SFIFF. State of Cinema.

In retrospect, Sunday was a fascinating day at SFIFF for thinking about the future of cinema. The AM hours saw a gathering of independent filmmakers and online distributors for one of SFIFF's "Free Education Panels," this one suffering under the laborious title, "New Distribution Platforms: Opportunities for the Independent Filmmaker." In all honesty, it's a fascinating field, one in which GreenCine itself is heavily involved. The first thing I noticed was the "new" distribution agents' striking physical similarity to the old guard; the six panelists were all white men. Represented were Akimbo, TiVo, IFILM, Movielink, Underground Film and, speaking for independent filmmakers, the form of the wonderfully articulate Jon Else.

This is all code for Video-on-Demand, the process whereby viewers download or stream media from the Internet to either their computer or television. Subscription services will inevitably become an alternative to cable TV. It was, at times, an uneasy grouping of competitors, none really knowing (but all betting on) the future direction of Internet distribution. Akimbo's set top box demonstration was impressive, and there was some unease on TiVo's side, considering that their move into the Video-on-Demand market has been glacial. They have formed a partnership with Netflix, who happen to be suffering from the same speed deficiencies.

Movielink is the studios' answer to VOD. They're trying to get in early so as to keep ahead of things in a way that the music industry didn't. It is the goliath of this field because it offers big studio blockbusters. In reality, it purchases the rights to all of its "independent" content from cable channels like Sundance.

There were a few pointed questions from the audience about payment of royalties, a very important issue. GreenCine (and hence, Akimbo) gives a percentage of every rental directly to the filmmaker. IFILM and Underground Film were put in a bit of a spot about their continued lack of payment. According to co-attendee Jonathan Marlow, they're both stuck in a circa-1998 business model. Short films for free on a website might be good for exposure but ultimately no one gets paid. It doesn't have to be that way anymore. IFILM pointed out (a tad defensively) that no one's forcing filmmakers to submit their films, and Underground Film countered that they're a non-profit that tries to funnel viewers onto the filmmakers' own website for paid Video-on-Demand.

There was also much discussion of Google's recent announcement that they will be providing free searchable video hosting. This may mean that filmmakers will be able to post their own films, enabling them to take all of the rental revenues. Others were quick to point out that collecting quality content together, grouping by popularity, critical success or genre, will be essential in dealing with the coming indiscriminatory media tsunami.

What was stressed throughout is that, while this new model may be incredibly helpful to independent filmmakers, they should be proactive in creating the new structure. Theoretically, it will create the ultimate capitalist system in which you only get paid if someone watches your film. Hopefully, this system won't completely destroy the chances of filmmakers to get paid for small but important niche films (read: films with no market), particularly documentaries.

Another consequence of this movement is the continued marginalization of movie theaters. In his "State of Cinema" address, Brad Bird stipulated that in the future all small films will be released simultaneously online and in the cinema, where they'll experience only a limited run, if they manage to get one at all. The "State of Cinema" address is unique to SFIFF. It is essentially a forum for a film notable to rant and Brad Bird, director and Academy Award-winner for The Incredibles, ranted in a charming and captivating manner. What clearly came through was his absolute undying enchantment with the ritual of cinema.

Essentially a dry explanation of the studios' and exhibitors' massacre of the cinema-going experience, Bird chose an alternative title, "A Bunch of Stuff I Think About Movies." His central thesis stipulated that one essential thing is now missing from movies: genuine showmanship. Going to the movies should still be an event. There should be lines, and people in costumes, overtures, souvenir programs and a real curtain. He began his speech by reminiscing about memorable movie-going experiences of his own - girls screaming at A Hard Day's Night, people cheering at lines in Casablanca and the spontaneous post-credit applause on opening day of the then-unknown Star Wars.

Several specific changes have led to this slide, and Bird came up with several co-responding solutions.

1. Stop printing box office receipts. This turns the whole thing into a race and perpetuates the carpet-bombing ad campaigns for blind opening weekend dollars, which exist so that the studios can make their money back on a film immediately, before everyone finds out how terrible it is. Also, if people see that a film has done well on its opening weekend, they're more likely to go see it, regardless.

2. Studios should dump their MBAs. Instead, they should be hiring enthusiasts with instinct (showmen).

3. Change some exhibition laws. Allow studios to own movie theaters again. Alter the law requiring theaters that hold 300 or more seats to make every single seat wheelchair accessible. Exhibitors currently screen opening-weekend movies in a variety of differently-sized theaters, which makes it possible for an audience member to slip in to, say, The Incredibles (shot with extreme intent in Cinemascope) in the smallest of the multiplex's theaters, without knowing it. In Bird's mind, opening weekend should be an event for a film, and it is only fair to then show it on a big, big screen.

4. Get rid of pre-film ads and tighten up screening conditions in general. Here, he also touched on neighborhood rescue plans for local single-screen movie palaces. Exhibitors are responsible for the extended TV ad reel before films begin, and for shamelessly pushing concessions. Revenues are greater, of course, if the venue has lots of little screens instead of a couple of big ones. Exhibitors are also known to employ cost-saving measures such as projecting with the bulb at half-light, playing damaged prints and leaving the gate open to accommodate threading a film through several projectors, which throws the image out of focus. Bird believes that if the studios owned their own cinemas, it would be in their best interests to make their films look as good as possible.

Ultimately, profit-generating DVDs and the dropping costs of high-end home cinemas are making Bird's dream for the future ever more elusive (and essential). In his experience, there is often a feeling on the film set, coming from the studios, that the theatrical release is really just a glorified advertisement for the DVD. If going to the cinema thrilled again, it might just counter this drift.

He chose to end his speech by stressing one important point. Re-creating the magic of the movie-going experience is essential. But most importantly, we need to ensure that movies still get made. Period. New directions in distribution may make that possible, or almost destroy it. If you can see anything, anywhere at any time for cheap, will real movies die?

/dwh

Posted by cphillips at April 29, 2005 3:32 PM