Jun 25 0 comments
For Thousands of Miles

Update from Ypsi HQs
.: by Mike Ambs

I’m sitting by the open window right now, enjoying the smell that comes after a mid-west thunder storm, and an iTunes playlist from Jon. It’s almost been 10 days since my last post, so I thought I’d better check in and give everyone an update on what I’ve been busy with.

FToM: First on the list, the film. I’ve still been very busy going through clip by clip and dropping what I like in the timeline. I’m probably 1/3rd of the way through the 2nd TB of footage.

Two days ago I sent a FCP project file to Amanda, she has the back-up drives in LA, and I’ve been waiting for feedback on what she thinks so far. The way it’s cut now, it’s not much to look at, but when looked at side-by-side with our notes on the arc of film, I can see a pattern emerging, and places where certain moods and points can be made. I’m anxious to be sitting back in-front of the typewriter again.

Stockpile: I’ve been pushing hard promoting Stockpile on Vimeo, ACA, and popular bicycling forums (like Crazy Guy on a Bike). We’re already getting some great feedback and interest so far. And today a few more clips were shared in our group.

One reader replied, “I have a good feeling about the project. It looks like the personal essence of the moments will come through. Teaser number two shows, to me anyways, how profound it is to be insignificant. Good luck on the project.”

Our main goal with Stockpile is to be able to visually show just how connected we are by the places we’ve been - how our experiences are intertwined in ways that are easily overlooked. We have a long way to go before we reach the number of videos needed to do that, but with steady pressure and outreach, by the time the film needs it, I believe we’ll be prepared.

Kickstarter: Our Kickstarter campaign finished a few days ago and we were able to overshoot our goal by $105! I’ve adjusted the funding progress by by $1,105, which felt great to do. I can’t thank everyone enough who donated, twittered, and help spread the word in anyway. It’s by far the biggest jump in donations we’ve received since coming home from production two years ago.

It turned out to be a really impressive and supportive community of people. of all the sites we’ve joined that had fundraising support, it’s been by far the most successful.

Also, of course, a huge thank you to those of you who have recently donated via our new funding site. I know we had a few people do so during the Kickstarter campaign and I didn’t want to sound like I was leaving them out.

I’m excited about the next round of funding - and have been thinking of ways to incorporate a breakdown of upcoming expenses that we can split into individual campaigns.

t.minus: I’ve also been putting together the next t.minus project. If any of you have dropped by the site recently, you’d have seen our ‘currently closed’ splash page - hopefully after this weekend I’ll have it swapped out with all the new info.

I can’t say too much about it at the moment, but I can tell you it’s a collaboration project that anyone can be a part of! And, if I can make up my mind on a design, there could be t-shirts involved too.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Tags: , , , , , , ,
May 31 2 comments
GUEST CONTRIBUTORS

ABEL RAISES CAIN and the From Here to Awesome experiment
.: by Jenny Abel

Most readers here already know about FHTA, but for anyone who doesn’t, here is my ‘rehearsed’ 30-second elevator pitch…From Here to Awesome (FHTA) is a film discovery and distribution experiment masterminded by Lance Weiler, Arin Crumley and M dot Strange. Their mission was to create a series of participatory events related to DIY filmmaking and to connect a handful of innovative films with appreciative fans, while using the digital launch of these films as a testing ground for developing new and effective long-term distribution models. FHTA is anything but a ‘traditional’ film festival and, one year after its initial launch, the ‘experiment’ is ongoing…even as I type.

ABEL RAISES CAIN (my film, which I produced and co-directed with Jeff Hockett) was one of the final FHTA showcase films. The timing couldn’t have been more perfect, because we were looking for ways to broaden the reach of our movie, having exhausted our independent PR and outreach efforts. We’ve been actively self-distributing this documentary for a few years now. In 2006, with our first foreign TV deal, we began splitting up the rights and forming non-exclusive partnerships and I’ve continued to oversee or directly manage every aspect of the film since then.

As I’ve come to learn, it’s pretty impossible to adhere to a rigid plan when you’re self-distributing. Our strategy continually morphs as new opportunities present themselves. I like taking risks when it comes to our movie, but I also tend to be a little old school (see the ‘geriatric’ reference in my previous post). FHTA reinforced the idea of casting a wide net across multiple digital platforms simultaneously in order to reach a mass audience, and I do think this makes sense. Through FHTA, our movie was released on major outlets Indieflix, Caachi, Joost, Amazon Unbox, b-side, Netflix and Hulu.

But for any indie film to succeed these days, I feel strongly that it’s necessary to straddle both worlds, embracing the digital age while ALSO taking advantage of traditional means (before these means go entirely extinct) to get the film out and about. For example, while our documentary streams for free on Hulu, we are still screening at smaller film festivals, pursuing TV deals abroad and working on finding an educational distributor in the US.

I learned during this experiment that having a film on multiple platforms means nothing if you don’t actively promote the film. Unfortunately, I relied too heavily on each of the site’s ‘built-in’ audiences, assuming that people would just stumble upon our movie. That method doesn’t always work very well. With Caachi, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when we found out that only one person had ordered our film. I’m hopeful that cumulative exposure over the long term may lead to more fruitful results.

