The State Of Indie Film: Not Very Good at All

[Andrew Young]

While the new tools at our disposal allow us to do so much more with less $$, and while I applaud the democratization of the craft, it is very sobering to take note of what is been happening to independent films in the market place lately. It's not about quality - there's plenty of great stuff being made. It's about quantity. Financiers are finally facing up to the fact that there's too much product in the marketplace to make indie film a good investment. If your world revolves around indie production, I recommend reading both of these recent articles. Yes, they are depressing, but very important to be aware of.

Yes, the Sky Really is Falling by Mark Gill on indieWIRE (http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2008/06/irst_person_fil.html)

Glut of Films Hits Hollywood by By LAUREN A.E. SCHUKER and PETER SANDERS in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039884622592871.html)

Apologies if they’ve been posted before.

[Michael Schrengohst]

From:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039884622592871.html
Ouch:
"Major film distributors are being far more cautious in acquiring independently financed films for distribution,
a situation that has dramatically slowed business at major film gatherings such as Sundance in January and
Cannes in May. At Cannes this year, there was very little buying, with distributors shunning films such as
Steven Soderbergh's "Che," starring Benicio Del Toro."

[Mark L. Pederson]

great post on my favorite blog -

http://cinematech.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-there-future-for-indie-film.html

Scott ends his post with -

"And some people –- the real pessimists –- may believe that there will never be a new business model for independent film.

I’m curious what you think."

Well Scott ... I am EXTREMELY CONFIDENT there will be several new models. From chaos, comes opportunity. But I've always been a "the glass is half-full" kinda guy ...

[GlennChan]

indie film a good investment
When was it ever a good investment? ;)

But on a serious note, what is being said is that indie film is not in a good state because the market is not very profitable. Other people would apply different metrics to success... e.g. the quality of films being made.
In my opinion, if anything, indie film is doing a little better than before. For filmmakers who don't care about theatrical releases or making money, they can now put their film up on the internet and other people can see it. And viewers of indie films have ways of figuring what's worth seeing and what's not worth seeing. It's not like a film festival of shorts, where your only choice is seeing the film or walking out of the theatre.

[Shawn Nelson]

I've read a lot of these over the past few months, one HUGE thing I notice is that they dont differentiate between the indies. Are there a glut of all indies? I think there's way too many documentaries for starters. Then into narative fiction, it seems they are all either no-budget horror, or drama. And it's well known that there is too much drama, at any level. So maybe it's more of a case of too much of the wrong product? Adama Cultraro, who recently made a $300k indie on the HVX200 with Tom Sizemore seems to be having no trouble at all, maybe it's because he made an action movie.

It's not fair to whine that the market is disappearing when the products desired aren't actually being made.

[ThydNostrum]

It is all politics. The theater owners decide which films to screen, from within their distributor's catalog. The distributors decide which film to distribute, from within the catalog of the Studios they are associated with. The Studios decide which films to finance and which artists and equipment to use.

The theaters and distributors are mostly owned by Studios, which in turn are owned by a few individuals.
Even pornography is controlled by few individuals.

[Andrew Young]

Great blog Mark. I too believe there will be new, technology-driven models, particularly as the internet begins to deliver high-quality content to the home theater. The sooner the better, I say. It's just staggering to see how the rising cost of marketing has impacted the viability of the good ole theatrical release.

[Andrew Young]

It is all politics. The theater owners decide which films to screen, from within their distributor's catalog. The distributors decide which film to distribute, from within the catalog of the Studios they are associated with. The Studios decide which films to finance and which artists and equipment to use.

Politics is huge, of course, but I don't think it is as big a factor as economics. With the steady rise in the number of films being made each year, (as seen in Sundance submissions) and in the growing number released, even a low budget film now needs a huge marketing budget just to get noticed in theatrical release. This has skewed the economics away from "small films." Clearly a new model is needed for all the good stuff out there to find an audience.

[Bruce Allen]

Well Scott ... I am EXTREMELY CONFIDENT there will be several new models. From chaos, comes opportunity. But I've always been a "the glass is half-full" kinda guy ...

You're also one of the few guys smart / talented enough to have a big Sundance success recently. I'll take heart from your comments because I think you know what you're talking about...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[donatello b]

as far back as i can remember there have been up & down times for indies/movie business ..
there have always been more product then available screens ...
new marketing models have ALWAYS popped up when old one's stopped/slowed working ....
hollywood (& the whole world industry) is always looking for new talent ...
Distributors are always looking for new product ...
hollywood doesn't know what indie movie will be a hit next ...
most distributors are looking for a movie that is like the one that was a hit 6 months ago ....

bottom line = there's always opportunity !!!!

[jpp]

The trouble with the suggestions offered in the blog post Mark cites is its underlying assumption that there's a hunger or a need for these movies. But there simply isn't time in the day for anyone to see all this stuff, even when it's offered free. I catch a few hundred non-Hollywood films a year, but can't begin to keep up with current world-wide art house production.

And the truth is, most of these movies are dispensable. They could have many good and admirable qualities, and yet they remain dispensable, which isn't lost on their potential audience. And, alas, American indies have their own particular demerits, thanks to the absence of non-commercial sources of funding.

