#anthony kaufman

[01sentencereviews]

As consultant Brian Newman offers, "Indie film movements might have died already due to the superabundance of content. With so much coming at us, and form so many places -- fests, Netflix, Amazon, Fandor and then TV series, Web series, viral videos, etc -- it's harder to identify with and join any movement at all." [...] ...[veteran distributor and publicist Mark Urman] says, "Now, a movie invades the whole universe in a very short point of time." [...] Can a movement be a single movie? Because that's all we've got nowadays: one-hit wonders... "There may be a movement for as long as it takes to eat a meal, and then there will be another movement," quips Urman.  [...] ..."I suspect indie/arthouse films can do this again," [Newman] says, "But we'll have to let go of chasing mainstream success -- whatever that might be today."

No New Waves?, Anthony Kaufman

Filmmaker Magazine, No. 100

[notes-slowroots]

It's no use building a beautiful, state-of-the-art transmedia doc that purports to encourage democratic discussion if the audience who needs to see it most can only access it through the latest OS and web browser.

Tim Horsburgh, quoted in "Transmedia Documentaries are Sexy, But Who's Watching?" by Anthony Kaufman (Indiewire, 2013)

[thedochierarchy-blog]

As far as I saw, there was no Catfish or Exit Through the Gift Shop, no Imposter or Man on Wire, no radical mixes of documentary and fiction—in short, very little stylistic experimentation. Watching the docs at Sundance was like being holed up in your living room and held captive by HBO, besieged by hours upon hours of solid reportage.

Anthony Kaufman

The Sundance blogger uses his regular (and always very good) "Docutopia" column to bemoan (to an extent) the lack of artistry within this year's crop of docs.

[mikeambs]

why won't [the internet] make indie film profitable?

When writing my response to a Filmmaker Magazine post by Anthony Kaufman titled Why Won’t Kickstarter and Twitter Save Indie Film?, I kept finding myself deleting areas of discussion that separated "saving" from profitability in indie film, to the point where I wanted to write a follow up post: 

The word "save", to me, is nonspecific, yet it always seems to suggest profitability to indie filmmakers - as if profits were the only area of indie filmmaking that ever needed saving in the last 30 years. In a response to a sharply-written comment from Mynette Louie, I made the point that,

Asking the question of "will" these tools save indie film is a bit late, they have saved indie film - they have given thousands [and thousands] of storytellers a real chance at sharing their films when only 6 years ago it would have been nearly statistically-impossible. 

And the above point is the most important to me when I see the word "save" in context of independent filmmaking; the ability for a storyteller to create and then share that creative work with people immediately. The weight that I give to sharing might come from thinking of myself as a storyteller more than a filmmaker, and my interest in the internet above that of the cinema. This doesn't mean I have no interest in film, and that I would pass up an opportunity to share a film in a theater, but these are secondary interest to my love of stories and my love of the internet. The internet is a far more powerful tool for entertainment, change, intimacy and engagement than the cinema has ever been or could ever be. 

Having said that, the internet's role in profitability is not limited in funding as much as it's often over-shadowed by filmmakers not creating within their means. As an example, if a filmmaker raises $30,000 for production and post expenses, but then spends $27,594 over 9 days of filming with a crew of 24 people - claiming that the internet [Kickstarter, Twitter, Facebook...] isn't the savior of indie film because they've run out of funds, well, it's not exactly addressing the real issue. And to be fair, I am learning these mistakes the hard way as well, I have gone through budgets quicker then expected and found myself cornered financially. 

Kaufman mentions several filmmakers in his piece - Scott Kirsner, Lance Weiler, Ted Hope, Peter Broderick, Jon Reiss - most of them with roots in traditional film who have recently been strong advocates for social media. While I do follow most of the filmmakers mentioned above, I have a tendency to listen more closely to people who have been working online in shorter formats. 

When bridging the space between traditional film and the internet, I feel that shorter format creators and indie filmmakers are both working toward the same connecting point, but people working in shorter formats are building their half of the bridge at a much faster pace than feature filmmakers who are experimenting online have been able to keep. I think storytellers working to create within the boundaries of 5-30 minutes are in a position to more quickly learn lessons / adapt to financial limitations / build a workflow that produces *more* with less / etc. 

Steve Woolf often talks about the differences between, "People who view themselves as filmmakers" vs "people who view themselves as creators" and how each group views "web video" differently, especially when it comes to, what he refers to as, "independent sustainability". 

Taking a look at the average production budget (APB) for film in the last 60 years - in the 1940s the APB was $400,000, by the 1960s it reached $2 million, $13 million by the 80s, and over $50 million since 2000, with some recent blockbusters costing as much as $190 million - it's difficult to track exact numbers for truly independent film, but it's safe to say that indie film's APB has also increased, albeit not as sharply. But "independent sustainability" is key if, as storytellers, we want to create a system that won't simply crash and burn before it's been given a chance to really expand and set new examples, this means structuring stories and budgets within what we are capable of funding online. 

