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. :)
Thanks for sharing this Holly. Something like that has long been a dream of mine, and I suspect many others who read this newsletter. In some ways, THIS newsletter is an effort to provide a foundation for such action. I suggest First Principles, Tactics and examples regularly -- partially in hopes others will embrace and get it done. The challenge of course is we all have to make a living, and every time we get a film financed (should be so fortunate) work stops. It would be wonderful if there was foundational support to build such a collective, but...
I know. That needing to make a living thing was always looming for me too, and I lived far too long making just enough to keep the ole film habit going. The last couple years I finally backed up and built something with the power to create my own financial stability on my own terms. And if I am fortunate enough to make some real money from it, I might just be one of those who funds a collective just for the pleasure of watching filmmakers grow.
One of the financiers in my first film compared it to buying a painting, which he does frequently to support artists he loves. I’ve always liked that. I was also in Florence recently and much of the breathtaking art was also made for the exultation of the church and the patrons and their families, but at least they valued their artists! I’ve had a lot of conversation over the years about starting a “collective” of sorts, but the challenges are the same as with any group of people, especially if their financial futures are at somewhat tied together. Egos and different creative visions - who decides where resources go - to whose project? If one project / director is more successful but everyone benefits equally… we’ll just watch any documentary about a successful band and you’ll see how this plays out. I’m not saying it’s not an incredible idea (and possibly the future) but humans gonna human especially when there is money and recognition at stake, and those things should be considered when visualizing this type of scenario.
Humans gonna human. Lol. That is the truth of it. Which is why I agree. Many of the collectives will fail. But I bet as a society, if we went for it, there'd be a few that would be the film equivalent of the Rolling Stones. ;)
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. :)
Thanks for sharing this Holly. Something like that has long been a dream of mine, and I suspect many others who read this newsletter. In some ways, THIS newsletter is an effort to provide a foundation for such action. I suggest First Principles, Tactics and examples regularly -- partially in hopes others will embrace and get it done. The challenge of course is we all have to make a living, and every time we get a film financed (should be so fortunate) work stops. It would be wonderful if there was foundational support to build such a collective, but...
I know. That needing to make a living thing was always looming for me too, and I lived far too long making just enough to keep the ole film habit going. The last couple years I finally backed up and built something with the power to create my own financial stability on my own terms. And if I am fortunate enough to make some real money from it, I might just be one of those who funds a collective just for the pleasure of watching filmmakers grow.
ah, may the cinema gods smile upon you and all those endeavors!
Indeed.
One of the financiers in my first film compared it to buying a painting, which he does frequently to support artists he loves. I’ve always liked that. I was also in Florence recently and much of the breathtaking art was also made for the exultation of the church and the patrons and their families, but at least they valued their artists! I’ve had a lot of conversation over the years about starting a “collective” of sorts, but the challenges are the same as with any group of people, especially if their financial futures are at somewhat tied together. Egos and different creative visions - who decides where resources go - to whose project? If one project / director is more successful but everyone benefits equally… we’ll just watch any documentary about a successful band and you’ll see how this plays out. I’m not saying it’s not an incredible idea (and possibly the future) but humans gonna human especially when there is money and recognition at stake, and those things should be considered when visualizing this type of scenario.
Humans gonna human. Lol. That is the truth of it. Which is why I agree. Many of the collectives will fail. But I bet as a society, if we went for it, there'd be a few that would be the film equivalent of the Rolling Stones. ;)
“FUCK THE RULES” by KICKING GIANT — From their Teenage Summer cassette released Independently on Loose Leaf in 1991.
https://youtu.be/XprBMk04Yvs?si=6Sk97ZCASo21983n
As always, things I have been harping on for years now are better said and heard by others:
https://deadline.com/2024/10/working-title-tim-bevan-eric-fellner-indie-films-cheaper-bolder-london-film-festival-1236116378/
Related to #s 2, 4, 7, and 9 of your Recommendations.
Thanks for sharing Bill. You think they read HopeForFilm?