August 12 at 9:38am

Rise Up & Curate! (Part 2 of 2): Cinefist and Live Events

Today’s guest post is once again from filmmaker Zak Forsman. Yesterday we ran part one of this post.

Now, it should be pointed out that we are not alone in trying to aid the floundering LA indie scene. There are two other LA based screening series that we have partnered and networked with. Cinema Speakeasy by Saskia Wilson Brown has had great success hosting short film workshops where the audience is invited to offer creative feedback on films in post. Film Courage Interactive, hosted by Karen Worden & David Branin, bookends their screenings with a indie film quiz show with sponsor-donated prizes and a filmmaker therapy session of sorts where filmmakers discuss the more pressing issues of the day. All of us are building a network that we hope will grow into an alternative to film festivals, where the filmmaker can make a little dough showing their movies.

Experience has taught us that many filmmakers we invite to participate often need guidance and motivation. For that reason we have adopted a tiered revenue-share model where the first 40 seats go to the venue, the next 40 go to the filmmaker and the last 20 go to CINEFIST. Anything over 100 ticket sales are split evenly. In addition to having to first satisfy the venue’s cut, the filmmakers need to meet promotional commitments in order to participate in the box office sales. It’s not automatic. Having the filmmaker push and promote can often be the difference between 15 people or 150 people attending the event.

We’ve also discovered some things that just don’t work. At the beginning, I imagined that selling DVDs in the lobby would be a good way to boost the money a filmmaker could make. But the truth is that filmmakers have generally sold DVDs to less that 10% of the audience when priced between $10 and $20. Meanwhile, the bands that brought CDs to sell, sold them at $5 to about 50% of the audience. There is something to be said for the replay value of our films and the perception and effectiveness of “added value” that a DVD could or should have in order to motivate more purchases. This, however, is a tangent for another article.

Secretly, we at Sabi Pictures undertook this endeavor to experiment with doing live events in preparation for our upcoming theatrical tour of Heart of Now and White Knuckles — two feature-length films we produced and will release this Fall. In addition to the lessons of the screening series, we have been actively tracking audience demand using two services: Open Indie and Crowd Controls. On the surface they look like they offer the same things and one should choose between the two, but I’ve come to the conclusion that they actually offer complimentary advantages and it’s worth the time to use both.

Where Open Indie (more so, as it grows) fosters paths for audience discovery through a twitter-like interface and filter exposing users to new works their friends have requested, Crowd Controls fosters the means to distribute our work to an identifiable audience that we can nurture once they’ve established themselves as a “fan”. Open Indie provides a layer of privacy for the audience, meaning that someone who requests my movie there will never hear from me unless a screening is booked in their town. Crowd Controls on the other hand gives a fan the opportunity to share their email and postal code directly with the filmmaker, so that a relationship can be nurtured beyond the promise of a theatrical event. Admittedly, this is a general simplification as they both do a little of what the other does. But their strengths are definitely weighted at opposite ends of the discovery and distribution equation.

These services have had the side benefit of introducing us to people with established audiences all over the world who run film clubs or a screening series of their own with a built-in audience they curate for. Further, we need a database of independent-friendly theaters. There is the Art House Theater Map on PBS.org, but I’m hoping for something a lot more detailed.

That’s why we’ve started the CINEFIST Digital Cinema Census where a theater owner can submit an extensive list of information about their theater from number of screens, to seating capacity, to format and technical specifications of the venue, to P&A requirements, as well as rates, splits and booking procedures. After identifying where the demand for our movies lie with Open Indie and Crowd Controls, this information would allow any of us to book theaters in those towns and cities with ease. If you know a theater owner, forward that link to them.

Looking toward the near future, we want to see the CINEFIST Screening Series expand into other towns and cities by providing would-be screening hosts who have found a venue, with a guide to run their own curatorial efforts under. I can one day imagine a worldwide grassroots network of CINEFIST venues providing a genuine alternative to traditional theatrical distribution. Let me know if you’d like to be one of them! Our personal goals for our tour are to create urgency and exclusivity with one-night-only events, to support the release of Heart of Now and White Knuckles on other platforms, to shoot video and create more online content, and finally to nurture relationships with true fans. At the end of the day, what drives us are the genuine friendships we’ve made in this community and the hope to make many more. That’s been the real reward and helping fellow filmmakers expose their films to LA audiences has been a real privilege.

