I’m really taken by Ward Minnis’ series of blog posts on the viability of Bahamian art, and I’ve linked to them on this blog and I’ll link to them again. He’s developing a number of such posts (more power to him!) and they are very interesting reading. If you’re at all interested in entrepreneurship, in the arts, in careers other than the dead old accountant, lawyer or doctor, read them for yourselves.
I’m writing to take issue with the premise of his second post, though. I referenced it in my last blog post, and you can see the beginning of the post there. And Ward does this cool thing at the ends of his posts, which is summarize his main points.
(Short aside: Can you come and do that for all of my posts please Ward?)
And so I’m going to give you an idea of what he says in his post by quoting from his summary. Here you go:
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT —>The point® is this:
- A lot of people are making movies in the Bahamas. If you are one of them, please stop and think seriously about your business plan before you lose all of your money and have to sell BTC phone cards for a living.
- The first principle of the Pintard System is to Know your market.
- Paintings and Plays are the products that have the best chance of making you money in the Bahamian art market.
The main flaw in his argument lies in his basic assumption — that movies can only be made in a Hollywood fashion for Hollywood-sized budgets, and, once made, they must follow the Hollywood model of distribution in order to make money. Now if his assumption were true, then his argument would hold together. But it’s not.
Let’s first of all consider the film industry as it was in the pre-digital age, before digitization changed the playing field. Even then, the Hollywood model was only one among many. Even then, smaller/non-western countries, like Canada, Australia, Jamaica, Argentina, Mexico, Senegal, Brazil, Cuba and others developed film industries that employed people who worked within them. This does not begin to take into account the industries that existed throughout Europe; France, the UK and Italy had big industries that at various times kept pace with Hollywood, and smaller countries (Sweden & Spain come to mind) had their own smaller ones.
As I said, that was the world of film before the digital revolution. Now even then, when smaller industries were able to develop in various parts of the world, some of what Ward argues did hold true. One of the most crucial bits was the cost of making a film. Until 2000, it was pretty well impossible to do the job for under six figures. One of the biggest costs was that of film itself; film, the cameras that ran it, the developing and treating of it, and the people who were all involved in the cinematographic and editing processes, were the most expensive parts of the equation. But with the advent of digital video, and of high quality DV, the film industry has been transformed.
Today, films do not need Hollywood to be made, distributed, or picked up. There’s such a thing as YouTube after all; there are all sorts of internet-based distribution systems. And the cost of making films has gone down.
Let’s take one Bahamian film as an example, the only one I know a whole lot about. In 2001, before the launch of the Bahamas International Film Festival took place, Manny Knowles and Philip Burrows made what they believe to be the first Bahamian feature film to be completed and released to commercial houses. Powercut is clearly an independent film in virtually every sense of the word; it doesn’t follow the rules of filmmaking, it’s claustrophobic and grainy and relies heavily on close-ups, it’s not commercially viable in Ward’s sense of the word (even though we keep getting inquiries about where it can be purchased today). But it cost us under $60,000 to make, and it broke even in a single premiere showing. The film paid for itself. Granted, it was produced on a profit-sharing model, by which all the actors and techies agreed to share in the profits after the fact, and were not counted as part of the overhead; so far, those profits have not yet been forthcoming. On the other hand, any other revenue that it earns today will count as profit.
That was in 2001, when there was no film industry in The Bahamas to speak of, when funding came from two granting agencies and the filmmakers’ pockets, and when distribution was limited only to the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. Today, things are somewhat different. BIFF allows Bahamian films and filmmakers the ability to connect with professionals throughout the industry, allows Bahamian filmmakers to source funding for their films, and — yes — to raise the kind of money that would allow them to make films that can make the rounds of festivals and find distribution outlets.
And so I do not agree for one minute that filmmaking is never going to succeed in The Bahamas. The evidence suggests otherwise. I believe, in fact, that it’s entirely possible for Bahamians to build a credible indie film industry here, and to find an audience for it, and to make modest amounts of money from it. I’m always a little bemused with the Bahamian myth of the tiny population of 300,000 people. Films today are not limited by borders. I’m pretty sure that, given the response that’s reported from Maria to the showings of Rain around the world, she’s already developed a potential viewership that’s able to explode that myth.
