Festival Director Hassled by Cops for Screening FIlm

Melbourne Underground Film Festival finds controversy a familiar and worthwhile friend having just finished it's 12 year and once again basking in the glory of sharing films with the local community that would not otherwise be available to them.

Festival Director, Richard Wolstencroft, seems to embrace controversy whether it be the rebel in him or the do-gooder who simply feels people should have options and the right to choose and thereby brings it upon himself to ensure the Melbourne community has the opportunity to watch unique, experimental, off-beat films which are often a far cry from mainstream expectations.

A couple years ago, Wolstencroft wrote an open letter announcing that for MUFF's 10th anniversary the festival would run concurrently to MIFF screening the films MIFF refused to screen but that audiences had the right to watch. Withoutabox's reaction was to refuse to let MUFF take submissions on WAB. Being that WAB is the largest, best known and most widely used submission site in the world the affect the company can have on a festival isn't unnoticed. While WAB never officially gave a reason for such aggressive and harsh actions against The Little Fest That Could the submission service (or dictator) posted an unsigned notice for all to read to basically play nice or be in jeopardy of losing your fest too! Basically, it was a 'shut up and follow the lead and don't get out of line or you're next' notice.

Wolstencroft moved forward unfettered never steering from his plight to bring further diversity to the film world always questioning the right of others whether in his own country or internationally to dictate the viewing options of others.

Now in its 12th year, MUFF and Wolstencroft once have the privilege and honor to embrace controversy in the name of film. This time on behalf of Bruce LaBruce's LA ZOMBIE. While I haven't had the privilege to see LaBruce's latest work my daughter and I were fortunate enough to watch OTTO, UP WITH DEAD PEOPLE at Berlinale 2008 and to screen it at Strabourg Int'l Film Festival.

LaBruce is an artist. Yes, he's totally into gut fucking scenes and tons of gay sex. But hey, who's to say that's not simply a hardcore gay guy's version of THE BIG EASY or 9 1/2 WEEKS. Isn't it a matter of taste? I doubt LaBruce would get as much out of YOU'VE GOT MAIL as one of his own films.

Trivia: The only scene in OTTO, UP WITH DEAD PEOPLE LaBruce didn't direct was the orgy scene. Why? Because he was a participant, of course. LaBruce is clearly a hand's on director but so is Rob Reiner and was Hitchcock - both of whom frequently appeared in their films. LaBruce just comes from a different place with different objectives.

Why is it that we don't mind gratuitous tits flying about the screen endlessly but a pee-pee here and there or a little gut fucking and that's it! I guarantee you I don't want to take my daughter to films that exploit women or treat them like they are just a couple of boobies.

Is this a gay issues? Do we think that we can turn them all straight if we don't let them make their films? How many prison chick flicks have been run out of countries for being appropriate? How many have ever been appropriate? I'd guess NONE!

So the cops came banging at Wolstencroft's door demanding that he hand over the hot, sexy and gory gay zombie film by the prolific LA director, Bruce LaBruce. Quite unfortunately for them Wolstencroft had already destroyed his copy and had nothing to offer.

LaBruce did a Q&A after the screening we went to at the Berlin Film Festival. Berlinale was the film's international premiere. The film's world premiere took place at Sundance where 20 years before LaBruce had also premiere one of his films. LaBruce is down-t0-earth albeit rather perplexed as to why my 16-year-old daughter and I might wish to watch his film, perhaps. But honestly, art is art and the man is truly an artist and a filmmaker. By the way, my daughter did not turn into a gay, gut fucking zombie man although the goth child in her was totally into the film - not to mention the often strong acting, incredible cinematography and fabulous wardrobe. Rather, she's an honor student in college. See what bad parenting gets you! I swear I tried. ;-)

LaBruce is a filmmaker. He is not an exploitationist as are so many directors just showing tits to make a buck. LaBruce can't help it... the man love dick and sex and kicks ass in the world of art films. For this reason, we as an audience should not have the doors to his work shut on us. Nor should we be forced to see it. Rather, we should be given the right to choose our own options not have them dictated to us. LaBruce make it clear that porn can be a part of an art film and beautiful. Would I rather have beautiful, intriguing, artistic, sexually explicit gay sex scenes or random tits flying around the screen hoping that some numb minded 16-year-old boy with a hard-on will by the dvd and the full screened titties will get me some dvd distribution -hooba! Uh... going for the art, anyday.

