Sundance vs The Independent Filmmaker

• 

  16 hours ago

  Adam Montgomery (Manager of Programming for Sundance Film Festival)
  

  • So now you've made it so that comments only display pending your approval? Typical. (Actually, comments have always been subject to approval. Previously, you stated your inability to post was due to the length of your comment (Adam's words: "I will send you the text of the comment I was trying to post-- I think that it won't let me because it's too long.") not the comment itself. No change has been made on how comments are accepted to this blog which is very 'typical' of the way I do things. I see you did have a comment pending this time around. Your first sentence was, "You're really lame." Uhmmm, if a person cannot be respectful or refrain from acting like he's in the third grade then he doesn't get to post comments on my blog. Act like an adult or take your whiny little ass somewhere else. That sort of behavior isn't welcome here and is part of the reason all comments must be approved. Although, the main reason comments need approval is to avoid spam.)

    

  • So much for "anyone can post comments." (Okay, I'll rephrase. Anyone acting like a civilized, respectfully communicative adult can post. Rude, indignant brats can see if their comments get through but should not hold their breath as such behavior is not appreciated or easily tolerated here. There! Feel better?)
    

  • You have completely misinterpreted everything I wrote. I never asked you to take your post down-- (Adam wrote: "you might simply want to retract your previous statements and post the text of my comments...") I merely requested that you post my comments because your blog wasn't allowing me to post them myself. (Really? Read your words above!)

  • I stupidly thought that if you read my comments, you might change your opinion-- I was wrong, and that's perfectly fine, because you obviously have the right to your own opinion. However, in this case, it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of simply reading the TOS. (Which Terms of Service? The old one that I wrote the blog about or the new one which Withoutabox created due to the demand and concern by filmmakers that use the service? The current Terms of Service on Withoutabox is NOT the same Terms of Service that was up and which I initially blogged about. This means that the blog was helpful to and constructive for filmmakers and that it forced Withoutabox to change the Terms of Service to better suit filmmakers. I'm damn proud of this and will not take the blog down. It serves a purpose to remind filmmakers of where Withoutabox is coming from and what Withoutabox is capable of. It is not only Withoutabox. I've had filmmakers tell me Vimeo has the same wording and it has been suggested that YouTube also uses the same wording. I have personally seen the same wording on Prescreen. I know that Sundance did have a little site with some films up - I saw it over a year ago but couldn't find it more recently. The Sundance VOD site said that they owned the films on the site. Maybe you could explain how Sundance came about acquiring the rights to all those films. One of the problems for filmmakers is that if they talk about it then chances are Sundance will never accept another one of their films. Since I am not a filmmaker and not looking for a job in the industry, I can tackle these weighty subjects without concerns that most in the industry might have. I asked you before to see Sundance's contracts with filmmakers. Why haven't you sent it? Do you have something to hide? If not, send it over. I want the opportunity to evaluate it.) (All of the sources that formed the basis of my comments were taken directly from the user agreement that YOU originally posted. (Actually, the source you used was WAB's internal download contract that was recently changed and the source I quoted was the Terms of Service at Log In for Withoutabox which would supersede/blanket the internal download agreement.)
    

    
    

  • Nobody needs to take my word for it-- it's all written very clearly in your original post. It isn't my fault that you have interpreted it incorrectly. (I have not interpreted it incorrectly. If I had, WAB would have sued me by now! Below is WAB's original TOS which is also posted in my original post. While it is true that nothing is conveyed (which means transferred) it is also true that 'you do grant WAB a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any material you submit to WAB, including Content, throughout the world in any media.' which basically gives shared ownership so that the filmmaker would no longer have full and exclusive rights to their own film. Of course, this would water down their potential earning power in the long run while building a huge film library for WAB or any other service acting in such a clandestine manner.)