Zak Forsman
[Sabi Pictures | Twitter | Facebook]

  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • chicago medical billing
    I have to say I am pretty shocked by the negativity of some of the comments. I can't help but wonder if there are some existing frustrations that have nothing to do with you or your efforts. I honestly just can't see any legitimate complaint with finding new ways to build community, share ideas, increase audiences and at the very least reduce the financial losses on micro-budget films.
  • gregorybayne
    My personal opinion is that the most pressing point being completely missed here is the harsh reality of relevance. I'm friends with Zak and co., have been to 2 Cinefist screenings, one of which showed my film, PERSON OF INTEREST just last week. I appreciate what they are doing, and willingness to stick their collective necks out. There should be more people like them across the board.

    That said, I don't believe a cross country, let alone global, curation series is either viable, nor sustainable. Living outside the bubble (Idaho), and having run a film festival here for 5 years (True West Cinema Fest) I have direct experience with this. Unless something grows from within the community (city, town, country etc.) it's situated in it has no chance of being, or being viewed as, relevant. Things such as screening series, or film festivals, or films themselves need time to grow, to situate themselves in the landscape, to build a following, and an audience. And when it comes to events like Cinefist, or True West they need to serve, as best they can, the needs of their community in order to sustain, and eventually grow.

    I think Cinefist is great, but at just 3 screenings down - is in it's infancy. It has not yet established itself within its own community, and if it is to continue, must work to do that successfully prior to making bigger moves. This is just simple reality.

    I understand Zak's inclination here, and agree that the way forward involves events such as Cinefist, or the Annapolis Pretentious Film Society screenings, or regional film festivals or the multitude of other cinema clubs out there. But, ultimately the onus is upon each and every one of us individually to both get our work out, and make money (cause we know that's what we're actually talking about here). These objectives, at the end of the day however, are only accomplished via a sustained campaign on the part of the maker, and if their lucky, the handful of others that join with them.

    There is no system. There is only you.
  • doghouse
    Folks, it is *is* a monolith and you *can* generalize, because indie film is subject to structural features beyond any individual's control, like many other aspects of the American economy which have far-reaching personal implications.

    To get a sense of how silly our preoccupations are, have a look at French art-house cinema in 2010. Off the top of my head, these filmmakers are working productively today in non-commercial idioms: Olivier Assayas, Claire Denis, Catherine Breillat, Arnaud Desplenchin, Jacques Audiard, Claude Berri, Alain Resnais, Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Claude Brisseau, Chris Marker, Agnes Varda, and dozens of others making movies for adults, with apologies for the possible spelling errors. If you don't know these writer/directors, you might want to have a look, to get a sense of what a mature and vibrant national art-house cinema looks like, and the range it permits.

    This, in a country the size of one our states, and with the GDP of one of our states. Meanwhile, if you want to see how ludicrous our own preoccupations are by comparison, do a little thought experiment: locate these Frenchies in America. Suddenly, they're worrying about whether some producer or other of dubious ability will like their script; or whether they're going to get into Sundance; or maybe Robert Redford will smile on them and they'll get invited to attend an Institute workshop; or maybe they just need to sit respectfully in the audience while indie film entrepreneurs, some of whom never actually produced or distributed films, explain the new paradigm to them. Or how about this -- an MFA in micro-budget filmmaking? Is it getting pathetic and ridiculous enough yet?

    Well, that ridiculous and pathetic situation is our situation. Other countries solved this dilemma, years ago. And places as small and diverse as Taiwan and Romania have internationally respected art-house traditions, unlike the U.S. today.

    Meanwhile, we think rock bands and viral marketing are going to solve our problem. The free market, don't you know.

    So yeah: it's a monolith, in the sense of the opportunities which don't exist, and never existed.

