u/lawriejaffa

I’ve written an essay on Anna Biller’s Viva, particularly the relationship between her work as filmmaker, designer and leading actress.

What interests me is how her performance gives emotional weight to a world so deliberately constructed around glamour, fantasy and sensuality. Barbi’s uncertainty remains persuasive even amid the film’s theatrical excesses!

I think Biller’s achievement as an actress deserves closer attention. For those who have seen Viva, does discussion of its visual style sometimes overshadow what she accomplishes through performance?

Folks, I thought this might be of interest here.

We’ve just launched For We Are Many 2: Lovecraft, a feature-length horror anthology inspired by the works of H. P. Lovecraft, including stories influenced by The Shadow Over Innsmouth and The Outsider.

It takes a distinctly British and Irish approach to the material, with a classic Amicus-style wraparound.

Hope you enjoy the pitch video on Kickstarter.

My thoughts on the illusions of Distribution and the System that holds back filmmakers

1) 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗹𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

My recent interview with filmmaker Joel Haver led to a wider conversation about distribution and the cultural prejudices that still govern how filmmakers measure success.

Why do we continue allowing the traditional film industry to decide whether our work has succeeded?

The public image of film distribution and its financial reality are often very different. One offers the appearance of acceptance: a sales agent, a distributor, a recognised streaming platform or a presence at an international film market. The other is the private reality experienced by the filmmaker.

A film may appear on several familiar platforms while returning almost nothing to the people who made it. While another filmmaker may self-distribute, earn more, retain ownership and build a loyal audience, yet still be considered less successful because no traditional gatekeeper validated the release.

This is not only an economic problem. It is a cultural one.

𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀

Most filmmakers dream of eventually being hired as directors, working inside the established industry. But, the majority of independent filmmakers work outside that protected structure.

They finance their own productions, absorb the risk and spend months or years completing them. Their films are then offered at the film markets, leading to countless conversations between producers, sales agents and distributors.

If signed, they are eventually placed on Amazon, Apple, sometimes Tubi, and subscription platforms. Sometimes they're just dumped on YouTube! Physical media, once a major source of revenue, now occupies a smaller and more specialised market, but the collapse of the physical market does contribute to the brutality indie filmmakers face today. But, I digress...

The problem is that filmmakers are often judged not by whether their films made money or developed an audience, but by whether they were sold in an industry-approved manner.

The announcement becomes more important than the outcome.

The streaming platforms logo becomes more important than the filmmaker’s income.

𝟯) 𝗔 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗩𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲

The value of individual independent films has declined enormously. Deals increasingly concern libraries, bundles and large quantities of inexpensive content.

Even platforms that appear selective to consumers now acquire hundreds of films through package agreements... AVOD channels on YouTube even add films daily.

When a producer signs with a sales agent, that company takes a percentage of the revenue. The distributor takes another. Before the filmmaker receives anything, there will be deductions for marketing, legal work, delivery, market attendance, artwork and technical preparation.

The producer is expected to supply the "deliverables" and that's one big cost most filmmakers don't foresee.

Months or years of unpaid labour are rarely considered part of the cost that must be recovered.

𝟰) 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆

Distribution and sales agreements now run up to 10 years... even though the commercial fate of an independent film may be determined within months of signing...

If written off, it will linger all for all those years in an aggregation bundle. Meanwhiel, whatever incomes it does make... you will never truly know.

Yes, some contracts might include audit rights, but exercising them is prohibitively expensive. Litigation is even less realistic. AND... distributors know it.

A contract is only as powerful as your ability to enforce it. A filmmaker who has spent everything producing a film is unlikely to have the resources to pursue an international distributor through the courts.

I can sense a comment already from a macho filmmaker claiming that you just need a lawyer... (trust me) the behaviour of the industry is dictated by what they can get away with... so any one off stories about a desk thumping producer winning a dispute is a rare event.

