are important precisely because they didn't sign themselves away to one distributor (in return for a small advance) to pursue the hollow glory of box office gross (money that almost never makes its way back to the small filmmaker). The filmmakers behind Ballast and The Talent Given Us have decided to pursue their own split rights deals precisely because box office gross is, for most independently financed films, a false idol. I listed these filmmakers (among others) for you because they have decided that the revenue from DVDs and the Internet should belong to them. The filmmakers own these rights, and are making revenue from them, because they've educated themselves about DIY. For you to ignore the numbers from the deals that really matter suggests you don't want to, or can't, understand any of this.

There's more. Your attempt to attack me via the "those who can, do; those who can't, teach" argument, suggests you don't appreciate how challenging and rewarding taking people through the process of making films can be. Obviously my description of the UCF MFA in Film (remember the original post, where I describe what I do, my students, how they are making feature length films and winning awards, and their budgets are so small that they can recoup with a handful of screenings and DVD sales) eluded you. Here's the truth: I am more deeply engaged in the process of making personal film today than I have ever been. And I continue to work with professional filmmakers. And I'm working on my own microbudget film. Another feature starts on a sound stage in Orlando on Tuesday July 6th.

It's getting late. But still I feel the need to address one last statement you made earlier this evening. You wrote: "Nobody much likes American independent film." Really Jason? Isn't that the nub? You've been writing all these posts. Why? Why all the passion for something that you distrust and disdain? What's the point? I care and (considering your numerous posts) I suspect you do too. But if you really think I'm "misleading" you and the promises are all empty, and nobody cares, what's the point?

Jason, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. But honestly, what happened to people like Christopher Nolan coming out of the festival paradigm? I'd really like someone to tell me, because I haven't seen an amazing indie feature like 'Primer' or 'Following' in a looooong-ass time. Either they're buried underneath all the crap or they're no longer being made. It has to be one or the other, right?

Then you see stuff like 'The Raven', 'Mama', 'Panic Attack', 'Alive in Joburg', 'Pixels'.... many of these are not known for their festival laurels, but their internet and industry laurels. Could it be that the more talented people are just going 'all in' on an amazing short and then using any and all connections to get them seen by the right people? I mean, if you have an amazing looking science fiction short film with a great hook, who the hell sits on their hands while sending a DVD out to festivals? Why not just throw it up online... or bribe an apple store employee at that open air mall in century city to hand out copies to all the agents that come in for laptop repairs. This is all assuming your aim is to make a living making movies.

Whereas ten years ago, I think you had about half of the new Hollywood directors coming from the festivals and half from the commercial world, I think it's shifted to coming almost entirely from commercials and genre shorts.

How about this, folks? To the extent anyone cares, I'll happily concede you're all right and I'm wrong, if new media/marketing advocates here can satisfy some pretty easy requirements:

1) provide evidence that your sales and marketing techniques work, and

2) find one internationally respected filmmaker who can make a good case that his or her success was largely or entirely due to his or her understanding of marketing and business.

This shouldn't be difficult at all, if your claims are remotely accurate. If you can't satisfy these requirements, isn't right to concede that you're offering no more than speculation?

Finally, is it really necessary to point out that so-called "independent film" is not about "getting into the film industry", and that if all you want is to get into the film industry, there are vocational paths for doing so, without any need of the usual artistic blather? Isn't "independent film" supposed to be an alternative to the "film industry"?

And while it may or may not be "easy to fall in love with the artistic side of filmmaking", too many people fixated on art is not what's wrong with American independent film. On the contrary, the medium is full of folks obsessed with career success, who don't have a clue what the arts are all about, and who wouldn't have be regarded as jokes if they were working the kinds of traditional art forms which instantly reveal incompetence.

Jason: Thanks for providing yet another opportunity to keep this thread going. I'm grateful for the chance to address your new challenges. That's because I believe some of the readers of this blog are still considering (some perhaps for the first time) the usefulness of business skills in a well-rounded filmmaking education.

