For his part, Baker spent a great deal of time on the campaign trail discussing the headwinds faced by indie filmmakers. In his Indie Spirits speech, referring to the time it takes to make a film, he asked a rhetorical question: “How do you support yourself with little or no income for 3 years?”
We posed that question to producer Alex Saks on this week’s Filmmaker Toolkit podcast as we explored the issue of why even the most successful indie filmmakers are unable to make a living. Saks is an indie producer, with 24 producing credits that include Baker’s “A Florida Project” and “Red Rocket.” Prior to producing she was a film finance agent at ICM, where she structured indie film deals and helped director clients get their films off the ground.
“Sean said at his Indie Spirit Awards speech, ‘I’m able to do this because I don’t have kids, I don’t have a family,’ and it’s objectively not sustainable otherwise,” said Saks on the podcast. “He’s done it because of sheer passion and force of will, and probably because he can’t possibly see himself doing anything else, but that is such a rarity on multiple levels. It is a big point to how is this sustainable, and I think the answer is it’s not.”
While on the podcast, Saks got into the reasons this is the case, including a breaking down the math involved with equity investment, which is how a majority of how the films premiering at the bigger festivals get financed. Using the rosy (some would say dream) scenario of a film costing $5 million and selling for $7 million, Saks explained how little money actually reaches the creative team.
Under this scheme, the equity investor floated cash flow to make the movie. They would recoup their $5 million investment, plus a 20 percent premium — so, $6 million goes to the investor. The sales agent would also take a 10 percent fee from the sale; that’s $700,000. From the $7 million sale, that leaves $300,000 to split between the investor and the filmmakers. That means just $150,000 for the creative team, which can include the producers, writer, director, and crew members. The splits vary from project to project, and are individually negotiated.
Under this same $5 million hypothetical budget, the director drew a salary for their services during production. However, if a film takes three years to make, it could amount to less than minimum wage.
Capitalism? Capitalism.
Came here to say this.
that’s fascism baybay! it never fully goes away unless we can fully get rid of it and all its features once and for all
Under this scheme, the equity investor floated cash flow to make the movie. They would recoup their $5 million investment, plus a 20 percent premium — so, $6 million goes to the investor. The sales agent would also take a 10 percent fee from the sale; that’s $700,000. From the $7 million sale, that leaves $300,000 to split between the investor and the filmmakers.
I get why the investor is getting that split at the end that I’ve emphasized, but put in these terms it reads as such a clear dick move, and this is supposed to be a rosy scenario. Like they recoup their investment with an additional million on top, and they want a cut of what little’s left to the creatives? As if they need another $150k when they’re out there floating millions for productions. 😒
One can only imagine how much worse the real terms are if this is anything close to okay terms for indie productions.
Part of the problem is these high brow indie films cost millions of dollars (6 for Anora, nearly 10 for The Brutalist) and they are just about breaking even.
Here in the UK, The Brutalist got a limited opening and it was only with the awards buzz that it got a wider release. I’m afraid, a three and a half hour film (with interval) about a man trying to exercise the demons of the death camps through architecture, was always going to be a hard sell, where Longlegs (made on a similar budget) took £127M. So nothing much yet off the back end and Corbet waived his fee for the film to keep it on budget, so he didn’t get any money on the front end.
What was different in the 1970s that helped independent films thrive?
I’d question the underlying assumption of your question - were indie films more thriving in the 70s compared to today? Indie films today are certainly thriving - there are more of them than ever, distributors such as A24 make them widely known and they also grow organically online as well. Most cities have small film festivals that indie films make the circuits in. Oscars are now being won by indie films instead of blockbusters. That doesn’t mean they are profitable though which was the topic of the OP. I don’t think indie films were particularly profitable in the 70s either though?