This imbalance allows exploitative behaviour to continue. So that when an agreement is breached, the producer is unable to do anything about it.

𝟱) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴

After signing a distribution agreement, it may take a year or more for a film to appear on a platform.

By then, the cast and crew have moved on. The filmmaker may be trying to finance another project while still answering questions about the completed one.

Eventually, the release is announced. The artwork is shared. The cast posts the trailer. Everyone congratulates one another.

Then the filmmaker waits for the reports.

Statements may arrive months later, long after the most commercially active period of the release. Of course, in many cases, the producer receives little or nothing.

What remains is the promotional value of saying that the film was distributed.

All the filmmaker has left is the appearance of success... a hulu logo, with which to post on Facebook telling everywhen when their film's about to go live. While... considering a private walk into the ocean!

𝟲) 𝗔𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗲

Aggregation services like FilmHub and BitMax offer filmmakers the chance to pay for a service that puts your film on a streaming platform, but they are also unpredictable. (Your film might get rejected!)

Some charge substantial preparation and delivery fees. Others operate through revenue sharing. None can guarantee that a platform will accept a film, promote it or generate enough money to recover its costs.

The producer will be responsible for marketing. The main issue is that these companies are also impossible to audit. You'll never know what your film truly makes.

𝟳) 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁

Some filmmakers attempt to progress by producing films directly for their abusers... I mean distributors.

This may appear to be an improvement. Instead of financing the entire production themselves, they are finally being paid to make something.

However, within parts of the low-budget genre market, these commissions can become another form of exploitation. Producers get peanuts to make films that rely on them exploiting others.

I'm talking... shooting films in under 7 days, making cast and crew pay for their own catering by names you would recognise!

𝟴) 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝘀

The system survives because filmmakers remain emotionally invested in its approval.

We are taught that distributors, sales agents, platforms and festivals possess the authority to transform us into professionals. Once accepted by that system, it can be difficult to admit that the arrangement brought little financial benefit.

There is also embarrassment.

Nobody wants to announce that the reports never arrived, the expenses consumed the revenue or the prestigious distribution deal produced no meaningful income. It is easier to share the artwork and celebrate the platform placement.

Other filmmakers see these announcements and assume that another person has succeeded through the traditional route. They then follow the same path.

The mythology renews itself...

This is why some filmmakers begin defending the very system that exploits them. They repeat the claim that poor contracts, negligible budgets and limited transparency are simply the realities of the business.

But there are other realities.

𝟵) 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲

My own experiences made me aware of these problems relatively early. Although I have worked with distributors and sales agents, most of my energy has gone into producing and distributing films independently.

For us, that has involved Kickstarter, direct online sales, physical editions and building a community around our productions.

It is not easy. Even an established independent studio may struggle to reach platforms like Apple or Amazon without dealing with distributors or Aggregation service companies.

Yet over approximately fourteen years, this approach has allowed us to raise production finance, retain ownership, develop facilities, build an audience and continue creating films without waiting for conventional permission.

However, the difference in perception remains.

A profitable self-distributed film may receive less industry recognition than an unprofitable film released through a familiar distributor.

That is the prejudice we must challenge.

𝟭𝟬) 𝗝𝗼𝗲𝗹 𝗛𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲

Joel Haver offers a particularly interesting alternative.

Rather than treating YouTube as an inferior destination, he uses it as a home for cinema. His films are freely available, allowing audiences to discover and share them without waiting for an intermediary to approve their release.

The films become invitations. Viewers who value the work can support its continuation through Patreon and other forms of direct patronage.

There is something honest about this relationship.

The filmmaker creates the art. The audience experiences it. Those who want more help finance what comes next.

This model will not suit every filmmaker or production. It requires consistency, trust and a genuine relationship with an audience. But it proves that alternative structures are possible.

𝟭𝟭) 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲

Self-distribution does not automatically create success. A filmmaker can lose money independently just as easily as through a distributor.

