The State Of The Media World Right NOW

Brian Newman tells it like it is. Listen up.

Okay, so image quality is crap, but just let it play and go look at something on Flickr.

The Five -- No, SIX -- Pillars of Cinema -- Take It Back!

The video of my Power To The Pixel key note speech is now up. Watch me read! Watch my hand juggle invisible balls! Listen to how my nose vibrates! If you wait until next week, there will be seven pillars!

I think we'll be able to embed in another two weeks. But...

Singing Happy Birthday in the Movies

It's not too often that you hear the song "Happy Birthday" sung in a movie. Have you noticed that?

You will hear "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow".

But rarely "Happy Birthday". Why?

And there's a reason for this. There are copyright issues. You see, if you ever do hear the song "Happy Birthday", you know that the filmmaker (or the studio) paid good money. Apparently you'll pay something between $5,000 to $30,000...

For one single song. For independent filmmakers, that's a lot of money...

So, instead of singing Happy Birthday to the real Jakob (yes, it's his birthday. He'd have been 138 years old if he were still living)... guess we better sing that other song (the one that's in the public domain, and therefore costs no money to use in a movie!)

Oh, and by the way, yesterday was Jeff Stewart's birthday. (He plays the role Jakob in our movie...) Happy belated birthday, Jeff!

Is This What You Mean By "Indie"?

Deadline Hollywood published a great list of the "Indie" Box Office. I think this underscores why I was looking for some new nomenclature when I started this blog.

TOP 20 INDEPENDENTLY FINANCED FILMS
Weekend of October 23–25, 2009
Exclusive To Deadline Hollywood

TITLE, DISTRIB, COMPANY, WKD BOX OFFICE, SCREENS/AVERAGE, CUME

1. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (Par/IM Global) $21.1M [1,945/$10,850] $61.5M
2. SAW VI (Lionsgate) $14.1M [3,036/$4,650]
3. LAW ABIDING CITIZEN (Overture) $12.4M [2,890/$4,292] $40.0M
4. ASTRO BOY (Summit/Imagi) $6.7M [3,014/$2,224] $6.7M
5. A SERIOUS MAN (Focus) $1.0M [176/$6,211] $3.1M
6. GOOD HAIR (Roadside Attractions) $945K [466/$2,030] $2.8M
7. CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY (Overture) $726K [636/$1,142] $12.9M
8. WHIP IT (Fox Searchlight/Mandate) $466K [435/$1,071] $12.2M
9. AN EDUCATION (SPC/BBC/Odyssey) $367K [31/$11,851] $940K
10. COCO AVANT CHANEL (SPC/Canal+) $272K [63/$4,321] $1.7M
11. NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU (Vivendi) $230K [110/$2,092] $747K
12. FAME (MGM/Lakeshore) $212K [445/$477] $22.0M
13. BRIGHT STAR (Apparition/TVA) $212K [209/$1,015] $3.9M
14. TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE** (Warner/New Line) $203K [284/$718] $62.8M
15. I CAN DO BAD ALL BY MYSELF (Lionsgate) $178K [273/$655] $51.6M
16. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (Weinstein/Uni) $176K [206/$857] $119.3M
17. DISTRICT 9 (Sony/QED) $148K [232/$638] $115.5M
18. 5150, RUE DES ORMES (Alliance Films) $107K [55/$1,955] $787K
19. MORE THAN A GAME (Lionsgate) $99K [107/$929] $749K
20. THE SEPTEMBER ISSUE (Roadside0 $89K [61/$1,469] $3.4M

** A New Line production distributed through Warner Brothers.

Antonio Campos on “Afterschool”

What was your filmmaking background before you made Afterschool?

ANTONIO: I've been making short films since I was about 13. I attended the New York Film Academy when I was 13, but had to lie about my age to be in the program since they didn't have a teen program. I made my first shorts there and then continued to make shorts all through high school. Eventually, I went to NYU for film where I made a short Buy It Now, which was made with a tiny crew on video for no money. That short ended up winning the First Prize in the Cinefondation at Cannes, which ultimately helped open a lot of doors and create a lot of opportunities. After that I made one more short, The Last 15, which was in Official Competition at Cannes in 2007.

Where did the idea for Afterschool come from?

ANTONIO: The seed for the idea came sometime after my last year in high school. That year started off with 9/11 and one of my best friends lost his father that day, and it ended with a close friend of mine dying in a freak accident while traveling through Europe. I really didn't know how to process or deal with these deaths-- I felt very connected and disconnected at the same time.

I had this idea of a boy witnessing the death of two girls by drug overdose. The girls were kids he had seen in the hallways but never had spoken to or been really close to until they died in front of him. Then over the years and through my Residence in the Cannes Residence program, I developed the idea into what the film became.

What was the writing process like?

ANTONIO: It was long. There was a long period of a lot of note taking and brainstorming. When the chance to apply to the Cannes Residence came up, I wrote a formal treatment. I made the top 12 and was flown out to Paris for the interview, but was ultimately rejected.

