With regard to budget classification, let me reach over to my library and quote the classifications of film budgets from Dov Simens (a successful filmmaking author/lecturer well known in the field):

Major studios view “low budget” as being in the $5 – 10 million range.
Independent distributors view low budget as being in the $3 – 5 million range.
Small distributors view low budget as being in the $1 – 3 million range.
Foreign sales agents and video distributors view low budget as $500,000 – $700,000.
Simens’ classifications for new filmmakers are: $5,000 – $75,000 (digi-video feature); $75,000 – $150,000 (small 16mm feature); $150,000 – $250,000 (larger 16mm feature or small 35mm feature); $250,000 – $500,000 (35mm feature).

Simens advocates the ability of young filmmakers to just get out there and make their film (albeit with eyes open – but with a clear view towards distribution and recovering the initial investment).

And yes – I very much look forward to your booklet/guide with the all-important “how we can” approach discussed!

All the best,

And to nit pick on your nit pick of my nit pick… I think we agree that 30 million is low budget territory for Hollywood. So 5-15 is even lower budget and 1 million is even lower still. etc etc. If there is some other naming category that these budgets fit into please educate me.

I see your point on the “how we can”. In the booklet/guide that I talk about making at some point in the near future, this would be the focus of the film section…

My apologies.

I take your point with thanks on the $100 million issue.

At the risk of nit-picking, you also state that a “low-budget” Hollywood movie costs about $30 million. There are many, many major studio (Paramount, Warner Premiere, etc.) films that are being made in the $5 -15 million range (and yes, some are direct to video, but they make films in that range because they make a profit). I would argue that those are “low budget” – and there are many more of those being made than the larger features. And independent films are usually made for much, much less.

But I fear I am losing my point in the details. My entire point is this. Young, aspiring filmmakers ought not be discouraged from making a movie because the cost of making a movie is prohibitive – because it’s not. If something is perceived as impossible, it will never be attempted. And from an artistic point of view, that would be a disaster.

My preferred approach would be to come up with a truly great idea for a film, and then do everything you can to get it made. If the idea is incredible and you have a track record at a studio, then it’s easier (but remember, it took some time for even Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson to raise the money to make “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” – at a $5 million budget, by the way). But if you have no studio track record, then you may have to rewrite the more expensive sequences to make them affordable, enlist the aid of friends and relatives to act as cast and crew, and shoot it using a borrowed HD camera. But if you make it (even with volunteers and cheap equipment), then it exists! If it costs you $100 for food for your volunteers, but you manage to earn only $200 from DVD sales out of the back of your trunk, not only is that a 100% return on investment, but you will also have learned an extraordinary amount about art and filmmaking (and, dare I say, life)!

If we discourage young artists by suggesting insurmountable obstacles to embarking upon their craft, where will we be in ten years? Or twenty? On the other hand, where would we be if we inspired every aspiring artist to just try – even if it meant not having $100 million or $30 million or even $1 million the first time out? I promise you that out of all those “no-budget” films they made, there would be at least one gem.

So in my perfect little world, our focus should shift from “why we can’t” to “how we can”.

Best regards and thank you again for this discussion.

I will just nit pick a little bit with one of your (very valid) points: The note about the average film being $100m was only a note of comparison. In the body of the text I speak of the (comparatively) low budget figure of 30 million. And that is quite in line with the numbers you cite. So, no, I don’t believe that a great movie needs to cost $100m.

So thanks once again and hope you come back again soon. (now I have to finish part 3! Lord what a time!) I definitely have been educated through this post and have learned a lot thanks to comments like this. Thanks.

Having been directed to your blog today by a vibrant and inspiring artistic Bahamian friend, I have read with interest your first two installments on the “Hollywood” film system and the viability of Bahamian art. I have also read with interest the replies. If I may (not so briefly) comment, I would be grateful.

I am respectfully of the view that many of your underlying assumptions are incorrect both in relation to the business of filmmaking and the opportunities for artistic filmmaking in The Bahamas. Let me try and summarize my view of some of the myths:

- any suggestion that the average “Hollywood” movie costs $100 million may be what one finds if you Google that query, but it is a completely misleading number. If you think that it takes $100 million to make a great film, you’re simply wrong. Go back to the last Academy Awards (not always the best test of great films, but good for the purposes of this discussion). The nominated films for best picture were Benjamin Button (effects-intensive at $150 million), Frost Nixon ($35 million), Milk ($15 million), The Reader ($32 million), Slumdog Millionaire ($15 million). So only one of five nominated films broke $100 million and four of five cost less than $36 million. One must also remember that “Hollywood” accounting is not “real” accounting (the stories are legendary about movies like Forrest Gump still not having made a “profit”). I challenge you to think of your favorite films and go to IMDB.com and search out their budgets. I think you’ll be surprised. The importance of these numbers is that by implying that one needs a huge budget to make a great movie, you are dissuading young, aspiring filmmakers from even trying.

- You don’t need to duplicate “Hollywood” to have a healthy film industry in The Bahamas. Indeed, I suggest that even wanting to do so doesn’t make sense because “Hollywood” is having tough times – the model is waning. In fact, Hollywood isn’t where most films are being made. Look to “Bollywood”, London, New York, Vancouver, Prague, etc. as places with a vibrant industry. “Hollywood” productions have been increasingly enticed away from Hollywood by film incentives offered by regional governments. That is why the support of productions by the Bahamian Government by offering film incentives is so important to the health of the industry in The Bahamas. Without a Bahamas film incentive program, the productions attracted to The Bahamas will only be a fraction of what they should be given the excellent work being done by Mr. Craig Woods and his staff.

