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.

Festival Director Hassled by Cops for Screening FIlm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Filmmaker's 2 Cents on Withoutabox.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my 2¢."

C.J.

How Valuable is Your Film?

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

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

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

Festivals, Theaters & Filmmakers Working Together

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join us in bringing festivals, theaters and filmmakers together!