What Should The Non-Dependent Filmmaker Be Most Concerned About Right Now?
“I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.” ― William Blake
I know you already have a lot on your mind.
And I know I try my best to keep adding more. I believe you can handle even more than you already do. And should. But I also get asked frequently to just boil it down. To give the bullet points. To simplify. So… what are the priorities?
Of course, one’s priorities shift depending on where you happen to stand. I recognize not all of you are committed to the non-dependent cinema space. Some of you want to break into what you believe are The Big Leagues. Others would happily surrender their badge in exchange for a paycheck or at least more reasonable expectation of receiving one. And still others are just simply fluid, here one day and tomorrow looking to render some popcorn type thrills or chills. I get it.
I focus on the non-dependent space because someone has to and we’ve ultimately neglected it for over forty years. To determine our priorities in these here woods, we need to double check our goals. Sustainability? Check. And thus, the establishment of a non-dependent cinema ecosystem? Check.
I find it is this juncture that differences in philosophy as well as what constitutes pragmatism, kicks in. Can we reduce the threats simultaneously as we encourage the dream of a better world? What can we actually get done? And what are the influencing factors?
My hope was to be able to just give you three priorities, but since everything is connected, it is close to impossible to do that. I hope you can handle something closer to ten priorities. If you are a long term reader of HopeForFilm you know that classifies as a SHORT list. Let’s get to it, yeah?
I find a great deal of unity around the need for regulation around Big Tech’s and the Global Streaming Platforms’ anti-competitive business practices. Yes, this most often is focused around anti-trust issues and most feel success here is entirely dependent on the Democrats winning the White House, Congress, and Senate next month. Let’s see where it goes. And why is this so important? Big Tech and The GSPs are limiting choice and creation, access to audience and attention, while being complicit in restricting revenue.
But how do you best build a non-dependent cinema ecosystem? Do you focus on establishing a force in public media? Or do you stop the deterioration of the conditions that once made American Indie one of cinema’s great forces? I’ve tried to explain how we went from great to total shit in terms of financing for indie film. I have a post set to publish on why it is now a great time to invest in the non-dependent cinema ecosystem. Could it all be private or do we need a public component? I think the answer is “both, and…”. Private will move quicker but neglect large swaths of both audience and creators. Why? Because they always do. But the public option will be a slow grind and may never happen? Why? Because it seldom has.
We get stuck in ruts. We keep doing the wrong thing long after we’ve found a better way. We do this repeatedly in the FKA Indie Film realm. We have to stop trying to create “for the market”. We have to stop bringing all films “to market”. We have to stop raising funds or funding films for production without raising funds for marketing and ecosystem adjustments. We have to build a cadence of operational improvements. We have to stop rapid deployment of our work on GSPs. These are all bad business practices for the non-dependent artist and entrepreneur.
Unfortunately, we still have to educate a lot of people. We always do. You know: “You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.” People see the same lameness across the content the GSPs produce; that’s their choice and they certainly get a lot of eyeballs on that. But simultaneously we’ve relied on the independent sector for the cultural course correctors to deliver the new new and the bold voices that become the next Gerwigs, Nolans, and Peales. We don’t want to wait until people realize we’ve paved paradise and put up a parking lot. So how do you prevent that?
I find this is another frequent fork in the road. I believe we have to establish an Artists Bill Of Rights or a Universal Commitment To Culture. Others think we just have to help people see the connection of what was FKA as Indie and the things they love today. As wonderful as it would be to do that, I think we are too distracted, and frankly selfish. We have to go deeper. And to that end, we can’t just tell people what to think (I.e. we all deserve the equal right to access and create culture) but we also have to alter the way we think. We need to offer a utopian vision as well as pragmatic common sense. We have to help us all see what our better self resembles.
My Recommendations For A Non-Dependent Filmmaker’s Greatest Concerns Right Now
(doubleclick on the red for the link to an in-depth examination)
Regulate anti-competitive business practices of Big Tech and the GSPs.
Build towards a non-dependent cinema ecosystem.
Establish incentives to restore private equity investment in American cinema.
How to develop a cadence of operational improvements and a reduction of bad practices.
