Film as a Business: The Business of Film

You’ll hear freshly hatched film students and budding filmmakers say their creation is out of love for the work.  But many would, at best, like to make a living at it.  Still, few view filmmaking as the monetization of a high-demand commodity.  I say high-demand because of the proliferation of Video On Demand and other streaming channels.   The increasing numbers alone indicate a growing desire and/or need for fresh cinema.  Cinema is the number one export in the United States, and now with Federal recognition as a viable business entity, a filmmaker can and should approach the long-term track of their work with more precision and direction.  But it’s less about planning the route of their commodity than the importance of managing a ‘corporate structure’ surrounding the commodity.  Focusing solely on the object leads to, what Michael E. Gerber says in The E-Myth Revisited, an Entrepreneurial Seizure.  He continues in saying even though a product may be phenomenal and, in the context of movies, a beautiful example of cinematic expertise, weak support structures will burrow the product into obscurity.  “Indeed, the problem is not that the owners of small businesses in this country don’t work; the problem is that they’re doing the wrong work.  As a result, most of their businesses end up in chaos – unmanageable, unpredictable, and unrewarding.” Louise Levison, author of Filmmaker’s & Financing: Business Plans for Independents says, “many filmmakers lose interest when they realize that writing a business plan takes work.  The impulse is to think, ‘I have a good script, just give me the money.’”  But doesn’t work like that anymore.

In film production, the business plan is an extension and articulation of the producer’s package, while the producer’s package itself is primarily used to seek for distribution and industry support.  Many experts believe creating business plans around a film attracts not only serious investors, but also, as John Cones writes, may useful in “identifying founding shareholders for the initial corporation.” A successfully positioned film will lead to greater monetization, thus creating momentum towards the making of another film.  Isn’t this the goal independent filmmakers have in mind?  Then forward-thinking ambition is required.

Business owners turned investors will view incorporated films with business plans as focused and professional.  Investors will appreciate the respect this extends, and will respect the forethought of a filmmaker as well. “Your business plan is your first impression,” says Cindy Freeman of the Film Method.  “Make sure it reflects you, your project, your passion and your professionalism.” It’s a paradigm shift for filmmakers, I know.  But if you think about it, incorporating a film as an LCC (or other) makes sense for many reasons.  The film becomes an entity entitled to legal protection; crew positioned as employees or individual contractors will increase validity; and doing so will help a film acquire clout and reputation beneficial to the marketing of the film.  The moviemaking climate in the industry has progressed in ways very different from the past.  Independent filmmakers are more empowered with control over their work, and therefore their future.  For indie filmmakers, the industry is ripe for harvesting.  Make sure the seeds of your “small business film” are planted well.

 

                                Scott DuPont: How to Create a Business Plan for Filmmaking

Specific business plan resources for filmmakers:

John W. Cones: How Filmmakers Can Avoid the Business Plan Scam

Louise Levison: Business Strategies blog

Jason Brubaker: Filmmaking As Your Small Business

A Watched Pot Never Boils

No doubt every filmmaker wants their film projected to the big screen in front of a large audience.  We dream about it every time we sit watching someone else’s film, thinking, “Surely if they could do it, then so could I.”  That is 100% true.  You can and should.  Your film deserves it.  Every film does.  The big screen is where it’s meant to be.  But it may not happen in your time frame or in your way. It may take years for your film to reach even one theater, and often at a financial loss rather than gain.  The ‘screen’ may not even be the screen you envisioned.  The odds for a marketed film in the U.S. to generate financial gain is roughly 3%.  “Wow.  Thanks for being such a Debbie Downer,” you may say.  “Why don’t we tuck our tails between our legs and call it a day.”  But let’s get real: The San Diego Padres have roughly a 0.0% chance of making it to the playoffs, and the Colorado Rockies are close behind.  Odds say they should hang up their cleats and shut the team down.  The Padres haven’t entered the World Series since 1984.  Then again, the Padres went to the World Series in 1984.  So did the Rockies in 2007.  Who’s to say they won’t again?  But besides that, what keeps a ball player playing when the odds seem stacked against them and the years between keep stacking up?  The love of the game.  And even if they never made it to the World Series again, the teams keep playing games because, for one, their fans keep paying. 