As storytellers we are only going to move forward if we learn to build more with less, learn to not simply juggle multiple roles but understand how to efficiently mesh them together. There is no one business plan online, that is both a benefit and a downside to the internet; budget within your means and decide on how you are going to distribute and sell that creative work. Your budget / distribution plan could be broken into any number of different creative approaches, as long as you always create within your means. 

If Shane Carruth was able to write, direct, produce, score, and edit Primer in 2004, an entire year before YouTube was even launched, on a budget of $7,000 - then the only limitations filmmakers face are self-impossed limitations. 

[mikeambs]

Why Won’t [the Internet] Save Indie Film?

Earlier yesterday Ted Hope twittered a link to the Top 12 post of 2010 rundown on Filmmaker Magazine - I sent all 12 post to my Instapaper queue, as I had somehow managed to not read a single one of the listed post, but - one that caught my eye was an article by Anthony Kaufman titled Why Won’t Kickstarter And Twitter Save Indie Film?. I'm not really quite sure why of all the film-related post written between the months of January and December that this stood out on anyone's radar in particular, but it was amazingly frustrating to read. I was surprised to later find that Kaufman is fairly young, at least young enough to know better, not the 70 year old disgruntled film-vetern he first appeared to be. 

I'm going to list a few of my favorite snippets from the post: 

via The Filmmaker Magazine Blog

Internet-enabled DIY filmmaking-and-distribution model is far from guaranteed. At this early stage, the successes are few and far between.

“I think it’s completely overwhelming and totally worthless,” says [Joe Swanberg]. “I don’t think a Facebook message or a Twitter update translates to asses in seats."

“Doing the distribution took a lot of precious time away from our other projects,” says [Mynette Louie]. And the team’s Kickstarter campaign to help fund self-distribution failed, garnering just $1,430 of a $5,000 goal. “We [were] sort of relieved about it,” Louie adds, “because we were dreading having to ship large posters and signed DVDs to [our contributors].”

It is possible I'm reading this entire post all wrong, perhaps for every counter-argument made against Kickstarter / Twitter / Facebook / a.k.a., the Internet as a whole, there shouldn't be an assumed argument in favor of traditional marketing and distribution for indie film. It does read that way - but in his defense, Kaufman is never specific on why the internet, when compared side-by-side with an assumed traditional marketing and distribution approach, why the internet fails. Apparently, it just fails. 

In no particular order of misinformedness, I'm going to start with Joe Swanberg and his claim that twitter and facebook updates don't translate into audience - even if we ignore the reality that just 5 years ago Google was the top referrer of traffic, compared with today and Facebook being the top referrer of traffic, i.e., people now control distribution - aside from that, what does this say about the importance of word of mouth? Or does word of mouth just not count when it's online? 

Then there is Mynette Louie, quoted as being actually relieved when her own Kickstarter campaign was unsuccessful - I have yet to see her film, Children of Invention, and I'm sure it's a wonderful independent film, but I'm sorry, if you, as a storyteller, are too damn lazy to directly communicate and build a real relationship with your audience and supporters, then you really have no place on Kickstarter or Facebook or Twitter or any other number of sites built for doing exactly that. Considering that Louie wasn't ready to snail-mail DVDs and posters directly to her audience, *even* when her audience paid her in advance to do just that, I think it's safe to say she and the team behind Children might not have put their full-effort into promoting their Kickstarter campaign. 

And now for my favorite bit of wisdom from Kaufman: 

"...successes are few and far between."

It's hard to tell if by "success" Kaufman means financially, or in theatrical release, or something else - but success for a filmmaker working outside of traditional studios is like any ambition in life, you get out what you put in. There is a reason that months before Avatar or Transformers is released, everywhere you look you see billboards, TV spots, action figures, cross promotion with cereals and drinks and fast-food and coloring books; there is a return on investment, RIO, for what these major studios put in to promotion. So, yes, in a very narrow sense, what Swanberg said above about "asses in seats" is correct, an individual tweet or update will most likely not translate into an additional ticket-sale for your film. It requires a consistent and honest level of engagement to build an audience - and I mean that mostly for indie storytellers, honesty isn't necessarily an important aspect of promotion for larger studios. 

"...DIY filmmaking-and-distribution model is far from guaranteed..."

What in the hell has ever been guaranteed in filmmaking? What golden age model of filmmaking and distribution is Kaufman comparing the internet with? Because I wasn't aware there was a guaranteed era of filmmaking in Hollywood until the Internet came along and pissed on everyone's parade. 

The progression of the Internet has been *the* closest we have ever come to a guarantee in not only filmmaking but storytelling as a whole; there is no gamble of hit-or-miss pitch meetings with producers on the Internet, there is just you and the story you are passionate about sharing, and access to the entire world and a mass of people who might just being willing to invest their time, energy and even budget behind your film if you only care enough to build a relationship with them.