I haven’t seen a cent out of Bran Nue Dae: Perkins
Director/producer Rachel Perkins revealed that she “has not seen a cent” out of Bran Nue Dae, the second highest grossing Australian film of 2010 ($7.7m).
“I’ve made more money out of my documentaries because of Screenrights. Bran Nue Dae has had 7.4m total viewings – that’s a quarter of the population, which is extraordinary. It’s done what it was supposed to do with the money we were given, but I haven’t made any money out of the film,” she said.
Speaking at the Beyond the Box Office forum in Sydney, Perkins discussed the audience shift from cinema to home viewing of films. She said that while films such as Bran Nue Dae were great cinema experiences made to be seen surrounded by a crowd, others are suited for more intimate viewing, but “ultimately, it’s about how people want to see [content], and you can’t determine that.”
Perkins said this change was also affecting the sorts of films she’ll make in the future: “I have to go for a 40+ crowd as my core audience, because they’re the ones going to our films. We’re losing the young crowd to the US, that really targets that demographic.”
Say RP should engage a good lawyer & forensic accountant – alternately go thru existing distribution contract – definately don’t make any more features until she does.
Stated view numbers – lack of return simply don’t make sense?
7.4 mill views (hits?) so far – where? This Global – local – combined?
What www platform – AUS dvd rentals sales via what outlet?
User ID not verified.
Bran Nue Dae is a case study in the Beyond the Box Office report.
According to the report:
Box office, $7.7m
FTA premiere on ABC1, 23/01/2011, national audience average 1.1m
Total audience viewings across cinema, video, online and TV = 7.4m
How does this continue to happen? I’ve seen lots of comments just like this by various local filmmakers who had great success at the box office but did not see any back-end profit. Is the system rigged against the film maker or is there something more sinister going on?
User ID not verified.
Maybe RP should just cut her losses and move on to the next. Perhaps focus on leaving important stories like BRAN NUE DAY alone instead of massacring them. As someone of aboriginal descent, I don’t believe Rachel was suited to direct the project simply because of the colour of her skin. She totally missed the point and sitting at the premiere, most of the old families from Broome who grew up with and were part of the story were highly embarrassed to see such a naff representation of Jimmy Chi’s masterpiece.
This isn’t hating on Rachel, RADIANCE still ranks as one of my favorite Australian films.
In essence, pandering to some sense of political correctness does not equate to honouring a good story, which is where the focus should be.
User ID not verified.
Rachel and her team created an excellent film. $6.5M is a reasonable cost of production.
The film would have needed to generate in excess of $30M from the global market and all ancillary sources to make a profit.
There’s no mystery to this.
If exhibitors and retailers take 50-70% and distributors take 30-60% plus prints and advertising and the sales agents hit up for their expenses plus another 30-60% then you can see where the bleed is.
For Independent film-makers, the traditional model does not yield a return. A model that sees direct distribution employing VOD hosted by the film-maker and merchandise sold direct to the fan base would be stronger. It is also likely given the current war between distributors and exhibitors that the film-maker could negotiate distribution direct with exhibitors using their social media fan base to advertise the film as an event that fills the cinema rather than having a general ad campaign that sees megaplex cinemas filled with 15 people per showing.
User ID not verified.
“no mystery to this”? Please enlighten us further?
An AUS feature with a $6.5M production cost needs to generate in excess of $30M in global sales to make a profit?
So what do we call the missing $22.5M – who gets that – what do they call it?
User ID not verified.
Another shocking story where the poor Producer has been screwed by a distributor (that would be Roadshow right?).
Why do we keep hearing these stories??
— did Rachel actually read her contract?
User ID not verified.
Rachel Perkins was not a producer in Bran Nue Dae… but quoting the head of the ADG, Ray Argall:
“There are several important reasons why Australia is not as attractive [for directors] as it could be. Directors would have more incentives to stay in Australia and be creative, if they had ownership, if they had secondary rights income from the work they do. A director can earn an income through the very strong agreements they can get in the US; in Europe it’s very good for directors in terms of what they receive not just as a fee, but the way they’re encouraged to be creative and continue working. In Australia, directors don’t get secondary rights income for the work they do, particularly with the enterprise model or the producer-driven model that’s current at Screen Australia. There’s a ‘disincentive’ for people who originate ideas and have to sign those rights over to production companies in order to have those films financed.”
M – what your implying is – right now in AUS creative writers are at the mercy of producers & directors?
User ID not verified.
I’m not implying anything. I’m saying that just because Rachel Perkins was not a producer on BND doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be expected to benefit from its success.
The Ray Argall quote talks about how Australian directors do not have any secondary income coming from the projects they’ve worked on, unlike their US and European counterparts.
