Notes from IFP’s Independent Filmmaker Conference 2009

Notes from IFP’s Independent Filmmaker Conference 2009
Fashion Institute of Technology
New York, NY

IFP’s annual Independent Filmmaker Conference returned this year to New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology, Sept. 19-23. I attended panels on the first two days on Saturday, Sept. 19, and Sunday, Sept. 20. Instead of my mostly usual highlights from the transcripts of these panels, I will be doing one summary of my entire panel experience from these two days. I will focus on some of the most informative points raised by the moderators and panelists. As an aside, I attended two screenings hosted by Rooftop Films. First on Saturday night was Burning in the Sun at Solar One, and second was the IFP Independent Filmmaker Lab Showcase on Sunday night at Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park. Both were very impressive screenings and had great turnouts.

The theme over the weekend was “Making Your First Feature,” something a lot of the attendees could probably relate to, as when the moderators asked who in the audience was a filmmaker, almost everyone raised their hands. Many of the panelists on the stage were established filmmakers or producers, even people in distribution and exhibition, who were more than willing to share their experiences. Topics ranged from exhibiting films online and in alternate venues such as arthouses, to getting your screenplay read and sold, to finding music, and coming up with a plan to build and sustain your career.

While many filmmakers aspire to have their films play theatrically, the topic of the first panel I attended on Saturday was called “Big Ideas for the Small Screen,” which is more or less the web nowadays and not so much an actual television. This was the first of a couple of panels that Mary Jane Skalski (Producer, Next Wednesday) and Jamin O’ Brien (Producer, Worldview Entertainment) moderated. The panel was comprised of people working in or making content for the web including Eric Mortenson (Head of Content - Blip.tv), Craig Parks (Vice President, IFC Digital Media), Jeff Marks (Bright Red Pixels), actor Anslem Richardson (Like So Many Things), and Marc Lieberman (Producer, The Onion News Network).

O’Brien began by asking what drives each of the panelists to develop, create, and produce projects specifically for the web, and Skalski alluded to how there seems to be more people watching web content these days than going to see a theatrical film release. Richardson, who worked on a short film that was eventually turned into a seven-episode series on IFC.com, said the web is a great way for independent filmmakers to get things out there, and suggests honing one’s skills online, because if you fail, at least you didn’t spend a lot of time and money. Lieberman, who works with The Onion News Network, which has been around for three years and stems from The Onion newspaper and is a large brand attracting audience to the web, said what’s changing is that there are now job opportunities for producing web content that weren’t there before. Mortenson said at Blip.tv, they work with several shows that consistently get three million views a month.

O’Brien added to Skalski’s earlier hypothesis by asking if web content is replacing the need for filmmaker to make 35mm films, replacing that idea with a much less expensive and accessible medium and more exposure. Marks, who began his career in Hollywood, said around the time of the digital revolution, he and his production partner could have their own Final Cut or Canon XL1 and start making their own films. And around the time the iPod video came out, they started making web video, which presented an opportunity to take what they’ve made and find an audience for it. Fast-forward to today, and Marks said that a lot of what’s on the web now is a one-trick pony or gag. To him having content on the web is not just about getting viewership, but also cultivating talent and give opportunities to be discovered and find work.

O’Brien asked, what is working on the web, what have the panelists had success with, and what are they looking for or hope to see next? Lieberman said The Onion News Network makes two-minute videos that have more of a story arc, and not just one beat. He cites his DP who is making a short series with his 90-year-old grandmother about Depression-era cooking, which got a book deal. It’s about creating a show about whatever you like to do and creating content around that. Mortenson agreed with Lieberman, saying that was a perfect example because there’s no competition for that show. On Blip.tv, shows like Morning Swim Show and Momversations get a lot of views, because of their unique topics.

Skalski and O’Brien were back to moderate “Script to Screen.” On the panel were Jody Hotchkiss (Producer – Cockeyed), Geoff Betts (Business Agent - Writers Guild of America, East), Darrien Michelle Gipson (National Director, SAG Indie), Robert Siegel (Entertainment Attorney - Cowan DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP), and Joshua Zeman (Producer – Ghost Robot Films).

Skalski began by asking how one can introduce his or her screenplay into the world, what are people looking for, what are some first steps? The first thing that Hotchkiss always looks for is a personal response to a story, such as in a newspaper or magazine article. “Something where you feel, Oh my G-d, that should be a film!” he said. If the feeling isn’t there, it’s hard to go further with it. Zeman said it’s really important to develop your pitch by pitching to your friends first and finding out what people respond to.

Skipping ahead to later in the discussion, Skalski asked Betts how people can register their scripts with the WGAE. Betts said everyone who’s written a script should register it with the Writer’s Guild, which protects your idea and concept. Siegel added that everyone should also submit his or her scripts to the U.S. Copyright Office. And what of obtaining the rights to literary or found material, Skalski asked. Hotchkiss answered that the best way is to first approach the author or journalist of the source material. Strike up a relationship, so there’s sympathy to be free and clear to depict the real person and get a “right to depict” release, which acts as your insurance. Siegel added that it could actually be a little more complicated than that to option or purchase the rights, as sometimes you have to deal with exclusivity.

And to backtrack a little earlier in the discussion, in terms of casting, Skalski turned the table over to Gipson, asking how SAG Indie works. Gipson explained that once you’re ready to cast your film, make sure the people you’re casting are SAG or professional actors to use the website, which is www.sagindie.org, and download the preliminary information form. The site tells you how much your actor will cost you. This lead to Skalski’s next question being, how do you determine your budget? Siegel replied that the first thing to do is get a line producer or production manager to do a real budget.

Now that you have your film completed it’s time to lay down the music and score, but whom do you go to for the rights? This issue was touched on in “Music: The Bastard Child of Post-Production,” moderated by Doreen Ringer Ross (Vice President, Film/TV Relations - BMI), who allowed the audience to jump in with questions, as opposed to waiting toward the end of the moderated section of the panel, which I thought was cool. On the panel were some of the greatest names in film and film music including animator Bill Plympton (Director - Idiots and Angels), Brook Pimot (VP, Creative & Marketing [Film & TV Music] - Cherry Lane Music Publishing, Inc.), composer David Shire (Composer - Zodiac, Norma Rae, The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3, Saturday Night Fever), and music supervisor Randall Poster (Music Supervisor - Away We Go, Jennifer’s Body, Revolutionary Road).

Ringer Ross threw the first question out to Plympton, asking him about making his first feature and the experience in getting the music. Plympton said for his first film, “Your Face,” he knew nothing about music, though it was a musical. In the film, a male character was to sing a song, but he could only get a female singer, because she was free. It was his first usage of music in a film. For future films, he used musicians that he knew personally. In 1990, halfway through production on his film “The Toon,” he ran out of money, so he had to release it in two separate sections. Later on in the discussion, Ringer Ross asked what kind of music Plympton likes to receive. He said he prefers to listen to an entire song, not just a sample MPEG. He prefers acoustic to electronic music, and plays music while he draws. One audience member asked Plympton, what is his etiquette in working with composers? Plympton said he once had a problem with a composer, who kept changing the lyrics, and he’s since then stopped using him, but they have still remained friends.

Ringer Ross asked Poster how he began his career as a music supervisor. Poster said he wrote a script with a friend about the demise of a college radio station, “A Matter of Trees,” which was invited to Sundance. At the time, college radio was transforming into alternative music. They recorded music for the film and made a record deal. His ambition became to work with great filmmakers instead of making his own films every couple of years.

In terms of when a music publisher steps in, Pimont said a music supervisor comes to her for a song to use in the film and negotiates a price to use it. Sometimes it is too low, so she runs the offer by the writers. Some publishers won’t even look at an offer if it is below a certain amount. Ringer Ross asked what’s happening with dollar amounts on licensing fees? Pimont said there is a lot of value in getting a song placed in a film or commercial. Poster stated the example of how Tom Waits does not allow his music to appear in commercials. He is aggressive in asserting his legal rights, but does show support for worthwhile projects. Poster said the artists him or herself is not always completely in control, and warns that all artists should cover their bases, and not rely on a casual approval. Plympton said this happened to him on “Idiots & Angels,” where he had to wait till the last day to finalize his mix. Ringer Ross mentioned that musician Moby gives his film away to independent filmmakers via Moby Gratis. She asked Shire, as a composer, what he thought of artists giving away their music for free, and he jokingly replied that he’d be thrilled to know his music is being used at all. Shire recalled earlier in his career when there was a composer’s strike in Hollywood. The issue was that composers wanted the rights to the cues they had done.

Moving onto Sunday, the first panel of the day I attended was “Arthouse & Alternative Venue Programming” moderated by sales agent Josh Braun (Submarine Entertainment) and Heather Winters (Producer/Partner - Studio On Hudson). On the panel were Ned Hinkle (Creative Director - Brattle Theater, Boston), Mark Elijah Rosenberg (Artistic Director – Rooftop Films), and Josh Green (Vice President, Distribution – Emerging Pictures).

