Film as a business

[MikeWatt]

Maybe this goes here, maybe it doesn't...
I've been thinking a lot lately about indie filmmakers and their drive for creating art (or, in some cases, the direct opposite of art), but very few that I've met first-hand even think about filmmaking as a business. They have no thoughts beyond getting the movie finished. Once the footage is in the can, they have no second step.

The most common sentence I hear: "I'll submit it to some festivals and get a distribution deal from there." Which is as lame as "I'll fix it in post" (which is less lame now due to digital technology, but the POINT is valid!).

I don't know if film schools even teach the business end of this. I know my alma mater (Pittsburgh Filmmakers) didn't. The filmmakers marketing guide being touted on the site is an excellent tool, but I'm afraid a lot of people who could benefit from it will be scared off by the hefty small-press price tag.

Not sure where I'm going with this. Any thoughts?

Mike Watt
hollywoodisburning@hotmail.com

[Chris Gore]

To be a successful filmmaker you need to, on the one hand, be incredibly creative, and on the other, you must be very business savvy. The trouble is that most filmmakers have either one or the other skill, but rarely both. It should come as a shock to no one that the most financially successful filmmaker is Steven Spielberg -- whatever you think of him, he is creative and a skillful business person.

Trouble is that these two skills -- being creative and having business smarts -- rarely reside in one brain. Most filmmakers focus on the creative and often get screwed in business. Other filmmakers that focus on business may make deals and move forward, but produce creatively shallow work.

I think it's a constant struggle for filmmakers to learn to master both creative and business skills at once.

I'm going through this now with this film I'm producing called "My Big Fat Independent Movie" -- it's tough.

[mynameisnobody]

All film schools should teach two courses in particular.

1. Marketing
2. Business Law (Contracts)

This industry is all about balancing commercial viability with art...or, creativity with marketability.

I hear so many people proclaim how the aren't going to "sell-out" by being commercially viable...at all. I just tell them...

"Sleeping on the floor and eating ramen noodles...touting...and naively believing that you're just a "misunderstood artist" because your "art" isn't selling...the visualization is hardly ambitious...sagacious individuals would agree with me. Yup, you've got to admire painters such as Georges Seurat...or Van Gogh...who never sold a painting while they were alive...needless to say...they died paupers...well at least Gogh...Seurat died rather suddenly. Oh wait, I nearly forgot Henri Rousseau. Personally, I'm quite content by being Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci or rather Michelangelo Buonarroti...by getting paid for doing my craft. You'll eventually see that the ones that really make a difference...are those who have the special gift of being able to connect to a large audience (emotionally, etc.)...on many levels...by telling a well-crafted...compelling...and commercially viable story."

[fabfish]

Every artist who ever lived has to think about how to sell their art; it's naive to think that what da Vinci couldn't avoid, you somehow can.

I do wish that the business was taught at all in film school, but I am frequently confused about exactly film schools are trying to create. Film pros? Film Historians? Snooty Asthetes? I am stunned by the number of film school people I've talked to who've never picked up a camera! What are doing, woolgathering about D.W. Griffith?


Just venting

Ron

[mynameisnobody]

Originally posted by fabfish
Every artist who ever lived has to think about how to sell their art; it's naive to think that what da Vinci couldn't avoid, you somehow can.

I do wish that the business was taught at all in film school, but I am frequently confused about exactly film schools are trying to create. Film pros? Film Historians? Snooty Asthetes? I am stunned by the number of film school people I've talked to who've never picked up a camera! What are doing, woolgathering about D.W. Griffith?


Just venting

Ron

No, I respectfully disagree. Many artists create that in which soley interests themselves...and regardless...of the subject matter, genre, etc..naively believe the world will embrace their "masterpiece" without even first considering if there is even a market for their material...ala Gogh...others analyze and utilize the market to their advantage and apply their talents ala Buonarroti. Filmmaking is ultimately a business. Those who really can make a difference are the ones who have the talent of being able to balance commercial viability with art...not many can (there are very few Spielbergs floating around)...and as a result those talented individuals can maximize their target audience...touching numerous individuals...from various walks of life...on many emotional levels. I'm not an artist...I'm an entertainer...and at times...I hope I can make people think differently. And, it is always true that one can teach the technical aspects of filmmaking and business, but one can't teach creativeness...or savviness.

