and I wouldn't send anyone a tape -ever.
The purpose of a tape is to allow distributors
to say we saw that - it's no good. You
need to take the trailer to a market, show
em that only, and make a deal or not. No
deal no show. The alternative is to take
the completed doc to an A list festival
and win a prize. Then let them approach
you with a deal.
Sending tapes out is the kiss of DEATH!
I'm just curious if the other 'working pros' out there agree with
this Statement of Robert's - and Robert, if you could back this up
with some examples or experience.
As someone who has made a few films, but hasn't had much
luck with broadcast, I'm still mystified by this idea. Why would a
broadcaster agree to buy a film if they haven't seen more than a
Riley, there's a big difference between a trailer and a sample and
sometimes the terms can get confused. A trailer is basically a minute
or two long. A sample can be anywhere from a few minutes to, well,
almost any length. I helped produce a doc called "Silverlake Life"
and the sample was almost a half-hour. And very effective, too.
If you have a contact or previous experience with a broadcaster,
sending a cassette out is perfectly fine. If you don't, then a market
like the IFP's is better. But there aren't many like them out there.
For confirmation please check a recent issue of the Independent Film
& Video Monthly - I think Dec/Jan with the Open City folks on the
cover. Jason and Joanna Kliot.
they wrote a piece about distribution that confirmed everything I've
learned and made the points i posted.
Is it necessary to secure "life story rights" for a documentary?
Is it ever kosher to pay a subject for appearing in a doc? The
subject of my film feels he needs some kind of compensation, beyond
publicity-- He also needs the money, which I totally understand.
Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks--
we all need money but paying for participation seems unethical to
most. What can and does happen is if the project is successful, the
participants share in the wealth, e.g., hoop dreams - the players
and parents received a share of the pie.
It's a very good idea to secure "life rights" because Small Wonders
becaming Playing with Strings with Meryl Streep and the life rights
holder benefited from Hollywood's interest after the doc was
Nothing wrong with the participant reaping much, if not all, of any
profits. Not that docs make profits ;-)
Robert- What are life rights? Is this something that all documentary
filmmakers need to get from their subjects?
Rhonda, as I understand it, life rights are rights to the life story
of the main character(s) in your doc, which are nice for you to secure
in writing in case someone wants to make a fiction film based on their
lives after seeing the documentary.
Not always easy to get. It brings up possible issues of the subjects
feeling exploited, so you should tread carefully and find out from an
entertainment lawyer how to go about it. Also, wouldn't do it unless
you feel your character and his or her situation is so compelling that
Hollywood is sure to come calling.
Thanks Doug. You are right about treading carefully. I'm just in
the beginning stages of production, so I won't deal with this until
further down the road. Speaking of an entertainment lawyer, is there
a difference between an entertainment lawyer and a producer's rep?
Also, is this the place on D-Word where I can ask specific questions
about my film-in-progress? This is my first film.