DIY
There was a refreshingly constructive response to the casting call post I wrote a week or so ago. I was going to bang on a bit more about the sort of thing directors and producers should and should not do when writing casting calls but between them Katherine Reilly – http://shootingpeople.org/bulletins.php?mode=read&bulletin=2&issue=3654#msg_355411 – and Guy Evans – http://shootingpeople.org/bulletins.php?mode=read&bulletin=2&issue=3655#msg_355550 have pretty much said all that needs to be said. If you’re about to put up a job and you want to make sure you’re post is in the right sort of place to attract talented actors, read those posts and you can’t go far wrong.
However the other issue that came up last week was that of the self-distribution of feature films. I flippantly wrote that “…No one considers a self-distribution strategy. You are forced to accept a self-distribution strategy because distributors don’t yet trust you to back you…” and understandably some people leapt to the defence of their projects.
The brilliant Zahra Zomorrodian wrote “…yes it can mean one hasn’t yet garnered the trust or support of the industry – BUT – it could also be because the filmmaker has decided upfront that that is the best way to get their film in front of an audience…”
Now I have to be honest, this struck me as an odd thing to say. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that self-distribution is a mistake or even a bad thing. Nor am I implying that films that don’t get picked up by a distributor are necessarily bad. Distributors make a commercial decision, not a creative one. There are huge numbers of films that do “get distribution” which are utterly abysmal and many that don’t which never the less deserve to be seen. I’m not even saying that self-distribution is an uncommercial option, even making a purely financial call on a film is a very hard job and clearly Distributors do sometimes just get it wrong.
What struck me as odd about Zahra’s comment though was the idea that a filmmaker would chose self-distribution over having the job handled by someone more experienced and much better connected. However Zahra was not the only one to take issue with my throw-away remark. Seb Smith wrote “…my first no- budget film was picked up by Lionsgate but considering self-dist for my next one as don’t want to sign all my rights away for 20 years…”
Zahra closed her response with this…
“I think the industry is on the cusp of a whole new way of working at the moment and a lot of that revolves around distribution and exhibition. One of the films we currently have on our slate is a definite self distribution case, whereas with the rest we will be looking at a more traditional model.”
This fascinates me. Like I say, I completely see the value in self-distribution but turning to it as a definite preference over using an established Distributor? Who else is planning this? Is it genuinely a preference or just a good alternative? What are the benefits?
zahra February 27th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Hey Ben
Sorry I didn’t expand further on my comments, when I promised that I would (still as a director you should be used to being lied to by producers eh???)
The thing that has always fascinated me with film is that the distributors can completely control what goes into cinemas (and in some cases by definition what gets made). If we look at film as a business then we the filmmakers (except the producers who clearly aren’t filmmakers) are the manufacturers and designers etc of a product (the film). We may have to sell the product (or long license it) to a distributor for less than we feel it is worth – because they (the experts) tell us what the market will bear. Using the traditional model of distribution we have to no choice but to listen to these experts and accept whatever deal they offer us.
Sometimes the more unethical of these experts then lie, and skim off the top and leave us the makers out of pocket – and sometimes they lie and don’t even put the film out as widely as they promised or they miss-sell it and cost us potential viewers. I’m neither too naive nor cynical when presenting this argument, nor am I bitter. It’s a business and their duty is to their business (which sometimes is not in our or our film’s interest)… If we can find another way to get our film in front of our audience then why shouldn’t we (if we feel more people will see it – or that it will benefit from doing without a distributor).
In what other business does the distributor have so much power in what gets made? Do the showrooms tell Nissan what cars to design and build? Admittedly a lot of filmmakers create work without a recognisable audience, but many of us make films where we have a clear market sector in mind – but maybe it’s a niche market or a hard to reach sector – does that mean no-one should serve this audience or distribute our films?
I know “The Long Tail” is now a tired cliche in many circles (if you haven’t heard of it – Google, read and be inspired) – but there is a lot of truth in the theory of niche markets and their inherent value. And if by thinking outside the box and realising that not only are the tools of production within our grasp; so too are the means of distribution we can have a very successful career as “alternative filmmakers” (I just made up that phrase to mean alternative to traditional distribution). In the olden days the only place to see films was at the cinema – now there are tons of other places and as a filmmaker you need to ask yourself – would you be happy with 3 days on 12 screens in front of less than 2,000 people + a small DVD run and a week on Filmflex – or would you rather harness the opportunities that technology offers and use a little ingenuity to get your film seen by tens of thousands?
We’re making a micro budget feature called Pissheads at the moment, it’s rude, crude, funny and different to anything else out there – but what are the questions distributors want answers to? “Who’s in it?” No one you’ve heard of. “What’s it like?” – Nothing really – it’s different. Does this mean we don’t know our audience? I know exactly who my audience is – but trying to articulate that in terms that film distributors understand is difficult – so we are planning an alternative campaign that we know will work and that will allow us to reach our audience. Our audience isn’t a festival audience or other filmmakers or film industry types – but they have money and they are crying out for something like Pissheads. I can’t go into too much detail here about what we are planning to do – but if we can make our money back, keep our investors happy and get the film seen then we’ll be more than happy (with or without a distribution deal).
Anyway I’m not an expert in any of this and there are plenty more people both on SP (eg Jon Williams) who have a ton more experience in getting their films seen without the backing of a traditional distributor. I’m learning too – but I’m ready for the challenge and I would hope that the rest of my generation (including you Ben) who signed up to Shooting People back in the day to learn how to make films on digital (when the dinosaurs that are the industry were saying that that wasn’t practical to) do too. We now have the means to make our own films without a TON of money and if we use our brains and the possibilities afforded by new technology we also have the means to get our films to our audience – DIRECTLY. Come on people we didn’t listen when they told us we had to wait to make a film and I don’t think we should wait now for them to put our film out to an audience on their terms.
