I thought I would share the recent sales report I got from iTunes via Network Ireland for my short Gone Fishing. The report landed on my desk around the same time as VFX expert Russ Wharton emailed me from his iPhone commenting that Gone Fishing is still charting VERY highly on iTunes shorts – when he took this frame grab we were at 14. I have occasionally checked in and we are usually toward the top of the charts, which is great news.
So how do the figures correspond?
Well this figures are for woldwide sales for one year, ending 30th June 2011 (reported to me late November).
Total sales = £1,480 from which iTunes take a 30% cut.
Then Shorts International take a 20% programming fee.
From that balance Shorts International take a 50% commission.
From that balance, Network Ireland (my sales agents who are really great I have to say) take a 30% fee.
The remaining balance then comes to me. So from that £1,480, I get £290.26.
I did a lovely chart to make the point even clearer.
I have no problem with Apple, I think 30% is fair.
I have no problem with Network Ireland, I think 30% is fair.
But Shorts International taking a 20% programming fee (what is that?) and then a 50% cut is rather unfair.
Apple will not deal with Network Ireland, they only distribute shorts through Shorts International. So it seems I do have a problem with Apple after all.
Why won’t Apple even consider opening up their platform for creative people to sell their work? They are soooo happy to sell us the tools. They own the best distribution tool right now. But they won’t even entertain the conversation.
I you want to read the whole royalty report, you can download it here…see below
If you want to know how I made Gne Fishing, there is a full two day workshop online here… www.GoneFishingSeminar.com
“I was delighted that our film was selected,” said Block. “It’s the first film for the director. It’s the second time I’ve mentored a first time filmmaker to an Oscar or a nomination. It’s always gratifying.”
Block decided to produce the controversial subject after seeing a cut of Nesson’s first documentary about PTSD, which included some footage of Murray.
Professor Block, Sara Nesson and Robynn Murray at the 2011 Academy Awards
“[Nesson] was asking me to help on another documentary she was doing about post-traumatic stress where Robynn was one of many characters,” said Block. “When I watched the rough cut, I asked her about her footage with Robynn and I asked her to string it out for me. When you think about it from a teaching point of view, we basically made a short film out of material that had been discarded.”
As a filmmaker, Block has marketed and distributed films that have won twenty-five Oscars, have been nominated for seventy-one and is personally nominated for Poster Girl.
“Here you have this amazing observational material,” continued Block. “I think it’s a very convincing story. My background is in fiction. It’s about story and story arc. So few student films get there. You realize that, when you’re telling stories, it’s incredibly important to pick material that has emotional and intellectual content.”
Poster Girl tells the story of Robynn Murray, a woman who served in Iraq and returned with post-traumatic stress disorder. The film was directed by first time director Sara Nesson and produced by Peter Stark Producing Program adjunct professor Mitchell Block. The film was recently awarded the International Documentary Association’s Award for Best Short Documentary and was also nominated for the 2011 Academy Award.
Filmmaker and station relations consultant Jennifer Owensby Sanza shares the advice she gathered from mentors and firsthand experience about how to secure public television broadcast.
Getting my first documentary, The Teachings of Jon, broadcast nationally on public television felt like walking through a minefield, blindfolded. As a recipient of a completion funds grant from Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), I was fortunate to have the best mentors to guide me through the process. Now when I work with other filmmakers, I’ve noticed that some of the mistakes I made are quite common, and easily remedied. Here are some important tips to help you avoid major pitfalls on your way to a national public television broadcast.
Get the Most out of Your Rejections. Rejections are never fun. And after you’ve spent all of your money and years of your life making your film, it’s easy to take every one personally. Your friends will tell you “it isn’t personal.” Fact is, it’s totally personal. Yes, your film could be rejected simply because one person on a panel had an issue with it. So face the truth, if you’re a documentary filmmaker, you need to get used to rejections and learn how to make the most of them. Ask the person rejecting you if they would be so kind as to explain why. And then listen, and write everything down. Don’t defend yourself. Just listen and thank her or him. Decision-makers can provide some of the most helpful feedback to improve your chances of a national PBS broadcast. I always advise producers to submit their program to ITVS even though it would be a miracle for a program to be accepted on a first try. You can trust that folks at ITVS know what PBS wants and they offer extremely helpful feedback from inside the system.
Be Mindful with Film Credits. As a PBS fan and filmmaker, if you’re like me, you dream of one day hearing the all too familiar voice saying, “Funding for this program was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.” And by all means, if you have that, allow me to bow. If you’re like the most of us however, you’re so grateful for any support that anyone offers along the way that you’ll give an executive producer credit just to say thank you! STOP RIGHT THERE! However desperate you are, don’t extend credits lightly. Many producers don’t realize that credits have specific meaning, and if you imply in any way that an organization or foundation had any editorial say so in your documentary, then you unknowingly put your film in the “infomercial” category. And that will disqualify your film from PBS broadcast. It’s very simple, but many producers make this mistake. Unless you are offered a whole lot of money, leave organizations in the “thank you” credits!
