Student Filmmaker Seeking Advice On Funding

Hey, I'm new here. I recently stumbled upon this amazing resource and hope to learn as much as possible. I apologize for the lengthy post, but I feel it will also make the job of those willing to help me much easier.

My situation is quite complicated and if you kindly bear with me, I'll try to provide all of the necessary information.

I'm currently a college student at a very prestigious national university. We do have a film studies program here, but it certainly isn't the schools most reputable program. In fact, it is so overlooked I am not even a member of the department even though I am greatly interested in making my own films.

Having said that, I am currently in the preliminary planning stages of making a low budget feature film that I hope to shoot locally. I have a pretty solid idea of the hardships, difficulties, and costs of making a feature length film, and I still won't be easily discouraged.

As I said before, I am not a film student. I want to pursue this purely for reasons some of you might call silly. Basically, I just want to create something that might draw local attention and could potentially lead to greater filmmaking opportunities. Essentially, I view this project as a modest attempt to get discovered.

My greatest concern right now is how to approach the issue of funding. Please note that I am not asking anyone on this board to invest in my film, I'm only seeking advice on what channels to go through. I hope to shoot the film on Super 16mm, because I'm strongly influenced by the mentality that film is still the most preferred medium (not to offend the DV people). On top of that, film still looks much better in my mind.

But shooting on film is more expensive (obviously). I anticipate the stock alone to cost me $10,000 if I shoot on about a 9:1 ratio. This will probably be the bulk of my cost. I'm hoping the other expenses won't bring me over another five to ten thousand, so my preliminary initial budget estimate is about $20,000 total, and I think that is being pretty conservative.

So where to get the money from? I'm not independently wealthy...I can probably put in $2,000 of my own money. The university I'm attending DOES offer student grants in arts and media. I haven't approached them yet because I wanted to wait until I have more solidified plans, but I think I can probably get $5,000 to $7,000 from the school plus some possible use of their equipment (some 16mm cameras, lighting devices, editing, etc.). It sounds like the main cost for me that I'll be on my own with as far as production goes will be the stock itself. And there is the minor possibility that the univeristy will have some connections, but I can't say for sure.

So I'm looking for about $10,000 dollars more now to cover the differences (post production fees, insurance, camera mobility equipment for certain days of the shoot, and all of the additional regular productions fees that will likely surface. I would like not to deal with loans or investors that I will have to pay back in case I don't turn a profit. It appears what I'm looking for would be grants outside of the university. Unfortunately many of the ones I've researched are for minorities or for filmmakers who are already in post production. I really haven't found anything worth applying for yet.

And for me to get all of this money handed to me to make my movie and take any profits it could potentially make is obviously far too good to be true. So here is the alternative I am considering: making the film NON-PROFIT. Obviously this wouldn't be my preferred choice, but if it is my only option, I'd take. As I mentioned before I'm not making this film to cash in, it is mainly a crude attempt to get some recognition and technical experience. Oh, and if I feel like the end product is something decent, I would potentially like to submit it to film festivals more slightly more exposure.

So if you could tell me of any grant possibilities, maybe even for students in particular, I would be greatly appreciative.

I suppose that's all I have to say for now. I'm eager to hear your responses. Obviously there is a lot of work to yet and I don't intend to shoot a single frame for quite some time.

Thanks in advance.
 
A "non profit" company or organization is strictly regulated and defined. A filmmaker who is pretty sure he won't see a profit doesn't fall into that category. You are making a movie for the exact same reason we ALL make our first several movies - an attempt to get some recognition and technical experience.

Yes, there are grants available to filmmakers and student filmmakers. You're right, they are hard to find and even harder to get - so few grants so many filmmakers. Keep looking.

First things first. Put together a good, iron clad, line item budget. No one who has the money to invest and no grant provider will be impressed with an estimate. Second, find out about the University connections - any dollar you can shave off is better.

I think you're right about waiting until you have a more solid plan. Get the plan together and get to work. Making the movies is going to be easy compared to getting the money.
 
Better yet, rent a dvx, or make friends with someone in your area with a good quality camera.. even MORE money stays in your pocket.

