May 26, 2008

They didn't build their sales model for you.

Jonathan Marlow has a few words for independent filmmakers about the rapidly evolving distribution system. Updated through 5/27 with a couple of pointers below.

Festival

When Graham Leggat announced Barry Jenkins's remarkable Medicine for Melancholy as the Audience Award co-winner at the closing night of the San Francisco International Film Festival a few weeks back, he noted (to paraphrase) that MfM would likely be opening soon at a theater-near-you. While such a development is obviously the writer/director's desired outcome (and this is not speculation - I asked him that very question the night before), how likely will it come to pass? Since the beginning of the independent "common era" (circa 1989), the traditional Grail-quest of acquisition-derived-from-festival-screenings was a relative uncertainty. Now, nearly 30 years later, such good fortunes are approaching the level of impossibility.

The festival circuit has instead become an ersatz distribution system unto itself that, for the most part, keeps money away from the makers. The ten or 20 dollars you spend on a ticket (or the $50 to $500 you spend on a pass) rarely finds its way into the hands of the folks behind the camera. For all of those folks that were frustrated by the late-1990s business model of mere exposure-driven outcomes, these same folks generally have little complaint when festivals routinely screw them the same way. If you're going to prostitute yourself and your work, wouldn't you want to at least be treated with a little respect? To stretch the analogy, isn't the distance between "street-walker" and "call girl" really a matter perspective?

Whether you're a filmmaker or a filmgoer, I'll let you in on a little secret that might guide you. The enjoyment to be found at a film festival is generally counter-proportional to the number of films in the event. Take the Independent Film Festival of Boston (where I met the aforementioned Mr Jenkins - indeed, I had to travel to the opposite coast to be introduced to a fellow from my own neighborhood). Seven days of screenings (two of those evenings with only one film each) and yet more attention is given (and risks taken) with its programming than most longer-in-the-tooth festivals. Works such as the Zellners' Goliath and new documentaries (such as Nerdcore Rising and Wild Blue Yonder, a film about David Maysles by his daughter) screen alongside recent features by Werner Herzog and Guy Maddin. IFFB is rapidly becoming the SXSW of the East (itself, despite its full-week schedule, an essentially half-a-week affair). We'll see if a Dentler-less SX continues along its ascendant path. In the able hands of Janet Pierson, I would certainly presume that it will.

Festival

If you're still skeptical about this less-is-more notion, take Telluride - one of the shortest and most selective festivals in the world and arguably the greatest event of its kind in the Americas. Telluride is the festival against which all others should be judged. What these events share, overall, is a distinct love of cinema as opposed to the all-too-common alternative - a celebrity showcase.

The exception that proves the rule here is the Seattle International Film Festival. SIFF is merely so damn extensive and exhaustive that several dozen good (and occasionally a few great) films are bound to slip through. It also says something about the monoculture of Seattle that a three-and-a-half week/roughly 300-film festival could even work. Note the distinction here between regional festivals and market festivals - Sundance (which is unbearable by any standard), Berlin, Cannes, Toronto and the symbiotic relationship between AFM and the AFI Fest. They're all reasonable places to screen your work since acquisitions happen with some frequency at each, albeit less and less often these days. I have also intentionally failed to address the large events where the festival essentially takes over a city during its run. Rotterdam, Pordenone, Bologna, Morelia - less "regional events" than "specialty fests."

Regardless, I digress. We were talking about distribution.

These concerns, however, overlap. If the proverbial theatrical release is elusive and the video business is flat or in decline (depending on which statistic you tend to support), what else is there to expect out of the proverbial festival tour beyond the face-to-face that filmmakers get with their audience? The undercurrent of a point from these words is that if you're traveling to a festival, you might as well enjoy the experience when you get there. Any other expectation misguided at best.