One of the challenges we faced was never knowing when our film was slated to go live. It was either available or it wasn’t - wholly predetermined by the individual outlets. This precluded any ability on our part to help build a buzz around a particular platform release. I think that a revenue strategy (i.e. Download-to-Own, followed by Pay Streaming, which is then piggy-backed by Free Streaming) would have created more concrete parameters in terms of defining release windows. One issue left to be resolved is whether or not the scattershot method - casting a wide net across a variety of platforms - IS, in fact, the most efficient way to reach an audience. Maybe there is more strength in a targeted approach through one outlet in particular, especially if that outlet spotlights or showcases the film.

Netflix was an FHTA platform offered only to filmmakers who already had replicated discs. Luckily, Jeff and I were able to take advantage of this opportunity since we spent the better part of 2007 producing the DVD for our film. I think of Netflix as a 5000 pound beast (a close relative to Amazon) that you have to learn to play nice with if you want to maintain the illusion that you’re part of ‘the mainstream’ even though, as indies, you’re always going to be somewhat obscure. We had been selling the DVD exclusively through our website beginning in the Fall of 2007 and by mid-2008, our DVD was available on Amazon Marketplace. I chose to maintain total exclusivity over our film sales in the US. We stayed away from retail and rentals, because the goal was to recoup our budget by selling as many DVDs as we could.

Fast forward to the end of 2008. We had virtually exhausted our independent sales efforts. FHTA hooked us up with Indieflix and Indieflix distributed our title to Netflix. Netflix bought 180 DVDs from us through Indieflix at $10.00 a pop. Indieflix collected 30% as our intermediary agent. It was a buyout, so that means we earned $1260.00 and we won’t see any subsequent royalties. Although a fair deal on the outset, it’s slightly painful to think about the ‘what-if’ scenario…Even if just a thousand people had bought our movie instead of adding it to their Netflix queues, we could have recouped 1/6 of our budget.

It would have been cool if we negotiated a deal where we earned a royalty for each ‘turn’ (or rental) as opposed to a buyout, but hopefully at some point when our movie is offered via streaming through Netflix, we can formulate some sort of revenue split through Indieflix, that would potentially be more lucrative for us over the long term.

I don’t mean to belabor the monetary aspect, but we’re trying to figure out, like everyone else, how to sustain ourselves in the free age. Why WOULD somebody buy a DVD when they could just order it on Netflix? Or why would anyone pay to stream our movie when they can go straight to HULU or Joost and stream it for free? I, myself, wouldn’t choose to pay for something if I knew I could get it for free! But I’m a hypocrite turned realist, because I used to chase after people who posted torrents of our movie, and now I’ve given up. Maybe this is why I’ve been so protective of our DVD rights. It’s like the last remaining ‘valuable’ piece of property that we have left. It would be great if we could somehow position our film in such a way that there’s a continual stream of revenue, one that I don’t have to think about maintaining…even if it’s a small trickle, like my fantasy of selling just one DVD per day!

Now that some time has elapsed and I’ve had a chance to reflect on FHTA as a whole, it’s pretty clear that our movie was catapulted to a level that we could not have reached on our own. Hulu and Netflix have been the most successful so far, and we’re indebted to FHTA and Indieflix for getting us onto these platforms. I’m blown away by the stats…more people saw our movie on Hulu in ONE week than all of the film festival audiences combined over the course of 4-1/2 years. Now that’s just crazy! So it’s cool that new audiences keep discovering our film. FHTA turned out to be a combination of culmination and rebirth.

There is just one problem. In the grand scheme of things, we’re still an obscure movie. We’re getting a bit closer to something, although, as one friend gently reminded me, “Not every race has a finish line.” In the meantime, we have to isolate which platforms we’re going to focus on, be more proactive in pointing people to the movie, and continue reassessing as we plot which direction to head in next.

JENNY ABEL initially began a career in music, having studied the viola since the age of 8 and receiving a scholarship to attend music school. But she decided to take a completely different path in life and transferred to Emerson College in Boston, graduating with a degree in video and television production. Jenny moved to Los Angeles shortly thereafter and began coordinating overseas productions for Nu Image and Millennium Films. Over the course of four years, she helped the company produce twenty-six pictures. In 2003, she left her job so that she could focus on finishing her own project, “Abel Raises Cain,” her first feature documentary.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Tags: , , , , , , ,
May 10 4 comments
CENSORSHIP

Re: Censorship
.: by Justin Evans

CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW THE ENTIRE PANEL DISCUSSION ON “CENSORSHIP”.

The Subtle Side Of Censorship

In America, censorship isn’t overt. It is far more subtle. As a filmmaker, I’ve witnessed four types of censorship. “Fluffy Bunny Syndrome”, “Ox Cart Bias”, “Pierced Tongue Syndrome” and lastly, the only kind that should ever exist, self-censorship.

FLUFFY BUNNY SYNDROME
I’ve sat in on conversations with festival directors that go something like this:

FESTIVAL VOLUNTEER
You should see this short! It’s amazing! The dialogue is well-written. The acting is solid! The movie is well shot! The lighting is great!

