"Is indy film dying" and other fables

Chase

Chase

Carbonite Member
The was a thread a short time ago about indy film dying.
I'm still chuckling over it.

For your reading pleasure...




"An Extraordinary Moment?
The Retreat of Warner Bros and others marks a New Era for Independent Film
By Bob Alexander
President, IndiePix



Over the last ten weeks, the independent film “industry” has been restructured before our eyes. Let’s take a look:

ThinkFilm, in a financial crisis having overpaid for films that it can’t make money on in distribution, sells its catalog to a Canadian investor/speculator.

New Line Cinema, respected for its having pioneered “edgy” films into the mass market, is closed by Warner Bros; 450 jobs in NY and LA lost.
Picturehouse, run by top indie film distributor Bob Berney, is closed by Warner Bros and titles folded into the studio.

Warner Independent, the so-called “independent” arm of Warner Bros managed by a former studio exec, Polly Cohen, is closed and folded into the studio.

Cablevision, owner of the IFC channel, successfully bids an estimated $500 million for the Sundance Channel, now controls all cable presentation of independent film.

Discovery Networks, after purchasing rights to and then declining to show “Taxi to the Dark Side“, is rumored to be closing its independent film activity and some fear for its support of the respected Silver Docs film festival.

IndiePix has been convinced that the traditional models of distribution, which barely work for the major studios, do not work — at all — in some scaled down version for independent film.

The economics of distributing films in theatres — with the extraordinary costs of theatre rental, newspaper advertising, and related distribution expenses — simply make theatres outmoded. Digital distribution of high quality images to theatres doesn't solve the problem: it's a drop in the financial bucket that will be barely noticed if at all.

So if theatres are not part of the distribution of independent film, the indie labels (like Think Film, Magnolia, and others) — not to mention the so-called “independent” divisions of the studios (like Fox Searchlight, Universal’s Focus Features, and Paramount Vantage) — don’t have any good ideas about what to do next. What do they think about how to match the vision and artistry of non-studio filmmakers with the audiences that demonstrably exist? It’s not that there is no demand for independent film. It’s that those who are entrusted with “distributing” don’t know how to reach that audience because their corporate organizations and structures are locked in to the physical structures and fixed economics of the last century.

The new technologies of the Internet era offer great new possibilities for the community of film fans. The flexible technologies of the 21st century make it possible for even larger audiences to enjoy more instances of the highest quality programming in the highest quality settings from the best filmmakers. The internet era of the 21st Century will not mimic the bygone studio era and deliver the occasional Gone With The Wind but will enable many talented filmmakers with many visions to be seen and heard in many parts of the world.

Filmmakers and film-lovers alike should be excited about the evolution of our industry. The frenzy surrounding social networking sites suggests what can happen to distribution and sponsorship without geographical and demographic boundaries. That kind of energy has rolled over well-established businesses in other sectors – newspapers, music, even some parts of the health industry – so it should not be surprising when those same forces combine to restructure the film business.

There will be a new era in independent filmmaking — an era in which the best films with the most amazing cinematography, seamless in their editing and storytelling, thrilling in their visions of the human experience, unlimited by geographical or cultural or language boundaries will find their audiences in every corner of the world.

The changing economics of theatrical exhibition have contrived to bring down the structures intended to hold films up for view. But the economics of the new technologies will — and are — creating new opportunities for new voices to reach new audiences.

It will be an extraordinary moment and IndiePix is committed to help make it happen."
 
Well if you think about it, the true independent era is over. Every "indie" film that goes mainstream was never really indie at all. Juno - praised for it's 'indieness' was shot on panavision and was studio backed before it ever hit the film fests. Sundance is no longer an independent film fest - almost every entry is backed already before it hits the gates.

There is no such thing as an independent film that has the potential of going mainstream. It is only labeled as such with newer actors, directors, odd-concepts, etc.

The only real indie film makers are the people who shoot with the prosumer cams and zero studio backing, hauling it on their own. Those are indie films.

And with theatrical distribution dropping, well - yeah - along with everything else in the US economy right now. And the influx of DVDs, internet pirated copies, what-have-you, and generally crappy film rolling out the door...all aligned with the terrible price of renting a 35mm print or a digital cinema print...it pushes costs up for the end consumer. And said consumer doesn't go to the movies. After-all, when you can stream Zohan or the newest title that you might want to see, but don't want to see in theaters online, for free, then why see it in the theater?

I don't think it's that independent film is dead, It is dead in the form we generally associate with indie film. Yes, the market is shifting. People say digital will take over the cinemas. (It won't, way too much money to upgrade and the studios certainly aren't helping the theaters any).