I went back and reworked the treatment and resubmitted. I was accepted the following year, and it was really while I was in Paris writing that the whole thing came together. It was there that the idea that the boy would be in a video class came to me, and once I had that, it all came together.

How did you fund the film?

ANTONIO: It was all funded privately, through people my producers, Josh Mond and Sean Durkin, had met and discussed the project with over the years. Our budget was relatively low, but it was still more money than any of us had tried to raise before. There were enough people who believed in us and the project who were willing to take a risk on it. Also, we were able to actually shoot the film on 35 anamorphic because my producers were able to get such good deals from the vendors.

What sort of camera did you use? What was good about it? What was not so good?

ANTONIO: We shot 35mm on an Arri 535 with anamorphic lenses from Joe Dunton. It was a good camera for the shoot since there wasn't a lot of handheld and a lot of static shots, and the lenses for the most part were great.

With anamorphic, you're always going to have vignetting and focus issues on some lenses. We figured out what problems there were with which lenses and then were just always conscious of that as we were shooting, only using them we had to. Some of it we were able to correct in post.

How did you find your crew?

ANTONIO: Everyone on the film for the most part had gone to NYU with me and my producers. And those who didn't go to NYU were people that we had worked with on other projects. It was really comfortable, friendly, and safe environment for me as a director since I had already established a rapport and friendship with almost everyone on the set before we started. As a director, it's the greatest feeling when everyone around you seems to be as committed and excited about the film you are trying to make as you are, and I felt that way about my crew every day.

What are the advantages (and disadvantages) of being your own editor?

ANTONIO: I felt that I knew how I wanted the film to play, and I knew the film better than anyone else that it didn't seem right, especially on my first feature, to not edit myself. Also, I'm not someone who becomes married to anything. I always see myself as a slave to the film; whatever's right for the film is what I'm going to try and do.

That said, there are disadvantages.

Eventually, because you have been with the film for so long, it is hard to distance yourself enough to have any sort of emotional response to it. It all becomes a bit too intellectual, which I don't like. Also, I was handling a lot of things that an assistant editor would normally deal with, like syncing and prepping the film for the negative cut. These things just become tedious, and in terms of dealing with prepping the film for a negative cut or whatever you're going to end up on, it's difficult because it just forces to spend more time in front of the timeline. Not making changes becomes a challenge because there's always something you feel like you can play with a bit more. My negative cutter was definitely not happy with me

And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you can take to other projects?

ANTONIO: There's so much you learn from just making a film, a lot of it isn't even anything you recognize consciously. I feel like anything you do behind or in front of the camera is beneficial and forces you to hone a certain tool or try and learn something knew about yourself and your process.

I like preparing as much as possible, and did so on Afterschool, but I would love to be able to do more tests with stocks and lenses beforehand. To really know the quirks of every lens and the different looks you can achieve with each stock and each process available in the developing and printing. We were able to do this to a certain extent, but just couldn't afford to do as much as my DP or I would have liked.

"Afterschool" is available On Demand. Check your local listings.

http://www.ifcfilms.com/films/afterschool

Wanted: A Home For A Truly Free Film Celebration

Taking a page from Roger Ebert, it would be wonderful to find an academic institution who would like to sponsor a one week (five days? a long weekend?) celebration of Truly Free Film (not the blog but the culture that is).

Imagine five or maybe ten filmmakers coming to your campus discussing what they did right and what they did wrong. Imagine a couple of seasoned pros joining them and speaking of how they have survived and prospered, what they do to transform their good work into the great. Imagine a handful of tech experts singing the song of innovation, helping us all to recognize the new model. There would be practical workshops, brainstorming sessions, fascinating discussions and of course, the movies, the movies would screen for your quality-starved eyes.

Picture this group of independent thinkers, all joining together in their search for answers and solutions.

Consider the energy that would come from those actively engaged in the creation of ambitious film and the efforts to reboot an apparatus that could support such work. Relish the satisfaction that one would bask in knowing that your community would have a truer firmer handle on the difficulties and the pleasures one encounters in the commitment to creating and delivering film art to audiences.

Now I don't have it planned, or any speakers booked, but we need a wine bottle if we are going to stomp on some grapes (well, okay, not the best metaphor). There are going to be great films going to the festivals this year, with no place to go afterwards. There are great films already made, looking to screen further. The new model is being unearthed but folks need to talk further. We'll need some help pulling it together for sure, but first we need a home with some money to spend.

I just thought it would make some sense to put it out there. Maybe you had some ideas or suggestions.

Q&A with Actor Quentin McCuiston

Film: Under Jakob's Ladder
Actor: Quentin McCuiston
Role: Yasha

Q: What first attracted you to work on this film?
A: I really like period pieces for one thing and I also thought it was a very good story to tell.