I Wake Up Screening If John Anderson and Laura Kim's I Wake Up Screening (a recommended text about the movie business) is to be believed, good films will naturally find their respective (and appreciative) audiences. Do they really? After a brief festival tour in 2006, The Fall was acquired by Roadside Attractions. If you happen to live in Los Angeles or New York (or, thanks to SIFF, Seattle, where it screened this weekend), you can catch this Wizard of Oz-by-way-of-Roald-Dahl (as if directed by a post-MTV-age Sergei Paradjanov) in the theater, where admittedly it shows off its best assets. If you live elsewhere, tough luck (at least for now - it expands to a few more cities next Friday). It isn't as if I blame Roadside for the limited release; quite the contrary. I'm delighted that they've released the film at all. Roadside's initial two-city launch plan is a reflection of reality (and, for so called "smaller" films, the norm). It is prohibitively expensive to open a movie wide these days and particularly difficult to break out a largely unknown title from the pack.

Then again, it's also difficult even with a known title. Ask the team at Warner Bros about their "sure thing," Speed Racer - there are no certainties in this business. It's tough to open just about any movie (unless it's a sequel to a franchise and, even then, there are no guarantees). After its first week of release, The Fall grossed $117K (on, I believe, nine screens). How much did the critically celebrated Mutual Appreciation gross, by comparison? $104K for its entire domestic run. How about Aaron Katz's latest, Quiet City, to which Medicine for Melancholy bears a passing resemblance (although, to be honest, their filmmaking sensibilities are less like each other and more resemble the efforts of late-1960s/early-1970s Eric Rohmer, Jean Eustache, Maurice Pialat and François Truffaut)? No theatrical, except for a few isolated screenings here and there, for total Quiet City revenues of $16K over five weeks. Documentaries, on those rare occasions when they get a nation-wide theatrical release, are not immune to disenchanting results, either. Aaron Woolf's King Corn, distributed by Balcony Releasing, generated just under $100K at the box office. The Oscar®-nominated Iraq in Fragments? Roughly twice that figure. If these limited fortunes are the expected fate for best independent films being made and/or released in this country, what hope is there?

Under these circumstances, why are filmmakers still holding out for the legendary promise of a theatrical release? When the likelihood of success for films made on spec (that is, a film made with private money on the hopes of selling it to an established studio or distributor) approaches the same statistics as the chances of winning the lottery, why do so many filmmakers persist? Why do they essentially follow the same established patterns? Why, for instance, are otherwise intelligent people still playing by the studio rules? The whole (to oversimplify) festival-circuit-followed-by-theatrical-release-followed-by-video-debut-followed-by-television-sale - the notion of cascading windows of availability - was created to benefit the multiple-sales cycle of the studios, in essence carving out different periods of time to sell the same "product" again and again. Conversely, this process rarely benefits independent filmmakers at all. For just-starting-out directors, playing by these tired rules generally does more harm than good. Don't expect to hear this angle from the old hands of the business because they've often bought in to the basic storyline.

Movie theater Take this simple hypothetical. Say you're fortunate enough to receive a positive review of your film in the New York Times (which is read by more people outside of New York than in it). If someone in Chicago or Austin or San Francisco or Dubuque reads this review, they might very well be compelled to see the film. But they can't. When (or, more likely, if) it finally rolls around to their neighborhood, how probable is it that they'll remember many months later that anecdotal review? They've moved on to something else.

Fortunately, there are a few companies working to bring these exceptional films to their potential audience(s). Benten Films has taken to releasing DVDs by the aforementioned Katz, Todd Rohal and others in beautiful packages. Heretic Films is doing the same with similar festival favorites (and, not coincidently, they've both released films by Joe Swanberg - LOL and Kissing on the Mouth, respectively). Microcinema International continues to locate forgotten gems for their remarkable catalogue of titles. Others have moved the notion of the film festival into the online landscape. IndieFlix's MyFestival and the forthcoming From Here to Awesome are doing their part to reach viewers with the latest-and-possibly-greatest. That stated, festivals and DVD releases are only one part of this process - these efforts absolutely have to be done in tandem with some form of digital distribution (of which all-of-the-above are involved).

Granted, I have my own bias about where this is all headed. There are fortunately several companies now distributing movies-that-have-skipped-the-prescribed-steps directly into the living room. If we can't find an audience in their own home, can we expect to find them anywhere?

