do local indie film scenes really exist?

[Cracker Funk]

Yeah, I think Alcove's explanation makes a lot of sense. Sure, you can "jam" as a filmmaker, and make a movie in just a couple hours. But that's not really the norm; there's no question that music is a much more spontaneous art-form.

It's difficult for me to believe that you haven't met any serious filmmakers in Detroit, for as long as a time-span as you've been doing this. To be honest, for you to say that makes me think you're not trying to meet people, not even slightly. Perhaps it's different from music, in that you kind of have to actively seek other filmmakers out, instead of just naturally running into them, the way that you might in the musical-world.

Others have mentioned the 48HFP. Besides the networking opportunities it provides, it's also just a heck of a lot of fun. But there are other ways to meet filmmakers.

I'm quite sure that Michigan would have some kind of association for filmmakers. Virginia, for example, has the Virginia Production Alliance), and they have regular meet-ups and host different events. And that's just in lil'-ole Richmond. Surely, there must be something like that in Detroit.

I've met most of my filmmaking-friends, though, through good ol'-fashioned personal networks. A friend of mine was in a band, and they made a music video. I told him I liked the video, and asked if he'd introduce me to the filmmaker. I've since volunteered to work on his projects, and he has also helped on mine. And all the filmmakers he knew, I am now also acquainted with (and sometimes work with). And then I meet other people through those people. But it doesn't happen on it's own -- you have to actively seek people out.

[miketv]

Nigeria. That's where the film scene is.

I just watched part of a documentary called Nollywood Babylon. Apparently Nigeria is where people are whipping out movies & selling them for money -to audiences- with no traditional Hollywood-style intervention. The main subject of the film is a director who had made & sold 158 movies.

Granted, there are a lot of meaningful differences in our market systems & cultures.
+ For one thing, it's a lot more dangerous to go out of the house in Nigeria than it is in Detroit, so people don't really go to movie theaters. And Hollywood doesn't mean much to Nigerians, so there's no real market for big-budget stars & effects & pomp there.
+ Watching a movie there is a personal experience, usually shared with someone else with the intent of communicating an idea for discussion. Someone sees a movie, feels something, & shares it with a friend.(Very rock & roll.)
+ Combine that with the ramshackle state of technology in Nigeria limiting the amount of piracy that goes on, and the DIY dvd market is slamming.

It made me wonder about a lot of new things. We have a completely supersaturated video market. Everybody & his dog has a youtube channel. Millions of people are giving away quality spontaneous entertainment for free, and millions of viewers are getting the product.....while we, on the other hand, actually invest our own money & time into projects that we're lucky to have viewed by hundreds & remembered by few. Why is that?

It feels like independent filmmaking came to a crossroads at the turn of the millennium. It could have slowly eroded Hollywood the way the indie music scene slowly eroded the Music Industry, but it didn't. Instead, it somehow became Hollywood. It became more exclusive, instead of inclusive. Big stars are making big money in the indies now, with huge distro deals & all the pomp & politics of regular Hollywood. Budgets are fluffed ridiculously high for no reason. I fail to see the difference between the major & indie systems any more. Is this just a bitter pill of the free market & my choice to be a filmmaker?

As far as the 48 Hr competition, it's just never worked out for me. Every time it comes around I look for a crew to join, but nobody even responds to my posts or emails. I think my sense of humor might be a bit off-putting for some people. And I don't know many local people at all (much less any local rough-&-ready filmmakers who will pay their share of an entry fee), so I can't start my own crew. I'd animate something/do a solo project, but I've only got 48 hrs & no time to prepare. It sounds great, but amazingly, it's just not part of my reality.

At the same time, I'm not sure the 48hr competition is what I'm looking for. It's just kinda what everyone is doing, & I'm not really sure what it's worth. I mean, you win....a trophy. And your movie gets shown to a bunch of other filmmakers. And the next day at work your boss says he doesn't care if your movie won the damn Palme D'or, you gotta get that grease trap cleaned before the lunch rush. The remains of the independent film scene seems to be nothing more than non-paying festivals.....intellectually rewarding, but ultimately it's just a way for about 3 people with access to a venue to make some money off struggling artists.