Q: Tell about your character, Yasha. How do you identify with him?
A: Yasha is a very childlike person. He's innocent and simple. And at one time (when I was a child) I had a greater capacity for those characteristics. As you grow up, they seem to fade a bit. But I can still remember what it was like to see the world through eyes like that and it's actually quite refreshing.

Q: How did you prepare for your role as Yasha?
A: I usually take a lot of clues from the script. What the character says, how he reacts and interacts, and the circumstances around him are all usually right there on the paper. Talking with the director helps to get a hold of the big picture and how your character fits in. His vision for the character helped to define things a little sharper. Some research went on as well. Then it was a matter of playing until I felt that the character had come to life.

Q: What was the most challenging scene for you?
A: The most challenging scene for me was the sequence with my father, Oigen. Most all of the other characters in the scene don't care or begin to pick on Yasha at the same moment that he is going through a very heavy experience. I don't know how it looks, but it was a very lonely scene to do. It was also very difficult, being a high emotion scene, to stop and start and shoot out of order. That's always a challenge.

Q: What did you enjoy the most about working on this film?
A: It was a really great group of people. I loved working and learning from everyone and got to make some good friends. I also got to work with a rat. How often does that happen?

Yasha (Quentin McCuiston) playing with his rat
Q: Do you have any stories about working on the set?
A: Usually if you weren't in a scene you would go outside and hang around until they needed you again. During the down time in between scenes, some of the other inmates and I got pretty creative. We started to play what we called "Yasha-ball". It was basically trying to toss a rock through a 1' x 6" hole in a dilapidated wall while standing at a certain distance. We had a lot of fun.

Q: How did you get your start in film?
A: Some of my first projects with film were with some friends right out of college. We actually still work together whenever we can. I am currently collaborating with Chapter 2 Studios (located in Dayton, TN) on a web series called "Learning with Lawrence" which launched September 3rd on learningwithlawrence.com.

The Slow Drip Of Change: A Post From The Past

In 1995 I wrote an article for Filmmaker Magazine entitled "Indie Film Is Dead". If you are looking at the surface and what is being reported these days, it's pretty depressing how little things have changed. That slow drip has finally accumulated into a pool of chaos.

I can understand why people are nervous. However, I have been meeting with people from the tech side of things a lot lately. Things are going to change. Or rather keep changing. We are in The Period Of Disruption now. Folks are raising their hands to be the guides to Total Salvation. I won't fool myself into thinking it's that easy. It seems to me that budgets will have to drop significantly in order to justify experimenting with the new tools. Which means fees will drop. Which means that those with experience may sit this period out. Which means that quality will drop. Which means that audiences will drop. But wait, doesn't PARANORMAL ACTIVITY prove all that wrong?! Will the solution be genre films on a tiny budget?

Anyway, here's that dose of 1995:

The marketplace is nasty and brutal, remembering only the latest successes and never forgetting its failures. It allows no room for taste beyond the mainstream. Truly unique films cannot get screens, let alone hold them for more than a week or two. There is virtually no American audience for art films, political films, or non-narrative films. The specialized distributors have morphed into mass marketers, not niche market suppliers. Monopolistic business practices drive most corporate strategies.

Whether we view ourselves as producers, directors or moviegoers, our options are limited by the structure of the industry, and if we do not act soon, we will lose our ability to choose the films we want to make and see.

Sure, the trade papers may paint a rosy picture for the future of indie film. New outlets and delivery systems proliferate daily. New revenue streams emerge with reassuring regularity. The audience for "specialized" films is at an all-time high. Every month another studio posts a press release about their new specialty division. Every city has a film festival. Film school enrollment is booming.

But the real news has been quietly taking place in those back room corporate board strategy sessions. Anti-trust laws are a thing of the past. Today’s new media giants are embracing the independent film but as a marketing concept only; every day they bring more and more of the production, distribution and exhibition apparatus under their control. Although we celebrate our independent "spirit," the logic of the studio film – its range of political and social concerns, its marketing dictates, and even its narrative aesthetic – is slowly colonizing our consciousness. The screens are controlled by the studios and sooner or later every filmmaker winds up working for the studios.

We all must get real and face the facts: independent filmmakers are currently standing on a precipice. It’s jump or get pushed. We are overdependent on the Hollywood studios and their far reaching apparatus. If we want Indie Film to survive into the next millenium, if we want it to expand our artistic horizons, we must start to grow truly self-sufficient.

In order to recognize the desperate situation we currently find ourselves in, all one has to do is take a look at the current state of the industry and it’s different arms, and try to imagine one thing: Where does that truly unique first feature without an accessible marketing hook fit in?

