I’m delighted to say that there are a pair of brilliant comments on the 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 studies.

My original question was whether anyone chose to self-distribute their film or whether in truth it was always something forced on them but the disinterest of the established system. Hammad clearly answers that with the case of Lance Hammer who did indeed turn down a distribution deal for his film “Ballast” to do it himself.

According to IMDB “Ballast” has grossed $80.2k, which sadly doesn’t seem that positive when he’s quoted as turning down the distribution deal because “…conventional distribution advances for a small film like “Ballast” range between $25,000-$50,000. “If you made a $50,000 project, that makes sense,” Hammer said. “If you happen to spend more money than that, it becomes difficult to justify giving up creative control.”

I can completely see Hammer’s argument but you have to ask if the time and energy he committed to self-distribution was worth that extra $30k. Seems unlikely when it is suggested that he raised an additional $250k for the P&A.

As is generally the case in discussions about distribution, these numbers are all annoyingly flimsy. I can’t find any quotes for the original budget and I wouldn’t remortgage anything based on IMDB figures. Neither have I seen “Ballast” but it’s a highly praised, award winning film, listed among the Guardian’s “Top 10 Films of 2009 you probably won’t have seen”, which is surely not the best advert for self distribution…