    
    

    

  • 13. Proprietary rights, limitations on use
    

    
    

    Nothing in this TOS conveys to you any rights or ownership in our or any other parties' copyrights, trademarks, patents or trade secrets ("Intellectual Property"). Similarly, we do not acquire any right or ownership in your Intellectual Property when you use our Services. However, you do grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any material you submit to us, including Content, throughout the world in any media. You grant us and our sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such material. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the materials you submit, including the Content; that these materials are accurate; and that use of these materials does not violate our site's policies and will not cause injury to any person or entity. You grant us the right to copy, retransmit, encrypt or otherwise manipulate your data for the purposes of storing the information on our system, transmitting it across the Internet, securing it, or submitting it to film festivals or other parties as requested by you. Without limiting the foregoing, the Services, the Content, the computer software used in connection with the Service ("Software"), the name, Without A Box," the names of our advertisers, and the information provided by advertisers are proprietary or contain proprietary information that is protected by applicable intellectual property and other laws. Except as expressly authorized by us (or if applicable our advertisers if the content or name belongs to them), you agree not to copy, redistribute, sell, modify, create derivative works from, decompile, or exploit for any commercial purpose, the Services, the Content, the Software or any trademarks, except as specifically provided for in this TOS. You agree not to access the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by us for use in accessing the Service. You agree not to publish or post information on our website that is defamatory,libelous, [obscene] or might otherwise be considered unlawful.

    
    

  • If you really believe that the user agreement states that filmmakers are signing away all rights to their work by uploading their film for festival consideration via Withoutabox, then why hasn't this already come into play? Because it's too early. No one has a hold on the VOD market. There is nothing WAB/IMDB/Amazon can do with the films yet accept collect them and build a library. Many distributors are doing the same thing. It would not be strategically adventageous for Withoutabox do something other than gather rights at this point since there is no clear vehicle for profit that actually works. The most adventageous approach currently is to build libraries and so this is what people are doing. The one thing I heard over and over again at the Tribeca Film Festival 2011 (from Harvey Weinstein, Joe Roth and others) is to build a library of films if you want to make money because the more films you have the more you can sell the library for. Joe Roth owns 47 films. Weinstein sold his library for $660 million dollars. It would be foolish for Withoutabox to announce that by using their service you were surrendering your your exclusive rights to your film when instead they could just gather the rights quietly and let you get stuck with the consequences of their actions later... after they've made a bundle off your naivety and mistake! I'm fairly sure Sundance is doing the same thing! Send me your filmmaker contract. I want to see it! I also want to know how recent it is and when the date of the last time it was updated. Here is an article I wrote which includes Harvey Weinstein's take on film libraries and ownership of films: The Grill @ Tribeca Film Festival.)
    
  • 
    
  • We received plenty of digital uploads last year that ended up playing the festival-- if what you are saying is true, then why didn't WAB/iMDB/Amazon simply distribute those films themselves without paying any royalties to the filmmakers? (To whom would WAB/iMDB/Amazon have shown these films? There is not truly obtainable audience yet. All they can do is build the library quietly and wait until the time comes when the market is figured out and they can reach the audience. That day has yet to arrive.)
    
  • 
    
  • I'll tell you why-- it''s because the agreement doesn't give them the right to do that!! READ IT. I mean REALLY read it. (It's like your lips are moving but nothing making any sense is coming out. Do your homework. Re-read the original post then shut the fuck up!)
    
  • 
    
  • I understand that it isn't the most clearly written agreement in the world (Actually, I think it's very clear and straight forward to anyone who takes the time to read it. The problem is that most people don't read Terms of Service on Log In Pages... which is exactly why Withoutabox probably put the contract there. I didn't read it until I started to have problems with Withoutabox, started asking them questions to which I was told that if I didn't like how they did business I could walk. Then, I knew there was a serious problem and I started reading everything. It's not like a person goes into this thinking they are going to get ripped off by the people/corporation they are doing business with...) and I can see how it could be interpreted a certain way at first glance (Really? You really think I just glanced at it? Okie Dokie!), but Withoutabox needs the filmmakers' permission (I addressed viable options to give permission without stealing rights in the previous blog on this topic. Yes, Withoutabox needs permission. No that does not mean Withoutabox needs to steal the rights of filmmakers. Send me your filmmaker contract. I don't trust where you are coming from and want to see it with my own two eyes. Trust me, I won't just glance it over.) to allow a film festival to view the film for consideration. That's all the agreement says (You are simply wrong.).
    