You can read more about Wolstencroft's encounters with the police and LaBruce in Advocate.com.

One Filmmaker's 2 Cents on Withoutabox.com

The below filmmaker's take on Withoutabox.com seems to be a fairly consistent tune these days. Maybe if WAB treated filmmakers and festivals like the lifeline they are to WAB's existence instead of acting like a dictatorship the submission service wouldn't be experiencing the backlash that is pounding on its door. On a positive note, the easiest way to submit to a festival is directly!

"Why is Withoutabox like a dead mall that people don't use anymore?

Mostly it is dead because of the economy. People are barely getting by with a 10% percent unemployment rate. So no one has money to spend entering film festivals. Plus those entry fees can pile up fast.

Some filmmakers also just gave up on filmmaking. Who can blame them in this economy and an industry with an even higher unemployment rate. And it has become harder and harder for indie films to get released in this economy.

Plus Withoutabox became this sort of annoying and, dare I say it, arrogant middle man. Like you HAD to submit via Withoutabox for many major film festivals or you couldn't enter them. It was kind of like WTF? Why do we have to deal with Withoutabox? Many festivals don't use Withoutabox. But many still do.

Plus it was also the MySpace effect. MySpace was once seen as this big, unstoppable, popular thing. Now it is pretty much a joke. MySpace was seen as the cool networking site. But it is old hat now. I saw the film Kick-*** and the characters had MySpace pages and I thought, huh? People still use MySpace? Teenagers still use MySpace? It is all about Facebook now.

Withoutabox became sort of the same thing. Not relevant anymore. The Withoutabox site is a sad shadow of its former self. Sure, some old timers may still hang around and the ocassional fresh face. But that's it.

Withoutabox is like a dead mall. This big thing that was once popular but is now strangely empty and outdated.

And like a dead mall, it ain't comin' back.

Just my 2¢."

C.J.

How Valuable is Your Film?

One of the problems with putting films online for free is that it creates no commitment of interest on the side of the viewer. When an audience member pays to watch something there is more of a chance they will sit through the entire film.

Creating an environment where people are apt to walk away from or shut off your work is not how a film will be best viewed, appreciated, gain the most word-of-mouth or create great buzz.

In this new world of sharing and distributing films it is important to always respect your craft and to expect the same from your audience. If your work isn't worth paying for and so you give it away for free then is it really worth the viewer's time? What unconscious scenario do you want to set up for your work in the viewers mind? Treat your work as though it is valuable and your audience will be more inclined to do the same.

Festivals, Theaters & Filmmakers Working Together

As we all know, the market in the independent film world is changing. It is anybody's game and I've been a solid advocate of moving the ball into the hands of the filmmakers, keeping festivals strong and independent, as well as valuing alternative venues and independent film houses.

Nomadic Tendencies is the roaming arm of the Strasbourg International Film Festival which took SiFF into 8 venues throughout Strasbourg, France in it's first year, screened several of the films in Germany during the second year's festival and in SiFF's third year will bring both a 3-day retrospective and a 10-day film fest to the Beach Theater in St Pete Beach, FL.

One of the progressive moves SiFF's Nomadic Tendencies has made going into 2010 is its focused directive related to independent film distribution. The Beach Theater has agreed to give a limited theatrical run to any film playing at the SiFF Retro that sells out the 246 seat theater. The distribution deal will be a typical deal between the theater and independent filmmaker. In essence, the festival has helped facilitate self-distribution deals for filmmakers based on a film's performance during the festival run. The theater wants films that are in high demand and well received. Therefore, if a film sells out during its single screening during the retrospective then the theater is willing to bet that the film will play well during additional dates.

