(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )

Filed under: Business •Distribution •

Dissenting from Depresso

Mike Curtis has made the case that indie features aren’t a viable business. Sad, perhaps (Nate Van Dusen said Mike was “serving up hot cups of depresso”), but that doesn’t mean that indie films as a whole are dead. Documentaries, for example, remain alive and well.

• Karil Daniels’ 42-minute doc, “Voices of Dissent: Activism & American Democracy” has been screened at festivals nationwide, and is on KTEH, San Jose public TV, Channel 54 (Comcast 10) this coming Monday, 22 Dec 2008, at 11 pm (there will also be an encore showing Tuesday the 23rd at 5 am, for the really early risers), as part of the VIDEO I series that focuses on the work of independent filmmakers. You can see an 8-minute short version on YouTube, and Ms. Daniels also sells DVDs.

• Dorothy Fadiman’s “Stealing America: Vote By Vote” had a flurry of screenings in theaters and on TV leading up to the last election, and it’s also available online on YouTube and Vimeo (links on the website), as well as on DVD.

Both women have been working in docs for a long time (Ms. Fadiman started Concentric Media in 1978), and while neither one is getting rich, they’re both making a living, and they’re doing what they love.

“Yeah, but these are ‘issue’ films, so they’re easy to find a niche audience for.” Perhaps, but is there anything wrong with that? As the media marketplace fragments, and as media-making gets democratized by high-quality, affordable tools (though talent, of course, remains a rare commodity), success in independent production means finding a niche. 

Have a look at their websites. See where their films have screened; watch their ‘net clips, even (dare I say it?) buy their DVDs. Look at how they’re distributing their work, drumming up PR, getting their works on broadcast and cable. Pour that depresso down the drain, and see how the professional independents get it done.

(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )

Most of those who whine about “the death of independent filmmaking” are newcomers who have never made films (by films I mean films that have been seen by audiences other than the filmmaker’s friends—i.e. shown theatrically, reviewed in actual publications). 

Those who think about filmmaking in terms of “business models” generally can’t/don’t make films people want to see. They should be making Powerpoint presentations to share with their fellow business-artistes.  Skills picked up in those screenwriting seminars will prove useful in tightening up the third act of those thrilling Powerpoints— the act in which appears a not-believable return on investment from all those ancillary markets including the legendary but non-existent Southern drive-ins.  But I digress.

The ease of digital filmmaking has lowered the bar—it’s now cheaper and easier to produce a film-like-object (whether it is watchable is another matter)—and that brings us a new generation of whiners, and a new glut of “independent films” clogging the festival arteries (pity the poor programmers).

In the days of film, cost and technical skill served as a barrier, which while unfortunate was also a useful filter—a degree of perseverance and skill and money (though not talent) was required to make a film.  The filter had virtues.

Jeff “has heard the same complaints since about 1977” Kreines

Posted by Jeff Kreines  on  12/22  at  07:42 PM

---

Would you be happier, Jeff, if instead of invoking “business viability”, American indie film was referred to as “artistically unsustainable”, the evidence for that claim being American narrative indie film since your inception date of 1977.  We’re talking, after all, about 41 years of mediocrity and worse, with only the rarest exceptions, and with commercial rewards often going to pretty bad filmmakers (Kevin Smith?).

If you’re willing to make that concession, then we really do need to look at how these films gets financed, and what’s the wrong with that model.

To Adam’s point, American indie documentaries tend to be far better than American indie features and perhaps there’s a reason for that:  less third-party investor/producer interference, and lower over-all costs.  What does that tell us about the importance of financial “viability”?

As for all the whining newcomers—there are so so few indie directors who have gotten into theaters, and so few of them have actually made money, that the sample is so small as to be meaningless.  Besides, most of these directors are also whining.  They have no way of financing their projects these days. 

Why *you’re* not whining is a mystery, but you must have your reasons.  Could it be you don’t want to make features?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/23  at  08:20 AM

---

George A. Romero,  while at Sundance supporting Diary of the Dead, talked about how much harder it is to make money w/films today than it has been in the past.  Standing out in an over-saturated market is new barrier that requires perseverance and skill and money (and luck) to overcome.  You also have to factor other things like the internet and video games that eat up people’s leisure time now more than ever.  There are more filmmakers competing for a small number of eyeballs.

For people who would like to make films *and* pay the bills I don’t see the problem w/having a working knowledge of the business side of things so you know what you are getting into.  I never took Mike’s rant as saying, “don’t do it” but as just a heads up about what the market looks like currently.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/23  at  01:17 PM

---

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: