Guerrilla Filmmakers Didn't Need the Digital Revolution

As I was wrapping up post-production for "The Allan Carter Saga Part I: AMNESIA" I ended up on a phone conversation with my brother who had helped with the editing, compostiting and CGI special effects for the film.  In the conversation I blurted out, "if the digital revolution hadn't come along when it did I wouldn't have been able to make this movie".  My brother's response was a very interesting comment because for the last couple years I have found myself going back to it over and over again.  He replied, "you, me, we didn't need the digital revolution to make a movie...  We would have found a way even if the digital revolution hadn't happened."

Recently many filmmakers have commented that SM and the internet will be the answer to the marketing and distribution delemia that independent filmmakers are experiencing.  I disagree.  SM and the internet are tools, not the answer.  When we put our reliance on the tools the tools become the master and we are a slave to them.  If Thomas Edison couldn't find an answer...  he made one.

The thing about trailerblazers are that the blaze a new trail.  In their quest of cutting through the brush and creating a new path they risk having major pitfalls but also benefit by creating a path that others will take.  Anyone else that goes down that path isn't a leader but a follower of the path.  We all find points in our journey of filmmaking where everything that can go wrong does go wrong and you are pushed into a corner.  You can not proceed with the "business as usual" mode.  It is at this point, when everything logical will not fix the problem, that you have to "get creative" to beat the odds.  This is when you blaze a new trail, even if a small, minor one.  Too many filmmakers, I fear, when facing the impossible, instead of "getting creative"...  just back down.

Here's a great historical story to illustrate my point:

The year is 1776, the British army are held up in Boston while the rebels (Americans) lead by Washington are in the counrty.  They are basically waiting for the other side to make the next move.  It's a stalemate.  Winter is setting in, but Henry Knox went to Fort Ticonderoga, in up-state New York, to retrive some cannons.  Everyone thought it was impossible for him to bring all these canons across the mountains of Vermont, but he was able to inspire all the people of the countryside in Vermont to get involved. 

Another person named Alexander Hamilton inspired Washington to set up the canons at night, up on a hill, just across the bay from Boston.  The idea was to bring hay stack blocks, quietly at night, up the hill.  They were to make a wall with this blocks which would freeze in place.  They would also bring empty barrels up the hill as well.  These barrels were then filled with dirt and put on the outside of the wall.  When the British were to wake up in the morning, they would see the American's entrenched on the hill with the canons pointed at them.  The assumption would be that the British would then demand an assult on the hill.  The Americans, being low on gun powder, woud instead roll the barrels down the hill, knocking the British soldiers over like bowling pins, winning the battle... 

In the morning the British saw the Americans entrenched on the top of the hill and retreated to England for several months.  They knew they could not beat Washington at Boston.  The plan had worked.

My point isn't a leason in history but to show that creativity can beat the odds.  The internt, digital revolution or any other invention we come up with isn't the answer.  Our never ending determination mixed with our imaginations can do wonders.  A guerrilla filmmaker doesn't back down, they improvise.  Now is the time for a real filmmaking revolution.

It Ain't a Charity! (Filmmaking)

In the recent discussions on how independent filmmakers can make a financial return on their films, since the collapse of what people called "Indywood", the word "donation" has come up frequently.  I'm not talking about raising your funding by "donation" but when people use it as a way for the filmmaker to recoup their cost.  People will come up with creative ways for the films to get out into the public and then they will say, "ask for a donation"... instead of charging a ticket fee?

I had someone suggest this to me a year ago when I was going on tour.  They said I should show the film at a certain college and ask for donations.  But this was also a unique situation.  The college, because of it's own insitution's rules, could not allow someone to do a paid performance.  The filmmaker could screen the film and ask for donations.

My point is this, "It ain't a charity!" (my wife would say that's not proper English and it isn't, but it gets my point across).  You can't go up to a gas station, fill up your tank, and then offer to give them a five dollar donation.  You can't go to the grocery store, fill up your cart and hand them a five dollar donation either... so why do we, as filmmakers, allow ourselves to get to this point?... where we hang our hopes on the word "donation"?

Ask yourself as a filmmaker:  Do I really believe the film I made is worth paying for?  If the answer is "yes", why are you giving it away for FREE?  Now if you don't think your film is worth someone paying money for then just give it away for free and ask for a donation.

One of the things I learned when reading the book: "My Life in Advertising and Scientific Advertising" (By Claude Hopkins), was the fact that the word FREE implies valuelessness.  The assumption people have when they see the word free, especially if they haven't experienced the "value" before, is that "it must not be good enough to buy".  Trust me, I've tested the theory before...

I did some test screenings of my film at a local library, just to see the reactions from the crowd.  I was stupid enough to put on the sign, "FREE" screening.  Being as determined as I was, I stood on the street corner of this town, holding the sign.  But the brilliance was that I stood there holding the sign.  People didn't know it was my film, they just figured someone who made it paid me to advertise on the street corner.  And standing there I was able to hear people's reactions.  Since they didn't know it was mine they were able to tell me their honest opinion. The word "FREE" was killing my chances of getting anyone to show up.  They kept saying, "if it's free it must not be very good".  The kicker was that I couldn't charge anything for the screening,  it was another one of those "situations" (the library rules stated I couldn't do any exchange of money on the premises).  That was ok, it was just a test screening.

