Independent Film Producing

How to Produce a Low-Budget Feature Film

Paul Battista

• Publisher: Allworth
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781621533870
• Topic: Médias et arts de la scène
• Subtopic: Direction et production de films

The number of independent films produced each year has almost doubled in the past decade, yet only a fraction will succeed. If, like many filmmakers, you have no industry connections, little to no experience, and a low or ultra-low budget, this outsider's guide will teach you what you need to know to produce a standout, high-quality film and get it into the right hands. Written by an entertainment lawyer and experienced director and producer, this handbook covers all the most essential business, legal, and practical aspects of producing on a low budget, including:

• Scripts
• Business plans
• Copyright issues
• Equity and non-equity financing
• Fund-raising
• Tax considerations
• Talent recruiting
• Scheduling
• Distribution
• Securities laws
• Film festivals
• And more

Also discussed are the new crowd funding laws covered by the JOBS Act, making this book a must-read for every indie producer in today's economy. If you want to produce a film that gets attention, pick up the book that is recommended or required reading at film, business, and law schools from UCLA to NYU. Whether you're a recent film school graduate or simply a Hollywood outsider, Independent Film Producing will be like having a best friend who is an experienced, well-connected insider.

PART I

---

Developing the Film

1

Overview

“Remember, there’s always work at the post office.”

—Hollywood Shuffle

FEATURE FILMS

From the perspective of the low-budget filmmaker, it is important to differentiate between a feature film and a short film. A feature film is defined by its length; generally, films of eighty minutes or longer are considered feature films. Over the years the major studios have released a number of films that have had a running time of less than eighty minutes which were, nevertheless, still considered feature films. The point is that the market expects a feature film to be at least eighty minutes long, so, once it has been decided to make a feature film, based on audience expectations, a decision to make an eighty minute film has also been reached. Many low-budget filmmakers try to avoid allowing business aspects to affect their creative decision-making process, and this is how it should be, but choosing to make a feature film is also an economic choice, and the length that the market has determined for a feature film is between eighty and one hundred and twenty minutes. This is purely a market driven fact, and not an artistic one. If a film is less than eighty minutes, the audience will tend to feel it is not receiving fair value for their purchase. A running time of over two hours, on the other hand, pushes the audience’s attention span beyond its comfort zone, and can be as much of a negative for the distribution of a film as is a film of less than eighty minutes.

These are guidelines and not absolute rules, but successful films that have deviated from these norms are the exceptions to the rule. Furthermore, the norms for film length can be further classified according to genre. Comedies tend to run between eighty and ninety-five minutes. For example, Thirty Minutes or Less runs eighty-three minutes, Our Idiot Brother runs ninety minutes, Due Date runs ninety-five minutes and The Dictator runs eighty-three minutes. On the other end of the spectrum, dramas and epics can run more than two hours. The Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides runs one hundred and thirty-six minutes, A Beautiful Mind runs one hundred and thirty-five minutes, The Tree of Life runs one hundred and thirty-nine minutes and Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith runs one hundred and forty minutes. Other aspects of the importance of genre in filmmaking will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3. At this point it is important to take note of how Hollywood follows (and establishes) the rules regarding the running time of movies. Even if not making a Hollywood film, it is important to be mindful of the fact that a potential audience has been conditioned to believe that certain films are going to be of a predictable length, and that over time audiences have tended to have an attention span based on the genre of the movie. A filmmaker, and especially a low-budget filmmaker, had better have very sound reasons for violating these norms, and should carefully weigh the perils of such a decision, preferably with objective third party consultation.

HOLLYWOOD

Of the 677 new films released theatrically in 2012, 128 were released by companies that are members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and 549 by non-MPAA-affiliated independent companies. Over one billion, three hundred million tickets were sold at the US/Canada box office generating over $10 billion, $800 million in revenue. The MPAA has discontinued reporting the average costs of producing and distributing movies, but its last report of these costs stated that in 2007 the average cost of making a movie for companies that are members of the MPAA was over $106 million. It cost an average of $70 million to make the movie and $36 million to advertise it and make prints for the theaters. The philosophy of the Hollywood system is to make larger films with bigger stars and cutting-edge special effects and then spend large amounts on advertising to make movie-going a spectacle event.

