Sidney King

hi Mark, In talking with producers who've secured name talent for their indie features, I've heard in general you'll need to be offering something along the lines of 100K for a starring role (3-4 weeks of work), or 25-40K for a week's work (or roughly 5K a day). That's to be taken seriously by casting agents and managers, and those will be pay or play arrangements (money goes into escrow and they get paid regardless of whether or not the film gets made). Not to say a different arrangement isn't unheard of, and of course you might find the actor willing to work for less based on passion for the material, etc...but those are ballpark figures you're looking at to make a legitimate offer through the "proper" channels (not dumping a script onto their hairdresser's lap, etc...). Regarding SAG, I don't think any actor you've ever heard of would consider doing a non-SAG feature (obviously they're not allowed to, and actors can't exactly work under a pseudonym like, for instance, a boom op can). I've never heard of a serious, name actor working on a non-SAG feature...maybe someone has heard of examples to the contrary?. But going SAG doesn't necessarily mean spending big money, and often when you hear of actors taking a role for "scale" or "no money," they're just getting the SAG minimums, which range from nothing (for experimental or educational films, which can't be distributed or sold) to about $700/day. best of luck with your feature!

There are many factors that affect a completed film's sales potential, and truthfully, origination format is fairly low on the list (things like name actor involvement, exposure at the major festivals, and general market trends are much more important). It all depends on how you plan to position your film in the marketplace (genre, potential distribution streams, etc...). There are a lot of moving parts to consider, and the marketplace changes quickly. To really explore the business side of things and how your origination format fits into the equation, I would recommend you talk to experienced producers, sales agents, distributors, producers' reps...people who buy and sell films for a living. Good luck!

I'm not sure you read my earlier post in which I basically said the same thing oops, sorry for the redundant post. Another somewhat hidden cost in post working with anamorphic is removing the "flash frames" caused during the transfer by the thin splices in a conformed anamorphic negative. That bill ran 12K for us, and can be higher. Just something else to tell your producers early in the process to prepare themselves for.

Perhaps it's for creative reasons that you're looking into a DI, but from a producer's perspective, a traditional finish on 35mm is still signficantly cheaper. I just finished post on a 35mm anamorphic feature, and was very happy with the results we got from the old-school approach. Of course the visual needs of each specific project will dictate whether a DI is the right choice, but you can offline edit, create your titles/opticals (providing they're fairly basic), cut your neg, time it, and get your HD video deliverables and intermediate prints, all for significantly less than even a modest DI package. Again, the creative needs of your project may dictate whether a DI is the right choice, but for a low-budget feature (including 35mm anamorphic) the traditional approach is still more cost-effective.

Another name would be Shona Auerbach, she was director and DP on the feature "Dear Frankie," starring Emily Mortimer. It's a lovely film, and looks terrific. Apparently she is a still photographer of some renown, as far as I know "Dear Frankie" is the only film she's DP'ed or directed. Anyone familiar with her or more of her work? Obviously she can work with actors as well, the performances were great.

Here's another three cheers for Media Distributors. They have a large inventory, are great to work with. We went through about 300 rolls (the 5279) from them with no problems whatsoever (except a few measuring out shorter than labeled). Obviously they're on the ball with their QC, and they have a generous buy-back policy. Of course working with short-ends is a pain, but the prices you'll get from a place like Media Distributors is still well below even the discounted price a Kodak rep will offer you. I would love to shoot with fresh-from-the factory Kodak, but for low-budget folks their prices are just not competitive.

Interesting. So they basically went into one of the poorest corners of the planet, filmed people without their consent, and used real-life slums (and real-life human beings) to save money and add production value to a Hollywood movie. Good thing they had the Aaton or heaven forbid, they would have had to build sets and maybe even get people's permission before filming them.

At least in the States, any sort of HD projection is still quite rare (a few big ones like Sundance and Tribeca do). The most common tape format is BetaSP, followed by DigiBeta and miniDV/DVCAM. DVD is actually very common (and becoming more so) as an exhibition format, especially at smaller festivals. Unfortunatey 16mm has all but disappeared as an exhibtion format (again, this is the US). Submission-wise, DVD is the standard, although it never hurts to include a VHS backup. Some festivals will not tell you if they have playback problems with your DVD. They just pitch your entire submission.

