Times are tough for indies right now - I just finished reading an LA Times article - Cloudy skies for Cannes indie market talking about how tough the market is for indie (as in, non-studio produced) content these days. And I think technology is largely to blame.
Backing up, here’s the evidence, as stated in the LA Times article:
-the number of buyers for indie are are thinning:
Not that long ago, the sellers of movies made outside the studio system knew that not only were there nearly a dozen forceful buyers competing for movies, but also that those distributors often were willing to roll the dice on less conventional fare. That’s all changed in a hurry.
-the major minis (the studio run divisions that buy indie fare) are in trouble, and some are being shut down:
Two weeks ago, Warner Bros. unexpectedly closed its two specialized movie divisions—Warner Independent Pictures ("March of the Penguins") and Picturehouse ("Pan’s Labyrinth")—and the future of art-house distributor ThinkFilm ("Spellbound") looks uncertain.
-marketing costs are rising:
marketing fees soaring to an average of $25.7 million per film last year, up from $17.8 million a year ago.
Technology contributes to this problem because there are so many other things we could do with our idle time, content creators have to shout louder to be heard over the noise of all the other sellers to get us to hear them to buy THEIR particular product. Technology is trying to help with more effectively targetted marketing, such as via the web, but it is still costing more to reach each paying client in general from what I gather.
-expectations are thusly rising for those indie films - it doesn’t matter much what you paid for it, since the marketing budget is going to be $25M.
It used to be that specialty units would jump at a modest movie that could take in $10 million in domestic theaters. Now the expected floor has more than doubled.
To put that in perspective - if expected to make $20M domestically, and marketing costs are going up to get your product above the noise of the market...that’s a serious problem. If gotta make $20M in the domestic theatrical run, and $25M marketing budget, plus acquisition costs....that is a big, serious gamble. You don’t make as many bets, and you make your bets more stable (read widely acceptable) ones. Good luck getting movies like Hard Candy (Ellen Page’s first performance I saw, and an incredible tour de force) made.
Why is it so tough? Technology is enabling more players:
there are far too many films competing for the same number of moviegoers: 411 non-studio movies were released last year, up from 229 in 2002.
Everybody wants in on the game, because it is more affordable. Problem is, there are even fewer buyers. Supply and demand tipped that way creates a market where fewer buyers are looking for fewer, bigger potential payoff investments. So an even greater majority of the content gets ruled out of theatrical runs, in part because of the ever increasing costs of marketing that content.
Nice films can be made for a few million dollars, so everybody is getting in the game. Yet, are you watching more movies than you used to? I’m not, I’m watching even fewer. Besides the fact that I’m getting personally older and busier (40 in 3 weeks! Egads!), EVERYONE has more stuff going for their attention to compete with theatrical movies. Even if there are new expanding markets for distribution, like cable, VOD, DVD rentals, Netflix, iTunes, etc. - those are typically less profitable ones. Oh, and there’s these relatively new time occupying things, too, like doodling on the Interweb Toobs (like you are right now) or XBox 360 or PS3, or the incredibly time sucking worlds within those of MMORPG, or open ended universes to wander in like the new Grand Theft Auto 4.
I’d been advocating, a couple of years ago, that these new venues of distribution would dovetail nicely with decreasing technology production costs, but it doesn’t seem to be working out that way. No matter how slick the techology gets, there is a limit to how often and how much we’re going to pay to sit passively in front of a screen. The big studios’ answer seems to be to up the game, do what only they can do well - spectacle. This usually reduces to ‘splosions and CGI crowds, and lots of very, very fast bright camera work (I saw Speed Racer last night, waiting a week to chastise the studios for spending so much on totally deranged hyper fuschia visual cotton candy with napalm on top). This too will get old, and/or cheap enough to mass produce (insert Moore’s Law).
Wait, back on topic, I’m geting diverted, which is the problem with the market - there are LOTS of things vying for our time. Technology is somewhat reducing costs of production, but actors, lights, locations, etc. cost what they always did. The increasing technological means of entertaining ourselves - surfing the web, playing games, watching anything anywhere, often for free or flat monthly rates, means straight up movies that you pay $8 for (nope, or more, $12.75 for Arclight last night, egads again) are less and less a to pick for our money, but more likely our TIME.
The glut of content doesn’t have enough places to GO. And the places it CAN go, after widespread theatrical release, are less likely to generate as much revenue per viewing. Making it tougher to be economically viable.
Even name brand talelnt backed projects, like Sodergergh’s newest (shot entirely on pre-production Reds, incidentally), Che, while anticipated at Cannes, isn’t sitting pretty:
Two prominent acquisition executives said privately that they hope “Che,” which is actually two films, sells before its screenings next week so that they won’t have to tell director Steven Soderbergh that they are passing on the film.
So what are we content producers to do? I see a race for the top and bottom - go top end, and spend $120M producing something like Speed Racer, which did abysmally ($20M). Or spend that kind of money and make something audiences like, like Iron Man. I heard someone talking about tentpole movies on NPR the other day, saying the intent was to rally other content under that banner....wait, no that totally doesn’t work. If I see Iron Man, that doesn’t mean I’ll go see other movies by the same distributor, who is....umm, I don’t know, because I totally don’t care. Movies don’t cross promote or cross sell, like iPods and iPhones and iMacs etc.
Or go bottom end, go reality TV, and get minimal dollars for it, and it is usually all barely watchable. But it is dirt cheap to produce.
Yeah yeah yeah, this is disjointed, this is all me just first draft rambling. Which is the other problem - creating quality takes serious time, which implies money, and even that won’t guarantee results (witness budgets and results of Speed Racer vs. Iron Man). Note how, over the last 10 years (roughly the DVD Era), the summer movies are turning the ‘Splosions and Jitter Cam knobs up more and more, while plot (Speed Racer? Anyone? Anyone?) and character suffer (with rare exceptions - Depp in Pirates and Downy in Iron Man made those movies). Oh, not to mention the whole Where Are The Leading Ladies of Summer issue - when was our last good Ripley type?
