Of course they are (not)? It is a tricky question to ask and answer. Generally, all truly indie - forgive the pun- filmmakers: struggle to get money to fund their work, struggle to get a crew together for their funds they have, struggle to get the cast that they want for the funds they have and struggle to pay the funds that they have invariably borrowed back. Essentially, being an indie filmmaker is all about struggle and that struggle does not end once the film is made. In my view, the real struggle has just begun. Getting an indie film made is hell, getting an indie film out to the world is the hell below hell. But this is where "all indie filmmakers are alike" theory goes a bit pear shaped (translation: it all goes awry) as some filmmakers take their marketing, distribution and festival strategy very very seriously and are thinking about those very important things like "who is my audience" and "how can i reach them" in the early days of post production. I will digress a moment to not so shamelessly plug indieIN's filmmaker listings - you can as a filmmaker list your film in the zip code search for a mere $10 - so that anyone in any part of the US, Canada and the UK can find your film and where it is playing. Check it our on our ADVERTISE page.
Back to how filmmakers are not alike...some filmmakers are part of the "membership has it's privileges" club which means that they have invariably screened at Sundance once or better yet won a prize there or another major festival and therefore can always use this as a signal to distributors or other festivals or the public for that matter, to gain entry to the small group of films and filmmakers that will always at the very least get a viewing by someone who could potentially help their film get out there. This could be a producer rep, a lawyer, a distributor, etc.
Other filmmakers, specifically, ones in Europe have a lovely thing called government funding that can help filmmakers of any point in their career from the seasoned veteran to the new filmmaker gain funds to help with marketing, distribution and festival play, Here in the UK, the UK Film Council gives filmmakers and/or production companies money to subtitle prints for festival play, go to major festivals and markets outside the UK and P&A money. Filmmakers here complain about the process - how lengthy it is, etc. - but coming from the US where NOTHING like that exists, I remind them how spoiled they are. Did I mention this is money that they don't have to pay back??? The UK is not alone in this. France does it, Spain, Germany, etc....
But with all of this government assistance - filmmakers can also get development money - indie filmmakers in these countries still struggle like their US counterparts. Is the struggle part of being an indie filmmaker? I have always been fascinated by the idea that all the widely considered great artists of this century have had to struggle in some way - with mental illness, addiction of some kind, poverty, abuse, society's ridicule, some physical impediment. Do all outsider or indie artists need that aspect of struggle to make their art? If indie filmmakers were given all of the money to what they wanted, access to distribution, marketing to a wide audience, screens to show their films? Would they still be indie? Come to think of it, wouldn't that make them Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Michael Bay, John Woo or Richard Curtis....
Keeping it indie,
Julie
Back to how filmmakers are not alike...some filmmakers are part of the "membership has it's privileges" club which means that they have invariably screened at Sundance once or better yet won a prize there or another major festival and therefore can always use this as a signal to distributors or other festivals or the public for that matter, to gain entry to the small group of films and filmmakers that will always at the very least get a viewing by someone who could potentially help their film get out there. This could be a producer rep, a lawyer, a distributor, etc.
Other filmmakers, specifically, ones in Europe have a lovely thing called government funding that can help filmmakers of any point in their career from the seasoned veteran to the new filmmaker gain funds to help with marketing, distribution and festival play, Here in the UK, the UK Film Council gives filmmakers and/or production companies money to subtitle prints for festival play, go to major festivals and markets outside the UK and P&A money. Filmmakers here complain about the process - how lengthy it is, etc. - but coming from the US where NOTHING like that exists, I remind them how spoiled they are. Did I mention this is money that they don't have to pay back??? The UK is not alone in this. France does it, Spain, Germany, etc....
But with all of this government assistance - filmmakers can also get development money - indie filmmakers in these countries still struggle like their US counterparts. Is the struggle part of being an indie filmmaker? I have always been fascinated by the idea that all the widely considered great artists of this century have had to struggle in some way - with mental illness, addiction of some kind, poverty, abuse, society's ridicule, some physical impediment. Do all outsider or indie artists need that aspect of struggle to make their art? If indie filmmakers were given all of the money to what they wanted, access to distribution, marketing to a wide audience, screens to show their films? Would they still be indie? Come to think of it, wouldn't that make them Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Michael Bay, John Woo or Richard Curtis....
Keeping it indie,
Julie
posted by indieIN | 1:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home