Braun asked the exhibitors about their venues differ from one another. Green said Emerging Pictures shows movies from traditional distributors. They wait to see how a movie opens in New York. It’s really an affiliate network with a program based on individual audiences and geography. They also play one-night only special event films where they might have live/interactive Q&As, and sometimes two days later, the film comes out on DVD. Emerging Pictures does not acquire any rights to the films. They’re just an exhibitor. As for the Brattle Theater, Hinkle said they are a repertory or “calendar” house, which literally means they print a calendar with films that only play for one or two weeks. The theater has a reputation of programming quality films, and targeting a film-savvy audience. Rosenberg said Rooftop Films accepts submissions of films from November through March, and they sometimes even look at rough cuts. Their model is to make each screening an event that is unique by matching the film with a venue and neighborhood. For example, they screened “Trouble the Water” last year in Harlem. For “No Impact Man,” they had an eco-carnival before the screening.

Winters asked each how they support filmmakers, in terms of promoting their films through marketing and publicity? Green said Emerging Pictures has very little marketing costs because each local cinema has their own publicist who works on site. Rosenberg said Rooftop Films handles each film on a personal, hand-on case-by-case basis. Their ability is to help filmmakers. They even recommend films to other festivals and will put filmmakers in touch with distributors. Hinkle said that filmmakers need to be an accessory to their own marketing force. They should put time and money aside to go on tour with their films, which could help them ultimately get a larger run. Rosenberg added that filmmakers need to work on their Q&A skills. There’s nothing worse than an awkward Q&A. Filmmakers are representing their films and should be interesting and fun about it, instead of awkward and shy.

So you’ve got a couple of film under your belt, but you’re looking to get to the next step in your career. How do you keep making a living as a filmmaker in this tough economy and how can you plan for your future? This question was addressed in “Paying the Bills: Sustaining Your Film Career” moderated by Esther Robinson (Filmmaker/Journalist - Filmmaker Magazine, Thatgrl Media - A Walk Into the Sea: Danny Williams and The Warhol Factory), who has been writing a series of articles for Filmmaker Magazine about sustaining one’s career. On the panel was Rose Troche (Writer/Director - Go Fish, The Safety of Objects), Thatgrl Media (Writer/Director - The Complications - Children of Invention) , Jesse Epstein (Filmmaker - New Day Films - Wet Dreams and False Images) and Reva Goldberg (Communications and Fellowships Manager - Cinereach).

Robinson began by saying that there is a level of economics that happens behind the scenes of filmmaking, but filmmakers don’t necessarily have access to it, but organizations such as IFP are helping out. Robinson asked each panelist for a one-word description on how they are all making it work. Their answers: Goldberg – “relationship-building”; Epstein – “Tapas” or “Dim-Sum”; Chun – “Compartmentalization”; and Troche – “TV”.

Robinson asked all what it was like starting out in the business, and what they thought their lives would be. Troche said her first job directing in television was on “Six Feet Under.” She said more people probably watched that one episode than all three of her films combined. There’s a lot of compromise that goes along with working in TV. When she started, she didn’t know anything, but she wanted to be challenged. Chun said in the early 1990s, there was a renaissance for independent films. He didn’t want to go to grad school. Instead he made a schedule to direct no-budget short films every six months, and took short-term work in between films such as painting portraits. Epstein said she started working on films in the art department and taught documentary filmmaking to young people. She took two years off to attend NYU, which led her to shoot her first in a series of three short documentary films, which she distributes through New Day Films.

Goldberg added an extra word to Robinson’s earlier “one-word” description saying “patience” and “be nice.” Troche seemed to disagree with the “be nice” part saying she thinks it’s about ambition and tenacity. Troche also advised not to get into a job that takes up all your time if you want to make your own film, because it’s a “selfish business.” [***Personal note: I agree to a point. It’s certainly not easy to work a full-time job and make a living as a filmmaker at the same time, but if you’re struggling financially, how do you make money to pay the bills without having some sort of job? Not everyone is a trust-fund baby, not to imply that this is what Troche was saying, because she certainly didn’t, but I know a lot of filmmakers who have full-time jobs that while they’re not at the level of Troche, are able to make their films, maybe not as fast as they’d like, but at least they’re making them.]

A question from the audience was if they have a five-year plan. Robinson said she plans everything in five-year increments. She tries to be clear about what is good for her films, tries to stay solvent and not go into debt. She also wants to have health insurance. Troche said it would be nice to not think about money constantly. Robinson concluded that filmmaking is a life-long practice and you do have to have a long-term plan.

Script to Screen: Inside the Development Process - March 7, 2009

IFP’s Script to Screen Conference

Tips from the Pros: Inside the Development Process
March 7, 2009
New York, NY

Producer Mike Ryan lead another producer, a screenwriter (the very jovial and enthusiastic Kelly Masterson) and a couple of development executives in the discussion about what else, but development, the process of reading and evaluating scripts that may or may not be eventually produced and brought to the screen. The following are highlights from that discussion.

Moderator:
Mike Ryan, Producer, Old Joy

Panelists:
Quentin Little, Producer & Former Development Exec, HDNet Films
Kelly Masterson, Screenwriter, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead
Cordelia Stephens, Development Exec, Belladonna
Angela Lee, Development Exec, Vox 3

Ryan: How can companies be approached with scripts? What is your experience with this process?

Little: We look into the type of material they have and what their mandate is…We make sure you’re very specifically demographically targeted…It’s a lot harder for us to accept unsolicited submissions. They may however read unsolicited queries. You can send in a query letter. It’s a sense of your project, but not the script…You want to narrow it down to a short and concise couple of sentences…Be sure you’re capturing the essence of it.

Stevens: Our submission process is fairly open. We really read all the query letters that are sent. We don’t read unsolicited scripts…I really don’t like to get a query letter in the mail, I liked to get it emailed…It’s really important that the query letter tells about the script in a way I can read it in a few seconds. I’m getting dozens of query letters every week, probably five or six every day…From all of those query letters, we probably select one or two scripts a week that we’re going to bring into the company. We’re also getting scripts sent in by agents…It’s a big mistake to give too much or too little information…I just want to make a point that this is a marketing process. Is this film good and will it make money…because that’s the game. The marketing process culminates with the distributor…When you’re submitting that query letter, I’m convinced that (the film will) get somebody into a movie theater on a sunny afternoon.

Lee: We also don’t take unsolicited scripts…Another venue for getting in touch with development execs is getting your project accepted into events like the IFP Market. It’s an amazing event that’s using new voices that I wouldn’t otherwise heard of and then have relationships with.

Ryan: As a screenwriter, what’s your process of approaching companies?

Masterson: Two years ago, I was exactly where a lot of you are…I was a playwright for 20 years. I made all the mistakes that these people are telling you not to. I sent out scripts. I did everything I could. I came to events like this. I targeted people like Angela and gave them 30 seconds of my time with my log line…The most important thing that will change your life is getting the movie made. I got there two years ago. It took a long time to do…Now I have an agent and a manager…I have pet projects, things that are still very close to my heart that I spend a lot of time on…If you believe in your script, that’s the movie you want to get maid, find the right people. It sounds very simple, but it’s not at all.

Ryan: Once the query letter has been written and a development executive is interested, what can the screenwriter expect in that first meeting? What’s the next step?

Lee: It depends on how far along we like the script…Let’s say for example, we’re happy with where the script is at, we see that there’s potential, there’s interest in the marketplace…the decision makers at the company agree to the vision of your project and bring it on…we’ll do the meet and greet. At that point if we’re happy with it we’ll probably start to negotiate the option…At our company, we’re going to either be able to make it, fund raise for it and get it to production pretty quickly. Our company would not focus it on...numerous years…I would say we’d option it for a year to 18 months.

Stevens: It’s maybe important to explain how options actually work…It gives a production company the exclusive rights to try to raise money and attachments to that script. You may not get paid very much when a project is optioned…We take projects at different stages. We want to meet the writers to get a sense if they’re somebody we want to work with…It’s sort of a dating process.

Audience Question: Should you trust someone to option your script for $0?

Ryan: The Door in the Floor is a good example. It was optioned for $2. Why…because Ted Hope said ‘this is a tough sell. I need to invest my time and money to get this and it could take six months of my time and money to get this to somebody like Jeff Bridges. If you believe in me and I’m not subsidized by a studio and I’m going to go with this vision of the script…and I’m going to invest my time, I need it for zero.”

Little: Keep in mind, even at Guild minimum, you’re looking at a couple of thousand dollars per a year to 18 months. Work that down by hour, that’s minimum wage. It’s pretty minor. I don’t think it’s a sign of bad faith.

IFP Script to Screen - Writers in Collaboration - March 7, 2009

IFP’s Script to Screen Conference

Writers in Collaboration
March 7, 2009
New York, NY

Writer/Director Ira Sachs (Forty Shades of Blue, Married Life) moderated a discussion on the collaborative writing process. He started the conversation by saying that everything he does is about how well he works with other people. “There’s almost nothing that isn’t about trying to negotiate between your own instincts and what you share and look for from others…This panel is about how you work communally, but still have a vision.” Below are highlights from the discussion with writers who collaborate with either a partner or a team for film and/or television.

(Photo by Brian Geldin)

Moderator:
Ira Sachs, Writer/Director, Married Life

Panelists:
Ryan Fleck, Writer/Director, Sugar & Half Nelson
Todd A. Kessler, Co-Creator, “Damages”
Daniel Zelman, Co-Creator, “Damages”

Sachs: How did you start working collaborators?

Fleck: (Anna Boden and I) started working together in film school…I started helping her with her projects, she started helping me with mine, giving me notes on the scripts that I was working on…I directed Half Nelson, but she was always there, very much involved with that. On Sugar, we co-directed that together.