OK, but to attempt to answer what I posed with the headline - we’ve created a situation where there is more and more content, but a relative fixed audience size at this time. That is a problem if you want to create content and sell it at a profit, which is what most industries call a Valid Business Model.
Meanwhile, we’re witnessing a seesaw of talent pricing - leading actors seem to be capping out or reducing some of the astromically high fees they’ve demanded in the past, but the deals are getting stranger and stranger.
I feel like we’re headed towards even more of a loser’s market than it has ALWAYS been - a handful of success stories that goad teeming throngs to get into the game. Hmm.
But tonight I’m off to see what looks to be an amazing film, The Fall, at the Arclight dome at 8:05 - catch me there before/after and we can talk movies. I’m the 6’4” guy wearing the blue Aachi & Ssipak t-shirt.
OK, rant off - gotta get some stuff done on a sunny Saturday, just wanted to note what is going on.
(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )
Hi Mike,
In one paragraph you said, “411 non-studio movies were released last year, up from 229 in 2002.”
Then in the very next paragraph you said, “Problem is, there are even fewer buyers.”
411 seems like almost twice as many buyers as 229. That’s an improvement, isn’t it? I think there’s something wrong with your figures. (Keep in mind that video game sales out-gross movie ticket sales and have for quite awhile.)
I know you’re trying to make a living in the “movie” business so this must be a worry. I decided long ago not to try that. The chances of success seemed to small. I decided that I would treat my dream of making a feature as a hobby. Film-making is too much work to do as a job. I’d only work that hard for something I truly love.
Good luck in Hollywood-land.
Peace,
Rob:-]
Posted by Rob on 05/17 at 01:50 PM
I know this is a draft but I think you need to put this in the context of the larger national economy. Everything is slowing down right now.
If you include the cost of gas, a trip to the cinema is more expensive than it’s been in a long time.
Posted by on 05/17 at 04:01 PM
I have been a proponent of the web from way back when the idea of video on the web was still a twinkle in, in, Al Gore’s eye(?).
Often those that look at the future (can you say “regularly distributed network video programming online?"), are wrong on two counts. First they think that it will happen overnight. Instead, it takes much, much longer, then there’s this hockey stick inflection point at which it finally happens overnight…
I am still surprised we don’t see new “networks” sprouting online. Where are the new series developing exclusively for online viewership? Not by the big networks, by the smaller studios looking to create a niche? I know there are many such programs out there, but it’s surprising there aren’t more.
So – perhaps we’re on the cusp of the inflection curve online? Sitting unknowingly next to the puck, at the bottom of the hockey stick, waiting to be put into play. I agree with Chris Meyer’s post here that often video is used where it shouldn’t be. Maybe however, the time is ripe for good, no great video to find it’s way online.
Posted by on 05/17 at 07:21 PM
Technology is allowing more people to create “feature films”. But it is not creating more people capable of making good ones. That is always left out of these conversations. Of those 411 films stated, all but a handful will be unwatchable and unmarketable to the movie going public.
Posted by on 05/17 at 08:52 PM
Read “The Long Tail” by Chris Anderson and then take another shot at this. The trouble isn’t more production and the same number of buyers. Technology has changed the economy of entertainment (among other things). Attention is now in more demand than the consumer’s money. Lower barrier to entry means more people make films for less money, some of those are good. Many are not. The trick is filtering through the bad to find the good; a job that is increasingly offloaded to the viewers. On top of that, factor in that there are a good number of people who feel the industry ‘owes them a living’. The world is changing, and the entertainment industry has had enough of a margin to stay still for a while, but when you stay still, you become an easy target. When people move from the head to the long tail, the head will no longer support gigantic blockbusters. Cheaper movies will find their niche audience because the cost of finding those movies is falling. Connecting people to the niche they are interested in gets easier with digital distribution (marginal costs approaching zero) and crowdsourcing of the filtering process negates the need for taste makers and executives to tell people what they want. There’s a wealth of opportunities for people who position themselves on the leading edge, but too many are trying to hold on to the status quo until they reach retirement. The people lower on the chain are the ones who are going to end up in trouble if they keep holding on to the current business model instead of looking forward and adapting to the coming change.
Posted by Producer on 05/17 at 11:15 PM
The contradiction between the market place and quality was solved years ago, but like so much, we Americans pretend we’re pioneers in the matter and have nothing to learn.
The solution is called “public funding”. The European do it. And the Asians do it. And both regions sustain some semblance of non-Hollywood filmmaking traditions and produce world-class filmmakers.
There is NO way to sustain an alternative non-commercial cinema relying solely on the marketplace, as we do in the U.S. of A.
“Democratization” has always been a fraud. If the cost of the acquisition medium was the major limiting factor, there would have been tons of masterpieces, or at least potential masterpieces, or just missed masterpieces, on Super 8 and VHS. But clearly, there aren’t.
Similarly, “indie” film in America is a fraud, just look at the Sundance Dramatic Competition. This is what happens when upper middle class kids and professionals ("producers") get control of an art form. People who couldn’t to write a novel or a string quartet are suddenly “directors” and “artists”. And lawyers and business people are suddenly “producers”.
Posted by on 05/18 at 09:53 AM
Producer - Long Tail long recognized, and written about, but that still creates a funding problem to get something created in the first place, and by definition long tail doesn’t work theatrically.
Public funding - you’ve got to be kidding me.
The problem of not enough talent has long existed.
-mike the writer, feeling blah.
Posted by on 05/18 at 12:47 PM
So Mike,
How was “the Fall”?
Did it live up to the trailer?
T.
Posted by on 05/18 at 01:05 PM
Public funding? Ugh. Welfare film making pretty much ensures that no watchable Canadian content is produced.