The difference is that direct distribution offers the possibility of learning.

Filmmakers can discover who their audience is, what it values, what prices work and which forms of promotion are effective. They can adapt their strategy, retain their rights and develop a relationship with the people who support their work.

𝟭𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹.

We must stop treating independence as a consolation prize. A direct release is not necessarily evidence that a film was rejected. Free availability does not mean that a film has no value. A profitable self-distributed production is not less successful than an unprofitable platform acquisition.

We must stop judging films by the logos attached to them.

We must stop mistaking access for income.

Most importantly, filmmakers must stop waiting for permission to build their own relationship with an audience.

The traditional industry will continue to argue that legitimacy flows from its institutions and gatekeepers. It is in its interest to do so.

But the technology, the audiences and the opportunities already exist for us to construct something different!

There are alternative paths.

We simply need the confidence to take them.

My thoughts on the illusions of Distribution and the System that holds back filmmakers

1. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗹𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

My recent interview with filmmaker Joel Haver led to a wider conversation about distribution and the cultural prejudices that still govern how filmmakers measure success.

Why do we continue allowing the traditional film industry to decide whether our work has succeeded?

The public image of film distribution and its financial reality are often very different. One offers the appearance of acceptance: a sales agent, a distributor, a recognised streaming platform or a presence at an international film market. The other is the private reality experienced by the filmmaker.

A film may appear on several familiar platforms while returning almost nothing to the people who made it. While another filmmaker may self-distribute, earn more, retain ownership and build a loyal audience, yet still be considered less successful because no traditional gatekeeper validated the release.

This is not only an economic problem. It is a cultural one.

𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀

Most filmmakers dream of eventually being hired as directors, working inside the established industry. But, the majority of independent filmmakers work outside that protected structure.

They finance their own productions, absorb the risk and spend months or years completing them. Their films are then offered at the film markets, leading to countless conversations between producers, sales agents and distributors.

If signed, they are eventually placed on Amazon, Apple, sometimes Tubi, and subscription platforms. Sometimes they're just dumped on YouTube! Physical media, once a major source of revenue, now occupies a smaller and more specialised market, but the collapse of the physical market does contribute to the brutality indie filmmakers face today. But, I digress...

The problem is that filmmakers are often judged not by whether their films made money or developed an audience, but by whether they were sold in an industry-approved manner.

The announcement becomes more important than the outcome.

The streaming platforms logo becomes more important than the filmmaker’s income.

𝟯) 𝗔 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗩𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲

The value of individual independent films has declined enormously. Deals increasingly concern libraries, bundles and large quantities of inexpensive content.

Even platforms that appear selective to consumers now acquire hundreds of films through package agreements... AVOD channels on YouTube even add films daily.

When a producer signs with a sales agent, that company takes a percentage of the revenue. The distributor takes another. Before the filmmaker receives anything, there will be deductions for marketing, legal work, delivery, market attendance, artwork and technical preparation.

The producer is expected to supply the "deliverables" and that's one big cost most filmmakers don't foresee.

Months or years of unpaid labour are rarely considered part of the cost that must be recovered.

𝟰) 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆

Distribution and sales agreements now run up to 10 years... even though the commercial fate of an independent film may be determined within months of signing...

If written off, it will linger all for all those years in an aggregation bundle. Meanwhiel, whatever incomes it does make... you will never truly know.

Yes, some contracts might include audit rights, but exercising them is prohibitively expensive. Litigation is even less realistic. AND... distributors know it.

A contract is only as powerful as your ability to enforce it. A filmmaker who has spent everything producing a film is unlikely to have the resources to pursue an international distributor through the courts.

I can sense a comment already from a macho filmmaker claiming that you just need a lawyer... (trust me) the behaviour of the industry is dictated by what they can get away with... so any one off stories about a desk thumping producer winning a dispute is a rare event.