This is a win-win situation for all entities involved. The festival is most likely become more valuable to filmmakers as a result of the distribution opportunities available to films participating in the festival. The theater gains access indie films that it might not otherwise come in contact with and that it knows were well received. The filmmaker gets a foot in the door of self-distribution.

Many independent filmmakers still neglect promoting their films during festival dates. Rather, they tend to think that burden belongs to another. If the film is not in distribution (as is the case with most indie films particularly during the festival run) the responsibility of promotion belongs to the independent filmmaker. This sort of distribution opportunity makes it clear that a film can be self-distributed if the filmmaker is willing to put the effort into marketing and promoting their work. Every film has a niche. Every filmmaker has the opportunity to reach its potential audience and share their work. It is up to the filmmaker.

The time for change is here and it is happening. Many smaller, independent theaters have been going under because old ways of distribution no longer work. The Beach Theater is changing with the times and seeking advantageous strategies which will allow it to bring a wider range of films to its audience. The SiFF Retro is creating a mechanism by which the theater can pre-gauge independent films to see which are good fits for extended runs as a direct result of ticket sales. All the while, this strategy allows a tangible avenue to see real money for filmmakers as they are encouraged to reap the rewards of their savvy promotion and marketing skills.

Details: The Beach Theater has agreed to give qualifying films (films that sell out during the SiFF Retro) a 'limited theatrical run' of at least 3 screenings within the a year's time after the festival dates have ended. The deal a filmmaker works out with the theater will probably be dependent upon what the theater and filmmaker agree upon and how long they realistically feel the film can fill the seats. There is probably little reason to keep a film running longer than it can realistically hold an audience. The time period of within a year is to allow both parties time to be ready for a theatrical run. The theater will want the films to play in slots where they compliment other films in their line-up or where films are needed - not all weekends are big holiday weekends or leading up to the Oscars. Therefore, there is a lot of downtime when theaters have more wiggle room for what they screen. Additionally, an eligible film may want or need to wait until its festival run is over before going into an sort of distribution. This time frame allows flexibility for both entities. I hope these guidelines help other festivals, theaters and filmmakers when considering their options!

Join us in bringing festivals, theaters and filmmakers together!

Don't Give Your Film Away for Free

Many filmmakers, consultants and distributors are changing how people think about film and not for the better. While audience members were previously conditioned to pay for films, the new train of thought (seeminly forced upon audience members) is to give it to them for free and without profit to the filmmaker.

The thinking is that the money will come. The reality is that the money isn't coming, didn't come for the music industry, and soon will not be there at all for filmmakers if filmmakers don't start acting responsibly on their own behalf.

The problem is simple.
a) If you give it away for free why should someone pay for it?
b) If you give it away for free how are you going to make money off it?

Simply put, filmmakers are destroying their ability to create profit from their own work. Independent filmmakers seem to be the first to jump off this cliff and into the arms of poverty. Why? Perhaps, in part, out of desperation. It is important for filmmakers to share their work with others. But at what cost? The price of impoverishment is too high. Indie filmmakers put everything they have (heart, soul, time and money) on the line to make their films. For them to give their work away for free is not acceptable and filmmakers need to stop doing it.

Filmmakers need to have faith in their work and faith in their audience. History shows that people are willing to pay for films. If your film is worth seeing then it is worth paying for. If not, please don't waste anyone's time with it and try to do better next time or find a new profession. If you believe in your film then you need to believe in yourself and your audience, as well. You need to trust your film and believe it will make money over time. Reservoir Dogs was not an immediate hit. It gained word of mouth, grew feet and moved forward. Tarantino was not in a position where he could have given his film away for free online. One wonders if people would have been less interested in it if it were that overly available. If that sort of access would have decreased it's overall word of mouth and appeal.