My point is this:  We are better than this!  There are so many options out there that we should consider the "donation" option as a last resort to recoup our losses. 

Now it's different if you raised the production budget by donation because it was about a certain cause and then you show it for free (like a documentary).  But we're talking about feature films where the filmmaker had investors or their own money involved. (Yes, I did show AMNESIA on RebFest.com for free, for a week, and did an encore of the film on the jbmovies.com site for a week too.  But this was about building some online buzz.  I no longer do this anymore, and RebFest will no longer show entire feature films for free, but will let people watch the first 15 mins for free.  Filmmakers need to make a living!)

I know I will make some people angry that I posted this.  But someone needs to give a response before this becomes an indie-film-epidemic. 

What do you think?

American Dreams ...and Filmmaking?

With every film project that I consider, every script I write, I find myself contiplating the universal question: "why?".  Why should I make this into a film?  Why should I even write the script?  Am I willing to spend a year, two years, three years or more to make this a reality?  If this was my last film to ever make, would it be worth it?

Paranormal Activity is gaining attention in theaters across the country and presently has made about 7.2 million in ticket sales and now is being screened at 160 movie theaters.  I applaud their sucess but also find myself wondering... is that it?  Don't get me wrong, I think gaining this much attention for a film is awesome.  But besides watching the film, possibly scaring the crap out of yourself, and going home to have nightmares... what else does the film do?  Will it inspire you to go out and feed the hungry?  Help the homeless?  Change the world?.. or even change yourself?

The other headline I see every night is that unemployment in the US is now at 9.5%.  With unemployment rising, homelessness and financial stress will rise.  I am not stating this to depress you, but instead to mention another project that a fellow film company is producing: 

Someplace Like America 

Basic synopsis:

Paper mill shuts down in New Hampshire and we see the aftermath and how people deal with this dramatic change in the life of the community that relied on the mill to survive.... 

I had heard about this project back in March.  I immediatly found the story interesting.  What I liked was that the company that is producing the film, Either/or Films, isn't interested in just creating stories that entertain, but that also provoke people to think and be inspired.  There's alot of hopeless in this world.  We need to talk about the things people care about like unemployment and the fear of joblessness.  We need to also inspire people to believe that things can get better. 

Check out Someplace Like America here: SLA  and become a fan on their FB fan page.  Please spread the world about this incredible story.  I believe that this could possibly be one of the most important projects of 2010...  What do you think?

The REAL problem with Indie Films.

For anyone following the news on the independent film business they can see that now, more than ever, that industry is struggling to survive. Almost every week there are blogs, newspapers or magazines that are writting some articles about a confrence, festival, or other event where people in the industry debate about how to fix the industry. I think before we try to fix the problem we should try to figure out what the problem really is.


Filmmaker's claim the problem is that many independent distributors (mini-majors, etc) have either gone bankrupt or are no longer acquiring films. The distributors would probably claim the fact that in prior years they were unable to make a profit off the films they did acquire is the problem. I believe both of these are "symptoms" of the problem.


What's the problem? Simple. No one knows, outside the indie festival circuit, what most of these films are or whether they are worth watching. Just because a film comes out on DVD or runs in a theater doesn't mean it's something you or I want to watch. It just means that it came out on video or had a theatrical release.

Some would say I'm talking about marketing. But I'm talking about more than just marketing, though. Real marketing is great. My definition would be "communicating a message about what you have to offer". I's not spin, spam, or manipulation... or atleast it shouldn't be.

But we need more than just marketing/advertising; we need to apply the simple principles of "Tested Advertsing" to reach the right niche market for each film and to build a fan base of support for it. Claude Hopkins (the father of the "coupon") created a simple concept using coupons to track what type of ads (on the coupon) drew the largest amount of customers. By doing this he was able to find out what was the best way to promote a product to the consumer.

If indies were able to have their potential audience, beyond the indie crowd that gathers at the fests, interact with their material and react to it, they would be able to gather info on how to best promote their film. This would help the filmmaker understand who would want it the most. There is an audience out there for every film, some are large audiences, some are small.


The problem that the distributors had was that they would see a film at a fest gain some huge attention, but then wouldn't see the same thing when it was distributed nation wide to the main stream audience. Why would that happen? Simple. The film probably catored better to a niche market amongst the indie crowd and less amongst the main stream crowd. The distributors needed to "test" the film more to see who to really reach out to and how to commicate the message of what the film offers best.


There are tons of distribution avenues that filmmakers can take. Some are considering the DIY approach, others are looking to ideas like openindie.com. My consern is that if your film ends up at a theater, but no one knows about it until it arrives, why would anyone be coming to see it?


Imagine a film like "Blair Witch" builds a huge amount buzz about the film and then was released it for people to watch PPV or with limited commerical interuptions from a site? With a large enough buzz around a film and making it available to everyone at the same time via the internet the filmmaker would potentially make more money than if they had gone through a distributor.



All of these ideas I have been personally wrestling with. Then the answer came to me: change the already existing Twitter-Based Film festival (RebFest.com) into something better that helps the indie filmmaker build a fan base. The new RebFest.com site is still under renovation. When it is complete we will post info about it.



-John W. Bosley

writer/director of "The Allan Carter Saga Part I: AMNESIA" and also the creator of RebFest.com