When One Door Closes, Go to the Next One. Other cable channels may be known for producing some pretty good documentaries, but only public television has the potential to reach 99 percent of homes in the country. And let’s face it, having your documentary air on PBS’s national schedule or in an award-winning series such as POV or Independent Lens is the top of the heap. After pouring your heart into making your dream film, a pass from those programs can be really discouraging. Many producers don’t realize that within the PBS world there’s also APT (American Public Television) and NETA (National Educational Telecommunications Association). After being rejected by POV and Independent Lens, I took my film to APT, and they loved it. The rejection turned out to be a blessing in disguise. The Teachings of Jon is a great family film and through APT, my film was actually carried by more stations than it would have been on POV, and it aired during family-friendly timeslots (POV usually airs at 10 pm). So even if The Teachings of Jon had been accepted on POV, it wouldn’t have been the best way to reach the audience for my particular film.
Everyone Has an Ego. After investing years of our lives and all of our resources into our films, we artists and filmmakers sometimes forget that the “suits” have egos too. Remember that whether they are part of a selection committee for a series or a festival, or a programmer from a major PBS station—these gatekeepers decide how many people see your work. And it took them just as long as you to work up to their important position. Present your film in the best possible way. Spend the extra $250 to get your DVD screeners professionally made so that they play well and look great. The point is not to annoy the one you are trying to impress with a homemade DVD that stops every four minutes. If you are Ken Burns or Michael Moore, feel free to write on your DVD with a sharpie. Everyone else should stick with a four-color print cover, including your contact info. It’s about making an impression for less, not making less of an impression. And, if and when they reject you, don’t cuss them out and tell others they are stupid for rejecting your film. Instead, use your inside voice. You’d be surprised how many producers don’t get this one!
Ye Must Please The Gods. To a filmmaker, whoever is in the position to decide who sees your film is God. So if you want the best shot at getting your film aired nationally on public television, then you have to make the Gods an offer they can’t refuse. In other words, give them a program that is easy to schedule. Make sure it meets PBS standards. Familiarize yourself with the PBS guidelines in the PBS Red Book, a Guide to Program Packaging and Delivery for PBS. It’s best if you inform yourself of these guidelines before you start. I am so grateful that a producer told me before I began filming that the sound was more important than picture. You can cut away from a bad picture. But if you have bad sound, you’re screwed from the get go. And please, don’t think or even imagine that because your one-off documentary is so good that all the PBS programmers will be willing to create a new special timeslot just for you. It’s not going to happen. If you have a one-off and not a series, you give them what is easiest to program, a PBS hour, 56:46. Period. (Yes, they will accept an exceptional 86:46 program; it’s not out of the question. However, if you can cut it down to a PBS hour, that’s easiest for them to schedule.)
Do Things in the Right Order. Because PBS has the highest technical broadcast standards, you want to make sure to save your final color and sound mix until the very end and hire someone who is familiar with the PBS Red Book specs. Many producers end up paying extra in post because they thought they’d save money having all the colorization and sound tracks done in the final edit at their local post house, only to find out it didn’t meet PBS specs and had to be redone.
If You Want National, Don’t Go Local. Many producers make the mistake of rushing to their local PBS station, begging them to air their program. STOP RIGHT THERE! Yes, it is important to find out if you have the support of your local station—you may want to partner with them as a presenting station down the road. But don’t air the program anywhere until you have exhausted EVERY national opportunity first (and there are several). Airing locally may disqualify your program for national broadcast.
Never Underestimate the Importance of a Good Hook. I worked with a producer on her wonderful film, The Dhamma Brothers, about bringing an ancient Buddhist meditation practice into the Alabama maximum-security prison with transformational results. It won awards at just about every festival it showed, the audience loved it, critics loved it, even programmers loved it. And yet, there is no special “Effective Prison Reform Month.” With no “month” dedicated to the subject matter of your film or no particular “hook,” programmers may have a difficult time scheduling it. The result is the momentum of an entire national rollout can get lost. So, if there is any special month dedicated to the subject matter of your film or a special anniversary, try to coordinate your airdate schedule to that month. And remember, plan on six to nine months from the time of acceptance to broadcast.
As an example, if you are to offer your documentary to public television through APT in their November offer, you won’t air until April of the following year, at the earliest. When my mentors asked me what my distribution plan was, I just looked at them cockeyed. Now I understand the importance of knowing how to maximize your broadcast opportunity. My motto, when you have no money, is get creative and take advantage of every free opportunity. With careful planning you can set yourself up in the best possible way by keeping the timing in mind as you work toward your goal of airing nationally on public television to the widest audience possible.