So the article is correct in the fact things are changing. Due to social networking sites like myspace? I don't think so. Most of the films that were great on myspace tanked when someone invested in the director (think Vendetta Films - can't remember the guys name) Fox gave him a shot at a show, and he blew it. Buried before it even got off the ground. Myspace is cool for people to see a film, so is youtube, but will it get you anywhere? Highly doubtful, especially in this economy.
 
"Well if you think about it, the true independent era is over"...

No, indy lives, the problem is simply greed. Every indy filmmaker wants to get rich [and] famous, so they make the great American crap.

A true indy filmmaker lives to make a movie, and see it on a screen larger than their TV. Go to Europe and tell me the independent film is dead.

"The only real indie film makers are the people who shoot with the prosumer cams and zero studio backing, hauling it on their own. Those are indie films".
With respect.. what a load.
 
How can that possibly be "with respect". If you are going to call me an idiot just do it. Don't go about it with saying "with respect" when there is none to be had.

Take a look into film history, or even market sharing. The true indie film market spawned when RKO, Warner's, Paramount, MGM, 20th century fox reigned up until the Paramount Decree...which successfully screwed over every single theater, even the ones that used to be owned by the studios. Take away block booking - cool. But then take away profit shares, and add exorbitant costs to rentals - not so cool. But it did kill the concept of vertical integration. So in theory, the market was more open than ever before.

Independent films are generally considered american films outside the auspices of the big 6 studios and their spawn.

Why do you consider European Cinema independent? The European market is totally different that that of the american system. It is no where even close to the same thing. (But wait! Pinewood studios! HAHA! ---too bad pinewood is only a production area. When no films are being made there - hardly anyone works there, and it doesn't actually fund anything)

European films are generally funded by the government. Actually nearly all major film movement in Europe and elsewhere are government funded. And those films are typically designed for export.

Film is a commodity. :)

German Expressionism, Italian neorealism, French New Wave (famed for its cinema verte style), Czechoslovak New Wave.

The sixth generation film makers in china adapted a run-and-gun style very similar to that of French Neorealism that no way resembled the fifth generation beautiful films. Again, mostly funded by the government for export.

Independent film really isn't in effect anywhere other than in the US with its major studio and subsidiary system. Even bollywood is generally funded by private sources.

Sure, I can shoot a film now and say it is an indie film. I mean, technically it is. Shot totally independent of the studio system. But what does it matter if there is no major distribution? There are most certainly different levels of independent film. Those that have coverage are generally joint-ventures. And labeled indie.

Those that shoot for online film fests, and smaller fest, are independent films as well. Though the films that fit in that category, or even those that want to"see it on a screen larger than their TV" most certainly do not fit in the same category as the article was geared for.

History and film study and theory make all of this a reality. When talking major independent film, it's dead. When talking people who shoot to shoot...it is far from it. There are levels, that article and my response was targeted at the traditional definition of indie film production and (key word) distribution.
 
John August wrote a great blog post about his recent experience with his independent film and Mark Gill's recent statements. In short, he kind of agrees with him, and would have done things differently if he knew what he knows now--

http://johnaugust.com/

Sundance, The Nines, and the death of independent film

A quote from Mark Gill in the LA Times last week would seem discouraging for independent filmmakers:

Of the 5,000 films submitted to Sundance each year — generally with budgets under $10 million — maybe 100 of them got a U.S. theatrical release three years ago. And it used to be that 20 of those would make money. Now maybe five do. That’s one-tenth of 1%. Put another way, if you decide to make a movie budgeted under $10 million on your own tomorrow, you have a 99.9% chance of failure.

There are lots of ways to criticize his logic. For starters, most Sundance movies are way under $10 million. Many are under a million. And he seems to omit a figure for how many indie films are getting a theatrical release now as opposed to three years ago.

We need to ask, “Failure for whom?” Even a movie that doesn’t earn its budget back will likely make money for its distributors, once you factor in video and TV sales. More crucially, a good indie film generates future work for its stars and filmmakers. So there’s a lot of success to be found in that 99.9% failure.

All that said, he’s kind of right.

I’ve held off writing a post-mortem on The Nines, but now that everything is said and done, I should probably say and do it. The short version is this: the movie turned out just the way I wanted. The release of the movie was deeply disappointing.

Here are the key lessons I learned from the release:
1. Sundance buzz is annoying and meaningless

The Nines premiered at Sundance in 2007. We were happy the film got in — we were by no means a lock, despite our cast, our credits, and my involvement with the Sundance screenwriters lab. We got a slot out of competition on a big screen on a good night. We got a sales agent. Things were looking good.

