Digital by Design at Tribeca Film Festival

TFF 2011 put out a slate of several free talks geared toward discussing the current and future nature of the film industry. Digital by Design was one of them...

Digital by Design was broken down into three parts - funding, rights and distribution - each to be tackled separately by the five panelists - Eugene Hernandez (EH - Director of Digital Strategy at the Film Society of Lincoln Center), Michael Lang (ML - CEO of Miramax), John Sloss (JS - Founder of Cinetic Media and Sloss Eckhouse LawCo LLP), Trevor Kaufman (TK - CEO of Possible Worldwide), and Tom Lesinkski (TL - President of Digital at Paramount)- and moderated by Richard Whittington (RW - Senior VP of Media and Entertainment at SAP). The panel was strong coming from diverse fields and viewpoints within the industry allowing for a wide variety of opinions on topics and a wealth of information for audience members. A gift from Tribeca to help inspire, educate and move our industry forward.

Most of what I’ll write below will be snippets based on my utter lack of time and my attempt to keep this article below 5 pages which has proven an attainable feat as of late...

Funding

ML - feels that creating fewer films for less will bring about better quality

JS - didn’t think this year’s Sundance films were as good as in year’s past

-felt that films sold for ‘roles’ (who was in the film) rather than quality of film

-felt that up to 80% of the films sold at Sundance in 2011 sold for VOD

EH - technology is great for films but not the business concerned with the economics

TL - there are only 3/4 as many beans in the jar digital distribution is mainly via piracy and free films

-videos are 30% down while digital has seen an overall 5% increase in the business overall

-not a huge fan of crowd-sourcing suggesting using an ad supported model instead

TK - brands and independent filmmakers have not figured out how to get together, yet

- challenge is online advertising vs online sponsorship

-online advertising is very low end money, very low CPM

EH - supports using crowd-sourcing entities such as Kickstarter

RW - Aisan online $4 billion

JS - Kevin Smith has 1.8 million followers on Twitter, markets film directly to public

ML - lack of innovation protects jobs

-it is safer to blame the ad agency (safe bet) then to try something new (risky)

JS - art is truth, film is storytelling - mix both

TK - brands comfortable with TV level budgets

ML - Premium ad space with little-to-no user generated programming

JS - Kickstarter does not necessarily translate to mass audiences

Rights

ML - Rights are hard to define

- presell at the Cannes Film Festival

JS - limited rights as only one protal at a time

- he sees himself as a bit of a Pollyanna

ML - endless inventory online, positive

EH - advises indie filmmakers speak with John Sloss (JS) before the others on the panel, thinks JS has good advice

- if you were in Tribeca Film Festival this year speak with TFF filmmakers from last year

ML - Theater exhibition is not over, find balance

TK - video games make more money than movies

- Microsoft says they are the biggest cable company in the world (because of games)

TL - Transmedia not worth investing in upfront, can't plan for it but it is a great experience when it works

EH - Shorts are not worth getting into theaters when it is easier to just put them on YouTube

JS - packaged short content will work in the future

ML - just get your product out there

- ESPN paid to be on cable in the beginning now it gets something like $4 per subscriber

- don't overprice your online content

EH - prefers free, loves various devices

JS - SVOD and ad driven models are the way of the future

ML - consumer product is terrible

- why buy when you can rent

- need better clouds

- better price points are needed

- a huge number of people love to own content

JS - hates product placement but loves Brands

head-on branding is fine if it entertains

TK - branding films is a good idea but hard to execute because bad is bad so you must be careful

Where will we be two years from now?

TL - films on Facebook

TK - says there may be a demise of cable in two years

- says that in AOL's old model it has assess, content and advertising but then audiences started expanding their reach and moving off that one source for what they wanted

---

My notes are limited. The entire talk is available online via Tribeca Film Festival.

