Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
The State Of Indie Film: Not Very Good at All
- Thread starter Andrew Young
- Start date
- Banned
- #22
Clint, we've had this argument before, and frankly it's a tiresome one.
Most modern industrial societies have decided it's in the public interest to subsidize the arts, as the arts have been subsidized from time immemorial. You prefer that corporate commercial norms and popular entertainment prevail. You're welcome to that vision of civilization, but I don't know why you insist on imposing it on society at large.
It's may be because you yourself have no interest in the kind of work which isn't generally supported by the marketplace. But you remain silent on other subsidies. Sports, popular entertainment and network TV receive a variety of direct and indirect subsidies in the U.S., next to which art subsidies are trivial in amount. You really ought to be boycotting football games, if you don't believe in public support of private ventures.
To be honest, I find your arguments well -- argumentative. At a time when the U.S. government throws hundreds of billions at politically connected military contractors and agribusiness, and bails out for-profit corporations for what could be trillions, righteous rage against trifling arts' subsidies is downright ridiculous.
But, if you really must ride this hobby horse into the sunset, I guess I can't stop you. And since I raised it to begin with, I guess I'm to blame. There are some things which just can't be said here, without the usual outcry.
Most modern industrial societies have decided it's in the public interest to subsidize the arts, as the arts have been subsidized from time immemorial. You prefer that corporate commercial norms and popular entertainment prevail. You're welcome to that vision of civilization, but I don't know why you insist on imposing it on society at large.
It's may be because you yourself have no interest in the kind of work which isn't generally supported by the marketplace. But you remain silent on other subsidies. Sports, popular entertainment and network TV receive a variety of direct and indirect subsidies in the U.S., next to which art subsidies are trivial in amount. You really ought to be boycotting football games, if you don't believe in public support of private ventures.
To be honest, I find your arguments well -- argumentative. At a time when the U.S. government throws hundreds of billions at politically connected military contractors and agribusiness, and bails out for-profit corporations for what could be trillions, righteous rage against trifling arts' subsidies is downright ridiculous.
But, if you really must ride this hobby horse into the sunset, I guess I can't stop you. And since I raised it to begin with, I guess I'm to blame. There are some things which just can't be said here, without the usual outcry.
donatello b
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
"there are no world-class arthouse filmmakers working in the U.S. today"
is "arthouse" based on "hollywood type movies ?
does it mean the movies they show at art museums ?
is it woody A , Coen bros , or a movie without car chase scenes and shootings ?
the general public wants to see ENTERTAINING movies, they want to be wowed , now & then they'll pay for something with meaning ....
it all comes down to how many butts are in the seats ( and that is PAYING butts) ... no paying butts viewing the "art" film = the theater may only book a few a year ?? it cost a theater X $$ per day/week/month to operate each screen ...
the last i looked ... pretty much any theater will rent you their screen for one showing , a day , a week , a month ... if a indie or art type movie thinks others will want to pay and see it they can 4 wall ( rent) a theater ..
all the persons i know that have a finished movie complain about they can't get their movie screened ... only ONE has put his $$ where his mouth was and 4 walled it in a 3 theater opening (SF, Berkeley, Marin) ..it was allot of work .. he had to make arrangement for movie critics to view the film before the opening , radio ads , news paper ads ,arrange interviews on local radio/tv, make movie poster , 4x6 cards to pass out and more = time & $$ ...
... from what i recall the theaters were approx 5k a week to rent , 2500 for a 1/4 page ad in SF chronical .... it played 10 weeks in SF , 6 weeks in Marin , 1 week in Berkeley ...
i see Woody A has made his last several movies outside the USA because of budget (approx 14 mil ) ... if he had shot those in USA the budget would be approx 24 mil ??? ... so the difference seems to be the $$ persons can make a profit with the 14mil budget but not the 24mil budget ...
is "arthouse" based on "hollywood type movies ?
does it mean the movies they show at art museums ?
is it woody A , Coen bros , or a movie without car chase scenes and shootings ?
the general public wants to see ENTERTAINING movies, they want to be wowed , now & then they'll pay for something with meaning ....
it all comes down to how many butts are in the seats ( and that is PAYING butts) ... no paying butts viewing the "art" film = the theater may only book a few a year ?? it cost a theater X $$ per day/week/month to operate each screen ...
the last i looked ... pretty much any theater will rent you their screen for one showing , a day , a week , a month ... if a indie or art type movie thinks others will want to pay and see it they can 4 wall ( rent) a theater ..
all the persons i know that have a finished movie complain about they can't get their movie screened ... only ONE has put his $$ where his mouth was and 4 walled it in a 3 theater opening (SF, Berkeley, Marin) ..it was allot of work .. he had to make arrangement for movie critics to view the film before the opening , radio ads , news paper ads ,arrange interviews on local radio/tv, make movie poster , 4x6 cards to pass out and more = time & $$ ...