Establish an Artists Bill Of Rights a/o Universal Commitment To Culture.
Dream Utopian while simultaneously exploring Common Sense Pragmatism.
Facilitate direct and long-term relationships between creators and audiences.
The need to share data and experiences, while practicing transparency.
Embrace the New Rules For Producing
I am somewhat indebted to the ESG for this post, as his recent “Four Horseman” write-up encouraged me to re-examine my own priorities. He pointed out four things that were most influential for the current entertainment industry downturn – and it demonstrated the difference between those of us on the edges versus the mainstream. All four of his “horsemen” mean something else to me than they do for him and his audience.
The ESG pointed towards Piracy, Linear Cord Cutting, Death of Theaters, and AI as the likely harbingers of all things bad for the entertainment industry. These are all significant concerns, for sure, yet, for instance, when I look at piracy as much as I want creators to get every penny they deserve, I have also always marveled at how piracy opens new markets, exposes audiences to new perspectives. Indie, and particularly art film, are not what gets pirated. Similarly, I don’t watch much television and never have; I just don’t like it. That said the pivot to streaming could have been something different but because it ushered in the domination of the GSPs, the collapse of the old (and better) business model is significant – but not for the reasons that ESG cites, at least not for the likes of me. I am deeply pained by the loss of theaters, but again not for the loss of the giant chains. I like the community theater model for my work and although they too are suffering, it is not them that ESG is speaking about. And finally when it comes to AI, yes it will cost us jobs and quality, but it will not replace what the artists that I love can uniquely do. It will give us more crap. Eventually I hope audiences will rebel. But those are essentially why his list is not mine.
Hey Ted - I just got back from Florence, and therefore fresh from seeing with my own eyes what happens when Patrons of the arts spare no expense and let artists be artists. Just wow. But anyway, I've been thinking a lot on your point about restoring private equity investment. One of the problems I've seen is that there is a grand canyon wide divide between what filmmakers do/need and what potential money people understand about what we do/need to consistently deliver work that is both great art and profitable. Yes, film is always a pricey and risky investment and therefore investors are looking for ways to mitigate risk, but in my opinion they go about that all the wrong way. They do so by trying to hob together all these outside safety mechanisms that seem to have "worked before" (for e.g. trying to closer mimic previous box office hits, or attaching box office stars etc). But what you almost never see is investors investing in a filmmaking collective and to me, that is what would slowly mitigate at least some risk. Great filmmaking relies on teams of artisans who are all years deep in their craft, all working together to create something bigger than themselves. I have always found it nothing short of a miracle that we do so under the current model that doesn't allow for much loyalty to team, and therefore causes us to keep working with a new collection of collaborators every time. But what would happen if there were collectives of indie filmmakers, all across the country, who did get a chance to settle in and work with each other for years on end, while apprenticing those coming up underneath them? What could collectives like that create together? And what if those "investments" to the collective came from a variety of sources? Yes, the traditional investment in a particular project or slate of projects with the typical focus making sure the budget matches the potential return. But also money from patrons of the arts that have been properly educated on the need for the collective. Throughout the years I have met many of these patron types. And its been my experience that they will throw gobs of money at the fine arts without blinking an eye or expecting much in return (other than to support the arts), but that those same people suddenly become shrewd investors, combing over every last line item in the budget, when it comes to being asked to fund independent film. They see it as big business and shift their hats. Why they don't understand that funding independent film is also an incredible opportunity to support the arts, is likely a failure of our current systems, because as we filmmakers know, if you're in the game of supporting the arts, funding an indie film is actually the biggest bang for your buck, because it provides tremendous growth opportunity for an entire team of artists. If we had film collectives, truly committed to developing their crafts and their teams, and were maybe reinvesting in their own communities - rooting and expanding - rather getting good and then leaving - then maybe it might be more appealing to patrons because they would be giving to collectives in their own communities. I see many possibilities with this model but I'll just leave it there for now. My guess is you've already thought of all this, but its fun to share with someone. :)
“FUCK THE RULES” by KICKING GIANT — From their Teenage Summer cassette released Independently on Loose Leaf in 1991.
https://youtu.be/XprBMk04Yvs?si=6Sk97ZCASo21983n