Kessler: Daniel, Glenn and I, Glenn’s my brother so I’ve known him for a long time. Daniel had been a friend of ours since college…Basically, we’re writing and producing television. That’s something an individual can’t do alone…We do 13 episodes a season so that’s 13 scripts. Sometimes scripts are written in a week…one person can’t write that much…The core of our collaboration was that we wanted to work together and not have to bring in other people. If anyone has seen Damages, you’re aware that there’s a lot of betrayal and manipulation and narcissism…all the things that we experienced working with other people. So we wanted to limit some of that and the three of us got together.

Sachs: How do you work in the writing stage?

Zelman: There are two different phases. There’s the writing that begins prior to the season’s beginning…the first season was the pilot…The three of us sit in a room and just talk a lot and discuss what we’re interested in. It really begins with a character. Damages began with the character played by Glenn Close (Patty Hewes)…We began by discussing her and what it was we wanted to explore through her. It really just becomes a brainstorming session…Once the season is up and running, that’s the second phase…We divide up the script and we all write pieces of that script and then we pass our pages back and forth…There’s a lot of re-writing of other people’s materials. We kind of create a factory mill where every scene goes through every writer. We feel that by the time it goes through that process, it’s better than it would be than with any one of us.

Sachs: How are each of the collaborations you’ve worked on different? What’s worked best for you?

Kessler: On The Sopranos (for which Kessler wrote during seasons 2 and 3), David Chase is the creator of the show and was kind of infamous for having very long stretches of time between each season…The more time you have, the better off you are because you have more time to think about the stories and the characters. Because you had to generate so much material so quickly, you’re able to read books and live lives and see what’s going on in the world that you can bring to the work…We would start with David coming back. He’d have these long sheets of paper, episodes 1-13…He would have these mileposts in the season, the second season for example, the character of Big Pussy, would die by the end…There were these long arcs and it was our job as writers to help fill in those spaces. That’s something we’ve put to use on Damages, what we call tent pole scenes.

Sachs: One of the things I realized collaborating with co-writers on screenplays is you get systems into place. How can those systems be helpful and how can they also inhibit creativity? How did you work together with Anna?

Fleck: When we started writing Sugar, we needed to get out of the city. It was really distracting. The McDowell Colony (where they went) is a great place to go…If you don’t have the luxury of going away somewhere, just start writing…When Anna and I worked together, there was no science, no pattern…We typically separate…We come up with an outline…come up with the main beats and then we’ll separate and start writing the scenes…We’re usually not writing together until we’re re-writing.

Audience Question: How do you avoid legal problems amongst collaborators? What degree of trust do you need to have?

Fleck: I think when you’re first starting, there’s a degree of mistrust…I think that’s healthy to have…You don’t need a lawyer to get everything worked out on paper. Ultimately, that’s not going to matter…unless there’s millions of dollars at stake, you’re not really going to go sue them.

Zelman: I totally agree with what you’re saying that at the end of the day, a lawyer for contracts are not going to protect what most needs to be protected…It’s almost like a spiritual question…There is so much time and energy put into doing these projects, that it’s like a marriage. If you just don’t feel a fundamental trust with the people you’re collaborating with creatively, it’s a leap of faith…You just have to be committed to each other and understand that you’re going to splice through those moments. If you don’t have that faith, it’s a very dangerous place to be.

Audience Question: How did you work with your co-writer on Forty Shades of Blue?

Sachs: I worked with a co-writer named Michael Rohatyn, who was not the co-writer on my next film (Married Life) who was Oren Moverman. The process for me is generally I have an idea for something that I’m interested in. I often take a good stab at a first draft myself just to try to get as much of the instinctual things that are personal. The more autobiographical stuff tends to come out alone. I think that’s true for my co-writers as well. I send them off to go write at certain times…For me it’s very important as an artist and I project this as well for my co-writer, that they have the space at a certain time where they are just playing with their own memories and ideas and that they don’t need to verbalize everything to me for it to become something that I want to see on the page…One of the biggest challenges of collaboration is, and it’s the same with an actor, I try to talk very little to the actors, except when I need to…I want to see what they’re going to bring me. That’s a very good part of collaboration, trying to tap into what that person has that you don’t have.

IFP's Script to Screen Conference - Conversation with James Schamus - March 7, 2009

IFP’s Script to Screen Conference

Conversation with Keynote James Schamus – CEO, Focus Features
March 7, 2009
New York, NY

(Scott Macaulay & James Schamus. Photo by Brian Geldin.)

Focus Features CEO James Schamus makes his second appearance here at The Film Panel Notetaker (his first being at the Woodstock Film Festival last fall) with my notes taken in a packed hall at the New York Film Academy Saturday morning during IFP's Script to Screen Conference, which was created to help aspiring and working screenwriters explore new opportunities. Filmmaker Magazine Editor-in-Chief Scott Macaulay moderated Saturday’s conversation with Schamus. The discussion moved a bit beyond the script writing process, so here I will focus (bah dump bump) on the elements of the conversation that may be most helpful for the screenwriters reading this blog.

Macaulay’s first question was, how do you know what a screenplay is, to which Schamus replied, “It’s completely a business plan…American screenplays are essentially 124 pages begging for money…The scripts are moving into predetermined generic modules…On the other side, the fantasy side, there is the writer/director mode…all of us live somewhere between the two ends of that spectrum…On that spectrum, you are doing something that serves as an object…The problem of getting too far on the (writer/director side) of the spectrum…a screenplay in the production context is 123 pages of advice and if the advice is a little hazy or if someone stops taking the advice…once you stop taking your own advice, everybody stops, too…The key to making a movie well…is that everybody on the set is making the same movie.”

To elaborate on the writer/director paradigm, Macaulay noticed that fewer directors seem to be going down this path. Macaulay asked Schamus if he’s noticed this, too, and if so, why does he think so? Using Ang Lee as an example, Shamus said, “Ang was never a writer/director. He was always a filmmaker. That definition seemed in and of itself sort of liberating a couple of years ago, became actually quite constraining…That said, writer/directors are still clearly the DNA that will never rinse down American independent cinema…You can be a non-writer/director and still be an auteur…(that) came out of (France’s) Cahier du Cinema writers who were not writing about themselves…they weren’t filmmakers yet. They were writing about filmmakers who had household name recognition…What they were doing was using auteur theories to excavate the idea of the director as the central signator…inside the Hollywood system and use that wedge open a completely different appreciation of cinema.”

With Focus’s upcoming release of Cary Fukunaga’s Sin Nombre, Macaulay asked Schamus how Focus got involved with working with a first-time feature filmmaker. Schamus said, “We continue to adapt our business to audiences. In this case…an audience that’s open to a first-time filmmaker…To me what’s exciting about Sin Nombre besides how masterful and amazing the movie is…how do we create a Latino audience in the United States? We saw his short, which he was developing at the Sundance Lab [More about screenwriting labs, contests & worshops in a near future post here]…We’re really an internationally oriented company…80% of my day is spent on movies that are circulating across the globe.”

And what about Schamus as a screenwriter himself, mostly working on adaptations with Lee, Macaulay asked. “With Ang, it’s literally whatever I can find that will scare the shit out of him,” Schamus revealed. “I actually really like Hollywood movies. I like the system. It’s an incredibly interesting cultural machine.”

Opening the conversation to the audience, one person asked the perennial question, how does one submit a project to the company? Schamus recognized that the answer is a “Catch 22” saying “you need representation…If I accepted an unsolicited manuscript; my own lawyers will now sue me.” Later someone asked if it’s best to come to Focus with the complete package of a producer, director and a star, to which Schamus replied, it varies. “It usually means someone we believe internationally, in a territory other than the United States, somebody who has a bit of a profile that we can leverage.” And for people looking to work as spec script writers, Schamus said, “Spec scripts are for people who want jobs. That genre only functions in the Hollywood context …There’s no spec feature market (for example) for European art films…It’s basically the Energizer Bunny approach.” And finally, does age bias really exists for screenwriters? “For whatever reason, there is a bias against older writers, except there are a handful of A-listers. Part of it is, if you actually establish yourself as a writer-for-hire let’s say by your 30s, that business is fairly lucrative…and then, after 10 years…that’s it.”

Independent Film Week - Case Study: Documentary Marketing - "Beautiful Losers" & "I.O.U.S.A." - Sept. 18, 2008

Independent Film Week
Case Study: Documentary Marketing – Beautiful Losers & I.O.U.S.A.
September 18, 2008

This panel was about how to consider the marketing dimensions of a film. To think through how to secure fan, organizational and subject support. Every film is unique and marketing is expression of film’s core values.

Case Study: Beautiful Losers
The film’s subjects were urban misfits, skateboarders and underground artists. It initially started as traditional documentary on small groups of artists influencing pop culture. The built in, core audience graffiti heads and skateboarders, and as a result, the film turned out to be a cinematic essay.

Twenty years ago this scene was just starting out. Now the artists are older and present in the mainstream. But the marketing campaign for film had to be DIY and grassroots in order to speak to audience. A lot of the filmmakers’ peers were creative directors at Nike, Boost Mobile, and the like… and they wanted to approach this marketing plan differently. The idea was that the core audience was so big, the reach out was going to be non-traditional outside of 30 second spots. The producers got a deal with Nike by also going to Vans, so Nike preemptively got involved because they already have foothold with this niche.