    Anyway, that's my last word here. So cheer on, things are great and your heroes have all the answers, all you need do is queue up for the seminars, and keep reading the posts here.
  • I am very familiar with most of those filmmakers/producers but Claude Berri is no longer active since he died early last year. I believe Chris Marker has retired a few years ago but occasionally active in a few small video/photo projects. You didn't mention Philippe Garrel who is very much active in personal filmmaking. I believe France has a system where a percentage of receipts from the box office are filtered back into the country's film industry and other protective provisions to ensure a healthy film industry.
  • Here here, Nathan. Making good films, especially on tiny budgets, is hard. In fact, it's next to impossible. I'm sure we all know that for every one that we grade as a success, there are literally thousands that don't meet the mark. So, what are we supposed to do about that? Tell people not to try? Are filmmakers expected to be Christopher Nolan right out of the gate? Not even Christopher Nolan was Christopher Nolan on his first film. And I'm not talking about "Following"; I'm talking about the film he made before "Following" that he abandoned and never talks about. Filmmaking is a craft. You have to practice the craft and yes, you have to have talent, too. What's so wrong with people giving it a shot and then trying to get people to see their efforts whether they succeeded or not? None of us have to see anyone's work if we feel like it's all shit. But I for one don't believe in telling people they're not allowed to try. I remember I was on a panel years ago with a Panavision guy who was really against the whole DV movement. He made a crack like, "just because you give someone a Gibson guitar, that doesn't make them Eric Clapton." People applauded. As if some people don't have the right to try. So the fuck what if I can't play guitar; I can buy a Gibson if I want and everyone can choose not to listen to me. But there's another reason for letting filmmakers try--how do we know if they're "artists" until they do? I responded to that Panavision guy with, "yes, it may be true that just because you have a Gibson, that doesn't make you Eric Clapton, but if you give the next Eric Clapton a $10 guitar, what they play is still going to sound pretty good." What Zac and David are doing in LA is giving an opportunity for people to try. You never know until you try. And practice makes perfect. And if my film isn't genius, but 150 people want to see it, (I mean, millions of people pay more money to see well-made crap that Hollywood puts out), then why is that such a bad thing?
  • Nathan Cole
    Doghouse - I totally take your point, but you are voicing your opinions on the wrong thread. Please find the "All Modern American Cinema Does Not Meet my Aesthetic Needs" thread. Liking film, as with any art, is subjective. If you want movies you can embrace fully, go make some (assuming you haven't already, and if you have congratulations, you must be very proud of yourself.)

    You got one thing right, making films has always been tough and it will always be tough. Making good films is even harder. But don't piss on Zak and others that are just trying to give a voice to films that are killed by Hollywood or the established indie system. Whether or not you like the films is irrelevant, but I can guarantee you some great films will benefit from this type of support.
  • doghouse
    As the presumed "hater" here, I just want to note that anyone who tries to promote this work, no matter how bad and undeserving it may be, is a hero, as is anyone making films. It's a noble and heroic activity, the very finest. And there's a place in heaven for all those who "do".

    Snark aside, you'd think that with the medium in shambles -- and truth is, it was never kind to filmmakers, not even in Ted Hope's heyday, and excellence was never promoted in any consistent and meaningful sense -- you'd think participants would be looking frantically for alternative approaches and understandings. But no: they wanna be told they live in the best possible world, that the only real problem is marketing, that the heroes of the past have all the answers. So set up the seminar tables, and get out the water bottles, and lets pretend that, once upon a time, things were grand, and some day they'll be grand again.

    This isn't "hating" folks. It's called "realism" and "analysis", and I'd like to think my posts are full of both -- with real content, and real analysis (see below). Maybe I fail in that endeavor. Then again, optimism is an American disease, and it's pointless trying to tell some people that there are no self-help solutions to this crisis.
  • Adam Jeal
    Fuck the haters! - Keep going Zak!
  • Nathan Cole
    Thanks Zak for sharing your experiences. I think most filmmakers would agree that screening before a live audience is one of the great highlights of making a film and in today's market is is disheartening to know that most films made will not get this opportunity. It would be one thing if this was simply due to the quality of the film, but as anyone who has been to one of your events (or Film Courage's for that matter) would see this just is not the case. Today's distribution system simply does not have the resources, finances and/or guts to ensure that even quality films are brought to audiences. Any attempt to try and rectify this situation in a DIY fashion should be applauded, especially in Los Angeles, where indeed there is no shortage of great films to see.

