David Soll, Director of PUPPET, takes in IFP’s Doc Labs

We're already three days into the lab, so I have a bit of catching up to do. I didn't get to the blogging as quickly as I should have, and Danielle has good reason to be mad at me (you don't want Danielle DiGiacomo mad at you, by the way. She puts smiley faces on your Facebook page.). Regardless, here we go and let's decide together to make the best of where we are.



(Caitlin Boyle, Film Sprout counsels David Soll on outreach)

I can imagine having at one point earlier in life thought "wouldn't it be amazing if someone created a program that X," wherein X stands for the entire mission statement, schedule, description, leaders, mentors, editing advisers and first-time filmmakers involved in the IFP Documentary Lab. Which is to say, I'm impressed, and I'm impressed to the point that I find it hard to believe this fantastic idea was actually put in to effect.

Here is a program that takes ten first-time documentary feature filmmakers (also ten narrative filmmakers, in their own lab [we don't mix well]) who are entirely dissimilar from one another in sensibility and subject matter, yet share with each other varying degrees of bewilderment with the state of our films, our careers, and the industry. Which are three very large things about which to be bewildered, and together suggest a common state in which nearly every first time filmmaker is finding themselves these days.

(Jon Reiss talks about the long tail)

If you are a bewildered filmmaker - as I am (although I shouldn't speak for the entire group. some of the other filmmakers look really un-bewildered, in fact) - what the lab offers you appears at first to be a crash course in finishing, distribution models and editorial decision making. But then you arrive on the first day, they go ahead and fill you in on everything else the Lab actually is. Now, you've read all this in the literature ahead of time, but because you are not especially bright (you are, remember, trying to make an independent documentary feature in 2010), your lab leaders are nice enough to go over the scope of the program one more time. First, you realize they aren't just offering you a 'crash course', but relationships with mentors and editing advisers who are among the finest documentary talents in the business. And then you realize they selected three of these folks to actually be "lab leaders" - which means they are running the lab, in person, for every minute of this week, and together serving a function somewhere between that of batting coach, psychotherapist and rabbi. And then, you realize, they've picked filmmakers as your peers who each have compelling, hugely exciting projects of their own. And then, when you're starting to think Okay, this week looks pretty good to me, they tell you this whole thing isn't just one week at all. No, it's actually a YEAR, and will include continued mentoring with each adviser/leader/mentor offering one on one meetings outside the scheduled sessions, phone calls, letters, emails, text messages to help you continue resolving issues and facing down the intimidating landscape of independent film. And THEN, after offering you (are you kidding?) all this support, they - almost it seems just to mess with your head - they have the nerve to tell you the entire program is free.

So my point is, after a few days, my point is that yeah, I think the Lab is a good idea.

A Least Hobbies are Fun - Guest Blogger Laure Parsons on DIY DAYS

At Ted Hope’s Hope For Film site, producer Smriti Mundhra recently posted a great article
about the debate over viability that emerged at The Conversation , one of two distribution and media-creation conferences that took place within a week’s span in NYC last week (Full disclosure,: I was a moderator and ‘advisor’ at The Conversation and have some loose business relationships with folks at DIY Days ).

Ms. Mundhra describes the ongoing discussion around challenges for filmmakers in relation to finding revenue from their work (or in the sortof hateful parlance of the day, “monetizing”). The current conventional wisdom seems to be that the new culture of “free” presents a challenge to filmmakers that they can choose to confront with various strategies in the name of rescuing the profits that are suddenly in jeopardy.

Right now independent filmmakers have amazing, previously unknown opportunities. The availability of increasingly cheaper technology has allowed filmmaking to become both more accessible and much more reasonable for those who were already using higher-end, more expensive equipment. In almost every area of the production process, filmmaking is becoming available without millions or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for a high-quality result. And filmmakers have ways to reach audiences that depend more on effort than giant P&A spends. For all these reasons, filmmakers have much more control than they ever did about how to share their films with audiences.

But there is a reality, it seems to me, that is missing from the discussion. Selling independent films is not and never was a “business model” (or- if you wish- not a 'good' business model), in the context that making these films should be the basis for a lucrative career using the principles of an MBA program. A good business model takes into account what the consumer wants and tries to give them that. It does not find something that one personally likes and then tries to make other people care about it, which is something more like patronage.

Because of the economics around film, and the way independent film distribution evolved out of foreign film distribution, there was some perception that independent films had some kind of commercial viability in aggregate and that if you just came up with the right formula, you could find a pleasing margin.

There was a veneer of prosperity when films were picked up at Sundance or Toronto and garnered big advances. But that was still only a small fraction of films, and those films were highly leveraged, expensive projects. How many of those films actually made back their budget in the revenue they received from distributors? How many distributors made significant money on selling independent film with our the capital from some other source to subsidize the effort? Essentially, if you compare what people spent making indie films at that time with what the returns were, would the numbers be a lot different from today?

Some films that happened to be independent were great successes.
However, I wonder how much of the revenue generated by those films ended up in the hands of creative people who made the film. In my experience, a system that splits the revenue several times before it reaches a royalty payment tends to yield small returns for creators.

Is independent filmmaking, as was suggested at The Conversation, a hobby? Most filmmakers will be lucky to make more money than is invested in the film, and possibly even lucky to make more money than they personally invested. For that reason, it’s essential that people wanting to make films are doing it because it’s exciting, fun, collaborative, creative and they are driven to do it despite the financial investment.

A large industry of film schools and workshops has emerged to service people who think they want to “be” a filmmaker but this is kind of like people wanting to “be” a shoe repair person. There’s not a mysterious, gatekept process anymore- just find a story and cast, then shoot and edit (it's not easy but it's fairly intuitive). You don’t have to lose money, and you likely won’t make much. You might make something that is exciting, beautiful, or new. Before you do anything else, try to understand and find your audience, so someone will see your work when it’s done.

Laure Parsons is a filmmaker and distribution consultant and can be found at xplusxfilms.com and infinicine.com.