How do indies get +$200K funding?

[Chris Pickle]

That's pretty much the situation in American indie film, though nobody wants to admit it. Prove you can make a coherent feature film for little money, and you may get an opportunity to make a commercial one on a "real" budget.

This mechanism hasn't been great at identifying directing or writing talent, either art-house or commercial, but it's the only mechanism we seem to have, for those who don't up emerge through music videos and commercials, or thanks to family connections.

So I'm getting an idea on your overall thoughts on the state of American indie film.

I agree with much of your position, but I disagree with some of your opposition to parts of it.

Filmmaking should not always be viewed as brilliant or not. In my view, some aspects of art is more trade-like. We should be allowed to be journeymen to a degree. Even in ancient times, this was the approach to many art forms. Pound stone in a quarry for the master.

We sometimes expect our artists to be brilliant the first time out, instead of seeing the small parts of early work that identify some talent. Let them get a film done and show a few skills. Then maybe let them do it again. We can build on the shoulders of our past work, even if the success parts were fleeting moments in a genre film.

The thing I love about this art-form and biz is that you can always redeem yourself. You can always create enough work, and experience for it to finally come together in a really great piece.

Just my thoughts.

Chris

 

[Yannick Hagman]

BTW - I love my moleskins. I got them stashed everywhere. In car, walking shorts, desk, computer bag....

It's hard enough to find like-minded individuals for a weekend for nothing. Maybe as a project together with a public school.

I like the 25k though. It's more realistic than 200k. If you write something original that can be done for that figure there is only one thing to be sad about: no viable online-distribution. Something like last.fm for films.

Moleskins are very good marketing. We pay about 5 times of what they would be worth and love 'em.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Ha! It's true. The secret to moleskins is to lose enough of them that you hit the saturation point where there is one wherever you go. "Oh here's a moleskin in my room, car, kitchen, living room..."

 

[Chris Pickle]

Ha! It's true. The secret to moleskins is to lose enough of them that you hit the saturation point where there is one wherever you go. "Oh here's a moleskin in my room, car, kitchen, living room..."

I even make my wife carry one in her purse for me when we're out for dinner.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

I've been stuck in development hell for several years. I got very close a couple of times. But I got to see how much of the non-studio biz works. As I see it, it doesn't matter who the filmmaker is. It's all about the producer. The dist folks assume that the producer will hire someone with a pulse at least. You might have to make your case with the name talent as I did during a long phone meeting, just so they know you're not a whack job and can form complete sentences. But overall your job is not to convince a distributor or star, it's to convince a producer, and that's almost always through a decent script.

At 1-2 million you have to factor in tax credits. I think NM has a 25% across the board on all expenses in the state. They also allow you to claim the credit for the out-of-town stars, but you have to file a short-form tax return in the star's name in NM.

So on 1.5 you've can get 375K in tax credits. Then you start making up the difference through a couple of deals. Maybe a bigger US TV deal and some foreign sales. Yes it's very difficult to get dist folks to commit these days. Everyone is running out of money.

But that is the reality. And it's why I say that if you really want to make a film. Forget budget concerns and make something for 25k. I know that sounds crazy, but with the Red cam, a decent script, some cool locations (and genre) you could pull something off.

Just don't get caught up in wanting to raise a bit more money. It's a trap. Don't let someone tell you that if you get to 175K you can use super-talented SAG actors or pull off some neat FX. It's a trap and won't add value to your project. (and I'm a union actor from way back) Nothing against unions, it's just that they were not conceived to be a part of micro-budget filmmaking. Their new low-budget agreements are for poor bigger budget prodcuers, or SAG actors wanting to do something as a collective.

Take what I say with a grain of salt, but I'm convinced it's as bad as I have seen it. A producer recently told me there is only two kinds of films. "Studio films and non-studio films. And non-studio films are invisible". Everyone has been talking about new media and other dist methods, but no one is putting braces on their kid's teeth outside of the "mainstream" biz. We'll always have cool art films and indie films, but they don't make money and are just to help a filmmaker get to a higher level of struggle.

I'm not jaded--honest!

Cheers

I agree with this. Dunno why I do but I really do.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

So I'm getting an idea on your overall thoughts on the state of American indie film.

I agree with much of your position, but I disagree with some of your opposition to parts of it.

