In September, Christian Gaines wrote a provocative two-part article for Variety speculating on a new business models for film rights holders in terms of how they use film festivals. It's required reading, and certainly got me thinking.
Of course, the film festival model will always serve some film very well. But diverging interests may mean that film festivals necessarily become a much less essential element of a filmmaker’s strategy for promotion and distribution. Just as we seem to be entering a “post-distributor” environment in which filmmakers eschew rotten deals and embrace DIY, we may be witnessing the emergence of a “post-film festival” environment as well.
A new model needs to be found for filmmakers choosing (or having no other option than) to hold onto their rights.
Festivals can be a great way to heighten awareness for your film, but generally only in the local community where the film is playing. To make matters worse, many festivals these days are over-programed and as a result the films simply get lost and overlooked. The festivals and the communities make money on the sold out shows but not the filmmakers. With only a few sales happening and then only at the highest festival level, filmmakers can't be attending with the hopes of a deal? So how can festivals be utilized by the Truly Free Filmmaker?
It would be ideal for local festivals to initiate deals with local theaters so that prize winning films would get an automatic one or two week booking three or four months after the festival. I have to imagine this is done somewhere already but frankly I am clueless as to where.
It would be ideal for colleges and community centers in and around the local festivals to agree to bring filmmakers and their films out to lecture one or two months after winning at the festival. This would allow for some local publicity to be done in advance of a future booking.
The most natural fit for regional festivals and TFFilmakers is for the filmmakers to use the festival to launch a specific DVD sale directly at the festival. At the very least they could take pre-orders.
I found it very exciting when Slamdance announced this year that certain films would be available for streaming directly after their festival premiere. When I have heard of a film playing a major festival, that is when my "want-to-see" is at its highest. Six months later another 50 films have moved ahead of it on my queue. TFFilmakers have to strike when audience desire is highest.
Are we just dreaming that we could have a distribution infrastructure to handle films based on what they actually are, as opposed to the current one that looks for films that justify significant marketing budgets? I don't think so.
A couple of weeks back I was sitting with Lance Weiler and he told me it was already here. I paused and wondered how I missed it. He said it was the Obama Social Network. So am I now dreaming of an activist film loving community that works together to make sure the films get seen and appreciated? I don't think so on this one either.
I definitely flashed back on our conversation when I read Ari Melber's "Obama's iSuccess" article in The Nation last week. The thought of gathering and creating regional Truly Free Film CultureVultures united through text messaging and their love of unique and personal film delights me. There's a lot more that can be explored here and followed up on.
NANCY MORGAN: My agents were contacted by Ron! Can you imagine? The reason for that was when he was casting for this role he was for someone who, first and foremost, he didn't have to pay a lot. It couldn't be a star -- it had to be an unknown. At the time, one of my first movie that I'd ever acted in -- in fact, one of my first acting jobs ever, because I came to Hollywood untrained and unprepared -- was a movie called Fraternity Row, with Paul Newman's son, Scott Newman, in his first and only picture. And it was out in the theaters when Ron was casting and he liked my performance in it and found my agent.
What was the audition like?
NANCY MORGAN: Back then I used to say to myself, 'There are a lot of people here who know a lot about acting, but all I really know is that you just have to pretend that it's happening.' And so, during the audition process, I did as close to what I felt a human being would do under the circumstances, and that was to say the lines like I meant them, and then when Ron was talking to me, react to what he was saying. And that's all I knew -- that was about as much acting as I knew.
Ron later said to me, 'You know, I interviewed a couple hundred girls. Did you ever wonder why you got it?' And I said, 'Yeah.' And he said, 'Because you were the only one who, when you weren't speaking, was still listening.'
Because that was the only thing he told me, that was something that forever stuck with me as one of the things that was important and not everyone's top tool.
Did you handle any of the stunts yourself?
NANCY MORGAN: If you're a good driver, and you're a little bit fearless, you're going to do some of that stuff, because it makes it more exciting and real. So when those shots of us going, "Whoa!," I'm driving. When you see the car stop suddenly along the freeway, and fishtail along the edge, or start up really fast, it is me driving.
What I didn't do were any of the really long shots from the air -- those were all done where you can't see the people inside. The scenes where we're just talking were frequently towed. But I did a lot of driving.