    In my experience, there are large numbers of people all over the country that are craving to see films beyond the same old star-driven, genre and franchise pictures dumped on their mutli-plexes. It is really worth mentioning what a great job The Pretentious Film Society of Annapolis have done bringing truly independent films to a loyal audience. I always joke that he should franchise. The thing is, they built an audience and that audience trusts the programming and they support with their wallets.

    I am not sure what the future will look like, but I am happy that you and others like you are making an effort and not letting the cynicism, short-sightedness and the difficulties that plague the film business get in your way.
  • Guest
    Wow so many angry filmmakers! Jealous filmmakers!! Contemptuous filmmakers!!!

    I think we're missing the point of this article--which is a call to action. A call to CURATE. You do you, and let Zak do Zak--but learn from Zak's journey to this place in consideration of all the filmmakers who will soon follow after him. The attempt here is to promote dialogue; the exchange of open and transparent experiences to build and grow upon.

    Does Zak's post sound self-serving? So the fuck what! Hasn't he earned the right to share his accomplishments in addition to his failures? So now we've read all about Zak's journey--now throw yours into the mix, and if there's shitloads of filmmakers and curators (or whatever they call themselves) out there doing what Zak is doing, please name them and and let's make some professional connections. Our objective as like-minded creatives is to inspire and motivate ourselves to press forward with confidence. Fellow indie filmmakers are NOT our enemies--BIG BUSINESS is our enemy until the day we become so successful we ultimately join their ranks.

    Lighten up people! Pop a pill or somethin'. Find something of value to take away from this highly informative post and go kick the dog if you must (waitaminute--don't do that!)
  • Me thinks you make a lot of presumptions. Speak for yourself. If anyone's angry it's you! Exposing truth is not jealousy or contemptuous. It is enlightening. If you enjoy living in a fairy tale then do so at your own risk. But promoting the same is not optimism. It is criminal. In fact, if anyone is contemptuous it's you.

    Zac can do as he wants. That doesn't mean those who see his efforts as futile don't have the right to call him out. I don't see that Zac, or anyone else, has amounted to a hill of beans in helping to make indie films work, except within their own selective circles. Curate, indeed, another word for politics as usual.

    Doghouse simply called all this "silly preoccupations". I don't see how that isn't true. Have any of these solutions proven to be a sustaining model for indie filmmakers to follow? Fuck no.

    Good indie films continue to be left by the America wayside. That's the American way. And if that's a source of anger then what did you expect? Maybe Zac is doing some good. Maybe not. Generally with the services he talks about and other social networking solutions, I see little more than a circle of friends who like to suck each others dicks. This is hardly a viable solution for indie filmmakers. It hasn't worked. It's not working. And it's had a few years to take hold. Even when it does work the returns are paltry. What I don't get is why people like Zac continue to post this stuff as if it were some kind of success story. Come back when your film has made seven or eight figures and you see it as a sustaining solution. Then what you have to say might be worth listening to.

    On the other hand, it may be better than nothing, short of moving to the South of France which seems quite attractive at this point (as if it never was). So I may take what Zac and his circle of friends have to say with a grain of salt. Though, I know what doghouse is talking about has a whole lot of truth about it. But some people can't handle truth.
  • Zak,

    I have to say I am pretty shocked by the negativity of some of the comments. I can't help but wonder if there are some existing frustrations that have nothing to do with you or your efforts. I honestly just can't see any legitimate complaint with finding new ways to build community, share ideas, increase audiences and at the very least reduce the financial losses on micro-budget films.

    I have always assumed different people have different reasons for their efforts in micro-budget cinema. Some are hoping to learn and move on to more commercial efforts, some just like the creative control these budgets offer, others have creative taste that only can be found in this arena, and I am sure many are there because their talents don't merit larger budgets or larger audiences. So what? The reasons, I assume, are as varying as the people.

    To characterize any creative community monolithically, especially this one, illustrates a lack of empathy and appreciation for the humanity of others that I would contend is a far greater threat to indie-cinema than anything doghouse complains about. This is not even mentioning the self-absorbtion and self-agrandizement that I have always believed is the beginning of the end for the artist. (assuming there was even a beginning!)

