The Myth of Cheap Documentaries

Ever since those small, agile, and inexpensive 3-chip DV - and now HDV - cameras came on the market, production execs across the broadcast spectrum think producing quality documentary films has somehow become a significantly cheaper venture.

NOT!

Don't get me wrong, these have been empowering tools for docmakers regardless of experience level. And low-priced editing platforms like Final Cut Pro, AVID Express DV, and Adobe Premiere Pro have brought ideas to videotape that would never have seen the light of day just 10 years ago. But that's not what I'm getting at here. These tools are perfect to complete ultra-low-budget projects, but what about stories that require serious research, travel, an experienced writer and an experienced editor? Better yet, how about the staff being able to make a living? We're not in this to get rich, but can we at least afford to pay the mortgage and feed the kids? There are very few doc producers out there that are independently wealthy, but these days it's almost a requirement to stay in the game.

Rule of thumb has it that your above-the-line staff should be no more than 30% of the total production budget. OK. So when a cable network commissions a doc for $150,000, how do you pay yourself, an AP and PA? If you figure a modest 16-week production cycle where you, the AP and PA pull down around $4K/week in total, you're already in the hole. Is it really asking too much for the Producer/Director/Writer to earn at LEAST $2K/week for doing 3 job functions? I'd like to hear the DGA and WGA answer that question!

Then there's your camera crew. Yes, an actual camera crew. Let's face it, not everyone can frame a shot, light, and make those quirky little cameras put a pristine picture on the screen. And just because the DV/HDV camera is smaller and cheaper doesn't mean the lighting equipment and sound gear is. So you save a couple of hundred bucks a day for camera rental, but what does that do to the entire bottom line? If you shoot 15 days and save $200/day you'll reap a whopping $3K to the bottom line. BIG DEAL! If the camera crew is making $1,500 a DAY (and that's not even the top end crews), why is the rest of the creative staff asked to split 2 to 3 crew days worth of salary for a WEEK of work? And there are a LOT of 6 day weeks in that schedule. You know. You've all done them.

OK. Now you offline on FCP or its competitors, you're now paying about $1K to $1,500 per week for the room. But an editor worth her salt will cost you at least $2K per week. That's pretty much the same rates you were paying in a Media Composer room years ago. No savings there.

The Online is where the arguments start. Some argue that you can finish and deliver out of FCP, but some nets (like Nat Geo) still require uncompressed video throughout the program. If you use ANYTHING besides DV/HDV in your film, you'll need to bump up to whatever format is highest quality. I've seen programs that were shot on DV - but had HD, DigiBeta, and Beta SP elements - end up in a high-end AVID Nitris DS room for online and final output. Where's your savings now?

All else remains the same: travel (it still costs $1,200 for a non-stop flight from NY to Austin, and you're going to stay at that Comfort Inn, right?), music and graphics, recreations and archival footage (I'll talk about these down the road), office space, insurance and accounting. Let me know what I missed. You get the picture.

It seems to me that the inexpensive cameras and post platforms aren't where the big savings are coming from these days - it's the workforce.