YOU CAN FORGET ABOUT A DISTRIBUTION DEAL

Acquisitions are driven by marketability, and marketability alone. Art has no value. Sure a film has to be "good" to be picked up, but what does a distributor truly look for when it acquires a film? Uniqueness of vision? Independent spirit? Discipline? A controlled or unique aesthetic? Try again. Like their Hollywood counterparts, the first item on their menu is a marketable concept, one they already know how to package. They look for the promise of fun, albeit intelligent fun. God forbid, a film breaks new ground – if it does, it better do so while still satisfying other proven commercial desires – otherwise no one will know how to market it. In the current marketplace, fewer and fewer distributors will take a risk on a great film if its marketing potential is not immediately identifiable.

The major specialty distributors only seek films they believe can gross $2 million at the US box office. There is no small acquisition anymore. When a distributor offers a minimum guarantee of $300,000, they are essentially stating that they believe the film will gross over $2 million at the box office (the MG is nothing more than an advance against future profits – the size of the advance is in direct correlation to a distributor’s conservative estimate of the film’s future revenues). If the distributor is strong enough to demand (and collect) 50% of the gross from the exhibitors and spends no more than a minimal $700,000 prints and advertising investment, then it can recoup the advance. Forget about the days when an independent film was applauded for reaching the $1 million mark. Now it’s $2 million or bust.

The "Big Little" distributors have a surplus of films; they don’t want yours (particularly if it’s an art film). Miramax doesn’t even try to hide the fact that they have over 40 films on the shelf – they promote it. If one of the larger specialty distribs were to pick your film up today, you’d be waiting a year for your premiere. Granted, some of the wait has to do with the mechanics of publicity, but you can’t get around the surplus of good films available for acquisition. With such a backlog, there’s tremendous pressure to get everything but the big money makers off the screens and the shelf sitter up and out (but only for the minimum time required under that pesky video output deal, of course).

Acquisitions has become a presale and production game. There’s no room for your beautful little hand-crafted film gem (please close the door when you leave). Face it, distributors know what they want and they are tired of waiting for the indie sector to come up with it. As the big little distributors move fully into a production game they have a lot more money at stake. The coming disaster is easy to anticipate. How many films like House of the Spirits, Even Cowgirls Get The Blues, and The Perez Family can these companies afford to make before they go under? Unlike a Hollywood hit, an art film smash will rarely replenish the corporate coffers enough to compensate for a string of failures. This trend towards production is not only going to destroy companies, but it will also restrict anything but the surefire hits from getting picked up.

Small distributors are doomed to failure. The options are limited to begin with and they are only going to get smaller and more limited. The little distributors lack the muscle to book good screens, let alone hold them beyond a two-week engagement. And these microdistributors are overextended. As many great films do not get picked up by The Biggies, the small companies can acquire a year’s supply of product for a song. Temptation is too great a force, and they inevitably pick up too many films, fail to properly capitalize their release campaigns, and, with little invested in each film, quickly drop those films that don’t immediately perform.

The distribution business is actually a game of collections. It’s one thing to get a booking, but quite a different thing to get paid in full. Outside of the calendar house exhibitors, one can’t bank on an exhibitor returning more than their automatic 25% payout. The rest is up to "negotiation" and "settlement". Yeah, right. "Let’s see what other films you have up your sleeve next month and maybe then we can pay you what we owe."

SALES AND REVENUE: THERE’S NO WAY YOUR FILM WILL EVER MAKE MONEY ANYWAY

Filmmakers are always last in line for the revenues. When sales agents, producers’ reps, exhibitors, distributors, and all the various distribution, marketing, and publicity costs come off the top, can you really hope to have anything left? Hollywood spends $17 million on the average publicizing a film. In the specialized market, you can anticipate $300,000 in P&A for every $1 million a distributor hopes to gross until $3 million and how many specialized films do better than that in a given year? Do you really expect to see a bloody red cent?

There are not enough specialty ancillary distributors to create the competition needed for there to be a fair market value set and paid for acquisitions. You can dream all you want about the Sundance Channel and Independent Film Channel getting into a bidding war for your film. Even with Cinemax’s Vanguard series in the mix, current licensing fees won’t even pay for a minor P&A campaign. In the home video arena, the big indies go Chapter 11 on an annual basis. What does that leave you? Pay per view? Video on demand? Unfortunately, Shannon Tweed and Lorenzo Llamas are worth more viewers than a calvacade of festival accolades, particularly on a rainy night.

Indie film is forced to look overseas for its revenues. It’s been the rule that Jarmusch and Hartley turn more wickets in Paris than they do in all of the US It was once the norm that when you licensed your film to a distributor, you could expect half the budget from the US deal. Current wisdom would place it closer to 30%. Indie films typically make their money by licensing rights to the major foreign territories. But the bad news is that foreign distribution options are narrowing.

The trade press made a big deal about Miramax’s recent "output" deals with foreign distributors. New Line towed a similar line, handing off their product to select distributors territory by territory. The premium foreign sales agents all have their favorite buyers, and those not included within the circle have little hope of acquiring any product from these agents. The true foreign indie distribs are thus being shut off from their former suppliers. If the foreign indie distribs bite the bullet and pay the amount the large sales agents demand for the big titles, they won’t have the money to pay for your film anyway.