This imbalance allows exploitative behaviour to continue. So that when an agreement is breached, the producer is unable to do anything about it.

𝟱) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴

After signing a distribution agreement, it may take a year or more for a film to appear on a platform.

By then, the cast and crew have moved on. The filmmaker may be trying to finance another project while still answering questions about the completed one.

Eventually, the release is announced. The artwork is shared. The cast posts the trailer. Everyone congratulates one another.

Then the filmmaker waits for the reports.

Statements may arrive months later, long after the most commercially active period of the release. Of course, in many cases, the producer receives little or nothing.

What remains is the promotional value of saying that the film was distributed.

All the filmmaker has left is the appearance of success... a hulu logo, with which to post on Facebook telling everywhen when their film's about to go live. While... considering a private walk into the ocean!

𝟲) 𝗔𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗲

Aggregation services like FilmHub and BitMax offer filmmakers the chance to pay for a service that puts your film on a streaming platform, but they are also unpredictable. (Your film might get rejected!)

Some charge substantial preparation and delivery fees. Others operate through revenue sharing. None can guarantee that a platform will accept a film, promote it or generate enough money to recover its costs.

The producer will be responsible for marketing. The main issue is that these companies are also impossible to audit. You'll never know what your film truly makes.

𝟳) 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁

Some filmmakers attempt to progress by producing films directly for their abusers... I mean distributors.

This may appear to be an improvement. Instead of financing the entire production themselves, they are finally being paid to make something.

However, within parts of the low-budget genre market, these commissions can become another form of exploitation. Producers get peanuts to make films that rely on them exploiting others.

I'm talking... shooting films in under 7 days, making cast and crew pay for their own catering by names you would recognise!

𝟴) 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝘀

The system survives because filmmakers remain emotionally invested in its approval.

We are taught that distributors, sales agents, platforms and festivals possess the authority to transform us into professionals. Once accepted by that system, it can be difficult to admit that the arrangement brought little financial benefit.

There is also embarrassment.

Nobody wants to announce that the reports never arrived, the expenses consumed the revenue or the prestigious distribution deal produced no meaningful income. It is easier to share the artwork and celebrate the platform placement.

Other filmmakers see these announcements and assume that another person has succeeded through the traditional route. They then follow the same path.

The mythology renews itself...

This is why some filmmakers begin defending the very system that exploits them. They repeat the claim that poor contracts, negligible budgets and limited transparency are simply the realities of the business.

But there are other realities.

𝟵) 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲

My own experiences made me aware of these problems relatively early. Although I have worked with distributors and sales agents, most of my energy has gone into producing and distributing films independently.

For us, that has involved Kickstarter, direct online sales, physical editions and building a community around our productions.

It is not easy. Even an established independent studio may struggle to reach platforms like Apple or Amazon without dealing with distributors or Aggregation service companies.

Yet over approximately fourteen years, this approach has allowed us to raise production finance, retain ownership, develop facilities, build an audience and continue creating films without waiting for conventional permission.

However, the difference in perception remains.

A profitable self-distributed film may receive less industry recognition than an unprofitable film released through a familiar distributor.

That is the prejudice we must challenge.

𝟭𝟬) 𝗝𝗼𝗲𝗹 𝗛𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲

Joel Haver offers a particularly interesting alternative.

Rather than treating YouTube as an inferior destination, he uses it as a home for cinema. His films are freely available, allowing audiences to discover and share them without waiting for an intermediary to approve their release.

The films become invitations. Viewers who value the work can support its continuation through Patreon and other forms of direct patronage.

There is something honest about this relationship.

The filmmaker creates the art. The audience experiences it. Those who want more help finance what comes next.

This model will not suit every filmmaker or production. It requires consistency, trust and a genuine relationship with an audience. But it proves that alternative structures are possible.

𝟭𝟭) 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲

Self-distribution does not automatically create success. A filmmaker can lose money independently just as easily as through a distributor.