The lion’s share of publicly funded production is done by a producer who is manufacturing a product to fit a set mandate to trigger funding. The product itself is not particularly relevant to the funding and is simply plugged together to check off a list of requirements. The funding goes to pay the producer’s fee and resulting content is simply slotted into a the distribution channel to fill their mandated level of Canadian Content.
And nobody bothers watching the content while the producer moves on to the next publicly funded paycheck generator.
If the only way to get funding is by way of pandering to state bureaucrats- well then the project should remain un-made.
Posted by on 05/18 at 02:04 PM
Producer… “The Long Tail” (the book, not the phenomenon) makes it pretty clear (and Anderson has made this point elsewhere) that the money to be made from the Long Tail will be made by the aggregators (i.e. distributors, Amazon, Netflix, iTunes) and not by the producers. He made a speech at PARC where he pretty much said “People producing work in the long tail are doing it for other rewards than money”
Posted by Dylan Pank on 05/18 at 03:51 PM
I see you guys despise public funding, which is odd in view of what commercial finance has done to American indie film..... Or maybe you’re satisfied with Little Miss Sunshine and the products of Fox Searchlight?
Like it or not, no major art film made today could get financed without some form of public subsidy, which is one reason no major art films turn up in the Sundance Dramatic Competition—just would-be Little Miss Sunshines.
OTOH, if you don’t know much about contemporary art house cinema or could care less, then sure—public funding stinks.
If all this sound a bit piqued, I’m sorry. But non-Hollywood filmmaking in the U.S. is full of people who have no real interest in “art films”, and who know nothing about it.
Posted by on 05/18 at 06:46 PM
I’m from Canada, a place where almost everything created gets some to all funding from the state. The result is varying levels of suck.
Most art film is pseudo-intellectual masturbation of interest to only a tiny fraction of the population who wouldn’t dream of paying for it themselves. I find it crass that these blowhards insist that the majority be forced to fund their self-indulgent and self-important pet projects.
If you can’t find someone to voluntarily pay for your production then the damn film shouldn’t be made.
If all this sounds a bit piqued, I’m sorry. I’m just tired of involuntarily footing the bill for other people’s crap so that I can’t afford to create without wallowing at the same immoral feeding trough… which I won’t do.
So MY self-indulgent, pseudo-intellectual crap isn’t getting made until I can find people who willingly pay for it.
Posted by on 05/18 at 08:16 PM
Oh lordy, Clint. Art subsidies go back to the beginning of time. Western culture would be a trash heap without state, church and private patrons.
If you think Bela Tarr, Hou Hsiao-hsein or Claire Denis are pseudo-intellectual crap, I’m sorry to hear it. Some people are interested in seeing this kind of work. Others are not. And some people never bother to find out. Or could care less. But the marketplace alone will generally not support this kind of work.
You may also consider late Beethoven or Shakespearean tragedy pseudo-intellectual crap. Lots of people do. The hell with it, if the audience won’t support it? You really supporting late Beethoven is the worst thing governments do?
But what’s really puzzling is the presumed business model here. In effect, it seems you want to make mass-market Hollywood movies without Hollywood money. We’ve seen how successful that production model has been. Why would you expect any sane commercial investor to give you money, in view of the odds?
And how well do you really know the indie market? Have you actually studied it? Do you know what succeeds and what doesn’t?
“Once”, by the way, which was mentioned in the L.A. Times article, was made with 100% state funding. I haven’t seen it, so I don’t know if it’s pseudo-intellectual crap or not, but I’m sure you can decide.
Posted by on 05/19 at 04:56 AM
And damn it, since I started this tirade, the business people in the film medium don’t know a thing. The only thing you can rely on them to do is produce bad movies which lose money.
Why in the world would you want these people determining the fate of filmmaking, yours or anyone else’s?
I don’t know what goes on in Canada, and if the bureaucrats fund nothing but crap, sorry to hear it. But what evidence is there that commercial funding is any smarter or any better? At least there’s hope for public funding, it’s capable of reforming itself or have reform forced on it.
But commercial finance is impervious. These people will make the same crap until doomsday, the mercantile mindset never changes.
Posted by on 05/19 at 07:20 AM
Just because the subsidization of art has been a staple of the ruling body going back as far a recorded history reaches does not make it right.
I have Beethoven in my music collection and Shakespeare on my shelf. Beethoven managed to supported himself for years through the marketplace with concerts, selling rights to his music and going after individuals for music lessons and patronage. Shakespeare founded a theatre company that made him a rather wealthy man. These two are good examples for my side of the argument and thanks for bringing them up.
I don’t want to “make Hollywood movies without Hollywood money”, I want to make movies that interest and engage me. The script I’m working on now is a challenging little film that delves into how we view responsibility and the sacrifices we can make for both principals and for individuals - and dealing with it when the two are in conflict. I can’t see any reason for the budget to go over about 10% of what an average Hollywood movie is budgeted at. If I can’t find anyone who is as also engaged by the story enough to willingly pay for it then it won’t get made. I’m not going to ask the government to force people to pay for it.
I’m saving my Hollywood ideas for when I can get a Hollywood budget.
Sure, the market based film producers often do lose their money on a film. Their money. The films that do make money are used to subsidize those money losing films. While they do create a lot of very bad movies, they also create a few good ones. You may gag on Iron Man but I, and a few million others, enjoyed it enough to willingly pay for it.
I’m sure that in the history of state funded film making there must be films that didn’t lose money. And I’m sure that there would be films that are enlightening… or at least entertaining. That still doesn’t make it right.
The religious (when separate from the state) and private patronage of the arts IS the marketplace at work. There would be far more patrons of the art if there were fewer artists convinced that the population at large is too stupid to understand their brilliance and should be forced to pay for it through taxation. Every time there is a call for state subsidization of the arts it re-enforces the idea that art is not, and should not, be in the hands of us common folk. So the individual passes on their responsibility to create and support art.
I’ve yet to see any work from Hou Hsiao-Hsien or Claire Denis so I will take your word that they are smart, challenging and artistic film makers. It would would follow that, absent state funding, they should be able to find enough people to willingly put up the money to allow them to complete projects of a modest budget?