The real catch-22 though is the foreign market’s reliance on a US deal to drive advances. If your American Indie effort failed to ignite the screens stateside, expect lackluster advances when the time comes to sell overseas. Without the right US deal, you’re going to be hard pressed to squeeze a healthy return on foreign soil too.

Backend is bullshit. Go ahead, name the films that paid overages from domestic distributors to their producers. The distributor has to be able to collect from the exhibitor if you are ever going to see something. If exhibitors are only paying 25% of the gate now, regardless of whether or not they’ve agreed to more, and the distributor is taking 30% off the top of that, you can only expect 16% of gross theatrical revenue to return to the producer – before the deduction for publicity and print costs the distrib is piling on. With licensing fees for the ancillary markets so low, the only hope of an indie film turning a profit is having nothing to recoup to begin with. With backend being nonexistent, you better get your money upfront – but then again no one’s going to give you money upfront unless everyone is willing to.

You better be ready to dedicate the next ten years to that one film if you want to get what is owed to you. A film’s revenue life is usually close to ten years. If you want to make sure you’re not getting ripped off, you better examine those statements carefully. You better be prepared to look at how many admissions you got at every theater in every territory. You better keep track of video release dates and shipments in each territory and what channel puts it out for broadcast. Don’t lose those publicity stills because every three months or so some distributor will need them, regardless of how many times you’ve given them to your sales agent. It doesn’t matter how many territories accepted your video transfer, somewhere it won’t be up to snuff.

DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING: IF YOU THINK PEOPLE WILL EVER SEE YOUR MOVIE, STOP DREAMING.

Platform releasing is becoming a dead language. Gone are the days when a distributor would work a film one city at a time. All the big little distributors look for 200 print releases now and it costs to blitz. An idiosyncratic film that doesn’t hit a clearly definable demographic can’t legitimize the cost of hitting the top 50 markets simultaneously. However, in an oversaturated market, platform releasing is an impossible strategy. Platform releasing was based on the concept of word of mouth being able to compensate for less costly marketing campaigns. But word of mouth requires a film to be able to hold a screen and takes time, five weeks or so, to kick in. To hold a screen that long these days, you have to be turning the wickets pretty consistently from day one. When October Films released Mike Leigh’s Life is Sweet, its eighth week grosses were the highest. But today, if a microdistributor’s little sleeper is doing $9,000 a screen at the six-plex in its third week while the Miramax flick is hovering below the nut, say, at $6,500, who is the concerned booker going to drop? Your film or the one by the guys who’ve got the new Tarantino coming out?

Distributors still believe that independent film is entirely review driven. If the New York and the LA press don’t support it, you better pray Mr. Ebert wants to make a campaign of it. There is no second chance. Sure, they’ll publicize a film to its "core" audience, but in most distributors’ minds, "core" is defined by skin color and sexual orientation, and aren’t we all just a wee bit more complex than that?

Film criticism is at an all-time low, but distributors still rely on it.Somewhere along the line someone decided that reviews are nothing more than publicity. We’ve long been recognized as a nation of sound bites and pull quotes. The critic’s job is now simply to synopsize the plot and let ’em know whether it’s five stars or just four this time around. And distributors of art films won’t spend money unless these critics proclaim it a sure fire hit. If the lead reviewer doesn’t get your film because you are trying to do something new or maybe because he was hungry and cranky, you can see your ad shrink before your eyes. If the distributor took the risk on your little gem because they thought they could platform it, and that reviewer you dissed way back when remembers you now, kiss a multiple city playdate goodbye.

Distributors will not push a picture if they don’t have a lot of money riding on it. The reason you want a distributor to put up a hefty advance isn’t because of the money, but because it’s your only hope the film will get the push it needs. All of the big little companies can afford to take a $200K loss; it ain’t pretty but they can keep doing it if they have the hope of a cash cow by year’s end. This problem gets truly serious when all the distributors can have their pick of the majority of Sundance alumuni with no money down.

They are right when they tell you that indie films are sold on the back of the director (and they’re willing to break it). If you direct an indie film, you better be prepared to publicize it for the next year and a half. That next feature can just go on hold for all anyone else cares. If the distributor has any money they are going to spend it to put you on the road. All the press will be about you, not the film. You’ll be talking the film up in your nightmares (and then some if you are a first timer). You need to get in the papers to get the audience in their seats. And an article is a hell of a lot cheaper than an ad. The real rub is audiences could care less about the director. Features on film directors only preach to the converted. And the killer is that all this publicity sets the filmmaker up for a fall. Second time around, critics love to skewer last year’s discovery. Nevertheless no one’s come up with a cheaper, easier or more thoughtful way to get publicity for an indie film.

DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE: YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO SELL YOUR SOUL AND YOUR CHILDREN TO GET YOUR FILM FINANCED.