The filmmakers decided to premiere at SXSW because it was outside of major market festivals. They ultimately needed to excite the base to offer revenue streams when showing film out there. And in the mean time, the filmmakers wanted to inspire people to go out and paint, draw—do something.

In the end, some of the marketing initiatives are built around activities that were art projects in their own right. They offered something positive to the communities and relied on PR and word of mouth. The director wanted to do workshops with the artists in NY and San Francisco. Zine making. Sign making. And then do them around release dates of film. It overlapped with underground music and SXSW was a great platform for that aspect of the film. They hired a “scenester” publicist as opposed to traditional publicist for the film circuit. They wanted to save the real one for the national campaign. They started with AIGA, Art Centers and Universities to get the film out to their lists while also hitting up stores for promotions. The film’s website had an art-share aspect for artists and fans to upload their own work. The marketers wanted to speak to audience that wouldn’t necessarily respond to box office ads. A lot of times, they were reeling in kids (around 12 years old) who wouldn’t spend cash on film at the movie theater that they couldn’t get to. Then those kids would mention to their friends, etc and it became cool to go see the movie.

The goal was to get people out to make something. Most people are compelled to make stuff and the filmmakers wanted to encourage that. The emotional core of film is that you can do what the subjects in film can do.

Case Study: I.O.U.S.A.
The filmmaker started with noting that you should market for festivals first—this is critically important. You can sell your film if it plays well. Then there’s separate kind of marketing for theatrical release. They are two different things and you can do the latter without doing well at festivals.

When he was at Sundance with his first film, Wordplay, they came up with idea to make a handout with a crossword puzzle, all the clues and a pencil. It was the best $5,000 ever spent to print these. They handed them out every where. There were tons of lines for other screenings, so that was a good time to hit people with a time-passing piece of marketing. IFC said that was smartest piece of marketing they’ve ever seen at festivals. People in line were board and wanted the puzzles. They got 7 offers and sold it for a million bucks. A film is big investment of time and money. You need to go to festivals with a plan. Connect to audience. IOUSA was eventually bought after Sundance.

The subject matter was the national debt. It is a timely, Feel Good Movie of the Summer.

When they started production, people thought that this was silly idea for a subject. Things were fine a year ago. But 8-9 months into shooting, the sub-prime crisis happened. And so they scratched the film and started over because its prophecies ended up rearing their ugly heads. During this time, the producers found a lack of understanding of their subject and found purpose in that.

A non-profit bought the movie for one million and set aside another million to promote it. Roadside Attractions partnered with the film and said there are a couple thousand of theaters in country that are wired to digitally distribute film. The nonprofit organized a town hall meeting with Warren Buffet and president of AARP. They settled in Omaha and Becky Quick of CNBC moderated it. They had huge event premiering film where they fed the film to 430 theatres and showed it live. Taxi to Darkside sold 30,000 tickets total over its run and I.O.U.S.A. sold 45,000 tickets in one night. They got people there because the subject of film is on every cover of every magazine. Also, Buffet is a superstar, and everyone wants to know what he thinks.

They shopped around to all the business channels to get the moderator and event. The channel they went with promoted the event the entire week before the screening. National CineMedia has consortium of theatres, so for a month ahead they ran commercials for opening night. And the filmmakers didn’t pay for any of it. It all boils down to you really need to understand your film and understand why someone is going to go pay 10 bucks in theater.

All told, television, Netflix and the Internet are great and all, but theatrical distribution is at the top of the pyramid. People write reviews when it’s in the theatre and it activates people more than anything. If it opens in New York (for at least a week), the Times will review it. Every filmmaker needs and wants that.

--amp

No Borders Case Study with John Hadity - Sept. 17, 2008

No Borders Case Study with John Hadity
Independent Film Week
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
FIT – Katie Murphy Amphitheater – New York, NY

Last Wednesday at Independent Film Week, No Borders International Co-Production Market presented a Case Study on Single Picture Financing with John Hadity, President and CEO of Hadity & Associates, Inc., a consultancy firm that specializes in risk management and production finance for film and television. I have included the main outline of that presentation below with highlights of the transcription of Hadity's discussion. I found the discussion and presentation to be very informative. While a lot of information to ingest, this seems to be a very handy “how to” resource for producers looking for multiple ways to finance their films.

Before Hadity began his presentation, he said, “I thought it would be important to have a conversation with you about what’s happening right now out there in the finance world. With all the news last week, everything is in the toilet. I’m going to give you a bit of an overview so you understand when you are talking to finance people, you understand what’s in their head and what they don’t want to hear and what they do want to hear. I would say 99% of the time, you’re going to hear ‘no.’ It’s important that you understand why they’re saying things like that and how maybe you can mitigate your own risk before you go into these meetings. The second part is a break down of a case study of an alternative way of financing the film.”

Part 1 – Industry Overview

Health of the Industry
* These numbers are for 2006. Hadity noted that he has not yet seen all the numbers for 2007

“Box office is fairly in the same place. Theater admission down, although the number of releases have certainly gone up. This year, there were over 5,000 entries to Sundance. 10 years ago there were 500. There were a lot of movies being made and fighting to get on screen and fighting to stay on screen for over two weeks. There’s a lot of competition out there. But still, this is a very healthy industry. This is an industry an industry that’s not correlated to any asset class. When the economy is in the toilet and people don’t have money, they still go to the movies. It’s because they can’t afford a new car. They can’t afford a new house, but they can take their families to the movies."

Studio Concerns

“To give you a snapshot of what was happening in 2004/2005…what happened back then had a severe effect on independent producers and production companies that tried to finance their films. Studio movies cost about $100M. Studios were very concerned about these escalating costs. All of these studios have other businesses that they’re involved with and to tie up $100M at the time in cash, it was really crippled. They still needed to feed the distribution pipeline that was in fact the lifeblood. But they did see that all of these revenue streams would change them. In Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, you’d see how long or short a period of time films are actually on the screen, unless they are absolute break out successes. There’s an incredible amount of energy put into finding other revenue streams or enhancing other revenue streams in pictures. By far the priority is to downsize any kind of risk."

- Escalating film costs
- Cash Management
- Need to continue to feed distribution pipeline
- Revenue Streams are changing

*Pay TV deals are diminishing

*Windows are getting shorter
- Increase in piracy
- Manage downside risk

In the Financing World

“At the same time in the financing world, there was a huge growth in private capital. Hedge funds, most of the time, really didn’t hedge anything. Since 1990-2005, there’s been about a 20% growth in private wealth. There was...a year ago, almost one and half trillion dollars under management. Basically what was happening in the hedge fund world…the private capital world…is people needed a lot of cash. We have to take a very small part of our patch and invest it into something that is high risk/high reward. Let’s say 5%. There is no magic number. But most mandates were probably around 5%. Take that and put it into a high-risk category business…film got chosen. Why…first of all it’s sexy. The first thing whenever I’ve gone and stayed in a room with people with private capital that were interested in investing in a slate of movies or with studio slate deal were like, how many tickets can I get to the premiere? There are hedge funds, private capital, and banks that are comfortable with what’s called the Monte Carlo method…literally a software program that enables a financial analyst to role the dice how ever many times you want. How many times can you role the dice and lose? The Monte Carlo method is actually used to evaluate a number of slate deals that are trying to get financed by studios, specialty labels and production companies.”

- Influx of Capital
*Private Equity Growth since 2003 = $580 billion

* 20% hedge fund growth since 1990

* $1.4 trillion under management today
- Portfolio Diversification
*New asset classes
*High risk/high reward
*Comfort with statistical analyses (Monte Carlo method)
*Gap and Super Gap opportunities
*Sexy business

Recent Transactions (Recently Completed Film Deals) – 1st Page

“The first deal was August of 2004 with Paramount…a $300M deal to finance 26 films over a 5-7 year period. The arrangement on these deals, every single major investment bank is involved. If they’re not the arrangers, even the Weinstein Company deal with Goldman Sachs was a billion dollars. You have to understand that Goldman Sachs did not underwrite a billion dollars. There’s an equity component to these deals and there’s a debt component to these deals. Typically the debt in these deals is syndicated out to a number of banks. I promise you, every single bank that you’ve ever heard of has participated in…at this point it was $10.6 billion.”

Recent Transactions (Recently Completed Film Deals) – 2nd Page

“It’s over $15 billion now that has been invested into our world. And I heard someone say at dinner recently that they thought it’s more like $24-$26 billion. These deals started back in 2004, and the post-mortem is actually just starting on these deals. A lot of people that participated in these deals, especially on the debt side, are less than pleased with the results they’re seeing. The numbers that they were talking about and throwing around to each other around board rooms and conference room tables were more like 14%/16%/18%/22% returns. I think the first numbers that were actually publicly released was 4%. So people are not very happy with the performance of these deals so they are actually re-negotiating some of these deals or scrambling for a way to refinance them. Couple that with the credit crisis that’s happening right now and one thing you really need to be aware of is a banker or a hedge fund manager or investment arranger is that you’re talking to sales people. These people are in charge of bringing deals in…they’re called originators…their job is to bring in investment opportunities to financial institutions. They are not the people who are going to approve the deal. They’re going to sit and listen to your deal and tell you that it has a lot of potential, but at the end of the day, the person who’s going to make a decision is going to be a credit desk. The person behind that credit desk is going to be looking at this investment from a risk management perspective asking...What if these movies don’t perform?”

