Filmmaking by committee

I struggled today, trying to explain the basics of this process to a friend. The common criticism being, "That's simply filmmaking by committee." The difference is, filmmaking by committee would be giving each audience member a vote, and going with the option that gets the most votes. Instead, Lean Filmmaking would be using the audience as a barometer for what's working and what's not, and then using that information to make calculated changes that you feel that will better the final film.

Example being stand-up comedy. Comedians routinely talk about writing new material at home and not knowing how it's going to do, until they try out the material on stage. Over many months on the road, they hone the new material, trimming, rewording, rephrasing, moving elements around, or attacking the subject in an entirely different way to achieve the desired result of a happy audience. No one would say that the comedians material is written by committee. But it is honed and fine tuned by audience participation. That's the same process I'd like to co-opt for indie film.

When the audience doesn't respond to a scene or part of the film in the way you want, you don't automatically give each audience member a vote as to what would make the scene work better - because they have  no idea. And you don't automatically appeal to the lowest common denominator either. It simply means that you, as the filmmaker, haven't communicated effectively, and need to make an adjustment. You have found a problem, which you need to fix. This is extremely valuable information to have, especially pre-production. This can literally save millions, and make a break a film.

I know filmmakers that have spent $100,000 making their dream indie film, which was made in a bubble, without audience feedback - and at the end of the day, after submitting to film festivals and not getting picked up, they have a VERY expensive DVD sitting on their shelf. That's not a gamble I'm willing to make with my money, on my first movie, and I truly believe there's a better process for independent film. Get feedback early on, before production, and adjust the storytelling where necessary.

That's crux of this process is: gathering more information than traditionally, testing hypothesis about the material either via short films, webisodes, live theater, or other with yet to be determined means,  and find out if audiences respond to your material. If they don't respond, you've saved a hell of a lot of time and money. As opposed to "testing" your hypothesis with a fully produced final film, released into the general public, which generally costs tens of millions of dollars.

 

The Great Gatsby

Fitzgerald tested his material in short stores that preceded Great Gatsby.

• Dice, Brass Knuckles & Guitar, 1923


• The Sensible Things, 1924


• Winter Dreams, 1922


• Absolution, 1924

That's a similar process for what I'd like to do with feature films, test material in a thoughtful and scientific (measurable) way with short films. To see if a feature film would be viable. This should save lots of time and money.

Context in Storytelling

I listened to Gary Vaynerchuck's talk this morning, and it touches (tangentially) on ideas I'm interested in. The context in which the story is told - which I take to mean not only the medium, but telling personal stories. For instance in my project, since the story is loosely based on experiences from my life I think it's important for me to write, direct, and ideally act in the film. By doing all three as well as distributing directly to the audience - people will feel much more of a connection to the art. I've personally felt more connected to films in the past where I know the film came from a part of the actor or writer/directors life. Stallone wrote Rocky, and on a deeper level it was analogous to where he was at in his life (at least in my perception) and that's always made me feel a closer connection to the movie. Also see Hemingway and Farewell To Arms.

It's the same in music and stand-up comedy. The songs pulled from a musicians life or the bits pulled from a comedians life hit me harder than anything else.

The story behind the story, which connects the artists real life to the material, provides a context for the story which I think is essential for the kind of great, personal art which I'd like to create.

And I like the idea of storytelling in different ways. I've been thinking about different formats for my project, giving films to the audience in the way they want:

• Short films that add up to feature length when watched together


• Feature length film with associated shorts used to test the main thesis of the film before production


• Episodes that can be downloaded and watched on mobile apps where someone can pick and choose what parts of the story they want to watch, in whatever order they'd like

As far as marketing, he's spot on with speaking to the audience authentically and by adding value 75% of the time and asking for business occasionally. It's the same model I see with Joe Rogan, Austin Kleon, and many others.

[video id="85285112" site="vimeo"][/video]

[via 99U & Filmmaker IQ & nofilmschool]

I Believe...

I believe there's a better way to make independent films, using theories from Growth Hacker Marketing (link) and The Lean Startup (link).

Growth Hacker Marketing and The Lean Startup both address problems faced by traditional business models:
- Market research
- Gut feelings
- Large launch

Now what other industry puts together products in that same way? Studio films and Indie films.

Solutions to their problems were in folding marketing in with product development and developing a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) and then rapidly iterating and pivoting based on customer response. These are actual customers, not focus groups. Early adopters and customers that have PAID for the product.

Examples of this are: Instagram, Dropbox, Pinterest, Uber....

I believe indie film can apply these principles to produce a film that avoids the pitfalls many indie films fall into.

And the beauty of this particular method is, that once you achieve Product Market Fit (PMF), you can market and distribute the film online, yourself, without using the mass market $30M budget studio approach. A slow, organic growth, which builds over time into a sizable audience without the "fat" of the mass market approach.

What's needed is to develop a process and set of tools for evaluating early script and film content by early adopters and the film's audience.

(post in progress - posted as preview only)

Online Workspace

I'm hoping for this site to be an online workspace for me to work through and develop these ideas, using my first feature as an experiment, and see if I can use Lean Startup and Growth Hacker Marketing principles to make a better narrative feature length indie film.

And ideally by doing this publicly I'll be able to connect with like-minded filmmakers, who will eventually become collaborators.