Industry financing options are diminishing. Miramax still finances edgy projects by directors without names perpetually set in bold type – but then you’ve got to wait until Harvey figures out who’s the right one to star in it. There once was a day that New Line/Fine Line did too, but those days now seem long gone. American Playhouse is now a severed arm of PBS, and it’s got to get a grip on films that could do boffo box too. (To add further bruises to brutal injuries, the financing scheme they engineered had it’s legs chopped out from under them with the recent demise of Goldwyn, their cherry-picked distributor).

Public funding options are all but non-existent. The NEA has abandoned film. They’ve abolished the AFI grant. The government and the politicos alike have stated very clearly that they do not feel film has any cultural worth and is solely a commercial pursuit best handled by the private sector. Never mind that the average taxpayer’s allocation to the arts is only about $2.47. You can kiss that chump change goodbye now and with it all the voices in the niches.

The "filmmaker-friendly" studio-backed production shingles rarely yield much fruit. The development and acquisition execs would rather keep their jobs than risk their necks on your little labor of love. Here’s the story:

The worst thing that can happen to a development or acquisitions exec is for a film they passed on to become a hit. They get fired for less. Consequently, expect them to take reasonable precautions. If they are going to pass on a film, they are going to make sure that everyone knows they have passed. They’ll pass loud and often – whatever is needed to taint the product and make sure no one else will ever make that film.

The next worst thing is to acquire a film that someone else passed on and for it to flop. Consequently, the smart exec won’t pick up a project that’s already been passed on by another entity. The only film they can truly support is one that already has a groundswell of support or one that nobody has seen.

If a film they champion fails, even telemarketing positions will start to look sweet. If a company develops a project, everyone’s a genius until the film’s released. And then only the numbers tell the truth.

So what’s a poor old executive to do? 1) Try only for films that everyone else wants. 2) Avoid films that don’t resemble previous hits. 3) Do like everyone else because they can’t fire you for imitating your colleagues. 4) Pray that nothing you develop ever gets made and the finished films you acquire gather moss on the shelf.

Finishing funds are designed to exploit filmmakers’ desperation. It may seem nice that such funds exist to bail out films in need, but under most of their current incarnations they exploit and encourage filmmakers’ desperation. Since filmmakers just want to be able to finish the film, the funders usually play fire sale, taking advantage of filmmakers’ ignorance and desire.

Filmmakers are not blameless here. With every tale of success these funds help furnish, fiscal irresponsibility is encouraged. All a new filmmaker wants to do is shoot film and shoot film soon. Never mind that the long drawn out process of financing often helps a filmmaker consider and reconsider the script and ultimately make a better film, these kids have just gotta shoot. If they have the money to get it in the can (and the investors that will let them), they usually are willing to shoot now and worry about paying for post later. The price they pay is that they are already over the barrel before they have a finished film to show. Unwittingly, desperation creates a buyers’ market and ownership soon is lost, but what other financing options are there?

Financing small films through presales is too costly and time consuming.It’s virtually impossible to finance a first feature through presales, but it can be done. Usually it requires casting names, but it can be done on the strength of the creative team alone, but then you better have a serious body of work and it might take a good three years or so. This time lag may well serve to distance all creative elements from the material at hand, but the real suck is the cost. Presales are contracts that have to be converted into money and that process ain’t cheap. It also means a completion bond at a minimum of 3% of budget. It means interest payments on the loan and high legal bills besides. When all is said and done you can watch at least 20% of the budget being spent on the money. You might as well give away the rights to Italy instead.

There’s no support system or infrastructure to speak of. The IFPs & Sundance are the lone beacons but even these not-for-profit groups are reliant on corporate dollars from the distributors for survival. Given this fact, can they really fulfill our need for a true ombudsman for the independents? But where are the alternatives?

The film industry, like all others, mystifies by design. All industries create their own vernacular, keeping the have-nots clouded in confusion. Variety takes this talent to an art form. The neophyte needs a class in how to read the trades, let alone understand them. Where is the information when you need it? Whether it’s a rolodex or a financial chart, good luck in getting up-to-date info. The industry promotes a paranoia and close-to-the-chest confidentiality in all its’ parishioners, whispering that if you don’t leap in, you’ll be out forever.

Film schools produce directors and not producers. Conspiracy theories, as comforting as the are, can stretch only so far, but it is curious how embraced and weaved into the industry the film schools are, yet how limited their curriculum is. By ignoring the business aspects of an art form driven by commerce and promoting "auteurs" and "masters of light," the film schools assure that there is a constant and overabundant supply of lambs trotting towards the slaughterhouse. USC’s Peter Stark Program shapes producers for the studio system, but there’s no academic institution seeking to prepare indie producer wannabes for the outside world. Of course one could easily say, as independent producer Jim Stark has quipped, "It doesn’t make sense to educate people to go into a business that they are bound to lose money in!"

