Survival Tips for the Aging Independent Filmmaker
Filed under: Classics, Drama, Independent, DIY/Filmmaking, Cinematical Indie
No one likes to be called "aging" or, God forbid, "old," but it happens to the best of us eventually. The years go by and your mind gets a little fuzzy, the music gets a little too loud from those darn kids next door and if your an independent filmmaker, you might start to wonder why you struggle each year, barely making a living, producing or directing films most people may never see. At some point it has to hit you that doing this for the rest of your life is a much shorter trip than it used to be.A recent New York Times story takes a good look at the "aging" independent filmmakers out there who, with their work, and struggle to find work, help define exactly what it means to be an independent filmmaker. As the article states, many of them toil in virtual obscurity, producing films that are lucky to find a home on the festival circuit, let alone a place at the local multiplex or in your DVD player. Even the ones that have achieved some measure of success in the past are having a much harder time of it in the modern filmmaking world.
People like Hal Hartley, Mary Harron, Todd Solondz, Lisa Cholodenko, Jim Jarmusch and even indie-godfather John Sayles (his Lone Star and Matewan, both featuring the fantastic Chris Cooper, are two of my favorite films of all time) are having to make films for far less money than before, take jobs doctoring scripts for others (in Sayles' case) or they are forced to leave the business completely. Some directors, like Cholodenko and Harron, are even resorting to -- gasp -- directing TV to make ends meet. It's not exactly in keeping with their indie film street cred but heck, it pays the bills. And according to Harron, directing TV is also a great "corrective" for a director's ego. Something that many directors could probably use every so often.
Hopefully this article can serve as a guide to independent filmmakers on how to make it into their 40's, 50's and beyond with some semblance of the career they wanted to have intact. In the article, director John Curran gives some pretty good advice to his fellow filmmakers: "As you get older, your definition of selling out changes. It's nobody's ambition to remain independent. It's to work with a major studio while keeping your project intact." Smart man.
How about you? What indie films and filmmakers do you like and why?
Quick List: Five Favorite Ice-Bound Movie Moments
Blu-ray Review: Funny People
See A Little 'Kick-Ass' In This Teaser Trailer
The Geek Beat: Rated M For Mature
'Clash of the Titans' Trailer Now Online!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-15-2006 @ 2:17PM
Mary said...
Jim Jarmusch, Rick Linklater, Tom DiCillo.
For the most part, each man finds financing through outside resources, sells the foreign distribution rights, takes that money and makes the film, then sells the film to a studio for domestic distribution. They take that pile of money and start developing the next project. When Linklater's first big studio project, "The Newton Boys" failed, he said, "If I've learned any lesson since then, it's to have a lower-budget, easily financed project always in your hip pocket."
These directors attract talent (Bill Murray, Keanu Reeves, Jack Black) because they don't make the environment of filmmaking captive to any delusions of power or ego. It appears they don't squabble over "points" or fight for 20 percent of first dollar gross at the box office. They are renegade in their movie content, but don't put outrageous demands on studios.
For the nost part, these directors avoid the Hollywood scene. You may see them at festivals, or during awards season, but that's about it. They don't get into petty fights or insinuate that one colleague is a "sell-out" or "hack." Guys like Linklater, DiCillo, and Jarmusch don't need the ego boost by tearing someone else apart.
DiCillo started as a DP for Jarmusch, who offered to help hook him up with financing for his first film, "Johnny Suede." Linklater's base is Austin, where his friendships from "Slacker" and "Dazed and Confused" continue to this day. Bob Sabistan's animation work on "Waking Life" led to "Scanner Darkly" and Linklater willingly shares credit. Not many directors can helm projects - e.g. "Waking Life," "Before Sunrise," "School of Rock," and "Fast Food Nation" - that exhibit style, range and creativity.
They don't care to appear in People or have their image burnished in major glossy publications like Esquire and GQ. In Nicholas Jarecki's "Breaking In: How 20 Film Directors Got Their Start," DeCillo offered:
"Know that it's difficult. Ask yourself what you're willing to sacrifice. Try to differentiate between the myth of Premiere magazine and Entertainment Weekly's assessment of success and what it really is. That's one of the most destructive things in this business - comparing yourself to people who you read are more successful than yourself. Entertainment Weekly actually has a list of winners and losers. It's easy to buy into that."
For helmers like Jarmusch, DiCillo and Linklater, being a director is not about having the manse in Brentwood with the six cars in the garage and being spotted power-lunching at the Ivy.
It's about making films.
Reply
10-16-2006 @ 12:14AM
EatingPie said...
I don't think Linklater is pushing the definition of "indie" filmmaker with "School of Rock." "A Scanner Darkly," has an indie feel to it, certainly... but how much did it cost?
In a way, though, it's a huge compliment you've categorized him as such... secret code for "Linklater makes good movies!" :)
I want to hear more about John Sayles (the NYT referenced Return of the Secaucas 7... huh?).
John Sayles, John Sayles, John Sayles! Any news?
-Pie
Reply
10-16-2006 @ 4:12AM
josh said...
Business Data for A Scanner Darkly (2006)
Budget $8,500,000 (estimated)
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 9:29PM
Mary said...
Pie,
The NYT article covered the terrain today's directors must negotiate in the film industry when they desire to be "independent" without sacrificing the ability to pay the bills. Once an independent director goes the route of making a living, the rest of us question that director's desire to push themselves creatively. That's what I was addressing.
Linklater actually turned down "School of Rock" but the producer, Scott Rudin, would not take accept it.
After Linklater's "Newton Boys" ($20 million production budget) failed in 1998, he grew chary of studio financed, big-budget projects. He pulled back and decided to, in his words, "retrench." Linklater's next two films were "Tape" and "Waking Life," the latter I consider his best work, though both are excellent. Those two projects drew the attention of Scott Rudin, who was developing "School of Rock" for Paramount.
Based on the success of "School of Rock" Linklater moved to "Before Sunset," which had an indie feel and stayed true to the roots of "Before Sunrise."
Of course, "School of Rock" doing well meant Paramount "offered" Linklater another project, and that was the remake of "Bad News Bears." I chalk that up to typical Hollywood horse trading as opposed to "selling out." Quite frankly, I don't think most directors - indie or not - can get around that.
Reply