Digital by Design was a valuable conversation which can be viewed in its entirety via TribecaFilm.com. The panelists are forerunners in their fields. Whether or not you agree with them it is invaluable that you understand what people are thinking and saying in the industry. Such knowledge allows for more informed indie filmmakers which will give you an inevitable edge in the industry when it comes time to promote, sell and make money off your work.

Your Film is Your Golden Goose

Hello My Wonderful Filmmakers,

I’m putting on my gloves and up for a fight. I want you, indie filmmakers, to hold onto your rights. I want you to be the ones to profit from your films. Everything I hear and read advises the contrary. Give up your rights, you’ll make the system happy and if they really like you they may let you give up your rights next time, too! It’s like filmmakers are a bunch of neglected children vying for the attention of abusive, uninterested parents who will never show up for them. Stop it. Stop it now! Grow up. Take responsibility for your work and make money. You deserve it. Your film deserves it. Audiences deserve it!

It is essential you understand that the ‘your film has no monetary value’ mentality is a load of crap built to work on behalf of ‘the system’, not you. You need to stop buying into the rhetoric even if it is all you ever hear. It is simply not true. Nor does it need to be your story. If you give your no-to-low budget film to a middleman then that company thinks your work is good enough to potentially make some serious cash because they have learned from past experience that indie films can have some of the highest profit margin of any type of film or because they are building a film library and want all the films they can grab... often at the expense of the independent filmmaker.

Not all middlemen are equal. Paramount or Warner Bros fall into a different category then an online distributor who wants your rights - even if the rights are ‘non-exclusive’. It is important to know whether or not the entity you are working with is acquiring your rights or if you are maintaining full control and ownership over them. If the entity is acquiring the rights, for how logn and to what degree? Many filmmakers have mistakenly given up lifetime non-exclusive rights of their films to online entities. This is a fool’s error. Please don’t cut off our nose despite your face. If you give away partial rights forever, this can potentially hurt you forever. Most often, in an online environment no money is given to the filmmaker for this exchange.

If your film is potentially profitable then you can make money off it. So do it! No one without exception has discovered the path to making money for filmmakers through online distribution, not even the studios. Therefore, the potential for financial long term gain is very real and very much there and you should be the one to profit... and can be. So don’t be led astray by other people’s greed or self-interested business savvy.


Types of Filmmakers - What Kind Are You?

There are different types of filmmakers. Below are a few basic and distinctly different types. Each is and should be treated differently but with equal respect.

1. Big Budget Studio
2. The Mogul
3. Director for Hire
4. The Indie Filmmaker

This article is for the Indie Filmmaker in regards to their work. It is essential that all categories are acknowledged and that a filmmaker has a genuine understanding of which category they fit into. Do you work for a studio? Are you a mogul? Are you a gun for hire? Or, are you an independent filmmaker?

Oftentimes independent filmmaker want to fall into one of the top three categories thereby dismissing the reality of where they are and belong and how their position can benefit them. Often indie filmmakers believe that by way of surrendering their indie film they will somehow magically fall into one of the other categories, when the reality is that they will have simply given their film to another so that distributing entity, instead of the independent filmmaker, can profit from the film.

Brown-nosing makes you a sucker and puts you at the mercy of another. It’s never an advantageous or desirable position from which to work. How is it that so many independent filmmakers wimp out at the end after working so hard, fearlessly and diligently to create the work in the first place. Most distribution deals for independent filmmakers offer financial rewards that are slim-to-nill. Is that really what you want? Because if that is all you agree to then that is all you will get! Be responsible to yourself and to your film. Change the conversation into one that benefits both you and your work.

The self-dismissal of the importance of an independent film or the independent filmmaker is easy to understand. Everyone says that ‘there is no money in indie filmmaking’ and that what you really want is to make studio films or to get paid upfront for your work. That being said, Paranormal Activity (2007) is the most profitable film ever made. Paramount bought it. Paramount made the profits. In today’s world, production costs can be very low and profits can be very high. Online distribution isn’t settled. Keep your rights. Allow yourself to gain the financial benefits in this new territory. It’s your right because it’s your work!