My first inkling that something was amiss was when our first choice of publicity teams watched the movie and passed on representing us. They didn’t love the movie. The publicity team we ultimately hired did love the movie, and worked their asses off for it. Yet that first “pass” should have clued us into the reality that the movie was polarizing, and that every subsequent step along the way would be determined by our champions and detractors.

We did Sundance the way you’re supposed to do Sundance, with all the press interviews and trudging up and down snowy streets. We kept running into the same movies doing the same song-and-dance, several of them represented by the team that first passed on us. It was all smiles, but every time I heard festival-goers discussing another movie, I got jealous — unless it was negative, in which case I got a little happier. That’s a natural instinct, I guess. Indiefreude.

Looking back through the coverage of the festival, The Nines was one of approximately 20 movies1 that got significant buzz — either spontaneous or self-generated — while up on the mountain. The others included:

1. The Signal
2. Chapter 27
3. The Good Night
4. Joshua
5. Teeth
6. The Ten
7. Waitress
8. Under the Same Moon (La Misma Luna)
9. How She Move
10. Son of Rambow
11. Once
12. Nanking
13. The King of Kong
14. Grace is Gone
15. Dedication
16. Clubland (aka Introducing the Dwights)
17. My Kid Could Paint That
18. King of California
19. In the Shadow of the Moon
20. Hounddog

All of these except Hounddog (the “Dakota Fanning Rape Movie”) sold, either while at Sundance or shortly thereafter.2 Let’s call these the Graduating Class of 2007.

I’d put The Nines in the middle of the buzz pack. It was hard to get a ticket, and they kept adding additional screenings. But after the debut, it was clear we weren’t going to be in a giant bidding situation. Other movies were selling quickly, and new titles kept debuting.

Eighteen months later, it’s fascinating to see how little the festival buzz mattered. Prices for these movies — a key component of buzz, as in, “Did you hear how much it sold for?” — were all over the board, from the low six-figures to $7 million for Son of Rambow.

But it made no difference. They all pretty much tanked.

Waitress sold quickly, was released quickly, and made the most by far at the box office ($19M).3 Second place was Under the Same Moon ($12.5M), followed by Once ($9M) and How She Move ($7M). Son of Rambow will likely end up in fifth. It’s currently in release, and made $8M overseas.

In terms of box office, none of these are hits in the way Little Miss Sunshine was. But you’d be happy being any of them, because beyond those five, the other movies on the list fell off a cliff. None of them made a million. In fact, most didn’t make it over $100,000. The Nines didn’t, despite opening well.

But at least we opened. At least we sold. For our year, 3,287 feature films were submitted to Sundance, of which 122 played. Roughly 20 played in theaters. 4

The other hundred films played other festivals, and ultimately hoped for a DVD deal. And maybe that’s not all bad. Because you know what?
2. Theatrical release is kinda bullshit.

Even while I was making The Nines, I knew that the vast majority of viewers would ultimately see it on the small screen. In that spirit, we worked to make the shiny disc version extra-rewarding, with commentaries and special features planned from day one.

But at the same time, we were anticipating theatrical. A lot of effort went in to making the 35mm prints — eight prints in all. We would have conference calls to discuss dates and markets and theaters, with special screenings for opening night and whatnot.

It was a fool’s errand.

It didn’t feel like it at the time, but the theatrical release was really a token, contractually-obligated gesture. We were getting our hand stamped before the DVD.

It was billed as a platform release, opening in just a few key markets before going wider. But from the distributor’s perspective, there was no reason to even consider expanding beyond New York, Los Angeles and Austin. Each new market meant more money they would have to spend on newspaper ads, and there was no incentive to do it. From a cost perspective, New York and Los Angeles gave enough national exposure to drive the DVD release, which was where they hoped to make their money.

The only problem was…
3. The DVD should have come out much sooner, maybe simultaneously

Because of Ryan’s relative star power, we were able to generate a ton of national publicity. He went on TRL and Conan and every other New York outlet you can think of. But making a college student in Iowa aware of a movie that will never play Des Moines is useless. He’ll forget about it in a week.

So the smart thing would have been keeping our New York and Los Angeles dates but having the DVD come out immediately.5 I know that invokes the stigma of straight-to-DVD, but if it means that potential viewers nationwide can actually see the movie, hooray.