I know this is a lot of rambling....I've got a lot on my mind about this stuff lately....just venting & fishing.....like i said, I don't know many filmmakers. Maybe someone out there's got something new to say.

[JoshL]

About the 48hfp, maybe you should look at it the other way around. Don't try to start a crew. Try to JOIN a crew. The people who do it are the people you're looking to meet. They're the ones who want to front cash for a fee, get together for a weekend and make a film. These are the people you don't know yet.

It's not about the trophy, and it's not about getting your work seen. It's about meeting people, it's about honing your skills, and having fun.

Find a list of last year's teams in your area. Find them on youtube or facebook or wherever. Drop them a line saying "hey, I dug your film last year. Are you doing it again this year? I'd love to be involved; can I join your team?"

Here in Pittsburgh there's a "meet and greet" and a "post-party" after the final screening. Go to them (bring business cards). Talk to everyone you can. Find out who they are and what they do. Let them know the same about you and give them a card.

Oh, and basic networking here, but be interested in their work, not just trying to sell your own.

As you say, it's what lots of people are doing...but exactly the people who you currently don't know, but would like to know. Yes, the competition is kinda pointless. The films themselves are usually, well, done in a weekend rather than good. But it's a good "in" to your local scene.

I've done it the past three years (as a composer, which is an interesting challenge!) and always have a great time. Each year I meet new people and improve my skills. I can't recommend the experience enough!

Addendum: Urgh, I feel like a dick now. Just re-read your post where you said you tried joining crews, but with no luck. That said, just because you haven't found yourself a team doesn't mean you can't go to the meet-and-greets. Do the same thing; talk to the people there, find out what they do. That's MUCH easier to do in person than through a random, unsolicited e-mail.

[knightly]

Most of our strong connections we've made over the years have come from the 48hr and other competitions like that.

[Cracker Funk]

Well, back to the original question -- yes, local filmmaking scenes do exist, you've just chosen not to take part in them. And now I'm gonna say something that is potentially A-hole-y of me, but I don't intend it to be.

Basic social skills are very necessary for filmmaking. This is a collaborative art. You gotta be able to reach out to other people, find common interests, find people who want to work with you. You simply have to be sociable in order to make this thing work.

That is a large part of what the 48HFP is about. It's a group event, and there are tons of people to meet. It's also a crash-course on how to make a movie under tight time-constraints. Bottom-line, it's just plain fun. The awards don't mean anything. And your boss will be more than understanding (they'll probably want to attend the screening).

[sonnyboo]

Originally Posted by JoshL

About the 48hfp, maybe you should look at it the other way around. Don't try to start a crew. Try to JOIN a crew.

This is an incredibly basic tactic in indie (no budget) filmmaking today. Help someone else before you ask them to work for you for free.

[miketv]

Originally Posted by Cracker Funk

And now I'm gonna say something that is potentially A-hole-y of me, but I don't intend it to be.

At least you were aware of that one. It was actually the 3rd time I wanted to roll my eyes & say "Okay, dad!" in response to your input. Let's try to keep the baseless assumptions & personal accusations to a minimum til you know me a little better, k?

Sonnyboo -- as JoshL noted (and I said in my last post), I have tried to join a 48 hr crew. Multiple times, to no avail.
I'm not looking for people to "work for me for free". [side note: who are "they" to ask me to work for them for free?]. As I said before, i came to film through the music scene. There was never a question of anybody working for anybody. Everybody has something they want to accomplish, and they go after it as specialized individuals in a group effort.

That's the way I intend to work in film. I have little to no interest in the director-centric style of film making. In fact, I think that system might be responsible for strangling the life out of independent film in America.

I just honestly don't see why there's no film equivalent of a music scene.

[Cracker Funk]

Okay, keep rolling your eyes, dude. You asked for advice. I'm in a position to give advice on THE VERY SUBJECT you are inquiring about, because I've done the very things you are asking about. If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. I'll remember to ignore all future queries from you.

