4 Comments
User's avatar
Maida Lynn's avatar

This is super fascinating and impressive! Thank you, Valerie, for your willingness to share and to Ami for a clear write-up. My one wonder is about the willingness to forgo revenue (no theatrical split, being ok with free screenings, etc) and if there is other income (like maybe grants and donations) supporting that work, or other monetization plans down the line. I'd love to see a future in which films are both/and (impact/revenue) as much as possible!

Ami Vora's avatar

Yes, thank you Valerie!

To clarify, she didn't forgo revenue. Re: theatrical, there is a box office split but Valerie is flexible on what that split is (e.g., it isn't always 50/50). Re: community screenings, these are also not free. There is a license fee based on org type and event capacity.

Rachel Feldman's avatar

Brava!! Bold and beautiful.

Courtney Daniels's avatar

To confirm, she did not four-wall the movie in theaters, right—theaters have elected to show the film (and they split the revenue with her)? Not worrying about cannibalization seems right to me, although I suppose you could argue that not making it easily available--i.e., streamable--‘forces’ people, in a good way, to look for a screening in their hometown.