In an address at ShowWest in 2002, then MPAA president Jack Valenti pointed out that “theatrical admissions were more than professional baseball, football, basketball and hockey combined in 2002.” The MPAA enlarged on this point in 2012 when it stated that “movie theaters continue to draw more people than all theme parks and major US sports combined.” Mr. Valenti and the MPAA were more than simply making the point that going to a movie is more popular than theme parks and athletic events. The clear implication to be taken from identifying theme parks and athletic events as movies’ competition is that films are supposed to match up with the thrill of Disneyland, or watching LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, and Dwayne Wade compete for the NBA championship, or watching the Superbowl. It behooves the low-budget feature filmmaker seeking distribution for his or her product to take this observation very seriously.

The escalating cost of making films also reflects this belief, as witnessed by Hollywood’s propensity to spend increasing amounts of money on stars and special effects in order to satisfy audiences’ increasing appetite for a “thrill” ride. The low-budget feature filmmaker can never compete on this level; however, there are a few relevant lessons that can be learned from these facts. Although Hollywood is spending more money to make movies, they are not generating greater profits—ignoring cost comes with a price. Whether someone is making their first film or the next Hollywood blockbuster, the amount spent to create the film is the key element. With few exceptions, blockbuster movies do not generate more than they cost to produce, market, and distribute. The trials and tribulations of Hollywood efforts to create “spectacle” films have been meticulously reported by numerous entertainment news outlets. The low-budget filmmaker has to adopt a mindset at the opposite end of the spectrum from Hollywood’s. Simply stated, monitoring and controlling the cost of every single item in the process is the most crucial element in the successful completion of an independent film project. Recognizing that there is no way to compete on the same field with Hollywood compels low-budget filmmakers to focus even more intently on the resources they do have available to them which can make a difference in the quality of the final product. Keeping a close eye on how the major studios operate can offer many clues to the low-budget filmmaker. He or she should watch carefully and ask: “Where are the weaknesses in the system that could spell opportunity for me?” For example, although there are many US outlets that report US box-office revenue to Hollywood, the fact is that less than half of a typical film’s costs are recouped from these sources. In fact, in 2012 over 70 percent of the costs incurred in the making of the average major studio movie were recovered from other media and territories. DVD, Blu-ray, free and subscription television and foreign outlets have become the main source of revenue for major studio movies. The massive advertising dollars spent on major studio releases are designed to generate that 70 percent from these other sources. These facts provide an environment pregnant with possibilities for a healthy market for all manner of feature films, not just those manufactured by the major studios—especially within the ancillary markets, i.e., home video, video-on-demand, viewing films via the Internet, etc. The implications of these developments should be deeply ingrained in the consciousness of the independent filmmaker, and most especially the low-budget filmmaker.

DEAL MAKING VERSUS FILMMAKING

It is not necessary to know everything about the history or current state of Hollywood or the independent film industry in order to make an independent feature film. Skipping the next two sections would not preclude the possibility of making a film, but if there is any desire to have people other than one’s friends and family view the film, then it would be wiser for the filmmaker to seek out as much knowledge as possible about Hollywood and the independent industry that has evolved around it. An independent film can be categorized by the source of financing, by the sources of distribution, and by the people involved in making the film. Each January the Hollywood Reporter publishes its annual box office report with the latest being “2012 Box Office: By the Numbers”; another source for statistics is BoxOfficeMojo.com which reports daily, weekly, and yearly statistics regarding theatrical releases. In 2012, BoxOfficeMojo.com listed approximately one hundred and twenty-five different companies that released feature films theatrically that year. The Hollywood Distributor Directory (nineteenth edition, since discontinued) listed over four hundred domestic distributors (for all media), and over one hundred and seventy-five international film companies. In addition, the Hollywood Creative Directory for 2011 listed over thirteen hundred production companies. If any of these companies, or anyone associated with them, become involved with a film, a film is no longer an independent film. The project will have become part of the “system.” This is not necessarily a bad thing. There are many advantages that can accrue from making films within the system. However, most independent filmmakers have a specific vision for their film and want to maintain control over its creation. Most only want to become a part of the “system” when they have the desire to have their completed film distributed; although it should be noted that the distribution process is slowly changing to allow filmmakers the choice of distribution outside of the “system” (see Chapter 13, “Self Distribution”).