Just the other day at the ‘No Fear for the Future of Indie Film’ conference one of the organizers told me that independent filmmakers want to make studio films and that is why they are willing to give their films away for free because that is how it has always been and that independent filmmakers ‘want to be part of the system’. I assured her that there is no ‘how its always been’ since we’re in new territory and no one has found a way to profit from online distribution for indie films, yet. Besides, who wants to be part of a system that isn’t profitable for you or doesn’t support you? Get real!

What independent filmmakers have always wanted is to profit from their films. They have never wanted to be broke with a second job. They’ve wanted to be rich beyond their wildest dreams from their own creations. Ask Tarantino.

Online distribution potentially allows independent filmmakers to profit from their films like never before. They no longer need to be a slave to the system. They can now begin to make real money. That is... if they don’t give their rights away. If they keep their rights and make the money then they can continue to make the films they want to make without surrendering their dreams, livelihood and profits to a studio or other distribution avenue. If they give away the rights to their film the entity that picked up the rights will be the one to profit.

Someone will profit from distributing independent films online. Let it be the filmmakers. Let it you! This is ultimately a choice that each and every filmmaker who owns the rights to their film will make for themselves. Filmmakers do not need to give up the rights to their work. They can use it as leverage for future profits which can then directly support their immediate livelihood as well as future projects.

Independent filmmakers are in new territory. They are being told to sell their films (often for absolutely nothing). As Douchbag’s director put it ‘I was hoping to sell it to IFC for 20 bucks’. Although he said it with a laugh, he was able to laugh because he sold it to a studio, not IFC. Those who have sold their work to IFC haven’t made much off their sweat, dreams and achievements. On the other hand, IFC is thriving. Do you want to thrive or do you want the corporate heads at IFC to thrive. Truly it is your choice. If it is your work then it is your choice!

It is clear that those who own the work are profiting off the films or at least have the potential to profit from the work in the future. It is also clear that the person without the rights or ownership does not have the right to profit from the film. So the nagging question is ‘Why would an independent filmmaker sell their film if there is nothing in it for them and someone else is flourishing off their work or will potentially gain from it later?” Much of this answer rests in one simple word ‘Fear’. Filmmakers are people. People often let fear rule the day. Filmmakers are told [by (1) the industry and (2) well-meaning types who might be guided by fear or not have a clear understanding of the business end of film] that an independent filmmaker’s only hope is to sell their work, hope it makes a studio money, try to make another film that gets picked up and repeat.

Filmmakers, you are not morons so I expect you to stop acting like brainless twits ... IMMEDIATELY.

At the ‘No Fear’ conference held at the Tribeca Film Festival on this past April 22, Harvey Weinstein said that it was his intention from the beginning to build a large library and to sell it for a profit. He said he got a lot of ridicule from people (like Peter Bart of Variety - who now is kinder toward the man) who could not see or understand Weinstein’s vision.

If Weinstein can do it, so can you. Jim Jarmusch does it. For the most part he has kept the rights to his films and profited from them which has not only allowed him to make more films but has also allowed him to support himself. Did you hear that? SUPPORT HIMSELF! Do you support yourself? If not, maybe you should take heed from someone who does. Harvey Weinstein supports himself from the profits of the films he has produced and owns. He sold his library for $660 million dollars. Are you listening to him or someone who hasn’t made any money from their work because they keep giving their films away for free or for pennies on the dollar? Over in TV world, Oprah has done just fine for herself... but she hasn’t given her golden goose away. How about you? What have you done with your golden goose? Your film lays the golden eggs. If you no longer have the film then the golden eggs belong to someone else and that person will profit from the goose, not you. Perhaps you will make more in the long run if you keep the goose and allow it to lay the golden eggs for you!


