How high do you need to get to be a pro filmmaker?Years ago, when I was living in Mexico, I visited a Peruvian filmmaker friend in New York City who helped me configure my first non-linear video editing system. Back then, it was not possible to get an affordable system in Mexico (and by "affordable" I mean an investment of about $8,000 USD at the time, less now). The sole options in Mexico then were the "professional" systems which required an investment of at least $30,000 USD, inaccessible to anyone but big companies. In video equipment, there is a category in between "consumer" and "professional" for restricted budgets that is called "prosumer". And in the minds of some people, "prosumer" equates with "semi-professional", a person who is not fully trained in the field or who enjoys it as an expensive hobby.
My Peruvian friend had his own Arri-S 16mm film camera for shooting his documentaries. He was the prototypical independent filmmaker, who uses his own resources and a minimal crew (often just himself) to shoot films, which he later promotes by himself, attending festivals and film markets around the world. As we were talking about festivals, he told me that he was irate at one in particular that had screened recently one of his films, because the program book introduced him as an "amateur filmmaker". He called the festival office and demanded an apology and retraction, because he did not consider himself an amateur and had a long career as a filmmaker. Even if the word itself means "lover" and we do love filmmaking, "amateur" is equated with hobbyist or non-professional.
Filmmaking is the most expensive art, with a world-wide average budget of about 2 million dollars per feature length fiction film. So, a widespread assumption is that if you don't have access to 2 million dollars or more, then you are an amateur. If you are not rich (or have an uncle with a production company) and must work in any other field to make a living and save very modest amounts to do personal, independent films or videos, then it's just a hobby and you are an amateur. A prosumer at best. That's not only false, but extremely unfair since most professions do not require these gigantic expenses to get in, nor do they require the red-tape labyrinth of bureaucrats or assistants who decide if your project deserves to be made or if you deserve to get a chance.
The technological evolution of the last 20 years has created a revolution in film and video, spawning millions of real hobbyists who now fill the internet with their creations, burying down true art works within a confused mess. A video of a kitten barfing gets millions of views. False trailers cut with copyrighted material get over 1 million views. Scantily-clad girls dancing reggaeton in their messy bedrooms can also get a couple million views. Meanwhile, carefully crafted short films made by independent artists that actually try to communicate something get just a few thousand, sometimes not even that. So, does that mean that the barfing cat or the dancing girl are professional works or that our works are amateur?
To really answer the central question -- "Is independent filmmaking or videomaking a hobby?" -- one has to look at the artist and the creation process, not at the number of either dollars or views involved. And most importantly, one has to look at the trajectory of the artist. Give us a break, and show our complete bios before labelling us as "amateur" or "hobbyist". Also, there seems to be a tendency in people to label others in whatever pay job they have to do to make a living. For example, countless actors and actresses around the world have waited tables to afford the rent, acting classes and the excruciating wait for the magical casting session. So many people see them as professional waiters who have an acting hobby. Well, some of those hobbyists now make 20 million dollars-per-picture deals and even win Oscars. And others still wait tables or have a desk job, but do not renounce to their professional and artistic goals.
My own life has been dedicated first and foremost to cinema (and video and TV) ever since I finished high-school. I graduated from film school, have worked in most areas of the business, have filmed and hung around with big players and have been quite close to "breaking in". But most importantly, I have dedicated most of my available time and whatever money I could save to make audiovisual works and write scripts. I have renounced to a pragmatic, more stable and predictable life in order to pursue a career that I'm passionate about and that I'm trained to do.
When I had $35,000 USD, I used it to shoot a film, not for the down payment of a little house or apartment. When I had $6,000, I used it to shoot a video, not to purchase a used car. When I had $2,000, I used it to buy a prosumer video camera, not to go on vacation. If I had fulfilled every necessity first and then used whatever left for a minor activity in my life, then that would be a hobby (and I do have some). But it can't be a hobby when it is the main necessity. Thus, even if my next film costs $1,000 USD (or $100 or $10) to make or is viewed by only a few hundred people, it is a professional work -- because it is my profession. And I'm a professional filmmaker even if I have to use prosumer video equipment or an old, rusty and noisy 16mm camera. Furthermore, I am a professional filmmaker even while I have to ride the bus to go to a regular office job so I can pay my rent and food and hopefully save something to make another little film. Little but professional.