-mynameisnobody

[turnerbudd]

There's a reason it's called Show Business with an emphasis on the business. From the beginning this industry was designed to make money. You historians out there know of the battles that the Trust had to keep the star system at bay but when wise producers and studio heads realized that a star meant more ticket sales, enter the star system. When the business people behind the studios realized that certain genres captured an audience who would spend their money, those genres were produced. These became the limitations of movie making: essentially, creating something that would bring in the audiences. That's why there are summer blockbusters and why certain stars can create mindless vehicles for themselves (Charlie's Angels?).

It is the filmmaker who can be unique and creative while working within the rules of the game who come as close to being artists. Sure, there are a number of "visual artists" out there and some have even made a living at it. But to succeed while working under the current "Hollywood" (including successful indie scene) umberlla, you must play the game as set forth by those who make the rules. By that, the folks with the money.

It is a shame that most aspiring movie makers do not learn anything of the business end of things. And it's even more of a shame that folks can spend their hard earned money at a "film" school and never once touch a film camera.

My quarters worth (inflation's a bitch).

[whatismoving]

...very few that I've met first-hand even think about filmmaking as a business. They have no thoughts beyond getting the movie finished. Once the footage is in the can, they have no second step.
You'll have a hard time finding a studio suit who'll admit it, or even be aware of it, but it's pretty important that the artists not know that they are capital. Artists of all types have always lamented being chained to the marketplace, but from the standpoint of economics, there exists a point of equilibrium between "raw art" and "marketable product" which production companies & studios struggle to hit. Too much "product" means the audience will get disillusioned with the artlessness and stop buying; too much "art" and the audience will get disillusioned with the artsyness and stop buying. The trick is finding the point where the two curves intersect, and hover as close to it as possible, because that point represents profit.

It's important for the filmmakers to not realize this is the case, because, as "Pearl Harbor" made abundantly clear, you can't fake art. Film profiteers need for their filmmakers to be kept chained to their important ideal, to feel like they are struggling and striving for art, so that critics and fellow artists grant them the stamp of artistic legitimacy. Therefore, filmmaking as an art form is encouraged by studios & production companies, but only to the degree that it helps them keep their Boy Scout badge for artistic integrity. Studios love to be recognized for nurturing "art." Meanwhile, they're terrified that if you give artists enough rope, they'll hang not only themselves, but you and the audience as well. It's a tricky thing to harness the wild magic of the artist.

So it's my hypothesis that a certain tension has got to exist between packaging a glossy product and "letting artists make art." Artistic integrity has got to exist, ironically enough, in order for studios & producers to maximize their profits. And for it to exist, filmmakers have to live in a kind of rebellious ignorance of their place in the market. It's awfully clever, don't you think? Beautifully ironic. Honestly believing that their work is free of the money motive gives artists... <drum roll> ...the kind of legitimacy that sells.

[wanderingsoles]

There are four general types of filmmakers.

1. Those looking to bust into the industry... thus going Hollywood
2. Those looking to make larger indie films, ala Sayles and
3. Those looking to do small films but make enough money to feed their families and to do the next film. Tempe Video style...
4. Those looking to simply make films for themselves.

True, some may fall between these types, but for the most part I have found this to be accurate. That being said, film as a business means a lot of different things to different people. The industry wannabe will want to see that success equal dollars (this isn't saying that they don't want to be creative, only that they choose to measure their rise via where they fit into the Hollywood scene). The outside Indie Filmmaker is looking to score budgets for their next films, these types will sometimes take a mainstream film, just to boost their standing, in order to be able to attract investors for the films they really want to do. Those looking to simply make a basic living at their films, are looking to how many units they can move on DVD and Video. And those looking to make films for themselves.... well, I call them hobbiests... realizing that many of them are actually a mix between number 2 and 3, but won't admit it.