Also, you might consider looking into your local cable access station. Typically they will allow you to use their equipment for free, or minimal cost, with the only requirement being that you allow them to show it on their station (there's a tough sell.. free exposure, hmm.. ok)
 
buy a DVX100A, and shoot on 24p mode, :) gives it that film look and more money in your pocket :)

I do have university access to a DVX100A so I wouldn't even have to buy it. Believe me, I have seriously considered (and in many respects still am) shooting on digital. The digital tapes alone as opposed to the film stock would probably save me $10,000 I suppose and all of the money I could get from the university would conceivably go toward the more miscellaneous production costs and the postwork.

Ultimately, that could very well be what happens. The shoot would be a lot less stressful knowing that the actual material I'm shooting on is what...six times cheaper? I would still like to make that more of a last resort option if possible. I suppose I just have a greater bias toward film that needs to be overcome. I just saw Borat the other night (yes, it's not more of a documentary than a feature film), but I couldn't help but cringe at the digital look.

But anyway, I don't think camera itself will be the main issue here...just the cost difference of the stock. I will find some way to borrow a camera, be it digital or 16mm. Another issue is that I think the 16mm cameras would be more abundant and I would only have one DVX at any given time, so more complex scenes would have to be done purely by blocking the shot. And even based on what the screenplay demands, I think that still IS possible with one camera.

I guess I still think that if there are other financial backing options out there, I should at least TRY to shoot this on film. I want to make the best film I can before I graduate and lose all of the university resources.





And you all have been a tremendous help so far, I'd love to hear any other suggestions or comments you might have.
 
In regards to shooting on film, there are some other factors to consider in addition to the film's cost. There are additional costs for the development, as well as the eventual transfer to digital format for editing (unless you were planning on editing it old school). Each step means sending the film off to a lab and waiting many weeks, and paying thousands more.

Also, unless you are very experienced with camera operations and film, you could easily screw up a bunch of scenes by having it lit incorectly or out of focus. Trust me on this one :D

Whereas with digital, you can play it back instantly to see what you've got and, if desired, you could start editing it right away.

Like you, I never liked the look of DV, but I have done a complete 180 within the past year or two. 24 fps HD cameras now can look just as good as 35mm, assumming you do a good job with lighting and have good lenses. More and more big-budget movies are using HD now. Being young, I would imagine you'd want to start tapping into the future of digital cinema now while it's still fairly new.

But hey, if you do shoot on 16mm, I give you mad props. That shows a serious commitment.
 
Borat was specifically shot to look "Video-y" giving it a documentary feel. Careful lighting, set design and costuming/makeup will get you the film feel you're looking for...being able to spend more money on those areas would be a boon for a firsttime filmmaker. Having really good actors helps as well. I've seen lots of student films that are shot on film that don't look like film due to the fact that all the money was spent on film and not enough budget went in front of the camera. When you get your "chops" and have a system down for shooting and directing a set, switch to film at that point.

With video, you can afford to have less experienced actors blow lines and have to reblock scenes due to inexperience or goals that are too lofty for a scene as written on paper. Once you've learned what looks good and is acheivable using a time/budget forgiving format, the switch to film should be much easier at that point, and the funding easier to raise as you will have a reel of material you can show potential investors.
 
In regards to shooting on film, there are some other factors to consider in addition to the film's cost. There are additional costs for the development, as well as the eventual transfer to digital format for editing (unless you were planning on editing it old school). Each step means sending the film off to a lab and waiting many weeks, and paying thousands more.

Also, unless you are very experienced with camera operations and film, you could easily screw up a bunch of scenes by having it lit incorectly or out of focus. Trust me on this one :D

Whereas with digital, you can play it back instantly to see what you've got and, if desired, you could start editing it right away.

Like you, I never liked the look of DV, but I have done a complete 180 within the past year or two. 24 fps HD cameras now can look just as good as 35mm, assumming you do a good job with lighting and have good lenses. More and more big-budget movies are using HD now. Being young, I would imagine you'd want to start tapping into the future of digital cinema now while it's still fairly new.

But hey, if you do shoot on 16mm, I give you mad props. That shows a serious commitment.