The difference is that direct distribution offers the possibility of learning.

Filmmakers can discover who their audience is, what it values, what prices work and which forms of promotion are effective. They can adapt their strategy, retain their rights and develop a relationship with the people who support their work.

𝟭𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹.

We must stop treating independence as a consolation prize. A direct release is not necessarily evidence that a film was rejected. Free availability does not mean that a film has no value. A profitable self-distributed production is not less successful than an unprofitable platform acquisition.

We must stop judging films by the logos attached to them.

We must stop mistaking access for income.

Most importantly, filmmakers must stop waiting for permission to build their own relationship with an audience.

The traditional industry will continue to argue that legitimacy flows from its institutions and gatekeepers. It is in its interest to do so.

But the technology, the audiences and the opportunities already exist for us to construct something different!

There are alternative paths.

We simply need the confidence to take them.

My thoughts on the illusions of Distribution and the System that holds back filmmakers

1) 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗹𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

My recent interview with filmmaker Joel Haver led to a wider conversation about distribution and the cultural prejudices that still govern how filmmakers measure success.

Why do we continue allowing the traditional film industry to decide whether our work has succeeded?

The public image of film distribution and its financial reality are often very different. One offers the appearance of acceptance: a sales agent, a distributor, a recognised streaming platform or a presence at an international film market. The other is the private reality experienced by the filmmaker.

A film may appear on several familiar platforms while returning almost nothing to the people who made it. While another filmmaker may self-distribute, earn more, retain ownership and build a loyal audience, yet still be considered less successful because no traditional gatekeeper validated the release.

This is not only an economic problem. It is a cultural one.

𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀

Most filmmakers dream of eventually being hired as directors, working inside the established industry. But, the majority of independent filmmakers work outside that protected structure.

They finance their own productions, absorb the risk and spend months or years completing them. Their films are then offered at the film markets, leading to countless conversations between producers, sales agents and distributors.

If signed, they are eventually placed on Amazon, Apple, sometimes Tubi, and subscription platforms. Sometimes they're just dumped on YouTube! Physical media, once a major source of revenue, now occupies a smaller and more specialised market, but the collapse of the physical market does contribute to the brutality indie filmmakers face today. But, I digress...

The problem is that filmmakers are often judged not by whether their films made money or developed an audience, but by whether they were sold in an industry-approved manner.

The announcement becomes more important than the outcome.

The streaming platforms logo becomes more important than the filmmaker’s income.

𝟯) 𝗔 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗩𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗺𝗲

The value of individual independent films has declined enormously. Deals increasingly concern libraries, bundles and large quantities of inexpensive content.

Even platforms that appear selective to consumers now acquire hundreds of films through package agreements... AVOD channels on YouTube even add films daily.

When a producer signs with a sales agent, that company takes a percentage of the revenue. The distributor takes another. Before the filmmaker receives anything, there will be deductions for marketing, legal work, delivery, market attendance, artwork and technical preparation.

The producer is expected to supply the "deliverables" and that's one big cost most filmmakers don't foresee.

Months or years of unpaid labour are rarely considered part of the cost that must be recovered.

𝟰) 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆

Distribution and sales agreements now run up to 10 years... even though the commercial fate of an independent film may be determined within months of signing...

If written off, it will linger all for all those years in an aggregation bundle. Meanwhiel, whatever incomes it does make... you will never truly know.

Yes, some contracts might include audit rights, but exercising them is prohibitively expensive. Litigation is even less realistic. AND... distributors know it.

A contract is only as powerful as your ability to enforce it. A filmmaker who has spent everything producing a film is unlikely to have the resources to pursue an international distributor through the courts.

I can sense a comment already from a macho filmmaker claiming that you just need a lawyer... (trust me) the behaviour of the industry is dictated by what they can get away with... so any one off stories about a desk thumping producer winning a dispute is a rare event.