Of course, the obstacles to making a good film are not quite Sisyphean. These obstacles are surmountable. Resolving (or at least making steps toward resolving) the distribution problem is similarly difficult but doable. I'll leave it to an expert in marketing to address the final piece to this puzzle - answering, "Why should I care about this movie?" Making the film is one thing. Getting it out there is another. Giving an audience a reason to watch? Something else altogether. It is definitely something that the filmmakers and distributors of today (and tomorrow) should be prepared to figure out.

-Jonathan Marlow

Updates: A couple of related notes:

Update, 5/27: "dGenerate Films is a venture spearheaded by my good friend and indie producer extraordinaire Karin Chien," announces Kevin Lee. "Last year through some resourceful linking among her extensive network of contacts, she was able to bring together an impressive group of collaborators, funders, filmmakers, resource providers and general supporters for a common goal: to bring the real life visions of contemporary independent and underground cinema from China into the spotlight. By partnering with the Tribeca Film Institute and Amazon.com's new digital delivery platform Reframe, dGenerate will distribute previously undistributed media from China via on-demand DVD and download. We are set to launch this summer with a dozen or so titles that we think represents the most aesthetically cutting edge and socially incisive work that American audiences have yet to see."



Bookmark and Share

Posted by dwhudson at May 26, 2008 12:52 PM

Comments

I don't know whether to shout, "Hallelujah! I hear you, brutha!" or slash my wrists. Either way, a remarkable editorial which warrants another readthrough. Right now.

Posted by: Maya at May 26, 2008 1:17 PM

excellent read. thank you!

Posted by: steve at May 26, 2008 6:07 PM

Anyone who lives outside of NY or LA knows that the only way to see a good movie is on DVD. The trouble is getting a film financed when a DVD release is what you're looking for.

I think you're right, though. Things are changing. This model of theatrical is totally outdated. The NYT needs to start reviewing DVD's in the same way they have a book review. DVD costs have to come down a lot, and films are going to have to cost less.

Posted by: George at May 27, 2008 5:02 AM

Bravo! Encouraging but still daunting for filmmakers like myself...

Posted by: The Obenson Report at May 27, 2008 9:16 AM

Many thanks for the exceptionally kind comments! Admittedly, I wasn't quite certain how folks might react to my pugnacious return to the soapbox...

With the shuttering of New Line, Warner Independent and Picturehouse in the last few weeks, the limited opportunities for shot-on-spec titles have become even more limited. That stated, it was never my intention to be pessimistic. I see this as a period of great opportunity. With Cinetic Media and the Global Film Initiative (along with other like-minded organizations) providing new distribution avenues for independent and international films, I wager that the ability to get your film seen is better than ever before. Getting paid a reasonable amount for your work, however, still remains a challenge.

The problem won't be solved overnight. The sole reason that I agreed to accept an offer from VUDU (rather than putter about in my garden after the sale of GreenCine) was that I figured there was still some good that I could do in this area. I suspect it's the same reason that ultimately convinced Matt Dentler to head over to Cinetic. I've seen far too many good films that've failed to evolve past the brutal festival circuit (and plenty more with a stack of rejection notices that eventually forced the director to return their film to the proverbial shelf). If, in some minor (or perhaps significant) way, I can help these filmmakers find an audience, it'll all be worthwhile.

At least that's what I tell myself every morning.

Posted by: Jonathan Marlow at May 27, 2008 7:21 PM

A tremendous essay, Jonathan, and one that hits close to home in a few different manners. As a producer, I'd argue you've got a history of innovators out there in the community -- as the Cinderella story of acquisition becomes less attractive, it makes the roles of producers (especially their role AFTER edit has wrapped) all the more critical. Never in the history of independent filmmaking has the information, experience, and war stories of so many independents been available for other filmmakers to study. It's time for us as producers to start assembling those case studies, and people like Lance Weiler have already set up ways to make that happen.

