THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY OF PRODUCING AND DISTRIBUTING A LOW-BUDGET/MICRO-BUDGET MOVIE TODAY

I'd like to begin this blog by stating that I am not a professional writer (unless unproduced screenplays count) and that I am writing this blog primarily for people interested in the challenges inherent in the production and distribution of low budget/micro budget independent movies today. Please note that while I cite certain statistics that are to the best of my knowledge factual, most of what I have written here is strictly my opinion, derived from my personal experiences making my own feature movie. It is my desire you will find at least some of the information here to be of value. So, let's begin ...

It would be an understatement to say producing and distributing a low-budget or micro-budget independent movie these days is difficult. But before we get into that, we need to first define just what qualifies as a low-budget and micro-budget indie movie these days. Unfortunately that definition varies widely. According to a 2014 survey of over 500 film industry pros conducted by British film data researcher Stephen Follows, the consensus was that a low-budget independent movie in North America was a movie costing between $500,000 and $3 million to produce (just for comparison, a low-budget studio financed movie is anywhere between $5 million and $15 million). Anything below $500,000 was considered to be a micro-budget production, which makes me wonder about their definition of the word "micro". Now I'm quite sure most of you reading this probably don't have that kind of cash lying around to make a movie. Nor did I. In fact, my own definition of a low-budget indie movie, accounting for inflation since 2014, is somewhat lower - between $25,000 and $1,000,000. Below that we're talking micro-budget, at least according to my general understanding of the word "micro". That said, let's discuss (while paying homage to Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone) the good, the bad and the ugly of low-budget/micro-budget indie movie production and distribution today.

First, the GOOD.