FESTIVAL DIRECTOR
Sounds great! What’s it about?

FESTIVAL VOLUNTEER
It’s about an ex-crack dealer who gets sucked back into the life and has to kill an old friend!

FESTIVAL DIRECTOR
It’s about…it’s…WHAT?

FESTIVAL VOLUNTEER
It’s like a Scorsese movie!

FESTIVAL DIRECTOR
Sounds…dark. How does it end?

FESTIVAL VOLUNTEER
Everyone is dead. The point of the movie is the futility of violence.

FESTIVAL DIRECTOR
Audiences aren’t gonna want to see that! It’s depressing! Shorts should have happy endings! A gag. A punchline. Something…something…UPBEAT! And, a message! I want shorts that are funny with happy endings and a message!

That my friends is Fluffy Bunny Syndrome. It happens all the time. I knew a filmmaker at NYU who had directed a 30 minute short about gangster life in the 1960’s. It was as good as an Elmore Leonard novel. It was awesome. Was it bloody? Yes. Was it violent? Yes. Were the characters authentic and detailed? Yes…but, so what? It was a great film.

It turns out quality didn’t really matter. His film was rejected again and again because it was dark, gritty and violent.

Festival after festival rejected his masterful 30 minute short. Many flat-out told him it was because of the subject matter. Yes, it was long. That made it difficult to program as well. But, I’ve seen enough 30 minute shorts in festivals to know that wasn’t the primary issue. All his characters ended up dead. They died in terrible ways. They were foul, despicable outlaws and they paid the price for their choices.

And not one festival embraced his skill.

He quit filmmaking. He gave up. And, that’s a shame because he was damn good. He inspired me. I loved his dialogue. I loved his attention to detail. I loved his devotion to simple, ordinary tasks like cooking or washing a car right before an act of brutality broke out. He was a dark poet. If he’d kept at the craft he’d have produced something as good as Scorsese, Peckinpah, Leone, or Tarantino.

Now, I respect any audience member’s right to say they don’t want to see a dark, bloody crime drama. But, festivals should be judging movies based on craft, not content. And, they have a strong aversion to these genres. If anyone thinks it was easy for “Reservoir Dogs” to get into Cannes, they don’t understand how prevalent Fluffy Bunny Syndrome is.

I didn’t believe this form of censorship existed at first. So, when I sat down to make “Saturday Night Special” I decided to ignore what I had witnessed and make a dark, gritty crime drama about bottom-feeder meth dealers in Spokane, Washington. The movie ends with a gun battle, half the characters are dead and the other half are on the run, wounded and bloody. I managed to get it into eight festivals. We won awards at two. But, just like my friend, I got many rejection emails from festivals that felt it was “too dark”. I even got phone calls from three festival directors that acknowledged it was a well crafted movie, but they didn’t like how dark the ending was. One asked me if I could change the ending and let some of the characters live they’d screen it. I said that wasn’t possible. And he apologized…and reiterated what many were saying. The movie is simply too dark.

They have a point. It was shot at night.

But, I’m guessing they meant something else. After the third festival director called me I understood that I was pushing against a form of censorship that was subtle and cloaked in self-righteousness.

The message was clear. I was a good storyteller. But, I chose immoral subject matter. They’d never say those words, but that certainly was the tone. “Why does it have to be so bleak?” “It’s a shame it isn’t more…happy.” “Those kind of movies just aren’t my thing.”

I learned my lesson well. I’m working on a short film right now and I’m deliberately crafting it so it won’t question or confront the deep and abiding love so many festivals have for fluffy bunnies.

THE OX CART BIAS
A friend of mine gave me “The National Geographic All Roads DVD Collection”. It contains about 50 short films from around the globe. I was and am thankful, because it was a very nice gift. And, it sounds like fun to watch, right? I opened it immediately and pressed play on the first DVD.

And then, I wanted to gouge my eyeballs out with spoons.

Underexposed shots. Out of focus shots. Oversaturated shots. Weird composition. Overmodulated sound. Cheesy sound effects. And, the scripts and acting were universally tepid, illogical, unrealistic drivel.

National Geographic certainly has an Ox Cart Bias. If it is made by or about a third world culture, they treat it as if it is immediately special. I know people who have this bias. They didn’t like Guy Ritchie’s “Snatch” but they’re down for any movie shot in Tagalog. I’ve never understood this bias, but it is prevalent. And, if you’re making an intimate character drama set here in America you’re at an immediate disadvantage, no matter how good your movie is. Look at how many second-rate foreign films win Oscars for Best Animated, Live Action or Documentary Short. The audience member, festival programmer and film reviewer who suffer from Ox Cart Bias will go out of their way to hate your work but they’ll jump up and down about anything from Borneo. That same person would lambast a Hollywood studio for trying to remake “The Bicycle Thief” but probably loves “Beijing Bicycle”.