Bela Tarr… he is kind of a poster boy for self indulgent film making. Look, I think the pacing of most films today have been adversely effected by A.D.D., but O.C.D. doesn’t make for a better film- just a longer film. What the excessively long (and pretty damn aesthetic) takes do accomplish is that it gives the audience time to construct a message and philosophy that they impose on the sequence. And since it is their own imagination at work here they call it brilliant. An alternative method is to be vague and obtuse to the point where the audience has no choice but to fill in the blanks with their own musings- and call it brilliant.
The “perfect” art film would consist of ten minute takes where the audience has no idea what the hell is going on. Finish with a Russian montage jumping between a meat packing plant, an elementary school and a stop motion Jackson Pollock drip style painting and you will be anointed a genius.
Since even the seven hour Satantango cost only about $1.5 million to make, you personally could probably come up with a worthwhile portion of the budget for his next film. If his work is that important, instead of asking the state to take the money from all the people who don’t agree with you, why don’t you dedicate the next few years helping him fund a film?
I think that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is better film making than Satantango and I’m guessing that you would vehemently disagree. While I am arrogant enough to believe that my own ideals and tastes are superior to the majority of movie goers, I am not so arrogant as to believe that they should be forced to pay for what I want. On this we differ.
Posted by on 05/19 at 11:38 AM
We’re at opposite ends on this one. I deplore the Rings triology, I literally can’t watch it, but have great (if not quite unalloyed) admiration for Satantango. And I suspect you wouldn’t have much use for Hou or Denis.
Beethoven and Shakespeare may have been case studies for artistic success in the 16th and 18th centuries, but modern America won’t support the *playing* of late Beethoven, much less give a “difficult” composer or playwright a living outside a University (which is also getting public money). Are we really prepared to let this legacy go, on market principles? Britain’s national theaters are all heavily subsidized, and just try to find an American who can play Shakespeare, in the absence of those theatrical traditions.
I’ve seen two decent films out of Canada with state support ("Eve and the Firehorse” & “Victor Pellerin” [forget the exact title]). Neither of them is going to save the world or change anyone’s life, but they both would be next to impossible to finance in the U.S., and I’m glad they got made, on these modest 6 figure budgets.
If government can’t do that much in a modern industrial society, things are pretty pathetic. Countries all over the world manage to support the arts, and they don’t collapse with moral turpitude because of it. Of all the ways to waste taxpayers money, this has got to be among the most harmless.
And film is a special case. The commercial model has failed, that’s not in doubt. We’re not arguing theory here. The U.S. doesn’t have an art-house tradition comparable to say France, Taiwan or Korea, for one simple reason: commercial finance is the only source of money. And the Sundance Dramatic Competition stinks for a reason. I’m not going to beg the U.S. government to fund films, because I know it’s hopeless. I’m just offering an explanation for the mediocrity which prevails.
Anyway, good luck with your endeavors. If you can do it without public money, so much the better. But I think I’d rather be Canadian.
Posted by on 05/19 at 01:56 PM
Government funded films are basically films funded by the money taken out of yours and my paychecks. Why should I have to pay for other peoples films!!! Even if my share is only a few dollars, thats a piece of diffusion extra I don’t have to buy. Why should my tax dollars go to others movies? If I want to watch,buy,download give me the choice. Don’t take money from my paycheck to pay for some artsy film approved by a government committee. Either way it’s still a select group of people who pick the film and we know how well government works.
If the hollywood formula is so broken how come there are 1000’s of people making good money making movies every day for decades.
BTW The LOTR trilogy was made with New Zealand government funding!!!!
Posted by josh townsend on 05/19 at 06:11 PM
The government takes money out of my pocket for all kinds of things I don’t approve of: welfare for billionaires and 100s of billions toward the military being the two prime offenders. Why so touchy for a few million going to movies?
Nobody said Hollywood formula doesn’t work. But that’s precisely why we need other sources of [non-commercial] funding. Or all we’ll get is Hollywood formula and worthless commercially financed indie films. It’s not as if this claim is speculative. We’ve got years of evidence.
If it’s true that LOTR was made with public funding, that fact doesn’t do much for my position since I hate those movies, but it does even less for Clint’s, since he loves them.
So I guess it’s pretty funny....
Posted by on 05/19 at 07:36 PM
Lord of the Rings was only partially state funded just to be exact. Every one of Peter Jackson’s early movies had some kind of government funding.
I suppose you think our US government leaders have better taste than Hollywood execs. Or maybe you want to be on the board.
Every filmmaker I know in England, Ireland and Australia hates that have to beg the governement for money to make a movie because there is no private funding. According to you, commercial filmmaking is broke so hand it over to an even If I want to invest money I will. BTW there is no such a thing as ‘the governments money’ it’s yours, mine, and Mikes and every other consumer/worker. Get that term ‘government’s money’ out more broke system (the government).
And if you think there will be ‘according to your taste’ better art films made that way, maybe you should go the creative commons route. Do you know they producered a whole CGI animation movie movie with Blender that was made with nearly all free stuff? I thinki this would be a better route for you. Government mandates that public access be made availible so there is your equiptment set and editing system. Use some tax stamps to feed the actors and boom eventually you’ll have the best aer film YOU can make.
If there’s not enough people who want to see the movie then maybe the money wasn’t well spent. Governement funding means it’s OK to loose money on a crap movie that is generally very politically correct.
Isn’t PBS mostly funded by the government? They produce things. Isn’t that enough? I wouldn’t know stopped watching it when cable TV came along many years ago.
Posted by josh townsend on 05/20 at 05:21 AM
Enough already! If you’re philosophically opposed to government support of the arts, and hate the films which are financed with public support in other countries, what you’re really saying is that the commercial marketplace suits your tastes just fine. But not everyone agrees, and not everyone believes taxpayer money is so sacrosanct that it can only be spent on political pork, welfare for the rich, farm subsidies for agribusiness, tax breaks for Exxon-Mobil and a huge military budget.