Practically any truly determined person can make a movie these days. Why? Because it has never been cheaper to do so. Notice I said cheaper, not cheap. But even though it's possible to produce a movie for under $1,000 (which is fine for making a practice movie and I suggest you make at least a few practice movies before committing to a larger amount of cash), the truth is if you want to make a feature length movie with sufficient picture and sound quality to be commercially viable, you'll probably have to spend at least $5,000 - $6,000 to purchase the most basic equipment you will need. A Black Magic Pocket Cinema camera and Rokio lense can be had for less than $2,000, a basic Lowell light set for about $1,500 to $2,000, a top quality Sennheiser MKH 416 microphone, wind muff and boom pole set for under $1,600 while filters, extra batteries and light bulbs might set you back another $300 to $500. Now unless you are in film school and have access to the school's equipment, I highly recommend that you purchase your own equipment for two very good reasons. First, although renting seems cheaper it can actually end up costing you more, a lot more. Why? Because even the most well planned Hollywood productions rarely (actually pretty much never) go off as planned. The old saying "whatever can go wrong will go wrong" certainly applies to movie making, particularly to low budget movie productions and especially to micro-budget movie productions. Our production required 48 actual days to shoot, but those 48 days took over 4 years to complete! In other words we only averaged to shoot a measly 12 days per year which most definitely was not how we planned it. Partly this was due to inclement weather that postponed several outdoor shoots and partly it was due to last minute cancellations because of illness or other unforeseen issues. Mostly though, it was due to our actors conflicting availability schedules since they all had other jobs, including other acting jobs in productions that paid better than ours. In fact one scene involving only two actors took nearly six months to schedule because of their conflicting schedules. Looking back I am still amazed that we somehow managed to successfully coordinate the schedules of six actors for all those wilderness location scenes that required 250 mile round trips. Suffice to say it was the result of extreme patience, careful planning and yes, a bit of divine intervention (I did pray a lot!). Now imagine if we had rented our equipment, which often has to be rented weeks in advance. Every time we had to cancel a shoot at the last minute we would have still been on the hook for the rental fees. With as many cancellations as we had we could have easily spent as much money on renting as we did on purchasing our own equipment without having much to show for it! In fact we very likely would have ended up cancelling the whole production due to a lack of funds. Which brings us to reason number two for owning your own your equipment - maintaining your mental health. You see, unless you are paying your actors and crew enough that your movie is their first priority, (more on this later) you will have similar scheduling problems. Renting only adds to that problem because now you are on the movie equipment rental company's schedule, which means you will be under considerably more pressure to finish your shoot within a certain time frame, which is not only bad for your mental health, but also bad for the overall quality of your movie. If your priority on the set is to finish as quickly as possible so as not to incur penalty fees from the rental company you'll be setting yourself up for failure as mistakes on the set will likely go unnoticed until you get to the editing stage. I know, no worries, you'll just fix it in post right? Well maybe you can fix some of those mistakes, but it's highly unlikely you'll be able to fix all of them. The point is if you own your own equipment you won't be under such nerve racking time constraints to begin with. Instead you will have more flexibility to deal with unforeseen problems as well as opportunities to experiment a bit and also to make sure you are getting what you want from your actors and crew. Now, I mentioned above about paying your actors and crew enough so that they will make your movie a priority. So how much is enough? Well, (in homage to Rod Serling) the answer to that question lies somewhere between the pit of what you can afford to pay them and the summit of whatever is the least amount they are willing to accept to commit to your project. My advice here is to be honest and upfront about whatever you are able to spend, as well as to how long you expect to be in production. Now if your budget is at the lower end of the micro-budget spectrum (and if this is your first movie it most likely will be) and all you can afford to pay for is their gas and food, don't despair, you can still find actors, even good ones if they really like your movie project. We did. Just be sure you feed them at a decent restaurant when possible, cover their fuel costs AND offer them a generous percentage of the profits, if any, (see below in the UGLY section) that your movie may eventually generate. As for how much it will cost will of course depend on how many days your shoot, how many people there are to feed and how far they will have to travel. For meals you can expect to pay $25 per person per day. For fuel figure roughly $4 for every 20 miles traveled per vehicle (can you say carpool? We could and we did). We ended up spending about $1,200 to cover these costs which is definitely at the low end of the spectrum even in 2008-11 when we shot most of our movie. With today's high inflation my guess is that food and fuel costs now will be between $3,000 an $4,000. So, adding your equipment costs of $5,000 to $6,000, you are probably going to need at least $8,000 to $10,000 to produce a commercially viable feature movie today. Now if you plan on paying your actors and crew up front that number can vary anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 or more again depending on the the size of your cast and crew and the number of shooting days as no two productions are exactly the same. As you can see it doesn't take much for a movie to reach the higher end of the micro-budget spectrum. Should your movie go over its original shooting schedule your costs could easily end up in lower end of the low-budget category ($50,000 +). Still even $50,000 is considerably less than the minimum of $500,000 that the film industry pros believed was necessary to produce a commercially viable low budget movie. What's most important to keep in mind here is that the lower you can keep your costs, the less your movie has to make to show a profit, and therefore be commercially viable. Now for a few lucky folks $10,000 to $40,000 is a small investment but for most of us that's still a very significant sum. But if you are determined and resourceful, meaning you are willing to work a second job for a year or two if necessary to raise the cash for your first movie (or even become a human lab rat for big pharma, as "El Mariachi" director Robert Rodriguez did, although I truly don't recommend this if you wish to remain healthy long term), a self-funded movie at the lower end of the micro-budget category is certainly a realistic goal. And self-funding your movie, especially your first one, should be your goal. Remember this is independent movie-making we are talking about here, and the more you can fund your movie yourself, the more independent you will be, meaning the more control you will have over not only the production of your movie but also its marketing and distribution. And believe me, that's a good thing. Just think of all the highly paid big name directors (who did not have final cut approval) who were disgruntled because they felt that the big studio honchos (who did have final cut approval) had ruined their artistic vision.

Now the BAD.

