In today’s overcrowded market, how can films secure a decent financial return?

“Let me get this absolutely straight,” I said to Mark Benmore of Rights Booster. “You want to take my brand-new three-hour documentary film, GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER(S), which features an aspect of the Holocaust that no other film or TV programme maker has ever covered thoroughly before, a film that has taken me 18 years to bring to the screen, and give it away for free to internet platforms across the English speaking world.”

“Yes.”

“Why on earth would I do that?”

“Because it will be on a non-exclusive basis and, rather than just one license fee from one platform, it will go on many; and therefore, you have the potential to have it seen by far more people. You make the money on the backend.”

The backend! We’ve all heard that one before. I spoke to Mark first because I have always found him ahead of the curve; however, I was duty-bound to offer it to Greg Phillips, Mark’s old boss at Kew Media, who was an executive producer of my film. Originally it was intended that Kew Media would take world rights, excluding the UK, in return for an advance. I had backpedalled on this as Kew had sold two earlier films internationally that I had directed and on which I was the majority financier, and they had not paid me a penny for any of the sales. They were later to go bankrupt, and no money ever came my way.

For all of us who make Free Range Films (totally outside the system), seeing a decent financial return is what eventually stops so many filmmakers from continuing their career, turning instead to television, advertising or corporate work and, in many cases leaving the entertainment industry for good. I became the domestic distributor of mine, and then other producer's films back in 1993 simply because I could not find anyone to release the films I made.

As soon as we locked off the edit on GAWM, I took it to Greg at his new company, Rainmaker Films. However, much to his embarrassment, his partners rejected the film. I then took it to Jonny Persey, who was helpful when making the film and with whom I had worked before and who had recently set up MetFilm Sales. They also rejected it. I assume both did this because they thought it was a difficult sell. Mark Benmore introduced me to Matthew Frank at the television distribution company Rocket Rights, who also rejected the film.

This rejection from two great supporters of the film, and one person I did not know, all of them Jews, was more of a blow to me than any of the other rejections. Was my approach to the subject, refusing to bow to the market, a mistake? As I was the director, producer, presenter, main writer, uncredited location and production manager, the main financier and also the UK distributor, could I have been fooling myself that this was just a vanity project (if a film about the Holocaust could ever be considered a vanity project)?

Every year since 2003, when Sir Ronald Harwood, just weeks after he won the Oscar for THE PIANIST, had said that he thought my idea for this film was “terrific”, I would optimistically venture forth to Cannes or Sheffield’s Doc/Fest, etc and would pitch GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER(S); and every year, it would be rejected, often with crass justifications ranging from “Don’t you think the Jews have had enough about the Holocaust?” or “Why do you want to make it? You’re not Jewish.” or “The Holocaust was done to death in the 80s and 90s and we’ve all moved on.” I went to just over 1,700 broadcasters, sales agents, film financiers, trusts, foundations and private individuals looking for finance over 15 years. Eventually, 48 people provided funding, some as little as $20.

During the lockdown, as we were editing, I participated in a zoom masterclass for film students at Sheffield Hallam University. One of the other experts taking part was Beatrice Neumann, a veteran sales agent who sold British films internationally. In her talk, she said the most important review by far for any British film to receive, the one which will really make buyers worldwide take notice, is a five-star review from The Guardian. She then qualified this with the fact that it was by far the hardest review of all to secure.

On the 30th of September 2021, The Guardian review for GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER(S) was five stars. The other reviews ranged mostly between five and four stars. And, although the film did not make it onto the Long List of either the BAFTAs or BIFAs, The Guardian film team, in their end-of-year-round-up of the 50 Best Films of 2021 in the UK taken from over 1,000 new films released that year, also voted GAWM as their No17; and by default, that made it their highest-placed documentary of the year, beating the Oscar and BAFTA award-winning SUMMER OF SOUL by one place. For such respected people, who spend their lives writing about films, to think so highly of it has been, personally, the highest accolade of my career. As one of my friends quipped, “It has taken you 51 years in this business to become an overnight sensation.”

The 1st of October 2021 was the 75 th Anniversary of the sentencing at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, and as my film starts where that trial finished, for me, nothing would prevent that from being its release date in UK cinemas. No, not even NO TIME TO DIE which opened on the same day. Initially, I had just a few cinemas agreeing to take the film, but on the strength of that Guardian review, many more began booking it.

Despite all the glowing reviews and with no one really interested in taking the film on internationally I decided to sell it myself overseas. I went straight to Vanda Rapti at Viaplay a dynamic broadcaster/ online platform who have built up a reputation within Europe of being content creator friendly. So many acquisition departments are not at all welcoming unless you are a major distributor.

