Commissioning and Control

How easy is it to get a film financed?

Documentary makers must find funding for their films but for various reasons it is becoming less easy to secure. The source of funding and their motivations also often affects the filmmaker's control. I've always assumed that a documentary maker makes documentaries about what they want and that they decide what goes in it. After all, it is their film, right? I have spoken with Kim Hopkins from Labor of Love Films, a Yorkshire based independent documentary maker, about how her features are funded and how she decides what to make. I have also spoken with Nick Mirsky, Head of Documentaries at Channel 4, to discuss recent changes in broadcast commissioning.
  

Kim has worked as a freelance Producer/Director in the past, but in 2012 she started her own tiny production company producing long form independent documentaries of which they generate the ideas and then try to find the financing.

Are your films commissioned before you start to make them?

Kim - It really depends, the environment is changing rapidly. Obviously the ideal thing is to get commission. In independent features you’re looking for finance all over the place. I’ll give you an example: the film we’re just finishing off is a film about Cuba, we tried to find some development financing and couldn’t. We decided to put our own money in from the production company. We then shot some of the film and we were able to then produce a taster reel of the film. We actually held back on how much we shot, so we just showed what we thought was enough to raise finance. In that process we partnered up with a production company in the US so we could access US financing. Then we found financing through ITVS - the independent television service in the US, they support independent filmmaking for the public service broadcasting in America. They financed the lion share of the film, and then you constantly look for other bits of money, often through grants and other various forms of finances. And this particular one, Maine in the US, because this particular subject matter was the Cuba-US relationship. The film before that we made almost all of it before we got any financing at all and then sold it as an acquisition to the BBC...

Kim is suggesting that commission for an independent feature is difficult, but it appears that gathering financing from elsewhere is also problematic. A lot of time, energy and money goes into simply finding funding to allow the film to be made. Kim did source funding from the US, but the important part to take note of is that the US have a vested interest in the subject matter of the film. 

...And then the other way, the way that you’re suggesting, is the commission. Which is the holy grail. In that is you have an idea, you write a proposal and you go to various sources to get the commission. So that's the holy grail, to get someone to give you the money upfront without it being your risk. But increasingly it is the filmmaker’s risk because it’s over subscribed. There are too many filmmakers making too many films for too little slots.

She highlights the issue that commissioned documentaries are over subscribed. It seems that the chances of a successful commission with a broadcaster are becoming slimmer, with the slots lessoning in comparison to online slots with platforms such as Netflix.

I have spoken to another independent documentary maker, Nick Hamer - whose full interview will come in a later post - and he had similar views to Kim. 

Are there too many filmmakers chasing too little slots? 
Nick - There are a lot of people making films for sure but how many people are making good enough films? It's really hard without financing to make a great movie. You have to be next level talented if you haven't got any money. But ultimately that is true, there are too many filmmakers for too few slots because there are schemes. Channel 4 has First Cut, which is for new directors. There must be hundreds of new directors that want that slot. But filmmaking has always been that way, its been capital intensive, costing a lot of money to do.

To hear from the other side, I asked Nick Mirsky what he thought about this. 

Nick - If you get a documentary commissioned by us, it is likely to be fully funded. So not such a terrible risk. And I would have thought easier than building up piecemeal bits of funding from other sources. The honest answer though is that there is real appetite for good new ideas from us (and other channels). We commission new projects most weeks. The competition just means the ideas and talent have to be really good.

Nick makes the sensible point that there is no risk, as the film will be funded. This eliminates the gruelling task of fund searching, even if it does mean the documentary is broadcasted on minimal slots rather than online.

How has doc commissioning for broadcast TV changed over the years with the introduction of Netflix and other forms of online viewing? 

Nick - Firstly, broadcasters are becoming more aware that we need to think about online audiences and commission for them. You will find All4 commissioning more and more for online origination. Netflix - I tend be a bit half glass full about this. I think it keeps us on our toes and means we can't be complacent. We have to try to be a bit fresher and more innovative and maybe more relevant to British audiences than Netflix to get the viewers. It is definitely harder to get viewers to try new titles on C4 than it was a few years ago because of competition, but we can still do it if we get the ideas right. The other effect is that we have to nurture long running titles. Audiences will come in for First Dates or Custody or A&E, and we have to make sure we keep those series fresh and compelling. Oddly they are doing better than ever. I think viewers now look for titles they can rely on as much as broadcasters - and we have to acknowledge that.

The impact that growing platforms and changing audience behaviours have on broadcast commissioning resonate too on the documentary makers as they fight for their slot. With audiences requiring more innovative ideas, it is increasingly more difficult. Therefor the main issue is that the level of standard and expectation is rising for the documentaries broadcasters decide to commission.

Is it now harder to get things commissioned?

Kim -Yes, oddly enough there are more platforms but there are more people out there trying to do it. Technology change - more people with cameras that can produce more of the broadcasting standard stuff. So it is more of a competitive field.

Nick - We are and were always quite demanding of an idea - because it is our remit to be innovative and bring new approaches or voices to TV. That doesn't get easier, but we are not commissioning less. And even this year have greenlit three or four very significant projects. For filmmakers the different markets should be good news. If we say no, you can pitch to Netflix, Apple, Amazon etc... as well as to other broadcasters. I would say there were lots of opportunities. More than ever.

Evidently, it very much depends on your point of view. Kim highlights the issues of a growth in popularity and that due to technology, it is now easier to produce broadcast standard documentaries. On the other hand, Nick highlights the rise in standards, meaning filmmakers must work harder to succeed (or simply have more talent), but can find success in other markets. All in all, for specifically broadcast commission there is greater competition and I suspect it will continue to grow. 

What to make a documentary about

The next issue is that documentary makers must highly consider their story subject before looking for funding, to the point where they may no longer be making films about what they really want, but films that they know will get financed. This takes away the personal touch of filmmaking and becomes more about simply earning a living. 

In term of ideas, do you try to make something you know broadcasters or financiers are looking for?

Kim -Yes, of course. I always have an eye on what is happening, what might be happening, what could be current.

Are you more likely to opt to make a film that other people want over what you want to make and you are passionate about if it means you're more likely to get funding?

Kim -That's a tricky question, and something that I'm having to deal with currently. I think I would make a film I want to make because it takes so long. It is a three year chunk out of your life, it needs to be something you're passionate about. It's something that changes the longer you're in the industry. It isn't something you make a lot of money doing, you're not on a salary like you would be with a broadcaster, so you're doing it from the enjoyment of it. But you always have one eye on what people want to be seeing so it is a battle, but fundamentally the decision will be the story that you want to make. 

Financing and commissioning does have input in what stories Kim decides to document. While she remains making documentaries she wants to make, she is highly directed by what will get her documentaries made, which could become more significant in future.

With a rise in competition in the current era means that independent filmmakers, such as Kim, are struggling more and more with finding financing despite the growing market. They must highly consider their subject matter, perhaps compromising their passions. It is important to be making documentaries that are current and are what people are wanting to watch as this is going to get the film funded. However it is pleasing to hear that despite this, Kim is still making documentaries she is passionate about. This is important for documentary makers. They are working hard for something they enjoy doing, they should be putting themselves in their work. I believe this is what makes great filmmakers.