Filmmaking is a Profession, Not a Hobby

Filmmaking is a profession. A career. A very important job. If you say otherwise, slap yourself into correct thinking. If other filmmakers you know berate the role of a filmmaker, set them straight or move away from them. Filmmaking brings in billions of dollars every year. This is your industry. Keep it. Own it. Be proud of it! Profit from it! Do not belittle it. Embrace it. Know that profits exist. Know you have a right to those profits. Don’t be bullied out of your money by ignorance, rhetoric, intimidation, misinformation or greed - by those that aren’t foolish and knows the true value and worth of your work!

A couple years ago, filmmaker, Ted Hope, wrote an article which encouraged filmmakers to put their films online for free. The article was sent around and Hope’s words were touted as wise and supported throughout the system and all too often heeded by admiring filmmakers newer to the business.

At the time, Ted suggested that exposure was what was really important and not to worry because the money would work itself out. This suggestion seemed rather fool-hearted. You can’t just base your future on a whim and a prayer hoping that someone else will set things right for you. There are no knights in white armor protecting your golden goose. If you don’t get on that horse and fight for your own financial survival then someone else who preys on your ignorance will be happy to profit from your foolery.

Today, I read an article by Ted which, in effect, stated that as a filmmaker you need a second job, that filmmaking won’t support you, and that he hated reading scripts because he didn’t want to fall in love with anything since he knew he’d never make a buck. Basically, the man seems broken and completely discouraged. He claims to have made over 65 films. That’s one heck of a library. What happened? Where’s the profit? He is respected within our community. It’s like he lost the ball with no hope of ever finding it again. Might I suggest you stop following him. I wish him well. I do not wish him the ability to help you dig the same hole for yourselves that he has dug for himself, both professionally and personally, from the money he has chosen not to make from his craft.

Ted wrote the articles for IndieWire. IndieWire is owned by SnagFilms. SnagFilms puts your documentaries online for free (and those of Ted Hope, I would assume, based on his support for the failed system). FOR FREE! At the TFF ‘No Fear’ conference Rick Allen, CEO of SnagFilms, said that filmmakers received 50% of all gross profits from all revenues including ad revenues, etc. That means 50 cents on each dollar off the top, not after SnagFilms’ expenses and overhead have been paid. If that’s the case why is Ted so damned broke?!?

Ted’s articles appear on SnagFilms’ IndieWire. Do you see a correlation? SnagFilm bought IndieWire to promote the business of SnagFilm according to Rick Allen. This makes IndieWire a site of propaganda with a specific agenda rather than an unbiased news source. Basically, it makes IndieWire the equivalent of a savvy product placement.

By the way, I’ve never heard of any filmmakers that have made any money from SnagFilms. Have you? The site has been up for at least a couple years. If you have made money from the site or know of someone who has, please speak up in the comments box below. We want a true and honest assessment of how putting your film up for free has financially benefited you, the filmmaker. From Ted’s article, it sounds like the death of a filmmaker, their vision, their dream and their vitality. His article was meant to help realistically guide filmmakers, one would assume, but ‘getting a second job to support your career as a filmmaker because money will never come your way’ isn’t very encouraging... and simply is not an acceptable business model for independent filmmakers. Period!

TheGrill@Tribeca: An Objective Viewpoint

Setting the Stage

So I came home and told my daughter that Jane was humble and I liked Weinstein. She laughed saying that no one likes Weinstein and this was the first time she had ever heard someone say a kind word about him. I suggested that he’s an indie mogul in a studio world and that could be a threat to some.

One of the things Harvey asked the audience was ‘at what budget is a film no longer an indie?’. One audience member belted out ‘$20 million’ while another shouted out ‘$10 million’ and another said something like ‘five thousand’. I guess everyone has a different interpretation and definition of independent film. Do you think indie film’s definition is based on the budget? Is Harvey a mogul or an independent? Can a mogul make independent movies when so enwrapped in high-end financing deals? Why would we only give this credo to studios? Studios are no longer the only film producing entities with deep pockets. $5,000 for a film sounds pretty independent. $20 million does not. Astute of Weinstein to question it.