Film Going Is A Necessary & Political Act: Woodstock Trailblazer Acceptance Speech

Last month's acceptance speech has been up online for a few weeks, but I just discovered it. Check it out, you can play it in the background as you wash the dishes, maybe even do a little dance to it.

But if you are going to just watch/listen to part of it, please check out part three.

Unfortunately, it gets cut off before you get to hear me thank my wife Vanessa, whom I wouldn't do any of this without her love and support.

Answers Needed: Top Fulfillment Companies

If you want to distribute your own DVDs, who should you use?

The Yes Men use theconneXtion.com.

Who else is out there and what do you like about them (or not)?

Jon Reiss wrote an article on choosing your fulfillment company for Filmmaker Magazine.

Q&A with Actress Chloe Roe

Film: Under Jakob's Ladder
Actress: Chloe Roe
Role: Marta -- Jakob's granddaughter

Q: What did you most enjoy about working on 'Under Jakob's Ladder'?
A: All the films I have been in so far, I have had to film in New York City. I live an hour away from the city so usually I have to get up really early or get home really late, or both. This film was right near my house! Plus, since it was being shot in my hometown, most of my family and cousins were able to be extras in the film.

Q: Tell about your audition. What did you think when you found out that you got the role of Marta?
A: After my initial audition, we did a lot of table readings. I read with three different Jakobs. Usually we would do a screen test afterward. My last table reading was with Jeff Stewart. I thought he was the best of the three. I guess everyone else did too because we both got cast! I was very excited to sign the contract to play Marta!

Q: What was it like to work with Jeff Stewart?
A: I really like Jeff. Before our scenes, we would go through our lines together. He was very supportive of me. On our off-time we would go bike riding. We would ride to the diner and he would order rice pudding. He's nuts for it! He would ask to have it warmed up. That's the way they eat it in England.

[Photo: Steve Roe, Jeff Stewart, and Chloe Roe out for a bike ride.]
Q: What is your favorite scene in the movie?
A: Every scene had something I really loved about it. I thought the most exciting scene was when my Grandfather got taken away in the middle of the night. My most fun scene was during the campfire scene. Even though the smoke kept getting in our eyes, it was fun because afterward we got to toast marshmallows! They were delicious.

Q: Do you have any funny stories about working on the film?
A: When I thought they told me to throw the bell in the fire during the fireside scene. So I did! Perhaps it will end up in the bloopers.

Q: What was the most challenging scene for you?
A: I thought my most challenging scene was when I was talking to my mother about why I thought they took my Grandfather away while she braided my hair. We had to re-shoot it many times from different angles and I had to be sure to try to deliver my lines the same way every time.

Q: Who inspires you as an actress?
A: Working with Matt Okin on "Out of Whack", the all-kids rock musical and "Generations" was very inspiring. He let us write our own dialogue and songs and we got to perform in cool clubs like Nuyorican and Bowery poetry club in NYC with a live three-piece band!

Win A Week Run In LA For Your Film

The WorkBook Project – Discovery and Distribution Award is part of an initiative to provide tangible options for those working in film, music, games, design and software to fund, create, distribute and sustain.

Born from a desire to share information and resources, the WBP Award strives to create an environment where the results of the various awarded projects are provided back to the community as a whole. This transparency around what works and what doesn’t is how creators will be able to flourish in a constantly changing media landscape. At the same time the sharing of resources and information helps to prime a community of creators in ways that will assist them and their prospective audiences in discovering and distributing the media that matters most to them.

Read all about it here.

Sean Baker on "Take Out"

What was your filmmaking background before you made Take Out?

SEAN: I went to NYU and got my bachelors in Film & TV studies. Shortly after graduating, I made a film called Four Letter Words. I raised the money to make it on 35mm by luckily landing a few commercial gigs for a toy manufacturer. It is a look at college age suburban males. I know that sounds trite but my goal at the time (1995) was to tackle the subject in a different way than other films had. I felt that most films went for flat out comedy when covering this topic. I wanted to focus on the realism; drawn out conversation, the awkward moments, etc.

I lost my way in the post-production and it took four long years to find the right cut. Matt Dentler and Bryan Poyser at SXSW championed the film and it made its premiere there in 2000. Vanguard Cinema put in out on DVD shortly after. I'm quite aware of the faults of the film but I'm still glad I made it. I feel I had to get that film out of my system before exploring other subjects.

During post-production on Four Letter Words, a public-access show that I co-created, called Junktape, got picked up by IFC and renamed Greg the Bunny. Greg the Bunny has had several incarnations over the years, going to Fox and then back to IFC. We are currently embarking on a whole new incarnation (but I can't go in to detail on that in fear of jinxing it.)

I met Shih-Ching in 1999 at the New School where she was getting her Masters in Media Studies. We decided to make Take Out in the summer of 2003.

Where did the idea come from?

SEAN: Shih-Ching and I were living above a Chinese restaurant. We watched the deliverymen coming and going all day and wondered about how NYC looked through their eyes. Shih-ching began conversing with them and we soon realized that there was an important story to be told about the daily struggle of one of these individuals.

