Recently, we attended a screening of our short film Roniti at the 21st In the Palace Film Festival in Bulgaria. Being part of this Oscar-qualifying festival for short films was an honour, and as we watched the other entries, we were struck by their high quality.
However, a trend quickly emerged. As the credits rolled on these films, nearly every one boasted logos of funding bodies from countries like Spain, Italy, and across Asia, alongside sponsorships for camera packages, color correction facilities, and extensive crews.
Roniti amongst the high-quality shorts at 21st In the Palace Short Film Festival
In stark contrast, our short had a 30-second credit sequence. Our crew of seven managed both production and post-production, with most of us juggling multiple roles. I served as the writer, producer, director, cinematographer, and editor — typical of micro-budget filmmaking.
It made me question how much more viable it is to have funding support for your work? And do films with public funds actually perform better?
These are difficult questions to answer. In 2015, Stephen Follows actually posed this question with UK public funded films, “better” as “better received by audiences and critics”.* He looked at average Metascore and IMDb user ratings for all films shot in the UK and then compared that to the averages for films funded by UK-based public funding bodies. He found that public-funded films had a slightly higher average rating (6.5 out of 10) compared to the UK average for British films (6.1 out of 10).
So though it was marginal, it seemed films with public funding were stronger. Maybe the lesson here should be if you have an idea or a script which you feel passionate about, and you objectively feel it will make a strong film, take the time to apply for grants and funds to help the film realize its full potential.
Of course, this made me reflect on our own career of DIY filmmaking and would things be different if we chose another path: film school, grant-supported short film, first feature fully funded and so on.
You see, there are various levels of indie filmmaking. Our approach — micro-budget, complete DIY, using our own resources — is at the bottom of the totem pole. It is a constant battle to be taken seriously, within filmmaking circles and without. Many is the conversation with outsiders:
Outsider: “What do you do?”
Me: “I make films.”
Outsider: “Oh, is it on Netflix?”
Me: “Ah, no.”
Or with distributors:
Me: “Do you want to have a look at my film for distribution?”
Distributor: “Any stars in it?”
Me: “Ah, no.”
Distributor: “We’ll pass.”
Or, the worst, with other filmmakers. Paraphrased from a real conversation at an industry networking event in London:
Filmmaker: “I was one of the producers of Holy Spider. What about you?”
Me: “I made a documentary about cats in Malta.”
Filmmaker: “Oh okay, well, enjoy your night.”
Eventually you learn to ignore the upturned noses and embrace the upside of micro-budget filmmaking: complete independence, lower costs offering more potential to recoup, no need to compromise to meet eligibility criteria, and no need to wait to make a film.
However, a part of you can’t help but wonder if this DIY approach has perhaps led to missed opportunities?
Looking back at our publicly funded films, like Daughter and Cats of Malta, their reach and impact far exceeded our DIY projects. Daughter premiered at St Kilda Town Hall, drawing 180 attendees, including local council members and NGOs, raising charity funds, touring Victoria, and even helping to launch Katherine Langford’s career. Cats of Malta represented Malta at the AFI European Union Showcase, is set for PBS distribution in America, will screen in Japanese theaters, and is our most critically praised film by a long way.
It’s clear that funding not only sustains filmmakers but also enhances visibility and connections — key elements in the industry.
The Roniti cast and crew, minus an actor and Make-Up Artist.
Yet, for most of our career, we have chosen to go at it alone. My own impatience drives this road: once I have the story idea down, I want to film, I don’t want to spend a year applying for grants or trying to raise money with no guarantee of success. So I will scale the ideas down until they become something we can film with a micro crew and micro budget.
Has this limited our success or where we are in our career? I can’t help thinking perhaps it has. Certainly, micro-budget filmmaking is a hard path, the never ending battle against lack of resources, the never ending struggle against lack of recognition.
I don’t know. Perhaps I am just getting older and ruminating too much. It is natural to wonder about the road not taken. Ultimately, the best approach is likely a mix of the two. Some films call for the DIY approach — sometimes you just need to get out there and film, learning more about yourself and advancing your filmmaking career by making that film now, rather than spending a year or more trying to raise money and secure grants.
Other times, doing things the traditional way and taking the extra time to put your film idea in front of the people who control the funds and can advance your career is the right call. Ultimately, you need to become proficient at knowing which project fits into which group. Do that, and you will keep making films for a long time and experience the best of both worlds.
Written by Ivan Malekin
References