All 4 categories measure success differently... one may need to see the B.O. results, while another is going to be hoping that their film sells 2000 DVDs through Film Threat... these are different creatures and have to think and approach the business fo filmmaking in very different ways.

[AmaiStina]

Originally posted by fabfish
I am frequently confused about exactly film schools are trying to create. Film pros? Film Historians? Snooty Asthetes? I am stunned by the number of film school people I've talked to who've never picked up a camera! What are doing, woolgathering about D.W. Griffith?

Just venting Ron

It depends on what kind of program you want/pursue. For most undergrads who major in the equivalent of film or cinema studies at their univs, many of their courses will focus on cinema from a historical, theoretical, and artistic perspective (film as a medium of expression, as a sociological institution, or as an industry like any other). But, depending on the design of the program at the univ & the professor, therell be more emphasis on one area.

In other film programs at other univs, theres more emphasis on actual filmmaking & less on film analysis.

At Emory Univ, from where i recently graduated, Film Studies was mostly analytical. Courses on filmmaking were offered, usually thru the art department, and there was only one prof who taught it. Majors & minors had to take Intro to Film, Film History, Classical & Contemporay Film Theory & others.

The prof I had for Film History spent a lot of time talking about cinema as an industry....primarily from a historical standpoint. My Comedy prof & Film Criticism prof discussed film as an industry from a contemporary standpoint.

At schools like NYU & Columbia, theres probably more diversity. I know that univs on the West Coast (er CA) allow a student to pursue either a filmmaking or a film analysis path.

If one wants to get an MA or MFA, then theres even more specialization. But again, its either film analysis or filmmaking. ...

Whether or not Film as a Business is extensively covered in school any capacity in film/grad school again most likely depends on the structure of the program & the professors.

I too think that film schools should offer & require that their students take a Film As Business course. Cynics will say that art has not been & probably will never be about the art & that its all about the money. Optimists will say that art can still be about art.

but theres got to be something in the middle. a filmmaker would have to ask himself "do i want people to remember my name? to have seen more than 3 of my films & detect consistencies in momentum or style? Or, do i just want to direct movies for a paycheck? in which case, i wont be too upset when the ending has to be changed b/c nobody in the Wisconsin test audience could figure out what in sweet potatoes was going on in the last 20 minutes of the film."

slight tangential question: what about book publishing? is it easier for Molly St. James to write a short story, have it published & sell very well? or for her to make a short film, enter it into a festival, and get very good audience feedback? theres still the issue of (national/local) exhibition & distribution.

[Catty Girl]

Film School does not teach you about the politics of the business of show, and I personally have found that an entry level job and the willingness to learn and drive to survive the 16 hour days goes very far. Being straightforward and kind to anyone you come across is a good thing. That PA you're yelling at can one day be the person you're reporting too. Anyone under the age of 30 seems to have a sense of entitlement about the business, not just show business, but any business and until you pay your dues and squelch the attitude, you'll just be pissing people off along your journey. Get a job, work hard, make friends along the way and that script you toil over late at night may not have to go through the Project Greenlight process of selection and may actually get made by someone who once sat at the cubicle across from you.

[sonnyboo]

Most filmmakers I know do NOT have a clue about the "business" half of the movie "business".

That's why I wrote "Indie Film Cliche's" here on FILMTHREAT - http://www.filmthreat.com/Features.asp?Id=728


The way I seperate it is that I think creatively within my meager means, then as soona s the movie is edited, it becomes more of a "product" and I try to divorce myself from the artistic end of things, to promote and sell.

If I can sell 17 DV shorts for distribution, then ANYONE can.

Great topic, Mike.

[Last Resort Man]

Like most things in life, a balance is what's needed between art and business. Where the line gets drawn is up to each individual, but if you can't act like a business person with your film, you had better get a person that can to help you promote it.