by Toni Casala

Born Lauren Keyana Palmer, you may remember Keke from her performance in the critically acclaimed, award-winning film Akeelah and the Bee, but Keke was far from wet behind the ears when she starred in her role as Akeelah Anderson.

As a small child growing up in Robbins, Illinois, Keke showed her parents Laurence and Sharon Palmer that her performance skills packed a lot of power when she belted out “Jesus Loves Me” in her church choir.

In their home recording studio, Keke’s mother Sharon helped Keke harness her vocal abilities, and both parents were dedicated to taking her on auditions and helping her to perfect her acting skills. In 2004 Keke landed her first big role in Barbershop 2: Back in Business playing the part of Queen Latifah’s niece. At this point, it was more than apparent that Keke had star-potential, so the family left behind their newly purchased home and their secure jobs to head to California.

Keke’s accomplished resume includes a role on the CBS series Cold Case, a national K-Mart commercial, and even a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination for her role in Wool Cap. She is currently the youngest actress to ever receive a nomination in a Lead Actress category. She has also won the 2007 NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture for her role in Akeelah and the Bee. She also co-starred in the highly-rated Disney Channel Original movie Jump In.

Though her acting career has blossomed, Keke considers music her first love and has signed with Atlantic Records. Her newest album “So Uncool” includes an ode to her Chicago roots. The Palmer’s decision to leave the Chicago area in pursuit of Keke’s dreams turned out to be a good one, but they were definitely challenging times.

In his interview with Children In Film, Laurence Palmer talks about the challenges of being a Power Parent.

[Read more]

The terms Gap Financing and SuperGap financing have been getting a lot of play lately. As these concepts are sometimes hard to succinctly define, I was impressed by this pithy description from the Wikipedia:

Gap/SuperGap Financing

 

In motion pictures, Gap/Supergap financing is a form of mezzanine debt financing where the producer wishes to complete their film finance package by procuring a loan that is secured against the film’s unsold territories and rights. Most gap financiers will only lend against the value of unsold foreign (non North American) rights, as domestic (North American: USA & Canadian) rights are seen as a “performance” risk, as opposed to more quantifiable risk that is the foreign market. In short, this means that the foreign value of a film can be ascertained by a Foreign Sales Company/Agent by evaluating the blended value of the quality of the script, its genre, cast, director, producer, as well as whether it has theatrical distribution in the US from a major film studio; all of this is taken into consideration and applied against the historical and current market tastes, trends, and needs of each foreign territory of country. Surprisingly, this is fairly predictable to a certain degree of certainty. Domestic distribution, on the other hand, is very unpredictable and far from ever a sure thing (e.g. just because a film has a big budget and a commercial genre and cast, it could still be unwatchable and thus never receive a theatrical or television release in the US, thus being relegated to being a big budget, direct-to-video film.) So, in as much as there can ever be any certainty in the entertainment business, lending against foreign value estimates is almost always going to be a much better bet than banking on domestic success (comedies and urban films being two notable exceptions: they’re referred to a “domestic pieces” or “domestic plays”.)

 

True to its mezzanine nature, in the pecking order of recoupment of investment, generally, gap (or supergap) loans are subordinate to (recoup after) the senior/bank production loan, but in turn, the gap/supergap loan will be senior to (recoup before) equity financiers.

A gap loan becomes a supergap loan when it extends beyond 10-15% of 100% of the production loan required to shoot the film (or in other words, when the percentage of the gap required to complete the film’s financing package becomes greater than a bank is willing to bear, which is traditionally 10-15%, but can sometime be a flat dollar threshold like USD$1,000,000.)

Gap/Supergap lending is a very risky form of capital investment and accordingly the fees and interest charged reflect that level of risk. But at the same time it’s not unlike buying a house: nobody pays 100% of the purchase price with cash; they pay about 20% in cash and borrow the rest. Supergap financing works by the same principal: put down 20-30% cash/equity and borrow the rest.

Over the years, because of the high risk nature, many supergap companies have come and gone, but a few established players have survived the ups and downs of the markets: Screen Capital International is arguably the gold standard in the industry, with Grosvenor Park, Blue Rider, Newmarket Capital, and 120db also being significant “players” in the debt financing space.

[All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) ]

You can also find some useful reference books at the Writer’s Store: film funding

A few worthy additions to your bookshelf:

The Filmmaker`s Handbook, 2008

Edward Pincus|Steven Ascher

The authoritative guide to funding, preparing, shooting, lighting, editing, finishing and distributing your film or video Widely acknowledged as the “bible” of film and video production and used in courses around the world, this indispensable guide to making movies is now updated with the latest advances in high- definition formats. For students and teachers, the professional and the novice filmmaker, this clear and comprehensive handbook remains the reliable reference to all aspects of moviemaking.