EDIT: I decided to re-visit this thread, just to make sure that I wasn't being a jerk. And in doing so, I caught something that slipped by me before. At first, all I saw was your "thanks, dad" comments. I skipped over the rest. I now see that the rest are worth addressing.

Originally Posted by miketv

As I said before, i came to film through the music scene. There was never a question of anybody working for anybody. Everybody has something they want to accomplish, and they go after it as specialized individuals in a group effort.

That's the way I intend to work in film. I have little to no interest in the director-centric style of film making. In fact, I think that system might be responsible for strangling the life out of independent film in America.

I just honestly don't see why there's no film equivalent of a music scene.

I mean no disrespect, but these comments really just show an utter lack of knowledge of the logistics of filmmaking. Musical creation is so much more immediate. Filmmaking takes time, dude.

Just like in the indie music scene, in the indie filmmaking scene everybody has something they want to accomplish, and they go after it as specialized individuals in a group effort. The difference is the amount of time needed to get something solid in place.

Sure, I suppose you could take a democratic approach to filmmaking, the same way that each member of a musical group has an equal say in how new material takes shape. Go ahead and try that. See how long it takes you to make even a three-minute film (one that is worth watching).

Having a chain-of-command is a model of efficiency. It also is necessary to keep a coherent vision. The democratic approach works great for a rock band, with four or five members. Can you imagine using the same approach for a 50-piece orchestra? No, that's why they have conductors.

And why is there no filmmaking equivalent to the local music scene? Really?! Because, unfortunately, people will not pay a $5 cover to get drunk while watching me shoot a movie.

By the way, independent film is stronger than ever in America, and the world over. Nothing is being strangled.

[miketv]

Gotta hand it to ya: you are the king of assumptions, CF. I'm not here to argue, I'm trying to hold a discussion that I feel hasn't been held.

I've made movies. 3 minutes, 30 minutes....spontaneous & scripted...I've made good & bad. I've written songs both good & bad. Some of the best movies were finished in 2 hrs, & some of the worst songs took months to write with 3 other people. The idea that there's some... standard amount of money, time, & effort due for making a "quality" movie is insane. Same for a band producing the material for for a stage show...there are no prescribed doses. (While we're snarkily pointing out assumed shortcomings, CF: I mean no disrespect, but this just shows your fundamental misunderstanding of art. You might be practiced in the money side of film, but you apparently know nothing about cultural impact or scene-building. Also: seriously? You think I was saying people should pay to go watch films being made? Nice reading comprehension. I guess it's forgivable since you already admitted that you don't completely read things before reacting to them. Ok...I'm done stooping.)

IMO, having a chain of command is a model of bloated inefficiency & soullessness. Every artist must sacrifice his own vision to a person with a paycheck by the nature of it.
But who says the guy with the wallet has any good ideas? If I kill some people to finance my film, does that suddenly give me the strength of artistic vision? No.
In my ideal system, the strongest vision guides the project & that vision always prevails over financial returns. Sure it might sound suicidal, but I consider it much less self-destructive than abandoning earnest cultural pursuits in the name of slightly better food on the table. I couldn't care less how things have "always been". Things are pretty screwed up now....I think the old ways are the reason why.

If independent film is "stronger than ever" in America, then why are the Spirit Awards (not to mention Sundance) drowning in big-name stars & corporate sponsorship? Why are all the "indie" films released by Warner, Universal, & Fox? Why did 50 Cent win Producer of the Year at the Detroit Independent Film Fest in 2011 with his $7million-dollar turd that didn't even rank 4.2 on imdb? I saw shorts there from 1st timers that literally made me cry......but this hollywood jerkoff rolls in with an amazingly unoriginal film & steals the rewards from every one of the genuinely-independent & actually-local artists.

Independent film is NOT stronger than ever. It's just becoming as corrupt & culturally counterproductive as politics. If it was stronger than ever, the millions of shorts being made in America would be producing minimal streams of income for the artists for entertaining a crowd, just like the music scene. Instead, day after day artists get ripped off by submitting their work to non-paying film fests in the hopes of "making it" in the used-up hollywood system. Is our culture really so insecure? Is the market telling us that our actual indie films are no match for hollywood, even among the independent-minded? If so, then we should be alramed instead of coming with half-assed excuses for the lack of a real functioning indie film scene.