Thanks for your input. I did indeed consider the lab fees and the potential costs. And I was hoping to edit the film oldschool if I shot it on 16mm.

Right now I am probably leaning toward digital just because I could use the rest of that cash to increase the production values. And ultimately I'm sure it would be a less stressful shoot.

I suppose 16mm would only be a strong possibility if the university tells me that they would take care of the stock fees (either via grant or connections they might have to make it cheaper), but that is highly unlikely.

Although it perhaps may not seem that way, I'm trying to be as realistic as possible when it comes to my possibilities and limitations.
 
Borat was specifically shot to look "Video-y" giving it a documentary feel. Careful lighting, set design and costuming/makeup will get you the film feel you're looking for...being able to spend more money on those areas would be a boon for a firsttime filmmaker. Having really good actors helps as well. I've seen lots of student films that are shot on film that don't look like film due to the fact that all the money was spent on film and not enough budget went in front of the camera. When you get your "chops" and have a system down for shooting and directing a set, switch to film at that point.

With video, you can afford to have less experienced actors blow lines and have to reblock scenes due to inexperience or goals that are too lofty for a scene as written on paper. Once you've learned what looks good and is acheivable using a time/budget forgiving format, the switch to film should be much easier at that point, and the funding easier to raise as you will have a reel of material you can show potential investors.

That does sound pretty convincing. You are all making excellent points. Again much thanks for all of the input.
 
Funding and Making a No-Budget Film

My experience after producing 3 features (and directing 1 of them) is not particularly uplifting, but here ya go:

Financing is the hardest aspect of filmmaking for me. (Many cite distribution as the hardest, but simply put, I find it harder to sell something that HASN'T been made, rather than something that HAS.) Anyway, what I've found is that everyone and their mother will support you emotionally in your endeavors, but almost no-one will support you in any substantial way unless they are your immediate family or are close friends/relatives of your family.

Try as you may, you may find it pretty much futile to get more than a hundred bucks from your friends and distant relatives, let alone from total strangers. I agree that $1 is $100 when given by 100 people, but $100 is still not substantial when your intentions are to shoot on film.

Even harder is trying to get money from people for a film from which you don't expect to make money. What you're looking for are philanthropists and grants, but here's the main low-down on that:

Not only do you have to have an idea scintillating enough to rise above the pack of filmmakers applying for these hand-outs, but you also typically must have a substantial body of work in order to even be considered. It might help you to understand that the crux of your problem is that, regardless of your own self-criticism, to outsiders you don't have provable skill in filmmaking. Plus, even filmmakers WITH a body of work have a difficult time proving to people and organizations that they can produce a quality picture.

All of this is just to let you know that there is a reason why you are having a difficult time finding organizations, grants and philanthropists to give you money, and it's NOT because you don't have a great project. It's because the odds are so heaily against you.

I recently had a similar epiphany when writing to a major film director. I am a fan of his, I am making a film in the same vein of some of his projects, I have a decent body of work, and I want to ask him a few questions about his work.

He never responded. I feel the reason is not that I don't have a great project, nor that he's a dick. The reason is simply that he has a filmmaking career to manage, and about 10,000 filmmakers just like me vying for his time.

In much the same way, these organizations (and there aren't that many) are INNUNDATED by requests from filmmakers, and they have to figure out who will be the best use of their funds. If you don't have a body of work, then you are immediately put at the bottom of the pile.

My girlfriend works at a very prestigious documentary production company. They have a wonderful body of work, have some awesome ideas, and are beat out by other companies frequently. Other times, they win awards from these orgs. Regardless, THEY have a hard time getting funds out of these organizations.

My point all comes down to this: money is your biggest enemy at this point. It is everything when you don't have it, but don't let it be the demon in your life. Try as hard as you can to get the picture made that YOU want to get made, but also set deadlines. On the last film I produced, "Ciao," we had high hopes to raise $250k, but also set July 15th as our cut-off date. When July 15th came along, we re-evaluated the project based on our actual cash-in-hand, and re-organized. In the end, we were able to raise only about one-tenth of our desired budget, and the entirety of that money came from our own pockets and from our closest friends and family. And this is with a commercially successful and well-festivaled director attached!