... from what i recall the theaters were approx 5k a week to rent , 2500 for a 1/4 page ad in SF chronical .... it played 10 weeks in SF , 6 weeks in Marin , 1 week in Berkeley ...
i see Woody A has made his last several movies outside the USA because of budget (approx 14 mil ) ... if he had shot those in USA the budget would be approx 24 mil ??? ... so the difference seems to be the $$ persons can make a profit with the 14mil budget but not the 24mil budget ...
- Banned
- #24
Donatello, jeez, I acknowledged from the outset that art films are not sustainable commercially without subsidies. That's why so many countries do subsidize it -- in the same way they subsidize and protect countless other industries.
The only real argument is whether you want indie film to look like it does in the U.S. If so, do nothing. Nobody will go see the films, and they'll remain largely mediocre. The marketplace triumphs again!
The only real argument is whether you want indie film to look like it does in the U.S. If so, do nothing. Nobody will go see the films, and they'll remain largely mediocre. The marketplace triumphs again!
I think the lowered cost of filmmaking will provide some opportunity for truly independent artists to get unique creations to their market at a profit. They won't be $200 million dollar extravaganzas - but I do believe niche, alternative content may have a better chance now than ever in the "free" market. So don't get too bummed out.
Joe G.
Well-known member
"...with distributors shunning films such as
Steven Soderbergh's "Che," starring Benicio Del Toro."
Pure capitalist distributors not wanting to promote a film about the most popular socialist revolutionary leader in the world? Who'd have guessed? That is truly shocking.
Anyway this argument that films are just "entertainment," of no more value than "Ultimate fighting" is crap. Go film sports then, and leave the filmmaking to filmmakers. Messages beside "winning is everything" deserve a place in our culture.
The problem of a dumbed down audience that just wants sex and things that blow up real good should be mentioned. That's your demographic, your public, here in the US of A. Is it that pathetic? I guess the jury is still out.
With the lowering of costs, what we need is a new theater model -- a lot like the old one that was driven out of business by the corporate multiplex stampede.
With cheaper digital projection systems, smaller theaters can hopefully survive against the big craptaculars. Then, the audience can be created for more diverse films. A new audience can be cultivated. That is a long term paradigm shift, which will change the society if successful.
If there's nowhere to see independent, non-corporate-written-by-committee films, then people won't be part of a film-going community. This has happened in most places nowadays, unless you're in a big city. Diversity has been squeezed out of the market such that people don't have the option to go see a different kind of film even if they are willing to pay more to do so. This is a failure of the "market" to provide a choice. Not some virtue. It's a tyranny of the majority failing.
You can go see Pepsi The Movie, or Coke The Movie.
Daquiri The Movie is not showing in your area.
Perhaps with the advance of cheaper projection systems, you will have more choices in the near future.
The other thing about state subsidies is this. Other nations want to protect their culture from the endless Hollywood assault. They have every right to do this, to promote their own languages, cultures, stories. If it requires some tax money to insure their own film industries aren't demolished by the invasion, so be it. Plenty of outstanding films have resulted. They see it in their interest to do so.
Steven Soderbergh's "Che," starring Benicio Del Toro."
Pure capitalist distributors not wanting to promote a film about the most popular socialist revolutionary leader in the world? Who'd have guessed? That is truly shocking.
Anyway this argument that films are just "entertainment," of no more value than "Ultimate fighting" is crap. Go film sports then, and leave the filmmaking to filmmakers. Messages beside "winning is everything" deserve a place in our culture.
The problem of a dumbed down audience that just wants sex and things that blow up real good should be mentioned. That's your demographic, your public, here in the US of A. Is it that pathetic? I guess the jury is still out.
With the lowering of costs, what we need is a new theater model -- a lot like the old one that was driven out of business by the corporate multiplex stampede.
With cheaper digital projection systems, smaller theaters can hopefully survive against the big craptaculars. Then, the audience can be created for more diverse films. A new audience can be cultivated. That is a long term paradigm shift, which will change the society if successful.