Now perhaps I’m missing the point, and I’m making a faulty assumption of my own. Here’s my assumption, for what it’s worth: when Ward talks about the “viability” of a film industry his focus is the ability to make a living in The Bahamas off the art of film-making. Maybe I’m wrong, and what he’s really talking about is making scads and scads of money off movie-making, building a Hollywood-sized indigenous film industry in The Bahamas. If that is the case, then my argument falls down; Ward is perfectly right to argue that we can’t sustain a Bahollywood of our own.
Perhaps I’m misreading his idea of “viability” of art by taking it to mean the ability to sustain an industry and to allow some people to do the thing full-time. Perhaps I’m bringing my own understanding of “viability” into the picture — that making a living off film in The Bahamas is possible today, that people can do it and do nothing else (and indeed people like Kareem Mortimer and Maria Govan and Leslie Vanderpool are doing just that). If I’m wrong — if Ward’s talking about something like Hollywood, something that employs millions of people or affects the livelihood of a whole huge city — well, then, I don’t think he has to argue all that hard. He’s absolutely on the money there. But if my assumption is sound, and he’s talking about the creation of a film industry that can employ a few people all the time and many people part of the time, then I’d say we’ve got that going already — and by all indications, the sector’s growing all the time.
My five cents. Cheers.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments }
Wonderful response Nico. This kind of dialogue is exactly what I hoped for when I started this series.
Now to my assumptions:
“movies can only be made in a Hollywood fashion for Hollywood-sized budgets, and, once made, they must follow the Hollywood model of distribution in order to make money.”
This is not correct. I try to describe the challenges of an independent Bahamian film maker throughout the piece. When you have a limited budget this limits what you can create. Like the challenges that you describe in the making of Powercut, the budget in many ways dictated what you were able to accomplish. Digital video does not change this dynamic. It may lessen the cost of production substantially but it does not magically make all things possible.
I agree that there are several flaws in the piece that you are quite right to highlight. First (and most egregious) is that I have never fully defined “viability.”
Ok. Let’s say you wanted to make a living as a film maker, and you made Powercut for 60K. And let’s say that your next project was also going to cost you around 60K, and it will take you a year to complete that project, and your (spartan) living expenses are 20K for a year. I would say that you needed Powercut to make you around 120 – 140K to make your career as a film-maker “viable.”
If it grosses on the low end, you still need a day job; if it grosses on the high end then you can concentrate fully on your film. If you break even, your next film starts from scratch. If you break even or go a little over, what you have is a hobby; it’s a labor of love etc. It is not yet a “viable” business. See what I mean?
(Curious that you caution on Pintard’s overhead, but 60K and $1 million do not seem to raise eyebrows…)
My other assumption is that 1 million (what Rain cost to produce) sounds to me like the right figure to make a Bahamian indie film where everyone gets paid.
My second assumption is that film, more than any other art thing in the Bahamas, needs an industry to keep itself going. I assume that to keep this going you need two Rain sized projects a year.
Unlike theatre, where the distribution system is built into the cost of production, Movies need some kind of distribution once they are finished. I did not think of the gala premiere (I assume you got 1000 people to pay $60 or 600 @$100 to get your 60K?). I also did not give serious consideration to town hall types of screenings. (I am thinking of the viewer experience here, and wonder how sustainable this model will be once the novelty of “this a Bahamian film” wears off and you have to sell it on the merits of the story — maybe it will never wear off, who knows?)
So instead of saying, “your only hope is that Hollywood picks it up,” I should add “or… you find an alternative distribution system or create your own…” which is most likely additional expense (marketing) and effort etc…
Now with a budget of $1 million, and assuming that your next project is also $1 million, and that you need some money to live on ($20K) between projects, the viability total is around $2 million. Which is to say that to be viable you need two thirds of the country give you $10. To get this kind of money, (and I this would have the film maker on starvation rations and not “scads” of money) I think you have to be international. Call me naive but I don’t see $2 million coming out of the Bahamas on a film. Setting up a distribution system like this takes more money, more time, and more energy. And will stretch the time between projects perhaps another year or two.