As for this argument that “government leaders” are selecting films to finance—please! I can only advise you to research the way it’s done in countries with robust public funding. PBS has clearly been corrupted by both political and commercial influences, but that’s only because our lawmakers are also philosophically opposed to government funding of the arts and public affairs programming. They much prefer that Rupert Murdoch handle it, for obvious reasons.
So if you hate government support of the arts, then boycott every foreign film which ends up in North America, including many classics, because virtually all of them were/are made with taxpayer money. Then you will have done your duty in promoting the free market system.
In that event, however, I trust you’ll also refuse any tax incentives that your federal or local government offers you, since you’re philosophically opposed to welfare.
Posted by on 05/20 at 09:23 AM
JP, government support for the arts is right in there with “political pork, welfare for the rich, farm subsidies for agribusiness, tax breaks for Exxon-Mobil and a huge military budget”.
There is absolutely no difference and the only reason you imagine one is because pork barrel production, welfare artists and subsidies for art-business- support what you like.
The Lord of the Rings would have been made without the production subsidies that New Zealand offers- and I say it should have been. Businesses will keep taking advantage of these subsidies as long as they are there, so they shouldn’t be there.
I’ve had opportunities to take advantage of funding sources and I’ve avoided them. The welfare dependency is so pervasive here that I may not be able to create in Canada while continuing to avoid it. Do I cave in, give up or move to the US where there is less corporate welfare in the film industry? I’m not happy with any of those options but I’m not going to pretend that it is right to use other peoples money on things that they don’t want me to spend it… just because I fancy the thing.
Your art films are businesses ventures that manufacture a product that hardly anyone wants to buy. If you think there is any substantial difference between that and an agri-business that lobbies that government to subsidize a crop with the expectation that 90% will rot in the field, you’re deluding yourself.
Posted by on 05/20 at 09:52 AM
I think most of your problem is simply the natural drop in those going to movies. I’m not sure it’s possible to reverse that. The intraweb and it’s attendant technology makes staying home more and more attractive.
Transferring the indie craft and it’s revenue stream to that is a big challenge but it’s the only way forward I think.
BTW I’ve been rating movies, mostly SF in a new way. I give Iron Man a 2BE rating. Which means I think it’s about twice as good as Battlefield Earth. Yup I think Iron Man is drek.
Posted by CC on 05/20 at 09:57 AM
“Your art films are businesses ventures that manufacture a product that hardly anyone wants to buy. If you think there is any substantial difference between that and an agri-business that lobbies that government to subsidize a crop with the expectation that 90% will rot in the field, you’re deluding yourself.” So writes Clint.
But that’s just it: art films aren’t businesses, any more than Michelangelo’s “David” is a business or Beethoven’s late piano sonatas are businesses.
It all comes down to this: I believe in government support for the arts and you don’t. Period. Countries all over the world provide art subsidies, and they and their citizens seem to be happy about it.
That said, I have a challenge for you: get rid of the subsidies which go to the billionaire owners of professional sports’ teams in the U.S., and I won’t say another world about money for the arts. If not, I would ask you to return the favor.
Beyond that, your idea of moving to the U.S. to escape the tyranny of public funding in Canada strikes at least one American as hilarious. Rest assured, you won’t have any trouble avoiding government subsidies in the U.S., your free-market paradise is waiting for you. So pack your bags. It’ll only take a miracle to get your film financed at 10% of the typical Hollywood budget (in fact, you’d be lucky to raise $75K), but so what, behold the wonders of the free market.
Posted by on 05/20 at 12:33 PM
“Art films aren’t businesses, any more than Michelangelo’s “David” is a business or Beethoven’s late piano sonatas are businesses.”
But most of Michelangelo’s and Beethoven’s works were commissioned products. I’m not sure how you can say that films, even non-profit art films, aren’t businesses since they require so many business transactions to make and distribute, marketing or no.
I admit I’m pretty unfamiliar with the Canadian system, but I’ve had the opportunity to closely observe New Zealand’s Film Comission for several years, and they have convinced me that government subsidies only cause problems. As a result of relying on federal funds, NZ’s once vibrant film community is now stunted and split into clear classes of professionals and artists.
The Film Commission has created a false market for totally and sometimes specifically unmarketable shorts, and their panel’s tastes and opinions drive the artistic development of film students in a way that doesn’t represent the interests of viewers or buyers or even non-Commission cinephiles. To get a project subsidized it needs to conform to the panel’s preferences, not the creator’s personal vision.
To keep the money flowing during production, there is an endless amount of paperwork and Commission oversight. This part of the process I actually agree with, since supervision of how tax dollars are spent is required, but it essentially means that directors must get their crew from a short-list of approved personnel, because there are restrictions of salaries and minimum prior experience that really limit the production to both non-student and non-professional technicians.
And after production there’s no way to keep or divide any remaining funds between the cast and crew, so at no point during the project is there any incentive for creative problem-solving or flexibility in scheduling or budgeting or management. In fact, the red tape and supervision pretty much outlaws production creativity since there aren’t any forms for it.
However, getting a project subsidized is actually fairly easy, and Commission itself is quite well known, so doing any fundraising outside of the system is very difficult. Why would investors consider your project when a tax fund already exists to pay for it? The result is a micro film industry that is totally isolated from the larger, real, professional industry, as well as modern markets, audiences, and distribution and investment opportunities.
Worst of all, I think it will severly limit the growth of that larger, more professional industry, since NZ’s best and brightest students often get sucked into that federall-funded no-man’s-land, and then they’re rarely of any use anywhere else.
Posted by Isaac Botkin on 05/20 at 03:18 PM
Pretending that it isn’t a business doesn’t make it so. The sculptures and sonatas were commissioned and paid for- and all your false dichotomy shows is a contempt for business because the unwashed masses aren’t smart enough to have the same aesthetics as you.
