NonDē Filmmakers Must Care About a Los Angeles County Budget Hearing, Part Two

This is Part Two. Part One is here: https://michaelrbarnard.substack.com/p/nonde-filmmakers-must-care-about

As the County of Los Angeles works toward establishing an “EVERGREEN FILM FUND” to invigorate LOW-BUDGET INDEPENDENT FILM production in “Hollywood,” and as those of us in the INDIE (“INDEPENDENT”) and the new community of NONDĒ (“NON-DEPENDENT”) film business also wrestle to define ourselves, here is the perennial question: WHAT IS A LOW-BUDGET INDEPENDENT FILM?

One delightful story comes out of 1964 in a Supreme Court case chasing down Louis Malle’s French film “Les Amants” (“The Lovers”). It was Jacobellis v. Ohio. Theater manager Jacobellis had been convicted in Ohio for obscenity for showing the movie.

Justice Potter Stewart’s concurring opinion was, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description … and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it … and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

That wonderful legal opinion was immediately reduced in popular conversation to, “I may not know what obscenity is, but I know it when I see it.”

I may not know what an independent movie is, but I know it when I see it.

I may not know what a low-budget movie is, but I know it when I see it.

Here are recent numbers; I think they are accurate but it’s complex stuff.

SAG-AFTRA has four definitions. $30,000 or less is “MICRO-BUDGET.” $300,000 or less is ULTRA LOW-BUDGET. $700,000 or less is MODERATE LOW-BUDGET. $2,000,000 or less is LOW-BUDGET.

But wait! There’s more!

Our brothers and sisters in other Hollywood guilds and unions think differently.

The Writers Guild of America has THREE categories; it has said $1,200,000 or less is LOW-BUDGET.

The Directors Guild of America has SEVEN categories; it has said $11,000,000 or less is LOW-BUDGET.

IATSE has many different definitions, but basically, it has said $9,000,000 or less is LOW-BUDGET.

FILM INDEPENDENT gives its John Cassavetes award to films with budgets under $1,000,000, but the eligibility for its Spirit Awards now says $30,000,000 is LOW-BUDGET.

The INDEPENDENT FILM & TELEVISION ALLIANCE (IFTA) doesn’t even try.

These numbers shift often, so go directly to the guilds and unions if you need accurate information.

So … when the County of Los Angeles considers this EVERGREEN FILM FUND and says $1,000,000 is LOW-BUDGET, that is not because “Hollywood” agrees on that number. Hollywood doesn’t have a clue other than, “I know it when I see it.”

The County of Los Angeles is trying to fill the specific gap created by the State of California. The State’s newly developed California Film & Television Tax Credit Program 4.0, administered by the California Film Commission, defines “Independent Film” as more than $1,000,000. Under that budget, filmmakers are not allowed to apply for the state incentive program. So, the County proposal dovetails with the State.

Three decades ago, when I was a member of the Los Angeles IFP (the Independent Feature Project, predecessor to Film Independent), then-chapter president Dawn Hudson asked me to find a way to define “Independent.” I diligently went to the Academy Library and elsewhere (no World Wide Web then, no A.I. then) and came back with the only answer: “I know it when I see it.”

The IFTA — the worldwide organization that produces the American Film Market (AFM) coming up in a few months and, thankfully, back in Los Angeles — defines INDEPENDENT FILM as: 1. Production: A movie production apart from major studios, that assumes more than 50% of the financial risk on its own; 2. Exploitation: the movie producers control its marketing and distribution in the majority of the world, and 3. Rely on distributors who commit to pay a Minimum Guarantee license fee.

“MINIMUM GUARANTEE”? The whole NonDē filmmaking community is built on the fact that MGs no longer exist in our world. So, ironically, we are too independent for the IFTA! But then, that is the business of their AFM: design an exciting poster that catches the eye of distributors from around the world and sign an MG.

When I was on Twitter — the good Twitter, where the indie film industry gathered and flourished during the down times of the 2010s — we fled it because it became MUSKified — one of the projects I chose, following up on my experience at the IFP, was to run a poll on Twitter of filmmakers there to define “INDEPENDENT FILM.”

