Film: Art or Business?

I moderated a Sundance discussion panel today in Park City at the ASCAP Music Cafe. The subject was Ultra-Low-Budget Filmmaking. The panel members were 4 ultra-low-budget directors, each of whom recently created a feature film with very little funding, between $500 and $65000.

As I watched each of their film trailers, I wondered if any of them might be distributable, if any of them might be able to recoup the budget that was spent. I was reminded of how commercially I view the filmmaking process (my films are six-for-six in profitable returns to the investors... our studio doesn't make films that don't make money).

Since I was the moderator, I had the ability to simply put the question to the directors: "Is filmmaking Art, or is it Business?" I got a variety of answers, one of which was "this was just a film to launch my career, get me my next gig, if it does that, it's a success, it doesn't have to make money."

That film, if I remember correctly, had the highest budget, $65,000. That's a very low budget for a film (all of mine have been quite a bit higher), but I wondered who the investor was, and whether they agreed with the definition of success that the director had.

When you write a novel, record a song, make a painting, it's pretty much a lot of work for yourself and a few hundred of your own dollars, at most. It's your own business whether you treat that process as art or as business. But when you spend $65,000 I feel there's a business element suddenly introduced, that necessarily complicates the issue of art vs. business.

Not that the two can't coexist. If it's truly brilliant art, it may well have venues that will result in revenue, such as festival wins and the resulting distribution deals.

But with few exceptions, a 125-minute film about "a couple dealing with their wayward child" is most likely going to reach no one, and accomplish little but boredom and discomfort for the audiences that it does reach. That, and cause a lot of people to do a lot of work over several years to achieve mediocre results-- with a loss of money and trust.

That's pretty pessimistic, of course, but I find inevitably that when I ask artistic filmmakers what THEIR top ten favorite films are, their answers include titles like "Blade Runner", "Godfather 2", or even "Empire Strikes Back". Rarely do they list films like the ones they're making...

Why not try making something that they themselves might watch? Make an action film, a Sci Fi film, a Horror movie if that's your thing. Even if it fails to be brilliant artistically, it often has a market and channel that is ready to consume the mediocre attempt; pay back the investors, give everyone involved a sense of accomplishment and encouragement, and reach an audience and learn from the experience.

I refuse to accept that art films can't be commercially driven, nor that commercially driven films can't be artistic. They can and should be both.

Unless, of course, you fund the film yourself... if so, then by all means create some inaccessible art without an audience and push the limits of artism, break the mold if you can, do something spectacular and enjoy the art of film for all it's worth.

And try to keep your budget low, because the $500 film seemed just as meaningful and artistic as the $65,000 film, and every bit as satisfying to the director.