Yes, we have a difference of opinion here- which manifests in you wanting to get the government to force me to pay for your opinion while I’ll try to keep the government from forcing you to pay for mine. Not terribly fair, but there you go.
That the people who are on the receiving end of this practise are happy about it doesn’t really surprise me all that much.
I would be ecstatic if the subsidies to the sport industry were abolished! Here in BC the politicians are saddling us with tens of billions of dollars for the 2010 Olympics that will probably take the better part of a half century to pay off. They are also looking at another pile of cash to fix the roof of the largest sports stadium in Vancouver.
Subsidizing the sport-industry is every bit as bad, or good, as subsidizing the art-industry and it is your elitist world view that creates an illusory difference between the two.
I would be very happy to work within the free market. If I can never find anyone to fund my projects then they should never get made. Unlike you, I don’t think that the rest of the world owes me my dreams at the expense of theirs.
Posted by on 05/20 at 03:41 PM
@Dylan, Agreed. People produce for love of an art form, or to communicate a message. People producing media for money alone have never been successful in this business, at least not for any extended period of time. It takes something more than desire for income to create a successful film. I think we can all agree on that.
The point still stands that if the only advantage current media producers have over the uninitiated hordes is access to the technology, then they don’t have much at all, but the problem then is not caused by the changing technology, it is caused by a lack of the aforementioned passion or message. The change just opens up the field to all people with a story to tell. And lets not forget that there is a chasm between holding a paint brush and being an artist.
Posted by Producer on 05/20 at 09:30 PM
@Mike, True, the Long Tail doesn’t work theatrically, but a large portion of most film’s take comes from outside the theatrical release anyway. (Not to mention that some home theaters today rival movie theater’s of old.)
As for finding funding before making a film, that issue is part of what the democratization of technology can solve. As the equipment is commoditized, it becomes less expensive to create a film. Granted, there will still be the costs of people’s time and space, etc. but even the time cost can be shrunk by judicious application of technology. The possibility of a self-funded film presents itself to a much higher percentage of the population. Granted, this is unlikely to create the next summer action film on a scale as those we are accustomed to, but we all know that quality is not always proportional to budget. The Island (2005) supposedly had a production budget of $100,000,000. If instead, one gave $2,000,000 to 50 different filmmakers, do you think one of them would manage to create something more memorable?
Additionally, there are two historical models for artists that could make a resurgence. Those who create art, but not as a primary profession, and those whose creation of art is sponsored or commissioned by wealthy philanthropists. Not making a value judgement on either of these, just putting them out there as food for thought.
Posted by Producer on 05/20 at 09:50 PM
Boy, it’s hot in here.
1. 99% of films don’t make money nowadays. Even Roger Corman would struggle.
2. Only fools privately invest in films. Better off buying a hundred thousand dollar lotto ticket.
3. Even professional producers do not invest money in films. They use other people’s money. Go figure.
4. There’s less foolish investors than there used to be because the opportunities for distribution are far worse than during the Drive-In or straight-to-video hey day.
5. Filmmaking is *not* about making money. As a business model, it is useless. But the “business” continues because it is “sexy” to be involved with filmmaking, enough people will do it no matter what, and it has beneficial side effects for the conglomerates that now own the major studios.
6. As above, both private funding and government funding is financially foolish (on a strictly business level).
7. Many governments around the world have seen Hollywood crush their local film industry. They decided that they wanted some local content on screen. Apparently they call it “culture”. Yes, pop culture is as legit as artsy fartsy stuff & if the audience doesn’t turn up to see it then why make it & having funding gatekeepers means there is someone imposing their taste on what’s made. But even films like Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior), Strictly Ballroom, Shine, and Pricilla: Queen of the Desert wouldn’t get made in Australia without government funding. In fact, nothing much would get made in Australia without government funding. But you can still argue either way, because films will always be made at some level and you have to decide whether those films being “art films” or a mainstream narratives or shaky student feature makes any difference to the world. One thing’s for sure, there’ll always be people obsessed enough to keep making stuff, even if there’s no money in it.
Posted by on 05/20 at 10:29 PM
1) why this “gotcha” glee over “commissioning”? What else is the state doing but “commissioning”, when it provides film funds? If there’s jujitsu in your argument, it’s lost on me.
2) maltinghead correctly points out that movies don’t make money. Without public funding, entire national film industries would collapse. This may be a welcome outcome for you, but it isn’t for most governments.
3) as noted a thousand times already, governments subsidize all sorts of activities. When you create your libertarian paradise, let us know. Until then, why all the fuss? There are far more injurious uses of public money than producing a few films a year, even for people who have as little use for “art films” as you guys do.
Posted by on 05/21 at 05:28 AM
1) You can’t see the difference between commissioning with your own money - and commissioning using money taken from someone else who does not want the work commissioned?
2) A lot of films do make a lot of money. What the accountants do is play the books to make it look like they don’t. This keeps their taxes down and allows them to get out of paying out any “profit” sharing points. The collapse of national film industries doesn’t really concern me because I believe that it should actually foster more grass roots creation of content rather than passive consumption of content. Sure they would be overridingly of poor quality but that is how I see the state film industry already so it would be a wash… except that it would be the people wanting it that would be paying for it.
3) Yes, governments subsidize all sorts of activities and some of them are very injurious indeed - but if an activity does a minor harm by comparison, should it be ignored? I have no delusions about creating a Libertarian paradise, or a paradise of any kind, but I won’t support harmful and immoral behaviour because it benefits me to the detriment of others.
Posted by on 05/22 at 12:25 PM
Public funding of films is a pathetic joke. I hardly think that some state employee (hardly accountable for their financial decisions in the first place) can be a better judge of what films should be funded than the free market. Instead, public funding risks creating an insular culture ("Welcome to the office of public filmmaking! Please take a number!)) where a few cronies make the films they want, regardless of what the public desires. How can the public employees be held accountable for their funding decisions if the whole point of their job is to fund films that a huge portion of the market just don’t care about?