I believe there can be a new way. I think only greed & ignorance stand in its path.

[mlesemann]

If I write the checks - and I did - I make the decisions. There was a lot of input from other people on the set.
And many people were delegated - by me - to make on set decisions.
But I had the ultimate decision making authority, and that's the only basis on which I would write the checks.

[knightly]

And there's a difference in equipment cost as well... the matter of financial scale HAS TO come into play. If you're using a cheap camcorder to make your films, it's still just about as expensive as a mid level guitar... and the guitar sounds better than the camcorder looks. Artist, tool all that assumed, A drummer has a much higher financial investment than the bassist or guitarist. I as a DP with my own gear have spent tens of thousands (oh, those were the days) in time and money building my kit, so that I have a minimum set of quality gear to use when I'm on a project.

Music gigs aren't the same as film/video. I've also done both. The band playing at the bar/garage/wherever, is much more like the PRODUCTION portion of the film process. When you go to lay down the tracks to make your first record... 1 person is in charge of that recording / mixing process. If the bassist and guitarist and singer all mixed their own tracks, you'd never end up with a consistent and concise product at the end as everyone would try to emphasize their part over the others. You can argue that your group is comprised of artists who are holistic and non-superficial in that way, but then you are using robots that have been programmed by someone to have a consistent vision and not real humans (I'm sure there are exceptions -- but they're exceptions).

If all that matters is the performance, stop after shooting and don't edit the project... but your editor has to hate you for making their job much harder, your crew must deplore their time being wasted on set on a project that may never see the light of day or live up to the promise that was made to them at the beginning of the process.

I know nothing about you personally nor your past projects... but I have a crew of 40-50 people on set with me when I shoot. We schedule everything to fit the schedules of intersections, the location, the actors, and the crew. Not soing so, we'd still be shooting 1 man crew shorts in the living room or park with the 2 actors we can manage to hang on to who don't get so frustrated with us they leave the project without warning.

At some point, the writer, producer and director have to decide who is going to be the final say on a set when one of the 50 people on the crew comes up and asks a question about a point of minutiae. Without that, projects with a larger scope won't get made.

In terms of funding... I'm a singer. When I gig, I use the mics and amps provided at the venue... I have literally no overhead for what I do. My ego and sense of self are the only things I risk when I step on stage. As a cinematographer, I have a large financial investment that I need to offset. If I believe in a project and the filmmaker, I will donate time so long as it benefits me in some way in the future. No roadmap = no assurance... limited past success = no assurance... I need assurances that my Demo Reel or my future bank account will benefit somehow from the production. Without that, I'll turn down the job. I've put 10 years of research and learning into what I'm doing and come out the other side as a respected member of the crews I work with: "I don't ever want to do another shoot without you on set."

I've had no commercial success thus far, but I've got my sights set on a future where I can afford to do nothing but shoot film/video narrative pieces for a living. Yes, you can jam, I've done it... it's simply not as effective nor productive as the traditional hierarchical method that has been used and refined for the past 100+ years because it works. Can it be done... absolutely. Is it your thing... absolutely. Will you catch lightning in a bottle... perhaps. I'd rather bet on a a little bit of lightning each production than striving for that one perfect storm.

Your way of doing things isn't "right"... neither is mine. They are both ways of doing it. One has a better track record than the other. I fully support you shooting an ad hoc piece and trying to use a community approach to your post production work. My personal experience is that your project will never get finished without pursuing it yourself -- which means you chose the shots that get sed in the edit... which means ultimately, it's your vision up on screen. in the end, there's one filter for the footage.

[Cracker Funk]

Originally Posted by miketv

Gotta hand it to ya: you are the king of assumptions, CF. I'm not here to argue, I'm trying to hold a discussion that I feel hasn't been held.

