Self-funding: Do we want a film-making co-operative?

[David Salas]

Is anybody interested in a film-making co-operative to help fund each other's projects?

How it would work would be something like this. There would be an annual membership fee and at the end of the year people pitch projects, in order to receive the accumulated money and make a short with it.

I am in the middle of my Bursary pitch and I am definitely not trying to step on The Phoenix's toes, but I figure that we could always do with more money to get more films made. The way I figure it, even if we had a £1 a week membership fee, if we had ten members that would equate to £520, which is enough to get something done, or would at least help. And whoever ended up with the commission would hopefully crew and cast from the co-operatives membership, so whichever film got made it would be good for everybodies CV.

[Martin Lejeune]

Not something I can see working I'm afraid, it'll just lead to tears before bed time.

[Robin Whenary]

This seems a good idea to me. The one potential problem would perhaps be the length of time it takes to build up a decent amount of money, especially if there are few members. If it's all worked out and agreed (on paper) in advance, so there's no possibility of people feeling aggrieved when their project doesn't get the money, I don't see why it can't work.

Martin: why does it have to mean tears before bed time - can you elaborate?

[Ashley Thorpe]

Initially misunderstood the premise of this (so apologies).
If this is meant as a cash kitty to top up the bursary pots then potentially it could work but I have a feeling that as Martin says unless the members of the collective are a very chilled out democratic bunch, you might have a few ego problems.
Though guerilla film makers tend to be enthusiastic they're also competative.

I'd like to see it work, as to whether it will will depend on the members.

[Shauna Osborne-Dowle]

Sounds interesting David,

But I would like to see the emphasis for funding move away from the filmmaker. There is too much making things cheap and showing it for free. I would like to secure a paid outlet (distribution or broadcast) and then work backwards! Can we come up with a clever new way of making the final product pay for itself? Any ideas?.........Shauna

[David Salas]

For a small enough weekly donation I, personally, would be happy for a fair wait before I got my own project funded. I think having people in the collective make films would be good for all, particularly if people within the collective end up working on each others' projects. It means that there are a group of people getting better and better at making films together, resulting in better films overall. I am an idealist, sure, but if I wasn't I probably wouldn't be making films.

Now I take Martin and Ashley's point that a lot does come down to the people who would be involved. They would have to be fairly open-minded and relaxed. But I would suggest that if people were joining the group and paying the fee then they would take a moment to think about the implications of spending their money and would only join if they were fairly relaxed and pro-d.i.y.

As Robin points out, providing the how is clear enough and the price is cheap enough I would argue that the people getting involved would be the kind of semi-alturistic souls that would be required.
My initial thoughts on the selection process are that there are two basic routes to take to ensure fairness (and consequentially a wide enough membership to make the collective viable)

1. a democratic system of one member one vote on proposals. You would not be allowed to vote for your own proposal and you must read all proposals in order to vote.

2. a lottery. You can't argue with names out of a hat, but you would have to be happy about luck selecting the ideas you wouldn't have chosen.

To Shauna, I am open to a different model of funding, this is what this discussion is about I guess. But I am unsure where to begin with the direction you are proposing? My initial thought would be to set up a short film night but I think that is a very hard sell here. Even the oscars and future shorts barely pull any audience and they are supposed to be the best of the best, meanwhile on the other end of the scale the creative collective plays the 'watch your mates' films for free. But I welcome your input.

In the end I agree, trying to unite filmmakers is like trying to herd cats but I don't think that this sort of group is without precedent. It seems to me that Fine Artists are as individualistic and competitive as film-makers, if not more so, and yet artist collectives are, I believe, fairly numerous and seem to more often break into success as a group than individual artists do (Damien Hirst wouldn't be Damien Hirst if he hadn't been flogging the idea of the YBA). People like movements. It is certainly the way I search for cool stuff, I find something I like and then I look for more by following others that are associated with it. Hence, if any collective film does well, the chances are all the groups members will pick up an increase in interest.

However this is all academic, unless there are people who are interested in principle. Problems can be worked out providing people are willing to dialogue.

So if you know people who might be interested please tell them to add a voice, even if only to say 'yes, in principle and depending on the details'.

cheers

David

PS. Thanks to Lee for sending a message out about this discussion



Shauna Osborne-Dowle said:

Sounds interesting David,

But I would like to see the emphasis for funding move away from the filmmaker. There is too much making things cheap and showing it for free. I would like to secure a paid outlet (distribution or broadcast) and then work backwards! Can we come up with a clever new way of making the final product pay for itself? Any ideas?.........Shauna

[Alex White]

Cool! A discussion on D+C Film! Sorry I didn't notice sooner!! Any way to get a email when a discussion starts?