Filmmaking should not always be viewed as brilliant or not. In my view, some aspects of art is more trade-like. We should be allowed to be journeymen to a degree. Even in ancient times, this was the approach to many art forms. Pound stone in a quarry for the master.

We sometimes expect our artists to be brilliant the first time out, instead of seeing the small parts of early work that identify some talent. Let them get a film done and show a few skills. Then maybe let them do it again. We can build on the shoulders of our past work, even if the success parts were fleeting moments in a genre film.

The thing I love about this art-form and biz is that you can always redeem yourself. You can always create enough work, and experience for it to finally come together in a really great piece.

Just my thoughts.

Chris

I also agree with this. It definitely doesn't have ot be brilliant and it probably is just a setback for you if you try to be brilliant your first time out.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

But how would such a 25k budget look like? It will be hard to get anywhere this number.

It will be hard to get anywhere if you haven't worked with like-minded people for a while. Spending a few years making contacts and building real relationships with people, not for the sake of movie making but for the sake of surrounding yourself with people who want to move forward as well, will be invaluable in this digital age.

It's pretty funny how I used to think "man if I had that camera I could...", but now I have that camera and several others at my disposal, I'm finding the hardest thing I'm going to have to deal with is finding the talent in front of the camera.r

It's pretty damned easy to make 25K look like 250K if you've paid your dues, learned, failed, and learned some more.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=96

GO there. Check out all the people doing features on dimes. Especially Faith Granger, shooting a freaking PERIOD PIECE on an HVX200 + Letus Extreme 35mm Adapter. Damned-near a one WOMAN show, man. She's doing hair, casting, shooting, lighting, EVERYTHING.

And she's making no excuses.

That's who inspired me to stop all this gear whoring and get on my feature film.

 

[jpp]

The other factor when considering the merits of very low budgets vs. $200K productions and up is that $200K and up will almost always require consensus among investors and multiple producers, with the need for consensus increasing as the budget rises.

But if lots of people understand what you want to do at the script stage, and believe in it, and approve of it, something is already wrong with the movie, at least as an indie project. If everyone "loves" the script, it's because they've seen this film a few times before. It might still come off as a successful production, but indie investor enthusiasm doesn't often correlate with market performance. They're two different audiences, often with little in common.

Which probably explains why most of the handful of indies which have made a mark are very low budget, personal projects. Not because they're so great, but by comparison with what comes out of higher budget consensus filmmaking.

 

[Joe G.]

Could someone direct me to several "watchable" recent films made for $25K?

Or even one?

 

[Kholi Hicks]

The other factor when considering the merits of very low budgets vs. $200K productions and up is that $200K and up will almost always require consensus among investors and multiple producers, with the need for consensus increasing as the budget rises.

But if lots of people understand what you want to do at the script stage, and believe in it, and approve of it, something is already wrong with the movie, at least as an indie project. If everyone "loves" the script, it's because they've seen the movie a few times before. It might still come off as a successful production, but indie investor enthusiasm doesn't often correlate with market performance. They're two different audiences, often with little in common.

Which probably explains why most of the handful of indies which have made a mark are very low budget, personal projects. Not because they're so great, but by comparison with what comes out of hobbled consensus filmmaking.

I'm lost. How can everyone loving the script be a bad thing? If everyone involved loves the script, loves the idea then it's probably a good script and good idea. even if it's been seen several times over, how does that hurt the chances of it bringing back money?

You may want to expound, I think I've completely missed your point.

I can't see any negative in a high concept low budget script/idea that everyone's willing to get behind for low-to-no pay to make it happen.

I think i get what you're saying about big budgets, though. The more money involved the more people you have to go through to make things happen?

That's why I'm not willing to wait for anyone to invest.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Could someone direct me to several "watchable" recent films made for $25K?

Or even one?

Nope, but I can direct you to one that cost 60K and sold for 1.5 Mil within the last two years

THE SIGNAL -- XL-H1 and Mini35 35mm Adapter.

I have it on Blu ray and I can definitely see why it sold.

 

[jpp]

Could someone direct me to several "watchable" recent films made for $25K?

Or even one?

$25K is in fact too low. For the sake of the argument, we really need to go to <$100K for this to make any sense. However, there are a number of <$25K films (actually, <$15K) which have attracted a good deal of attention, and furthered careers.

