When I started writing these editor's notes, I thought of them as musings to a subset of our readers -- a way of working out some ideas in public that might appear later in the magazine, and, of course, a means of soliciting input from all of you. (You can always email me at editor.filmmakermagazine AT gmail.com. Gmail's new Priority Inbox is doing a pretty good job of weeding out the spam.) But sometimes it's the other way around. Last week I wrote a blog post about Apple's new iMovie trailer feature but by the next day had a different take on it. So I made my new thoughts the newsletter, and then some people blogged about it so I had to go back and add the newsletter copy to the blog post so people had something to link to. Okay, this is kind of wonky and boring, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that these days you have to think about things like the specific qualities of each platform, degrees of casualness and formality, and the ability of different mediums to enable response and discussion as you are writing.

The other day I posted on Twitter that I wanted to write something about what I saw as the vanishing art of the quid pro quo. But that was probably too loaded a phrase for 140 characters. Someone immediately responded that social is all about the quid pro quo and that it's hardly vanishing at all. So, "vanishing" is the wrong word. I should have said "changing." It's just occurred to me that the most successful producers I know are people who expertly understand all the various systems of exchange in the film world, be they economic or not. These systems often get reduced in the lay public's mind to lines like "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours," but in practice they are way more subtle. (I think a misconception of many just starting out is that everything depends on "who you know"; yes, relationships open doors, but the quality of the work is always the final determining factor, I believe.) Friends, colleagues, business acquaintances and even frenemies all have ways to exchange things -- deal terms but also information, advice, actual work, or the prospect of future commitment -- that help projects get made. And the highest form of the quid pro quo is honesty -- you tell someone what you really think about their project, even if it's not what they want to hear, and they'll do the same for you.

Before I go too far, I should say what the quid pro quo of having something appear in Filmmaker is: we write about a film and give it some publicity, and in return, the filmmaker gives us some piece of information or perspective that's specifically of interest to our readers. The best publicists take account of our audience, which is heavily comprised of people who make films or want to make films, and figure out how to pitch us differently than, say, the Arts of Leisure section of the New York Times. The worst start their query letters with, "It would be great if you could write about...." Great for who? Yes, great for you, but what about our readers?

I've thought about all of this in relation to Kickstarter and Indiegogo and the various campaigns I see popping up. I think some filmmakers think that the rewards offered are what comprise their system of exchange. In return for supporting my film you get a DVD and signed poster. That's wrong. The reward is just a symbol; what the donor is really buying is participation, the feeling of being part of what you are doing. So crowdsourcing filmmakers have to open up their processes in meaningful ways to the input of their donors -- or, at the least, find ways to convey to them the vicarious thrills, excitements and, if appropriate, disappointments of production.

Maybe I thought about all of this because I'm annoyed by the phrase "It would be great..." (And I write that phrase too, but now I make sure to reword it in second drafts.) Or maybe, I am just realizing, this topic was inspired by my recently reading Adam Gopnik's piece about the free market thinking of Adam Smith and his relationship to David Hume's moral philosophy in the New Yorker. In any case, this will coalesce into something clearer and practical and more focused in some future Filmmaker article, blog post, or, perhaps even, tweet.

See you next week.

Best,
Scott Macaulay
Editor

P.S.: Thank you to Brian Newman for listing Filmmaker as one of ten great things about independent film. THE 20th ANNUAL GOTHAM INDEPENDENT FILM AWARDS™ - TICKETS & TABLES ON SALE With the Gotham Independent Film Award™ nominees announced last week joining the previously announced career Tributes to Robert Duvall, Hilary Swank, Darren Aronofsky, and Focus Features CEO James Schamus, all eyes now point toward this first awards event of the season. This public showcase honors the filmmaking community, expands the audience for independent films, and supports the work that IFP does behind the scenes throughout the year to bring such films to fruition. Join the nominees, the Tribute recipients and other members of the community at the 20th Annual Gotham Independent Film Awards at Cipriani Wall Street on November 29th. For tickets, and table sales click here.
Our Forums page is new and improved! Check out the new categories: how to make films, discuss the current trends in the business, job opportunities and look out for guest filmmaker moderators. Click here to get started.
Top Discussions
Film Calendar, DIY Distribution, Current Cinema