So how does baseball have anything to do with filmmaking?  Nothing.  And everything.

"A League of Their Own"

We live in a magnificent time of opportunity and versatility with regards to exhibition and distribution.  Your film’s ‘premiere’ doesn’t have to wait for funding or the opportunity to theatrically release.  Instead, outlets like IndieFlix, Distribber, and Distrify provide platforms for streaming play and instant download, equating sometimes to instant revenue.  Aggregators such as these branch out to major players like Hulu, iTunes, Amazon VOD and other streaming services, delivering your content to a wide spread audience.  You could approach the outlets individually, of course, but that's your preference - your prerogative. This isn’t a new revelation, but a reminder that the resources exist to, quite frankly, eliminate excuses.  Men all over the country, including Major League ball players, were called away during WWII.  Did that mean baseball stopped? No. The league worked with what they had to “get done what they had to get doing.”  It was about the game - not about the player.  Here, it’s about the film – not the venue.   Some day you’ll have your theatrical release.  It’ll be amazing.  Your twenty-dollar tub of popcorn will have never tasted so… buttery.  But in the meantime, “get to doing what you gotta get done:” show your film.  Because, “There’s no crying in baseball.” (Columbia, 1992)

Whose Permission Is It, Anyway?

It appears that everyone who has a camera can be or thinks he or she is a filmmaker.  The resources are such that make this realistically feasible for the financially deprived.  As digital distribution options grow plentifully on a global scale, getting your movie out and bringing money in becomes less of a pipe dream and more of a possible reality.  Micro-budgets and crowdfunding avenues make upfront costs shrink to a fraction of what it takes to make a Hollywood-level film, and the evolution of acceptable formats satisfy consumer pallets sometimes in 4 minutes or less (i.e. ‘webisodes’).  The rules have changed and the processes have simplified.  Truly, anyone who has even a cellphone camera can make the next Blair Witch Project or Clerks 4.0 – the reboot.  Still, as options increase so do legal complications.  New ‘Acts,’ policies and laws regularly crop up to ‘protect’ artists while conversely deterring them from producing.  What often deters artists from making a living with their craft is the multitude of legal hurdles to hike under and over.  I may be speaking blasphemy to the independent, rogue creative, but thank goodness for lawyers.  Without them, our ignorance may make the difference, as Ana-Klara H. Anderson of the law firm of Thomas & LoCicero PL says, between bank or bust for an artist’s labor of love.  Without legal protection front-loading, she says, “You invest a lot of time, money and creativity only to be stopped in your tracks.  All that hard work would be for nothing.  It could bankrupt the work.”

So what types of IP protection should a filmmaker consider before a film captures first light?  According to Dr. Anderson, the producer should own every piece of intellectual property associated with their project.  This includes the copyright to the creation itself as well as the right to use the idea, concept or work for post-production purposes (i.e. distribution and exhibition).  It is similar in the music business to the difference between an artist’s musical work and the sound recording of that work itself.  Permissions are required for both.  Other assets that need protection are sound, script, music and the right to use the title.  Yes: the title.  The film’s title becomes its trademark, captured in a catch phrase as its identifier.  Also, if a filmmaker desires to place specific products within the film for funding, permission needs to be secured before – not after the fact.  These points seem obvious, but they wouldn’t need articulation if filmmakers practiced them.  Obviously. 

Smokey Says...