Although almost any determined person can make a movie, very few people can make a good movie on a micro / low budget (defined not only as watchable from beginning to end, but also a worthy investment of two hours of your life) and even fewer people can make a really good movie on a micro / low budget (defined as worthy of multiple viewings and maybe owning the DVD). As for making a really great movie on a micro / low budget (defined as the kind of movie that wins lots of prestigous awards and makes a lot of money) the number of filmmakers capable of doing so is minuscule, regardless of how big the budget is. Think about it, how many really great movies have you seen relative to the number of movies you have watched? Yes, I know, when it comes to art, and movies are an art form, everything is subjective. One person's masterpiece is another person's dud. But if it's all in the eye of the beholder then how do we define a really good / great movie? Well for one thing, I've noticed that really good / great movies like Notorious, Casablanca, On the Waterfront, Rear Window , The Searchers, The Sound of Music, The Godfather, Shane, The African Queen and It's A Wonderful Life to name just a few of my personal favorites, not only tend to resonate across a wide audience, they also tend to stand the test of time. Another thing I've noticed about really good / great movies is that they captivating that I forget I'm even watching a movie. The stories they tell feel so real and not only hold my interest from beginning to end, they remain in my memory. These are the kind of movies every movie maker dreams of making, but so few do. So what's the secret to making such a movie? If you find out the answer to that question please let me know. So far the best answer I've come up with is try your very best to make a movie that YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE instead of trying to guess what others might want to see. If you are truly passionate about the story you are trying to tell you are far more likely to put in your very best effort. Part of that best effort is learning as much as you can about the movie making process. Two books that helped me in this regard and that I highly recommend that you read are On Directing by Edward Dymytrk and Making Movies Work by Jon Boorstin. Now I can recite all the conventional wisdom about a great script, great actors, a great director, a great editor (BTW in my opinion editors don't get near the credit they deserve for their contribution), a great composer with a wonderful soundtrack and the sufficient funding to properly pull it off and all of that is very true. But it's also very true that many movies over the years have had all of the above elements going for them yet still failed to deliver. So what gives? As a very good chef friend of mine once told me, you can give the same great recipe to one hundred different cooks but only a few will make a wonderfully delicious meal fit for a king from it. Obviously no one sets out to make a mediocre meal or a mediocre movie, and certainly not a bad meal or a bad movie, yet it happens more often than not. The reality is that making anything great is very difficult, and if you think about it that's how it should be. Otherwise how would we ever know greatness? Because if achieving greatness was easy than everyone would be doing so and everything would be great which would really mean everything would be just average, neither great, mediocre, or bad. The truth is we need mediocre and bad movies (of which there are many) if for no other reason so we can recognize and appreciate really good / great movies. It kind of like we need to be sick every now and then so we appreciate our good health. So if you look at it this the right way, none of this should discourage anyone who is very serious about making movies.

As for the UGLY? Well let's say you were able, through hard work, determination and sheer will, to overcome the odds and make a commercially viable (as in watchable) feature length movie on a micro or low budget. First off, congratulations on your accomplishment! Unfortunately, despite all your hard work your job is only half done. Now you have to find a way to get people to see it, or else you've probably made your last movie. And this is where it gets ugly because in today's distribution environment, it is just as difficult, perhaps even more so, to profitably distribute a micro budget/low budget movie as it is to produce such a movie in the first place. But, as Rocco Lampone says in The Godfather Part 2, "Difficult, but not impossible." Now if you've read this far you are probably well versed in the different methods of distributing a movie to the public. At the top of the list is theatrical. Every movie maker worth his salt dreams of seeing his work up on the big screen in front of a large audience and for very good reasons. The sheer size of the big screen commands your attention in a way no other viewing medium can. I am convinced there is no better way to view a motion picture, especially if the director has done a good job of telling the story visually as little details will stand out that often are missed on a small screen.

Yours truly on location (far left), a first-time director trying to feel his way through the process on the first day of shooting. A stressful yet joyous occasion.