I've made movies. 3 minutes, 30 minutes....spontaneous & scripted...I've made good & bad. I've written songs both good & bad. Some of the best movies were finished in 2 hrs, & some of the worst songs took months to write with 3 other people. The idea that there's some... standard amount of money, time, & effort due for making a "quality" movie is insane. Same for a band producing the material for for a stage show...there are no prescribed doses. (While we're snarkily pointing out assumed shortcomings, CF: I mean no disrespect, but this just shows your fundamental misunderstanding of art. You might be practiced in the money side of film, but you apparently know nothing about cultural impact or scene-building. Also: seriously? You think I was saying people should pay to go watch films being made? Nice reading comprehension. I guess it's forgivable since you already admitted that you don't completely read things before reacting to them. Ok...I'm done stooping.)

IMO, having a chain of command is a model of bloated inefficiency & soullessness. Every artist must sacrifice his own vision to a person with a paycheck by the nature of it.
But who says the guy with the wallet has any good ideas? If I kill some people to finance my film, does that suddenly give me the strength of artistic vision? No.
In my ideal system, the strongest vision guides the project & that vision always prevails over financial returns. Sure it might sound suicidal, but I consider it much less self-destructive than abandoning earnest cultural pursuits in the name of slightly better food on the table. I couldn't care less how things have "always been". Things are pretty screwed up now....I think the old ways are the reason why.

If independent film is "stronger than ever" in America, then why are the Spirit Awards (not to mention Sundance) drowning in big-name stars & corporate sponsorship? Why are all the "indie" films released by Warner, Universal, & Fox? Why did 50 Cent win Producer of the Year at the Detroit Independent Film Fest in 2011 with his $7million-dollar turd that didn't even rank 4.2 on imdb? I saw shorts there from 1st timers that literally made me cry......but this hollywood jerkoff rolls in with an amazingly unoriginal film & steals the rewards from every one of the genuinely-independent & actually-local artists.

Independent film is NOT stronger than ever. It's just becoming as corrupt & culturally counterproductive as politics. If it was stronger than ever, the millions of shorts being made in America would be producing minimal streams of income for the artists for entertaining a crowd, just like the music scene. Instead, day after day artists get ripped off by submitting their work to non-paying film fests in the hopes of "making it" in the used-up hollywood system. Is our culture really so insecure? Is the market telling us that our actual indie films are no match for hollywood, even among the independent-minded? If so, then we should be alramed instead of coming with half-assed excuses for the lack of a real functioning indie film scene.

I believe there can be a new way. I think only greed & ignorance stand in its path.

I'm not here to argue either. Whatever. But if you give snark ("thanks, dad"), be prepared to get it in return.

I never said I was good at the money side of things (I'm not). You started a discussion that is fundamentally about networking, whether you know that or not. I've networked. In fact, I'm about to go to an event tonight, in which I'll surely meet new filmmakers in the area, some of whom I might someday collaborate with. My points to you have been that you simply need to network if you are to attain your goals in this medium.

Nobody is stopping you from trying this egalitarian form of filmmaking that you think will save indie filmmaking. Please, have at it. Maybe you're on to something that is simply revolutionary. But you'll never know if you don't have anyone to work with. And you won't have anyone to work with if you don't network.

The question of whether or not a chain-of-command is a model of efficiency is something that pretty much the entire business world, and military, and government, would disagree with you on. If you've got some way of doing things that doesn't involve having someone in charge, and you can somehow make it more efficient, please do it. And then teach all of us what we're doing wrong. That's not to say that your ideas are invalid or wrong, but surely you must know that you're going against the grain, and your ideas are unproven. Chain-of-command as a model of efficiency is pretty well-established.

Is Indie filmmaking thriving or suffocating? Depends on how you look at it, and I know that many people on this forum (not just you) would disagree with me. I look around and I see a TON of people picking up cameras. I see them doing beautiful things (if, albeit, not usually financially-rewarding). Every now-and-then, though, I see an absolute NOBODY break-through that glass ceiling by making a movie that gets seen by the masses, in ways that have never happened before (not with such frequency, anyway). I say it's thriving, though I can understand how people might disagree with that.

And no, I didn't think you thought that people would pay to watch me make a movie. That was part of the snark that you mentioned. Music and movies are not even slightly the same, not in their creation, not in how audiences enjoy them, not in how they are monetized. It's a poor comparison on your part.