Producer Driven Financing Transactions

“There were a number of very high-brow independents that were successful in getting their slates financed. That still happens. We’re still reading about that, but from a credit desk perspective…somebody at a bank isn’t going to want to hear you have 10 really good stories. Somebody at a bank is going to want to have proof that you have a revenue stream somewhere behind you that can support the kind of money that you want to borrow from a bank. The larger independents are pretty much well taken care of. The real challenge here is to get the thousands of independent producers out there that are trying to get their movies financed on a one-off basis typically to get them their financing.”

Indy Film (“One-Off Financing)

Studio Financed
- Advantages – Money already there; Negotiating Muscle; Guaranteed Distribution; Worldwide Exposure
- Disadvantages – Lose Creative Control; Inflated Budget; Pushed Participation; Gun for Hire

Independently Financed
- Advantages – Maintain Creative Control; Controlled Costs; Better Odds for Participation; You are your own boss
- Disadvantages – Need to fundraise; Weak negotiating position; Guaranteed Distribution unlikely; Exposure Uncertain

“When I crossed over to the light side…I remember my first experience in financing a one-off picture…it was around $60M. The studio that had intended to distribute it actually budgeted the movie at $130M. The producer of mine loves to tell the story…the visual effects house that we would have used…was about 19x cheaper than using the studio’s VFX house…the studio said it’s okay, it’s soft money.”

Financing Vehicles

“Soft money is probably the number one way to finance a portion of your movie. It is absolutely irresponsible to make a movie today in a territory or in a state or in a city that does not offer an incentive, unless it’s your money. If it’s your money, you can do whatever you want. If you’re using someone else’s money to make a movie, you should not be filming in California. You should not be filming in states that do not offer incentives. This is free money. They’re incentivizing for you to come and spend money there. They’re rewarding you for dumping money into their infrastructure. You’re creating jobs. You are helping their economic development. This is free money you should take advantage of. I personally will not help people finance a movie that’s not being filmed in an area without incentives.”

Soft Money (“Incentives”) – 1st Page

“It’s really important to understand the nature of the incentive you’re chasing, because you don’t want to go there…spend a lot of money and then be left at the alter. There are a lot of people out there who know how to navigate through these incentives. It’s the film commissioner’s responsibility as well to be able to guide you through all of these resources…Any economic development person will take a meeting with you if you say the words, ‘I will create jobs.’”

- Refundable
- Transferable
- Rebates/Grants
- Up Front/Backend Production Funding

Soft Money (“Incentives”) – 2nd Page

- Best Practices

Soft Money (“Incentives”) – 3rd Page

- Web Access Tools

Production Incentives
- Domestic & International – http://www.productiontaxincentives.com/
- Canada – www.canadafilmcapital.com/taxcredit/index.html

Film Commissions
- Worldwide – http://www.afci.org/

Co-Financing Partners

“Understand that whatever percentage of the budget they’re going to put up, they’re going to want that percentage of everything that happens on the back end coming back to them. Partnerships are not about free money…now it really is about finding a partner who wants to share in your reward.”

- Studios
- Distributors
- Post Facilities
- Production Companies
- Passive Equity Investors
- Film or Media Funds
- Integrated Marketeers
- Brand/Rights Sharers
- Etc.

- Typical pro rate Scenario: % Financing = % Ownership

Production Loans

“This has a direct effect to all of those $15-$24 million worth of deals. There are still banks out there that will deduct the money, but their capacity for risk is substantially less than it used to be. You used to be able to walk into a bank telling your story and creating a very good picture about the potential profitability of your movie, and the bank would…once they felt comfortable…the bank would probably take risks that they just cannot make today. All of these loans are collateralized…now more than ever, self-bonding is not an option. You will have to get a completion bond on your film.”

Foreign Pre-Sales

“You can find co-financing partners in foreign sales agents, foreign sales companies and in distributors of the foreign territories. You don’t make a decision to make a movie without talking to foreign sales people. You shouldn’t go out there and make a movie without having a conversation with somebody somewhere that’s an expert in foreign sales…what kind of currency does this film have in the rest of the world outside of the United States? They can certainly tell you that American comedies are very challenged to travel abroad. Because of that, it’s going to help you to cast a movie with somebody that does have currency in a foreign market to minimize the risk that your comedy isn’t going to travel well abroad.”

Negative Pick-Up

“Negative pick-ups are pretty hard to come by unless you have somebody pretty extraordinary attached to the budget or it’s just a great story that a distributor wants his hand on. The deal is really simple…the money comes from a bank. You’ve got a producer and a distributor. The bank agrees to provide a loan to the production, the production agrees to make the movie and deliver it to the distributor. And the distributor is going to pay off the bank loan. A letter of intent nowadays means absolutely nothing. It is really a lovely thing to have…never take a letter of intent into a financial institution because it really carries no weight.”

Gap, Mezzanine, and Private Equity Financing

“When you look at investments in movies, equity is cash. It’s the riskiest money out there. People who make an equity investment in your film are entitled to a much better reward. They sit behind everybody else back with you, but they’re going to get a higher return. They’re paid last, but they hold a higher reward than the lender will get.”

- GAP – Last in, first out. Secured against foreign sales. (est. ROI 12-14%)
- MEZZ – Sits behind GAP. Secured against some part of the revenue stream. (est. ROI 18-22%)
- EQUITY – Sits behind Mezz. First in, last out; Entirely performance driven. (est. ROI mid-20s to mid-30s %)

Integrated Marketing

“Integrated marketing has become an incredible buzz word…it’s what we used to call product placement, but it’s much bigger. These deals are incredibly difficult to put together and to use as cash. More often than not, these integrated marketing deals are marketing support for the movie. They’re not going to give you cash up front to use to cover your production. They’re very rare and often involve conversations at a corporate level that you will not be able to have. I would always recommend that you first look at the kind of marketing support that you can get for the release of the film and that might actually help you go and raise the P&A money. With a lot of these integrated marketing deals, you don’t really get the majority of the cash until your partner can look at the movie.”

Part 2 – Financing a Single Picture

Hypothetical

- Assumptions: $5M budget, UK Production, Bollywood actors, post in UK, American producer/director/writer/

$5M (100%) Budget
-1.25 (25%) UK Tax Incentives
-1.5M (30%) UK Tax Incentives
-200K (4%) UK Post & VFX (equity co-producer)
-800K (16%) UK rights (presale)
-200K (4%) India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka rights (presale)
-1.05M (21%) Equity/GAP
$0 (0%)

UK Tax Incentive

- UK Spend = $5M
- UK Tax Incentive = 25% of UK spend
- UK Benefit is $5M x 25% = $1.25M

Equity Co-Producer

- Post-Production budget = $1.5M
- Offer post facility co-producer credit & 30% revenue stream for $1.5M
- Benefits to co-producer: Increased visibility, workflow, revenue stream
- Will co-producer cashflow the UK tax incentive for a fee?

UK Film Council

- Grant Application eligibility due to UK content
- Usually capped, but each project is treated individually
- Benefits to Film Council: Increased visibility, supports inward investment and economic development, creates local jobs

Foreign Presales

- Presale of territories
- Need foreign sales agent
- Need foreign sales estimates

Equity/Gap/Mezz

- Leverage foreign sales estimated for unsold territories as collateral
- Only use bank-approved foreign sales agents
- Angel investors are the hardest thing to find

Other Considerations

“Any piece can fall out at any given time.”

- Script
- Chain-of-title
- Reasonable budget expectation
- Corporate set-up and compliance
- Letters of intent
- Completion bond
- Production Insurance
- Payroll
- Banking
- Financing reporting
- Delivery
- Distribution/Sales

Independent Film Week - State of the Industry - Sept. 16, 2008

The State of the Industry
Independent Film Week
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
FIT – Haft Auditorium – New York, NY

Last Tuesday at the Independent Filmmaker Conference, Variety’s Anne Thompson moderated a discussion with indie film distribution stalwart Bob Berney, who lead Warner Bros.’ specialty division Picturehouse, which was recently relinquished into the larger fabric of the company. A few years back, Berney brought to mainstream attention such indie film hits as My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and Mel Gibson’s controversial The Passion of the Christ. Berney talked with Thompson about his work in distribution and the current and state of the industry and where it seems to be heading. Below are some selected moments from that discussion.

Thompson: Why are the studios losing faith in the independent specialty division sectors? Why were Picturehouse and Warner Independent both put out to pasture?

Berney: We’re really caught up in a lot of things. I think that for Warners and Time Warner having duplicate distribution systems. Obviously Warners and New Line became very similar doing the same tent-pole releases. When they closed New Line, I think they forgot about us. I thought there could have been a merger with Warner Independent and Picturehouse. They felt they only were going to make tent-pole movies like The Dark Knight. They didn’t want to have the over head. There wasn’t enough profit for their huge overhead and corporation to do independent films. If they had one, they would do it through the Warner system. At the same time in the marketplace, you saw Paramount Vantage change. It’s not quite as bad as with Warner Independent and Picturehouse, but it radically downsized. We’ll see what kind of films it will do now.

Thompson: What is it that you were able to do to build audiences for foreign language films?