Now, it would be easy to misinterpret what I’m saying as a rant against cinema from the developing world. That’s not how I feel at all. I love movies, no matter where they are from, as long as they are well made. I cried in “Slumdog Millionaire”. I saw the (slightly sappy) ending coming straight at me, but I didn’t care. I loved the film. I loved the cinematography, I loved the actors, I loved the music and I loved the feel good ending. I was cheering when the closing credits turned into a Bollywood dance number. I saw “Lagaan” in theatres and raved about it to my friends. How many of you have ever seen the Bollywood version of Three Men & A Baby? Do you know who Amir Khan is? How about Hrithik Roshan? Okay, stop questioning my world cinema cred! I’m not a hater!

I’ve spent years in Mexican, Indian and Chinese movie theatres. Whenever I go to a foreign country I take a cab to a local movie theatre and watch a local film. Sometimes, I see something great and I’m thrilled. I love seeing a foreign director make some bold and unusual choice that I know I can borrow and adapt for my own storytelling style. Usually, I see stuff that’s far worse than what Hollywood calls filmmaking. But, I’m out there, always the optimist, always trying to find another hidden treasure. And, when I see that great movie no one in The West has heard of, its like discovering a pirate’s chest of gold.

Loving cinema, in all its forms, is not the same thing as suffering from Ox Cart Bias.

“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” is probably the greatest mainstream example of Ox Cart Bias. I saw it opening night in my favorite theatre in Portland, Oregon, The Lloyd Center Cinemas main auditorium, a THX certified auditorium with about 900 seats. The first scene began, and I’m loving the sword fighting. Someone suddenly climbs up a wall for no reason…and I decide to go with it. Its a magical universe where the laws of physics don’t apply…okay, I can handle that. But, then the dialogue begins. It is boring. It is ponderous. Characters make choices that aren’t logical. The tone of the movie shifts erratically from broad farce to dark drama. Huge chunks of the movie are flashbacks. It isn’t handled deftly or expertly. While beautiful, I felt the story was weak.

I told this to friends and I was lambasted. “It’s from a different culture! You can’t judge those things! You’re seeing this through American eyes! It’s a masterpiece and you just don’t get it!”

Thank God I moved to China. There, I heard a very different story. “B? diàn y?ng huài! Bo shì Zh?ng guóren diàn y?ng! Shì M?i guóren diàn y?ng!” Translation: “What a terrible movie! That wasn’t a Chinese movie. It was an American movie!” The overwhelming opinion amongst Chinese citizens is that “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” bastardized one of their most beloved television shows and dumbed down the material so it would play well for an American audience. They’re pissed because they feel their culture wasn’t as important as US box office. Most of the Chinese film lovers I know felt the script was awful. And, I’ve heard Chinese film lovers say “Yeah, I’ve grown up with these wire-fu soap operas. But, the rest of the world hasn’t. Could they find a subtle way to explain why characters are defying the laws of gravity? Hello!”

So, if some 22 year old film fan in Beijing grokks what I’m thinking, I don’t feel bad saying it out loud…not all foreign films are well made. Many are great. Many suck eggs. And, the Americans who refuse to acknowledge this actually suffer from a cultural blind spot. Their trying to look liberal, open-minded and accepting when in reality they’re condescending.

The honest opinion was that kid from Beijing who gets visibly angry when he talks about his favorite TV show being raped and not understanding why Americans paid to see a piece of crap.

But, the hippy-dippy cinephile from Eugene, Oregon (who has never left the US) is absolutely certain “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” is a Chinese masterpiece. She probably likes “Hero”, too. The Communist propaganda goes right over her head. Major Ox Cart Bias.

PIERCED TONGUE SYNDROME
There were two cliched types of filmmakers at NYU. In general, the boys made stupid, violent movies with guns and the girls made stupid, sexual movies in which they act in their own film and have sex on an alter in a church.

This would be funny to me, except I saw four different female directors make that same movie…in different classes…at different schools…in different years.

And, all four films got into film festivals. All four. They were made by Sophomores at NYU, USC and Cal Arts. They were out of focus. They were shot on grainy 16mm film. They had jumpcuts for no reason. They had no art direction. Sometimes they had a vampire. Sometimes the girl was alone. In one, the girl leaves the church and buries a goldfish in a landfill, then she spits in her hand and dances. Sometimes the camera randomly cut to crosses. But, they had one thing in common.

They were crap.

And, yet, certain types of festivals loved ‘em. If you make a second-rate documentary on piercing culture, it will get into festivals. If you make any movie about tattoo artists who beat vegan midgets it will get into festivals. If you want to out-Warhol Warhol and make some bizarre fetish movie, it will get into festivals. That isn’t a sign the movie is good. It simply means that particular festival employs a programmer who suffers from Pierced Tongue Syndrome.

I’m a huge “Twin Peaks” fan. Huge. But, no one will ever convince me that ABC was wrong in canceling the show. By the second season the show had jumped the shark. And, when I hear someone get all twitter-pated about “Blue Velvet” I want to hit them in the head with a shovel. Dennis Hopper sucks helium. So what? Yes, the movie starts with the shot of a severed ear. I was taught ad naseum how important that was. I don’t buy it. No, it is not a deeply profound metaphor on the evil that lurks in suburbia.

Most importantly, that bastard ruined “Dune”. You have no idea how angry that makes me.

Just because something is different doesn’t mean it is also valuable. Something can be different and amazing…and sometimes it can be…”Repo Man”. Which sucks. Really.