From the point of view of an advocate of American independent filmmaking, though, I'm not sure we need to do much teeth gnashing. Much of this writing has been on the wall since the "screener ban" debacle of a few years ago, where the lines between studio, indiewood and independent were cast in stark relief. It's indiewood system that is in trouble here, and that's just a fraction (although an important fraction) of the independent economy.

The technologist in me though? Elated. Thrilled. Daunted. In 1998, I was part of a panel about how filmmakers could use this new thing called the Web. I had to keep advising that what they wanted the Web to do most -- to disintermediate traditional distribution -- was at least a decade away. In 2007 at a Cluetrain panel at SXSW, Doc Searles shocked the crap out of me by predicting that the next seven years of post-Cluetrain would create "a film-making explosion with a trend towards independence, completing the enlightenment which was interrupted by the industrial revolution." We can debate whether or not Doc knows a thing about independent filmmaking, but it is becoming a post-YouTube-viewpoint among technologists, a viewpoint that would take an entire generation of independents to make a dent at in seven years.

I could make the argument we're past the low point of the curve and ready for the new digitally-enabled explosion of American independence, but the fair critique would be I'm too passionate an advocate to be able to bring myself to gnash my teeth properly (just like I didn't gnash my teeth at the screener ban or the WGA strike.)

These kinds of conversations though, Jonathan, are the alternate to teeth gnashing, and we need to be having more of them.

Posted by: Brian Clark at May 28, 2008 6:47 AM

One question: have we now gotten to the point where full-digital is completely assumed? There *are* non-economic benefits to the grueling festival model, to say nothing of the upside-down distribution structure, and they are worth acknowledging. In a full-digital structure, a film artist working with the specific aesthetic properties of celluloid, or for that matter the properties of a digital-to-celluloid transfer process, would not have the chance to realize his or her vision before even the tiniest audience. On an aesthetic level, one might think of it as striving to achieve some Platonic ideal *before* all the inevitable compromises (knowing full well that 99.9% of whatever audience you have will see your film on DVD or download). Granted, this "problem" (concern with aesthetics period, much less the 19th century holdover aesthetics of celluloid) is becoming the concern of fewer and fewer artists, and most filmmakers are more interested in other things, above all communicating with a prospective audience. But I felt like someone should throw in a word for the Luddite paupers out there.

Posted by: msic at May 28, 2008 7:34 AM

Lots of people check out indie films at festivals, so, that's a positive starting point; people are willing to pay money & give time to watching indie movies in a theater type setting under certain condtitons/at festivals.

Groups of indie filmmakers could work together to create new festivals; ones where some of the ticket sales $s can go to the filmmakers.

Another production/distribution option is to approach indie filmmaking & distribution not from a Hollywood or indiewood model, but from an independent music model; the artists make the work, tour & bring the work to audiences at whatever venues (clubs, theaters, etc.), and a home version of the work (DVD in the indie film case) gets sold through outlets available to the artists.

As television has failed to end the movie theater going habit, thankfully, I don't think the web will put movie theaters out of business either. So indie filmmakers can look forward to solving the "getting the movie to theaters & making money from it" puzzle for decades to come. However, internet VOD, cable VOD, etc. is already a revenue stream for some indie films (those in IFC In Theaters program, etc.), also any films that might get included in iTunes type sites.

Some indiewood companies shutting down is really no big problem for real indie filmmakers, because most likely our "no budget, no star" films were never going to be picked up & distributed by those companies anyway.

In general, this seems to be a very good time to be an indie filmmaker; cost of production is lower than ever, lots of interest in film festivals, and the web is hopping with indie film blogs & sites & other gathering places.

- Sujewa

Posted by: Sujewa Ekanayake at May 28, 2008 10:36 AM

Michael,
Financial and technological limitations are always in flux; as these difficulties shift, some find it easier to approach their Platonic ideals, others less so. Art is what's made within limits.

I don't find Platonic-ideal aesthetics particularly appealing, mainly because I'm skeptical of both idealism and Idealism; "vision" similarly seems a Romantic ideal that separates art from techne and turns it into a form of expression. If revelation is the goal of art (in the sense of Heidegger's 'uncovering'), then it seems that it's a matter of understanding how to work within the limits you're given, no?