  • 
    
  • Your interpretation of it is just incorrect. (No it's not. But let's say it is and Withoutabox wants to fix it. Have their lawyer write up a statement which says that Withoutabox has never, does not and will not ever take any rights of any film from any filmmaker Withoutabox ever does business with and if in any way Withoutabox has ever done this - even unintentionally - then Withoutabox immediately and irrevocably withdrawls claims to those rights, specifically any financial rights without exception. That would clear it up! And, by the way, send me one of those from Sundance while you seem so adamant to address the issue.) I'm not saying that to be judgmental or to make you feel stupid-- I'm just stating the facts. (lol... cute.)
    

  • 
    Look, I'm sure you're an awesome person and you truly believe that you're looking out for the best interest of the filmmakers (condescending much?), but I have no reason to speculate or lie about this (actually, you have every reason to lie if Sundance is doing the same thing Withoutabox is doing but doesn't want to catch slack for it. Send me the filmmaker/Sundance contract. I really want to look it over. I'm sure you're an awesome person looking out for filmmakers... but send it anyway, just in case!) -- show the text of the agreement to any lawyer and they will confirm that what I'm saying is true (Oh really? You know this as a fact? Which lawyer did you show it to that is backing up your statement? Or, are you just talking trash?).
    

  • 
    

  • My later comments were a result of your indifference to what I was saying. To me, you just didn't seem to care that you were affecting the way people thought, even though what you were saying was completely untrue. (Hey Adam, you may not give a shit about anyone else's schedule but as I told you, I was busy. Don't expect me to drop what I'm doing for you. If I'm busy I'm busy. I owed you nothing and if you contact me then I will get back to you when I have the time, not immediately because you are throwing a little temper tantrum.)
    

  • 
    

  • I don't really care what you say at this point, I just hope that you recognize the fact that I am simply trying to provide a more accurate interpretation of what the TOS stated. Yours just isn't correct, and you are doing people a disservice by continuing to stand by it. (I have done and am doing filmmakers a service by helping them to learn the business end of their business and to not take everyone and everything at face value. Over and over I have heard filmmakers say that they are not 'business people'. This is what distributors have told them for years to keep filmmakers out of the loop and to disempower filmmakers. My goal is to bring the power and the money back into the hands of filmmakers. When filmmakers begin to question things that are wrong they begin to make positive change. We are moving into a world where small, independent filmmakers can make real money from their films if they keep their rights. My object is to help them achieve that goal. Your goal seems to be the opposite. I understand that Sundance is basically just a corporation at this point... albeit non-profit, so one must question the motives of Sundance. Just like one must question why Gilmore left and why Redford's last film did not open at Sundance. Send me the Sundance/Filmmaker contract. I want to see it!)
    

  • 
    I wish you all the best with anything you're involved with, but I really have to stand by my interpretation of the agreement. (Go for it! And, I'll stand by mine!) Filmmakers aren't giving away any rights by providing a digital upload to us (actually, I saw something that made it look like Withoutabox was now uploading through Google which is not a good can of worms to open and which also means that once again you cannot speak for their policy as it relates to filmmaker's rights, so stop sounding like you have some sort of control or authority in this area when you don't! You are Head of Programming for Sundance, not Legal for Google or Withoutabox. You don't have the authority to speak on their behalf.) -- they just aren't.
    