This imbalance allows exploitative behaviour to continue. So that when an agreement is breached, the producer is unable to do anything about it.

𝟱) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴

After signing a distribution agreement, it may take a year or more for a film to appear on a platform.

By then, the cast and crew have moved on. The filmmaker may be trying to finance another project while still answering questions about the completed one.

Eventually, the release is announced. The artwork is shared. The cast posts the trailer. Everyone congratulates one another.

Then the filmmaker waits for the reports.

Statements may arrive months later, long after the most commercially active period of the release. Of course, in many cases, the producer receives little or nothing.

What remains is the promotional value of saying that the film was distributed.

All the filmmaker has left is the appearance of success... a hulu logo, with which to post on Facebook telling everywhen when their film's about to go live. While... considering a private walk into the ocean!

𝟲) 𝗔𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗲

Aggregation services like FilmHub and BitMax offer filmmakers the chance to pay for a service that puts your film on a streaming platform, but they are also unpredictable. (Your film might get rejected!)

Some charge substantial preparation and delivery fees. Others operate through revenue sharing. None can guarantee that a platform will accept a film, promote it or generate enough money to recover its costs.

The producer will be responsible for marketing. The main issue is that these companies are also impossible to audit. You'll never know what your film truly makes.

𝟳) 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁

Some filmmakers attempt to progress by producing films directly for their abusers... I mean distributors.

This may appear to be an improvement. Instead of financing the entire production themselves, they are finally being paid to make something.

However, within parts of the low-budget genre market, these commissions can become another form of exploitation. Producers get peanuts to make films that rely on them exploiting others.

I'm talking... shooting films in under 7 days, making cast and crew pay for their own catering by names you would recognise!

𝟴) 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲𝘀

The system survives because filmmakers remain emotionally invested in its approval.

We are taught that distributors, sales agents, platforms and festivals possess the authority to transform us into professionals. Once accepted by that system, it can be difficult to admit that the arrangement brought little financial benefit.

There is also embarrassment.

Nobody wants to announce that the reports never arrived, the expenses consumed the revenue or the prestigious distribution deal produced no meaningful income. It is easier to share the artwork and celebrate the platform placement.

Other filmmakers see these announcements and assume that another person has succeeded through the traditional route. They then follow the same path.

The mythology renews itself...

This is why some filmmakers begin defending the very system that exploits them. They repeat the claim that poor contracts, negligible budgets and limited transparency are simply the realities of the business.

But there are other realities.

𝟵) 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲

My own experiences made me aware of these problems relatively early. Although I have worked with distributors and sales agents, most of my energy has gone into producing and distributing films independently.

For us, that has involved Kickstarter, direct online sales, physical editions and building a community around our productions.

It is not easy. Even an established independent studio may struggle to reach platforms like Apple or Amazon without dealing with distributors or Aggregation service companies.

Yet over approximately fourteen years, this approach has allowed us to raise production finance, retain ownership, develop facilities, build an audience and continue creating films without waiting for conventional permission.

However, the difference in perception remains.

A profitable self-distributed film may receive less industry recognition than an unprofitable film released through a familiar distributor.

That is the prejudice we must challenge.

𝟭𝟬) 𝗝𝗼𝗲𝗹 𝗛𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲

Joel Haver offers a particularly interesting alternative.

Rather than treating YouTube as an inferior destination, he uses it as a home for cinema. His films are freely available, allowing audiences to discover and share them without waiting for an intermediary to approve their release.

The films become invitations. Viewers who value the work can support its continuation through Patreon and other forms of direct patronage.

There is something honest about this relationship.

The filmmaker creates the art. The audience experiences it. Those who want more help finance what comes next.

This model will not suit every filmmaker or production. It requires consistency, trust and a genuine relationship with an audience. But it proves that alternative structures are possible.

𝟭𝟭) 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗦𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲

Self-distribution does not automatically create success. A filmmaker can lose money independently just as easily as through a distributor.