When a movie is great, it’s great. In spite of the subject matter, I think Stanley Kubrick’s “Lolita” is a masterpiece. “Eyes Wide Shut” is just friggin’ lame, man. And, if you can’t tell the difference…maybe you’ve got a bit of Pierced Tongue Syndrome going on.

SELF-CENSORSHIP
At last, we get to the only kind of censorship that is acceptable. Censoring oneself. Clearly, I struggle with this issue…at least when I blog.

In general, I won’t write a sex scene. It’s a deliberate choice. The reason is that I’m a storyteller and I feel that the story usually stops when a sex scene begins. I find them about as interesting as car chases. If I begin work on a script that requires a sex scene (or a car chase) and I can make that scene about dialogue and character interaction I’ll write it. But, in general, I stay away from sex scenes. I’ve seen too many films fail to make them interesting.

They also make audiences squirm in a way that I don’t enjoy. I was 19 when I saw “Bad Lieutenant” with my dad. There was nothing fun about that experience. It wasn’t entertaining. It wasn’t enlightening. It was simply uncomfortable. I apologized to my dad for two years. I won’t do that to an audience.

Now, if you believe differently that’s fine by me. Disagreement is what the First Amendment is all about. If I was a festival director and you made a fantastic film that happened to have a few sex scenes, I’d program it. I don’t apply my personal writing predilections to other storytellers. You do your thing. I respect it, as long as it is well crafted.

I won’t show how to commit a serious crime. I’ll research everything, but I leave out details. For “A Lonely Place For Dying” we researched how Special Forces made “mousetrap bombs” (not their real name) so I knew what they’d really look like. But, in the film we only show the final device (with one detail changed) so they can’t be recreated. They look extremely authentic…except, if Special Forces inspected one of our props they’d notice we left something out. The device can’t actually work.

And, that’s important, because yet again I’m a storyteller. My job is to convince people that the fictional universe I’ve created is plausible. It is not my job to educate people on how to hurt someone else. Last time I checked, most people are well equipped for that particular task and don’t need my help at all.

I’ll show violence, but only if it is honest. And, that means that violence is bloody, dangerous, painful and often goes awry. I can’t do cartoon violence. I can’t have a hero shoot an impossible number of bullets from a gun and never get hurt. I could never have an explosion go off while our heroes walk toward the camera stoically. I’m a genre guy, but I’m trying to be like Elmore Leonard, not Michael Bay.

FINAL THOUGHTS
I’m fairly certain I offended someone with this post. Many readers may believe I never talked about censorship at all. And, that gets to the heart of my argument. In America, all censorship is nuanced. We pass judgement on the ideas of other people’s work and reject the work outright. I find anyone who judges movies based on subject matter rather than craftsmanship doesn’t get the First Amendment. I don’t judge ideas. I judge how they are executed. I don’t have a left, right, liberal, conservative, religious, anti-religious filter of any kind whatsoever. I don’t expect other filmmakers to pull the same lever as I do in a voting booth…I just expect them to be excellent at their craft. In my opinion, that’s the only thing that should be judged.

If I was running a film festival you’d see documentaries about the right to own hand guns next to Christian dramas and lesbian romantic comedies. I wouldn’t judge other people’s ideas. I would only judge their execution.

But, that’s not the world we live in. We live in a world of fluffy bunnies, ox carts and pierced tongues. The irony of this is it makes me the loneliest independent filmmaker alive. I often feel like the lone guy, holding up a torch for a rippin’ good yarn while everyone else has an agenda and doesn’t care about how to craft a film.

I don’t dress weird. I’m a middle class guy who has been married for 13 years and has a three year old son. We watch Peter Pan and play with Thomas The Train. I’m kinda…odd…compared to the rest of the independent film community. Everyone else is trying to be Frank Lloyd Wright, and I’m just building a Craftsman.

Oh, well. I gotta get back to work. Some characters of mine need killin’.

CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW THE ENTIRE PANEL DISCUSSION ON “CENSORSHIP”.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
May 04 7 comments
CENSORSHIP

RE: CENSORSHIP
.: by Kevin K. Shah

CENSORSHIP IS GOOD
Censorship is a good thing when it is used in immediate ways and a bad thing when it is used across the board, or after a film is completed. I think as filmmakers we have a certain responsibility to not only ourselves, but to our viewers’ psyche while we are making our films. I think that we’ve all likely seen enough ‘well-done’ violence and horror in movies, but if it has to be in there – there ought to be an internal moral compass to follow. Self-censorship as an artist is really a good thing (bear with me). The images are something you are choosing to give others in the form of cinema (which is as close to a real experience as they can get) so let them use their imagination. It takes creativity, and the result is always more memorable. What isn’t seen is what effects our emotions, instead of just shocking our systems.

DRAWING THE LINE: SELF-CENSORSHIP
What images do you really want to put out there to get this character beat, or story point or plot turn across? Have they been put out there before and done with more effect through less? Or have people seen this a million times – is this gratuitous? How can yours be different or “creative”…. in its depiction… not just its execution? How are people being allowed to intuit what is happening – i.e. how are they being asked to use their imagination?