And if you think “industry” where we have two such projects a year (or one such project) you need a system that is going to pull at least $1 million in box office per year to be “viable”. Of course, it can exist as a hobby and maybe we have some wealthy people who want to see this thing work and will put the money behind it to make it happen. But that is not a business, it is a hobby, labor of love model. So yes, I am skeptical. I would love to be proved wrong, or maybe these actual assumptions that I have are faulty… like for example, maybe there is no need for an “industry” and everyone can reinvent the wheel as they see fit…
Of course, if you make more films like Powercut then the target for viability decreases and the thing becomes more possible. But, if so, I wonder if people will be getting paid, and the lower the budget the more creative you need to be in the story to make something that can get your money back on… etc.
So these are the uncharted and shark infested waters that I spoke about. I should mention in the piece that film is high risk / high reward, that all you need is one really good idea, one really good film and you are straight. But I don’t think anyone should expect a miracle.
Thanks for your criticisms of the post, and I will link to it from the page. Eventually I will update the post itself or make a Part 2b… hmm.
And I can do the summary of your posts for sure! How much you payin?
Oh child, payment …
All right. Again, if your premises are correct then your argument is sound, but I still take issue with your premises, as follows:
1. An “industry” must employ a lot of people all of the time
2. The $1m price tag for a local film must the average cost for the film
3. People involved in the local film industry must work exclusively in film, and not branch out into other audio-visual arenas which are already making people pretty good livings in The Bahamas today, like commercials, etc
4. A local film industry must be built solely around feature films. The Canadian film industry was built on and for a long time sustained by documentaries, and that is a model that many many local film industries around the world follow. Most indigenous film industries are not centred on features; they flourish around other kinds of film, from shorts to animation to documentary to commercials to television, etc. And The Bahamas has been sustaining documentary and commercial activity for at least a generation; it’s only recently begun to make the trek to the big screen feature model
5. A local film industry must be modelled on the Hollywood format, with distributions to movie houses, etc. In fact, many of the local films find their audiences well beyond Galleria — screening on TV, at the Hub, at the NAGB, at the Dundas, at COB
6. The price tag for a local film must be calculated in hard cash — in fact, as with Powercut(and perhaps with other small films) much of the cost is borne by exchanges in kind — barter arrangements that have a line item value but do not require actual cash expenditure
7. The price point for a local film must be competitive with that of a Hollywood film, and that local talent, scenery and stories cannot be marketed as unique and priced accordingly
8. There is no way to develop a local film industry by using creative methods for distribution, marketing, etc; it must always follow the Hollywood model — mass production, mass distribution, hence mass overhead and up-front capital costs
The reality is rather different. Yes, Maria’s film cost $1m. But I would argue that that is not the norm, and that your assumption that it must be is faulty. Cash payment is not the only way to make artistic activity sustainable. Powercut‘s $60k was not all calculated in cash — it included, of course, exchanges in kind, which included the work of the actresses and the directors, none of whom got paid in cash on the front end, but who were to get paid on the back end (a viable model used even by Hollywood at times). Don’t remember the actual cash expenditure! But the premiere brought in enough money to cover what we were out of pocket, some of that raised with the programme (which many charitable productions use as the cornerstone of their fundraising, and which is a model that can be used in film launches and theatre, if done right), the rest with special premiere-price tickets ($100 a head).
The reality in The Bahamas is that the arts are not funded according to the model that we assume to be the global “standard” (but which is in fact the American standard, and which is an unusual model on a global scale because it is rooted in and based upon the assumption that art is inherently commercial). We do not seek investors who buy a piece of our productions and receive returns on that investment when the profits come rolling back in (the Broadway and Hollywood models); those people and companies who invest in the arts do it for a variety of different reasons, from the personal congratulations we see in programme ads, to the targeting of special markets, to the investment in creating indigenous forms of expression, to simply campaigning to gain goodwill (something that’s true of monolithic entities like major hotel corporation chains, cable companies, and gated communities). It’s only the US arts market that seeks to make its money back on ticket prices or gate receipts; most others work quite differently.