The difference is that direct distribution offers the possibility of learning.

Filmmakers can discover who their audience is, what it values, what prices work and which forms of promotion are effective. They can adapt their strategy, retain their rights and develop a relationship with the people who support their work.

𝟭𝟮) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹.

We must stop treating independence as a consolation prize. A direct release is not necessarily evidence that a film was rejected. Free availability does not mean that a film has no value. A profitable self-distributed production is not less successful than an unprofitable platform acquisition.

We must stop judging films by the logos attached to them.

We must stop mistaking access for income.

Most importantly, filmmakers must stop waiting for permission to build their own relationship with an audience.

The traditional industry will continue to argue that legitimacy flows from its institutions and gatekeepers. It is in its interest to do so.

But the technology, the audiences and the opportunities already exist for us to construct something different!

There are alternative paths.

We simply need the confidence to take them.

Of course, there is a limitless array of challenges facing independent film producers, and I’m interested in hearing your perspectives on them. I’m going to share a perspective of my own, which you may not agree with, and that is completely fine.

1. The first challenge is financing and producing a film without losing creative control or surrendering a disproportionate share of the ownership and potential remuneration.
2. Festivals receive your film for free and charge others to see it. They are often among the first organisations to make money from your film. The supposed benefit to the filmmaker is publicity, which might help secure a worthwhile distribution deal.

In practice, I think this is largely a myth, despite the carefully tailored announcements made at major festivals claiming that certain titles have been “discovered” and signed.

1. Sales agents, as you may already know, can be ruthless. Once your film is with them, you are largely at their mercy when it comes to honest reporting. Accountability is almost impossible because sales agents, and the distributors to whom they license your film, are rarely transparent. Contract terms also seem to be much longer than they were in the past.
2. Filmmakers often boast about getting their films onto streaming platforms or securing distribution deals, but are usually much quieter about receiving little or no money from them, perhaps out of embarrassment.

Shame and ego play a significant role in allowing sales agents and distributors to exploit independent filmmakers.

1. Once festivals, sales agents and distributors have all made something from your work, many producers are left with the dregs. Others are left clinging to a minimum guarantee that never becomes augmented by royalties.

The alternative is self-distribution. However, this is where the psychology of wanting to be part of the conventional distribution system can turn filmmakers into willing victims rather than entrepreneurs who sell their own films.

A filmmaker with millions of views on YouTube and direct sales through their own website may still be characterised as somehow less legitimate than someone announcing that their film will be available on Tubi next week.

I’ve been a producer for around 14 years. I’ve worked with distributors, attended film markets and produced films independently. Every year, the industry seems to claim that it has been the hardest year yet, thereby placing even more pressure on filmmakers.

In my opinion, however, it is not sustainable for independent film to continue operating this way.

Those are some of my views, and I’m keen to hear yours.

Of course, there is a limitless array of challenges facing independent film producers, and I’m interested in hearing your perspectives on them. I’m going to share a perspective of my own, which you may not agree with, and that is completely fine.

1. The first challenge is financing and producing a film without losing creative control or surrendering a disproportionate share of the ownership and potential remuneration.
2. Festivals receive your film for free and charge others to see it. They are often among the first organisations to make money from your film. The supposed benefit to the filmmaker is publicity, which might help secure a worthwhile distribution deal.

In practice, I think this is largely a myth, despite the carefully tailored announcements made at major festivals claiming that certain titles have been “discovered” and signed.

1. Sales agents, as you may already know, can be ruthless. Once your film is with them, you are largely at their mercy when it comes to honest reporting. Accountability is almost impossible because sales agents, and the distributors to whom they license your film, are rarely transparent. Contract terms also seem to be much longer than they were in the past.
2. Filmmakers often boast about getting their films onto streaming platforms or securing distribution deals, but are usually much quieter about receiving little or no money from them, perhaps out of embarrassment.