Or is the point to thrill, to be laughably violent, repulsively disgusting, disturbingly unsexy, is it to create a numbness in people through trauma, and injure your viewers with imagery they really don’t need forever*?

*Scientists have proven that images from movies embed themselves in deep in your brain’s cerebral cortex, and are stored in and recalled through the exact circuitry from which real-life memories of events (that you personally experienced) are recalled. How much do you want to cloud your memory (who you are) with images of who you are not (a rapist, a murderer, sadistic**)?
**One must give the benefit of the doubt; believe that there really are good people out there (at least at birth).

A-B TYPES
Self-censorship is the golden way to overcome this, so as to not cause a fuss with us A-B types (Artist-at-Birth). I find that I’m opposed to any committee mandating things get taken out of films before release (as everything is debatable) and I’m repulsed by the idea that a film is banned by certain countries because of a scene or plain ignorance (so many beautiful and political films are) but there are things that an Artist should self-censor IMHO – and for that they have to look inward. For me to make a list would be to invite attention to all the ways in which artists have depicted violence, but using an internal compass should guide one away from incidents that don’t need to be ‘seen’ in its entirety (rape, child murder, etc.).

ARTIST’S CHOICE VS. VIEWER’S CHOICE
As it gets much easier for people to get images out into the universe, a code of self-censorship is a good thing to have as part of your power. Actors should choose their scripts and directors carefully. Writers should understand that not everything they can conceive… they should conceive. Producers should know when there are ways his director can do it better. And Directors should have a place in their heart where they keep the images that they put on screen sacred. There should be a line, and it’s within each filmmaker to find that line – and use the boundary to challenge them to do it in a more creative way.

And because not everyone’s line is the same – when it comes to the Viewer – the audience should understand and accept they have a choice. Ultimately, self-censorship is best experienced by closing your own eyes and ‘skipping that part’, or turning off the tv/computer, or if necessary taking a walk outside and thinking there is more to life and art than pain and death without hope or real purpose.

[footnote: Kevin K. Shah’s films so far have never been censored, only self-censored)

TANGENT: CROWD-SOURCING A RATINGS SYSTEM

A side-project Sabi Pictures is working on will use tags that crowds can select after watching the film that indicates objectionable content. Both the filmmaker’s own elected description, and this application (as well as a crowd-sourced minimum age recommendation) is an unobtrusive way for viewers to make choices based on democratized information (as opposed to our current system of MPAA, FCC, etc.). Of course, parents will still have to pay attention to what their kids Google.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Tags: , , , ,
May 01 0 comments
CENSORSHIP

Re: Censorship
.: by Mike Babiarz

CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW THE ENTIRE PANEL DISCUSSION ON “CENSORSHIP”.

MIKE BABIARZ is an independent filmmaker/ graphic designer, based out of Vancouver BC. He is currently putting almost all of his time and energy in to a no-budget indie film with his producing partner and director, Soren Johnstone. Their film is ‘Play With Fire’. It has been a labour of love and hate for the past two years. To pay the bills Michael does freelance video and graphic design work. Although, he would much rather play with his filthy rock & roll band, The Fuckstixx, than pay the bills.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Apr 30 10 comments
A Lonely Place For Dying

Minimizing Investor Risk Through Film Subsidies
.: by Justin Evans

I’ve written about how independent filmmakers can raise money for their films in a previous New Breed post. And, while ethical accounting practices and professional business plans are important they are only part of the equation.

THE MIND OF THE INVESTOR:
Investors invest for a variety of reasons, but the unifying concept for all investors is simple. Investors are fearful of losing their money. This fear overrides their desire for profits. Let me repeat that. The fear of losing money is a stronger motivator than the desire for profits.

Most entrepreneurs assume an investor wants to hear about a massive ROI(return on investment). They start talking about exit strategy (the method in which investors extract their capital from a successful venture). This is putting the cart before the horse. The first thing an investor wants to know is how an entrepreneur will protect their money. Once that issue is addressed then they want to hear about profits and exits.

If you reverse this, you’ve probably lost the investor. Why? Because they know that projected profits is merely speculation. You may have done your best and you may truly believe you can achieve a high rate of return for the investor…but it is still speculation, not fact. And, what’s the value in an exit strategy for a project that lost all it’s money? That’s not an investment…that’s a tax write-off.

Therefore, the first thing an investor wants to hear is how you can concretely protect their money.

TOOL #1: SECTION 181
You’ve heard of farming subsidies. A few years back savvy film lobbyists created subsidies for the film industry. As they outlined the dangers of runaway production to Canada, Eastern Europe and Australia, Congress passed legislation that resulted in Section 181 of the IRS Code. Put simply, Section 181 states that investment in a motion picture shot in the US is 100% tax deductable for the investor.

100%. I wish I could write that in neon.

By including a chapter in your business plan about how an investor can use Section 181 to reduce their tax burden you can illustrate to the investor how you are reducing their risk. Section 181 guarantees that they cannot lose all their money in your film.