The results were the same: “I know it when I see it.”

The poll responses ranged from “bleh” to passionate, from versions of “a studio made this film that feels like an independent” to versions of “anyone who sullies themselves with studio involvement is a fraud!”

Here is what we know can be said about the Los Angeles County proposal for an EVERGREEN FILM FUND to support the production of independent filmmaking: NO STUDIO CAN FUND A MOVIE OF UNDER $1,000,000 SO THEREFORE IT MUST BE INDEPENDENT.

There.

Solved the problem.

With that out of the way, how can the County help you and me?

In the November 20, 2025 “REPORT BACK ON MOTION BY SUPERVISORS KATHRYN BARGER AND LINDSEY P. HORVATH ADVANCING THE RESILIENCY OF THE FILM AND TELEVISON INDUSTRY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,” the report identifies the goal to “provide competitive seed funding for independent and/or low-budget film projects” as a purpose of the EVERGREEN FUND.

“Funding.” Not hard-to-chase, after-the-fact complex tax incentives or rebates — the kinds of efforts by cities, states, and countries which do not help low-budget independent filmmaking.

A dozen years ago, when we were in a similar situation with state government programs ignoring low-budget independent film, I wrote about the poverty of indie filmmaking in “Do Indies Deserve a Shot in California?” https://michaelrbarnard.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/do-indies-deserve-a-shot-in-california/

It turned out, the answer was a resounding “NO!”

Until right now.

WHAT CAN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DO TO HELP LOW-BUDGET FILMMAKING, BOTH INDIE (“INDEPENDENT”) AND THE NEW COMMUNITY OF NONDĒ (“NON-DEPENDENT”), IN “HOLLYWOOD”?

That’s the question I asked in Part One and ask again in Part Two.

Think about what is realistic for the County to consider. What would create a healthy environment in “Hollywood” for independent low-budget filmmaking?

If you live in Los Angeles, what would keep you in L.A. to shoot your film?

If you don’t live in Los Angeles, what would attract you to come to L.A. to shoot your film?

Everyone screams “FILM PERMITS!” as their first complaint.

“Expensive locations!” is a second complaint.

“Government agency fees!” is another complaint.

Guilds and unions make LOW-BUDGET concessions, and face it: if you want to shoot in Hollywood, it’s because of the people here, the actors, the crew, the creatives.

And the scenery.

And the gear.

We want you to shoot in L.A.

Help us figure out the best way to make that happen.

FRANCE is a better example than any of our competitive cities or other countries.

France takes its movies, and all of its culture, VERY SERIOUSLY.

France’s CNC support fund, the compte de soutien, is funded through taxes baked into the culture: a tax on movie theater tickets, a tax on TV broadcasting revenue, a tax on home video publishers, a tax on VoD, etc. French policy is “le cinéma finance le cinéma” (cinema finances cinema). It is a standing levy, not a budget line that competes with roads and law enforcement and utilities.

As of yet, in Los Angeles County, there is no money in a bucket.

France uses two paths: automatic proportional payouts based on a producer’s track record, and selective support. The avance sur recette (Advance on Receipts) was created in 1960 to encourage new films and new filmmakers with an advance to be repaid from box office receipts above a certain threshold. Successful films contribute back to the fund.

France does not operate only at the national level. The CNC makes multiyear agreements with regional governments that each commit funds into a shared local pool specifically to support what we consider “indie filmmakers” and to encourage emerging talent, a goal also included in the EVERGREEN FILM FUND.

France also has funds for private investment vehicles through which individuals can invest in film and TV production and receive an income tax deduction. The U.S. and French tax structures are very, very different, but the concept might be workable in “Hollywood” — and seems to be what the EVERGREEN FILM FUND’s authors, Horvath and Barger, are exploring with a “public-private model.”

1. Criteria-based grants for filmmaking that meets objective standards

2. Recoupable advances from successful projects to contribute back to the fund

3. Matching arrangements with existing agencies, commissions, philanthropic organizations.

Next up in PART THREE: THERE ARE POLITICS!

What are YOUR thoughts?