  • 
    

  • I really felt like my comments would make you see that, and that was the only reason I was trying to get you to read and post them (You need to respect that other people don't say 'how high' when you say 'jump'). If you still don't feel that way, then I guess there's nothing more I can do, but I hope you understand that there is no malice involved on my part. (lol... again, cute.)
    

  • 
    

  • Hell, I have to get 11,000 films watched, so this is the last thing I want to be taking up my time. If I didn't feel passionate about it, (I don't care about passion. I care about facts and filmmakers.) I wouldn't be sitting here writing to you when I obviously have more important things to do (Actually, if you're in the business of trying to help independent filmmakers then helping to ensure indie filmmakers keep their rights should be top on your priority list as should ensuring the service you use to accept indie films protects said filmmakers.). So all I ask is that you consider that fact-- if I didn't truly believe in what I'm saying, I would have no reason to continue engaging you in the conversation. (Dude, I couldn't care less why you are doing this - although I don't trust your motives, logic or attitude - and I am certainly not about to take your word over what I have read on WAB's log in Terms of Service. It's not personal so what you say is highly irrelevant when it's based on your impression or assertion rather than the terms laid out in Withoutabox's agreement.)
    

  • 
    

  • I'm not a "silly man" and I think you were wrong in posting that. (ahhh... that's cute.) We don't have to agree, but I would appreciate a non-biased representation of the facts. (yeah... me, too. Send me Sundance's filmmaker agreements at all stages of acceptance whether it be the submission stage, the festival stage or the distribution stage. I will set plenty of time aside to read them all with my undivided attention.)
    

  • 
    

  • I feel like I am being punished because your blog wouldn't allow me to post my thoughts. (Feelings aren't facts. Get over yourself.)
    

  • Legend:
    
  • Adam Montgomery's writings are in BLACK and once in DARK TEAL.
  • My writings are in TEAL.
  • The WAB Terms of Service is in DARK RED.

Don't Be a Film Snob - Think Inclusion, Not Exclusion

Earlier today, I was speaking with someone who works at a film society. The lady informed me that their programmers weren't teenagers looking at a computer screen but rather adults who sat in movie theaters while programming. Her elitist, rather ignorant comment hit several nerves with me.

1. Does she really think we (the industry, society, film festivals, film societies) want to exclude well-informed teens from the process of sharing indie films with larger audiences? Wouldn't we be better off ensuring that we reach the younger audiences. Who is more in tune with the teen audience - a 35-50 year-old or a teenager? Equate it to this, older people prefer phones or emails. Younger people prefer to text. You may tell them your way is better but it doesn't mean they'll believe you or start doing it your way. It is important to include teens in the conversation of independent film - from beginning to end. As a result, we will all benefit.

2. Did this lady really think most programmers watch the films on the big screen rather than on their computers at home or at the office? (In case you don't know, the majority of programmers watch films on small screens whether it be a TV or computer.)

What's Wrong With Elitism?

The main problem with this small-minded, narrow and elitist attitude is that the festival circuit losing the younger audiences and excluding them from the process is not going to improve this situation. Most festival goers are at least 35 years old. So, yes, many programmers are reaching their own demographic but the industry needs to embrace younger generations if they plan on gaining a younger crowd and hence survive. A middle-aged programmer is most likely not going to get the same out of a film that a teen might. Why would anyone condemn teen participation on any level rather than wanting that demographic represented and embraced? It is foolishly short-sighted and incredibly harmful to the longevity of our industry.

Snobby elitists are by definition some of the most narrow-minded, exclusionary people without reason generally basing their actions and reactions of fear and a lack of self-worth rather than any real basis for their holier-than-though attitudes. Quite unfortunately, there are a ton of these misguided souls in the independent film world. Thankfully, there are also a lot of well-rounded, respectful film lovers who wish to create and share indie films with the masses.