If you’re making films that you can’t sell for a profit, then you’re not making the right films or you’re not making them for the right price. It’s that simple, so you’d better adjust. Either make a film that more people care about, or figure out how to make the same film for less $$, so you can at least recoup your costs and do it again.
But please don’t whine about how things are screwed up, because they’re not. In fact, the tough market for indie films these days is not a bad thing but a good thing. This climate is getting rid of all the excess baggage that makes the industry inefficient--all the posers and dilettantes and quasi-hobbyists and the unlucky and the people who make bad financial decisions, etc. There are simply too many people trying to make films, and some of them have to go. And the only way for them to go is for them to stop getting work, and for them to not see their investments pay off. It’s that simple.
Hopefully, this will teach people not to embark on a film production simply because they have the tools to do so.
Posted by on 05/22 at 02:42 PM
- FEW films make a lot of money. Sure, those that do are hidden with dodgy accounting and help the studio pay for the 10 that make a loss. Production is not viable as a business, but it runs at cost and sustains a level of employment for people doing what they love, so that’s good enough.
- The money is in distribution, not production, because they can pick and choose which turd to attempt to float in theatres. And it’s not even the film tickets that are making money, it’s the candy bar.
- Public funding isn’t usually decided by the local commie pencil pusher. The people involved are actually drawn from the industry. It’s not one person’s decision, it’s a panel. They attempt to balance commercial and cultural concerns, but as all have said here, sometimes it ain’t easy picking a film that will find an audience. And other times they just fund some pile o’ crap because it’s made by an old timer with a good track record or is supposedly about an important subject.
- Unfortunately it takes posers and dilettantes and quasi-hobbyists a fully blown self-funded feature film debt before they realise they’re better off getting an office job, but as there’s an endless supply of these dreamers, they’re not going away soon. And it’ll only get worse with the growth of HD and web video.
Posted by on 05/22 at 07:41 PM
Does the American “free market” system regularly produce great or profitable movies, outside of Hollywood?
The answer is clearly no, despite an enormous increase in film production over the last 10-20 years.
In other words, the free market system has failed by any reasonable measure. Even the big city art houses show few American films. You’re more likely to see a Romanian film, than an American one. And why? Because art house audiences won’t pay to see Sundance Dramatic Competition dreck, the product of American commercial and private finance.
Such a system may suit some here personally; everyone thinks he’s going to be the exception. But on a macro-economic level, indie film is a disaster. Governments have an interest in promoting economic growth, since it’s the taxpayer who pays for low growth in reduced wages and increased social safety net programs.
A sustainable film industry which keeps people employed produces far better macro-economic outcomes than a sporadic one that results in constant personal bankruptcy.
And we haven’t even considered cultural interests here. These are strictly “free market” calculations. Subsidies can have beneficial results. Look at the few remaining successful American industries, and they’re rife with subsidies.
This is how the “free market” works, and I see no reason to demand purity from the non-Hollywood film business, particularly while Hollywood and big media enjoy subsidies.
Clint: you’ve still lost me on “commissioning”. I think we can agree that Michelangelo didn’t pay for “David” himself. The money came from the Church or the state, or likely both, since there wasn’t a clear division in those days. How this is different from state film funding I’m incapable of understanding.
Posted by on 05/23 at 10:15 AM
JP,
Please name a few “art house” theaters that show few American films, that are likely to show a Romanian film more than an American one. I would like to more closely inspect these theaters and their playbills over the last few months, so we can really put to the test this argument that you’re making, suggesting that the standard “art house” theater doesn’t typically play American films. Besides, art houses typically show foreign films because a small (tiny) fraction of the filmgoing market in America wants to see films from other countries. That hardly means the films are “better” (better in whose opinion, a tiny minority?) and it certainly doesn’t mean that more films should be made using foreign funding models. In any event, please name several real-world art-house theaters that you speak of. I better see a lot of Romanian films on those marquees....
P.S. What “few remaining successful American industries” are you speaking of that are “rife with subsidies” in the form that you’re advocating for film? I’d like to see your list.
Posted by on 05/23 at 10:51 AM
Ellis: try these New York-based arthouses: Lincoln Plaza, Cinema Village, and Film Forum. I’m leaving out Mark Cuban’s Sunshine Cinemas, only because he finances American indies, so it’s natural his theaters would show higher concentrations of American product (since he paid for it).
There were at least 3 Romanian films in arthouse release in the U.S. in the last 2 years, so on per capita basis (given the size of Romania), you’d need dozens of American indies to even the score. I don’t dispute that you’ll find larger numbers of foreign films coming from more prosperous countries, and with much larger film industries.
Or you could save yourself a lot of trouble and check the annual grosses for American indies in publications like Film Comment. Then compare the totals to the grosses of foreign art films.
As for whether foreign films are *really* “better”—heck, I thought you were the free trader? If the public wants “foreign films”, doesn’t mean they’re “better” by definition? That’s not necessarily my argument, but shouldn’t it be yours?
Heavily subsidized and/or protected American industries: aerospace, semi-conductors, agriculture, high tech (through military contracts), oil & gas. That list big enough?
Posted by on 05/23 at 01:52 PM
Personally, if I were going to create a time capsule to demonstrate things that were good and worthwhile about modern western culture, I’d be far more likely to pick from the National Film Board of Canada’s archives than from the Paramount, Sony Pictures or MGM vaults.
And… as for Shakespeare.. many of his works were commissioned all right… by the Queen of England. Hardly a private enterprise model.
And just to add to the list of unprofitable, subsidized American industries, you could add: agriculture, aerospace, the Internet, ALL transporation industries, real estate, health care and telecommunications. Let’s not forget the public airwaves and public rights-of-way that support all the broadcast, cable and internet industries.
Posted by Brian Standing on 05/23 at 02:44 PM
I was at a panel of Indie distribs at VSDA a couple of years ago, and they said there are *27,000* Indie films made every year. Everyone is making a movie!
