Filmmaking for profit.

A central pillar of my whole microbudget filmmaking paradigm is that of filmmaking as a FOR PROFIT enterprise.

This is not to say that ALL filmmaking needs to be for profit.  Often it isn't in the near term.  For instance, a network will commission a movie or tv series as an exercise in branding.  They're not looking to recoup anything specific per se, it's just part of their business model to get a reputation for quality programming and by God they're willing to spend a little to get there.

There's also the legacy investor.  The motivation here is to make a difference somehow.  There are many wealthy people who are shifting directions and are interested in exploring filmmaking.  On the surface they may be somewhat concerned about money but when you get down to it it's really about a sort of passion or about giving back somehow.  Institutional nonprofits or government agencies are often in this category as well.

As a filmmaker, those types of projects can be really fantastic to work on.  The emphasis becomes the craft, the art, the mission, the message.


Generally however, the people investing in your microbudget (most often you and your immediate family) really do want the money back  They're hoping to make money.  You're hoping to make money for everyone.  If you are serious about generating profit, your focus will be the market.

I hear many of you rebelling: focusing on the MARKET instead of the craft?  the art?  the message?!

Absolutely, I'm saying you need to look at your movie as potential product.  A product made for a price x that you will attempt to sell for a price y.  Yes.  The product will benefit by being well crafted, artfully made.  Yes it will benefit by delivering an urgent, moving message.   But only insofar as it works as a product.  Seriously, what's the point of busting our butts if the movie's not going to be seen?

I hope I've made it clear in earlier posts that it is a buyer's market these days.  Rarely do you find a movie that is truly unique.  You can't expect that just making whatever movie you want will mean a sale.  This is why any producer with any longevity works closely with the sales guys and broadcasters.  Ideally it's a warm vendor-client relationship.  You, the producer, are the vendor.  There to deliver the product the sales guys and broadcasters need to score big.

The more they score big, the more freedom, budget and power you get.

This is sort of the path I've taken, and I've been able to keep working consistently for the past few years.  What I see however are a lot of filmmakers who are out for themselves.

Many of them are quite brilliant.  When they're directing a show they're obviously committed to it being as great as possible because they're completely ambitious, uber-committed to getting their first oscar before 30.
But their commitment doesn't extend to the bottom line.  They don't care about it at all.  It wouldn't matter to them if the investors all went broke as long as the movie is well reviewed or they get a studio deal.
These directors are busy building their reels.  Though often delivering fantastic footage, the project needs to be rescued with reshoots, recuts, massive post production overages.

Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this.  You could level this accusation at one of my favorite all time filmmakers:  Terry Gilliam.

I'm saying you just can't have that on your microbudget.

O a bigger movie, the director can be overruled by any number of executives and producers and stars, on a microbudget, the director rules.  Sometimes there is one person who can talk them down.  You need to accept fiduciary responsibility.  You need to divorce yourself from your passion and double check your choices and beware of yessers (people who think all your ideas are great).

You need to be able to direct dispassionately.

Which people will appreciate when you start working at bigger budgets.