    There is a difference between critical thought and destructive intentions. I don't see any benefit in attempts to minimize the efforts of others, especially with a not so secret subtext that they hold a superior position in creativity or integrity. To do so behind an alias adds to the suspicion of less than good-faith criticism.

    Keep up the good work. When any of us hears honest, helpful criticism I hope we are able to listen and learn. But I hope we also have the aptitude to recognize when someone's need to criticize is far greater than the value of their criticism.
  • T. Reed
    Those who can do. Those who can't poke holes in everyone else for not doing it right enough for them;)

    T. Reed
  • Those who can't comprehend dismiss those who do.
  • Filmcourage
    Zak, thank you for your energy, enthusiasm, and professionalism in all you do. I am so grateful for your everyday contributions to the film community. You are an absolute class act and your CineFist series is a first rate event.

    Really is amazing that someone that puts the effort that you do into selflessly promoting and supporting other filmmakers has to endure these words from folks who are afraid to reveal themselves.

  • Kiss ass
  • doghouse
    Zak, I'm glad you that at least find my evacuations here entertaining (really!).

    What's more remarkable is that, in a medium which is aesthetically bankrupt and an utter loss financially, such basic criticisms are met either with either incomprehension or pique. It *is* true that most folks, including producers, don't like to be told that they're not artists and are not fit to stand as gatekeepers, but it seems a fair charge, in the absence of any demonstrable abilities which show the accusation to be dastardly and untrue.

    I won't restate arguments already aired, but I absolutely must comment on your report that

    "Mastering the art form is a given. And there is plenty of discussion for that. In fact I just finished producing a series of videos (NEW BREED LOS ANGELES) with Kevin K. Shah that played on The Workbook Project and Filmmaker Magazine about.... duh-duh-duhnnnn... the creative process. Still, it does not negate the need to seek solutions for the how and the why and by what means we will support that great work's exhibition."

    A "given"? In this climate of mediocrity? You may be Shakespeare and Mozart combined for all I know, but it's amazing to me that *anyone* in this business would venture to offer instruction on the "creative process". Have you mastered that process? On what basis have you arrived at the apparent conclusion that you have? If the process is so well understood, where the art works?

    Forgive me, but this arrogance of creative purchase is at the heart of the indie malaise. Everybody, but everybody, is an expert on narrative story-telling and the fine arts by virtue of the money or production resources he or she controls. And what other requirements are there for that claim? None. It's a "given". No proof needed, and abilities need not be demonstrated. And we wonder why this "art form" is failing. Remarkable.

    As for suggestions -- I've got plenty. Just look at how other countries organize their non-commercial moviemaking ventures, you don't have to take it from me. The trouble is, the players in this business can't and won't admit incapacity, and our political culture won't allow for the necessary solutions, so there is no present remedy. About the only thing one can do is lob bombs at the continuing nonsense. Not very satisfying in the end, and not very productive, but it can be galling, when these absurdities are repeated over and over again, for 20+ years, and nobody says a word..

    American indie film -- it's unsatisfying aesthetically, it's immature, it can't begin to compete either with Hollywood or the art house films of any number of other countries, and it doesn't make money, but hell -- we're doing everything right! Just keep repeating that mantra, if it makes everyone feel good.
  • Doghouse, you missed the boat here. New Breed and The Workbook Project are in the forefront of indie cinema around the world. Anyone who's anyone knows this. I know for a fact that all these filmmakers are riding around in Lamborghinis and reside in the highest and most expensive hills of L.A. real estate. Mediocrity? Ha! Everyone wants to be them.
  • let me clarify, the NEED to master the art form is a given. the series we produced is not an education (maybe for some), but an exploration of the creative process, in an effort to support that dialogue. Most American indies are severely underdeveloped, in my opinion. That is their greatest flaw. And so is the mechanism to discover new works. We're actively contributing to the dialogue on the art and exhibition of them. Not just on blogs, but in the real world, in a real theater where no one uses a pseudonym.

