And further, it remains so bizarre that celebrated Indie models like Kickstarter—while helping in the short-term—actually craft a poisonous reverse to the Hollywood obverse, completing the troubled whole with an essentially unsustainable, meritocratic and highly Republican approach to arts funding: no centralized objective support; the people choose what they want prior to seeing it (future taste thus derived from bygones tastes, which is ultimately moderated by curators who choose what’s seen at all); if you can’t raise the money yourself, the work doesn’t deserve to exist… All of this tailspins right back to those with better “human” resources. These radical new methods of financing are in fact false alternatives that promote a now well-established and branded ideology: Indie, not independent.

One thing you didn’t mention which I inferred (and personally believe as a filmmaker) is that it would be great to get paid off, even to sell all my rights to a film that I have crafted to completion. I don’t mean via corporate collusion: I mean simply re-envisioning how much money I EXPECT to make off my films. If the numbers are realistically shifted, new territories begin to open up, such as a fusion between art and film industry methods of exchange (collector/distributors; object/experience). Ultimately, I feel the whole assumptive base of royalties and geographic rights needs to be reconsidered, especially in this digital and easily duplicated age. A lump sum would be great for my next film. I’m not trying to get rich here. The middlemen you profile are transparently trying to do just that.

There was some discussion about the article on the Facebook page of the book I mention, Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul, and I’ll re-post my contribution to that debate here:

————————————————————————

Hi there, sorry for coming to the discussion late but I thought I would try to clarify a few aspects of my article that people have responded to here.

First of all, I’m not suggesting that the old system is functional; it seems pretty well established that it’s not. I’m also not advocating for any kind of purist retreat into art-making or avoiding these central questions of how to put work out into the world and sustain oneself doing it. I am a filmmaker myself, and I am not above this stuff, nor do I pretend to have it figured out. I wrestle with it every day: trying to make work I love, share it with people, and sustain myself while doing it.

Things have to change, and I think interesting new possibilities are emerging. I also think something like Sheri and Jon’s new book is a valuable and generous resource in providing in-depth info on a few of the experiments that are taking place.

So what’s my problem then?

I feel like there has been a lot of rhetoric about the democratization and liberation of the process that has obscured some of the subtler ways filmmakers are restricted and compromised. I think pre-production marketing, and concepts such as self-branding and targeting predetermined audiences, are some of these subtler ways.

I’m aware of the PMD idea and I think that is certainly is preferable to the filmmaker as one-stop shop. But, for filmmakers interested in progressive political change, and especially those of the anti-capitalist persuasion (and yes, I’m one of them), I feel it’s important to think harder about these issues, and recognize that allowing your art to function as a product and a commodity is always going to be problematic. Does that mean it’s best to just back away and not deal with any of this stuff? No, but I think it’s important to see things for what they are, engage critically and try to work towards better ways of doing things.

I’ve had discussions with many fellow filmmakers who share my concerns, so I felt it was worthwhile to put them forth in a public context.

PS: On the question of Occupy Wall St, my point was exactly that independent filmmakers DO share issues and desires in common with this growing movement, and as a result it might be worth beginning to join OWS in thinking about these problems outside of the terms of marketing and monetization. Maybe see you down there

It’s unsurprising to me that in the United States, the seemingly most lauded and lucrative “independent” films are horrors (Paranormal Activity), thrillers (Catfish), and the mumblecrap films of last decade. These films have pretty much been silent endorsement of the Hollywood ideal of film, but just with a low-budget aesthetic.

The moment an artist begins talking about money, he has put his foot into the corporate game. A game which can only be lost. So when we talk about financing, distribution, and all that blahblah, shouldn’t we instead be talking about how to make films on SMALLER budgets or NO budgets, rather than trying to locate financial backers? Or better yet, as you suggest, stop talking about budget entirely and just focus on the art.

Of course, that’s how I feel somewhat about the OWS protesters. It’s a movement with lots of justification and is perhaps necessary, but is still falling into the corporate dialogue of “Money! Money! Money!” We need to talk more about things of matter, such as personal ethics and conviction.

Thanks for the article. Welcome to Brooklyn!

One of the traps is the idea of making dangerous art in the controversial, disturbing sense. This kind of art is quickly subsumed by the media machine and after much huffing and puffing becomes accepted and loses it’s power in subsequent legitimacy. Where artistic revolution succeeds most is in denying us any kind of easy, judgmental assurances and helping us to embrace even our supposed enemies as part of the wonderful confusion of life. I don’t mean the refusal to judge acts but rather the multivalent truth that our enemies are us and that in judging their acts we are questioning ourselves as much or more than others. The best art raises so many questions that it invalidates the tendentious semi-fascist nature of absolute answers and that can only enrich us in the long run.

Michael, I know Whitehead has written a few novels since his filmmaking days, but I haven’t read them or any comments by him about them – you may find some on Paul Cronin’s website, which has a terrific selection of Whitehead essays and interviews.

I think I basically agree with you about art being about perceptual rather than physical transformation, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by “physical”. Obviously, I am very interested in the ways in which art can be used to engage with and transform our social relations, and the way we organise our lives. It’s naive to think that art can do this “by itself” but I do think there are (localised) situations in which the perceptual shifts generated by art can have physical (at least, social and organisational) ramifications.

For me, the big mistake is pinning hopes on massive, sudden seismic transformations and becoming bitter and disillusioned when this fails to come about. I read an interesting book recently called WE HAVE NEVER BEEN MODERN by Bruno Latour, which had some great critiques of the very idea of “revolution” as a symptom of modernist culture, one aspect of a hopeless aspiration to break completely with the past, ad infinitum…