Did you rehearse much?
NANCY MORGAN: The cars rehearsed. The stunts rehearsed. And the explosions rehearsed. We basically just had to know our lines and pretty much bring it to life. We would run through the scene once or twice, but really rarely for the acting of it. Ron knew what he was doing, so he didn't really need it. And every scene I was in was with Ron, so it was like, 'Could I do it? Did I know what I was doing or not?'
When you're hiring a young actress or actor and you know you're not going to have a lot of rehearsal time, you better do your best to get the person that you want to see, as opposed to the great actress who will be able to bring Paula to life. So, it's just me, saying the lines and trying to bring some life to them.
Looking at the script, there appeared to be a thousand interchangeable scenes of Ron and I in the car, talking about this and that. I understood enough about story to know that it had to build and climax and resolve. And so the first thing I did with my script was to break it down into an outline and had an understanding of where Ron and I were in our relationship, from the first scene to the last.
Ron, on several occasions -- since he was in charge of the whole picture, directing everything -- he realized that I had done this and that I was aware of where we were in the script at any given point in terms of his and my relationship. He would sometimes say, 'Where are we?' And I would say, 'Well, this has happened and this has happened and this has happened, but this hasn't happened yet, so we do know about this but we don't know about that.' And he's say, 'Okay. Got it thanks.'
My breaking it down was something that I could do that was helpful to him and that would orient him as to where we were in the scene, and then Ron just acts -- he doesn't even to have to worry.
RANCE HOWARD: Ron had acted in Eat My Dust, and it had been a huge success for Roger. He wanted to do another car chase/car crash film. Ron said, 'I will do another movie for you, with one additional job added.' And Roger said, 'What is that?' And Ron said, 'I want to direct. And Roger said, 'Well, Ron, you always looked like a director to me.'
Now the question becomes, what is the movie?
Who came up with the title?
RANCE HOWARD: Roger already had the title. He had tested it. It was going to be called Grand Theft Auto, and it was about young people on the run. He said, 'If you and your dad could come up with a story like that, we'd have a deal.'
So we sat down and put our heads together and started kicking ideas around. We did a treatment first; Roger read the treatment and loved it and we went right to script.
Why a Rolls Royce and the demolition derby?
RANCE HOWARD: We thought the Rolls Royce would be the perfect automobile for the girl's father to have, and then she would take his car because he had, in essence, taken her car. And then we'd put the car through all the punishment we could, in order to get back at her father, and then finally wreck it at the demolition derby.
I was fascinated with the demolition derby. At one time, Ron, Clint and I went to see a demolition derby, and it was just fascinating. At that time I had considered writing a script about a demolition derby. Then with Grand Theft Auto, it just seemed perfect for the car to end up in a demolition derby.
How was it for Ron working with his father and his brother on the movie? I'm guessing it's okay, as he's done it in just about every movie he's made since then.
I think any director likes to use people that he is familiar with and that he can trust and has confidence in. Both Clint and I fit nicely into those categories. And his mother, at that time, had been working quite a lot coordinating extras for other filmmakers. And so she coordinated a lot of the extras for that film, in particular the senior citizens on the bus.
Involving his mother, and his brother Clint -- an excellent actor, and who was at that time, almost as big a name as Ron -- in the film just made good sense.
We had been feeding the crew Kentucky Fried Chicken for lunch every day, and they were getting close to a mutiny, because they didn't appreciate having Kentucky Fried Chicken for lunch every day. And, of course, the reason we were doing it was the most reasonably-priced thing we could give them.
Ron's wife, Cheryl heard about our problem, and she said, 'Let me cook lunch. Give me the budget that you're spending for the Kentucky Fried Chicken, and I'll prepare a hot lunch for the crew.' And I said, 'Cheryl, you don't want to do that.' And she said, 'Yes, I do. I can do that.'
She enlisted the help of her grandmother, and they prepared lunches on that budget that -- if you run into any of the crew to this day -- they will comment on what great food Cheryl provided for that shoot.
What's the biggest lesson you took away from the experience?
RANCE HOWARD: Stand up for what you believe in. For example, if we had allowed ourselves to be easily talked out of it being a comedy and cut it as a straight action picture.