Fifty years ago in France, there were a few film buffs with desk jobs in a magazine who picked up 16mm cameras and shot personal films with tiny budgets, completely outside of the mainstream industry. These characteristics would make them fall in the hobbyist or amateur category in the eyes of many people. Yet, these filmmakers revolutionized the medium and achieved the highest stature in movie history along with their more "professional" peers and idols.
My Peruvian friend had his own Arri-S 16mm film camera for shooting his documentaries. He was the prototypical independent filmmaker, who uses his own resources and a minimal crew (often just himself) to shoot films, which he later promotes by himself, attending festivals and film markets around the world. As we were talking about festivals, he told me that he was irate at one in particular that had screened recently one of his films, because the program book introduced him as an "amateur filmmaker". He called the festival office and demanded an apology and retraction, because he did not consider himself an amateur and had a long career as a filmmaker. Even if the word itself means "lover" and we do love filmmaking, "amateur" is equated with hobbyist or non-professional.
Filmmaking is the most expensive art, with a world-wide average budget of about 2 million dollars per feature length fiction film. So, a widespread assumption is that if you don't have access to 2 million dollars or more, then you are an amateur. If you are not rich (or have an uncle with a production company) and must work in any other field to make a living and save very modest amounts to do personal, independent films or videos, then it's just a hobby and you are an amateur. A prosumer at best. That's not only false, but extremely unfair since most professions do not require these gigantic expenses to get in, nor do they require the red-tape labyrinth of bureaucrats or assistants who decide if your project deserves to be made or if you deserve to get a chance.
The technological evolution of the last 20 years has created a revolution in film and video, spawning millions of real hobbyists who now fill the internet with their creations, burying down true art works within a confused mess. A video of a kitten barfing gets millions of views. False trailers cut with copyrighted material get over 1 million views. Scantily-clad girls dancing reggaeton in their messy bedrooms can also get a couple million views. Meanwhile, carefully crafted short films made by independent artists that actually try to communicate something get just a few thousand, sometimes not even that. So, does that mean that the barfing cat or the dancing girl are professional works or that our works are amateur?
To really answer the central question -- "Is independent filmmaking or videomaking a hobby?" -- one has to look at the artist and the creation process, not at the number of either dollars or views involved. And most importantly, one has to look at the trajectory of the artist. Give us a break, and show our complete bios before labelling us as "amateur" or "hobbyist". Also, there seems to be a tendency in people to label others in whatever pay job they have to do to make a living. For example, countless actors and actresses around the world have waited tables to afford the rent, acting classes and the excruciating wait for the magical casting session. So many people see them as professional waiters who have an acting hobby. Well, some of those hobbyists now make 20 million dollars-per-picture deals and even win Oscars. And others still wait tables or have a desk job, but do not renounce to their professional and artistic goals.
My own life has been dedicated first and foremost to cinema (and video and TV) ever since I finished high-school. I graduated from film school, have worked in most areas of the business, have filmed and hung around with big players and have been quite close to "breaking in". But most importantly, I have dedicated most of my available time and whatever money I could save to make audiovisual works and write scripts. I have renounced to a pragmatic, more stable and predictable life in order to pursue a career that I'm passionate about and that I'm trained to do.
When I had $35,000 USD, I used it to shoot a film, not for the down payment of a little house or apartment. When I had $6,000, I used it to shoot a video, not to purchase a used car. When I had $2,000, I used it to buy a prosumer video camera, not to go on vacation. If I had fulfilled every necessity first and then used whatever left for a minor activity in my life, then that would be a hobby (and I do have some). But it can't be a hobby when it is the main necessity. Thus, even if my next film costs $1,000 USD (or $100 or $10) to make or is viewed by only a few hundred people, it is a professional work -- because it is my profession. And I'm a professional filmmaker even if I have to use prosumer video equipment or an old, rusty and noisy 16mm camera. Furthermore, I am a professional filmmaker even while I have to ride the bus to go to a regular office job so I can pay my rent and food and hopefully save something to make another little film. Little but professional.
Fifty years ago in France, there were a few film buffs with desk jobs in a magazine who picked up 16mm cameras and shot personal films with tiny budgets, completely outside of the mainstream industry. These characteristics would make them fall in the hobbyist or amateur category in the eyes of many people. Yet, these filmmakers revolutionized the medium and achieved the highest stature in movie history along with their more "professional" peers and idols.
I wonder who could still dare call Godard and Truffaut "amateurs". But if such a thing happened to them back in 1959, I'm sure they replied "Je m'en fous".
Eduardo Soto-Falcon
Posts
Great photo!!!! and it is not a hobbie!! Filmmaking is life!!
ReplyDelete