    and just to be clear. i am not shakespeare and mozart combined. i'm michael bay and the dardenne bros.
  • Michael Bay sucks fucking ass. And you're not him.
  • btw, doghouse. what's your real name? who am I talking to?
  • pssst (it's Steven Speilberg)
  • ewwww
    Ugh, this is kind of gross. There are plenty of fantastic and intelligent people and places curating "independent" and "alternative" film in Los Angeles, who are not doing so as part of an overly articulated self-promotional push to hype up their personal business interests. Your description of the LA scene is naive and self-serving.
  • thanks ewww, believe it or not, I genuinely and humbly contribute weeks of work to pull off these screenings for no other reason than to give the audience a chance to curate the films they want to see and to expand the reach of some promising filmmakers. We don't make a dime doing this. Our regulars have a need we're serving. And we've learned a lot. The rewards of that education will help us as we distribute our own pictures later this year. And the information is freely published at The Workbook Project so that others may make use of it too. If you find that distasteful, I really don't know what to say.

    we've partnered with some of the most intelligent curators in the city -- Cinema Speakeasy and Film Courage Interactive. have you been to either? they are doing great things and make it a point to attend as many of their events as I can.

    please explain the LA scene as you see it. I've lived here 11 years. in that time I've met very few filmmakers that are independent because they choice to be.
  • doghouse
    It's altogether possible this approach serves your business model, and the films you seek to produce. After all, "independent" or "off-Hollywood" film can mean anything from a Sylvester Stallone vehicle to 90 minutes of non-narrative abstractions.

    But your post has got to be among the most demoralizing comments on the independent scene, to date. Rock bands, audience polls, personal appearances -- these are, obviously, mass-merchandising techniques, for mass-audiences and mass-market products, which will appeal to the same demographic which goes to Hollywood movies and watches TV and which have no appeal for the traditional art house audience, diminishing though it may be. So the question arises, is there currently a shortage of commercial movies that you're seeking to exploit?

    Alternately, if the explicit goal is to make movies for mass-markets, but on vastly reduced budgets, we're already talking about a failed business model. Good luck to you, maybe you'll stumble on the formula, but there's nothing implicitly valuable or redeeming about such an activity, or any compelling reason for anyone else to want to sustain or promote it, as a moral act or affirmation of culture. It's just business.

    Which brings us back to a confusion of intents which surfaces regularly on this blog. On the one hand, you get the filmmakers who want to be regarded as artists, and the producers, like Ted, who want to be seen a master filmmakers, dramaturges and story-tellers. And then you have the lawyers and producers talking about marketing, and business plans. Some, like Ted, wear both hats. But the conflict never seems to get sorted out, perhaps because non-Hollywood productions of all kinds use the mechanisms designed for "art" film -- festivals, backstories of production and financing misadventures, claims of inherent virtue and sacrifice for Art, marketing the filmmaker as an Artist. So these explicitly commercial efforts typically get conflated with festival product, good and bad.

    If either side of it were more successful -- if we were making films of high aesthetic accomplishment or impressive box office performance -- there might be no urge to sort out this confusion. But since we're doing neither, the conflict is always jarring. Can I be the only who who wishes that the paths would divide, that the business people would go one way, and the artistic wannabes another, and the discourse would not get corrupted on both sides with meaningless concerns and preoccupations.

    Notwithstanding frequent claims here that "artists" need to be entrepreneurs, there's so little art in evidence that it might make more sense the reverse the formulation. If folks expect to use the art-house mechanisms for distribution, maybe they should try mastering the art form, before worrying about the marketing.
  • Kevin Shah
    Doghouse, with all due respect, all this knowledge you've amassed may be weighing you down -- and can't be good for the spirit!! :) Breathe, stretch and gather up your creative friends and go shoot something truly meaningful and important -- despite the business, politics, marketing, culture, the broken state of the state, and all else you are presently overly preoccupied with.

    Find a story that means something to you, and shoot it -- whether you are a artist, filmmaker, or entrepreneur. (I know you can't really care what people want to call themselves?)
    Even if you have no desire to make a film, really, you should. Even if you're not a filmmaker, help one out! P.A. for a day or something -- discover your talent. Work on a project you believe in. Learn what it's like on a set, and taking part in something that is greater than yourself. Participate! Even better, support the very community/models/filmmakers you are convinced will fail.