Berney: Over the years for foreign language films, distribution became touch because ancillary markets behind the theatrical just didn’t perform. You go from being a niche studio where you announced you’re going to buy a foreign language films. Foreign language is just the code word for zero. I tried to pick films over the years that go beyond the language. Pan’s Labyrinth…Guillermo told the story so beautifully.

Thompson: With Mel Gibson, that was an unusual situation where you took his movie against all odds onto 5,000 screens.

Berney: It was amazing operationally as distributors to do that movie. It really changed the business because we had 23 people at the time at New Market. We opened on the level of 5,000 runs and we grossed $360 million. We couldn’t believe we could actually get the prints to theaters. They (the studios) had 500-600 people doing the same thing. It was rough dealing with all the fire with Mel, but mainly we were just focused on the exhibitors. You have to go as wide as you can because it’s not a review film. At that time, he was on his best behavior. I wasn’t caught in any of the controversy of him. At the time, as an independent, we really went big. As an independent distributor, theater chains…you’re not going to get as good a deal as you do if you’re with a studio. They really tried to screw us on that.

Thompson: What has happened with the exhibition community and the health of independent film? Why is it so bad?

Berney: I think it’s a lot of things. There’s been a lot of discussion…that panel that Mark Gill did…his theory was that all films are bad. The part that’s true is there were all of these hedge fund investors that would invest in…and part of this is my fault…in the P&A. They’d get it out there and it didn’t work. Part of it is the pressure especially in the studio divisions to do bigger films and wider releases. A lot of the studios go…it has to be Juno. It has to be that kind of level of hit. That’s a lot of pressure. DVD is falling, although there are a ton of exceptions. VOD has been coming along really strong.

Thompson: Are you going to play around with the whole digital arena?

Berney: I think one of the biggest changes recently is the announcement…I don’t know if it’s going to happen…there was an announcement about six months ago that MGM, Lionsgate and Paramount are going to start a new digital VOD service. It’s very hard as an independent to get a pay deal with HBO, Showtime or Starz, because they’re doing more original programming. This could be an interesting change that helps independent distributors maybe.

Independent Film Week - Kevin Smith - Sept. 14, 2008

A Conversation with Kevin Smith
Independent Film Week
Sunday, September 14, 2008
FIT – Haft Auditorium – New York, NY

Filmmaker Kevin Smith, whose new film Zack and Miri Make a Porno opens in theaters this Halloween, came to the Independent Filmmaker Conference to talk about his new film, his career, his upcoming politically-driven film Red State, and to shoot the shit with the audience during a fun and F-bomb-filled Q&A. It was 15 years ago that his debut independent feature Clerks was shown at the IFFM, or what’s currently called Independent Film Week. Below are selected highlights from the Q&A. (This Q&A is rated NC-17 by The Film Panel Notetaker Association of America.)

Audience Question: Can you talk about Zach and Miri?

Smith: I said raise your fucking hand! Some people seem to think it’s funny. I was trying to make an insightful exploration of the Holocaust. It turned into this other fucking thing. There’s this whole other thing about it turning from an NC-17 to an R rating. I’m kind of nervous about that. I remember last time with Clerks when it got an NC-17. Miramax hired Alan Dershowitz to defend the film. We did get the NC-17, but it’s not censorship. I’m kind of hoping this time it would be a little quiet. Sure enough, people on the Internet said, it’s a publicity grab. It’s so not. That’s the last thing we want. We just screened at Toronto. It went really well for us. We got some really great reviews.

Audience Question: After making Clerks, you made Mallrats? Did you have any problems going from independent work going to a studio?

Smith: I made one independent film in my life and that was Clerks. Mallrats was made by Universal through Gramercy. Chasing Amy was made for $250, 000 with Harvey’s (Weinstein) money. Every other flick was financed by a studio. Harvey’s pretty much paid for every movie accept for Mallrats. Mallrats was made for $6M and grossed $2M, and I felt shitty after that. I lost someone $4M. The next one I’m going to do, Red State…it’s the first time in 15 years I have to look for money. Every time someone says ‘no,’ maybe I’m on the right track here.

Audience Question: What got you thinking about making Red State?

Smith: I’m not a political person by nature. I don’t go out and campaign for the candidates. I’m the dick and fart joke movie guy. Basically, I’m thinking about the climate of the country right now. It’s fucked up, there’s no one to root for in the movie. It’s a series of horrible, bad, selfish immoral students paid by a bunch of unlikable characters. Wouldn’t you pay to see that? It’s weird. It’s not a movie that should be made, but I got to do it.

Audience Question: How important are film festivals, for example with Red State?

Smith: Red State is totally a festival film. Geoff Gilmore introduced us at Sundance in ’94. It’s the film festival story that people love to read...about a fucking guy from Jersey who works at a convenience store who made a movie. It kind of worked out for us. Film festivals hold a place in my heart, because without them, I would not be standing here talking to you. I’d still be working at that fucking convenience store.

Audience Question: There’s been a lot of changes going on in the independent film industry such as the closing down of specialty divisions. Do you care about those changes? Does it affect you?

Smith: No, I don’t think so. Obviously I was affected when Harvey and Bob left Miramax and created the Weinstein Company. Do I stay or do I go? I felt like they gave me my break. The closing down of specialty divisions, it’s kind of sad more than anything else. I’ve seen that happen so often. Now I’m kind of used to it. I think everything goes cyclical. In 10-15 years, a bunch of specialty divisions will open up again because somebody else is going to make a movie that makes $100 million and it looks like shit, and it will be viable again and open up a bunch of places.

Independent Film Week - Working with Doc Subjects - Sept. 18, 2008

Independent Film Week
Working with Doc Subjects
September 18, 2008

Again, this panel was composed of all Femmes who each provided clips exhibiting their wonderful films. In each, it was clear that they had to make their subjects a part of the film to accomplish it. Ethics is in the bloodstream of a filmmaker.

Most of Nina Davenport’s previous films have been personal. She wanted to make her latest, Operation: Filmmaker, universal, so she approached it with an eagerness to be on the outside. She did shoot some scenes with her providing her subject with filmmaking advice, and was especially compelled to let him know when he was alienating people. Then she shot the scenes with her not in them. But over time, when he needed visa, money, credit for directing the film, etc. she grew tired of his manipulation and keep their interactions in the film. It then ended up being about their relationship.

Tia Lessin, co-director of Trouble the Water, says it’s not entirely possible to be objective. Filmmakers inevitably inject passion, outrage, anger, hope, and ultimately a point of view. She aimed to not make her film about victims or criminals, but the survivors of Katrina. The subjects were residents of New Orleans, who shot a lot of the original footage that inspired the film. These residents couldn’t gain access back unless they were attached to media, so it comes across that there was aggression on the ground against the people. The footage from the subjects painted the film.

Lucia Small is also of personal documentary background. For The Axe in the Attic, she conducted hundreds of interviews. She narrowed the bunch down to 32 and struggled a bit with structure due to the many characters. She strived to get a variety of people: white, black etc. The filmmakers flagged people along the way who were more than eager to tell their stories, but they also were avoided as they appeared to be carpetbaggers. Characters in her film were generous, but trust was a serious issue, especially in the context of New Orleans at the time. A filmmaker can never be totally objective despite efforts to abide by a journalist code. The camera is a link for the filmmaker to witness a story. In the case of Lucia’s film, the challenge was to gain their trust, sometimes in mere.

Cynthia Wade wanted to carve out narrative arc in theme which came naturally in Freeheld, which had a subject who had limited lifespan and had particular goal. Her physical condition was visibly different from one shoot to the next. In this case, the story dictated that it had to be chronological. Also, because it was a short film, it was liberating to not push for coverage that a feature requires. There was pressure in interviewing the main character. Cynthia had to rack her brain for every little idea and question because there was no way to go back. She gave her subject cameras because it alleviated her guilt to be in their house and in their face doing it herself. It was a sentimental and emotional thing to shoot.

The entire panel felt that subjects should not necessarily be compensated. It is exploitative although in the case of Tia’s film, they expanded their relationship by licensing the footage from her subject. Geraldo seemed to have ruined that mantra for journalists. It all seemed to change with his coup of subjects getting compensated, but in the field you worry about that truth in depicting story. It does get complicated in this economy and with the exchange rate in third world, but the consensus was, do not put money between the filmmaker and the subject.

--amp

Independent Film Week - "Medicine for Melancholy" - Sept. 15, 2008

Medicine For Melancholy – Opening Night Film
Independent Film Week
Monday, September 15, 2008
Clearview Chelsea Cinemas – New York, NY

(Medicine for Melancholy actor Wyatt Cenac and director Barry Jenkins)

Photo by A.M. Peters

Before the screening of Independent Film Week’s opening night film Medicine for Melancholy, New York State Governor’s Office For Motion Picture and Television Development Commissioner Pat Kaufman announced the winner of I Love New York’s New York City Regional competition, “Love in New York.”

Filmmaker Magazine editor-in-chief Scott Macauley introduced Medicine for Melancholy and its director Barry Jenkins, one of the magazine’s 25 New Faces of Independent Film (which by the way is celebrating its 10th anniversary. A party was held later in the evening at Strata for the commemoration).

Macauley said he first saw Medicine for Melancholy at SXSW at its premiere screening and thought it was fantastic with “a real visual imagination” and is also “really smart about politics.” Macauley said of the middle sequence in the film that “a lot of other people would have maybe not been bold enough to include this sequence. It’s a little digressive from the main story, but for me it’s one of the things that really made the film.”

