Making the Movie Filmmaking tips, resources, reviews, news and links.

Selling a Film without a Name Actor

Jacki Weaver, unlikely star

I recently got an invitation to the premiere of a film trumpeting: Film X stars the son of Y (for Y read an older, vaguely familiar actor from the 70's) and the the step-son of Z (another older actress who was popular in the 90's) and some other actors you've never heard of with unimpressive television credits'. Film X may be great, for all I know, but their PR pitch is stretching so far it should've been written on spandex.

I can imagine why it was written this way. Film marketing often gets squeezed into templates, and selling a movie based on what stars are in it is the template of almost every successful Hollywood film. Movie marketers are so accustomed to selling films based on the cast that it becomes news when they don't (see the poster for Paul). This even makes sense given that the general public uses what actors are in a film as a general barometer of quality. And this probably isn't as shallow as it seems, given that actors who have appeared in hit films are more likely to get offers from more successful producers who also hire successful screenwriters and directors and are generally better-funded.

This rubric has filtered down into the indie world, which seems to have tiers based on the StarMeter ratings of the cast. A cursory survey will lead one to conclude that major film festivals favor movies that have "name actors" over unknowns. If you are ever faced with the choice, at a film festival, of seeing a film with a story that sounds intriguing but with no familiar cast vs. a movie with an actor you've heard of -- always choose the former! That film had to work much harder to earn a spot.

Which goes to my point. If you don't have a "name actor," don't copy the lazy marketing campaigns of films that do. All "name actors" were once unknowns. They became known through a 'stand-out' performance. Look at how Jacki Weaver's turn in Animal Kingdom helped put that film on the map and earn her an Oscar nod. If you have a great performance in a film by any actor, you should sell the 'discovery' or 'revelatory performance' angle and sell it hard.

How to know? If you're the filmmaker, you're probably too close to the material to know whether the acting performances are any good. But you'll hear from people what they liked about the movie. If the positive feedback you're getting about the film doesn't mention the acting, you may have dodged a bullet. After all, I know of no filmmakers who got into filmmaking just to direct actors. The acting is a means of telling a story. Not having performances worth talking about is a license sell your film based on the story, which is what audiences really end up connecting with anyway, not the cast, the cinematography, art direction, witty dialogue or anything else.

Independent filmmakers are passionate about the stories they are telling. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth all the struggle. The better you can communicate your passion, the better you can convince people to see it, and the less it should feel like "marketing" and more like fun.

So, PR people and filmmakers too low-budget to afford them, do yourselves a favor and keep the template flexible. Put yourself on the other side of the equation. Would you like to be bombarded with random names and a story description that sounds generic? Or would you rather be seduced by a description of a great movie-going experience?

Image: Promotional still from Animal Kingdom.

About J. Ott

John Ott is a writer, filmmaker and futurist. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.