I think when you're talking about aesthetics in almost any form (whether you're judging a restaurant or a film), it's important to evaluate the "text" (or film, or dining experience, etc...) against what it is aspiring to, not some absolute set of criteria. You can't really compare fast food with haute cuisine, but you certainly can compare how successful each is in acheiving its goal (a good $2 Big Mac is "better" than a horribly-cooked, $40 filet). We're more inclined to view something as a failure when it falls far short of its own goal, even if on its own merit it is "better" than an inferior work. For instance, all of the elements of a film like "Snow Falling on Cedars" on their face value may be considered "better" than the elements of a teen gross-out comedy, but we enjoy the teen comedy because we know what we're in for and it accomplished what it set out to do. And we're disappointed with "Cedars" because it just didn't measure up to itself. Hope that makes some sense. That being said, "Snow Falling on Cedars" is one film I think that certainly didn't work.

That certainly sounds like a frustrating experience. I would point out (as others have done) that when it comes to no/low-budget projects run by novice producers, the DP often has much more hands-on experience and knowledge as to the logistics and mechanics of what it takes to actually shoot a film. Sometimes the DP ends up doing a whole host of things that is really outside the job description. So, I think DPs should be careful they're not taken advantage of and essentially end up serving as a co-producer in addition to DP. That being said, remember that often times the producer(s) in those situations aren't being paid (or being paid next-to-nothing) for their work. It can be a fine line between being a labor of love for all involved and being taken advantage of in terms of duties. Setting clear expectations at the beginning (preferrably in writing) is a good place to start.

of course it's hard to tell much about a specific production on such little information, but a couple things come to mind: a lot of how-to guides and articles out there on low-budget filmmaking recommend hiring a DP who owns his own package (and of course the wisdom of that advice is highly debatable, but it is out there). It's also possible they're doing their budget break-down to combine camera package and DP as kind of line-item deal, which is probably simpler for them (i.e, "OK, we have 10K for DP and camera. How do we do it?"). And easier than hiring a DP and then asking him for his equipment wish-list and then start nitpicking (and keep in mind how intimidating an equipment log for a fully-loaded 35mm camera package can look to a novice producer). Of course all this could be easily solved by hearing from Mr. Srikant himself... but anyway, there are a couple reasons I could see they might be doing things this way, it's not necessarily fishy. Just remember all the standard disclaimers when considering a job...

I was actually pointing out that virtually all features selected at a festival like Cannes come from established directors, hence, the importance of connections, etc... Having spent the last year on the festival circuit with a feature, with many hours spent in discussion and on panels with festival directors, screeners, and filmmakers, I think I do have an idea of how the selection process works. You really can't boil it down to a connections vs. quality debate, it's actually a combination of the two, along with the programming goals of the particular festival. Sometimes they're simply looking for a certain type of film to fill a specific gap in their programming (all the more reason to apply with something like a silent film). Bottom line is, there are a shockingly high number of films made by established directors, producers, and big name talent that do NOT get selected to the top-tier festivals like Cannes. Many filmmakers shoot to premiere at Cannes or Toronto, and they get passed over. We're talking established directors working with an A-list cast, etc...programming considerations play an important role, and yes, quality still has a place. It's true, Gallo has many connections/associations and indie cred,etc.. but so did a lot of filmmakers who got passed over in 2003. Given the unanimously horrible reception the film got, by both critics and audiences, I'm sure Cannes is regretting that programming choice, not saying, "Well, he was a friend of Monsieur X."

Hi Brian-Best of luck with your feature submission to Cannes; just keep in mind they accept very, very, very few American features. Most of the ones they do accept are from the major directors (Lynch, Woody Allen, even the recent Star Wars films). But you're right, it's always worth a shot, and you make a great point about "Brown Bunny." Good luck, and keep us informed.

For what it's worth, I've been shipping two 2000' reels in a standard 2-reel metal ICC case, and together the film and case weigh 24lbs. Of course the vast majority of that is the case, so I wouldn't think a single reel would weigh much less. They also make plastic cases, I don't know how much lighter (or more expensive) they are, the metal 2 and 3-reel cases still seem to be the standard (the 3-reel case weighs 34 lbs).

For low-budget, non-union work in the States you can get key grips who know what they're doing for 150-175/day, USD. That is on the low side, but you can find experienced people to work for that rate in the right conditions. Again, that's for a key grip, other grips would work for less (and there's usually no shortage of G/E intern-types willing to work for just room and board). Of course you have to be careful when you're trying to SAVE money and you end up with too many grips running around who don't know what they're doing. On my production I had one who wrecked a rental truck and another who blew out a ballast. Insured, but the deductible on those items were killer.