This is a must read article. Apropos of the thread 'will there be a film industry' this article takes a cold hard look at what the world market and film making are going to look like going forward.

Its full of FACTS and NUMBERS - always good to have when talking about what is really possible/probable for indy film makers.

http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2008/06/irst_person_fil.html

Interesting article.

I really liked what he had to say about quality and maturity of subject matter being increasingly important. Markets will be expanded by quality films and shows that tell good stories.

Good post, good article.

I think every 24p camera sold should come with the following burned into the viewfinder:

In the most reductionist fashion: tere's the holy trinity of structure, character and dialogue, of course; the crucial if more ephemeral notions of authenticity, voice, theme, and tone; and the imperative for originality of utterance and perception.

In the end, all of this has to add up (seamlessly if possible) to something that moves us-- to the quality of the emotional content. It doesn't matter if we're talking about thrills, laughs, tears, or an adrenaline rush. What matters is that we are engaged and, ideally, emotionally transformed and satisfied.

In a world increasingly dominated by numbers--financial, technological and most importantly the finite number of hours in a day, our very human desire for contact, meaning and emotional transformation isn't going away. It's growing. Those who remember that will survive and most probably win.

Haven't had time to follow the link, but on www.salon.com, Andrew O'Hehir has an article that sounds very similiar in tone. He quotes a business analyst that says indie films lose money 99.95 percent of the time - literally, it's a better business deal to hit Vegas with a jar full of loose change.

It's been remarked on dvinfo.net several times that when you're working on the micro budget level, you're best bet is not superb production values and special effects. If you can do it on the cheap, more power to you.

Creative DPs can do amazing shots with the camera they have, probably, if they know their equipment well.

But after that, the more 'bang for the buck' is on the writing and acting level. It always seemed to this me that film culture tended to emphasise all the cool equipment and effects, while writers are a pain in the arse, and actors are just props with arms and legs.

At this point, my first priority as a director is performance, then get good sound. After that, I just make sure I have coverage so we can make it look good in editing.

I don't make films, I shoot video. I know my place.

But I think you are right that the emphasis is on equipment because it is quantifiable.

Writing and acting can not be accounted for by cost or math, they come from communication and talent.

Society is so far in the bean counter territory most do not even realize it because we are a market driven world. (talking about America mostly because this is where I know the most about)

Everything has a place and a price, not much room for creativity or dreams unless they make money.

Sure it may be a huge gamble and a waste of money but I would rather see creative people do this then waste their money in Vegas on slot machines. At least the film community is developing some interesting skills and the world may be a better place now because a few people took the chance to express their creative muscle. At least those people have something to show for what they spent their money on instead of just debt.

The world would truly be a sad sad place if everybody gave up on art because it wasn't a big money maker.

The same can really be said for any art form. There are a lot of people in the world that can paint or draw but sadly it is only a select few that get their own art gallery. I am really glad however that the world hasn't given up on painting and drawing.

There is a reason why the name starving artists exists.

If you want to make money become a banker.

What the world needs is a better way for film makers to sell their stuff. theaters are art galleries and one of the only forms of art left that is still really restricted to the "art gallery"

I think the pirates have added a lot to the mess.

The digital age has scared a lot of people away from artistic business models.

The entire music industry is a perfect example.

Sink a lot of money & effort into a project and people expect it for free.

Sure it may be a huge gamble and a waste of money but I would rather see creative people do this then waste their money in Vegas on slot machines. At least the film community is developing some interesting skills and the world may be a better place now because a few people took the chance to express their creative muscle. At least those people have something to show for what they spent their money on instead of just debt.

The world would truly be a sad sad place if everybody gave up on art because it wasn't a big money maker.

The same can really be said for any art form. There are a lot of people in the world that can paint or draw but sadly it is only a select few that get their own art gallery. I am really glad however that the world hasn't given up on painting and drawing.

There is a reason why the name starving artists exists.

If you want to make money become a banker.

What the world needs is a better way for film makers to sell their stuff. theaters are art galleries and one of the only forms of art left that is still really restricted to the "art gallery"


Thomas, you have a noble spirit, and I'd agree with you in theory... but the practical world is a much different place.

First: Excluding the time of the visionary...
Creating a painting costs about $5-$50.
Creating a film costs... and you MUST factor in the cost of a minimum crew... bare minimum $10,000 for a "no-buget" to realistically $200,000 to $2,000,000 for a low-budget/no name actors.

And don't forget... the filmmakers who create "art" that doesn't sell don't lose their money... they lose the money (and time) of those who invested in them... friends, family, investors, etc... The responsibility the people who back you comes before the responsibility to your vision, because without your backers, you have nothing.

I agree, the world needs a better way for indie filmmakers to sell their stuff (and I'm working on it!). But the truth is... there isn't a market for the amount of films out there, for what they cost to make (in North America anyway).

It's never been cheaper to make a film, and it will continue that trend for the foreseeable future. With a lower barrier to entry there will be more participants and more of a crowd to stick out in. Whoever said being an artist was easy?

I'm sure the success rate of movies is similar with painting and music and most other forms of art.

Most other forms of art don't require any where near the budget or time commitment from a crew of people. The only thing that comes close would be theatre.

The point of the article is that it IS so inexpensive to make films (relative to what it was a decade ago) So instead of a few people making and losing a hundred thousand dollars, you now have a hundred people losing a thousand dollars. What the article points out is the expense of MARKETING the films that are made.

Well, they put it best in their own article. Good films (or art in general) market themselves. If you make something people really want to see, it will happen. On the internet it's when things go "viral".

"How do you make rabbit stew?"

First, catch a rabbit.