- Technology – not always our friend, but in the film industry it’s been our best friend. HD cameras can shoot at extraordinary resolutions today – at a fraction of what it cost just ten years ago. For less than $10,000 today, you can fully outfit yourself with an HD camera, lights, sound equipment, computer, non-linear editing suite – and go out and film your documentary, or short, or music video and burn it to dvd or Blu-ray. Maybe not for wide theatrical release (remember, The Blair Witch Project was akin to winning the lottery and is rarely repeated) but that work flow is enough for many purposes that can result in an income (weddings, corporate videos, music videos, etc.). A further shift will occur when more theatres acquire professional quality digital projectors so that 16mm or 35mm transfers will not be necessary in order for independent filmmakers to show their films on the big screen.

- With respect, many statements you make are simply wrong. You say:
“If you are making a low-budget film you can’t have any car chases, explosions, gun-fights or choreographed martial arts battles …” Sorry – that’s just plain wrong (Rodrigues’ El Mariachi – clearly an action flick – was shot for $7,000!). In fact those very elements can be some of the cheapest to make!
“A million dollars is a lot of money and you can not hope to earn that money back in the Bahamas. EVER. Once finished, your only hope is that your film is picked up by a Hollywood studio and the competition for Hollywood’s attention is fierce and relentless.” The base assumptions are wrong – one would never rationally restrict distribution to The Bahamas (kind of like building large, beautiful hotels but not letting any foreigners stay in them!). If you wanted to have a “Bahamas-only” release, then make that $3,000 art film and do a four-wall distribution – and stand a pretty good chance of making your money back over time. Film in The Bahamas, but if you want your money back, then make it a universally appealing feature and the world is your market – even if you don’t get a huge production deal from a major.
“…making movies in the Bahamas for Bahamians is not commercially viable. Your best bet is to make movies in the Bahamas for foreigners and as we have seen this is extremely risky and not what I would call a sound business plan”. I respectfully say that you are grossly underestimating the talents of Bahamians. I won’t review concepts of mythic story structure, but suffice to say that the western world shares many common thematic elements in storytelling. Do Bahamians not go to see the “Hollywood blockbusters”? They do and they enjoy them just as much (or as little) as audiences in El Paso or London or Toronto (even non-Western audiences such as those found in Hong Kong) because there are shared, common perceptions of film and storytelling. So why would you imply that composing these themes is a “one-way street”? “Foreigners” will be just as capable of enjoying a story well told by a Bahamian as Bahamians are at enjoying one written by a woman sitting at her computer in Pasadena. So, if a Bahamian writes a good story that can be appreciated by Bahamians, the odds are that “foreigners” will find similar joy – and thus the foreign market will exist to look to to try and recover the investment.
- For true artists, filmmaking has never been as exciting as it is today – because of distribution options. You can make a film and show it in HD on the largest screens with 5.1 surround sound and it looks (and sounds) pretty darn good. The internet is a huge distribution tool and continues to evolve. If you are an artist (as opposed to simply wanting to “be cool” and make a six-figure annual income from filmmaking) then the outlet for your talent has never been better.
- The last myth is one which I agree with you about. Too many filmmakers run out and make a film – but have no distribution and no distribution plan. If you want to make a “garage film” for your own joy, then you are a true artist and good for you. If, however, you want to make a film for business reasons (i.e. you want to make money at it), then going to camera without a clear plan for distribution is a waste of money, time and talent. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to make the film, but you need a plan if you hope to make your (or, more importantly, your investors’) money back. Want to make your money back? Get a great script (and Bahamians have a rich storytelling tradition), cobble together $1 million, get a known, Hollywood C-list actor (i.e. a recognizable, marketable name) and then shoot fast and simply with an experienced director – and have a distributor on deck.

Bahamians. An extraordinary people. Vibrant, cultural, artistic, thoughtfully intelligent. The examples are too numerous to mention, but several have posted to your blog here. I watched Ms. Govan’s Rain at last year’s BIFF with intense interest. It’s a fine film. Bahamians have great stories to tell – in their paintings, in their poems – and in their independent films. And they don’t need $100 million or even $1 million to tell those stories. But the storeis need to be told and Bahamians need to be encouraged to tell them. As an artist, wouldn’t you rather make (or watch) a great film that is seen by (and touches the hearts of) just 100 people rather than making Transformers 3? The real “trick” is not spending more than one can afford to lose – which is precisely why almost all “Hollywood” films are made with other people’s money (that’s one part of the Hollywood system that Bahamians should stick with).

So we agree that filmmakers should go into filmmaking with their eyes open. But perhaps the one thing I am more optimistic about is the ability of Bahamians to make great films telling their own stories that will find a large enough audience to stand a chance of making their money back.

Thank you for initiating this wonderful discussion.

With respect,

But this model is not what these posts are about.

Fair enough about using Rain as an example. I think it’s the wrong example; it’s a departure from the norm, just as Hollywood is a departure from the global norm.

On the other hand, I entirely agree that filmmakers should know what risks they will take, and if you are arguing that the “viability” of an industry must be measured in the number of people it employs and sustains full-time, well then. I would take issue with that idea, though, as even the Bahamian tourism industry developed differently. Full-time employment for Bahamians in tourism is a relatively recent thing in our history, going back to the 1960s and 1970s. Indigenous models of employment and work are far more likely to be seasonal and part-time than specialized and full-time.

But enough of that! Great post. Take care!

And I am not dissing Rain. I am using it as an example. I don’t think this qualifies as dissing.

@Everyone
Please visit Nico’s post via the link above.

@Jackson
Yes, this is definitely the challenge. Hey, I would love to be proved wrong on this, and maybe I am too strident in the post in dismissing the possibilities, but going heavy into movies represents a foray into those uncharted and shark infested waters that I talk about. Film makers should be cognizant of the risks involved. This is my only intention.