Today you ask for "evidence that your sales and marketing techniques work." This question suggests you don't know what techniques I teach. Surely you don't need me to provide you with evidence that the sales and marketing techniques used in Hollywood are successful? Having worked at Orion and as a producer of films distributed by Miramax (admittedly a while ago), I teach those. I assume you are questioning the more non-traditional sales and marketing techniques that I teach. For example, you might be questioning the techniques used by The Blair Witch Project. I teach those. I sort of have to. Graduates of UCF made The Blair Witch Project. Some of them continue to guest lecture in our program about guerrilla marketing. Or perhaps your question should be even more narrowly interpreted. Maybe you are questioning whether there are self-distributed movies that have found critical or commercial success or even both? As a reader of Ted Hope's blog, I assume you are familiar with Brother's Keeper, Inland Empire, Made in LA, The Talent Given Us, Note by Note: The Making of Steinway L1037, Ballast, Helvetica and Good Dick. The filmmakers of these films have all used innovative sales and marketing techniques worth studying.

You also ask for evidence of "one internationally respected filmmaker who can make a good case that his or her success was largely or entirely due to his or her understanding of marketing and business." That's a tall order. I don't think anyone in this thread has ever suggested that international respect as a filmmaker can (or should) come entirely (or even largely) from marketing or business skills alone. But, in a quote - that I can't source, but that was widely repeated and never disowned during the life of the filmmaker - Charlie Chaplin said: "I went into the business for the money, and the art grew out of it. If people are disillusioned by that remark, I can't help it. It's the truth."

I realize that Chaplin's quote doesn't meet the impossible ("success was largely or entirely due to ") standard you've established. That's because great filmmaking requires many things. No one (except you Jason) would be foolish enough to suggest that marketing and business were all or even most of the equation. But your continued efforts to exaggerate what is being claimed here (who besides you said marketing or business is the most important thing?) and your insistence that teaching business skills in a graduate film program is somehow deserving of reproach, reminds of the words of another internationally respected filmmaker, Vittorio De Sica who said: "Moral indignation in most cases is, 2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy."

Getting into the film industry has never been easy, however with a finished feature length film and an understanding of the business/financial/marketing side of the industry, UCF graduate students at least have a fighting chance. It's easy to fall in love with the artistic side of filmmaking, but if you truly want to make films, you need more than that. The program investigates the changing world of filmmaking, allows students to exercise their creativity with out negotiating the necessary knowledge on business.

Wow, that sounds like a great program. I think that it is imperative for the filmmakers to have an understanding of all the business/financial/marketing side. They can keep everything in house and have less hands in the pot. Some may think that the filmmaker is only creative, but add the business aspect and they are an entrepreneur. Who knew that was right in our backyard.

Learn from the best, copy, steal etc.

Right now the best in creating big ideas that connect with audiences are
Crispin Porter + Bogusky

Alex Bogusky has a web show with absolutely invaluable insight into how to connect with audiences when you're selling a big idea.

Here's an episode http://www.justin.tv/fearlessq...

The classes I had with Randy were among the most informative and productive during my college career. I went into school focused only on the artistic side of filmmaking but left with a knowledge of the business and organizational aspects that have done more for me in getting production work than any other skill I was taught. Since I have known Randy his primary goal has been to educate young filmmakers and provide the support they need when faced with the daunting task of making a film. Great article Randy. Keep up the good work!

I just graduated from UCF's BFA film program, and I was thinking of following lots of my friends out to LA to try and "make it" in the studio film industry. After imagining the potential years and years I would spend working my way up the ladder to finally get to the place where I could have permission to direct my first studio feature, I decided to go ahead and make it now, in the grad program! They have enabled me to express myself in a way I never thought possible. I am thrilled to be a part of the future of moviemaking, and am indebted to UCF Film for their commitment to personal storytelling.

There is no substitute for "doing". Good work Randy.

Randy has created a great program that will help students exercise their creativity in both art and business. His program requires students to engage in interdisciplinary "design thinking" that blends the interests of storytellers and audiences alike.