The following are some highlights of the post-screening Q&A with Jenkins and one half of the film’s stars, Wyatt Cenac who plays Micah (Tracey Heggins who plays Jo was not there). By the way, the Q&A was done almost entirely in the dark, as the house lights had yet to come on, which made for a rather fun discussion.

Q: What camera did you shoot on?

Jenkins: Panasonic HVX.

Q: What was the budget of the film?

Jenkins: We can’t really talk about the budget. If you drove a car here tonight, the car you drive probably cost more than the total budget of this film.

Q: What was your inspiration?

Jenkins: I moved to San Francisco after living in L.A. I met a woman in San Francisco. She broke up with me. I need to prove myself as a filmmaker, so I’m going to make a movie. I channeled all the energy from the break up and living in San Francisco. I wrote the script really quick in about three weeks. I wrote it to be shootable for myself and five friends. Once the script was together, I raised enough money to do this.

Cenac: There’s no greater motivator than hate. That’s a lesson you should all take out. Hate something enough.

Q: What was your casting process? Did you have Wyatt in mind?

Jenkins: I had no idea who he was. We wrote the movie and tried to cast in San Francisco, but San Francisco was 7% African-American. 1% of San Francisco is actors. If you take 1% of 7%, we couldn’t find anybody in San Francisco, so we went to L.A. Tracey was the first one we saw. We saw other women, because I’m a director, and I can’t make up my mind. And then we saw 50 guys. None of them were working. A friend of ours happened to know Wyatt. Justin, our producer, sent me a clip on YouTube called “My Best Black Friend.” It was a weird pilot that Wyatt was in about a white guy who has a reality show with a best black friend.

Cenac: Not just his best black friend, his only black friend.

Jenkins: Months later we were casting and Justin said, what about that one guy? So we called Wyatt.

Cenac: You didn’t call me. I got a Myspace message.

Q: Can you explain your choices of music?

Jenkins: Everything in this movie is kind of designed to be doable. We need to get the rights to these songs. I had a playlist from iTunes. 80% of the music in the movie is from that playlist. The rest of the music was pulled together by Greg O’Bryant. It was important to have music I thought reflected the fact that this black guy living in this quote-on-quote un-black world. Also being able to make the movie really fast, we wanted to music know ahead of time what the scenes were going to be cut to.

Cenac: This is on a complete side not, but there’s a woman in the third row who’s either completely passed out or dead. (Huge LOL from the audience)

Q: How much rehearsal time did you have?

Jenkins: None. Wyatt and Tracey were both SAG ultra, ultra low budget actors, but we still had to pay them for every day they worked on the movie. We couldn’t afford to pay them any money, so we couldn’t bring them out to San Francisco for rehearsal. So they got there literally 12 hours before we shot the first shot. But we shot it in sequence, so it worked. We got two people who don’t really know each other. As we were making the film, they kind of got to know one another.

Q: How much of it was improvised?

Jenkins: Really not much of it was improv’d. There’s certain jokes in the film where I would write a joke and Wyatt would take the liberty of extending it. The only completely improv’d scene was the Bill Cosby scene.

Q: How long did it take you to shoot film?

Jenkins: We shot 15 days in November (of 2007). And we had the rough cut by New Year’s Day, and we mixed in February (2008). It was a really quick process.

Q: Can you talk about your style. A lot of your sequences seemed like a hybrid of experimental and documentary.

Jenkins: James (Laxton, director of photography) and I lived together in film school. We shot designed about half of the film. As an exercise, we wanted to kind of figure out ways to shoot it. As far as the color, we decided really early on that we wanted reflect the title, Medicine for Melancholy. We wanted that melancholy reflected in the actual image. We knew we were going to de-saturate the colors palates. We super saturated in production, and de-saturated in post to kind of protect their skin tones. There’s certain places in the movie where the characters just react with one another and all these issues with race, and at those moments, it’s the most color. Karina Longworth of Spout.com wrote one of the first reviews of the film. She said the film is 93% saturated and it’s reflective of San Francisco’s 7% African-American. If you look at our color files, the film is 93% saturated. We didn’t do that intentionally. We really tried to reflect what was the emotional connection with the characters.

Independent Film Week - Show & Sell: Positioning for Festivals

Sunday was the first day of Independent Film Week 2008. At the Filmmaker Conference, I attended a panel on positioning for festivals that addressed once you've finished your film, what do you do next? How do you manage your expectations for film festivals? Below are some highlights of that discussion.

Show & Sell: Positioning for Festivals
Independent Film Week
Sunday, September 14, 2008
4-5pm
FIT – Haft Auditorium – New York, NY

Moderators:
Howard Gertler, Producer – Process Media
Susan Stover, Producer – Laurel Canyon

Panelists:
Courtney Hunt, Director – Frozen River
Ryan Kampe, Partner, International Sales – Visit Films
Jarod Neece, Programmer – SXSW
Tom Quinn, SVP Acquisitions – Magnolia Pictures
Reid Rosefelt, Marketing Consulting and Publicity

Gertler: When did you submit Frozen River to Sundance?

Hunt: I submitted the film by deadline in September. We did not have a finished score. By and large, the movie was cut. In that instance, we felt we were ready. It was a real serious rush to get it done.

Gertler: What condition was the film in when you brought it to premiere at Sundance? What was your experience like?

Hunt: When we got into the festival, it was done. We brought in two composers. Once we were in, we were really quite serious about getting the score. We really couldn’t use the temp score. Once we got it to Sundance, it was already done. We had titles. We just hadn’t seen it in front of a crowd. In terms of positioning it, what happened in my case was, and I’m not sure how this happened, but I don’t think it’s a secret, the big agencies, William Morris, etc., learned about the film and started calling up and saying they wanted to get a sales agent to see it. That was tricky. We didn’t know if we were in Sundance or not. That seemed like a lot of trust. Do we show it? What if we don’t get in afterward? We did end up showing it…having no idea if anyone would buy the film. For me, the whole experience was about connecting to an audience. Did the film work? Were people getting it? William Morris would report that so and so saw it today. I think it sold on the fourth day before it won the Grand Jury Prize. I went into this little house and met Tom Bernard and Michael Barker from Sony Pictures Classics. It was really kind of mom and pop in that sense.

Stover: At any time when you were editing, when you’re finishing your film and get it into a festival, do you show it to an acquisitions person before it screens at the festival? Is it a pro or con doing that?

Hunt: We didn’t have any acquisitions people asking to see it. I don’t think I would have done that. Here’s the thing…it’s not like they helped me fund the film, so I felt like they could wait to see it. If you’re coming in with post money, that’s one thing.

Gertler: If you’re first-time filmmaker, how do you help to manage their expectations when submitting to your festival?

Neece: If they’ve already been accepted, it’s just a matter of getting calls from agents and sometimes acquisitions folks. You have to ask yourself the questions…are you going to get a publicist? A sales agent? I think publicists are worth the money, especially for the press. If you get press, that may in turn may get distributors to want to see the film. I don’t know about sales agents. It just depends on what you want. What are you looking for? Are you looking for exposure of people to just look at your film?

Stover: What’s the game plan for publicity at festivals?

Rosefelt: I can speak to what you might be doing as a filmmaker to take your film to a festival. Not all of you are going to be able to afford a publicist. The first thing when you’re creating your materials is you want to keep them really short, because you’re making this thing for a critic or a journalist who is seeing three or four films a day and doing interviews, going to parties. In general, reviews from festivals are very small paragraphs. When creating your materials, think about the person who’ll actually be using this. Keep it very economical. If you feel like you have to give them this long essay about your film, put it on your website because they’ll get that written piece of material when they go to the screening or at the press office. If it’s too long, they’re just going to give cast and credits. The other thing that’s really important is stills. You really want to have a picture that makes your film like something you want to see. It indicated what kind of movie it is. Let’s say your film has erotic content, whenever you shoot a scene, where the actors are naked, you usually ask the still photographer to leave the room so that at the end of the movie, you don’t have anything that looks like what the movie is actually about, because you never took anything. You can set up photos while you’re shooting. It’s commonly done. Francis Coppola does it. You just come in and pose everybody. You can talk to the producer and director and discuss what stills you would like to have. Just make sure you get them. If you get to the end of the movie and you don’t have a still, stage one. If you get into Sundance, they’re going to call and ask you to send them a still. That doesn’t mean send us a still next week, it means send us a still right now. You’ve got to think about that. You’re trying to get something that will make people want to see your film. You always have to create some kind of short synopsis. I suggest a book called I Wake Up Screening by Laura Kim and John Adamson. It’s really the best book I know of about preparing for festivals.

Gertler: How do you prepare for a festival?

Kampe: Primarily we’re doing international sales. We come in on two different scenarios. First is the easy scenario – Cannes, Toronto or Berlin. We would come on board after we see an announcement. What we want to do is come on board as early as possible because we need to put our marketing and PR people behind the film. There’s so many titles that are out for sale, we want to start to differentiate them. As soon as the announcement comes out, we ask for screeners. The second scenario is that we want to get on as early as possible to start selling the international options. If we’re on at the script or shooting stage, what that allows us to do is look at it and see which festivals might take it. As a first-time filmmaker, you probably don’t have the connections with Sundance, Toronto or Berlin. As a company, we place the films with the right programmers.