If your project means everything to you, then by all means try everything you can to get funding. It sounds like your school is willing to pony up some dough - that's a rare thing and it might be the biggest lump sum you get.

One thing that I firmly believe (and many on this site disagree with me), is that I don't recommend shooting something you intend to sell on DV, as I feel that making something on less than HD-resolution limits you in the distribution phase of your project. You'll get 2-3 years down the road, and distributors will be asking you why you didn't shoot at least on HD. Save yourself the agony - shoot HD now, ESPECIALLY if you think you can borrow the camera at little to no cost.

OK, well, hopefully I haven't completely dashed your dreams. Prepare yourself to work with an extremely tight budget, but rest assured that truly beautiful movies have been shot with less that you're going to have!

Sincerely,

Jim

LINKS - I gathered that you're doing a documentary... if so, here are 2 helpful links:
http://www.documentary.org/resources/grants.php
www.itvs.org
 
My post is in no way a means to discourage you, but:

12+ years ago I was as wide-eyed and idealistic as you about producing a feature-length (animation no less) for my senior project. I had had the piece scripted in my sophomore year, took all the tech courses my school offered and became fairly versed in both the art and techinque of film production....I am STILL working on it. My standard reply when asked a competion date: meh, give or take 2 years.

If your objective to making a film is simply to gain technical experience and *some* recognition, wouldn't you be better served concentrating on completing some shorts to be compiled into a nice portfolio? Expecially in regards to finding outside grants resources....you NEED to show these arts boards that you have a vision backed up by impeccable technique. As for grants being "only for minorities or filmmakers in post-production", certainly there are such specific grants, but any ARTS GRANTS AGENCY (esp state arts boards) will consider any artist in any discipline.
 
Both of you guys' posts are not discouraging in the sense that I have already to some degree accepted those major drawbacks and problems.

For the most part I am beginning to lean toward shooting a feature on digital, mainly for the cost options. My inexperience in my mind justifies not investing the large sum of cash on film.

Jmac mentioned the advantages of shooting HD over regular DV. This is something I considered yesterday. The university currently only has a DVX for loan, which I would obviously use to shoot 24p DV. However, since I will likely be NOT shooting on film, I've been entertaining the alternative of shooting on HD, particularly if I could get my hands on a HVX200. We don't currently have one as far as I know, but I might look into renting one. That way I could shoot 24p at 1080 correct?

And perhaps Jmac could address this next concern... I seem to share the same skepticism regarding shooting on video as opposed to film. However, my feelings are more rooted in the fact that film itself is more difficult of a medium to shoot on (the added cost shows stronger commitment, and surprises can show up on the film when you get it back from the labs). But it seems to me the only real difference between shooting on HD as opposed to DV is the increased resolution, so would a distributor really be THAT concerned over the added resolution if the shoot probably were not much more difficult. Of course the better camera will cost a few thousand dollars more, but that would still be much cheaper than shooting on 35mm or even 16mm.

So my question is, would seeking out an HVX200 be worth it?

As for Bird's post, I have entertained the option of shooting a sampling of shorts (that way I could shoot on actual film), but I feel like my storytelling abilities are more strongly suited for feature length productions.


As far as shooting goes I really don't think the project is far too ambitious. What I have in mind is a small cast production that takes advantage of the local aesthetics and culture. Much of the shoot would be on location, but in order to deliberately deviate from most minimalist films I've seen I hope to significantly utilize discontinuity editing.

To put things on perspective, recently a first time feature filmmaker locally shot a film on 16mm and managed to get it distributed in one the local theaters. Allegedly, the budget was extremely small (and it looks it), but I do not know the exact figure. One would think he spent at least $20,000 on it because he utilized 16mm stock, but much of the film looks like it was shot from ONE camera vantage point with ONE take and ZERO camera mobility. I imagine if you shoot in that manner you could cut costs significantly.

Unfortunately for him, the film was absolutely awful. No narrative structure and no visual appeal.