Some are good, some dreadful, and one's a classic, and all under $15K:

Killer of Sheep
Clerks
Slacker
American Job
Rhythm Thief
Primer

And there are others, these are the one I can think of this moment.

EDIT: And, of course, Blair Witch. Budget was around $35K as I recall.

 

[jpp]

I'm lost. How can everyone loving the script be a bad thing? If everyone involved loves the script, loves the idea then it's probably a good script and good idea. even if it's been seen several times over, how does that hurt the chances of it bringing back money?

It comes down to a contradiction or disability at the heart of American indie film: the investors, producers and production personnel who get involved in the making of these films don't often have much in common with the only audiences these films are likely to have, at festivals and in art-houses. So their enthusiasm is a poor predictor of market results. And indie films usually have to offer at least some unusual characteristics to succeed. This can be too much for a lot of untrained script readers.

I can't see any negative in a high concept low budget script/idea that everyone's willing to get behind for low-to-no pay to make it happen.

When you find this project, and it's realizable for no money, let me know.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

primer is awesome.

I'm not talking about arthouse films though. I personally wouldn't waste any time on arrhouse because I'm in bowl way attracted to creating that sort of content. And there's very little In it for me.

I think 25k is relative to who you are, who you know and what you know. One persons 25k may actually look and del like 25k and anothers 250k+.

And you can do high concept on no budget. Again I depnds on what you can do.

 

[Joel Chu]

In search of a midnight kiss - 25k (that's what they say, but you know how the film budget vary ...)

 

[Joel Chu]

The great thing about the film biz, is that you can fail forward. That's because the act of even finishing a picture is so hard that it's viewed as a success and often you are asked to do another one. That's why in Hollywood we see a pic fail (seemingly) but the filmmaker gets another shot. The studios figure they have the skills, they just need a different script or star.

I actually know someone (no name sorry the said person is in UK) done a pretty horrible horror and guess what, he never sold it, but he manage to make 2 more! And none of them got sold (not even on DVD)

 

[Chris Pickle]

I actually know someone (no name sorry the said person is in UK) done a pretty horrible horror and guess what, he never sold it, but he manage to make 2 more! And none of them got sold (not even on DVD)

My theory was under the assumption that the film wasn't horrible. , just not brilliant, awesome, amazing, or groundbreaking.

 

[Joel Chu]

My theory was under the assumption that the film wasn't horrible. , just not brilliant, awesome, amazing, or groundbreaking.

true true

More about films that is shot on shoe string budget.

Nabi (2001) a sci-fi movies from Korea (shot under $35K)

Kim Ki Duk (Santa Maria) was shot under $50K (if I remember correctly)

Unforgiven (2007 Korea) this was actually a student film shot under $50K and won lots of awards.

And one film I involved with "Thunderfish" 2006 Japan. Shot with $10K (8 days to shoot) been show in UK and France. And it's a pretty good calling card for the director (Hirano is a novelist at the age of 21! and he written the script based on his own novel and direct it. Tetsuhiro the DP was only 22 years when he shoot that film and he is currently working as a professional DP) BTW the film was shot with a XL2

The thing is MAY BE some of this movies make their money back because the budget is so low (Thunderfish never got sold) but it works well for the film makers as calling card.

The way we are (The winner of the 2008 Hong Kong Academy awards) is shoe string (no exact number but it's no budget)

All about Lili Chuchu (Japan 2004) the first DV movies that being widely distribute in Japan. Based on a online novel written by the director (and many many register users) shoot with next to nothing.

Last one Chris Nolan - Following, the budget is different according to different people. Some say 6K (UK pounds) I take Elliot's number - 12K (cos Chris store the equipment at Raindance office during the shoot) and the rest is history

 

[Jaime Vallés]

Don't forget El Mariachi.

 

[jpp]

There's a caution here, though. It's true that you don't need millions to make a movie people will be willing to watch, but these ultra-low budget flicks do have an element of performance art about them.

In effect, the poverty of the production becomes part of the text, the drama itself. One or two such movies per season is about the limit, I think, though they can serve as useful calling cards, as argued above.

Incidentally, we could add maybe a dozen or so mumblecore movies to the list. I don't like them so didn't play them up, but most were made for well under $5,000 and some for as little as $2000 and less.