First up was Sharon Waxman. Sharon started a blog called The Wrap which is now a full blown entertainment news site... I think. The Wrap’s website does say “Covering Hollywood”. Covering it with a blanket? Covering the news objectively? Exactly how is The Wrap covering Hollywood? I ask this because news sources are supposed to be impartial but - like many others out there these days - The Wrap seems anything but impartial toward how their news (information?) is portrayed. In fact, the website seems to have a vested interest in the outcome.

The Wrap does not stand alone in this presentation of biased coverage. IndieWire is owned by SnagFilms. This very morning Rick Allen, CEO of SnagFilms, touted using IndieWire to promote the films in SnagFilms roster. This does not sound very objective for a news source. Wait. Is IndieWire a news source or a propaganda tool to market and promote SnagFilms’ agenda? Hmmm. Let’s see what IndieWire says about themselves. Their tagline is “Filmmakers. Biz. Fans.” IndieWire’s ‘About’ page claims ‘The leading news, information, and networking site for independent-minded filmmakers, the industry and moviegoers alike...’ Okay, so IndieWire is claiming to be a legitimate news source while having a very specific agenda. Doesn’t that create bias, a conflict of interest, and preferential treatment? Do you want a tobacco company telling you how good or bad tobacco is for you or do you want an independent, unbaised review of the product?

A Waxman Introduction

So Sharon welcomed everyone to the event. By the way, the event was $500 per head. Only a couple filmmakers were present who were not invited to sit on the panel. This was not an event designed for filmmakers. Perhaps to prove the point the entrance bar was so high that it kept most interested, non-industry types away by simply setting an exorbitant ticket price.

Sharon suggested that independent films have ‘a challenged business model’ and encouraged debate, questions and conversation... apparently not from filmmakers since they couldn’t afford to sit with the elite who are preparing to financially thrive off their films.

Maybe it’s better to simply instruct filmmakers on what they need rather than to allow them to have a say in the process? Perhaps that would allow industry types to keep more of the profit and more easily control the direction of the future for independent filmmakers.

Studios, moguls and independent filmmakers fall into different categories and when we choose to lump them all together those at the bottom of the food chain tend not to have a voice and get whatever is left... if anything is left.

So if I understand correctly, independent film has a ‘challenged business model’ and this conference orchestrated by The Wrap decided to limit access and participation to the event by indie filmmakers. By the way, several independent filmmakers arrived at the event trying to get in but were not allowed access because they could not afford the price of the ticket and no exceptions were permitted. Another noteworthy point is that TheWrap had ultimate say in which media were allowed into the event. The Wrap’s website states in part, “In order to curate and balance the audience, media attendance will be by invitation-only.” ‘Curate and balance’ could be replaced with ‘Control and limit’ or... you fill in the blanks.

Jane and Geoff

First up were Jane Rosenthal and Geoff Gilmore. I’d like to say that Jane is lovely. She wore a cute, simple black pseudo 60’s mini, black stockings and thigh high black suede boots. Lovely!

Sharon introduced Jane as someone who had worked on many successful indies including ‘About a Boy’. Jane was quick to differentiate between studio and indie films clarifying that most of the films she had worked on were not indies but rather studio projects, including ‘About a Boy’.

Jane was honest and humble and ‘highly optimistic about where we’re (online distribution) going’. Gilmore questioned how to find visibility for independent films claiming the problems today were in many ways the same as 20 years ago, and wondering how to find audiences for the independent film market. Gilmore acknowledged ‘new emerging companies’ and stated that traditional ways no longer work - such as critics, traditional advertising, etc. Some people were surprised by Gilmore’s assertion based on the sighs of exasperation that were heard throughout the room.

Sharon went on to address the catastrophic box office for this year thus far. (Note: Largely, studios and theaters have agreed that last year was a very good year and the films this far simply haven’t been as good blowing the differential somewhat out of skew.) Waxman asked what the biggest issue was facing indie film. Gilmore suggested an ‘importance of driving visibility’ while Rosenthal noted that people ‘under 45-years-old are platform agnostic’.

