Dramas on Low Budgets

The 2014 NZ International Film Festival was on a few months ago and, creatively speaking, ‘the force appears strong’ in NZ filmmaking. Of the five NZ dramatic features in the festival I am proud to have worked on three of them, The Dark Horse, Everything We Loved, and Housebound. The other two NZ films in the festival were Orphans and Kingdoms and Realiti.

Three of the five films (Everything We Loved, Housebound, and Orphans and Kingdoms) are products of the New Zealand Film Commission (NZFC) low budget ‘Escalator’ scheme, which has since been discontinued. No doubt it is the strength of these three Escalator films (and other recent Escalator films such as Fantail) that has prompted NZFC to reconsider its low-budget strategy.

The NZFC has recently announced an intention to review the Escalator scheme and has asked for submissions from filmmakers. It is likely that the new scheme will involve a partnership with an offshore distributor. This is very similar to the model introduced to the NZFC by Ant Timpson for Make My Horror Movie, which resulted in the production of the film Deathgasm (currently in post-production). The concept is great as it provides additional production funding together with ready-made distribution.

This is all very encouraging, but I do have some misgivings. There is no doubt that low-budget filmmaking has a place (and by low budget, I mean less than $500,000). I just don’t want it to become the norm. We pride ourselves on our No. 8 wire mentality, but I’m not sure to what extent we should be promoting that attribute in the film industry. The reality is that on low-budget features most people don’t get paid what they are worth. Sure, that is their choice, and there are definitely periods in a career when it is better to be doing something than nothing. Monetary returns are not the only reason to work on a film, and having a credit on a killer film is worth something in itself. But we have to be careful that we don’t under-sell our services on a regular basis, as that undervalue will start to become the market value.

The Escalator model does attempt to address this concern by mandating a financial structure that requires 50% of the proceeds of the film to go to cast and crew at pre-allotted percentages. This does at least recognise that the cast and crew are investors in the film. But it will often be of symbolic value only as the profit expectations of a low-budget NZ film are not great. That is not to say that it is impossible for an Escalator film to do good business (Housebound, for example, is reportedly selling well), but just that this form of remuneration is nothing you can rely on to pay the mortgage. Also, with the NZFC’s funded low-budget films, the Commission does have a requirement that the film must be a film that can actually be made for the budget, not a more expensive film that the producer is trying to fit into a too-small budget. This is all very well, but the reality is that once the producer and director start the film there is always the temptation to try and make it better for less money, and so raising the possibility that people will be asked to work longer and harder for no more money.

At least with an Escalator film there is guaranteed funding and some protections in place. It is the ultra-low budget or self-funded films that cast and crew really have to think carefully about. These projects are often tenuous, and there is no over-arching support and supervision of the NZFC. Often the projects will be helmed by people who have not made a film before and do not fully understand the culture and ethics of the industry. And they will be under immense pressure as making a film for hardly any money (particularly when what money there is came from mortgaging their house) is a very difficult and stressful thing to do. I’m not saying don’t do it (some really good self-funded movies have been made), just do some good due diligence and make sure you understand exactly what the project is and what will be required of you.

Ultimately I would prefer that, rather than trying to make films ever cheaper, we were looking at how to source more funding and investment. There is no real market for private investment in film in NZ and this is an area that needs to be addressed. To a certain degree, the NZFC is trying to do this with its business incentive scheme (more long-term sustainable businesses in the industry will make it more attractive to capital). And let’s be honest, investment in NZ films is a risky proposition (if you are relying on profit to recover your investment).

One thing that I think would help stimulate production, and that I was disappointed not to see from the review of SPIF (now called the NZ Screen Production Grant), is a reduction in the minimum qualifying spend to $500,000 (it was left at $2.5 million). Reducing it would have the effect of pushing up the budgets for low-budget films to the $500,000 mark rather than $200,000 to $300,000, which I think is more sustainable from an industry perspective. Half a million dollars is enough to make a good film and pay everyone a decent fee for their work.

Overall we all need to be working towards an industry that not only gives us our bacon today but has enough meat in it for the future too.