The UCF Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation (www.cei.ucf.edu) in the College of Business is proud to be partners with Randy's innovative program. We appreciate Randy's help in fostering a culture of entrepreneurship across our campus. We'll keep working on improving our "not their favorites" courses so that his art students appreciate the creative associations and storytelling inherent in designing business models and writting business plans.

Cameron Ford - Director, UCF Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation

As an outside observer, I have seen first hand the dedicated students, faculty and staff within the MFA film program that have made it what it has become today. The skills and knowledge that have been relayed by the instructors have certainly prepared students for the microbudget film process and contributed highly to their success in the industry.

Nice to see UCF film in the news...

Randy, if you've been around since the 80s and 90s, then your claims are even more astonishing, because variations on the same theme, that new technology is going to solve problems unrelated to technology, are by no means new. This line been repeated for years, and no one ever seems to get tired of it, even as the predictions fail again and again.

And when you write

"HD production tools (including cameras like the Canon 5D that was used to shoot the final episode of the not-so-rudimentary television show House, digital audio recorders like the Zoom and the drives, software and computers to edit that workflow) all continue to plummet in price, while making professional quality production available to big productions and small in ways that were not imagined even a few years ago. House isn't rudimentary, neither are the films my students are making (with the exact same camera) that are winning awards at festivals competing against much better financed productions."

I really have to marvel. It's common enough for amateurs to believe that possessing a great camera and editing system is somehow going to make them competitive with Hollywood. I trust you're not asserting that absurdity, but you seem to be guilty of one almost as grave: citing House, for example. What was the budget for that episode? The show may have proved (for the nth time) that camera resolution and performance is, for audiences, greatly overrated, particularly on a small screen and with multi-million dollar production values. But we've known that for years.

Your point might have been better supported if the episode had been produced at a typical film school budget with the Canon 5d (using actors, locations, techs, equipment, etc. purchaseable for that sum). But of course that's not what they did and for obvious reasons: it's impossible, unless they wanted to make a farce.

Anyway, dream on folks. We've had years and years of case studies and proven failure, including filmmakers determined to learn the business, and none of it changed anything. Off-Hollywood film does not make money. Anywhere in the world . Period. You may not care to hear this truth, but it's no less true for being unwelcome. That individuals sometimes succeed in the medium doesn't make it a viable business, any more than the lottery is a viable business (for ticket buyers).

i am always surprised when people think "business" is separate from creativity. as a writer who has had to spend endless hours promoting myself in order to get the kind of creative work i want, i laugh when people tell me they don't want to hustle. i tell them that there will never be another jd salinger and they better figure out a way to get their name out there. i use facebook and twitter to build an audience and maintain a dialogue with the people who may read or have read my books. the funny thing is that the more i reach out, the more i like it. i love the emails and the queries and even the pains in the ass who want something for nothing. http://www.marthafrankel.com

I strongly feel that UCF is on the right track with their MFA program. In todays world the young filmmakers have to know a lot of things about a lot of things. Everything is changing very quickly. The way that the audience watches motion pictures is different. The way pictures are created, edited, marketed and distributed is different. I think that you all have done a great job of keeping up with the changing times to prepare their students for the future. It's the real deal. Thanks Randy. Great blog.

Ralph R. Clemente
Program Chair, Film Production Technology
Valencia Community College

Jason: I've tried and clearly I can't get you to see it my way.

For anyone else still reading this thread, I think Jason is dead wrong when he writes that "[P]roduction costs are not going down (notwithstanding cheap digital cameras), except perhaps for the most rudimentary productions, where rock bottom was reached years ago, without promising results,"

HD production tools (including cameras like the Canon 5D that was used to shoot the final episode of the not-so-rudimentary television show House, digital audio recorders like the Zoom and the drives, software and computers to edit that workflow) all continue to plummet in price, while making professional quality production available to big productions and small in ways that were not imagined even a few years ago. House isn't rudimentary, neither are the films my students are making (with the exact same camera) that are winning awards at festivals competing against much better financed productions.

