Time perhaps to talk about the dark side of truly independent filmmaking – OPM (other people’s money).

The fact is that it takes a whole heap of money (among other things) to make a feature film. Creatives – writers, directors, actors – usually have a passion for the stories they’re involved in telling. It’s no hardship for them to throw themselves into a project with great passion – albeit at the bottom of the scale with micro-budget films like The Insatiable Moon, they’re not getting paid as well as they might. But the elephant in the room remains the fact that however a film’s finance is put together, we’re all getting to express ourselves using OPM.

It’s easy to forget that when you’re using what the industry calls ‘soft’ money – funding from regional or national film bodies (such as the NZ Film Commission), or tax incentives offered by governments keen to get films made. Of course in reality that’s OPM as well – taxpayers’ dollars. But because it’s been washed through the ‘public’ funding machine, it somehow seems easier to spend. A classic example of this would be the NZ film Boy, a huge success at the box office in its country of origin, grossing around $9m. The underbelly of this is that the NZFC-backed film, the highest-grossing kiwi film ever, has still not broken even. Thus far in its journey, it’s made a loss. And that loss was at the expense of OPM.

The Insatiable Moon was funded by decidedly ‘hard’ money – the savings of private investors who contributed funds because they believed in the project – apart from a very welcome $25k post-production grant from NZFC.  We shot the film for about $340k, and then spent another $140k on post, for a total spend of $480k. A remarkable achievement considering we pulled off a 25-day shoot that looks several million dollars on screen (largely through the great skills of DOP Tom Burstyn, and the brilliant generosity of cast and crew). Sacrifices were needed – the producers (who have spent 8 years on it) have not been paid, the writer was not paid, and the director was not paid. We bludged, scraped and begged our way to get the film in the can for a micro budget. To the best of our ability, we paid cast at around 80% rates (apart from extras who mostly worked for nix). Key crew were all paid, less than they should have been, and their work was supplemented by brilliant graduates from film schools who donated their time as work experience. The catering was done by a wonderful friend, who donated her life to it for the duration.

But despite all this good will, we were still spending OPM. In many ways, the film has done very well in NZ – outstripping the box office of several NZFC-funded films. The DVD has flown off the shelves here, necessitating a reprint just two weeks after hitting the stores. And it’s currently on release in the UK. Audience reaction has been brilliant, both domestically and internationally. But the hard facts remain that the earnings of the film thus far amount to around $20k. Why is this? Largely because the return to producers after the exhibitors and distributors have taken their cut is a lousy 5%. The filmmakers are supporting people in their lifestyles while receiving crumbs from the table. The worst part about this is that the real cost is to OPM.

Our investors have been remarkably sanguine and supportive of the film to date. But as a producer, I feel a huge weight of responsibility to try to earn their money back for them. When you’ve spent so little on making a film, it should be relatively easy to recoup the costs. There’s a few years of earning capacity to go of course, but no one should be complacent about the difficulties of making a buck out of the movie business. OPM is remarkably easy to spend, but it comes with a trust and a responsibility. Honest filmmakers feel it deeply.

Bring on the internet revolution, where the barriers between filmmakers and their audiences are torn down!

Posted in news