Where the Future Leads

The snob mentality is the past and on it's way out. There are too many people around the world feeling the pains of financial strain to carry on such high-falootin' airs... yet people of all backgrounds tend to be very creative. The industry can't sustain the damage that the snob mindset is doing to itself. Rather, it needs forward thinking equalists who are less concerned with appearance and attitude than they are with substance and quality of films. Arnold and Maria are a great example of a facade that way too many people - including themselves - bought into. (Side note: When indie filmmakers can begin to profit off their own work rather than continue to surrender their films to greedy middlemen much of this arrogance will be a thing of the past.)

If we don't embrace the Y Generation then the they won't embrace the independent film world either. We want the youth to be involved in expressing their voices freely and articulately in the medium of film whether they be programmers or filmmakers. We want them informed, curious and participatory. If we do not offer this opportunity to them then we will most likely hurt the industry as a whole. Maybe teens turn to video games instead of films because what is offered to them on a mass basis is generally lowball crap whereas video games actually stimulate and intrigue them. To disrespect the need and value of the Y Generation is fool-hearted at best and down right negligent as an industry.

Walking the Talk

My teen daughter knows more about film then most people her age or not. No, she doesn't know everything, but who does? She is better qualified then a lot of programmers and has a more practical and educational film background then many when it comes to choosing films. She programmed films like FIX starring Olivia Wilde before she was famous and HOW TO BE starring the then-unknown Robert Pattinson. There are a lot of films out there that older programmers aren't interested in and don't 'get' but her generation would love if we'd give them the chance to see them. She fought hard to get both FIX and HOW TO BE in the festival. Her choices were solid. She stood by them and as a festival we benefited from her input. Neither film would have been in the festival if it was not for that then 15 -16 year old. HOW TO BE won Best Actor in 2008. FIX won Best Film in 2009. Both films were packed. As a global society we are dead wrong to discount the importance, knowledge, input or intelligence of our youth. How can we raise productive members of society without allowing them to learn and be part of the process. This teenager has always been the festival's most dedicated and enthusiastic supporter of documentary films. Age matters less than sensibilities.

Inclusion Not Elitism

Including our youth is essential to the film industry. The lack of interest in films by our youth is evidence of this fact! It's interesting how people who work for companies with more expensive equipment or more money think that anything less should be treated with disdain. We call d'em folks 'Snobs'! Unfortunately, this unwielded ignorance that runs rampant in the film industry does nothing but keep indie filmmakers oppressed by under-educated, culturally-lacking, conservatism.

Ignorance is Bliss

The lady on the other end of the line also proclaimed that independent filmmakers need public relations representatives to help get their films out seen. How ignorantly snobby and insensitive can someone be? Is she indirectly saying that if someone can't afford a PR person they don't deserve to get their film seen because anyone who is anyone would, of course, be repped! Grrrrr. I guess this goes along with her theory that programmers with 24/7 access to movie screens are better than programmers who watch films on their computers or TVs? I personally wouldn't mind if a programmer was sitting on the pot taking a two hour dump while watching a film on an iPhone as long as the person was qualified, open-minded, could hear and see the screen fine and had the same interests as the festival.

Okay, let's examine the PR statement from a rational, realistic and informed viewpoint. Most independent filmmakers are broke spending every cent and more on the production of on their films which 999 times out of 1000 will never earn a profit. Now their work should be discarded and not considered relevant because the filmmaker doesn't have the means to hire a PR person? What about the filmmaker from North Carolina, Macedonia or Bolivia? Should we just discard these films because they aren't well-represented? This is why countries like France, Germany and Norway get their smaller films screened. These countries have the money to take the films to festivals and spend on PR. Maybe that's why the majority of films screened through this particular film society are already on the festival circuit and have momentum behind them.

Obligation and Opportunity to Serve the Independent Film World

Film Societies have the opportunity, if not responsibility, to bring new and retrospective works to local audiences. To coast on one's laurels by picking previously viewed, tried and true films from franchises (specifically speaking of governmentally sponsored film commissions) which programmers pick up at the largest of festivals might save them the time of actually seeking out new works and might make their peacock feathers ruffle but also does an absolute disservice to the independent film world. Maybe serving the independent film world is not their job. Maybe it's not their concern. But then, hey, maybe they shouldn't mock it because some of us really do give a shit!