And (sorry to beat up on him but...) Jason misses a key point about the demand for good indie films. Specifically, because the means of production and distribution (online) make it possible to make and distribute a quality film for less money than most people spend on cars today, the audience for personal filmmaking doesn't need to be huge. When films are made for small money, the audience can be small and the investors and the filmmaker can get a return.

Jason writes: "We've had many years to try out the American for-profit approach, and no matter how badly it fails, many still believe in its promise. I wish you well, but history is against you." Sorry Jason, but I've actually lived that history. I've produced indie films that supported the filmmakers in the 1980s and 1990s. Today those same films could be made and distributed (while supporting the filmmakers just as well) for much less money while being distributed to a much smaller audience. This fundamental economic change, and the new forms of expression that it allows, are doubted by Jason. OK. I am still very grateful for his questions and opportunity to explain why I am no longer a skeptic.

Wow, sounds so cool I might change careers! I've made my living for the last 40 years as an artist/furniture maker/car builder, and while it's the work that drives me, you do have to deal with all that other crap. So, if you are just starting out, remember: knowledge is power.

I was a guest filmmaker at UCF and would like to add my 2 cents to the blogarama, or, in Hollywood dollars, a million, six.

There is no aspect of filmmaking that doesn’t, at some point, kicking and screaming, demand that you learn the economics and business of the industry. Spielberg gets films canceled when the budget and distribution projections exceed the risk factor.

I graduated from a film school, BU, that (at the time) taught only aesthetics and only three of us ever worked in the business. And one was a critic, which doesn’t count. It took me years to acquire just some of the knowledge that students are getting in the MFA program. Son of a bitch!

Yes, independent filmmakers often don’t make money. But that’s the price you pay for having everybody else help make your artistic vision. I seem to have most of mine during happy hour. But later, I think… who the hell would put up money for that, and why? Everybody else involved is in it for the money. Just like Charlie Kane said. So it’s imperative that the filmmaker have a complete understanding that it’s Show Business, not Show Art.

Yes, the business is changing, you can shoot with cheap cameras and distribute online, but you still need to understand contracts, distribution channels, viral marketing, promotion and how to pick up girls at festivals, just like for Hollywood productions. It’s only a difference of scale.

As an example, during the Writer’s Strike a whole bunch of Hollywood writers picked up HDV cameras, shot their own shows and distributed them online. These were folks with talent, artistic vision, and experience. I believe some had actually had personal conversations with grips. Most of these shows failed. Or rather, did not return the investment. It seems that even professionals who had gained entry into the Hollywood system did not have the required knowledge to make their own visions successful.

Hollywood doesn’t make films it makes iterations of pre-sold pan media entertainment objects… as long as they are not “Execution Dependent”. The most interesting films have always and will always be made by small groups of independents who have control of all aspects of their medium, including perhaps most importantly, the business of film.

Independent filmmakers mostly don’t get paid because, let’s face it, most of their films suck. But the few that do make a good film often give them up to the first studio deal because its much more fun to be artistic than businesslike. The studio will happily take over distribution, marketing, promotion, accounting and screwing your girlfriend if you let them. They will leave you with a big smile, a limp handshake, a lunch sometime in the future and monkey points, and expect you to thank them for it.

The future belongs to the filmmakers who understand and control every aspect of their work and promote and distribute through emerging channels and I expect UCF grads to be leading the pack.

Chip Proser, WGA,w. Ret.d
Hollywood Hills, CA

I minored in Cinema Studies while at UCF and had the pleasure of taking Randy Finch's "Film Business" class. Out of all the film courses I took, this was definitely the most informative, useful and entertaining. Learned a lot about the business side of filmmaking. Kudos to Randy on a great post and for being an all around cool dude!

I think it fantastic that filmmakers learn the nuts and bolts side of the business. The medium has moved beyond the ager of the rigorous heirarchy and the auteur and the dilletante director and it is great to see a film school recognize that reality. Maybe someday you will have a PA to get your dry-cleaning but while you are making your first feature, you better be prepared to do it yourself.

