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…

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.

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.

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?