Related Articles:

Netflix's Paltry Payout to Indie Filmmakers

Use Withoutabox.com and Lost Content (film) Rights

People in Power Need People Like You

Netflix's Paltry Payout to Indie Filmmakers

Quite unfortunately, Netflix has been the best option around for many independent filmmakers albeit difficult to get onto if possible at all.

Netflix has a built-in audience so the chance of getting your film seen via this online option is more likely then a site like Amazon which, in effect, is a needle in a haystack scenario for indie films.

Repeatedly, we watch independent filmmakers pushing so hard to get onto Netflix you can feel the labor pains... but to what avail?

From what I've read Netflix buys dvds from indie filmmakers in lots of 100 and pays anywhere from $4-16 per dvd. I have not heard any numbers of what Netflix pays for streaming. If you have please comment and let us know. Knowledge is power. Let's get independent filmmakers educated about the facts of the game so they know whether or not it is the right game (ie. distribution option) for them.

Back to the numbers. If Netflix pays a filmmaker $4 per dvd at 100 dvds per pop, the filmmaker has only made a paltry $400 for the feature film. On the high end, Netflix is willing to pay $1600. If you've heard higher numbers for independent film payouts through Netflix please let us know. We'd all like to know that the numbers are much higher than a measly $400-1600 for all the hard work that goes into making a film.

These incredibly low standards and self-imposed expectations are why filmmakers sing to the chorus of "It's not about the money, it's about getting your film seen." and "Don't expect to making a living off your work." Dumb songs if you ask me. It's time we start hearing filmmakers singing to the chorus of "I'm living off the profits of my film." and "I made enough from my last film to support me and I'm working on my next project." and how about "I love my career and the life it affords me." and "It's great to share my work with so many and make a living from it."

Netflix is not a winning scenario for filmmaker. Just wait. Better is right around the corner. Netflix helps themselves, not indie filmmakers (not even studios or the industry, as a whole, for that matter). Don't be in a hurry to sell yourself short.

Oh... and if Netflix reorders an independent film from the distributor they'll just buy replacements because the dvds that were in stock were damaged or destroyed. That's really all Netflix has to offer independent filmmakers and quite honestly, it's not worth it.

Be patient. Better is coming. Don't be in such a hurry to get rid of your rights. You can move forward with your next project with or without giving up the rights to your film or selling yourself short. So hold tight, trust and allow yourself the possibility to earn a reasonable living off your work in the future. The times are changing. Be part of the change in a positive way that will monetarily benefit you and your future.

Let's say you decide the $400-$1600 is worth it. Did you figure in the cost of the distributor, the dvds, shipping? Really? If that's the best the industry has to offer you're too good for it, deserve better and should hold out for better. It's coming. I promise you. Do not sell yourself short. Demand and wait for better. Good movies are always good. Those companies snagging your films as they tell you the films aren't worth anything understand how valuable your work it. You should, too! Stop listening to thieves if you don't want to get ripped off!

Related Articles:

Use Withoutabox.com and Lose Rights to Uploaded Content (Films)

People in Power Need People Like You

"People in Power Need People Like You (Indie Filmmakers)

Charlie Rose and Joe Roth at 2011 Tribeca Film Festival

Brian Grazer once called Joe Roth‘the last mogul’. I would assume that was before Harvey Weinstein was firmly planted in the sandbox.

Roth discussed a bit of his work history such as how he would hire good people and how he set up a system where he could make 5 films a year to sell to Sony - films like Blackhawk Down. This process went on. He increased his numbers and eventually got so big that Sony resented his presence.

Roth owns his films - 47 of them.