Excellent discussion of a subject new to many of us but well worth making known to the public and young student seeking a career in film making..

John Emmett Sarasota, Florida

Randy,

As you know, my daughter went to a well-known photography school in California after an undergraduate degree from an eastern school (still photography, not film). After finishing at Brooks, she still didn't know a thing about business plans, etc., and so has been taking a class or two at a time at City College in Santa barbara, trying to learn the business side of things while working to earn a living!
Your program sounds wonderful---preparing students for the REAL world, not just tapping into their artistic abilities.

Randy: I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth. Nobody said filmmakers are "victims", or maintained that the "scam" is some kind of organized conspiracy.

But let's return to the main issue: better salesmanship and new delivery mechanisms won't address either the prime defect of independent film in the U.S. (lack of quality and intelligence), or the reality of the marketplace (lack of adequate demand even for high quality material).

It also shouldn't be necessary to point out that distribution techniques may change, but production costs are not going down (notwithstanding cheap digital cameras), except perhaps for the most rudimentary productions, where rock bottom was reached years ago, without promising results.

We've had many years to try out the American for-profit approach, and no matter how badly it fails, many still believe in its promise. I wish you well, but history is against you.

Randy's excellent note gives a true overview of our program. I would like to add that we at UCF are also deeply dedicated to to films of personal expression: films that have as much if not more to do with what filmmaker wants to say as they do with the market. The chain of discussion following Randy's remarks touches little on the aesthetic the new modes of production and distribution are shaping. Part of the UCF program is deliberately designed to address this evolving modality.
When the program was first in development, I was guided by Jean Cocteau's remark, "Film will never be an art until its materials are as cheap as paper and pencil." Coppola makes a similar comment at the end of HEARTS OF DARKNESS.
I struggled against the sheer weight of film production (in television, no less) for many years. Nothing could be done with a crew of fewer than 5 and each of these had their own goals, misunderstandings, ambitions, etc. Sometimes, there was great collaboration and success; other times, the work crumbled under the forces of disagreement.
We do not quite meet Cocteau's standard as of today but we are closer than ever before. New technologies unfold so rapidly that even a comparison to Gutenberg pales (It is as if there were no steps between moveable type and Xerography) and each new technology reduces the dependence of the film maker on the skills or infrastructure of other entities. (This of course means that there will be a lot more terrible films than ever before. But hasn't this been true in all the arts? What has lasted or made an impression is a tiny fraction of all that has been created).
I hope that as our students work on their films they are learning more than just the industry or the "Indie model" or the best way to make a living. I hope they are beginning to understand the limits of a new medium (digital production) and in so doing are discovering new modes of expression (Like Melies did or Griffith or Welles or even Cameron) - From new modes of expression, there might be new things to express, new things to say, new ways to feel. That is why we limit them to digital production (not even a sprocket hole). We trust that this limitation might lead to exploration - it doesn't always: the current trend to make the digital image look like the film image slows things down (It reminds me of those early films where they simply put the camera in the fifth row and watched the play unfold.) But we have one student who is working experimentally with the image and a documentary is being made where the young film maker seems to be relying entirely on the limits of digital shooting.
For the same reason, (creative exploration) we limit their expenditure and thereby, we hope, the attendant risk. Film - traditional, industrial film, is too expensive now to be left to the visions of directors or producers and so each success brings greater attention to dollars and in so doing raises the barriers to entry even higher.
For the record, our most recent projects are being produced for considerably less than the $50,000 limit.
I have been accused all too often of ignoring reality, of not being practical and perhaps that is so but I believe we are on the edge of a time where the audience/artist relationship will redefined and that redefinition will have an impact on the creative aspirations of all of us and the economic ways in which those aspirations will be realized.
The budget is of course fundamental to the aesthetic and we do not ignore this. But someday, perhaps, each will have equal footing. It is a concept we try to inspire.

