Article The Business of Film

A survey of films which have proved to be successful over more than four decades indicates there is a need and a healthy niche for product that appeals to a literate demographic that continues to be under-served by the
studios system, and for which independent filmmakers, despite the success of these films, continue to find it difficult to ‘convince’ financiers to fund.

Presently, with the baby boom at its height, The Business of Film
believes it is time for financiers to look more closely at scripts sitting in their ‘in’ trays about ordinary people doing extraordinary things. There is ‘gold’ to be mined from such savvy prospecting. Our discussion group
consisted of CarlosGonzalez,(DP) Bruce Critchley(Financier), Katie Fischer(actor) MichaelBlaha,(lawyer) Michael Du Basso,(Financier) Philippe Mora,(Director) Peter Rawley(Producer) and Elspeth Tavares

• The films listed (***on our chart on right) are the
  result, as is often the case, of friends getting
  together and discussing a script, a film, the need
  to make a movie, how to get it financed, and what kind
  of films – given the parameters of not wanting to make
  horror, or action, or erotic – that bring a return on the
  investment for investors. The discussion that ensued
  goes on at many levels in the industry. Whether it’s Sir
  Howard Stringer in a tête-à-tête with heads of
  production casually discussing the next tent-pole
  picture on Sony’s slate or a group of independent
  producers passionate about film trying to raise the
  financing for their next picture, the game is the same.
  The goalposts are set at different marks, and the
  financial results are somewhat but never assured,
  which is the beauty and frustration and fascination of
  the ‘art of film’.
  
  In the current climate where increasingly accountants
  or graduates with degrees decide what makes it
  through the process, and the conglomerates demand
  satisfying shareholders bottom line, more than ever
  what makes a movies successful is elusive. However,
  our little discussion hit upon what could be ‘the
  formula’: a group of films that on almost any budget
  level have proved successful, yet, although accepted
  after the fact, in reality success was never the
  motivation to making the project. We decided to hold
  a high level seminar and call our little confab ‘research
  on the box office performance and budget of films
  based on the lives of famous or infamous characters in
  history.’
  The research proved to be a positive,
  sometimes surprising analysis: the most acclaimed
  and profitable films aside from studio “tent-poles”
  were films about ordinary people doing extraordinary
  things. We scrolled back the years to Lawrence of
  Arabia, which in 1962 grossed a healthy domestic US
  35 million; in 1965, The Sound of Music brought in
  158 million. Both films were about ordinary people
  doing extraordinary things. Was there a pattern here?
  The 60’s were a time of reflection on what was past
  and what the future might bring. In the 70’s, the film
  we found was Patton, which grossed $61 million. In
  the 80’s, it was Gandhi, Coalminer’s Daughter,
  Amadeus, and The Last Emperor.
  All were films made with passion,
   distributed in some cases with not the
  same passion, but despite lack of distribution, they
  went forth and found and captured their audience
  largely through word of mouth. Again we saw a
  pattern. All the films were made by filmmakers with a
  passion for film and eye to detail and they concerned
  individuals about whom the public was curious.
  
  As we discussed the projects and why they were
  successful, we found that not only were the
  productions based on the lives of famous
  people in history, many of these films and their cast
  members had been Oscar winners and/or nominees.
  
  When we looked at the list of films in the 90’s, three
  films – Braveheart, Schindlers’ List, and Shakespeare
  In Love – stood out on the revenue front. All three
  were a combination of independent and studio
  involvement, but the common denominators were
  filmmakers with a passion for the subject matter and
  the move from ‘type’. As we examined the films made
  from 2001 on, interestingly the films - such as Frida,
  The Hours, and Capote – all had the same common
  ingredients again. They were not of ‘type’ and they
  were motivated by filmmakers and artists with
  passion. What are frequently referred to as “biopics”
  are some of the most commercial and memorable
  films ever made. Having discussed in detail the films
  and subject matter, our group then went on to the
  questions of budgets and the vital marketing element.
  According to the latest report from the Motion Picture
  Association of America: The average cost to make and
  market an MPAA film in 2005 was a staggering
  $96.2 million, which includes $6 million in
  negative costs and $36.2 million in marketing costs.
  Currently those numbers mean that every
  time a studio greenlights a picture it’s
  looking at a $96.2m commitment.
  
  Consequently they are making fewer pictures,
  and looking once again to the independent sector
  for projects made, in the making, or having the
  ability to be made in the increasingly expanding
  number of locations around the world offering
  ‘soft money’ for film financing. The result is a
  great opportunity for independent filmmakers,
  and films can be and are being made for far less
  that any studio can accomplish even with ‘soft
  money’. Whilst musing we applauded Sumner
  Redstone’s refusal to renew the Tom Cruise
  contract.
  
  For far too long excessive overheads
  and enormous star fees have contributed to and
  constitute the studio model, including the
  outmoded and open check book production
  methods. Our confab concluded that for any
  independent looking to raise finance for
  a project, the biopic or famous
  personality films that have scored well with
  audiences have budgets way below the studio
  average. When we look at more recent films –
  such as Ray, The Queen, Walk The Line,
  Pollock, and Copying Beethoven – the ‘pattern’
  continues to hold up. All the films on our list as
  well as current films that have exceeded
  expectations have an appeal to the literate
  demographic that in each decade is clearly
  underserved.
  
  It is somewhat disturbing that in some instances,
  while we were able to get numbers, it is not sure
  if these are the absolute numbers. One of the
  ‘outmoded’ practices within the film industry is
  the lack of ‘financial information’ available for
  investors to make a true ‘judgment call’. The
  moment a company comes forth with a formula
  that effectively tracks where every dollar on a
  film goes will be a watershed and a bountiful
  time for filmmakers. Those of us in the business
  know that ‘films’ whatever the ‘level of budget’
  can be a great financial return given ‘transparent
  accounting.’ It’s simple and elementary: the
  more money investors can collectively ‘make a
  return’ the more they will invest. The industry
  could have ‘constant financing’ available if it
  were fiscally responsible and transparent.
  Typically, we were able to find numbers we
  believe to be correct on gross, but in many
  instances the budgets were unavailable. The
  question of budgets is always ‘why aren’t the
  numbers available?’ and there is never a truly
  credible answer.
  
  .
  
  The Business of Film Article