I am only interested in dvd, home theaters, festivals,
dont really care about theatrical release at all, and the lecture didnt address that.

You are going to get a lot of crud, but that happened when masses of people had access to pencils and paper.
It was only a matter of time before technology did the same to film.

But on the bright side, you dont need to mess with split screen/matte boxes, optical printers, rear projectors, everything is much easier and cheaper.
I hate the thinking that everything must be done the old fashioned way-despite new technology.

You can do a lot with a parking lot or a piece of green fabric these days, thanks to digital.


There is much more creative freedom than ever before. You really can make something decent at a used car price. If a 14 year old kid in his bedroom can do a light saber effect better than a big studio could do in 1980, then you can do anything on the cheap and make it watchable.


If you dont have the skills yourself you can probably send the file to some kid in Argentina who can help you out with post production.

If you dont have storytelling talent, well then you are screwed but that's always been the case.

This might be tooting my own horn a bit since I run the website, but my friend Brian made a great post in our blog about why indie filmmakers shouldn't be afraid of internet debuts, direct-to-DVD, and other markets that thus far have been shunned away by filmmakers:

Self-Distribution: Might as Well Touch the Third Rail (http://newmediaeconomist.com/2008/08/self-distribution-might-as-well-touch-the-third-rail/)

I share that opinion, which is that times are changing, they will be difficult, and those among us who jump on board with the changes will succeed. Those who expect to do everything Spielberg style cutting negatives in a back room when the year is 2024 are in for a real surprise.

That's another reason why I'm always shocked, and have to laugh, when I see a first-time filmmaker trying to shoot a "low-budget" festival short on 35mm, when any up-and-coming filmmaker should be utilizing the efficiency of digital.

I don't make films, I shoot video. I know my place.

And are therefore doomed to stay there. I am striving to get into making Cinema. Video is a vehicle, not who I am. I am not a videomaker. I just happen to have access to video equipment for making my films in a cost effective manner.

Thomas, you have a noble spirit, and I'd agree with you in theory... but the practical world is a much different place.

First: Excluding the time of the visionary...
Creating a painting costs about $5-$50.


Dylan,

With all due respect, my fiance is a professional artist. Your figure is tremendously misinformed. While it's still no comparison to the costs making a feature length film, painting follows a similar pre-production, production, post, and distribution cycle that mirrors film.

Canvas alone costs $50 - $200+, depending on the size and if you buy pre-stretched or are willing to assemble the frame and stretch your own, which is slightly cheaper per square inch.

The little $10 canvases you see in Michaels or Aaron Brothers are no more usable for professional work than shooting a movie on a $100 camcorder would be.

Decent oil paint averages $12-$80+ per tube, and you need one tube for every color in your painting, and they're consumables. Brushes are ~$15 each, depending on size, and you must also purchase a gesso ($20 a bucket) to prime the canvas. You will also require paint thinner, linseed oil, various other mediums to thin or thicken or gloss or matte the paint, an easel or other canvas support, and both clothes and a work space that can afford to get ruined (oil paint is VERY permanent).

There are sometimes costs involved in choosing a subject, whether it's paying a model or securing the rights to to paint a recognizable subject or landmark.

Ignoring the artist's time (several days to months, depending on the work, oil paint dries very slowly and must be applied in layers), my fiance invests an average of $150-$200 in materials per painting for a work approximately 3' x 4' in size. However, based on the following, discounting an artist's time invested is about as fair as looking at a $5000 5-minute short film and discounting the three to six months it took to make.

Once the painting is completed (and dry, and varnished, and scanned for reproduction and archiving), then there's still the matter of distribution. An artist can put a painting in a gallery about as easily as your average film maker can put their movie in a theater. And, even if you do get gallery distribution, galleries charge a 50% commission on any work they sell. The number of professional artists in galleries is probably similar to the number of SAG members making money - for every A list star making $20m a picture (artists in galleries), there are thousands waiting tables, struggling to get jobs at scale (everyone else).

If you're not in a gallery (and most working artists are not), your options are local exhibitions, the internet, or art festivals. Marni (my fiance) personally maintains 5+ different web sites, including her myspace (a promotional tool that has led to sales), her own website, a page on etsy (an online marketplace for handmade goods) and several different art sites. She has her art exhibiting at several locations, which all take commissions ranging from 30-50% (mostly winery tasting rooms, we live in Sideways country), which require time spent showing her portfolio, building relationships and introductions, and preparing contracts (you don't leave thousands of dollars worth of work somewhere without a carefully drawn up contract). Finally, she tours 30 weekends a year at art festivals (which require entry fees averaging $600 or so, plus thousands in specialized equipment for transport and display - the tent alone was $2600).

In the last year, we've invested over $30,000 in materials, equipment, and fees. Add to that thousands of hours of labor for production, promotion, and distribution. Marni's work sells well, but unlike a successful film which can make millions, paintings (excluding the work by the top 1% of artists like Damien Hearst and Jeff Koons) generally sell for $500 to $10,000 each, and very very few in the upper end of that price range sell without a commission (usually 50%) being extracted.

The majority of her paintings sell in the $1200-$5000 range, and she sells an average of one or two paintings a month. She supplements this income by selling limited- and open-edition prints and giclees in several sizes ($20 - $400), as well as greeting cards ($5) and hand made necklaces ($20) bearing images of her paintings.

I'm not contradicting the main point of your post - film IS more expensive than painting. However, painting requires a tremendous investment of time and money. You could no more make a real painting for $50 than you could make a real movie for $500.

-Jeff

PS - if after all that, you're curious about her work, you can find it at http://www.mmutrux.com and Etsy :: mutrux :: Marni Mutrux Studio (http://mutrux.etsy.com)