Now, Section 181 should have been easy to understand. It hasn’t been and that’s why few people understand it and even fewer use it. In 2007 the IRS finally released a pamphlet explaining how they interpret the code. Some members of Congress believe the IRS’ interpretation contradicts elements of their original legislation. Because of the contradictory interpretations and the IRS’ reluctance to clearly outline how to use Section 181 for your motion picture you need a Section 181 consultant to help set up your film properly.

Google the term. You’ll be able to read the code and you’ll find a few individuals who claim they can help you with Section 181. I’ll happily consult with you as well. But, here are some of the broad strokes:

- 75% of the motion picture must be shot in the US to qualify for Section 181.
- There is a 15 to 20 million dollar budget cap (although, this needs further explanation).
- There is no minimum.
- TV pilots, TV episodes (up to 44), short films, music videos and feature films all qualify for Section 181.
- Section 181 can be applied to regular income or capital gains, depending on your corporate structure and how your investors are involved with the company. If this is done wrong your investors can end up with a helluva surprise when they turn in their taxes.
- Section 181 is retroactive. If you finished a project in the past couple years you and your investors may be able to redo your taxes and recapture some of your expenses as a tax rebate from Uncle Sam. This will require hiring an accountant who understands Section 181. If you created a $2,000.00 short film I doubt it is worth your time, money and effort. If you self-financed a $60,000.00 feature film then it is definitely worth your time.
- The motion picture’s corporation will need to issue Schedule K-1’s to the investors so they can take advantage of Section 181. Consult with an accountant on how to do this.
- And, yes, there is more to it than this simple list. This is only an overview. As with any element of the IRS code, you can’t leap to conclusions nor make bold assumptions about how you can take advantage of this law. It is nuanced. In its current form it is paradoxically interpreted. Hire an expert to assist you with implementing this into your venture. Hire an accountant with Section 181 experience before you redo previous taxes.

Right now, your ears may be bleeding and your eyes glossed over. If you struggle with the differences between passive and regular income, if you don’t understand how to incorporate a business, if taxes make your skin crawl…don’t give up. Just hire a consultant. It’s worth every penny. Because, if you implement a Section 181 plan in your business model you’ve made it much easier for an investor to write you a check.

This sort of work makes most creatives run for the hills. We’re not built for math. But, when you’re pitching an investor, which sounds better?

“As you can see, investing in my movie is going to be a huge risk. You’ll be risking 100% of the capital you put into my movie. But, I’m a good filmmaker. Trust me. I’m going to make a great movie that will make you a profit.”

OR

“Investing in our project includes a level of safety investors haven’t experienced before in the entertainment industry. We’ve taken the time to research recent tax legislation, and we’ve hired a consultant who can explain how your investment is 100% tax deductable. We’ve gone through the steps to make sure the IRS will recognize your deduction. Therefore, you’re risking approximately 60 cents on the dollar. How many investments, in this market and in this economy, can promise that a significant portion of your money is completely protected? Now, let me explain how we’re going to make an exceptionally good movie with tremendous profit potential…”

The first remark is like every independent filmmaker in the world. They’re begging. The second isn’t a beggar. The second is an entrepreneur.

TOOL #2: GOVERNMENT SPONSORSHIP
Shoot your movie in a state with rebates or transferrable tax credits and pass this subsidy onto your investors at the completion of production. As an example, if a $100,000.00 movie shoots in New Mexico and spends every penny in the state (or, through a pass through corporation that pays state taxes) the state of New Mexico will cut a $25,000.00 check for that motion picture.

You can pass that check onto your investor. Like the educated statement provided in Tool #1, adding adding a state subsidy to your business plan allows you to speak about risk minimization. You can now claim that the investor is only risking 75 cents on the dollar if the project is produced in New Mexico…or 62 cents on the dollar if produced in Michigan. Iowa now has a 50% rebate (although with some unusual provisions that complicate the matter). In essence, they’re buying 100K investment in your movie for only 75 cents and the government is picking up the rest of the tab, on a delayed time table.

Are there nuances, details and stumbling blocks to this process? Absolutely. So, yet again, it is best to hire a consultant to help you with this. Considering over 30 states in the US now have some type of tax credit or rebate plan it is foolish to not take advantage of these incentive programs. If Michigan wants to help filmmakers make movies, then why not take advantage of that?

You’ll be tempted to dismiss this and make your movie in your hometown. This is convenient. You might be lucky…with 30 states now competing for motion pictures with rebates, transferrable tax credits shooting local might still enable you to take advantage of one of these programs.

But, which do you want? To make a movie in your neighborhood with no investment or to make a properly financed motion picture with a decent amount of capital? If you’re serious about this as a business, then start thinking like a business owner and put your investors before your comfort zone.

TOOL #3: MARRIAGE
Combine Section 181 with a tax rebate. By coupling the two together you can reduce an investor’s risk by 65-100%. Think about that. It depends on how much the investor earns annually, how much they’ve invested in your movie and where your movie will be produced…but, it is possible that an investor could invest in your motion picture…and risk nothing. Conservatively, they’re risk will be 50% of what they’ve given you. That means if they invest $100,000.00 they are guaranteed to recoup $50,000.00 in tax deductions and rebates. Depending on the math, they may be able to write off 100%.