One of Dr. Anderson’s points stood out poignantly in its obviousness: Filmmakers contract with actors to employ their ‘product.’  An actor’s performance secured in a tangible medium, i.e. film, is a copyrighted product.  As such, permissions required are dependent on variables, variables Dorothy Fadiman, a social change documentarian considers based on the situation.  In an interview with Tony Levelle of MicroFilmmaker Magazine, Dorothy says there are two releases she acquires for each shoot. “’The first is a “model release” or “signed permission form” from each [talent].”  She says the two are important for both the film itself and for publicity afterwards.  All permissions, Fadiman says, are designed not only to protect the artist but also the filmmaker.  Dr. Anderson concurred.  She stressed the importance of “memorializing things in writing.”  Word as bond holds no water in court and, from history, intellectual property disputes are diverse in their frequency.  This is why seeking legal council for permission review and advisement is an essential investment.  Tony Leville echoes this in his MicroFilmmaker article by saying, “the money and time you spent finding and talking to an entertainment lawyer could very well turn out to be the best money you spent on the entire production.”  I’m a fan, Tony.  I’m a fan.  Glossing over the legalities associated with filmmaking, out of complacency, is a dangerous tightrope to dance on. 

My interview with Dr. Anderson was both informative and reassuring.  Reassuring in the sense that all the textbook warnings and formal education I’ve received are true.  We, as artists, pour our heart and soul into our craft.  It takes tremendous self-investment to turn a vision into reality.  It may be true that all capable thought and effort is spent on its creation, but that is no excuse for disregarding legal formalities and laws.  The hassle is no hassle if viewed as a shield and protection for both you and the work itself.  In the immortal words of Smokey the Bear, “Only YOU Can Prevent Forest Fires!”  Boy I hope using that tagline passes the “fair use” test.  I might need to consult my lawyer on that one.

Ana-Klara H. Anderson, Ph.D, Esq.

In 2009, Ana-Klara earned her law degree from the University of Florida Levin College of Law and her Ph.D. in Media Law and Policy from UF's College of Journalism and Communications.  Ana-Klara has authored numerous articles for media law publications and has been a frequent guest lecturer throughout the southeast on First Amendment and media law issues.  In her commercial litigation practice, Ana-Klara litigates commercial disputes for corporate clients, including contract disputes, class action defense, business torts and related areas. She also prepares and reviews contracts and other documents related to business operations and management, with a particular emphasis on the arts, entertainment, and publishing industries.

Areas of Practice:

Media/First Amendment Law

Contests & Sweepstakes

Corporate Litigation

Arts & Entertainment Law

The Puritanical Debate: Film versus Digital

Since its inception, digital image capturing has faced serious resistance from film professionals - both in still and motion.  The argument being film tangibly preserves an image while digital is a simple rearrangement of ones and zeros. Yet digital is heralded as the next evolution of the art form.  My point of view is that shooting films on film is the highest form of the art because it requires a higher degree of professional expertise.  But when a top director, Martin Scorsese, not only shoots digitally but also in three-dimension (something many pass off as gimmicky), it makes me think twice.  Part of me wants to scream, “Sell Out!”  While the other part, the side that reveres Scorsese, gives him a pass.  There must be something to it if Scorsese, director of the gritty film Raging Bull, takes a leap towards it.

gizmodo.com

 Even so I still prefer film to digital.  Never mind that I own three digital cameras (DLSR, HDV and iPhone 4s).  Don’t judge me.  I have what I have because of production and post-production costs.  In managing a motion media product, I am constrained to my budget – or the lack thereof.  Had I the choice –and the means - I would choose film.  Is it more complicated? Yes.  Is it more costly and time consuming?  Yes.  But I’m a purist in my opinion that images captured on film are real.  Images captured on digital are not.  You catch a crappy image on film – it is what it is.  Honesty.  You catch a crappy shot on digital?  Just hit delete and no one will know.  Janusz Kaminksi, one of Steven Spielberg’s regular cinematographers interviewed with the LA Times, saying that digital makes for a lazy photographer.  I concur – from experience.  “When I was your age….” (and I’m only 30, mind you), I learned to shoot photography with a film camera.  My training took me from black and white, to color and then to slide film, working each in the darkroom and on the light table for hours.  The smell… the feel…. The frustration of seeing my mistakes slowly reveal themselves under the chemicals… It was a process to process. But that time spent made me a better photographer by motivating me to ensure I wouldn’t make the same mistake again.  Importantly, if not more in this context, is the fact that film capturing was a very organic experience. You could literally capture a piece of life, recording it into the emulsion of the film.  Photography and filmmaking are much different now.  