If there's nowhere to see independent, non-corporate-written-by-committee films, then people won't be part of a film-going community. This has happened in most places nowadays, unless you're in a big city. Diversity has been squeezed out of the market such that people don't have the option to go see a different kind of film even if they are willing to pay more to do so. This is a failure of the "market" to provide a choice. Not some virtue. It's a tyranny of the majority failing.
You can go see Pepsi The Movie, or Coke The Movie.
Daquiri The Movie is not showing in your area.
Perhaps with the advance of cheaper projection systems, you will have more choices in the near future.
The other thing about state subsidies is this. Other nations want to protect their culture from the endless Hollywood assault. They have every right to do this, to promote their own languages, cultures, stories. If it requires some tax money to insure their own film industries aren't demolished by the invasion, so be it. Plenty of outstanding films have resulted. They see it in their interest to do so.
Shawn Booth
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,747
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Honolulu. HI
- Website
- www.facebook.com
I believe the studios actually do the distribution, not own the companies - they are the company. They don't own the theatres either.... If they did, concessions would be cheaper.
Tom Lowe
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 8,520
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
In the LA area, we have tons of "indie" productions going at any given time, but they completely lack imagination or anything fresh to say. 95% of indies in LA are set in the LA area and feature a bunch of 20- or 30-somethings sitting around running their mouths in their apartments (with brightly painted walls, of course) or perhaps shooting one or two scenes at their friend's restaurant... in LA. Who wants to watch this type of crap?
- Banned
- #29
That same film is currently being shot in 200 apartments in downtown NYC, only the couches have fleas and the walls tend to be landlord white.
Bigger budgets usually opt for the standard Sundance movie: gritty working-class drama in bleak regional surroundings. The kids all have colds, the rent is late, the cars are decomposing in the weeds and the women don't put on make-up. Somewhere or other, there's a non-white woman friend ready to dispense wisdom on demand at the kitchen table. But absolutely no sign of the class consciousness which might antagonize Sundance liberals or the film school grads who write and direct the stuff with the unique insight which comes of having watched a lot of John Cassavetes and never missed a meal.
In the 1990s, the cliches were different: Jarmusch-inspired slacker movies, and rip-offs of "After Hours", "Mean Streets" and "Pickpocket".
Is this what happens when art forms are co-opted by the managerial classes and their careerist kids? Should only sociopaths and anti-social types be allowed to make movies, so the stuff isn't so damned predictable and normative? Is there no hope at all?
It's a funny business, movies..... You never know what will fly, and sometimes the answer is horrifying....
Bigger budgets usually opt for the standard Sundance movie: gritty working-class drama in bleak regional surroundings. The kids all have colds, the rent is late, the cars are decomposing in the weeds and the women don't put on make-up. Somewhere or other, there's a non-white woman friend ready to dispense wisdom on demand at the kitchen table. But absolutely no sign of the class consciousness which might antagonize Sundance liberals or the film school grads who write and direct the stuff with the unique insight which comes of having watched a lot of John Cassavetes and never missed a meal.
In the 1990s, the cliches were different: Jarmusch-inspired slacker movies, and rip-offs of "After Hours", "Mean Streets" and "Pickpocket".
Is this what happens when art forms are co-opted by the managerial classes and their careerist kids? Should only sociopaths and anti-social types be allowed to make movies, so the stuff isn't so damned predictable and normative? Is there no hope at all?
It's a funny business, movies..... You never know what will fly, and sometimes the answer is horrifying....
Clint Johnson
Well-known member
Hi JPP,
In most modern industrial societies, self designated elitists have convinced politicians that it would help advance their careers if they subsidize certain activities such as the arts. Campaign fund raising, photo ops, a few votes and great pull quotes are what get state funding for the arts. A common mistake is to want to take it above a certain amount, but there is only so much influence peddling the art industry can offer before they become a campaign liability.
Sure this may seem pragmatically better than paying for the stuff you want out of your own pocket but I can't see it as morally defensible.
Something I have trouble wrapping my head around is your insistence that the non-imposition of my vision is a way of imposing my vision? What I would like is for you to stop insisting on imposing your vision on a society that does not want it. That isn't to single you out for excoriation, I truly and honestly don't want the state to impose my vision either.
As for other forms of entertainment, the wrath is there when anyone brings up subsidizing the NHL or Olympic teams - for the record, I hold all corporate welfare in low esteem, not just that within the entertainment business.
I don't find it a solid argument when suggests it is alright to waste a few hundred million more tax dollars because it just amounts to a rounding error for what the big guys waste. You waste a few hundred million dollars a year for a few decades and it adds up to real money.