Hollywood filmmaking (within the “system”) is really about deal making. The film itself is an ancillary aspect of the process, and, in fact, is very close to last on anyone’s list of priorities at any given moment. A film is more of a by-product of what is really important to Hollywood people—making deals. The emphasis of this book is on the priority of making a low-budget film of the highest quality and at the most efficient cost possible, as well as the deals necessary to be struck in order to produce it. There have been a number of books written on deal making in Hollywood and many of them are excellent. However, they are geared toward a different game and a different result. They are oriented toward those who are already operating within the Hollywood system and those who dream to be. There are many assumptions with the approaches in these types of books that have nothing to do with the reality of someone trying to make a low-budget feature film. The reality is that a person who has never sold a screenplay or made a feature film will most likely not be “deal making” in Hollywood in their immediate future. That is not to say that it will never happen, it can and it does. It is just being pointed out here that there are two completely different paradigms at work: those wishing to catch the eye of a Hollywood insider so as to get inside to make his or her film, and those who wish to make their own film independently. Within the system the objective is to “package” certain elements together, namely, the script, the financing, and the name talent. To illustrate just how competitive that process is, consider the fact that even established writers and actors who already have agents, managers, and entertainment attorneys have a difficult time getting their own projects produced within the “system.” It is possible at some point in the filmmaking process that an independent filmmaker may find people within the system who may become interested in the elements developed to a certain point. If this does occur, then the independent may decide to enter the system, which will most likely necessitate relinquishing control over the process and direction of the film. At that point it will become primarily about deal making and not filmmaking. One encounters many individuals on the independent filmmaking pilgrimage; however, the object is to find the people who will best fit the filmmaker’s needs, and, to put it bluntly, to avoid being ripped off. In this regard, there may be people who will promise that they have a doorway into the Hollywood system. They might, but it is just as likely that they are saying whatever is necessary to get hired or attached to the film. The best strategy for handling this situation is to put that person’s proverbial feet to the fire. When one hears someone say, “my cousin’s uncle’s brother is a development executive at Lionsgate,” the best response is “great, then set up a meeting for next week.” If by some miracle the meeting takes place, make sure their cousin’s uncle’s brother pays for lunch, and never, under any circumstances, sign anything. On the other hand, there may be someone who can sincerely open an access to the “system.” If that is the case, it is crucial to understand the parameters that surround the choice to team up with established “system” players. The point of this discussion is to highlight the different paths a filmmaker can take, and to recognize that each decision being made will affect the control of the creative process.

Michael Blaha’s chapter on financing independent films “inside the system” (Chapter 6) explores some of the “control” issues, but perhaps the story of filmmaker Kenneth Lonergan’s ordeal in the making of his film Margaret best highlights the risks. Kenneth Lonergan had developed into an award-winning playwright when he wrote and directed his first film, You Can Count on Me. The film achieved Sundance success, critical success, relative financial success, and was an Oscar nominee for the screenplay. Mr. Lonergan’s second film, Margaret, was a natural “step-up” from his first film and he entered into its production having already acquired a production-finance-distribution deal with Fox Searchlight that included financing with a third party to partially cover the film’s $12 million budget. However, it took seven years from the wrap of production in September 2005 to the film’s release, and involved numerous disagreements with the distributors/financiers and three lawsuits before the film was finally “released” in two theaters. Reportedly, the basic problem was that Mr. Lonergan could not deliver a film within the contractually obligated length of 150 minutes or less, and the financiers and distributor would not agree to release Mr. Lonergan’s delivered film of a reported length of approximately three hours (180 minutes). It is interesting to note that the approved shooting script was reported to have been approximately 168 pages and the rule of thumb is that each script page will yield one minute of screen time. The point of mentioning this story is not to determine which of the parties was “right” or “wrong,” but to illustrate the fact that relinquishment of control over the filmmaking process is an absolute prerequisite when making films within the “system,” even if the participant is a writer-director coming off a successful, Oscar-nominated screenplay and film.