    Allow me to make a few more suggestions for you to try -- just as an experiment: Avoid using the words 'mechanisms', 'exploit', 'demographic', 'formula' and 'mass' in any posts for 30 days - which will help you redefine these words and eliminate further confusion. Avoid using the word 'Art' for 60 days for similar reasons.

    Shake up your day and surprise yourself with your own generosity. Along the way, take a moment and ask filmmakers why they make / love movies, really, truly -- and seek out the honest answers. What you may find in these answers -- I pray -- will shatter the illusion of the no-way-out universe you've created and could plant seeds that may someday shelter you from your own storms.

    Conversation is good for the soul, and it involves getting (and putting) yourself out there & helping others do the same by sharing what you've learned. These disciplines are those that filmmakers like Zak Forsman practice regularly, and effectively.

    As they continue to learn -- the knowledge Zak, Ted Hope (and many others like them) share with the larger community (both 'mass' and 'niche') inspires and empowers us all in our own endeavors, and strengthens the collective dream.

    If that last sentence was hard to swallow - one last thing: about faith. Making the kinds of films that I consider 'meaningful' and 'important' as described above -- requires both consistent vision and persistent faith. Faith in your collaborators. Faith in your teachers. Faith in yourself. Faith in the audience. Add to this, a Faith that the marketplace will continue to improve on her fickle ways.

    Practice these truths and personal experiments in the best way you know how -- and be sure respect others when they do so as well. And smile!
  • You are a god!
  • I don't see the marketing of a filmmaker's work as confusing at all since how is the public (niche or mass market) to know of the work in the first place? That is a weak argument and I see nothing wrong with a filmmaker or other creative medium seeking avenues to promote their work. If you are referring to people suggesting that the marketing is influencing the creation of said work and compromising the value of the art within the work (Art vs. mArt?) then yes that is a concern however if the creator is producing the work from their own soul without compromise then I fully support the efforts to allow the public to know of such honest work.
  • The screening series is not a model for raking in the dough. With realistic expectations for the number of people who will come out (given all the other entertainment choices one has in Los Angeles) to a one night only event with a ticket price of $10, you'd have to realize that the money only covers minimal expenses for the screening host -- in this case CINEFIST. It covers the venue's costs in staff and management, so that you're not in a situation where the theater is subsidizing these films. And the filmmaker has an opportunity to make enough to take a bite out of their travel expenses. The purpose is to responsibly cultivate and nurture art and audience here. The purpose is to serve a community. No one that has attended or help run one of these events is confused by this as some kind of impossible marriage of art and commerce. Instead, they're simply part of a fostered, growing and thriving community where each event brings together new and familiar faces.

    Mastering the art form is a given. And there is plenty of discussion for that. In fact I just finished producing a series of videos (NEW BREED LOS ANGELES) with Kevin K. Shah that played on The Workbook Project and Filmmaker Magazine about.... duh-duh-duhnnnn... the creative process. Still, it does not negate the need to seek solutions for the how and the why and by what means we will support that great work's exhibition.

    So, in that the screening series largely pays for itself, it has been successful. In that the filmmakers get to meet new fans who have a genuine appreciation for the work and selected their film to screen, it has been successful. In that we're serving a need for true independents in a city where being an independent is usually a fallback position for people who couldn't make it work in the studio machine, it has been successful.

    Feel free to keep taking giant shits on this blog, it's very entertaining. But perhaps offer some solutions along with your finger-pointing next time. Unless you're suggesting that "doing nothing" is a solution, then you've made that point exceptionally well. I don't see any "confusion of intents" here. I see the rest of us out there participating, banding together, making new friends, treating the local theater as a community center, and taking steps to make sure cinema remains the catalyst for it. I'd like to see that continue to grow.
  • I think doghouse did offer a solution - make good films! Of course that would require actual talent.
  • So now what does this mean on the heels of you announcement of the sale of Sabi? Did Cinefist go with that sale?
  • CINEFIST is its own company and we still own that.
blog comments powered by Disqus

This site could not have been built without the help and insight of Michael Morgenstern. My thanks go out to him.

Help save indie film and give this guy a job in web design or film!