Most of all, don’t give up too early! You didn’t work hard for all these years making your dream come true just to give up after one measly rejection from someone who obviously doesn’t get how great you or your film is. If you have produced a well-made documentary, with tech specs of PBS quality picture and sound, about a socially relevant subject told in an interesting way, in the perfect time length of 56:46, I can guarantee you will increase your chances tremendously for national broadcast on public television.
Click here to learn about the difference between CPB, PBS, and NPR.
Editor's Note: We're aware of the legislation introduced on March 3rd, and passed by the House on March 17th, to eliminate federal funding of public radio and television. If you have news or opinions, please share them here or on The Independent's Facebook fan page
Jennifer Owensby Sanza produced The Teachings of Jon with the funding support of Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the guidance of amazing mentors within PBS world along the way. The Teachings of Jon won the 2007 National Telly Award, becoming one of public television’s most popular documentaries. Currently at work on a sequel, Jennifer also consults with producers about all aspects of distribution on national public television. You can reach her at: Jennifer@wakingheartfilms.com. Used by Permission of the Author.
This article published in the Guardian discusses how the new technologies are making production of docs more artistically interesting. Despite the huge number of docs being produced, it still does mean we're getting many "great" ones.
I think this article is excellent in terms of discussing this growth of production. A link to the original article follows: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/nov/07/documentary-digital-revolution-sean-ohagan
Camera, laptop, action: the new golden age of documentary
From Kevin MacDonald's examination of the YouTube phenomenon to a cab ride with Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard, cheap technology is allowing film-makers to stretch the form as never before
British documentary maker Lucy Walker: 'People are looking for bigger truths about the way we live'. Photograph: Lucy Walker
"Right now, documentary film-making is like malaria," says Hussain Currimbhoy, curator of the Sheffield Doc/Fest, Britain's premier showcase for new documentaries from around the world. "It's a virus that's spreading fast and far and wide."
In the past week, the festival has screened 120 new documentaries – including shorts as well as feature-length films – from 26 countries. As well as fly-on-the wall documentaries about well-known figures, such as the American comedian Joan Rivers and the English playwright Alan Bennett, there were music documentaries about subjects as diverse as Elgar and Heaven 17, and biographical documentaries about the beat poet William Burroughs, the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and a taxi driver who once worked as Osama Bin Laden's bodyguard.
This year, the festival also focused on low-budget films about everyday life and politics in the Middle East, made as Currimbhoy puts it "by people who really needed to tell their stories and can suddenly afford to do it on film". He seems genuinely excited, even by the films that have arrived on his desk unsolicited and not made it on to the festival programme.
"There is definitely a new energy out there. We are living in a moment when film-makers, and young film-makers in particular, are increasingly turning towards documentary as a way to make sense of the world they live in. They are more alert about, and suspicious of, the mainstream media and eager for a form that talks to them about real events in a real way, even if that form is often rough or even low-key. It's a very exciting and ground-breaking time for the documentary."
This view is echoed by the young British director Lucy Walker, whose latest film, Waste Land, opened to rave reviews across America two weeks ago (the film is out here in March). It tracks the artist Vik Muniz as he travels from Brooklyn to his native Brazil to undertake an unlikely creative collaboration with the "catadores" – garbage pickers – who scavenge a living on the world's biggest garbage dump in Rio. It is a film, says Walker, about "the transformative power of art" and one that utilises the grammar of fictional film-making to tell a real-life story that is as uplifting and redemptive as any fictional feelgood movie.
"I really do think we are living in a golden age of documentary film-making," says Walker, over the phone from Los Angeles, where she is currently on a frantic promotional schedule. "There is a frustration with traditional media and a hunger for documentaries that have the stamp of integrity. The week it opened, my film was number one at the box office in terms of what they call 'per-screen average attendance'. Of all the movies playing in America, a Portuguese-language documentary about the lives of people living on a garbage dump in South America had the highest per-screen average across America. That tells me that people are looking for bigger truths about the way we live now, truths they are not getting from Hollywood or the traditional media."
To a degree, this has always been the case, but today, with the coming of affordable high-end digital camera and laptop technology, it is possible to prep, shoot and edit your own film in a fraction of the time – and the budget – it would take to make a traditional film. In many ways, cheap technology has energised film-making for a fast-forward generation who have little time for the slowness of traditional script-based film-making. "I've been in development hell for four years for a fiction film that never got made," says Walker, bullishly. "I don't have that kind of time to waste. I want to get on and make films that I think need to be made."
The availability of cheap digital cameras and software has also meant that, for every campaigning film like Walker's more hard-hitting nuclear weapons documentary, Countdown to Zero (released in March next year), or Charles Ferguson's Inside Job, a riveting, clear-headed exposé of the ruthless financial tsars behind the 2008 global financial meltdown (due next February), there are a host of smaller, stranger documentaries being made, many of which seem to push the boundaries of the form almost to breaking point.
In Exit Though the Gift Shop, released earlier this year, Banksy, the world's most famous street artist and arch art-prankster of our time, plays havoc with notions of authorial "reliability" and takes the audience on an entertainingly self-referential rollercoaster ride that says more about the baroque pointlessness of contemporary youth culture than it perhaps intended.
One of the most ground-breaking documentaries of the year, though, is also one of the most complex, formally and emotionally. The Arbor (released last month) is a film about the short and brutal life of dramatist Andrea Dunbar (writer of the 1986 film, Rita, Sue and Bob Too), who died from alcoholism at the age of 29. Director Clio Barnard restages short extracts from Dunbar's work using actors on the estate in Bradford where Dunbar grew up. The director also uses actors to lip-synch to recorded testimony from Dunbar's friends, family and grownup children. This has proved problematic as well as distracting to some reviewers although, as the Guardian's film critic, Peter Bradshaw, noted, the end result is a kind of "hyper-real intensification of the pain in Dunbar's work and in her life". All human life, it seems, can now be reassembled, and sometimes even creatively reinvented, by contemporary documentary directors.
Many recent documentary films also denote a generational shift in both style and subject matter away from the political and outward-looking, towards the emotional and solipsistic. One could argue that Catfish (out here next month), currently the most talked about documentary of the year in the US, is one such film. It is a documentary for – and about – the Facebook generation and it was made possible, says co-director Henry Joost, "by technology that is available to anyone. You can now buy a consumer-level digital camera for $400 [£246] or less that shoots in HD [high definition] and that still looks pretty good when blown up on a cinema screen. This really is an anyone-can-do-it moment for film-making."
Catfish chronicles the odd relationship between a young, hip and handsome New York photographer, Nev Schulman, and Abby, an eight-year-old who initially sends him an unsolicited painting of one of his published photographs. She lives, she says, in rural Michigan with her mother and her sister, a horse-riding, guitar-playing beauty who flirts with Nev shamelessly via phone texts and email. It all seems too good to be true and it is, though in ways that are surprising and, at times, affecting.
Made in a seamless vérité style by Nev's brother, Ariel Schulman, and his friend, Joost, two young men who seem to chronicle every waking hour of their lives on camera, Catfish is essentially a film about narcissism and self-delusion in the social networking age. There is a sting in this particular tale – and one that would be giving too much away to talk about here. Depending on where you are coming from, however, this unlikely twist is either redemptive or exploitative. You may come away, as I did, feeling both charmed and manipulated, wondering if real life could ever be as unreal as this. Are we seeing a film that unfolded alongside the events it portrays, or a retouched version of the same. And, more pertinently, how retouched?
"It really was an unbelievable perfect storm of circumstances and events that led to this film being made," insists Joost. "We're a little compulsive, systematic. We are all making home movies all the time. It's kind of like fishing. Then, suddenly, we found a story right under our noses. Our friend, who's sitting right in our office, was the story. We just followed it to see where it led. I really do feel that my life as a film-maker – all the dumb jobs, the commercial work, the videos – all led up to this moment."
Catfish may indeed herald an age when the quotidian can become prime subject matter for documentarists – this has already happened with photography. With one or two exceptions, everyone in the film seems to live lives that are so mediated by the grammar of reality television and docudrama that they behave as if they are somehow both utterly knowing and wilfully naive. Like Banksy's film, Catfish may ultimately say more about the emotional shallowness of the culture it betrays than its makers intended.
"There is a sense that the grand narratives are gone and that people are now living in an age of uncertainty, and documentary increasingly reflects that," says the film-maker, Adam Curtis, who has made two ground-breaking documentary series for the BBC: The Century of the Self and The Power of Nightmares, each of which illustrated in their different ways how ideologies of power work on the collective imagination. "Traditionally, documentaries were part of a progressive tradition, a progressive machine. They provoked us or inspired us to do something. I would contend that, when politicians turned into managers, that system did not work any more and even big budget, well-meaning, measured documentaries, like Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, leave us perplexed and helpless rather than angry and politically energised. At the other extreme, you have films like Catfish that noodle about with the intimacy of feelings. Here, people know the grammar of feelings, they know how to act on camera and how to emote formally, while real feelings, which are of course messy and complicated, are hidden."
Back in 1935, the pioneering British documentary film-maker, Paul Rotha, declared: "Above all, documentary must reflect the problems and realities of the present." Rotha was a socially conscious director who believed, like many of his contemporaries, that the role of the documentary film-maker was to help change the world for the better. One wonders what he would have made of The Arbor, Catfish, or Exit Through the Gift Shop, all of which undoubtedly "reflect the problems and realities of the present", but in ways that Rotha could not have envisaged. In doing so, they don't set out to change the world but rather to question the nature or reality, truth and, indeed, documentary itself.
