ARGUMENTS FOR TRANSPARENCY
Direct subsidy is becoming increasingly difficult for smaller independents and emerging filmmakers to access, leaving them to rely only on the 40% rebate (if their budgets are high enough) and they must cobble together the remaining 60% of their budgets from the market and private sector. It is in this space where access to financial and market information is vital. Indies who turn to private investors require financial information in business plans to show how their investors stand to recoup. Indies need to be nimble, practical, creative and realistic to survive – and for this, they need comparable financial data and market intelligence.
Direct subsidy is a scarcity model and is a disincentive to filmmakers sharing and helping each other. Most Indies and emerging filmmakers stand little chance of accessing direct subsidy, but they can help themselves by helping each other by sharing information and knowledge.
The traditional models of funding via direct subsidy and all-rights distribution deals focuses mostly on raising a production budget, without much emphasis on, or need for, recoupment and profits to film investors.
To be truly sustainable, innovative and diverse – we need to bring recoupment and film profit into the conversation and allow the outcomes of film investment to be transparent. If films returned money to investors then finding investors would become more feasible. If films returned money to filmmakers then they could become sustainable without relying on direct subsidy.
The good news is that the 40% Offset is uncapped – so in this space, collaboration is not thwarted. This space offers incentive for filmmakers to help each other, since a fellow filmmakers’ success does not diminish the possibility for others, and a stronger industry benefits all.
Already we are seeing a push towards more collaboration in filmmaking – and this is where the strength in the future of filmmaking lies. It is now timely and appropriate that we bring this mode into film financing as well.