Find it at an independent bookseller: Filmmakers Handbook

Don’t Try This At Home!: The Physics of Hollywood Movies

Adam Weiner

A fresh look at the basics of physics through the filmmaker’s lens. It will deconstruct, demystify, and debunk popular Hollywood films through the scientific explanations of the action genre’s most dynamic and unforgettable scenes. Sample movie sequence and related physics concepts: In “Speed,” a city bus going over 50 mph jumps over a 50-foot chasm–successfully. An examination of force, acceleration, Newton’s Laws, impulse, momentum, and projectile motion follows…

Find it at an independent bookseller:Physics of the Movies

[Read more]

I recently came across Jim Hill’s blog about the Walt Disney Company (DIS).

Jim’s blog covers all aspects of the company, with additional perspective on the entertainment business.

Take a look at his most recent posts:

Jim Hill Media

• Loading...

Readers of the Film Funding Blog often ask, “are studios and distributors spending marketing money wildly?” This really speaks to an underlying question, is theatrical distribution unprofitable for independent films?

To address this issue, I thought it might be helpful for me to contribute some perspective on the forces that can shape the P&A budget. My analysis is based on my years as a film distribution executive at Fox, Warner Bros., and New Line Cinema. I mention my background so that you can judge circumstances for yourself, without any undue spin.

(Photo by atp_tyreseus)

When a national theater chain decides to buy a picture, we usually consider that to be a good thing. But, one of two things may happen. First possibility is that the picture opens wide. This means that P&A is needed to support a large release (more prints, local newspapers, radio/TV, etc) and, before a single ticket is purchased, potentially millions of marketing dollars have been spent. If the film does not open well, the marketing spend will look hugely out of proportion to the results. Unfortunately, the final outcome is only knowable after most of the money has been spent.

Alternatively, it is possible to “platform” a film release. However, this usually works best in cases where you think the word of mouth will be very strong. Problem with a platform release is that you may never get a chance to open wider. Your theatrical distribution costs are lower, and your theatrical release may be profitable on a percentage basis, but you could wind up leaving millions in profit on the table.

Given the chance to open on say 500 screens (still far from a mega release), and a platform (2-20 screens), most people will choose to open wider because the revenue and profit tend to be higher (higher risk/higher return). Also, if a theater chain offers a wider release, if you suggest a smaller one you may be signaling a lack of faith in the motion picture.

Usually, as a producer/financier, you have almost no control over how the picture rolls out. Even if you pay the P&A cost, you are at the whims of the marketplace (actually, you are just facing more powerful players with stronger leverage). This means that your distribution strategy faces a complex set of dynamics, and you are forced to play the hand you are dealt.

As a footnote, the advertising for domestic releases is also tracked by the video retailers. They know that if the film did not have much market support, there is unlikely to be much awareness. This can limit the DVD sales.

There can be more upward pressure on a film’s marketing spend. Other ancillary markets (like airline sales) are frequently pegged to the US Box Office. It can often pay to buy a larger box office opening by spending more on theatrical marketing. Theatrical will run at a loss, but the goal is to build profit from DVD, television, and other distribution channels.

I would say that the typical film does not break even from theatrical. Even the most successful independent releases make only a very small profit from theaters. Could the marketing money be better spent? There is always the old adage that half the marketing budget fails to produce the desired result. It just isn’t that easy to figure out which half. Theatrical is not always a money loser, but it does tend to be a loss-leader.

Moving Pictures Magazine published a useful step-by-step overview covering how to sell your project at the AFM. The article summarizes the kind of coaching Sharp Angle provides to its clients. Here is the quick overview:

• “Identify the elements that constitute your package and be able to pitch it in a brief period of time.”
• “Of the 400 companies at the AFM, it’s unlikely that any film would suit any more than 25 or 30. Put together your list.”
• Utilize the screenings, pitch sessions, locations expo, and other resources
• With your research complete, buy a half-market badge and start making the rounds

Take a look at the full article for additional details. Moving Pictures Magazine

Visit ifta-online for more information on the American Film Market.

The 2007 AFM takes place October 31 - November 7, 2007.

UTA is one of the leading agencies in Hollywood. Their online effort to identify new talent is a real departure from standard operating procedures. Here is some background:

UTA Online represents the most original and successful artists emerging from the Internet, and this channel is designed to showcase some of their work. For more information about UTA Online, or any of our represented artists, please visit: www.utaonline.net.

They have information and video from clients here:

http://www.veoh.com/channels/UTAOnlineshowcase