What was your process for co-writing the script?

SEAN: Shih-Ching and I wrote the script together in English. She then translated the dialogue to Mandarin. We referred to both scripts while shooting. I could follow the actors line by line so both Shih-Ching and I could judge the actor's delivery and the scene's pacing.

How did you finance the film and what did you learn in that process?

SEAN: We were barely paying rent at the time so we paid for things in piecemeal. I was doing freelance editing and Shih-Ching was a freelance graphic artist. As checks came in, we paid out. We learned that it's still possible to beg, borrow and steal.

What sort of camera did you use? What was good about it? What was not so good?

SEAN: We used the Sony PD-150 which was the standard SD miniDV camera being used at that time for indie films. It was an amazing camera for light sensitivity. Besides not being HD, the drawback was that it did not have a 24p mode. So I had to de-interlace the video footage in order to give it a more filmic look.

And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you can take to other projects?

SEAN: First and foremost, Take Out caused me to fall in love with shooting urban-based dramatic realism. It was the catalyst for my follow-up film Prince of Broadway.

Take Out forced us to improvise as filmmakers and accept limitations as blessings. Instead of fearing the unknown, we were excited by it and welcomed it. This led to countless 'happy accidents' that we are so grateful for.

This attitude of accepting chaos with open arms is something that I brought to Prince and will continue to take to other projects no matter how large of a production it may be.

What's The Future Of Film Look Like?

I don't have that answer and I will leave it to the others (at least for today) as so many are offering options:

• Francis Ford Coppola has got his opinion (and it sure got a lot of comments when I posted it to Facebook).
• The New Yorker ran a funny piece on the state of publishing that read a bit like Scott Macauley's Letter From The Near Future.
• Power To The Pixel just delivered three awesome days of discussions of new forms (Check out their recommended reading).
• Arin Crumley and Jamie King have some interesting solutions.
• The industry can't figure out formats yet again.
• the change social media has delivered is pretty astounding.

Each day I have been experiencing and encountering new ideas and new practices; All of it is pretty damn thrilling. So what if we are racing forward even if we don't know where we are going. I am loving it.

Like I said, I don't know, but I do believe that some of these tools will change some things significantly.

You-Centric: The Future of Browsing from Carsonified on Vimeo.

That's Aza Raskin from Mozilla. And this is an attempt to explain Google Wave:

What are the other five tools that will make sure tomorrow does not look like today that I should be posting about?

Blog Series | Cast Q&A

Over the next couple of weeks (maybe months?), our plan is to post a series of Q&As with some of the cast members of our feature film Under Jakob's Ladder. Each post will feature one actor (in no particular order).

Of course, we'll also be publishing other blog posts as well -- besides the Cast Q&As. And we'll include some Q&As with the Crew, too. But those probably won't appear until shortly before or after the New Year hits us.

Soooo... The first Q&A?... Well, you might think it'd be the one featuring Jakob (actor Jeff Stewart). Well, we'll let you in on a secret. It's not. (Like we said, the list isn't really in any order...)

But, you'll just have to wait until later this week...

Stay tuned!

Invest In The Yes Men (To Save Indie Film & Trash Global Capitalism)!

I got an email from those merry pranksters. I was inspired by the cut of their jib and sent them some money.

They have asked for everyone's help in order to get their relevant lunacy to seen:

A labor of love to produce, and distributed in a unique partnership with Shadow Distribution (The Lost Boys of Sudan, The Weather Underground), The Yes Men Fix the World hits corporate America where it hurts, and has huge potential as a public education piece and a powerful rallying cry for progressive activists and organizers. Unfortunately after a hugely successful opening weekend in New York, and inquiries from new theaters across the country, the film's marketing and outreach budget (never much to begin with) is almost completely tapped out! There is no budget for the 10-15 new film prints ($1200 each) that theaters want, nor for the basic advertising (another $15,000 at least) to make the film work in each major market, and in smaller cities too.

The Yes Men need your help to get the film out to cities and towns large and small across the land, where the hope is to reproduce the kind of raucous, people-powered reactions that have been typical of screenings in New York. Here's how you can do that:

One: You can loan money to their distribution and audience engagement effort, to be paid back when proceeds from the retail DVD start rolling in next year. To take this route, please email invest@theyesmen.org.

Two: They're putting Survivaballs up for adoption. For just $1,000, you will become the proud parent of the world's stupidest costume. The Survivaball you own will be deployed in direct-action protest all across America, and then in December will go to Copenhagen to push world leaders to do something smart about climate change. To adopt your own active ball, please email adoptaball@theyesmen.org.

Three: You can buy a film print ($1200) and loan it until the theatrical run is finished. To help out this way, please write invest@theyesmen.org.

AND you can also just donate money, or buy posters, t-shirts, Reggie candles, etc. here.

The DailyKos had a good post on them here.