"The form is certainly being stretched more than ever," says the director Kevin MacDonald, who has made feature films (The Last King of Scotland), documentaries (One Day in September) and merged the two (Touching the Void). "But documentary is a generous basket that can hold a lot of different things. If you think about it, journalism, letter-writing, memoir, satire – they all qualify as non-fiction, so why can't the same loose rules apply to documentary?"
To this end, MacDonald is currently working on the first feature-length documentary made entirely of user-generated content shot in a single day and then uploaded on to YouTube. Called Life In A Day, the impressionistic film is currently being edited down by MacDonald from 5,000 hours of footage from 190 countries. It will premiere as a three-hour documentary at next year's Sundance festival. "It's amateur film-making on a grand scale," says MacDonald. "But, because the participants are often showing such incredibly intimate things that you could not get in a traditional documentary unless you spent months filming, it is also ground-breaking in ways that we did not expect."
In the end, says MacDonald, it all comes down to great storytelling. "The irony is that, when I make a documentary, I always feel like I am taking all this real material and trying to tell a story almost as if it was a fictional narrative. When I make a fictional film, I do the opposite."
Documentary, as MacDonald reminds us, is essentially structured reality. "The only real breaking point," he adds, "is when documentary actually becomes fiction, but more often than not, as many great documentaries testify, real life does often turn out to be a hell of a lot stranger than anything you could make up."
That is perhaps the reason why its boundaries are currently being stretched – to keep up with the increasing unreality of the real world.
This last week I received a string of e-mails from a New York based actor. While nothing surprises me anymore, the level of disconnect between "reality" and "the business" was so striking I am reprinting the e-mails, only changing details out of respect to the privacy of the actor.
(Photo: courtesy Columbia Pictures)
In a message dated 08/26/10 10:47:43 Pacific Daylight Time, the actor writes:
Hello, I am a young NY actor starting out and I am looking for any way I can into indy films? Right now I am literally being evicted and eating canned beans it sucks!, so I have to make any attempt I can to make my passion work, please understand. You never know if you don't try.
I love the look, story, and feeling of alot of the indy films and I would do anything to play a part of one of them. Can you possibly offer me any advice in how to get into one of these films? Or any help whatsoever(maybe even forwarding this to a friend, life is a chain reaction), it would mean the world to me because my future is at steak right now. Have a great day!
Thanks,
The Actor
BLOCK'S RESPONSE
Hi,
Acting in film (or theater) is not a profession.
It's a hobby.
My advice, get an education and training and work at something you loveand do acting as a hobby until it can become a career.
Until your name can raise money or sell tickets it can only be a hobby.There is no reason to hire you.
I say this as a producer.It's not personal, it's just reality.
Actors until they can sell tickets are interchangeable.
Even if you're "great" it still is a haul to be a "star."
It also requires a bit of luck.Being in the right place at the right time.Being part of a television show that works (season after season), etc.
Even actors who have been in multiple seasons of a show can't get work regularly.
I don't mean to be discouraging but this approach (your letter)suggests a fundamental disconnect from a sense of reality in terms of how the business works.
I can't even open your head shot?Why wasn't it sent as a PDF? or a JPEG?
Independent films are struggling because there is no "there" there.How do you get paying parts?
Get breakdowns and go to hundreds of auditions for parts thatcall for your physical type. (I have no idea what that is.)
Hope this is helpful.
Mitchell
The Actor's Response
Hello,
My passion is to deep in my bones to ever consider it a hobby, even if that is what it is by definition.
I studied for two years full time at (an acting program) and I finished this June.
I don't take your comments personally, I know exactly who I am. (don't take that the wrong way, I mean no offense)
No reason to hire me though? Are you NUTS! I am a talented actor, writer, and producer, and I use to kill in all the comedy clubs in NYC(and more, but I wont bore you.)- but i want to do drama and film now. I am in the process of filming my second short film- I can shake and move with the best of them. I just have no money, I am doing my damnedest to make connections (I'm a fighter), you should admire that! But who am I to tell a producer what think, I'm just an actor right LOL.
I never said anything about being a "Star", I don't care about stardom, I just want to work with like minded individuals to make art that inspires the people who see it. (thats me)
You say it takes luck, I say everyone who is persistent gets lucky.
Look I realize I had no resume, perhaps I should have, but I am just starting out, as I just mentioned above, and my resume is weak (I was afraid people might see it and just automatically dismiss me)
My heroes like (Dennis Hopper) started out with very very small parts on TV, hell James Dean did a Pepsi add for 30 dollars.
The fact is that someone helped them at some point, they were not stars!
They didn't care about that I believe, they were storytellers.
I've been out of school for 2 months and I have been on as many auditions as I could, and I continue, its tough as hell, so thought I need to make more of an effort. Even if that means emailing people like yourself. Cause someone will make the connection and help me. I believe.
