ASK & DISCUSS
INDEXFilmmaking teams
7 years, 6 months ago - Vasco de Sousa
I notice that many screenwriters talk about starting a team. While I'm not usually into writing teams, I admit that it worked for Gilbert and Sullivan and those guys who made Night At The Museum.
What I find strange is that we don't look more at non-writing Filmmaking teams on online forums. Not jobs, per se, but people who share equity, or who approach equity together, or who are approached by equity together, like the writing teams. Perhaps starting up a film company, like the ones you read about in the trades, or like the facebook trio or the Apple pair or the Beatles five.
There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of sites for would-be start-ups looking for co-founders. (In chicago alone there are half a dozen.) They match coders to marketers, designers to engineers, that kind of thing. But, they all seem to be focused on creating silicon valley companies rather than film companies.
Film websites seem to be about making microbudget films, where one (wo)man is king and everyone else is an employee for hire (floating from project to project.) Or, when there is a co-foundership, it's created at film school or in a family circle or somewhere else offline.
It would be great if rather than just coming here with a company, people could come here to form a company. While you can legally start a corporation with one person in the UK (some countries need at least three, and have minimum equity requirements), two heads can be better than one when making business decisions. And consultants often don't have your best interests at heart. (They are often working for the competition.)
I don't really see the point in writing partners, I find it more trouble than it's worth. But in film school (and elsewhere) I found having creative input during stages like casting, or even writing a business plan, can be beneficial. And it's better still when both partners have skin in the game.
A screenwriter and a musician and an effects designer could get together. (for example) If it doesn't work, they could each keep the rights of their own work to use on other projects.
Even when there is an employee-employer relationship, filmmakers often work with the same people over and over again. As the director of Amelie said, your crew sticks to you like lice. (It's more offensive when translated into English.) Many American directors talk about developing a shorthand with your team, making the second project go faster.
However, what happens when you get a team who doesn't like each other? The director gets along well with each individual, but there are clashes within the team because they were centrally recruited. Wouldn't it make more sense to assemble the team before the money is in place, so you know that no one is in there just for the one project, and you know they'll get along? It works in computers and music, and in French, Indian and American independent film.
Wouldn't it be great if the film crew were talking to each other during break time rather than texting someone halfway across the world?
Doesn't it make sense that we should interview each other the same way silicon valley start-up co-founders do? Not just wait for a company to be big and known, or take risks with some total stranger, but build an actual team the way these writing teams are built?
Just a thought.
Only members can post or respond to topics. LOGIN
Not a member of SP? JOIN or FIND OUT MORE
7 years, 6 months ago - John Lubran
There's no generality with how films are produced or the relationships between people. Every circumstance is unique. More often than not there's just one individual without whom a production won't exist, no matter how brilliant are others in the project.
What does seem often to be the case though is that films get made by actual producers and directors rather than by writers, one trick craft folk, actors cooperatives or committees. There's a shortage of creative producers. For most other rolls there's not. Ought that be a significant concideration?
Collaborations work best within a small producorial management team of two or three principals, who may also be multitasking creative crafts people. Everyone else ought enjoy the narrower burden of their roles, whether paid or not, unless of course the production is just for fun without much prospect for distributive or commercial success.
Response from 7 years, 6 months ago - John Lubran SHOW
7 years, 6 months ago - Vasco de Sousa
There's no shortage of PINs (Producers In Name). A lot of people (who'd rather be cinematographers, directors, editors, writers, composers, actors, etc) start production companies.
What I'm talking about here is the set up of websites. Most of these assume a certain production process. The websites assume that you only advertise when you know how much money you'll have, or when the script is in place.
Part of the problem is that when a producer says "I'm paying 10 pounds an hour for crew with own gear" they have that price set in their head. But, if the actor and cinematographer design a company together, they don't have to argue with each other over salaries. They can instead share equity.
I've seen people say "I want to start a film collective," but it's never very descriptive. "Film" can be anything, from murder mysteries to nature documentaries to sitcoms. (And even sitcoms have a huge range.)
What I'm thinking of is something like "team pitch" or "company pitch" as an alternative to script pitch or call for writers.
Response from 7 years, 6 months ago - Vasco de Sousa SHOW
7 years, 6 months ago - John Lubran
I can relate to your thinking Vasco and you raise valid and interesting points. To clarify my reference to creative producers though; whilst anyone can call themselves a producer or even, apparently, a genius, the creative producers who are able to oversee, manage, administrate and put the money together for a distributable project that can be seen by a viable audience (the definition viable now relating to more circumstances than 'tradition' might assert) and that elevates a project to the level of being materially sustainable, is the sort of producer that's in short supply.
Typically, such a producer is the one individual without whom a project can never manifest into a reality. There's hundreds if not thousands of scripts available for each one of these creative producers. The term creative in this context is not just about such a producers contribution to the art of the film but is about creative business and project management. Producing at the level at issue is one of the most eclectic and challenging undertakings one can do. It's not just the huge ratio of writers to producers. The shortage of 'actual' producers as opposed to those 'producers in name' Vasco describes is equally disproportionate to just about every other role in production. An advert for any other role will garner a big response; an advert for an 'actual' producer is likely to receive none, other than perhaps from those who are not 'actual' producers per se; because such producers are too busy to be looking for work!
Response from 7 years, 6 months ago - John Lubran SHOW
7 years, 6 months ago - Tom Tremayne
Valid points Vasco but sadly the UK doesn't have the same potential for equality and equity as America does. People will call this post sour grapes but it's true. Film making in the UK at any serious level is a money and, dare I say, class driven thing. One guy holds sway (usually a not very talented upper-middle class twit) and it's his train set and if he lets you play with it then be grateful that he has!
Response from 7 years, 6 months ago - Tom Tremayne SHOW
7 years, 6 months ago - John Lubran
The accomplishments of wealth Tom. Quite often it's not so much a money thing, because high end production costs much more than even rich people are willing to risk. But it is about raising money. The accomplishments of wealth however enable individuals to have not only an empowering education, not necessarily privately, as is often the case, but an education derived from a liberal social background that illuminates the world beyond a parochial compression. Some people call that 'middle class'. There's no doubt that such luck more often than not comes from a so called middle class upbringing. What I've learned in nearly seven decades is that the middle class in the UK is mostly arising from an aspirational working class than from old money. The term middle class is pretty subjective these days but might describe a section of society who've escaped from the entrenched dogmas of tribal parochialism. Other definitions are available.
Response from 7 years, 6 months ago - John Lubran SHOW
7 years, 6 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin
Also, of course, having a wealthy background increases the likelihood that you know other people of similar advantage, and have increasingly connected family contacts. Simply having better access goes a HUGE way. This is the true advantage of public schools, not the private education but who you're rubbing shoulders with as a kid in formative years!
The other advantage is a very basic one of not having to step straight into paid work, but being able to take unpaid jobs to get your first tastes of film work and get your face seen and be in the right place when jobs come around.
Response from 7 years, 6 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin SHOW
7 years, 6 months ago - Vasco de Sousa
It happens in the UK, in tech.
Sites like Founder2be have teams get together to approach finance together. I've seen "London" based techies find co-founders there.
Offline, it happens to. But, most film websites aren't built by people who understand online team building.
https://www.founder2be.com/
Response from 7 years, 6 months ago - Vasco de Sousa SHOW