You need to be tenacious; you need to stick to your guns, but at the same time, you have to be prepared to compromise and negotiate. That was really driven home to me, the importance of compromise. There are a lot of aspects of making a film where you can compromise. In some places, you can't. You need to know what compromises can be made and what compromises can't be made.
Coming to that realization is important: understanding that you're not going to get everything you want, you're going to get part of what you want.
Filmmaking is a team effort, it's really team work. We happened to have a great team.
The work needed to get some of our locations ready for filming in the spring. Here's a bit of a look at what we did this past weekend. Thanks to all who helped with the lifting and the hauling. And to those who scraped and scrubbed and vacuumed. And those who made sure we were all well-fed.
Thanks to the hard-working troops: Matt and Johanna, Frank and Lynn, Alberto, JJ, Reuben, Maria, Laura, Carmen, Doris, Tricia, and Diane!
Did we miss anyone?
Oh, yeah. And special thanks to Leif and Inge...
(And an extra special thanks to Tricia who found the keys... We might still be looking for them!) The work was worth it, wasn't it?
Scott Kirshner has a good post up at Cinema Tech regarding a panel he was on. In it he breaks out eight different revenue streams filmmakers can pursue for their work. There are definitely more, and I hope to get to some of those in future postings.
One of Scott's eight, really caught my eye:
Live speaking gigs via videochat. One interesting new idea that emerged from the panels is that filmmakers might earn “speaking fees” without having to travel. Instead of asking a non-profit or educational institution to pay $2500 or $5000 to fly you out to address their group, ask them to pay $250 or $500 to have you do a short live talk/Q&A (using software like Skype or iChat) after they’ve watched your film. More groups would be able to afford that kind of filmmaker interaction than the pricier one, and fewer filmmakers would be spending time stuck in airports or jammed into center seats.
I think the live interaction element with audiences has a great deal of potential, particularly when linked with other elements. For instance, imagine you are one of the lucky few whose film is accepted to the Sundance Film Festival. What do you do next when you, like most, made the mistake of betting on a distribution deal?
What if you banded together with your fellow filmmakers prior to the festival though? What if you looked reality in the face and took action ahead of the festival? If I was a college professor anywhere in the US and I was approached by five or ten filmmakers with films in a major festival and they told me they would provide me their film, one film a week, two or three months after the festival, AND that the students would get an hour of iChat with the filmmakers after the screening, man, would I do all I could to book the group at my school. If the filmmakers also asked me if I knew other professors at other campuses that might do likewise, I would definitely share my list.
In a short matter of time, the beginnings of a Truly Free Film Culture college tour would start to emerge. Inevitably these tours would start on a regional basis, but from there the foundations would be set to start to work this on a national basis. With such a national tour infrastructure in place, a new publicity outlet would be born. Filmmakers could use this no cost apparatus to connect to audiences, and reach out to greater communities.
Film people never like comparisons between us and them (Music vs. Film), but I find them useful. Film vets dismiss the comparison of Music vs. Film over a couple of issues: 1) cost of motion picture production; 2) cost of motion picture marketing; 3) cost of the product; and 4) length of time required to listen/watch. You can hear a song in two minutes for free and have a complete experience.
I think dismissing the comparison often comes down to seeing the Film Biz as 100% Hollywood. It's true that's where the money is made these days (outside of distinct national industries and genres), but we do have potential to develop a true alternative now -- that is provided the internet can remain truly free and neutral.
In the BBC article, they cite a panel that took place between Jazz Summers, the manage of The Verve (and a proponent of artists' control of copyright) and Lyor Cohen, the head of Warner Music (and a proponent of corporate control). Cohen stated the big money perspective:
"It's very important for us to own those rights if we are going to have an infrastructure around the world of thousands of people, if we're going to invest in new artists to create new music and promote and market it."
Cohen's perspective is also the Big Money Perspective on Film. But here's where it's important to recognize the difference between Big Money Hollywood & Traditional Indie/Specialized on one hand and Truly Free Film culture on the other.