I'm not limiting myself to Indy film, but I thought that would be a good place to start.
Personally I think you should be the one to help me, don't you remember how hard it was starting out?
If you don't, I'm probably talking to the wrong guy.
The Actor
p.s. just calling it like a see it, just like you did, and what you said was very fair and appreciated.
p.p.s. I'm an actor, not an English major.
Block's Response (Bold and Italics)
Hello, My passion is to deep in my bones to ever consider it a hobby, even if that is what it is by definition.
I am not suggesting that your desire to succeed is wrong, your drive or ambition. ALL of that is fine.
What you're missing is that the business of being an actor is being between work, between jobs.
In order to support yourself you should see acting as a serious hobby and not a business. Get a well paying job that will allow you to go to auditions.
This will allow you to pursue your craft and dream.
When you are cast, they should allow you to take a day off or more to do the part.
Then while you're building a career you can make a nice living.
I studied for two years full time at (an acting program) and I finished this June.
I don't take your comments personally, I know exactly who I am. (don't take that the wrong way, I mean no offense)
No reason to hire me though? Are you NUTS! I am a talented actor, writer, and producer, and I use to kill in all the comedy clubs in NYC(and more, but I wont bore you.)- but i want to do drama and film now. I am in the process of filming my second short film- I can shake and move with the best of them. I just have no money, I am doing my damnedest to make connections (I'm a fighter), you should admire that! But who am I to tell a producer what think, I'm just an actor right LOL.
Again, there is a fundamental misunderstand about the business. I am a producer. I don't hire actors, I don't pick actors.
I work with a director, a studio, a network, a casting director. I do select the "star" if the "star" working on my picture will get it made. I don't ever get involved with casting the roles. It's inappropriate. That's the director's job.
I never said anything about being a "Star", I don't care about stardom, I just want to work with like minded individuals to make art that inspires the people who see it. (thats me)
I am only using the term "star" to refer to an actor that by agreeing to "star" in my project will enable me to make a sale to a studio or network.
You say it takes luck, I say everyone who is persistent gets lucky.
The luck, is that you not only need a great role, you need to be part of a work that will be a solid work. Most films are terrible.
Being is a terrible film but being a great actor does not provide a lot of help for moving a career.
Look I realize I had no resume, perhaps I should have, but I am just starting out, as I just mentioned above, and my resume is weak (I was afraid people might see it and just automatically dismiss me)
Your resume is fine. You are starting out. That's the point I am trying to make.
Since I can't raise funds with your being attached to my project--I can't cast you.
I can only cast actors that will enable me to make a deal.
Neither good not bad. Not connected to you at all.
That's just the way it is.
My heroes like (Dennis hopper) started out with very very small parts on TV, hell James Dean did a Pepsi add for 30 dollars.
The fact is that someone helped them at some point, they were not stars!
Hopper was in over 200 parts (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000454/) This started in 1954.
Two Oscar nominations (writing and acting)
Perhaps 8 projects won awards (for writing, directing and even some acting)
Despite these wonderful parts, filmmaking, etc. he was not all that financially successful as an actor.
Judging from the parts, the credits etc. he struggled a lot for parts and opportunities.
They didn't care about that I believe, they were storytellers.
I've been out of school for 2 months and I have been on as many auditions as I could, and I continue, its tough as hell, so thought I need to make more of an effort. Even if that means emailing people like yourself. Cause someone will make the connection and help me. I believe.
I'm not limiting myself to Indy film, but I thought that would be a good place to start.
Personally I think you should be the one to help me, don't you remember how hard it was starting out?
If you don't, I'm probably talking to the wrong guy.
Again, I don't hire actors--I am a producer. Mostly focus on doc series.
SO while I can't hire you I am trying to encourage you and provide some useful info.
Good luck to you.
I feel confident that if you're given an opportunity you'll be fine.
My next few projects are docs.
Best The Actor
p.s. just calling it like a see it, just like you did, and what you said was very fair and appreciated.
Will Jenkins Guide was originally published in International Documentary which is the publication of the International Documentary Association. Follows is a link: http://www.documentary.org/magazine/filmmakers-guide-capitol-hill
Mr. Jenkins is allowing this story to be reprinted in Docunomics. I think it's a really helpful story.
A Filmmakers' Guide to Capitol Hill by Will Jenkins
Many documentary filmmakers are driven by a desire not only to tell compelling stories but also to have an impact on public policies and laws. When such filmmakers see an injustice or abuse, they may make great sacrifices to bring the truth to light in hopes that change will come. The journey often brings them to the doors of Congress, where so many policies are made and amended.
This can lead to an awkward interaction with policymakers, who at times are part of the problem, yet whose leadership is needed to be part of the solution.
Having worked in communications for over a decade with social change organizations and on Capitol Hill, I have heard frustrations vented from both sides--certain politicians may seem too risk-averse, too beholden to powerful interest groups, while certain activists may appear too idealistic, too dogmatic to accept any compromise. And if you see a kid coming at you with a videocamera...