However, my point is that I would like to receive at least some local recognition. I have many years ahead of me to attempt to write, direct, and produce independent films, so I don't expect to (nor intend to) make a huge splash here. And I am by no means trying to emulate this other filmmaker, because I was that unimpressed with his work. I do give him credit for actually going through with a 16mm shoot, but it seems like he took the easy way out. If you take that filmmaking approach stock costs might not be much over $3,000.

Here's what I'm thinking about doing right now and I would love input from anyone:
1. Finish the script
2. Call around and see if I can attain an HVX200 via rental (or if the school had any plans to purchase one)
3. Call around to get solid numbers for other production costs
4. Formulate a tangible budget estimate
5. Talk to the university and see what kind of money they might be willing to dish out
6. Cast actors...the script demands a fairly small cast (most likely unpaid...depends on how much the other production costs would entail)
7. Shoot it late summer early fall
8. Edit it, and take it from there


Again, thank you all for being so helpful. I guess my main concern right now is whether or not shooting on DV or even HD would be worth the time, effort, and money this project will entail. I do feel like I have something somewhat decent though...
 
In what region of the states are you located? There are probably folks near you who either have an HD camera and would work for that fee you would spend on rental, or who know someone who would. You could use craigslist to scout out possible leads as well...make sure to get demo reels and references when going that route.
 
I'm in the Northeast. I apologize for not being more specific about my school or where I'm located, but I am attempting to keep this low key in the event that someone from the university might be reading this.

When I approach them about funds it is imperative that I be confident, certain, and knowledgeable. I WILL provide them with a precise budget sheet. I suppose one would say I'm being paranoid, but when my funds would likely be coming from one place it seems slightly necessary.

I have considered looking around for a DP that might have his own equipment, but I haven't got to that point yet. Currently I'd be assuming the role of writer, director, producer, editor, and cinematographer all at once. That is quite the heavy load and the DP is the one area where I would be the weakest. I'm thinking about using the school department connections to find someone that could help me. That has always been on the back of my mind.

And there is a local camera rental place. Hopefully in the not too distant future I will be in contact with them merely for an estimate of how much I would have to dish out for an HD 24p camera. And that brings up another issue (camera expenses).

I did some thinking last night about shooting this on video and came to the conclusion that I would want to shoot this as close to 1.85:1 as possible (namely 16:9). I do know that the DVX alone does have a 16:9 stretch feature do provide the desired aspect ratio but there would be a loss of resolution. One alternative would be to shoot it in 4:3 while keeping the desired ratio in mind and crop as need be. The other alternative would be to dish out the money for an anamorphic lens, either via purchase or rental. If I'm not going to shoot on film I'd like to get the best resolution as possible.

As for actors, I'd love to dig up a paid one. I'll explore that option definitely when the time comes, especially for the lead role. As I said before it will be a small cast and probably not too long of a shoot. I'm certainly in a large enough area where good talent exists if I take the time and effort to look for it. And I hope to.

And Bird, I certainly have not forgotten shot list/storyboarding. :) My plan was that after I finish the script, to do some moderate location scouting...to know for sure where I can and cannot shoot. At that point I will take still digital photographs of likely camera placement, distance, and angles.
 
ACK!

I didn't realize that you hadn't even finished the script.

Regardless of what, where, when or how you shoot your film, you must concentrate on the script. All this planning is not wasted, but many times setting up the shoot and organizing your gear is just one more way of not concentrating on what really matters: a really really really great script.

Everything else is secondary.

And, in my experience, as well as others around me here in Los Angeles, it DOES matter to distributors that you shoot on the highest resolution possible. A great film is easier to get sold and distributed if it is shot on at least HD.

I seem to share the same skepticism regarding shooting on video as opposed to film.

Listen, if I have the option to shoot 35 or 16 over HD, I would do it in a heartbeat. I just have an emotional preference for the medium of film. That said, HD looks fucking awesome if you have a brilliant DP, so just embrace it for now and see what happens next time!

Oh, and just for the record, unless I'm shooting a test project for my own personal development, or it is to acheive a certain "DV-aesthetic" (for example a character with a camera shooting video footage in the movie itself) I will NEVER shoot MiniDV again.

Let the bullets fly, IndieTalkers and lovers of MiniDV.

Jim
 
Back
Top