I arrived for the end of the “Pitch Yourself:Strategic Pitching” panel to hear a filmmaking duo interacting with the excitement of a couple of teens, pitching their “satanic pizza pie” slasher movie to a panel of four. Their hilarious smart/dumb tangent exposed an entertaining dynamic which unfortunately only yielded a “don’t chew gum when pitching” response from the panel of bemused experts. Certainly Delivery Death should have been snapped up because of the unique banter between these two; they sold it to me and most of the rest of the auditorium. This thought led tidily into the next workshop.

The “Am I A Filmmaker Or A Brand?” panel was supposed to involve a “cage match” between filmmaker Jon Reiss and Michelle Satter from Sundance, with Mike Tully of Hammer to Nail acting as mediator. Tully’s reminders that the match contestants should not agree with each other were ignored. Reiss took the position of pro-brand, as a means of selling a film whereas Satter took the pro-filmmaker/artist position. If I was expecting a heated debate I would have been disappointed, thankfully I arrived sans such an expectation.

Reiss was adamant that the brand need not be the artist’s nemesis. He made it clear that one can create a brand out of artistry. Much to Tully’s dismay, Satter agreed with Reiss. She suggested that marketing can be an art form in itself for some and that this necessary evil could be undertaken by an outside party with the involvement of the filmmaker for the sake of authenticity of vision, the connection between creator and film being an essential part of the marketing process.

Reiss’ reminder that filmmakers must remember they are “not reinventing the wheel every time they make a film” served as an anecdotal reinforcement of the point that selling your film is not necessarily selling-out and that even the most “indie, punk rock, D.I.Y.” filmmakers have to make a living.

It seemed as though reinventing the connotations surrounding marketing was something that was on everyone’s agenda. Both cage match contestants agreed (again) that a consistent vision and a sense of identity grounded into the work creates the brand. Satter warned of the risk of not being involved in defining yourself as a brand – others may send the wrong message on your behalf. Using Banksy as an example of the artist as brand when releasing his film, Exit Through The Gift Shop underlined the importance of marketing yourself, the auteur, and your vision as an integral part of the work a filmmaker does. Banksy spent ten years fine tuning his image so when it came to marketing his film most of the work was done and he has managed to retain his identity in the process.

The subject of transmedia didn’t kickstart the cage match either, with Tully attempting to act as devil’s advocate while both sides AGREED that moving an original work beyond its original state into other realms such as theatre; mobile applications; graphic novels or computer games could be artistic opportunities in their own right and a way to connect with a participating audience. 

In conclusion, what I gather is that it is still possible to create something original and connect ideas with an audience of a few or a billion without getting into bed with the establishment or losing the essence of your art.

Marketing yourself, although not necessarily an art form it seems, can be an essential tool to moving beyond the idea of starving for your artistic principles.

So, am I a filmmaker or a brand? You can strive to be both as long as you don’t lose sight of your original vision. Dip your toe in, if you find you’re not wired that way, then find someone who is and take some advice from Jon Reiss: “Get over it.” 

By Fiona Garvan