However, filmmakers and policymakers have much to gain by trying to understand each other better and by finding ways to work together more productively, when appropriate. After all, many policymakers, like many filmmakers, are doing this because they want to make a difference, to save the world--or at least some piece of it.
To put it another way, filmmakers create compelling stories that need action, while lawmakers take actions that need compelling stories, in order for the public to understand and support these actions. For example, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter is an outspoken advocate for food safety. Last year she introduced the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act to make sure antibiotics used in farm animals do not harm humans. However, as she told Reuters news service, "We're up against a pretty strong lobby. It will really come down to whether members of Congress want to protect their constituents or agribusiness."
Fortuitously, the documentary film Food, Inc. was released around the same time. According to Sonny Sinha, one of her staffers, Rep. Slaughter established a relationship with filmmakers Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein and then hosted a special screening for policymakers in Washington, DC. This high-profile screening increased the film's national exposure, which brought food-safety issues to the forefront of public discussion. Rep. Slaughter followed the screening with a Congressional hearing on the same topic. By the end of the year, her bill had 100 co-sponsors and a related food safety bill was passed in the House of Representatives.
This is one example of how filmmaking can have a positive, synergistic relationship with policymaking.
The Policymaking Process
If you want your film to impact policy, it is important to have a clear strategy of where in the policymaking process it can have maximum impact.
Here are some potential entry points in that process:
1) Raising Awareness--Determine your target audience (the public, lawmakers, agency officials, staff, etc.) and find a message or story that will motivate them to action.
2) Building/Promoting a Coalition--Your film may raise the profile of a coalition already doing good work on the issue or inspire a new coalition to form when people realize they share a common cause.
3) Introducing a Bill--A powerful film can inspire lawmakers or their staff to work on new legislation to remedy the problem. The introduction of a bill helps raise the profile of an issue.
4) Holding a Hearing/Investigation--As noted in the example above, films can raise the profile of otherwise routine hearings and help build momentum.
5) Passing a Bill (House, Senate, Conference, President)--A bill's passage usually requires grassroots support. A film can help mobilize the public engagement needed to achieve the passage of a bill.
6) Enforcing Current Law--Sometimes the right laws are already in place but are not properly enforced. A film can raise awareness and pressure officials to do their jobs correctly.
Even if you don't see results right away, films can play an important role in keeping an issue alive until there is sufficient momentum to achieve a solution. It may take years to achieve success. Even if you succeed in making changes, vigilance is required to make sure that the new policies are correctly carried out.
There is also the campaign side of politics--supporting or opposing votes for candidates, ballot measures, etc.--which I won't focus on here, but on which films can have a significant effect.
Building Relationships
Politics is all about relationships and trust. If you want your film to have an impact in Washington, it's important to partner early with like-minded advocacy groups as well as policymakers and their staff. Including interviews with policymakers themselves can raise the profile of your film, as well as encourage investment in the issue from the policymaker down the road. Lining up the right interviews can be a frustrating process, so what follows are a few pointers.
1) Finding the Right Policymaker--You may want to look beyond the famous or high-profile personalities, whose agendas are already crowded, to find someone more knowledgeable on, or with a personal connection to, your topic. Building a relationship with a policymaker who is actually invested will make a big difference. Newly-elected members may be more open to taking a lead on a breaking issue and to investing time and energy to advocate for change.
2) Develop Relationships with Nonprofit and Advocacy Groups who support the issues in your film. Such groups often have established relationships with members of Congress and can help steer you in the right direction.
3) Be Aware of the Constituents That an Elected Official Represents--It can be counterproductive to ask a politician to publicly advocate for an issue that may go against the best interests of his or her constituents. It is better to identify allies who can freely associate with your message. For this reason, it is important to be honest about your agenda from the start.
4) Work Closely with the Policymaker's Staff to prepare for the interview. Staffers on Capitol Hill can help in many ways beyond basic logistics, such as giving you valuable advice and even potential anecdotes to bring up during your interview.
5) Be Persistent in Your Efforts to Schedule an Interview--Even if a policymaker supports your agenda, there are thousands of other responsibilities to manage. Don't take it personally if the schedule changes at the last minute. Capitol Hill is an unpredictable place where crises are a normal occurrence and schedules are in constant flux.
6) Prepare Some Selling points Beforehand to Make Your Case--Lawmakers always look for good stories to tell that support their policy agendas. Many times, filmmakers can discover and develop powerful stories that traditional news media and policymakers don't have time to find. Lawmakers also want their story to be told, particularly when they are fighting for a cause they believe in. So it is helpful to research their values and priorities and how your film may be able to give voice to these.