Truly Free Film will be built on collective endeavor and an open source perspective on information and information sharing. Those attitudes and subsequent action will build a new infrastructure that will allow Truly Free Film artists to earn a living. The Truly Free Film Culture infrastructure will not be dependent on Mega-Corp investment.
In a Truly Free Film Culture, there is no argument for anyone other than the artists owning their copyrights, or at least sharing in them with their investors.
You've known the writer/director of Judy Berlin, Eric Mendelsohn, for a long time -- over 25 years. At what point did you become involved in the project?
EDIE FALCO: Usually he'll wait until a script is finished and then give it to me to read, which is what he did. After I read it and told him how much I loved it, he said 'I would love for you to play the part of Judy.' I was flabbergasted, because he had not said a word to me about it.
You didn't realize that he was thinking of you for the lead?
EDIE FALCO: I've read everything he's ever done and given my feedback, so I assumed that that's what this was.
What are the advantages of working with someone you know so well?
EDIE FALCO: A lot of the films I've done I've done with friends and family. The advantage is you go in there feeling no obligation to prove yourself. There's a camaraderie and a trust that is inherent in just all of you being there together. It makes all the difference in the world. It's like raising a child, I imagine. They become what is expected of them. I know they trust me and I trust them. It gets that all out of the way so we can get down to the work.
Eric took the interesting approach of keeping you and Barbara Barrie (who plays your mother) apart before your scene together. Did that help add to the awkwardness of the scene?
EDIE FALCO: It sure did. Although I thought it was just a matter of scheduling. I thought, 'All right, I won't meet her until the day we shoot.' That's the way these things are. I think in retrospect it did help.
She was a woman around whom I was unfamiliar. You hold your body differently, eye contact is different than with someone that you're comfortable around. I think physically the relationship that Judy and her mother had sort of mirrored that of strangers. In that regard, the subconscious stuff that was already taking place probably only fed what was happening in the script.
Is your preparation any different when you know you're going into a low budget project?
EDIE FALCO: No, not at all. Really nothing about my preparation or involvement is any different on anything I do. The only thing that varies is, if I read something and I like it, I'll do it. If I read something and I don't like it, I won't. Once I've decided I'm doing something, I approach everything exactly the same, whether it's a play or a movie or a low-budget movie or a big budget movie. It's irrelevant.
What's the hardest part of working on low-budget movies?
EDIE FALCO: You get a lot of directors who are nervous and they don't trust themselves or they don't trust the process. So, they might end up doing a lot more takes than they need, as if the actor is an infinite source of these things. Because at a certain point I know I'm not doing work that I'm proud of anymore, I'm just exhausted. And they are just too afraid to say, 'Okay, let's move on.' And so you'll do another four, five takes, and I start thinking, 'Oh, this is not what I meant to do, this is not the take I want.' So that's a little rough.
I wonder if I'd never done bigger budget stuff, perhaps I would never have noticed the difference. But once you start doing things where they put you in a nice trailer, and you've got people running around and taking care of you, when you all of a sudden have to change clothes in the back of a Chevy again, you think, 'You know, this does kind of stink, come to think of it. I would prefer to be in a trailer right now.'
So I don’t know if I've been a little bit spoiled by some of the bigger budget stuff. And you realize there's a reason you're taken care of, because you want to show up and do the best you can each time you're out there. It does help to be rested and warm and all that stuff.
What are the advantages of working on a low-budget project?
EDIE FALCO: There are so many advantages to working on a low-budget project. I feel a totally comfortable with the idea of trying something and having it not work. I feel a sense of freedom to just go for it, because money is not at the forefront of everything that goes on in these things. You don't have a producer standing over you saying, 'We gotta make the day!' Everybody's just flying by the seat of their pants and I feel a sense of freedom that I don't when money is being talked about. You feel the energy of these big-budget things.
Also, on a big-budget thing, there are a zillion people working on it. Oftentimes nobody knows who anybody else is and they don't necessarily care about their job, they're jus trying to get enough days so they can become an AD.
On these low-budget things, everybody's there because they want to be. They know the director, they love the work of the director, they're a friend and he needed a helping hand. You know you're not going to make money and you know it's going to be hard work and you're there because you love it. And that is infused in every moment you spend on the set of a low-budget movie. It's been my experience that nothing but good stuff will come out of that.