[miketv]

Originally Posted by knightly

but I have a crew of 40-50 people on set with me when I shoot.

FIFTY people. On set.
And you pay some of those people, right? Does it come out on screen? I mean....can you honestly justify that by looking at the a scene on the screen & saying "that took 50 people to shoot"? I haven't seen your films & I'm not judging, but -- unless they're laden with special effects & stunts, or maybe choreographed musical numbers -- I don't imagine there's much you can shoot with 50 people that somebody else can't shoot with 5. (If I'm wrong, I've gotta see that footage!)

Originally Posted by knightly

I've had no commercial success thus far.....

Is it making sense to anybody else yet why I say the old ways are bloated & inefficient?
Again, I go back to my earlier question: is the market telling us our indie films suck?

Originally Posted by knightly

You can argue that your group is comprised of artists who are holistic and non-superficial in that way, but then you are using robots that have been programmed by someone to have a consistent vision and not real humans (I'm sure there are exceptions -- but they're exceptions).

I'm not sure where you got 'holistic' or 'non-superficial.' These are some assumptions you're making about me that just aren't true. I'm not even sure how a film could be made holistically. (It looks like you're thinking I'm some looking for some anticapitalist, democratic/communal utopian hybrid....if so, you're waaay off base. I'd appreciate being addressed as an individual, not some weird archetypal opponent dreamed up by those of you who clearly dislike my line of questioning. It's a boring distraction from any progressive discussion.) Also, in my experience, the first person to get kicked out of a band is usually the one who thinks he can "program robots" to do his bidding. The ones who stay are the ones who "get it". They have healthy egos & talent...they have vision, something to contribute, & they do it because they love it. It seems like the only real difference between filmmakers & musicians is that band members can make $100 a weekend plus perks to support their craft.

I'm not a fan so I'm just using this as an example, but which one of the the Beatles do you think programmed the other robots? There is a such thing as shared goals. And there are people who can tell a story with sock puppets better than most of us could dream of with the biggest budget & the highest-paid crew. Trust me, I've seen the work of people who assume they can lead a project just because they can write a check.

Again, I defy you to provide evidence of a proven prescription regarding the amount of time & money needed to produce a quality product. All I see is a lot of money being wasted, a select handful of people profiting, & another generation of wannabe filmmakers being exploited as "interns" when they could be out working on their own projects. In that respect, today's indie film productions are even more crooked than their hollywood counterparts....like the term "indie" is just an excuse to not pay people.

I could understand the whole "working your way up through the ranks as a slave for 15 years" thing if it meant the people who come out the other end would be insightful artists who make amazing films, but they DON'T. They make Transformers & The Hangover & Snakes On a Plane. They make awful retroflop & sparkly action movies. So where's the value in holding a reflector for 6 hours & no pay, when you could have been working on your own thing with you your own crew? One day you might get to make crap that's been dictated by 18 soulless producers & a brain-dead test audience, & you'll get to force people to eat it. Is that the goal?

Originally Posted by knightly

If all that matters is the performance, stop after shooting and don't edit the project... but your editor has to hate you for making their job much harder, your crew must deplore their time being wasted on set on a project that may never see the light of day or live up to the promise that was made to them at the beginning of the process.

Again, another assumption/putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about performance being the only thing that matters....jeez....but my main response against this part is that A) my editor won't mind any part of the project if I'm the editor, because I love what I do, and B) have any of your films seen the light of day or lived up to the promise you made? You said yourself that you've had no commercial success....does your crew despise you for it?

[miketv]

Originally Posted by Cracker Funk

The question of whether or not a chain-of-command is a model of efficiency is something that pretty much the entire business world, and military, and government, would disagree with you on.

Now we're getting somewhere.
Which one of these entities (gov't, business, military) do you think produces the best art? The most culturally-relevant? the most challenging? The most entertaining?
Efficiency is efficient, but I don't operate under the assumption that it produces good art.

[miketv]

also, you'll have to proivide a better argument against my film & music comparison than that. If you want to refute it, do it with substance, not just an assertion. Give me something to agree to or refute....something discussable.