Waxman stated that the future of online distribution was problematic because it was hard to monetize and exclaimed that NATO (National Association of Theater Owners) complains about the quality of films. Rosenthal addressed the underlying problems creating the lack of quality on screens today being that over-bloated budgets and salaries are limited to a certain type of director creating a watered down final version. Waxman said, “that’s on the filmmaking community to fix”. (Note: Actually, if the films are made by the studios then it is the studio that is held responsible for the final product, not the overall community of filmmakers.)

Gilmore questioned if watching a film on a device creates a lack of immersion thereby, by effect or design, creating the need for a different type of film. Rosenthal feels that while there is a sense of intimacy created by watching films on a computer in the privacy of one’s own space she also enjoys the interaction and laughter from the communal experience of a theater.

The conversation with Jane and Geoff should have been longer. Both were quite interesting and it would have been advantageous if audience had received more in depth insight from the leaders of the Tribeca Film Festival.

Then came Harvey Weinstein...

I wasn’t sure what I was going to think of this man. He gets a lot of bad press. Ends up that he is just passionate about film and a good business man who thinks long-term. He screened a trailer of ‘The Submarine’ which is a little English indie film he bought at the Toronto International Film Festival. He was interested in seeing the audience reaction. This man gets excited about film.

When asked what his assessment is of indie films, Weinstein said that lots of independent films did well last year. For example, he brought a King’s Speech to audiences in 2010.

Weinstein hears rumblings that he’s ‘all about the Oscar’. His assertion is that the Oscar is a good catalyst which gets people in seats siting the example when Travolta said the he wasn’t interested in seeing the Australian made independent film ‘The Piano’ until after its Oscar nod. While Travolta still did not like the film, the Oscar attention did convince him to buy a theater ticket.

Weinstein believes that people want to go to the movies but the film community ‘needs to find a model that fits’. He also reminded doubters that independent films have been making money and finding audiences for a long time - films such as Scary Movie, Inglorious Bastards, King’s Speech, etc.

Weinstein feels that fewer distributors, for now, is a good thing and will remain so until the US has a better appetite for avant-garde films, like France. He mentioned the NEA (?). Perhaps he was referring to France’s National Endowment for the Arts equivalent? Not sure. Note: CNC (National Cinema Center in France) directly and indirectly controls everything that has to do with film, in France, from funding both low and high budget films to distribution in theaters. The problem with a socialized system for films is that the system determines which films are made and seen. This heavily impacts who can bring what into theaters. Such a system creates a door too heavy to be opened by many, if not most, filmmakers who don’t have an ‘in’ or cannot efficiently work within the system or do not have a story the system wants told. For example, Arte (France’s main creator of documentary films) is funded by the government which brings into question the freedom of documentaries to tell unbiased stories. Independent films created outside of a government or studio system have greater opportunity to express views that are not watered down, controversial, or might be potentially in conflict with a government’s own views.

Weinstein feels it is better to keep independent films out of the theaters to make room for the big films. (Question: Would he feel that way if he didn’t have ‘big films’ that needed distribution?) That being said, he spoke of a film that was doing quite well at the box office, a while back, and another film that was small and not very marketable, Weinstein refused to allow theaters to take his larger more profitable film if they did not also agree to screen his smaller film.

It is clear that Weinstein loves theaters and feels there is a place for theater in today’s movie world as well as that of tomorrow. But, he does not feel bad for theater chains because their parent owners are often - ‘not to name any names... AMC’ - very wealthy with market caps of $10-20 billion. Waxman proclaimed that Weinstein was no pauper which Weinstein responded to with saying that he ‘lives well, works hard and is proud of both’. He explained that the initial success he experienced he did not appreciate but that after he lost it and regained it he learned to appreciate what he had.

Waxman addressed a recent lawsuit where Weinstein is being sued by a filmmaker because they would like to, perhaps, distribute their film through another distribution company although the filmmaker has an existing contract with Weinstein. (Note to filmmakers: Make sure you are ready to give up your distribution rights before you do it. Often, there is no backtracking once the deal is signed. What is no longer yours, is no longer yours.)

