SXSW 2009 Part Two: If You Are a Filmmaker, Read This Post

The reality check of the No Budget to Low Budget panel of established low budget/online filmmakers like Felicia Day (The Guild) and Michael Nigro (American Cannibal) is that they all have day jobs, although in Day’s case that day job is professional actress, but still.

As with some of the previous day’s panels, this one was full of practical advice for frugal filmmakers. If you only have enough money to spend on one thing, what should it be? A decent sound person was one answer, as quality audio can separate you from the pack online. Food was another. Your crew has to eat. Conversely, you’re probably better off with no makeup artist than an inexpensive one.

One sentiment expressed by the panel that I’m not entirely sure I agree with is that low budget filmmaking is categorically more collaborative. While the constraints of low budget filmmaking compel collaboration and, perhaps more importantly, a lack of airs (the director has to clean up trash along with the rest of the crew) you can find ego-driven auteurs no matter what the budget and highly collaborative environments on extremely expensive shoots.

What is perhaps truer is that on a low budget shoot you can’t afford to specialize. You generally can’t afford to pay anyone to do only one thing. So, by nature, everyone is doing every job at all times. As Day said, "Kill the auteur."

Another sentiment that was echoed in the previous day’s panel about low budget FX is that no planning equals a waste of money. The better you plan the less expensive your film will be. Do your research.

From a gear standpoint, there was a lot of enthusiasm expressed for the Red camera. However, at $17,500 for the body alone, this is more of a low budget than a no budget option.

Some fiduciary advice involved using tax credits to raise funds, although many states that offer these incentives are finding they have to cut back in the current economy, while others, like New York, have apparently already blown through their incentive cash. But in cases where it is available, it’s a nice option because it’s guaranteed money back for any investors since it amounts to cash back from the state.

Another very sound piece of advice involved putting marketing in your line budget before shooting a single frame. No matter how much your movie cost to make, marketing it ain’t cheap. A sentiment echoed in a panel later that day about self-distribution, in which it was advised that a filmmaker begin his or her online marketing push while writing the screenplay.

Probably the most exciting revelation of the panel was the observation that we’re really only at the dawn of this medium. Online video now is like the early days of radio, film or television where producers would simply record a play spoken into a microphone or performed in front of a camera. Right now we’re just showing TV on the Internet. Who knows what’s coming next?

Also, a generation of filmmakers is growing up that doesn’t consider online video a second-class citizen. They want to shoot exclusively for the Web. They’re not interested in features. Maybe they know what’s coming next.

The aforementioned panel on self-distribution took a look at what can happen to these no and low budget films once they are complete. Here’s a hint: Get used to the phrase "semi-theatrical distribution." Increasingly, independent filmmakers are finding that a traditional theatrical release is simply not in the cards, but that doesn’t necessarily mean straight-to-DVD, either. For example, a limited theatrical release could include community centers if your doc has something to do with their field of interest. Basically any dark room with strangers and a big screen counts as a theater.

New services are popping up to help filmmakers navigate these far more complicated and collaborative dis-tributaries. Caitlin Boyle of Paradigm Consulting, one such agency, explained that the old model for distribution had you sending your film off to boarding school. Once you sold it to a studio you never saw your film again until it was (fingers crossed) released. Now it’s more like a co-op nursery. You choose your own level of involvement.

Another trend that’s becoming clear is that documentaries are at the forefront of the online/dvd market. Docs are easier to sell because they generally have a clearly-defined topic and, therefore, a built-in audience. One of the strategies that grows from this fact is reaching your audience where they buy things related to their interest. Let’s say you made a documentary about knitting. Get your DVD into arts and crafts stores and your ads on knitting enthusiast Web sites and your links in front of online knitting communities.

This, by the way, was the first panel where I heard someone quote Reed Hastings’ forecast that DVD has until 2012 (although the closest thing I’ve been able to find to him ever actually saying that is this).

The second was, naturally enough, The Future of the DVD and Digital Distribution, which acknowledged that, in spite of this dire prediction, the real money for independent filmmakers right now was in DVDs. The difference in revenue between DVD and digital downloads right now is something like a 90/10 split, respectively. Panelist Morgan Spurlock, whose docs are currently available in both forms, says that in the last quarter he made $69,000 off of Super Size Me on DVD vs. $3,000 online. He cautions, however, that this is no reason to dismiss online, since online viewership drives eyeballs to the DVD.

A filmmaker now has numerous options for how to get his or her film out there. Theatrical release, which could mean anything from a paid booking in a professional theater to a screening at a college or church. Video On Demand, which probably involves cutting a deal with a corporation like IFC. Digital downloads – which could be as sophisticated as a deal with iTunes (currently the leader in digital downloads followed by Xbox and Amazon) or as simple as uploading to your own site. And DVD, which could mean Amazon, your own site, or that arts and crafts store. And, of course, people pirating your movie.

As far as making money off of the online option, Spurlock pointed out that, "the reason the numbers [on digital download revenue] aren’t released is because the numbers are pathetic" and that "You’re not gonna make a lot of money here for at least five years." He said he’d welcome a "donate" button on sites where users pirate his movies.

But for all of this, digital downloads seem to be the one platform where true independents can compete with full-blown blockbusters. For a while, independent documentary 2012: Science or Superstition was duking it out with Kung Fu Panda for sales supremacy on iTunes.

The greatest opportunity for filmmakers, though, in a sentiment that reverberated through all three of these panels, is the chance to take back the reigns of their film during the distribution process. The choice to self-distribute is becoming more of a choice to maintain control rather than a consolation prize for failing to win "real" distribution from a studio. The same thing happened in the music biz. Self-distribution became the healthier model.

Objectified and Helvetica director Gary Hustwit (more on Objectified later) sat on the panel as a vocal proponent of self-distribution, but warned, "Digital distribution is not some magic bullet." He stressed that filmmakers need to get boots on the ground to promote their films. That, too, was a common theme. Technology may have given filmmakers more options, but all of them require hard work.