I'd suggest taking a light hearted look at a co-operative as we would a film shoot.

"Who'll give me a pound to be on set with me? Great, 12 people. Now, I think we should shoot in Dv. Oh, you think HD would be better? K, lets vote. Well ok, HD it is. Now this thriller I want to shoot, no not a thriller? Oh you'd like a cop drama, all those in favour? So...light comedy it is. Now framing this shot, what do with think?"

Trail by committtee can be time consuming! A membership organisation can work, take a look at http://www.firsteyeproductions.co.uk/ based in Torbay.

I want to meet as many film makers in Devon as possible because I think working together will mean we can achieve much more. At the moment we're all just getting to know each other and by the sound of things we're kinda thinking along the same lines.

Myself and Lee came up with idea of the Devon + Cornwall Film show to shout out that we have great film makers in Devon, we hope others interested in movie making will watch and get in touch so we can meet them. The more people we meet, the greater the resource we'll have to draw upon for future productions.

We need to help Lee make D+C Film THE place for film makers in Devon and Cornwall. Spread the word!

[Robin Whenary]

To state the obvious, the main problem is clearly going to be getting enough people together!

Obviously no one is suggesting that we would make films collectively - it would have to be one person directing - otherwise as Alex says it would be chaotic, and the end result would probably be a kind of cinematic mush.

Selection process: I'd incline towards some kind of voting system, but that throws up the question of whether pitches should be judged anonymously (so the other members don't know whose idea it is), or not - in which case personalities could play more of a part.
The problem with a lottery is that everyone could end up working on a bad idea, basically!

As far as there being 'too much making things cheap and showing it for free', well, that's not going to change anytime soon, and for low-budget shorts to be seen by as many people as possible they have to shown for free at festivals, online, etc. Securing a paid outlet first seems like the next step, for more established filmmakers, but of course it depends on what you want to make.

[Joe Smit]

Martin Lejeune said:

Not something I can see working I'm afraid, it'll just lead to tears before bed time.

I can just imagine: "could you do my set dressing john?" "Sure, as long as you promise to incorporate the lead character profile from my failed pitch - bunch of ungrateful *mumble mumble* it was tonnes better, I mean, what do I pay my membership for anyway? I could make my own film! Screw you! Screw the lot of you!" etc etc, would work if everyone signed an anti-bitterness contract! Or there was some sort of quality based rota system. Or set sharing

[David Salas]

I am talking about an anti-bitterness contract, an implied one anyway. Thanks for putting it so succinctly Joe.

It starts with the money being low enough.
Who doesn't waste a £1 a week and not notice it? If our spare pound ends up making a good film, I think that is worth the price. If I end up getting a cash injection for my own project then that is a bonus. The money is negligible and what it is really building is a community that makes films, films which, through practice will keep getting better.

[Joe Smit]

David Salas said:

I am talking about an anti-bitterness contract, an implied one anyway. Thanks for putting it so succinctly Joe.

It starts with the money being low enough.
Who doesn't waste a £1 a week and not notice it? If our spare pound ends up making a good film, I think that is worth the price. If I end up getting a cash injection for my own project then that is a bonus. The money is negligible and what it is really building is a community that makes films, films which, through practice will keep getting better.

Fair enough, but maybe this is coming from the wrong angle, I know everyone has that project that just needs a little bit of cash to get off the ground, but I still the like the idea of proper guerilla filmmaking where you're not relying on any sort of financial backer, and therefore have the power to make something truly unusual - think eraserhead - It is a tired and over used anecdote but the idea of Sam Raimi using a greased two-by-four as a dolly really encourages me to find solutions to problems, last year I ended up making a device for arterial spray out of a fertiliser spray bottle and cornflour/gelatine just because I couldn't afford after-effects, what's more (and I don't mean to offend anyone) i'm becoming tired of the whole dig sim thing anyway, I mean who looks at a cgi alien on Doctor Who these days and seriously believes it's there? Papier mache is always going to be visceral because it has a fundamentally corporeal form and, i'm afraid, a cgi creation just doesn't.

In summary i've almost completely forgotten why i'm so angry but i'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with this! Even more succinctly I think that grasping around for budgets and bursaries is all well and good for those L.A. morons but we're British filmmakers and God-Dammit if I have to make a film on a twenty pound note and a borrowed mini-dv i'll just look at the things I do have and work with them! So I can't afford to write the script and then make the film, maybe it's a better challenge to be handed a fistful of drawing pins and be asked to come back with hellraiser, than to be forced to ask for money from a dentist, or worse, a cinema owner.

Have a nice, day trying to work out how that relates to the subject!