A WORD OF CAUTION
There are nuances to Section 181 as well as every state rebate or transferrable tax credit. Spend a couple thousand dollars to hire someone who understands these incentive programs. Make sure a lawyer familiar with these programs has vetted your business plan. Practice your pitch for that lawyer so they can vet the language you’ll be using to pitch investors. And, for God’s sake, please get the math right. Don’t walk in and say they’ll risk nothing unless you know that is actually true.

Here is an example. Your movie needs 200K. Investor X wants to invest 200K into your film. Their annual income is 200K and they have 1M in assets (making them an accredited investor). Their annual taxes are approximately 50K and they have absolutely no tax write-offs to take advantage of. If they invest 200K into your film they’ll be risking 150K…because they only owe 50K in taxes. The IRS isn’t cutting them a check. They’ll be happy to let the balance go to zero, but they aren’t draining the Federal coffers to cover anything beyond what the investor would have owed.

So, that means they’re risking 75 cents on the dollar.

But, wait! You’re going to shoot this movie in Michigan. Michigan will give you a 40% rebate. They’ll kick in an extra 2% if you shoot it in one of the numerous Special Economic Zones they have throughout the state. So, you shoot in Detroit and spend EVERY PENNY in Michigan. That means they’ll cut you a check for 42% of your 200K budget. That’s $84,000.00. You agree that this rebate belongs to your investor. Investor X will now be getting $134,000.00 in tax deductions and rebates from the Federal Government and the State of Michigan for their 200K investment in your motion picture. They’re actual risk is less than 45 cents on the dollar.

Any savvy investor will take such massive reduction in risk very seriously.

But, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you’re going to get Uncle Sam and The Land Of Enchantment to blindly subsidize your filmmaking career then it’s going to require research, due diligence and some expert advise (that more than likely won’t come free).

But, don’t dismiss this either. Ask yourself a simple question. Which is a tougher path…convincing a Hollywood studio to buy your screenplay and let you direct it…or, spending a month researching these incentive programs so you have a secret weapon in raising money?

More importantly, asking friends and family to invest in your movie is no longer an exercise in begging. Take the time to factor how much your family members will spend in taxes this year and ask them to invest a good chunk of their tax dollars in your movie instead.

MAJOR CAVEAT:
My greatest fear in explaining these tools is that a slew of crappy movies will get made at the expense of tax payers. The law of unintended consequences pretty much guarantees this will happen.

I delayed writing this article for nearly two months for this very reason. I truly mean this…my fear is that every half-baked script in America will suddenly find money it doesn’t deserve and we’ll be drowning in second-rate content. This will only make it more difficult for good filmmakers to cut through the noise and have their projects taken seriously. It will make the market tremendously overcrowded. And, it will inevitably result in massive investor losses….which, will eventually lead to the repeal of these very laws.

We’ll be back to square one, people.

So, remember this. You still have to make a great film. Most of Western Europe had massive film subsidies throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. The goal was to enable individuals to make movies that could be distributed commercially and build a viable local film economy to compete with Hollywood. Ironically, the more their citizens used these subsidies the more market share Hollywood gained. Why? Because most of the filmmakers made crappy movies far worse than what Hollywood had to offer. The general public is still our collective employer and if they don’t like our movies they’ll tell their friends and our movies won’t have legs. No matter how much you spend on your film, it must be great. The script must be amazing. The acting must be astounding. You still need a celebrity actor to convince traditional distributors to consider releasing your movie. You must still be excellent at this craft. If not…you’ll be one of those forgotten French filmmakers from the 1980’s who made an artsy stinker of a movie that has disappeared into the ether.

Australia has subsidies. Canada has subsidies. Great Britain has subsidies. How many great directors come out of those three countries every year? Let that give you pause. Subsidies will help you get any movie made…even a bad one. I know a filmmaker who recently began work on his first feature film. I offered to help him with casting. But, he gave me great pause when he said “The script is crap. I mean it. It’s awful. I just want to get going on a feature film like you.”

How selfish. How short sighted. How self-sabotaging. How miopic. How…stupid. He might as well take a .45 caliber pistol and unload it into his foot.

Because of my concern regarding the law of unintended consequences I’ve deliberately left out a lot of details. I know far too many amateur filmmakers who would easily jump to the conclusion that with 100K they’re ready to make a feature film…and neglect pre-production, careful planning and the time it takes to write a great script. Their lack of patience terrifies me because all they’ll achieve is making expensive amateur films.

In short, you’re going to have to jump through many hoops to make these incentive programs work for you. I did. It helped hone me as a filmmaker and entrepreneur. Nothing good will ever come from something being too easy. We all have word processors on our computers. How many of us have ever written The Great American Novel?

In fact, as I write this, I hope most people realize that access to capital is not their primary obstacle. Lack of skill has and always will be the real hurdle.

SHACKLES REMOVED
For the experienced independent filmmaker these tools can change everything. Combine these three tools with a solid business plan and transparent bookkeeping and you’ll find raising money is relatively straight forward.

For the amateur who has no patience…you’ll be ruining it for the rest of us if you don’t slow down and craft a project worthy of an audience.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark
Tags: , , , ,