Diary of a Smartphone Filmmaker: April 2019
Last month we shot the 4th episode of Silent Eye, using 2 Samsung Galaxy S9 smartphones. If you’ve been following along, you will know I have completed a rough cut and am now ploughing through the CGI work. There’s a lot to do and it looks like it will take longer than I originally planned.
Meanwhile, I have a feature film screenplay which is looking for funding. So far we have a producer attached, who is also head of sales at a major UK distributor, plus an Irish producer. We also have a Zürich (Switzerland) based production company on board.
The plan was to create an Irish-Swiss co-production. Swiss money would come first, so our Swiss producers would have a go at getting some state development funding from Zürich, from which they have had previous success.
Last month, we had the news – they turned down our application. Because they have a relationship with the people who decide, the Swiss producers were able to find out more. Essentially, they thought the script was spot on but my unique method of shooting it was not appealing. Well, they were unanimous that it wouldn’t work.
Since then we had been trying to have a joint Skype session with me, the UK, Irish and Swiss producers. Somehow we couldn’t manage to be available all at the same time. However, I was in Switzerland last week so I popped into their new offices.
The Irish producer had a last minute meeting for an advert and couldn’t join us. The UK (who is actually Bulgarian and staying Dubai) producer got the time zones wrong, but managed to join us at the end.
The Meeting
Myself and one of the Swiss producers discussed the project and the current situation. We both agreed the script was in great shape – after several years and many drafts development. The problem was the funders were totally unconvinced by my visual idea.
Also, Swiss producer said after talking to colleagues he realised different people had interpreted it in different ways. Could I shoot a 5 or 10 minute part of the film to prove my idea worked? And also to clarify exactly what I meant?
This idea had been suggested before, but I feel reluctant to invest so much time without any funding at all. I pointed out that I had already invested years of script development in my own time – hence we have a great script. And I didn’t feel like investing more time for no money on the promise that it might convince people.
Sometimes it feels like gambling. There are endless numbers of people in the industry asking for just “one more thing” to help raise the funds. Especially when they are not the ones investing the time for free. And it’s not that I don’t want to do any work for free – as I said, I have already spent months/years on the screenplay.
Having said that – have I spent my free time on the wrong thing? I developed the screenplay with encouragement from producers who liked it but just wanted to see “a few changes”. Maybe I would have been better refusing that but instead spending my time testing out the visual idea.
Then we could have gone to funders with a rougher script and a proof of concept short excerpt from the film.
Comes down to 2 choices
So the options are these:
- we stick to the visual idea and try different money sources
- we abandon the visual idea and try Zürich again in June (with some minor script and pitch changes)
I also thought up a 3rd option: the visual idea was also a budget-cutting idea. However, if we had the funds to film it traditionally, we could in fact do 2 edits. One edit to fit my visual idea and one traditional, in case it doesn’t work.
That could prove to be a win-win because we get to take the risk on the idea but also have a safety net, just in case.
Eventually, the UK producer joined the meeting. Swiss producer asked what she thought about the visual idea in terms of selling the film. She said, as someone who spends her life selling films, having a unique angle to the film always helps. Buyers want something different.
Taking a risk
As someone who sells films for a living, UK producer wanted a film which took risks. Of course, it’s not her money we are taking risks with, so that’s something to bear in mind.
But I found that interesting, as we always assume the sales side of things want predictable, safe products to take to market. Actually, this is not true – there is still a value in doing something original.
We ended the meeting with UK producer looking to find more finance options. Plus, UK & Swiss producers would meet at Cannes next month to discuss further, and possibly try to meet potential financiers.
So that’s where we are with this independent feature project, in terms of funding. Basically, we have no funding at all and not a single promise of any. But we will see what happens, because in this business funding can take years, or decades. So let’s see.
Eager to learn more?
Join our weekly newsletter featuring inspiring stories, no-budget filmmaking tips and comprehensive equipment reviews to help you turn your film projects into reality!
Simon Horrocks
Simon Horrocks is a screenwriter & filmmaker. His debut feature THIRD CONTACT was shot on a consumer camcorder and premiered at the BFI IMAX in 2013. His shot-on-smartphones sci-fi series SILENT EYE featured on Amazon Prime. He now runs a popular Patreon page which offers online courses for beginners, customised tips and more: www.patreon.com/SilentEye
In my experience of Sales Agents, they understandably don’t want to take certain kinds of risk, like using unknown or inexperienced talent or buying films that don’t fit a recognised genre. However, what they do want are films with a strong USP (Unique Selling Point). That way they can market them far more effectively, making them stand out from all the others competing films in the marketplace.
I had a low-budget feature thriller optioned back in 2009. It was considered a real page turner within the industry, but there was no identifiable USP that sales agents could use. As a result we failed to get the £500,000 needed despite having Martin Compston and Jessica Hynes attached. With a growing trend of Netflix films getting high audience figures through word-of-mouth, I wonder if such a strong USP will still be necessary?
I think I finally learned, there’s always something. I previously wrote about the industry as a kind of casino. All the excuses you get are basically down to financiers not seeing a strong enough reason to make your movie – usually financial ones.
So one day there’s not a USP. Then when you have one, there’s some other reason.
The trick is, how do you generate enough of a reason to make financiers feel they have to make your film or someone else will snap up the opportunity.
Having a good script isn’t enough.
Yes, having the gift of the gab is a great skill to have when it comes to financiers – something i was never good at! 🙁