Quinn: We’re a little different then some of our competitors because we deal with a wide range of films. This month, we just distributed “What Just Happened?” “Man on Wire,” a small Chilean film starring a martial arts star. It’s a pretty wide palate. We travel to every single festival that we deem half important from Sundance to Cannes to Toronto, but we also travel to Austin twice a year to SXSW and Fantastic Film Fest. We basically track the crap out of these movies. At Toronto, there were 140 films. It’s a constant filtering process. The way we do that is look at the sign posts along the way, which are reviews, art work, trailers. How do we get to the point where we deem these films to be priority films. It’s a very long-winded process. My personal preference is seeing movies at 3am in my own house. I know it’s important for filmmakers to send their films to the right festivals, but by the same token, I have to say that we’re one of the few companies that buys a lot of blind submissions.

Stover: What’s the issue of showing your film to an acquisitions person before anyone else sees it?

Quinn: It’s a bad idea. It’s a constant barter of information. What is this other company screening? What do they think? It’s a very small circle. I call it a circus of acquisition execs who throughout the world really know each other well. That’s a bad way to launch your film. It’s very important for you to pick a company you trust and will not discuss your film with anyone else. Whether you want to sign a non-disclosure agreement, we’re happy to do that. There are other companies that are sort of like the mafia and work behind closed doors in not letting other people know about what they see. It’s a risk.

Gertler: When preparing for Sundance, what did you discuss with your agents about goals?

Hunt: It was more like, this is who we know. This is who may be interested in it. It depends on what kind of film you’re making. If you’re making a very experimental film, you have to be really careful about showing it to the wrong acquisitions person. On the other hand, if you have confidence in the work, there probably is a good argument for showing it. We didn’t really talk about strategy so much. We really talked about how the film impacted the audience.

Gertler: How many films do you see a year?

Quinn: I did a study in January looking at how people do in the marketplace, especially films I care about. $5 million and under grossing films. They’re independent films that are usually released on 600 prints or under. In the last eight years, that number has doubled and yet that audience hasn’t grown theatrically. Specialty, performance-driven films like Tell No One, Frozen River, and Man on Wire. I think there were fewer films in the marketplace, at least for that particular audience in the middle of the summer. I think “The Sky is Falling” and all that stuff going on around us, there’s going to be less films on the acquisitions side and would be distributed in the marketplace potentially. I would love to see less films. I would love to see festivals like Toronto decrease in size. I would like to see more quality over quantity in terms of premiere status.

Gertler: What’s the relationship between acquisitions and film festivals?

Neece: Premiere status is pretty important these days. You have to play the game. You have to do research. It’s competitive. SXSW gets 3,500 submissions and plays over 200 films and 90 shorts.

Quinn: We go to SXSW and Fantastic Fest to find an overlooked nugget, but also to see what’s really a healthy theatrical audience. My favorite theater chain is there, The Alamo Drafthouse. We bought films at both festivals last year. It worked really well for us. Same thing for the Woodstock Film Festival.

30th Annual Independent Film Week Preview

Be on the look out next week for a slew of notes from the great panel discussions planned at IFP’s 30th Independent Filmmaker Conference being held during Independent Film Week in New York at Chelsea’s Fashion Institute of Technology (F.I.T.) and surrounding venues. This will mark my seventh return to the conference, which was called IFP Market & Conference and held in The Puck Building when I first attended in 2002. If it were not for this conference, I’m not sure The Film Panel Notetaker would even exist. The seeds were definitely firmly planted there, which have since then sprouted into what you see today and continually grows.

IFP Executive Director said of this year's panels, "We’ve got a remarkable series of speakers and panels scheduled that cover the state of independent film today. From “Alternative Distribution” to “Film & Philanthropy,” whether you’re a filmmaker or film buff, there’s something for everyone interested in independent filmmaking."

And right she is. If you have never attended, and you’re thinking of producing or directing your first narrative or documentary feature and looking for financing, or have a completed film, but want to know the best ways to go about getting distribution both through traditional and newer alternative methods, and how to build audiences, then this is the place for you. There are many panel discussions from which to choose. Each day offers a different theme.

Day 1 – Sunday, Sept. 14: Making Your First Feature
Day 2 – Monday, Sept. 15: Filmmaking 2.0
Day 3 – Tuesday, Sept. 16: The Global Marketplace
Day 4 – Wednesday, Sept. 17: Alternative Distribution
Day 5 – Thursday, Sept. 18: Truth About Non-Fiction
Day 6 – Friday, Sept. 19: Film & Philanthropy [Panels on this day are F-R-E-E!]

And to get an idea of panels from the past, here are a few selected examples of notes I’ve taken at previous conferences:

- 26th Annual IFP Market & Conference (2004)
- Getting the Word Out: Social Networking (original post 9/21/06)
- Conversation with John Sayles & Maggie Renzi, "Honeydripper" – Sept. 16, 2007

(See photo below of Sayles & Renzi from last year's conference. Picture courtesy of IFP.)

And for a summary of everything to expect at this year’s Independent Film Week, please find IFP’s official announcement below.

New York, NY - IFP announced that IFP alumnus Kevin Smith (Clerks), filmmaker and activist Robert Greenwald (Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism), and SnagFilms.com CEO Rick Allen will headline public events during the 30th Annual Independent Film Week, September 14-19. For the first time, Independent Film Week will be held at Chelsea’s Fashion Institute of Technology (F.I.T.).

Formerly known as the IFP Market, Independent Film Week is the leading forum in the U.S. dedicated to discovering, showcasing, and supporting new independent film projects and talent. The six-day event consists of: the Independent Filmmaker Conference; free screenings of films by IFP alumni and emerging short filmmakers; and the Project Forum, a showcase for over 150 works-in-progress. It is presented by IFP, the nation’s oldest and largest organization of independent filmmakers.

Smith will kick off the daily “Conversations With” series during the Independent Filmmaker Conference on September 14th with a discussion on making a first feature. His classic 1994 debut feature, Clerks, got its start as a work-in-progress at IFP in 1993. His new film, Zack and Miri Make a Porno stars Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks and is scheduled for release by The Weinstein Company on Halloween. Greenwald will discuss the power of film to spur social change on September 18th, while Allen, who recently launched SnagFilms.com with AOL Vice-Chairman Ted Leonsis and AOL founder Steve Case, will explore the future of film distribution on September 17th.

In addition to the “Conversations With” series, the conference showcases a range of panels on the art and business of independent film. Each day’s panels are structured around a specific theme: Making Your First Feature, Filmmaking 2.0, The Global Marketplace, Alternative Distribution, The Truth About Non-Fiction, and Film and Philanthropy. The full schedule of panels can be found at www.filmmakerconference.com.

For the second year, IFP and Rooftop Films Present special programs including:

Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Rooftop Films and IFP present
Trinidad (PJ Raval, Jay Hodges Colorado, Austin 1:26:00)
40 years ago, Dr. Stanley Biber transformed a sleepy mining town in Colorado into the Sex Change Capital of The World. 



Venue: on the pier at Solar One
Address: 23rd Street @ the East River (Kips Bay, Manhattan)
Directions: R/6 to 23rd St., walk all the way East, or take the B23 bus all the way East.
8:00PM: Doors open
8:30PM: Sound Fix presents live music by Frances
9:00PM: Film
Rain: In the event of rain, there will be some covering for the audience, but we suggest you bring an umbrella.
Tickets: Free!
Presented in partnership with: The Independent Feature Project, IFC.com, New York magazine & Solar One.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Rooftop Films and IFP present
Selections from the IFP Narrative and Documentary Labs
A sneak peek at trailers and scenes from independent fiction and documentary films that will be next year's hot festival and indie releases.

Venue: on the pier at Solar One
Address: 23rd Street @ the East River (Kips Bay, Manhattan)
Directions: R/6 to 23rd St., walk all the way East, or take the B23 bus all the way East.
8:00PM: Doors open
8:30PM: Live music presented by Sound Fix
9:00PM: Films
Rain: In the event of rain, there will be some covering for the audience, but we suggest you bring an umbrella.
Tickets: Free!
Presented in partnership with: IFC.com, New York magazine, IndieGoGo, and Solar One

* IFP’s NextGenNYC Short Film Showcases (90 min. each) - Documentary and narrative short films by CUNY graduates. NextGenNYC is a new program initiated by IFP and the New York City Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting and is designed to provide a spotlight on New York City’s emerging talent from four colleges within the City University, including: Brooklyn College, City College of New York, the College of Staten Island and Hunter College. (Narrative Showcase, September 16th, 1:30pm, Chelsea Cinemas, 260 West 23rd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues; Documentary Showcase, September 17th, 2pm, Chelsea Cinemas) There is complimentary access with a ticket or pass to the Independent Filmmaker Conference.The full schedule of film screenings open to the public during Independent Film Week can be found at: http://www.independentfilmweek.com/.

“The annual state of the union on independent film began 30 years ago with IFP’s founding event, now known as Independent Film Week,” says Michelle Byrd, Executive Director of IFP. “Since then we’ve expanded our mandate to give the public a greater opportunity to experience the films we nurture through our programs and meet the innovators who are shaping the future of independent film.” Tickets and passes for IFP’s Independent Filmmaker Conference range from $20 for single events to a variety of passes ranging from $70 per day to $320 for the week including all 35 panels, workshops and case studies. Tickets can be purchased at http://www.filmmakerconference.com/.