FILMMAKER’S CONTROL OVER THE FILMMAKING PROCESS

Two things are of crucial importance regarding the filmmaker’s control over his or her film. First, any money spent that cannot be directly attributed to the completion of the film can lead to fatal consequences. Second, in making a feature film many people will be needed to work on the project. It is common to find the names of fifty to one hundred people in the credits of low-budget films, and even a bare-bones film with a budget under fifty thousand dollars requires at least twenty to twenty-five people to participate in some capacity in making the film. Naturally, the latter will mean the relinquishment of the day-to-day control of much of the process to others. Once again it comes down to a question of timing and understanding what is needed from each person and what it should cost. One could maintain personal control over every aspect of the film but the reality is that there are too many aspects of making a film for any one person to maintain total control. It is also not cost effective to approach filmmaking in this manner. There are individuals in the industry who are skilled at what they do, take pride in doing it, and will add to the quality of the film. Again, one of the objectives of this book is to help identify who the filmmaker will have to rely upon, when to rely on them, and roughly how much their reliability and talents are worth in dollars.

It is a further objective of this book to explore various strategies to avoid being painted into any corners. The process of making a movie is an exercise in power. Within the “system,” there are very few who have the power to effectuate their will, and even in those who believe they can, it is, in most instances, illusory. In making a film, the filmmaker has the power to make the decisions. Wise delegation of that decision-making power will seriously impact whether or not the film will reach completion and whether it will appear to have cost three to five times actual cost. This book will also assist the low-budget independent filmmaker, especially a first-time filmmaker, to know how to effectively and efficiently delegate authority. The aim is also to create a degree of comfort with the process, so that control will be delegated with confidence. These are rather abstract concepts usually not addressed by low-budget filmmakers; however, they are critical elements, and will impact every other aspect of the process required for a successful completion of the film project. As the captain of the ship, at the very least the filmmaker wants to avoid a mutiny and optimally wants to be on course, under budget, and at the final port ahead of schedule.

VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF THE INDEPENDENT FILM

How much should a low-budget feature filmmaker know about the history of independent film before making his or her low-budget feature film? The answer is nothing. A low-budget filmmaker could make a film without any appreciation at all of the evolution of filmography which made such a thing as “independent film” a viable option in the first place. The important issues for the filmmaker to know, however, are what types of films are being distributed in the market and what types of films are being screened at film festivals. Of course, the history of independent film has shaped the answer to these questions and to some degree dictates the direction of independent cinema. On a practical level, a careful study of the films that do achieve distribution and those that achieve screening at major festivals is arguably more important to know than the history of independent cinema.

With that said, what follows are some general observations regarding how the history of American independents affects the low-budget filmmaking process. Currently, the highest profile American independent film festival is The Sundance Film Festival. From its beginning with Robert Redford in 1981 (when he took over the fledgling USA Film Festival in Utah) until the screening of Steven Soderbergh’s film sex, lies, and videotape in 1989, this festival was a small-time, low-key, non-Hollywood industry festival. So how did it evolve into the “mecca” for independent filmmakers? Put simply, because a few unknown filmmakers, including Soderbergh in 1989, have “sold” films at the festival, becoming rich and famous in the process. To keep the shine on this image as the mecca for independent film, every few years or so at the festival a few more rags-to-riches stories of unknown filmmakers who strike it rich and famous are promoted: Tar...