Shame and ego play a significant role in allowing sales agents and distributors to exploit independent filmmakers.

1. Once festivals, sales agents and distributors have all made something from your work, many producers are left with the dregs. Others are left clinging to a minimum guarantee that never becomes augmented by royalties.

The alternative is self-distribution. However, this is where the psychology of wanting to be part of the conventional distribution system can turn filmmakers into willing victims rather than entrepreneurs who sell their own films.

A filmmaker with millions of views on YouTube and direct sales through their own website may still be characterised as somehow less legitimate than someone announcing that their film will be available on Tubi next week.

I’ve been a producer for around 14 years. I’ve worked with distributors, attended film markets and produced films independently. Every year, the industry seems to claim that it has been the hardest year yet, thereby placing even more pressure on filmmakers.

In my opinion, however, it is not sustainable for independent film to continue operating this way.

Those are some of my views, and I’m keen to hear yours.

Of course, there is a limitless array of challenges facing independent film producers, and I’m interested in hearing your perspectives on them. I’m going to share a perspective of my own, which you may not agree with, and that is completely fine.

1. The first challenge is financing and producing a film without losing creative control or surrendering a disproportionate share of the ownership and potential remuneration.
2. Festivals receive your film for free and charge others to see it. They are often among the first organisations to make money from your film. The supposed benefit to the filmmaker is publicity, which might help secure a worthwhile distribution deal.

In practice, I think this is largely a myth, despite the carefully tailored announcements made at major festivals claiming that certain titles have been “discovered” and signed.

1. Sales agents, as you may already know, can be ruthless. Once your film is with them, you are largely at their mercy when it comes to honest reporting. Accountability is almost impossible because sales agents, and the distributors to whom they license your film, are rarely transparent. Contract terms also seem to be much longer than they were in the past.
2. Filmmakers often boast about getting their films onto streaming platforms or securing distribution deals, but are usually much quieter about receiving little or no money from them, perhaps out of embarrassment.

Shame and ego play a significant role in allowing sales agents and distributors to exploit independent filmmakers.

1. Once festivals, sales agents and distributors have all made something from your work, many producers are left with the dregs. Others are left clinging to a minimum guarantee that never becomes augmented by royalties.

The alternative is self-distribution. However, this is where the psychology of wanting to be part of the conventional distribution system can turn filmmakers into willing victims rather than entrepreneurs who sell their own films.

A filmmaker with millions of views on YouTube and direct sales through their own website may still be characterised as somehow less legitimate than someone announcing that their film will be available on Tubi next week.

I’ve been a producer for around 14 years. I’ve worked with distributors, attended film markets and produced films independently. Every year, the industry seems to claim that it has been the hardest year yet, thereby placing even more pressure on filmmakers.

In my opinion, however, it is not sustainable for independent film to continue operating this way.

Those are some of my views, and I’m keen to hear yours.

I think one of the single biggest things holding back many independent filmmakers is “big fish in a little pond” syndrome.

This is particularly common in areas far removed from the major centres of commercial film production. Its symptoms are easy to recognise: enormous amounts of emotional energy wasted on provincial cliques, local Facebook groups, tribal politics, petty hierarchies and endless arguments about who is morally permitted to do what.

It is provincial puritanism at its worst.

Anyone who thinks internationally, reaches beyond the local scene or refuses to submit to its unwritten rules is often treated as disruptive. Not because they are doing anything wrong, but because ambition threatens the comfortable hierarchy these essentially hobbyist groupings are trying to preserve.

You must never allow yourself to be constrained, either operationally or spiritually, by people whose ambitions end at the borders of their own social circle.

Look beyond your town. Look beyond your county. Look beyond your country.

The people who build sustainable careers in film, who run businesses and work professionally every day, do not succeed by prioritising the favour they can curry in a local Facebook group.

They succeed by making work, finding audiences, building international relationships and refusing to confuse local approval with professional progress.