photo.net

Instead of perfecting exposure and camera control, shooters “Chimp.”   ‘Chimping’ is when a photographer shoots a shot, look at the LCD screen or monitor, shoot the shot, look at the screen… adjust settings (or just leave it on auto)… shoot.  Look at screen…. Etc.  It’s why Kaminski laments digital as “the death of the cinematographer,” and creates a co-dependent relationship between the photographer and the review button.  Kaminski continues, “If you see the image on the digital screen I think people become lazy, they get satisfied with just seeing the image, they’re not going for visual panache, not getting the story through metaphors… With film there is still mystery.”  Gone is the confidence that comes with knowing what, why and how a shot is captured.  I won’t lie and say it hasn’t happened to me.   My discipline died when I drank the ‘chimping’ punch.  A ‘sin’ I will never forgive myself of.

But you can’t ignore the fact that digital is here to stay, and professionals like Scorsese and Cameron are on board.  It would not be prudent to push against a bullish trend, but maybe converge the two artfully.  Newer digital cameras are capturing on 4K sensors and projecting “as-is” onto the screen.  Examining the process of traditional 35mm filmmaking and distribution, multiple duplications and projections actually downgrade the film to 1K by the time it reaches the screen.  Audiences have never really “seen” a 4K film in the theater.  Even so, there is still something organic about seeing a movie made from film.  But according to Filmmaker Magazine (Spring 2012 Issue), there is a new generation of filmmakers who hate the texture of film grain.  They are annoyed by small imperfections or the act of looking into a separate world rather than participating in it.  I don’t see that as a bad thing.  We often watch a movie to escape… to see and feel something not akin to real life.  Digital… just makes it too real.  Maybe it’s the way we “old-timers” (again… I’m 30 years old) grew up.  The story of film-making may soon be relegated to rocking chair conversations being reminisced from the front porch.

Pro8mm.com

Fortunately there are companies still trying to preserve the art of ‘real’ filmmaking, while at the same time marrying film and digital for more efficient post-production workflows. Pro8mm out of Burbank, California is a full-service procurement, rental and processing house for 8mm and 16mm film.  They stock a self-invented Super 8 negative film (16X9) along with Super 8 and Super 16 cameras re-engineered for practical use.  Pro8mm creates digital masters of the film while preserving the look and feel of its original capture.  No I do not work for Pro8mm and no I do not get a cut for ‘selling’ them.  More or less, I am selling the idea that film is not dead.   But Super 8?  Whoa.  Who talks about Super 8 anymore?  Apparently  J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg do. It may take a bit more effort to proselytize its enduring viability, but making films with film is still a valid and valuable medium to work with – a resource professionals persist in using when managing the product of their film.

Links:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/19/entertainment/la-ca-oscars-cinematography-20120219

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2012/04/good-things-in-smaller-packages-large-sensor-motion-picture-cameras-a-year-later/http://www.pro8mm.com/our-mission.php

Filmmaking as a Contact Sport

Website for this image

When I think of contact sports, I think of activities like football, boxing… and sumo wrestling.  But how do I equate contact sports with filmmaking?  They are synonymous on various levels.  Throughout my life I’ve analyzed and intellectualized why one movie reaches me but another does not.  How does a film “reach out and touch someone?”  On three levels: the mind; the heart; and the wallet.  This applies to both the audience and the filmmaker, but for this discussion I’ll focus on the latter.

           

The mind: 

Someone once said that filmmaking is the only blue-collar art form.  When we think of art, one may think of passionate flashes of inspiration out of the nothingness and struggle of life.  That may be true for the initial idea of a story materialized into a film, but the work that goes into its production takes persistent thought coupled with manual labor.  It is multi-faceted, laborious and dynamic.  To make the film work, a filmmaker has to think on specific, yet complex concepts simultaneously.  Because of its complexity, a film takes many hands to keep the machine moving.  Yet each requires timely thinking and attention detail.  What’s interesting is that even the smallest, seemingly lazy thought manifests itself, even by association, in the film.  Something to chew on: if the craft service sucks (i.e. stale bagels and cream cheese that are not complementary… like blueberry and chive spread), then actors and crew are not properly fed, resulting in lethargy and/or grumpiness, which then affects performance and proper tracking of details – like follow focus.  It takes a great deal of present thought to make a film.