Weinstein explained that at age 19 he worked for Paul McCartney who had a large library and from that experience he learned to value, and the value of, a large library. He explained that from the beginning he and his brother had the intention of creating a large film library to later sell for a huge profit. The mogul shared with the audience that ‘libraries are big business’ and to ‘think library’. (Note to filmmakers: Libraries are big business for those who control the library. Jim Jarmucsh has a tendency to hold on the the rights of his films which allows him to create and profit from his work. Oprah has retained ownership of her work. Weinstein believes in keeping ownership, as well. If you sell your film, you will not be the one who profits from it. This is not a statement made for ‘Directors for Hire’. This statement is for those who actually own the rights of their work and then need to decide whether or not to keep those rights. It is wise to consider long-term benefits and gains. If your work is worth the investment of another, perhaps it is also worth holding onto the rights for future profits? Only the owner of the film can make that decision. The important thing is to remember that more than one option exists and you control your own destiny by way of your own actions.) Weinstein’s former company, Miramax, sold for $660 million. He feels that Miramax is currently in good hands and likes the direction in which the new management is taking the company stating that he works well with them. Weinstein says that he’ll have his library back with the debt paid off within 2-3 years.

He says that indie films are doing fine and that 2011 will be his best year ever financially, even outgrossing the Miramax years. He said that last year was okay, he was able to live off Inglorious Basterds. Weinstein believes that VOD is catching up claiming that King’s Speech will probably do $12-15 million.

When asked where he was going, Weinstein resoundly stated that ‘We’re going to stay the same.’ that he is good at what he does and runs into trouble when stepping outside his box. He consults with others when need be but stays within his comfort zone. He said that he is learning to appreciate success and that that losing it made him humble which made him grateful for the success when he got it back.

Before screening the trailer of ‘Submarine’ he explained Ben Stiller’s Executive Producer credit like this ‘Ben did it because it was a good thing to do not because there was anything in it for him’ which Weinstein felt showed Stiller’s love and commitment for the medium.

For filmmakers, Weinstein’s advice is to ‘own the material’ and says ‘you’ll jump to the front of the line.’

Waxman asked how hard it is to raise capital. Weinstein said that it depends on the script. A script about a stuttering king is a hard sell where as a film starring Brad Pitt where Johnny Depp runs off with the girl might not be.

What I walked away with from this Keynote Speaker (Note: I thought Keynote Speakers were not Q&As but rather the speaker directly addressing the audience... No?) was that, as an industry, we are lucky to have this man among us because he genuinely likes film - large and small. He gets excited about it. He’s passionate about it and he’s a good enough business man to have brought an awful lot of worthwhile films to you and me.

In Conclusion

Tribeca Film Festival would like this conference to become an annual event. Perhaps next year, the festival will have the event sponsored by a different entity to ensure balance and objectivity. Having one media source limit the access to an event for other media outlets makes the event appear non-objective with a direct conflict of interest. It is doubtful such an event would intentionally be presented in such a way by the festival.

There were rumblings that the event did not break even as a result of the over-price tickets and that the line-up was somewhat weak. Case in point, a self-proclaimed nerd that Waxman often seemed bored by while questioning was the sole panelist for a half-hour talk on Transmedia which was twice as much time as Waxman allotted to Rosenthal and Gilmore for ‘The Landscape: Indie Film and Its Future - Now” and only 15 minutes less than the allotted time for Weinstein.

Apparently, balls were up in the air over at The Wrap and no one was really taking responsibility for complete and suitable panels. It was not beneficial to the audience that the second half of the event seemed thrown together and not well thought out. This is not a slam against those who participated in the second half of the conference, more an observation of what was not there yet sorely missed.

The Grill is DeNiro's restaurant in Tribeca. Throughout the restaurant are is a permanent collection of DeNiro's father's artwork. It's quite lovely and a beautiful tribute and sign of respect and love for his father.