Advice
Christina was on Creative Distribution 101 podcast to discuss our innovative approach to distributing About a Donkey, as well as what her career goals are now 2 years into the pandemic.
Christina recently launched a new podcast with fellow filmmaker Bri Castellini. Breaking Out of Breaking In is a practical filmmaking podcast about taking your creative destiny into your own hands, reframing what it takes and means to “break in” to a fundamentally broken industry, and making work that gets seen without playing the Hollywood game (or at least, while changing the rules). Listen to the first episode on iTunes or Spotify.
For those that don't know, Christina is also Seed&Spark's Head of Education. And not only can you attend free crowdfunding and distribution workshops regularly taught by her, you can also catch her live weekly lessons as part of Seed&Spark's virtual Lunch&Learn series. It occurred to us that our peers may not know they've been happening but would definitely benefit from watching.
Click the links to learn about Building an Email List, Social Media Marketing, Releasing Short-Form Content, Making Pitch Videos, and Building an Audience.
And speaking of Seed&Spark, our team member Dani Thomas wrote a thoughtful recap of What's Keeping You From Writing Today? - one of Seed&Spark's Creative Sustainability Sessions featuring Emily V. Gordon, Jen Richards and Naomi Ekperigin.
Christina wrote a piece for Seed&Spark’s Sparking Conversations blog.
I’ve been on jury panels for three separate arts grants in the last year. (Two have been film-focused, one was across various visual arts.) While I can’t talk about specifics of what was discussed in each room, I can speak generally about some common patterns that I noticed across my experiences with all of them that I think will help my peers out when they submit for their next grant. I’ll share a list below of key takeaways. Some are very actionable tips. Others are just realities that hopefully offer some perspective for the next time you get a rejection and start to feel discouraged.
Clarity Is Key.
It’s way more about your clarity and ability to showcase your knowledge of how to complete the thing, than about the quality or subjective value of the eventual thing. Some artists are great at making their art but struggle to explain it. Unfortunately, that doesn’t cut it in grant applications. (If a project’s sample footage was really exciting but what that sample was meant to be part of or accomplish was unclear from the application, then that project didn’t advance.)
Preparedness and ability to follow through were the two biggest factors during the deliberations that I was part of. There’s a set amount of money you’re asking for and there’s a clear timeline in which you have to finish and prove that you did so to the grantor (usually a year). They need confidence that you can deliver on both fronts.
So, make sure your project description is clear, concise and compelling. Make sure your timeline is an actual timeline and not just a paragraph with a deadline for when you think you’ll finish it all. (The timelines that detailed their post-production order and rough delivery estimates for each stage automatically stood out as being projects by people who know what it takes to make the thing and finish it on time.) Even if you’re not completely sure of who’s doing what and when yet, create a detailed plan that you could theoretically stick to if given the funding.
Lack of Research Shows Inexperience.
An unfortunate reality is that people with pre-existing access to funding and resources are going to have the most polished work samples and probably more immediately impressive past experience and accolades. And thus, when the question of whether or not a submitter can feasibly deliver what they’re planning for and in the time they’re given, those people with existing access and experience will have an advantage. If you’re not one of those people, you can’t do anything about this. However, you can make sure that everyone in the room knows that even though you may not have the previous experience, you do seriously know your stuff. And put your best foot forward! Usually, there’s a limited runtime to the past work samples you can include. Use that opportunity wisely. Make sure your sample is as polished as possible and really showcases the tone and aesthetic of what you’re trying to make.
Inexperience was most evident in one major area - the budget breakdown. I make super-micro-budget films. My budget breakdowns rarely include the items that the average production does. My department heads are usually the entire department, for instance. But I know what I should be budgeting for so that, if given the opportunity, I could make the case for the full funding I need. Make sure you do too! Know the standard rates and fees for all production stages from start to finish. (If you don’t, find a collaborator who does.) If people will be wearing multiple hats on set, still include the standard positions in your breakdown with what their day rates would’ve been but list them as in-kind. The jury can’t make assumptions about your resourcefulness. The numbers need to make sense, both in terms of how you’ll accomplish the scope of your project on your overall budget, and in terms of showing you understand what typically goes into making the thing you’re making.
Listing that you’ll submit to top tier festivals is not a strategy. I’d say this was an area where submitters showed their inexperience, but really, applicants at all different experience levels were guilty of this. There’s nothing wrong with including top festivals or venues as a hopeful best case scenario, but the applications that most stood out were ones that answered the exhibition/release/goal question in ways that were unique to their projects. Know your target audience. Know the orgs and entities that reach that audience. Know the impact you hope to have and formulate an actual plan for making that happen. This comes back to research. (If you’re a filmmaker, I strongly recommend you look for an opportunity to attend the Distribution workshop I helped develop via my role at Seed&Spark.)
Bias Is Always a Factor.
Grant committees often go to great lengths to have diverse jury panels. I didn’t look like anyone else in the room, which isn’t uncommon for me as a multi-ethnic woman, but neither did the older white man in each of the rooms. Grant committees want to make sure that no one perspective will dominate or influence the overall jury selections. (I can’t say this is always the case, but thankfully it was my experience.) However, jurors are largely chosen for their professional experience within the industry and/or technical ability; not for their objectivity, critical thinking, or cultural understanding. So with that said, each juror (like all humans) comes to the table with their own biases. Some are able to recognize this in themselves and are well-versed in discussing and dissecting privilege and inequity, but that’s not always the case. In my experiences, while deliberating over projects, sometimes the perspective of an applicant from a marginalized community and the potential impact of their project wouldn’t be understood by other jurors. I am relieved to say that, for the most part, I witnessed a shift in perspective by these jurors. Through empathetic discussion, there was an openness to see outside their own life experience and appreciate the impact of a project that maybe didn’t initially resonate with them. (And in the small moments where that wasn’t the case, the majority of the room outweighed them anyway.)
In all of my jury experiences (both for these grants and for past film festival programming), there’s a stage before deliberation where each juror (or programmer) independently reviews all applications and scores them across specific criteria. There’s usually a minimum threshold set, where only the submissions that scored above a certain average of everyone’s scores will be considered and debated as a group for final decision making on deliberation day. This has knocked out sometimes over half of the applications. So, though the ones that make it past that first stage get this nuanced, socially conscious discussion where bias is checked and points of view can shift, there’s possibly the majority of submissions that aren’t getting that. While it’s important to reflect on your work after a rejection and always be looking for ways to improve and grow, I think it’s also important to know that unconscious bias and personal taste inherently influence that initial stage and that projects with real potential may not make it through.
At the end of the day, it’s all relative. Let’s say you have an amazing project and the jury is collectively really into it. But… there’s a similar project also in consideration. Your two projects could be the only two in the world focusing on a specific subject; but if both happen to be in this pool of submissions, then one or even both won’t be selected because of their lack of uniqueness. Being unique and original is a big factor in these deliberations, but not in a general sense. It’s specifically in regards to the other submissions. My point is, so much is out of your control. You can’t control what else is submitted and what else you’ll be up against or compared to. You can only submit the strongest application possible that checks all boxes as effectively as possible, and hope that you and your project’s authenticity and unique attributes shine through.
P.S. My last point about bias is especially applicable to film festival submissions. For more hot tips in that category, check out the resources below.