My evidence: Kareem Mortimer makes between three and five films in a given year, and has been doing so for the last five years or so, and he is sustaining that model. Maria Govan makes one or two a year, and is continuing to make films, therefore sustaining that model. Documentaries, particularly if they are well made and affordable, can sustain an industry because they can be targeted to that sure, great Bahamian market — the schools; I’m pretty sure that Ian Strachan made back what he spent on Show Me Your Motion already, only two or three years out.
Your argument sounds good, but it’s not treating the reality, which is that Bahamians keep making more and more films, in whatever way they can. Industries don’t develop simply by making a profit straight out of the box; they grow and find their way, and the reality is that the Bahamian film industry is, despite your argument, doing just that.
In short, there are far more models for sustainable creative activity, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.
Cheers.
@ Nico,
I think you are taking exception to the last two paragraphs of my post. And you are indeed correct: Film exists and will continue to exist. I have added an update to the post. However we seem agree that the model necessary to keep film going is something akin to hobby / labor of love. Let me know if I am misreading you there.
My initial response is to say yes, you’re misreading me, but perhaps it’s really a question of interpretation or definition.
I am not talking about a hobby or labour of love. That isn’t the case either for Maria Govan or Kareem Mortimer; they are working full time at their careers as filmmakers, doing it the way many people do, both in The Bahamas and abroad, applying for grants, looking for prizes, and making other projects on the side which bring them in money. That’s the model my husband has used throughout his career as a theatre director in a country where theatre has not traditionally paid people at all regularly; you diversify to make ends meet.
What is true is that while film might sustain one or two people, it doesn’t yet employ huge rafts of people all the time. But what new industry does? Even your dad didn’t start his life off painting for a living — painting was, for him, a “hobby or labour of love” (in your words) for a lot of his life, while he made his living off other things, though I would argue that it was his true calling, his real career. The same held true for Brent Malone, Denis Knight, Antonius Roberts, Stan Burnside, and others; Brent was in retail and the others were teachers at the beginnings of their careers. They were the pioneers, and put in the time, developing the industry at the same time as they made a living doing different things. Maria and Kareem are the pioneers in film. But just because the audience isn’t there now it doesn’t mean that it won’t ever be; and just because the model doesn’t exist yet it doesn’t mean that it never will. Tell that to Burton Wallace and Ray Munnings and Sean Johnson and Charlie Smith (OK, Charlie mightn’t count entirely because he works both at home and abroad).
I think we are interpreting the idea of “film” differently; I am including videography and the other things that allow filmmakers to make money even in our small (though consumption-driven) economy, while you are talking about feature filmmaking first and foremost. I happen to see Bahamian film as being more viable in your terms than even theatre, as the overhead for a film — if you’re not doing a feature — can vary far more than the overhead for theatre, and because the life of a film is far longer and the returns can be paced over a longer period of time. Film can be distributed in guerrilla fashion, whereas theatre has to strike hard, pull in audiences immediately, and make its money on its feet.
I think that you’re judging viability from the ability of something to run as soon as its feet touch the ground. I have a different perspective; I’m looking at potential. And as far as I can tell, there’s nothing yet that I have observed that indicates that we can’t sustain a small, perhaps, but honest-to-goodness film industry in The Bahamas.
Fair enough. And I guess time will tell the tale. The current disagreement seems to be mainly about definitions (and assuming the others assumptions – which neither of us seems to get right) and as I have said, I have done a poor job thus far in defining exactly what I mean. So, yeah. My bad. I will try to clear this up in the next installment.
And when you speak of the “other things” that my Dad did to make ends meet, are you referring to his music and cartooning? Cause, I would argue the other way around…
Cartooning primarily, which was a regular and predictable gig when it was political — every day in the Tribune for several years. Of course, I’m presuming he got paid for that.
He started that in the Guardian actually, then moved to the Tribune. Apparently he was just starting to see returns when he stopped. Definitely labor of love there.
[footnote] Yes, he did get paid during his time at the Guardian, but not very much. (even when adjusted for inflation…)
Comments on this entry are closed.