Problem is, all but a very small fraction get *no form of distribution at all* (that includes DVD). Most of those 27,000 films are never seen by *anyone*. Ever. There aren’t enough eyeballs to see them. Not enough time in everybody’s day.
So, what distribs (including DVD distribs) are doing is targeting films that there is a large audience for - a movie that the DVD renting customers may want to see… and often factors like star actors are more important than quality. And genre and niche audience are more important than anything else. A bad horror movie made for $10k is more likely to get distribution than a great drama made for a million.
The biggest problem with everyone being able to make a movie is that everyone isn’t talented.
- Bill
Posted by Bill Martell on 05/24 at 06:05 PM
Back in the good old days, people would make a bunch of Super 8 films with their mates, do a few failed shorts, maybe a disastrous no budget feature, and learn from their mistakes over many years of playing around with the medium. But now people have the technology to jump straight into feature filmmaking, so we’re getting “writers” and “directors” that haven’t gone through that long(er) learning process. “I have the software so I can write...I have the equipment so I can edit...” Beg to differ, bro’.
The ease at starting projects because of this access often adds to the biggest issue: bad story ideas. As Bill said, no one has time to watch, so no one’s watching! You better have a good hook to make people watch. And even if you have that, you better do rigourous redrafts in the script editing and film editing processes. If you lack the knowledge to be able to do that properly, you better find someone who does or you’re screwed.
...As most post-Tarantino kids are.
Posted by on 05/24 at 09:16 PM
Was wondering why the name “Bill Martell” was ringing a bell. Couldn’t put my finger on it until I realised...it’s W.C Martell!!!
Kids, you could do a lot worse than clicking on his name above and reading his tips or ordering his screenwriting book. One of the very best in terms of real script craft.
If anyone knows something about indie markets and niche films, it’s Bill. I bow to his presence.
Posted by on 05/25 at 06:03 PM
In 2008, Sundance received 3,624 feature film submissions (2,021 U.S., 1,603 international).
So Sundance takes about 3% of its feature film submissions, and assuming your film is reasonably intelligent and accomplished, the odds will be considerably better than 3%, since many of the 3624 films won’t be reasonably intelligent and accomplished. OTOH, if you don’t have stars and good production values, and aren’t well-connected, your odds go down again, especially at Sundance.
But on balance these aren’t bad odds for the arts, if what you’re interested is “art” and exposure in non-profit venues like festivals. Just don’t expect a paying career or mass-market fame from indie film.
Truth is, film probably peaked 20-30 years ago, but case studies like Steven Soderbergh, Spike Lee, Ed Burns, Darren Aronofsky and Kevin Smith have lead people to believe thatit’s about the only venue where you can get rich and famous without years of study or genius, or the ability to (for example) write a coherent book-length manuscript.
And they’re right, you *can* get rich and famous without all that much talent, but most people would still do better buying lottery tickets.
Posted by on 05/26 at 01:17 PM
The marketplace does seem fairly bleak and cluttered at the moment, but it will likely turn around in time. The key is a new mode of distribution/exhibition. At the moment, the internet isn’t mature enough. For a start, people are not used to paying to view things on the net (apart from porn - the driving force, as always). People already pay their ISP, plus they’re used to getting everything for free (tutorials, articles, songs, apps, movies). So until the average person can watch movies seamlessly at full screen in their lounge room instead of their computer desk, there’s no real commercial distribution/exhibition model on the net.
What we need is a little more convergence, which is why broadband speeds and AppleTV/Netflix are important.
Aside from the ability to deliver a movie to someone’s lounge, the other big factor is the distributors doing the sorting process on our behalf. Sure, surfing Youtube can be fun for a while, but there’s just too much crap for most of us to wade through. Niche distributors will suddenly become more important than ever. If someone can guarantee their latest film is of the same flavour as the rest of their catalogue, I’d be happy to pay the equivalent of a DVD rental to stream it and not have to drive to the shop. Any film, any time means that these indie distributors/exhibitors will need a strong list of films catering to a specific audience. But if they can do it, it’ll solve the huge print costs, marketing, and lack of theatrical run for many films. They just need a new way of marketing the films. Promoting the actual site is a strong start. We come back to websites such as this because we get something out of it. If we can trust an online film distributor to give us the experience we want, we’ll keep going back until that changes.
Of course, if internet advertising actually grabbed your attention like TV advertising, there’d be far more money in this new format, though I guess films will simply be streamed with video ads around it.
5-10 years, perhaps?
Posted by on 05/26 at 05:50 PM
I think what is getting lost in the age-old debate between state and private funding is that neither is the be-all and end-all model. There needs to be a balance between the two models for a healthy creative industry to emerge. In Canada, where I live, there is virtually no other way to get a film made than through the state, and yes, this has resulted in a lot of crap films that nobody wants to see, although the quality is improving somewhat in the past few years. In Quebec, there is a proper star system with growing box office rewards for films that do well. The films are still largely financed by government grants and tax credits, but the as the films do better the risk for private financing will be viewed as tolerable, and more private funding will enter the marketplace.
In the United States, the reverse is the prevailing model, with the Hollywood commercial system being the most obvious way to get a film made. You could argue forcefully that even more crap gets made under this system. So neither financing model has the exclusivity on making crap.
There needs to be a healthy balance between commercial and private models. It is not evil to make money, nor is it evil to make art of limited appeal. As long as filmmakers have a choice of which model to follow for a particular project, then we’re headed in the right direction.
Posted by Peter Hebert on 06/02 at 10:13 AM
I meant to say “between commercial and PUBLIC models”.
Posted by Peter Hebert on 06/02 at 10:17 AM
iron man was lame.
Posted by Art Approaching on 06/02 at 11:36 AM
“neither financing model has the exclusivity on making crap.”
“iron man was lame.”
Never a truer word was spoken.
Posted by on 06/02 at 04:43 PM