The shortening DVD windows are a legitimate concern for mainstream Hollywood movies, but for indies, I don’t think it’s even worth serious objection. Arthouse theaters’ biggest competition isn’t DVD, but TV in general. The people who used to keep them in business are staying home to watch HBO and Bravo.

If I had an arthouse theater, I’d swap out a different movie every week, on the assumption that you can skim off the enthusiastic filmgoers — bolstered by fimmaker Q&A’s — and move on to the next batch. And that’s exactly what they do. As a result, The Nines and most of the other movies our graduating class played at theaters I wouldn’t normally frequent, often for only a week.

Putting out the DVD right away wouldn’t have cannibalized theatrical. There was no meat on the bones anyway.
4. I should have paid a lot more attention to foreign

By focusing on the U.S. release, I largely ignored the international markets until the Venice Film Festival, where we played in Critics’ Week. The smarter plan would have been going to Sundance with the intention of going to Berlin right after, followed by Cannes, followed by every other meaningful festival which invited us. 6 Given family and work commitments, there was a natural limit to how much I could have done. But a real first-time filmmaker could easily spend a year traveling with his movie.

We ended up getting a theatrical release in the UK, along with a pretty solid DVD. But the rest of Europe — Germany and France in particular — was left hanging. Even a good sale in Australia hasn’t led to release yet. Which is ridiculous, because…
5. Without an alternative, everyone will just pirate it

IMDb searches for The Nines peaked at #11 on January 20th, 2008 — two weeks before the DVD was released. That’s because it finally got leaked on BitTorrent. Suddenly, that college student in Iowa and that programmer in Arles could finally see the movie.

Let’s try a thought experiment: what if The Nines had leaked shortly before the theatrical release, say, August 19th? At that point, we were number 836 on IMDb, and that was during a concerted publicity campaign which would ultimately get us as high as 47 on the chart.

Would the leak have helped us or hurt us?

Given we were only playing in two cities in the world, I can’t think it would have hurt us much. And if there had been a legal and easy way to let people watch the movie — say, through iTunes — I think we could have capitalized on the attention. The pirated version was going to be available on or before the release of the DVD regardless, so one might as well benefit from it as much as possible.

To my thinking, leaking a decent-quality, watermarked version7 would have greatly increased the awareness and discussion of the movie, which could have paid off if the DVD and/or iTunes version were available shortly thereafter.
Should anyone bother making an indie film?

I know that a lot of this article comes off as a downer. The odds of getting your scrappy indie in front of paying audiences are pretty low, and the odds of really making money at it are subterranean.

But I stand by my earlier observation that there’s a lot of success to be found in that high failure rate. The Nines didn’t make a big splash, but it has a fair number of super-fans, including some filmmakers and critics. It has led to new opportunities for me and its stars, and a solid credit for the folks who worked on it.

Financially, the movie is a wash. I’ve never publicly stated its budget, but it was low enough that no one got hurt. And from the distributors’ perspective, the upside of undermarketing is that there’s not so much to earn back. For all parties, you can calculate the “opportunity costs” many different ways. I certainly could have made a lot more in my day job writing movies for other people, but in the long run, The Nines was probably more rewarding.

My advice? You should make an indie film to make a film. Period. Artistic and commercial success don’t correlate well, and at the moment, only the former is remotely within your control.

If I had to do it all over again, I would have made the same movie but completely rethought how it went out into the world. I would have challenged a lot of the standard operating procedures, which seem to be part of an indie world that no longer exists. The Nines would have likely made just as little at the box office, but could have made a bigger impact on a bigger audience. Ultimately, I think that’s how you need to measure the success of an indie film’s release: how many people saw it.
 
The John August piece was quite interesting. And the IndiePix one? Complete waste of time. Mr. Alexander used a lot of words to say exactly nothing. He told us the problem with the majors not knowing what to do about indie - OK, nothing new. So what's HIS solution? Errr... nothing. A lot of hand waving "blah, blah, blah, new technologies, internet, social networking, blah, blah". OK, the buzzwords are there - BUT HOW DOES IT WORK EXACTLY!? This he doesn't say. I say: total fraud. That's like saying: "traditional medicine failed to cure cancer. Listen up, we should be very excited because that means non-traditional medicine will cure cancer! Like herbs and things! Natural - yeah, that's the ticket! From nature, back to nature and non-synthetic! Yay!" - a bunch of buzzwords, but the cancer is still there bad as ever. In short: give the guy a hook - NEXT!
 
I'll assume Mattykins, as your attitude to the indy world is so negative and it's future is long dead, you don't shoot anything.

Can you please direct me to the source of your statement "European films are generally funded by the government....", as you state it quite definitively as fact.