The heart:

Filmmaking requires long hours of contribution.  Sometimes those hours are not equally spaced in a healthy way.  Sometimes things don’t go as planned.  Sometimes the crews you have to work with are difficult.  Whatever the challenge, a heart for the art and a belief in the project are what carries filmmakers through to completion. 

The wallet:

Filmmaking is an expensive hobby and/or marginally profitable career, at best.  It’s expensive.  Plain and simple.  (See above for motivation)

But never mind what it takes to contribute.  The outcropping from successful completion reaps rewards regardless of what profit it generates.  I turn my attention back to contact sporting.  Training for any sport is hard an often painful.  The muscles stretch, the mind fatigues and the heart tests.  What keeps an athlete going? A number of factors: satisfaction of completion; the winning catch; or knocking the thoughts out of someone’s brains.  Whatever the reason, there is a reason.  And whether the athlete wins or not, they still come out on top.  Why? Because their mind and heart have been expanded.  I submit that the same occurs in filmmaking.  You are challenged and tested beyond the ability you had at the outset.  You overcome fears and doubt.  You test your resolve.  You learn about yourself, others and about humanity by examining the human condition.  We are not on this earth merely to exist or to be acted upon – but to act; to grow; and to multiply what portion we have received.  Filmmaking touches a person.  For better or for worse, it touches them – leaving its mark.  To me, that’s worth every penny spent. 

So I venture to say the responsibility lies with the filmmaker in choosing what film to make, because it will inevitably affect the person they are and become.  You may not agree nor see value in this argument, but I have an intimate relationship with how affective the moving image can be on a person.  For a few years I was a combat photographer and videographer.  I spent six months documenting infantry life and operations in Iraq.  It was hard work living, breathing and acting as if I was one of them.  But I did what I had to do to get my shot.  I did what was necessary to tell the story.  As a result, shooting that footage made a profound impact on me – for good and for bad.  I am forever changed because of that experience.  And for that I am grateful, because my abilities, heart and resolve wouldn’t have uniquely grown without it.

Making pictures move is definitely a contact sport.

"It's Not About You"

Negotiations occur every day.  Sometimes we negotiate with ourselves over simple tasks like going the gym in the morning, in the evening or not at all.  Cost-benefit analysis of each decision is usually based on preset goals and commitments.  When two parties negotiate, they ideally work towards mutual gain within a proposed project.  Knowing yourself and knowing your project from the outset sets the tone by determining direction and focus. When interviewed, Jenna Edwards, Producer of the film, “April Showers,” and Producing Advisor for The Film Method podcast, spoke about the importance of also knowing with whom you are negotiating. “Know your investor.  What do they want out of this project?  Are they the right fit for the project?  Look at it from their point of view.  What is their ultimate goal?”  Still, clearly defining what the project is and where it is going takes precedence.  But if either party does not understand or see the project’s vision, an end decision cannot be effectively met. 

5th Element scene: Negotiation

Film productions often involve heightened emotions.  Many of the projects are personal in nature, and new filmmakers have a strong desire to land their “big break.”  But these elements have a tendency to cloud deal-making discussions.  You may have a well-known industry talent sitting in front of you, but if they aren’t the right fit for the project, it’s better to walk away than succumb to the emotions of the moment.  Instead, focus should rest on the interests of the project rather than the positions of parties involved.  Jenna advises filmmakers to follow their gut. “It’s not worth it if the deal doesn’t benefit the project.  You want to build on integrity first.  Trust your instinct.” Roger Fisher writes in Beyond Reason, “The difference between having a core concern ignored or met can be as important as having your nose underwater or above it.”  Building the wrong team on the wrong terms not only creates future hassles, but also increases the likelihood for conflict down the road.  Each party comes to the table with individual roles, goals and expectations, which should be respected with equality and autonomy, but deciding what is best for the project is paramount.  It can make the difference between the success and the failure of a film.