Steve Schlow
Interim Chairman, Film, UCF

Jason: Thanks for writing. Genuinely sorry if my previous post offended.

You say America is a "decaying empire" and that indie filmmakers are "fools" who are denied the "apparatus of production" and they are exploited and are victims of a "scam." For you that means the skills we're teaching at UCF have little value.

Where to start?

It is apparent to me (as it should be apparent to everyone else with a modem or a smartphone) that the Internet has already begun to reshape the relationship between motion pictures and commerce. The technology is real. You and I are not communicating via motion pictures at this moment, but we could be. And, every day thousands of people are replacing perfectly functional portable motion picture devices (last week is was over one million upgrading iPhones), primarily because the new device has better motion picture functionality. In a few years, I expect that calling a communication a "text-message" will be an anachronism, like calling the NY Times a "newspaper." Both "text messages" and "newspapers" will arrive on devices that exploit the potential of motion pictures in ways we have yet to dream of. OK. I'll concede that the revolution has not yet hit what we have been calling "indie film" (in the sense of longer-form personal expression that follows narrative storytelling conventions of the 20th Century and provides a revenue model that allows for sustaining a filmmaking career using online tools). But to deny that it is about to happen, and happen soon, at this point seems willfully ignorant. I realize you are not the only skeptic (I made my living in the old model and had doubts too), and no one can show you when or exactly how this will happen, but it will happen.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate my point is by looking back at history. When the printing press was first invented, I suspect there were skeptics ("the Church and the State have a stranglehold on the printed word," "this new apparatus of production will forever be denied to the common man," "it lacks a viable revenue model," or "it is all a plot by the professors to line their pockets teaching writing skills to fools who will never publish a word," etc.). Fortunately, some entrepreneurs and creative types embraced the potential and created new forms (e.g, the newspaper, the novel, the political tract, the scientific essay). I don't know what new forms will arise in the digital motion picture revolution that is exploding online. But please know that in my view, teaching people about visual story-telling and financing an entity and all the rest is not a scam. It is a an invitation to the most exciting time in motion pictures since they were invented.

Randy,

It's odd you would refer skeptics here to a blog post in which you accuse those skeptics of being either inept or confused. But in that blunt spirit, let's reduce the dispute to its basics.

There's only one way to get a healthy and productive off-Hollywood film culture in a decaying empire like the U.S.: when persons of unusual ability and knowledge have access to the industrial apparatus of production. Needless to say, such access is not available in the U.S., or is so capriciously distributed as to be wasted in the off-Hollyworld world.

It's also worth pointing out that the notion that off-Hollywood filmmaking will be profitable on a self-sustaining basis is a novel one, since it's never happened before. Designing an MFA program around techniques which have never actually actually worked on for students, teachers or anyone else in the business is ambitious, to say the least.

But, since you clamor for the entrepreneurial mindset, let's put it in strictly economic terms. Who actually earns a living in American independent film? A handful of festival directors do. Some arts administrators do. Films schools do, as so do some faculty members. Consultants, publicists, insurance agents and lawyers do. Rental houses, technicians and equipment manufacturers do. Employees of the studio "indie" divisions used to. And 2 or 3 producers also used to.

Who *doesn't* make a living from off-Hollywood film? That's easy: the fools who conceive, write and make the movies. But, amazingly, the income of virtually everyone else depends on "filmmakers" who themselves earn nothing. There's a word for that kind of dependency.

But indie film has been a scam for at least 20 years, and this is the way the game is played, so nothing new here. It runs so deep, that the salesmen actually believe the pitch.

I am a current student in UCF's MFA program. You will not find any answers in this program, but you are offered a chance to make your own low budget film. It's up to the individual to get it done. Worse case scenario, we get the incubation period to pull a feature film together and to obtain masters degree. It's a nice thought that takes hard work, diligence, perseverance, etc, in addition to a strong back for carrying all types of pressure.... and isn't that what it's all about? It's not perfect, it's not an answer, it's not free, and it will not make you successful. However, if there was some kool-aide we could drink and have all of that, wouldn't everyone be drinking it? It's what it is. I believe in the idea of this program and am glad to be apart of it.

PS> Sitting on loads of cash with no idea of what to do with it? Well, I know the perfect solution: www.lesslostmovie.com

Randy, as you know, I have been working with artists in various disciplines, mainly music, for many years. I am always astonished how little my clients know about how the industry in which they have chosen to work actually operates. Your program is exactly what young filmmakers need to know in order to actually survive in the business using their own skills and knowledge rather than hoping they'll be rescued by powers greater than them, only to find that the agreements they entered into at the time came back to bite them years later. I look forward to hearing about and seeing the successful results of your efforts.

Roger Cramer

Randy, Sorry I didn't comment sooner. Your program sounds great. I'm on a mission to try to set these kinds of programs up around the world. I feel it is essential not just for filmmakers, but for people who want to work in film - but want to learn these PMD tasks so that they can support filmmakers who don't have time or inclination to do this work. I look forward to meeting you. Any educators out there - come up to the UFVA conference in Burlington VT this summer - I'm giving 2 presentations on "How and Why to Teach Film Distribution and Marketing to Film Students". I look forward to meeting you - and anyone else who is interested in spreading this knowledge throughout the film community!!! Jon

Jon, Thanks for the kind words. Your book was already required reading in my grad classes at UCF. Now I plan on revising the undergraduate film class to make it a required text there too. (Actually that change was already in the works. But thanks for the kind words anyway.) Coincidentally, I'm also scheduled to present at UFVA and I look forward to meeting you there. Also scheduled to be in Vermont with us: one freshly minted UCF Film MFA with his thesis film (shot last summer) and the director and cinematographer of our newest feature (starting production July 6th). These 3 students will be giving a workshop about how DSLR cameras have affected their workflow and the aesthetics of microbudget filmmaking. My talk at UFVA is "The Film Fest Marketing Project." It's about how filmmakers, colleges and film festivals can train volunteers to become guerrilla marketers. It's based on the successful program I've been running with 60+ UCF undergraduates and the Florida Film Festival each spring. Come to think of it, when you get a few minutes, please contact me through finchclasses.blogspot.com. I'd love to know what you think of the Film Fest Marketing website my students and I have started to build. Thanks again, Randy

Danny, if you're happy with the program, fine, but it is not accurate to say the school "subsidized" your degree. Your underpaid labor in fact subsidizes the school, enhancing its income.

I don't know how you can say you left school with a "marketable feature film", if in fact you haven't successfully marketed it -- meaning made money from it. If you were able to complete the film only thanks to the school, including the free labor of classmates, I guess that's all to the good, though I'm not sure it's quite right to accept tuition, and grant an MFA, for that service.

At a time when many MFA grads in film programs don't know world literature, have never been to a museum have never listened to classical music and are often ignorant of classic film, you have to wonder how many of them are capable of working the arts, but I guess that's a whole other question.

Jason: You may not believe this but subsidized education offered by state universities (like UCF) is not some devious plan to rip off high school graduates. And I'd like to see the research behind your assertion that "many MFA grads in film programs... are often ignorant of classic film." That certainly hasn't been my experience. You might be interested in a post I made earlier today discussing the legitimate questions raised in your comments and by others in this thread <http: 2bgevu4="" tinyurl.com="">. Know that I genuinely welcome your skepticism. It provides an opportunity for UCF MFA in Film fans to explain our program. </http:>

I am one of the original three graduates of the UCF MFA program and strongly recommend the program to anyone interested in a career as a feature director.

Jason, my degree was HIGHLY subsidized by the film department as I was working part time as a "teaching assistant" for the first year, and then "teaching associate" for the second and third. Overall, you are still paying for a Master's degree, but doing so at a fraction of the cost of other universities and you're graduating with a marketable feature film.

You can learn more about my film, THE ATTIC DOOR, at our site: www.theatticdoormovie.com

~ Danny Daneau

I don't know, Randy.... It's astonishing there's a MFA for $<50,000 features, and that students would get (and pay for) a graduate degree with that specific purpose.