That’s not to say that I don’t think there should be a traditional model, I just don’t think it should be the ONLY model.
For further reading on this look up the book “Think Outside The Box Office” by the MIGHTY Jon Reiss, the website Truly Free Film (Ted Hope), Power to the Pixel… Actually SP NY is hosting a seminar’y thing by a guy called Bruce New as well – he knows a ton.
I am always struck every year in Cannes that it’s the filmmakers (the designers and manufacturers of the product) who are SKINT and sleeping on floors! Vive La Revolution!!!
Love and kisses
zahra xxx
http://www.pisseheadsthemovie.co.uk
Hammad Khan February 28th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Hello,
I’ve been thinking quite a lot about the idea of self-distribution in the last couple of days having just picture-locked the edit on my first feature film. I don’t know what will happen with my project yet, but in the case of my film, there is certainly a case to be made for choosing this route, over a potential distribution offer.
I think it comes down to knowing/assessing your audience and the film’s potential to reach it better than how a distributor might understand it. The film I am making is called ‘Slackistan’ and has a potential core audience for whom this is an exciting ticket. Without any stars, marketing budget or sex/scares, a very simple teaser (that was made for myself really) has generated 65k youtube hits and about 3k facebook fans. I have about 300+ emails to date asking how to see this film. This is an interesting beginning for me before I have even finished the film, because the signs of there being an audience that will pay to see this film are already revealing themselves.
In terms of this perceived core audience, in my case I am getting a lot of interest from young, twentysomething, urban, modern South Asian types. Of course, there are quite a few of these types in the world, though scattered across South Asia, Europe and America etc. I feel that if I found a way to tap into their demand to see this film directly, it would reach them (and of course others outside of this core viewer idea) far more directly and with more impact than, say isolated festival screenings or a territory/format restricted distribution scheme.
Suddely, I’m thinking that this makes taking control of the situation for me not just a predetermined choice, but actually something worth looking into rationally. Now, I could wait for that great minimum guarantee offer from a distribution company that I believe will come because I think my film deserves it.. but that is hopeful thinking in a decadent, unsustainable and oppressive system for independent filmmakers. Of course, it might happen. But I think this is where a tug-of-war happens between common sense and the filmmaker’s fears and dreams. If I didn’t wait for permission to make my film, why would I seek permission for it to be enjoyed by people who want to see it now?
It’s also key that this whole thing has nothing to with good or bad films. It is merely what traditional distributors think might make a buck. That doesn’t tell the whole story though.
Lance Hammer is a filmmaker who made a stunning, highly acclaimed feature called Ballast and rejected an offer from IFC films, in favour of self-distribution. This has been discussed quite a bit in film circles and is high profile evidence of the choice a filmmaker can make in this situation. The other night, a film colleague of mine saw a British comedy called ‘Beyond The Pole’, which he said was very funny and entertaining, got great reviews in the press, BBC coverage and has a recognisable comedy face. But this is a film that is being self-distributed theatrically as we speak. It was a choice made by the makers. It has sold out at its ICA run and has screenings lined up nationally and internationally.
Having said that, there are obvious drawbacks to self-distribution. I am a filmmaker and want to make my next film and then the one after that. So it is also a choice to spend the next six months or year getting your film out when you could be writing or shooting another film. This is where I pause and think I might try and do a deal if it comes. Even if the money is peanuts and you lose all control over the film (which is how it would be). If I do give this (quite personal little film) away, it will be for this reason primarily, I believe. To move on and create more work.
Alternative distribution is a genuinely current, evolving issue that is beginning to have parallels with independent digital production. It could be the next step of the filmmaker’s empowerment and, as has been seen, online platforms, social networking media make this all seem possible : if you have a film that has an audience who want to see it.
Perhaps the skills and psyche needed to be a filmmaker have changed now. To buck the system using the tools and mechanisms available to the filmmaker, there is an interesting holistic idea of the ‘artist-exhibitor’ mindset. It’s kind of pure as fundamentally, we all find a thrill in making and showing people our work!
Anyway, I had to share these as its been on my mind a lot and saw merit in the comments from Zahra and was stimulated by Ben’s questions.
Thanks,
Hammad.
zahra March 1st, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Hey Hammad
The key is to realise that making the film is only 50% of the job – with the other 50% being the work getting in front of an audience. If you don’t have the time to do this, I am sure there will be others ho can do it for you (but obviously you will have to pay them).
I really can’t recommend “Think Outside the Box Office” enough, Jon Reiss talks about the need for a new role n the filmmaking process – a PMD (producer of marketing and distribution). His site is http://jonreiss.com/ – I don’t work for him, nor have I met him – but as a filmmaker I can’t deny that he talks sense. Another interesting place to look is http://www.peterbroderick.com/ – I’ve seen Peter talk a couple of times and find his thoughts and ideas both refreshing and revolutionary.
The other thing I didn’t mention in my reply above is that distributors in this country have to work harder to get deals than in other countries because of the power of the exhibitors – therefore their margins are quite often much lower than in say America… This of course means they are often less likely to take a risk on “unknown product.”
Good luck whatever you choose to do… just remember to keep us posted.
Cheers
zahra
http://www.pissheadsthemovie.co.uk
Ben’s Blog » Blog Archive » Taking A Hammering. March 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 am
[...] end of my recent posting about self distribution. If you’ve not yet seen them then go here http://shootingpeople.org/blog/category/bensblog/2010/02/diy/ and have a look at two very interesting case [...]