I "met" you on the d-word today and appreciated your comment and this article. You're so right about following the money and the power. Just chiming in here:
Though there are definitely films that have made an impact (I mentioned Blackfish today and Free Willie since we're on the subject of sea life (I've got the flu so my brain is somewhat lacking right now), I do get what you're saying. Having just come back from Sundance (ergo, the flu), there were impact films there, of course, but it as of now, the only doc that is in the process of being bought is The Perfect Neighbor, bought by Netflix for about $5m,(which def deserves the financial attention).
The thing about impact is that in order to gauge how much imact occurs, you have to quantify it -- and that doesn't always happen.
Back to following the money... Here's an example.
Mission Joy: Finding Happiness in a Troubled World, centered on a few days that the Dalai Llama and Desmund Tutu spent together focusing on joy. It premiered at Tribecca and all thought a bidding war would ensue. The production team was ready to hear all offers, but stead... crickets. Apparently distributors did not want to risk the wrath of China (and the potential removal of all those audience eyes and butts in seats from their other films), so the producers had to figure out a plan b, which did not rely on distributors.
Unless you put your time and talent on there right project, going out on a limb can result in lost income, reputation and power. It takes a certain kind of person to take that route. It's one of the thing I respect about filmmakers, because they walk their talk. That said, taking "integrity-risks" shouldn't be choice between material success and creating impact.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The D-word meeting/conversation was necessary and informative. There are, of course, very good even great impact films being made. But as you mention, often distributors do not want to take a chance on the films--they are afraid that the impact could be disruptive, which is really the point of an impact film. It should be disruptive. Otherwise, it's not really making an impact--even if that impact is hard to measure, especially in the short term.
The point I wanted to make or discuss was that if impact films aren't having enough impact we have to start looking at why, especially if the films are quality films. These films often aren't finding an audience. That's a big issue. I want the funders--not the filmmakers--to take greater responsibility. I'm trying to look at this at the wider or industry level not film by film.
Perhaps you've read or seen or heard about Keri Putnam's monumental and valuable report on independent film and the audiences or lack thereof.
She (and all the others she has worked with) is looking at the landscape of independent filmmaking to see what can be done to make it more sustainable in the future. It's a massive undertaking that will require lots of work from many people and many segments of the film world.
I have some ideas about how that might happen, which I will share in my next post. I want to look at more than an individual film or handful of films.
PS: I looked at your film's trailer. Well done! I hope the film gets out where it belongs. (I made a film about a father trying to get his mentally ill son off the streets of New York--Shelter in the City. These are difficult subjects to dive into.)
Hi Terry, so I keep wondering how Hollywood kept churning out content while the rest of America was in lock down. I lived up in the North East and we couldn't do a single thing without masks. So how did the Hollywood Elitists still go on with their lives while telling us how to live and what to do 🤔
That's a good question. Most productions did shut down. The companies and unions wouldn't allow them to work. However, there are some, smaller productions and nonunion productions, that disobeyed the rules and continued to work--as carefully and as discretely as possible. There are always some people who break rules inside Hollywood and outside it. That's how the world goes. Also, some of the productions were in postproduction which allowed editors to work remotely at home--you can edit alone but you can communicate online like many professions did. Productions that has finished shooting before the pandemic could then be finished while everyone was in locked down. These films and content could then be shown. This may have made it look like people were on set working, but they probably were not.
I "met" you on the d-word today and appreciated your comment and this article. You're so right about following the money and the power. Just chiming in here:
Though there are definitely films that have made an impact (I mentioned Blackfish today and Free Willie since we're on the subject of sea life (I've got the flu so my brain is somewhat lacking right now), I do get what you're saying. Having just come back from Sundance (ergo, the flu), there were impact films there, of course, but it as of now, the only doc that is in the process of being bought is The Perfect Neighbor, bought by Netflix for about $5m,(which def deserves the financial attention).
The thing about impact is that in order to gauge how much imact occurs, you have to quantify it -- and that doesn't always happen.
Back to following the money... Here's an example.
Mission Joy: Finding Happiness in a Troubled World, centered on a few days that the Dalai Llama and Desmund Tutu spent together focusing on joy. It premiered at Tribecca and all thought a bidding war would ensue. The production team was ready to hear all offers, but stead... crickets. Apparently distributors did not want to risk the wrath of China (and the potential removal of all those audience eyes and butts in seats from their other films), so the producers had to figure out a plan b, which did not rely on distributors.
Unless you put your time and talent on there right project, going out on a limb can result in lost income, reputation and power. It takes a certain kind of person to take that route. It's one of the thing I respect about filmmakers, because they walk their talk. That said, taking "integrity-risks" shouldn't be choice between material success and creating impact.
Christine, Creator & Director of FROM HOPE TO HOME (FromHopetoHomeFilm.com)
Hi Christine,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The D-word meeting/conversation was necessary and informative. There are, of course, very good even great impact films being made. But as you mention, often distributors do not want to take a chance on the films--they are afraid that the impact could be disruptive, which is really the point of an impact film. It should be disruptive. Otherwise, it's not really making an impact--even if that impact is hard to measure, especially in the short term.
The point I wanted to make or discuss was that if impact films aren't having enough impact we have to start looking at why, especially if the films are quality films. These films often aren't finding an audience. That's a big issue. I want the funders--not the filmmakers--to take greater responsibility. I'm trying to look at this at the wider or industry level not film by film.
Perhaps you've read or seen or heard about Keri Putnam's monumental and valuable report on independent film and the audiences or lack thereof.
Link: https://shorensteincenter.org/us-independent-film-audience-landscape-study/
The full report is downloadable on the site.
She (and all the others she has worked with) is looking at the landscape of independent filmmaking to see what can be done to make it more sustainable in the future. It's a massive undertaking that will require lots of work from many people and many segments of the film world.
I have some ideas about how that might happen, which I will share in my next post. I want to look at more than an individual film or handful of films.
PS: I looked at your film's trailer. Well done! I hope the film gets out where it belongs. (I made a film about a father trying to get his mentally ill son off the streets of New York--Shelter in the City. These are difficult subjects to dive into.)
Hi Terry, so I keep wondering how Hollywood kept churning out content while the rest of America was in lock down. I lived up in the North East and we couldn't do a single thing without masks. So how did the Hollywood Elitists still go on with their lives while telling us how to live and what to do 🤔
Hi Ken,
That's a good question. Most productions did shut down. The companies and unions wouldn't allow them to work. However, there are some, smaller productions and nonunion productions, that disobeyed the rules and continued to work--as carefully and as discretely as possible. There are always some people who break rules inside Hollywood and outside it. That's how the world goes. Also, some of the productions were in postproduction which allowed editors to work remotely at home--you can edit alone but you can communicate online like many professions did. Productions that has finished shooting before the pandemic could then be finished while everyone was in locked down. These films and content could then be shown. This may have made it look like people were on set working, but they probably were not.