I say this as a Luddite who loves the properties of film but not the attendant logistic and financial difficulties...

Posted by: Dave McDougall at May 28, 2008 11:02 AM

Hi Jonathan,

Inspired in part by your post, I am going to try to help create a filmmaker group show type festival (current debut date target - summer 2009 in NYC) where filmmakers get money from tix sales to the event, can sell DVDs, etc. check out the blog post about it at URL below & let me know if you want to help create the event:

http://diyfilmmaker.blogspot.com/2008/05/lets-try-creating-filmmaker-group-show.html

- Sujewa

Posted by: Sujewa Ekanayake at May 29, 2008 1:35 PM

Negin here - I directed Nerdcore Rising that was briefly mentioned above. I'm not delusional about my prospects, I know what's up. But, I do have to say that what really sucks about this new climate is that filmmakers are now forced not only to make the dumb films but to be savvy business folk at the same time. It wasn't enough that I learned how to operate a camera, that I learned how to edit, that I shot 400 hours of footage, that I had to deal with all the performances releases, with all the music rights, with the color-correcting, the up-converting, the general technical awesome-ifying of a feature length film for nearly THREE YEARS... no no, none of that was enough because now the forces are telling me that i might have to generate my own audience, that i might have to find my own theatres, that i might have to manufacture my own dvd's, and that i might have to launch my own PR campaign, etc. etc. Someone once said (who? I can't remember) that specialization is the bread and butter of economic efficiency but this filmmaker-of-all-trades model we're working towards, is antithetical to efficiency. Maybe in the future we'll all kinda be good at a lot of stuff but not really really good at anything... I mean, wouldn't it be awful if we all got really good at getting audiences but none of us could actually make a film worth watching? well... that's apocolyptic visionary in me talking... either way, I just wanted to make that little mention.

Posted by: negin at May 30, 2008 11:06 PM

Negin,

Re: "what really sucks about this new climate is that filmmakers are now forced not only to make the dumb films but to be savvy business folk at the same time."

I think this was always the case. The filmmakers to whom the old system of indie production & studio distribution worked out - such as Spike Lee, Jim Jarmusch, Greg Araki, Kevin Smith were totally into the business side of things (or knew enough about it to avoid some pitfalls & work around some otherwise limiting issues) - and were able to work out unique arrangements for their films & careers because they were into that side of the biz as well as the filmmaking side. At least that is what I see when I look at the available records for how many indie films/careers benefitted from the old indie system.

- Sujewa

Posted by: Sujewa Ekanayake at June 1, 2008 9:21 PM

The conversation continues here:
An Open Reply

Posted by: Dimensions of Dialogue at June 6, 2008 8:50 AM

It took me a while to formulate this reply -- apologies for coming late to the party.

Posted by: Chris Holland at June 9, 2008 4:55 PM

timely essay - great follow-up insights

Negin,

I'm new to the profession with a documentary short in the circuits this year, but after a few months attending a hand full of festivals, participating in discussions among filmmakers and distributors and otherwise mapping out the landscape of independent filmmaking so that I can carve out my niche - I think you are spot-on when you say that the current market climate forces insist an indie filmmaker to become an indie promoter and distributor.

We will have to take the same passion and energy that we put into making films into self-distributing. This is an undertaking that a director should not take on alone (ideally)

Film distribution is a geographical problem and project. What independent filmmakers need is a spatial fix: a way to open up new space that is accessible to independent producers.

I'm not going to try to explain "spatial fix" here. I'm also a geographer - but a key word search might fascinate some that want to dream about pioneering new ways...in brief spatial fix is a way of overcoming the crisis of over-accumulation. And that is what we have in the film market: an over-accumulation problem, which makes it impossible to sell a film because the huge landscape of films has no distribution space.. need creative new ways of opening up distribution space.

Posted by: steve hyde at June 10, 2008 1:52 PM