If you are an independent filmmaker it is very important to note that both Joe Roth and Harvey Weinstein saw fit to keep ownership of their work. Both of these filmmakers are very well established and powerful. They own their libraries of films. They own their films. How about you? What are you doing with your library. Your films. Your future. Your legacy. Are you giving it away for free or protecting it, holding onto it until the day you can profit from it? Keep your rights. It is not the number of hits on YouTube that will make you wealthy. It is creating an income for yourself from the ownership of your library. You worked to create it. Keep it! It is valuable.

Over the course of time, Roth has slowed down a bit making far fewer films than in previous years. He prefers his lifestyle now. He even took a little hiatus to coach soccer. Who knew? He attributes some of his success to his street smarts and sensibilities. He is a ‘content person, not a traditional business person’. Unlike when Roth started out, now there is an ability to make films inexpensively.

When reading a script, he looks for ‘absolutely nothing’. He has ‘no expectations’ and ‘does not judge’ the work until after he finishes it... just like watching a movie. He reads scripts in about the same amount of time that it takes a person to watch a film. This was something he taught himself early on. He reads about 300 scripts per year and only critiques it after he has finished reading it. He looks for something that hits a ‘primal nerve’.

Roth states that ‘People in power need people like you more than (we) need him’. Studios are desperate for you to be good or the system fails!(Note: That is why you never need to worry about the competition.)

Rose inquires, “What does a producer do?” Roth says that in the best of worlds a producer is the first man in and the last man out. The producer gets the money, talent, marketing plan and hopefully the film he wanted.


Roth has directed six films. He wanted to be a better director but had to look in the mirror and admit that he is a better producer. He’s better at business than the creative part. He wasn’t bursting at the seams with ideas unlike many of the directors he works with. He decided to stick with what he is good at.

Roth notes that a lot of the middle has dropped out. He believes that cutting out the middleman is good allowing for more control.

Roth believes that studios should buy theatres. He admits he is alone on this but feels it would allow the film creators more control over distribution and the process of bringing a film to an audience. He feels that a film lives or dies in the first 30 days but that some films need time to develop and leaving the run of a film in the hands of people who care about popcorn sales isn’t the best for a film. He elaborates that putting billions of dollars into films and having no control over distribution equates to bad business.

Currently, it is illegal for studios to own theaters. I believe the reason was so that studios could not control (and perhaps manipulate and promote propaganda) what audiences see, think and feel. It used to be the case that media could not be owned by corporations on the scale they are now. We used to have many independent radio stations and freer TV. With fewer companies ruling the media world Americans have less opinions and hear fewer viewpoints and the industry becomes narrowed and more controlled in almost a heavy handed manner by corporations... and at this point, political parties (or, again, the corporations behind them).

Roth feels that Premium VOD is a positive transition and that people want to see what they want, where they want and when they want to see it. 95% of a movie’s gross is achieved in the first 30 days in a theatre. VOD increases flexibility. Currently there is a hold time of about 8 weeks before films are released on DVD. This creates a 4 week window when the film is not available at all except through piracy. Premium VOD could close that gap.

Roth observes that the ‘history of movies is additive’ and therefore VOD is just another addition to history. The industry has always reacted with ‘We’re dead’ when change comes - such was the case with TV, VCR, DVD and such is the case now with the internet.

Moving onto what Roth is doing now he says, “The movies I’m doing now are in the public domain so they’re all free. To develop material doesn’t cost me anything.” This allows him strong leverage and no loss.

Charlie Rose asks, “It’s hard to create anything, so why are there so many bad movies?”

Roth explains that it is a numbers thing. You start off with your first choice director but can end up with your ninth choice. There is often compromise all the way through... with the script, the actors, etc. Things get watered down in the process. Roth says that while driving to a preview undoubtedly the chicken comes to roost. He says he’s usually right in knowing what the audience reaction will be, that out of about 300 films only once was he wrong.

Charlie Rose asked, “Is it art?”