With "respect".
 
My attitude towards the indie film market is based in history and film study. I shoot on my own, yes. For no other purpose than to do. Aside from that, every production I work on is generally funded in its entirety by a studio, or an affiliate of a parent company. I am not going to go through the books to prove this to you.

Judging by your attitude towards the film industry as a whole - you have no idea how the system works. With respect.

Take a look around the world and try and find a media conglomeration of studios like the US. The american film system is different than any where in the world. And our indie world spawned in opposition of that. As in the early days of film anything made outside the studio system would, most assuredly, not be shown on company owned screens. As most theaters were owned directly by RKO, Paramount, or any of the big six...screen distribution landed directly on the fact that the film, produced by the studio would be added on with their block booking.

Technically, the independent era spawned from the dawn of the Motion Pictures Patent Company. The MPPC was created in 1908 and was founded by almost every operating studio including Eastman Kodak. The MPPC had a nasty habit of filing suits and injunctions against independent films. The MPPC was killed by the supreme court shortly thereafter.

United Artists was perhaps the only operating "Independent" Studio in the Studio era. By 1940s UA was dead however.

The New Hollywood system (Post-paramount decree) was still studio run. Even though not on the forefront like pre-decree days. Even your fond Taxi Driver and Rocky Horror Picture Show, both screaming independent, both almost labeled as such...were based upon studio pitches and funded by studios.

Even today, the major "independent" studios, such as lions gate operate under co-financing.

However, truly independent films do exist. Like I said, there are different definitions of independent film. The article you pointed to describes a different view of independent film than you believe is independent film. Sure, people do shoot to see things on the DVXuser film fest or whatnot. All without studio backing, all funded independent of a studio system. And by definition of the word independent, is truly independent. Though not necessarily economically viable with hope of distribution by an independent film carrier.

Yes, you can put a film up on youtube or bittorrent and self distribute. But to make it to a wide release you are looking at needed the studio system. Thus taking away the independentness of the final product. If that makes any sense.

And actually, you might want to do some reading on the foreign film markets around the world. You findings might be interesting in the fact that their system is nothing like ours. And elsewhere around the world, films are funded by governments to help raise awareness of said countries films. It is not the only method of funding world wide, but most of the films that get tossed around do grab funding from government sources.
 
Independence and money don`t mix.
The more money (making) is in the game the more independence got lost.

Frank
 
I think the changing issue for many right now is funding. Yes, everyone with a digital camera these days can make a no budget indie, but that limits the type of film you can make. The funding sources that used to exist for a modestly budgeted independent film (1-15 million), are drying up, which means it becomes impossible to fund movies like The Usual Suspects...or Memento...films with a few stars, nice production value, and a crew that gets paid. Nobody wants to do every film on spec with the hopes of getting paid SOMEDAY. It's too much work and consumes too much time. People need to feed themselves and their families.
 
OldCorpse said:
The John August piece was quite interesting. And the IndiePix one? Complete waste of time. Mr. Alexander used a lot of words to say exactly nothing. He told us the problem with the majors not knowing what to do about indie - OK, nothing new. So what's HIS solution? Errr... nothing. A lot of hand waving "blah, blah, blah, new technologies, internet, social networking, blah, blah". OK, the buzzwords are there - BUT HOW DOES IT WORK EXACTLY!? This he doesn't say. I say: total fraud. That's like saying: "traditional medicine failed to cure cancer. Listen up, we should be very excited because that means non-traditional medicine will cure cancer! Like herbs and things! Natural - yeah, that's the ticket! From nature, back to nature and non-synthetic! Yay!" - a bunch of buzzwords, but the cancer is still there bad as ever. In short: give the guy a hook - NEXT!
Click to expand...
A lot of great thoughts in here, but I would like to rebut one point, and maybe Alexander doesn't make this so clear in his post:

IndiePix offers probably the highest revenue share in the industry, and has distribution deals with a major retail / rental groups, as well as its own digital distribution method (if you check out the site, they'll have a free DVD up for download) and online catalog. Adding in international and broadcast rights, the filmmakers make a healthy amount of money for little to no marketing cost.

THIS is the future model. Just like the filmmaking process, selling a title or getting it seen will reward the most dedicated people. Anyone who considers themselves an auteur (and there seem to be millions in independent film) should resign themselves to having to work to market it as well.

(A caveat, I work for IndiePix, and would love to stick out the conversation. I'm personally interested in both sides of the current debate, as I'm a filmmaker first and an employee second. If I were a shill, I'd have included a link to the website! :happy:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top