Vanda thought the film so important that she fast-tracked it with her acquisition team, all of whom, on viewing it, wanted it. They took it for the Nordics, Benelux, the Baltics, and Poland, which was particularly pleasing partly because it would be seen in Lithuania, Latvia and Poland where we had filmed and where over 3 million of the Jews in those countries had been murdered. On the day we arrived in Vilnius to film, we came across a nationalist parade with people carrying Nazi-era national flags, very similar in colouring and design to a swastika, and one man proudly wearing a modern jacket with Waffen SS written on the back. Anders Jensen, CEO of Viaplay, told me that for the first few months, GAWM was in the Top 5 documentary ratings in all of those countries.

Channel 4 took it in the UK, and because I had edited it into two parts with two minutes worth of extra footage, it was seen as a new television production, so it had a whole raft of new glowing reviews and, very unusually for a commercial channel, it was broadcast without any commercials.

In the USA, I did have two potential offers from all-rights distributors who wanted it to have a cinema outing, but for no advance. Having released over 100 films in the UK myself, almost always for no advance, and many of these, despite many being then sold to TV and/or released on video/DVD, rarely recouped the hefty P&A costs for their theatrical release. Therefore, these offers did not appeal.

Kew Media, in their income forecast, had thought HULU might license the finished film for $40,000. As $40,000 is not that much for all the production costs and, more importantly, time invested, I kept thinking about Mark Benmore’s suggestion - a rollout on many platforms. From a creative perspective, this was attractive, as on many of the platforms, the viewer would be able to watch for free. We, the entire production team, had all made the film for it to be seen, not by the few but by the many. I knew very well what the downside would be, but I asked Mark for an upside. I was told there was one film that had done better than all his others. It was a five-year-old documentary film that had returned to its British filmmaker in the first six months over £100,000, and Mark thought that it would eventually return £200,000.

This, to me, was worth the experiment, so I stopped contacting US broadcasters who never replied anyway and appointed Mark. Anything less than the benchmark $40,000 net of Rights Boosters fees and costs would be an abject failure. Although I think £200,000 (around $250,000) would be fanciful with regard to GAWM. How close we get to that over the next three years will prove whether or not this new distribution model is worth the gamble of forgoing a guaranteed fixed fee for a partnership arrangement and a share of the income. If it does pay off, then, in an ever-more crowded marketplace, it could be a game changer for all Free Range Filmmakers and their financiers.

My only stipulation to Mark was that the film was released on 27 th January 2023, Holocaust Remembrance Day, which it was on most channels, although Amazon only just made it with a few hours to spare. The release was not just in the USA, but in Canada and Australia as well. Many of the platforms Mark contacted wanted to support this important launch. Others did not.

The upside, which is considerable, is that the film is screened on a cornucopia of channels owned by some of the world’s largest and most efficient media organisations, almost all of which would never screen one of my films under any other scenario.

The only downside to date was that I was unable to secure much press for this type of release, as some of the American journalists I spoke to seemed to consider what I was doing a ‘fire sale’ that was unable to have any other form of release. Ironically, the best editorial feature was not in a US publication but in The Times of Israel, which came out two weeks before the launch and, as it turned out, is very widely read in the USA.

So far, the film’s total share of the revenue from all platforms is xxx from January-June.

Rights Boosters costs xxx,

Rights Booster fee xxx,

The net xxx.

This is the league table regarding financial returns, with the best at the top.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Since Rights Booster’s original offering, Quintus has also taken the film, but at the time of this article, they have not yet accounted.

The annoying thing is, and this will be a major concern for all producers of Free Range Films is that it took xxx months before I received a cent. Those platforms that will win this race will be those that account to rightsholders quickly.

(Then comment on how pleased/disappointed I am with the experiment so far).

As a helpful guide towards this new approach, I intend to supply further updates regarding GAWM’s income over the next year or so.

Another update to mention THE FIRST FILM an eight-year-old film never released in North America/ Canada/Australia and New Zealand.

Although for this particular film, the financial future is looking promising, there is the elephant in the room that everyone ignores when it comes to FAST/ AVOD channels; where is all the extra advertising revenue coming from?

As I am now embarking on a sequel to GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER(S), the interesting question I ask myself is, will I follow the same route to market or go down the age-old road of small advances in return for a higher profile, particularly in North America?

David Nicholas Wilkinson

© David Nicholas Wilkinson. 2023. All Rights Reserved.