Clint Johnson
Well-known member
Just because we find it more personally gratifying doesn't give us the right to denigrate someone else's choices. One might as well write “This argument that Ultimate Fighting is just “entertainment,” of no more value than “feature film” is crap.”
Clint Johnson
Well-known member
Okay, enough of me being a negative prick.
One experiment to run would be a flexible venue. The digital projection systems coming down in price could allow for some interesting ways to get smaller audience films seen.
A flexplex could have a greater range of theatre sizes, ranging from say - 20 seat to 500 seat. In the lobby, instead of movie posters, there could be displays playing the first act or the first ten minutes of the films available. People could watch and see if they are interested enough to pay to watch the show. However many tickets were sold would decide the particular theatre that the next showing would screen in.
The venue could grow or shrink as needed and if the place was massive enough, there could be some serious long tail business going on. What the theatre owners need to do to keep their heads above water is to keep asses in seats- ten 75% capacity 20 seat theatres could be made to work better than one 50% capacity 200 seater... as long as the cost of those ten 20 seat theatres aren't greatly more than the single 200 seat theatre. Low cost servers and projectors are the key to this.
This could overcome a lot of the reliance on marketing dollars and, at least inside those walls, level the field a bit. Of course the same "teaser" should be available on the theatre's website as well as that of the filmmaker, the distributor and bittorrent.
One experiment to run would be a flexible venue. The digital projection systems coming down in price could allow for some interesting ways to get smaller audience films seen.
A flexplex could have a greater range of theatre sizes, ranging from say - 20 seat to 500 seat. In the lobby, instead of movie posters, there could be displays playing the first act or the first ten minutes of the films available. People could watch and see if they are interested enough to pay to watch the show. However many tickets were sold would decide the particular theatre that the next showing would screen in.
The venue could grow or shrink as needed and if the place was massive enough, there could be some serious long tail business going on. What the theatre owners need to do to keep their heads above water is to keep asses in seats- ten 75% capacity 20 seat theatres could be made to work better than one 50% capacity 200 seater... as long as the cost of those ten 20 seat theatres aren't greatly more than the single 200 seat theatre. Low cost servers and projectors are the key to this.
This could overcome a lot of the reliance on marketing dollars and, at least inside those walls, level the field a bit. Of course the same "teaser" should be available on the theatre's website as well as that of the filmmaker, the distributor and bittorrent.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
You aren't making an apt comparison -- the movies and music being pirated already were marketed, so they were known by the public. People tend not to pirate movies that they've never heard of.
Marketing is a key issue that any independent filmmaker has to consider. It's not enough to shoot it cheaply and show it cheaply... if no one hears about the screening nor gets excited enough to make the effort to watch the movie. Even at Sundance, most filmmakers with any experience who are negotiating a film sale will base the final decision more on how much the distributor plans on spending on marketing than they do on how much the distributor plans on paying for the movie. Because they've seen their previous movie die on the vine from lack of marketing.
- Banned
- #34
GlennChan
Banned
If you look at bittorrent...
both hollywood blockbusters and indie films like star wars fan films are available. (The former is illegal, the latter is not.) But in this area, indie films and hollywood blockbusters are on equal footing. (Though you can say that the hollywood films are slightly disadvantaged due to anti-piracy measures, i.e. fake torrents, and low quality of cams.)
If you look at the # of downloads, studio films are far more heavily downloaded than free indie films. Distribution wise they are on roughly equal footing here... yet studio films win out. So I don't think distribution is the problem.
The studio films do have a marketing advantage (direct marketing, and because people see it in theatres and tell their friends). If you look at Canadian television, we've tried this too. CBC has gone out of their way to heavily advertise some of their Canadian TV shows. Yet the eyeballs still go to American TV shows.
both hollywood blockbusters and indie films like star wars fan films are available. (The former is illegal, the latter is not.) But in this area, indie films and hollywood blockbusters are on equal footing. (Though you can say that the hollywood films are slightly disadvantaged due to anti-piracy measures, i.e. fake torrents, and low quality of cams.)
If you look at the # of downloads, studio films are far more heavily downloaded than free indie films. Distribution wise they are on roughly equal footing here... yet studio films win out. So I don't think distribution is the problem.
The studio films do have a marketing advantage (direct marketing, and because people see it in theatres and tell their friends). If you look at Canadian television, we've tried this too. CBC has gone out of their way to heavily advertise some of their Canadian TV shows. Yet the eyeballs still go to American TV shows.