Didn’t she know any of this before signing away rights? Who was advising her?
As for directors having secondary income streams – nice work if you can get it – personally think vast majority are over rated – given choice between excellent screenplay or excellent director – take former everytime.
User ID not verified.
@ David Steinhoff – awaiting enlightenment previous posting – re missing $22.5 M – who gets what – whats it called?
User ID not verified.
The nature of any business is profit. A common guide for a retailer for example, is the ‘3x’ rule. That is, if something costs you $10, then you should sell it for $30. This is because you will have costs and taxes associated with the sale (replacement of the goods, shop running costs, staff, super…. the list goes on). This also applies to film. Clearly the Director is not sharing in DVD revenues etc., but it is clear that IF the film had grossed $30m at the Box Office then she would have made some money. At the end of the day, Australia alone of not a big enough marketplace given the costs of making a feature. Unfortunately, the system of funding insists of ‘local’ content. this kills the local industry since if you get funding you have to make a film (albeit a agreat film) that non-Australians won’t likely watch. Can you see then packing the cinemas in New York to see Bran Nue Dae? We have 2 choices. 1 – make internationally viable films and improve our record of profiting from film sales. 2 – Make locally focussed projects and live in small houses. Jerry Bruckheimer said, “If I made films for the critics, or for someone else, I’d probably be living in some small Hollywood studio apartment.” In our case that someone else is the funding bodies. Incidentally, JB earns about $120 pa., so he should know. I think both Top Gun and Bran Nue Dae are valid and important films, but don’t complain if you choose to make a Bran Nue Dae and then find yourself broke. That is just naive. Beautiful, but naive.
User ID not verified.
Screenwriters get screwed right across the board. What incentive is there to be a screenwriter trying to make a go of it in this country? ZERO, why’s our industry suffering? lack of screenwriters and quality scripts…even if you do get a film up..you get screwed. You just pray that the film might work..and that the “creative team” of the Producer and Director might have half a brain…and some taste
User ID not verified.
Agree with Jerome. The rough estimate has always been that from every ticket sale 1/3 goes back to the actual production, the other two thirds is spent in distribution and exhibition.
So if Screen Australia/Screenwest put in for the $6mil odd budget and the film takes $7mil at box office, then technically the film only makes just over $2 mil which is still only $2mil of 6 as the 6 is the film cost not including distribution, marketing and exhibition, but the $7mil box office is TOTAL TAKINGS. Many productions are made under agreements whereby the investors or funding body are entitled to the films revenue to recover their investment, up until when it becomes profitable, at which point the terms of the crew deal come into effect.
If you want to turn a profit from film, I dunno, maybe make a product you can sell? Regardless of whether BND was artistically good or not, it wasn’t what a significant percentage of people wanted to see, despite having a fairly large marketing budget (for an aus film) it didn’t persuade people to spend the $17 to go see it. If australia continues to make films for festivals and critics, rather than public audiences, both australian and international, then we’ll continue to operate at a loss.
I imagine RP willingly signed on under that agreement in order to get the production made to the highest possible standard. She could’ve asked for a sum payment in her contract but I have known HODs who’ve waived their wage on funded productions to afford an extra day, a desired actor, or another lens.
User ID not verified.
@Mercedes Bends – in summary, the theatres take around 66% of the box office. The balance goes to the distributor. P&A still has to come out of that. The balance is split between the distributor and the producers, dependent on the deal they have made. This is a worldwide standard, and the reason that the push for alternative methods of distribution is so strong for indie films.
User ID not verified.
Mercedes Bends – The ‘missing’ $22.5m goes to the distributors and exhibitors. The film doesn’t make a profit as soon as it takes in more money than productions costs, because it needs to pay distributors to distribute, and theatres to show the film.
User ID not verified.
Don’t know about alternate methods for indie films – say mainstream needs a good look at? Thing in our favour is “times are a changin” – emergence of global www – developement of a more equitable production model would solve a lot of problems – never forget that old adage – “content is king”.
User ID not verified.
This is not unusual – When a Harry Potter film still makes a loss there’s little chance anyone can return a profit – http://www.deadline.com/2010/0.....ccounting/
It is quoted US Films need to make 4 times their budget and Australian films 6 times their budget in order to break even – http://www.crackingyarns.com.a.....reak-even/
With these numbers, it’s any wonder it’s difficult to find people to invest in films. We need to explore alternate models of financing and distribution.
User ID not verified.
Colloquially known as “creative accounting” – aka “smoke & mirrors”.
Somebody somewheres making a lot of money?
Whole system needs a complete overhaul – and we’are (creatives) just the people who can do it.
User ID not verified.
Come on Rachel, did you not even ask for a wage?
User ID not verified.