The Problem with Online Ads
The problem with online ads is that there simply isn't enough ad money to go around and those who are creating the sites need that money to function and pay their own expenses - not to mention it's just not enough money on a per film basis to equal the value and worth of your project. I recently visited a beautiful site called, OpenFilm. I love the look of it. It's cool. The problem is that a filmmaker will be hard pressed to ever make more than a couple bucks every couple of months off it. (OpenFilm offers a 50/50 deal on ad revenue for films that get advertisting.) Another problem is that most filmmakers won't know that upfront so they might think it's a good deal, put their film up, and only later realize it isn't profitable for them. In the meantime, this online venue just gave away your film for free... along with tons of other indie films. None of you made any money and you just taught the audience not to pay for your work. Tell me how that benefits you? I'm not looking for enemies here, not meaning to bad mouth the site, but do want people to start thinking about what they are doing and why. Even if OpenFilm has the best intentions, it's not a sustainable option for indie filmmakers. Where's the money? If you are a filmmaker making money on OpenFilm, then leave a comment telling us how much you are making monthly of the site and the name of your film. I will be happy to be wrong. The project has some very cool people attached to it whose intentions are undoubtedly to help the indie film world!

Honestly, if you don't think your film is worth paying for, why should I... or any other audience member. If you think it's only worth seeing if it's seen for free then it's probably not worth seeing at all. Now that may not be true, but I'd guess a lot of people think that way.

As an audience member, I just want to see good films. I don't want to see just anything. My time is limited and valuable. I have a saying, "Not everything free is worth having." Therefore, I'm skeptical of things that might be offered to me for free. The question is, "Do I really want this?" The answer is unknown when it comes to films. But my immediate thought is that they're only going to give me the crap for free. The other stuff I'll need to pay for. How do you want people to think of your film? Crap? Or worth seeing?

That being said, there are tons of really good films offered for free online. This is a shame and will hurt both those films and the film industry in general - both for studio films as well as independent films. Independent filmmakers need to stand up, be counted and lead the way. Do not expect someone else is taking care of you. It is not happening. Middlemen can't even figure out how to take care of themselves, they sure can't figure out how to take care of you. That's okay, but know it and take charge of your own destiny and the destiny of your film.

Why Filmmakers Cannot Depend on Online Ads
I will share my personal experience. I have a few websites that bring in approximately 30K hits a month. On average the sites make $65 per month combined as a result of online advertising. All but one of the sites brings in money through other means. Therefore, the online ad money pays for the site, but nothing else really. The money is made through actual money made from sales made from the site. For example, let's say you have a dog grooming site where the site makes $5 a month from ad revenue and $800 from revenue generated as a result of what you actually sell on the site (such as grooming services, dog collars and doggie travel bags.) This is where the money is made. Trying to live off the $5 is never going to work. Waiting endlessly for the $5 to increase to a decent revenue probably isn't going to work either. Selling products that generate income works! Filmmakers aren't doing this, but they need to start.

How Can Filmmakers Make Money Online
Sell your film(s) for a profit - a reasonable price, don't scalp the consumer or their look for a better option generally a free one (think of the problems the music industry ran into as a result of overcharging). Additionally, sell merchandise. Cool merchandise is best and will vary from film to film. Pencils, magnets, t-shirts, note pads, stickers, posters, messenger bags, etc. You have something cool. Let people who like it buy more of it. By the way, isn't that exactly what the majors do? So do it. Act like a filmmaker. Sell your film and make money!

Allow the indie audience the opportunity to buy your film and merchandise and show it off to their friends... yes! they truly are the coolest indie film lover they know and are willing to prove it by wearing your t-shirt of the coolest film they've seen in the last 5 years, etc. Remember, as they show off their cool buys they are also selling your film to a much larger audience. Trust your film and your audience. Embrace your passion and allow it to work for you and your audience. Don't be cheap and sell yourself short by giving it away for free.

When it is time, put your film online for a profit. If a venue is not available yet, wait. It will be. Respect your audience. In doing so, they will respect you. Trust yourself. In doing so, your audience will trust you. Help the independent film world become self sufficient simply by trusting the field you've devoted so much of your life to. It's that simple. Now do it!