Clint Johnson
Well-known member
In fairness to the Canadian TV shows (thought you'd never hear that out of me eh?) the amount of marketing that Canadian networks can do is lost in the noise generated south of the border. The magazines on the stands, the entertainment news programs on every night, the internet push 24/7... the little guy can't be heard over the din.
If every marketing dollar in Canada was spent on one show it would still fall short of the collateral attention that a show like Heroes gets from the unpaid coverage from the entertainment "news" world (and yes I realize that the majority of that so called coverage is bought and paid for).
If every marketing dollar in Canada was spent on one show it would still fall short of the collateral attention that a show like Heroes gets from the unpaid coverage from the entertainment "news" world (and yes I realize that the majority of that so called coverage is bought and paid for).
Priyesh P.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Due to all of these changes, I mean Hollywoods focusing on prequels, sequels and remakes, cheap & stupid teenmovies and moronic films generally and the problems of indie film that were pointed out here I`ve started to loose my interest to work in features (I also don`t believe that there are very much good films out there, whether shot on red or dvx). I tend to go back to the state of "naive" filmmaking, just like I did in school, but with much more and better skills. Do the films I want to do. That`s why I`m very excited of Scarlet, as a replacement for my good old PD150... All of this bootlicking, suffering and fighting - and just to end up somewhere to not really make the movies that you would like to do? The whole film industry has lost track from the way movies where done in the 80ies and, to some extent, in the 90ies...that was to entertain people and not to aim for the most mediocre shit to reach every dipshit in the whole world...
Joe G.
Well-known member
"I don't find it a solid argument when suggests it is alright to waste a few hundred million more tax dollars because it just amounts to a rounding error for what the big guys waste. You waste a few hundred million dollars a year for a few decades and it adds up to real money."
Your complaint hinges on the word "waste." Art is not a "waste." Entertainment arguably is.
Admit the difference.
You probably won't. But there it is.
Your complaint hinges on the word "waste." Art is not a "waste." Entertainment arguably is.
Admit the difference.
You probably won't. But there it is.
Todd Folts
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 57
I read through/scanned the postings and there are a few things i was thinking about
first what makes a film "indie"
non "studio"?
cheap?
a relatively unknown filmmaker?
what was more independent? slingblade, reservoir dogs, star wars, river runs through it, matewan, raising arizona, living in oblivion....
10-15 years ago EVERYBODY was an independednt film maker, and the studios had their "indie" branches and everybody went to sundance! there was a ton of money made off of cheap or cheaper films (mr. travolta and mr. willis: here is your chance to be big again!) and careers were brought back from the dead. the indie wave peaked in the 90's and that same scheme wont work.
Mr. Mullen is right: marketing marketing marketing.
so whats an indie to do?
btw i dont think the term indie means anything anymore. once there is a cable channel (sundance and IFC) you are no longer independent imho
im starting to ramble now....
EDIT:
oh yeah: what is an "indie" independent from?
the corporate Hollywood machine?
a big name that will attract viewers?
distribution?
money?
first what makes a film "indie"
non "studio"?
cheap?
a relatively unknown filmmaker?
what was more independent? slingblade, reservoir dogs, star wars, river runs through it, matewan, raising arizona, living in oblivion....
10-15 years ago EVERYBODY was an independednt film maker, and the studios had their "indie" branches and everybody went to sundance! there was a ton of money made off of cheap or cheaper films (mr. travolta and mr. willis: here is your chance to be big again!) and careers were brought back from the dead. the indie wave peaked in the 90's and that same scheme wont work.
Mr. Mullen is right: marketing marketing marketing.
so whats an indie to do?
btw i dont think the term indie means anything anymore. once there is a cable channel (sundance and IFC) you are no longer independent imho
im starting to ramble now....
EDIT:
oh yeah: what is an "indie" independent from?
the corporate Hollywood machine?
a big name that will attract viewers?
distribution?
money?
Yannick Hagman
Well-known member
It's a real indie is produced by the filmmaker itself or small production that isn't owned by a bigger studio. The term indie is often abused by studios as a niche. There are many productions that operate on studio money. They basically have to deliver a specific number of films a year and get paid their office overheads. "Killer films" for instance, which was an "indie"-production once.
Priyesh P.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
totally right. the biggest mistake of indies (intended or not) seems that they sit down, have a given budget in their heads (lets say 50K) and then start thinking about the movie they`ll make. in 99% it`s the least-effort-type-movie tom mentioned or the only area where these people see their USP or alleged prodction value that doesn`t cost a dime - dialogue and ultra-long takes of serious-looking actors...