Roth says that ‘there are some artists. Who am I to judge?” and that ‘movies are not linear. You do not have to enjoy all of it.’ You can like a film but not be crazy about the ending, or the supporting actor, etc.


Questions from the Peanut Gallery

PG: Can you talk a little about post ‘08 financing?

JR: There is a gigantic worldwide audience for art films - Black Swan, King’s Speech - King’s Speech cost something like $13-14 million to make and will bring in $200 million worldwide

Note: Listen to the experts. Harvey Weinstein basically says the same thing. In fact, Weinstein claims that 2011 will be his best year, financially, ever.


JR: Discusses how ‘A Boy’s Life’ was shot down by pre-marketing but ended up doing fine. Therefore he doesn’t believe in pre-marketing. Oh, ‘A Boy’s Life’ changed names and became known as ‘ET’.

(Note: Couldn’t hear many of the questions... hence, answers only.)

JR: Studios aren’t interested in docs.

PG: Brand Entertainment

JR: “Anything you have to do makes it a harder sell”

JR: “Romantic comedy is hard - where do you go - everything has been done.”

(Note: Harvey Weinstein just purchased the romantic comedy “The Submarine” at Toronto IFF. I’ve seen a lot of really adorable independent romantic comedies over the past few years. It’s not that it is not being done. It is more that Hollywood just isn’t doing it.)

PG: Are new directors worth taking a risk on?

JR: You can help people who don’t have everything. If he’s bad at post there are people who can help in that area, etc.

JR: Use private investors and studios. Venture capital in Silicone Valley has always stayed away from movies. Digital distribution has brought Silicone Valley into the picture. (Which shows the potential power and force the online industry will be.)

JR: Most important thing for a producer to learn is how to read scripts. Roth worked as a reader in the early years. That is where he learned how to read scripts. He expects them to be formatted properly and the appropriate number of pages.

JR: Video games and movies are different businesses.

JR: Too dumb to quit.

--------------------------------------------------

So the question begs, why did the Hollywood Reporter mainly mention how Roth feels studios should own theaters instead of how important good material is and how people in power need the indie filmmaker.

The reason is probably multi-faceted starting with time-crunched, over-worked under-paid writers who have to grab headlines that their boss will approve of and the need to fit an article into a certain number of words mixed with the complete lack and disrespect we show for artists and culture as a whole and the movement over the past few decades to dumb down films as if it were a gnarly game of limbo.

Why theaters instead of how the people in power need indie filmmakers? Theaters have big budgets that buy ad space. Indie filmmakers don’t have a pot to piss in. Perhaps in part because they are constantly relegated to the sidelines by middlemen like news media and distributors. News media can’t make a living off independent filmmakers while it is simply not in a distributor’s interest to inform and empower a filmmaker when they can just snag the film instead.

It’s the power of persuasion. Here is today’s typical scenerio.
1)Tell a filmmaker his work is worthless.
2)Get a better deal.
3)Run off with the profits.
4)Have the filmmaker grovel back the next time he makes a film.
5)Continue to steal his library while he begs you to do it.
6)Rinse and repeat.

Word to the wise. Once you realize you were a victim you no longer are. At the point of understanding you become a willing participant. So, if you want to slave away on a film putting your heart, money, soul and time into it to give to someone else blindlessly... well, I say, ‘Go for it!’. It’s a choice. A fool and his money will soon be parted. You do not need to be foolish. Understand the game. Show up and start making some serious cash from the film you created!


-------------------------------------------------

Side Note: The Power of Marketing So my daughter and I walk into the theater where she sees a “Bloomberg Presents” sign and she says, “Man, he’s everywhere.” Then, as we enter the cinema a lady smiles and hands her a “Bloomberg Businessweek”. She takes it says, “I didn’t know he had a magazine.” Sits down. Opens it up. Says, “Hey, we should subscribe to this.” My response, “You’re exactly why marketing works and precisely why Bloomberg sponsors such events.”

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.

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.

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!