7) Establish Truth with Your Interview Subject--While guerilla-style documentaries have their place, in most cases you do not want to blindside or otherwise make your subject feel attacked during the interview. Again, trust is important and you probably don't want to develop a reputation for misleading policymakers. Even if you disagree with a policymaker, it will benefit your film and your chances for future interviews on Capitol Hill if you let them fully explain their position rather than taking their words out of context. Presenting these deep disagreements honestly will increase public understanding and hopefully encourage progress.
Promoting Solutions
When portraying politics in films and documentaries, as well as in the news media, it's easy to take shortcuts, oversimplify or fall back on old stereotypes. For the sake of your audiences and the democratic process, please take time to understand and to educate. Documentaries actually have a greater chance of doing this well than cable news, with its short segments and real-time analysis. Congress is complicated, but citizens need to grasp how and why policies are the way they are, so they can engage effectively.
While there are many easy targets to attack (i.e., bills are long, the federal government is big, corporations are greedy, etc.), identifying practical answers can be much harder. Try to show workable solutions. If audiences later demand solutions based on faulty evidence or unrealistic proposals, it only makes the process more difficult.
Nothing is ever final in Washington: Bills may pass but not be signed; laws may not be enforced or may be changed. So there is always an opportunity to make a difference if you are prepared.
Will Jenkins has worked in media production, social action and political communications for the last decade. He currently works in the United States Congress. This essay is drawn from a panel presentation at the 2010 AFI-Discovery Channel Silverdocs Documentary Festival. For questions or further information, he can be contacted at 202-228-5258.
Crafty on a makeshift table--a trash bin. (Photo: Anton Delfino's Craft Disservice) Posted Thursday, May 13, 2010 by Mynette Louie http://mynettelouie.com/
Note: I am repeatedly asked about Microbudget filmmaking. I respond and say that feature filmmaking is for professionals, Microbudget filmmaking is really what I consider home movie making.
I think it's critical that filmmakers and their casts (if working with actors) are paid for time and work. If one wants to make an independent feature, one should do it professionally and not expect people to work for free in violation of state and federal labor laws. Filmmaking is a busines, making a product for mass distribution. Home movie making is a hobby that is best done as such. Have a good time, make a film.
Ask people to "work" on your film, treat them as professionals and pay them. Provide safe working conditions, insurance to cover injuries, work days that reflect overtime compensation, etc.
I found Mynette Louie's blog by accident. It's wonderful and relates to her experience making a fiction film that screened at Sundance in 2009 called "Children of Invention." I like both her positive and negative points of making a microbudget film. It's a good point of view even if I don't agree with it...
By Mynette Louie
Microbudget filmmaking is all the rage right now--it's the new paradigm b/c it MUST be. The old system is bloated and fiscally irresponsible.
This is what everyone's saying these days. But many of those doing the talking have never even made a microbudget feature. While it's true that we all need to squeeze down our budgets now, I rarely hear the pundits and panelists talk about why microbudget sucks.
As someone who's made 3 microbudget features and a bunch of microbudget shorts, and will (must) continue to do so in the foreseeable future, I'd like to tell you why microbudget sucks:
1. The wages can't pay your rent. This relegates filmmaking to a "hobby"--but one that necessitates your 24/7 engagement. Paradox!
2. Tough to get experienced crew, so you have to hire and train newbies. Training takes time. A lot of it. As if my job weren't hard enough.
3. Hard to do more elaborate stuff like period pieces, night exteriors, car scenes, fantastical elements, guns, blood, dolly, steadicam, aerial, underwater, etc.
4. Hard to get A-list talent, which in turn, makes microbudget films harder to sell.
5. Craft service is often lacking (see above). Thankfully, this isn't true on my shoots (though I did have to nix the Red Bulls on Day 3 of CHILDREN OF INVENTION to preserve some dough for music).
6. You have to wear a lot of hats. This can be a "good" thing if you get bored easily, but it can also be exhausting. Also, there can be confusion as to who's responsible for which task.
7. The economically disadvantaged rarely apply to work on microbudgets. They can't afford to! This limits crew diversity and keeps the film industry insular and homogeneous.
And to counterbalance the above, here's why microbudget is good (from a producer's perspective):
1. It's financially sound and investors recoup faster. This is the reason cited by all the pundits, and they're right.
2. Creativity stems from poverty, or: necessity is the mother of invention!
3. You really learn how to cut the fat. Every single shot must have a purpose and be worth our time and money.
4. The fact that it's hard to do effects means that you make pure cinema. You focus on the writing and acting because you can't hide behind effects.
5. The "circus" is contained--there's often not a ton of crew and equipment to distract the actors and director, and the leaner and meaner company can move more efficiently.
6. You get to wear lots of hats. Yes, per above, this could be a "bad" thing, but not if you like variety.
7. Most of the cast/crew are doing it for the love of art, learning, and community...because they sure ain't doin' it for the dough!