What does the degree cost? Do your students expect to get a return on their $50,000 features, using the techniques taught at the school, even forgetting the price of the MFA? Has any student seen such a return? Does the school advise its students of their odds of success on a $50K feature, in advance of enrollment?

Randy, this is an awesome post and I think your program sounds very exciting. I have set up a similar postgraduate program in the UK (MSc Digital Feature Film Production at Staffordshire University) that has similar aims to the course you outline here.

It is interesting though that you don't mention two elements that I believe were core to me when designing our course. One, I believe in SUSTAINABLE film production, and that the emphasis that your course puts on business does intend to produce sustainable models. You should champion this. Too many other courses just point at how to make your film, not how to sell it and reinvest...

Secondly, I believe there is a great importance in the professional academic accreditation that recognises the learning curve that an independent filmmaker goes through when making a film. The journey of discovery that a filmmaker goes through when attempting such a feat is so rarely recognised as a great piece of project management, budget management, or people management. The creative realisation of a conceptual idea in itself is rarely applauded, regardless of whether the film 'works'. These are transferable skills that can be applied to any job that your graduates may find themselves in... you should champion this also.

I shall be keeping track of your progress!

Does anyone know of or can recommend resources either online or in L.A.? I think Film Independent has courses and probably UCLA or USC as well, and I'm talking about for non-matriculated students. But are any of these worth the time and money? Isn't a business plan little more than a template where you just fill in the information? Something like that might be available online. It doesn't seem like something you really need to spend a few hundred dollars on to take a course. But I don't doubt there's added value in taking a course with an instructor you can interface with.

Courtney Hunt spoke at a FIND Director's Forum about how getting financing for Frozen River was nothing more that getting a good business plan together. Of course, she had a successful short film version of it to show her stuff along with that.

Hallellujah!

Randy, you are my hero.

All my best,
Roberta Munroe
http://www.robertamunroe.com

The lotus flower appeared in legends originating from ancient Egypt
tiffany jewellery. It played an important part in ancient Egyptian religion
fashion jewelry. The pure white lotus flower Replica Handbags, the only

plant to fruit and flower simultaneously, emerges from the depths of the muddy swamp. Growing from Designer

Handbags,lower rises above the water and is usually white or pink with 15 or more oval, spreading petals, and a peculiar, flat seedcase at its center
Louis Vuitton replica handbags.jl

Eh!

While I am not a MFA student, I was a UCF Cinema Studies student who had Randy Finch as an instructor many times. He's a fun, informative instructor who understands that filmmakers must learn outdated, current and future trends and practices to be a successful filmmaker. While I don't recommend most to attend UCF's diploma mill, the Film Department is top notch with many smart and passionate instructors such as Randy.

adfa
[url=http://www.adasd.com]adf[/url]
sadf

"But, by the time they graduate, all our students really know what it takes to make and market an independent feature."

You may be saying more than you meant to here, but if you really know how to market an independent feature, and if you're students really know how to market an independent feature, why are you keeping the secret from the rest of us? And why are you teaching when you could be marketing independent features?

Don't you mean to say that you're teaching your students some techniques which may or may not succeed in marketing an independent feature, and that you don't have any compelling reason to think those techniques will actually work?

This is not nitpicking. You don't know how to market independent features, Ted doesn't know how to market independent features and your students certainly don't know how market independent features, otherwise nobody would be spending time at blogs like this one. They'd all be marketing their independent features.

I will nitpick: I didn't say that our students (or anyone) knows how to market independent features. I said our graduates "know what it takes" to make and market an independent feature. The difference may seem trivial but I chose the formulation on purpose. (And I apologize if I left the impression that we're know-it-alls.) For me "knowing what it takes" doesn't mean that our students know how to achieve success (what you would have me saying). It does mean that our MFA students are familiar with the tools that others have used (historically, currently and perhaps in the near future) and have defined what success means for themselves.