In all, I think the expectations are wholly unrealistic. Unremarkable non-Hollywood films simply can't earn millions in box office, whether the box office is in the East Village or on the internet. Meanwhile, the true works of art among them don't have large potential audiences at the best of times.

For non-Hollywood filmmaking to survive in any thing like a healthy state, it seems to me two conditions have to be met: 1) some form of government financial subsidy and/or a theatrical quota system where theaters have to show a certain number of these films (a system in place in many parts of the world); and 2) greatly reduced expectations on the part of filmmakers, with respect to fame and income.

In the U.S., it will limp along without either condition being satisfied, and every few years someone, often undeserving, will hit the jackpot. But the prospects remain bleak without structural change. Even with structural change, there are too many of these movies for the size of the audience.

[David M]

Well, as I said in another thread, while RED is slashing the cost of the technological tools that allow anyone to become a film maker, the picture will not be complete until they or somebody else slashes the cost of cinema projection, so that anyone can also become a film exhibitor.

DVD and Internet distribution model don't really cut it, you need the group experience that only cinematic viewing can bring.

Digital projection has some largely unappreciated advantages over film projection, in particular, flexibility over what is being projected. With film projection there's no easy way to change the program once the film has been threaded up. Current "hands off" satellite download digital cinema distribution models are equally cumbersome, we badly need disk-based cinema-size 4K projection.

We badly need the return of the "Short".

[David Mullen ASC]

Cheaper projectors and cheaper cameras doesn't really help the problem of marketing costs so that people in the area will interested in seeing your movie...

[GlennChan]

1) some form of government financial subsidy and/or a theatrical quota system where theaters have to show a certain number of these films (a system in place in many parts of the world)
I think this is a bad idea (or a good way to waste money).

In Canada, the film and TV industries are heavily subsidized though theatres aren't forced to show Canadian films. TV broadcasters are forced to air Canadian content. Regardless, not many Canadians watch Canadian drama/narrative on TV or in theatres. There's a lot of BS about maintaining Canadian culture, but the reality is that Canadians watch American television more than Canadian television.
In my opinion, it's not a good way to spend society's resources when we have more pressing issues such as homelessness, war, the environment, etc.

2- From an artistic standpoint... if you look at storytelling for example... it used to be (pre-TV, pre-paper) that people would tell stories orally and that your stories would only go so far. It wouldn't have a global reach. With film, some films would have a global reach but for only a very limited number of films. You needed commercial backing. Now with the internet, any story can reach a global audience. Just look on Youtube (and the Star Wars fan films via bittorrent). So the distribution is there.

Granted, viewership of indie films is low compared to Hollywood blockbusters. But so is Canadian TV versus American TV. IMO, most people just prefer to see big-budget TV and films (which tend to have the cream of the crop in terms of talent) when it comes to narrative.
And even if you look at the top films lists from film experts (e.g. AFI), you see that big-budget films top their lists. These people have presumably seen a lot of indie films, so marketing budget is not really the issue.

[Dan Hudgins]

I went to a film distribution conference at the Mill Valley film festival several years ago with my Brother and one of the speakers on the panel said this:

"Films get the distribution they deserve"

Then I think he or one of the others on the panel went on to talk about the 100 or so video tapes he gets each week with low grade me-to junk on them. He gave the impression that if you sent a tape of something worth looking at it would also end up in the trach can unviewed like all the others.

One hard question one needs to ask ones self is:

"If I did not make this film, or know anyone associated with it, would I go see it".

If the answer to that is No, then why would you think other people would?

There was a thread this week I think relating to giving the film away to get some Theatrical Distribution in order to help sales of DVDs and other items later.

Super Markets now charge for shelf space, if you do not PAY them they will not carry your brand.

As fewer and fewer people go to movie theatres I can see that even just giving your movie print to the theatre owner in hope that he would show it would not even be of interest to him, getting the film for free will not pay for the electricity if no one is there, and without adds who would show up?

To get even a few people in the theatre you need to PAY the theatre owner to show your film, and to pay for adds to get someone to show up.

Expecting to see a return from your "me to" film or for a distributor to be your champion when he can find 100 other things to show that are probably better money makers leaves you with few options, other than making something that has some actual draw.

A camera like a RED ONE (tm) helps you put more of what little money you have in front of the camera rather than have it go to the LAB, it also lets you shoot at a higher ratio something that can be a help with actors that do not have the one take down. It also lets you get a quality that is better than the mini-DV crowd. But with 5000 RED ONE (tm) in use, how you become the 1 in 5000 that makes a film that makes its cost back this year?

If anything you shoot does not look good, it will look much worse to the audience, if anything is boring the distributor will want it cut, so why shoot it in the first place?

Oh well, it is not easy, but if you make something you are truly happy with and proud you made, then maybe that is all that matters as long as it does not put you in debt for too long...

I'd better get back to work, things are going better than I thought a year ago with development of my DI system, I was not planing on doing TIF support but it fits much better with the RED ONE (tm) workflow now and you can see better results with fewer histogram gaps importing driect from REDCINE (tm) with REDLog 16bit TIF... I just need to make what gets shot is equal to the uncompressed DI in quality...

[number6]

Oh well, it is not easy, but if you make something you are truly happy with and proud you made, then maybe that is all that matters as long as it does not put you in debt for too long...

I'd better get back to work, things are going better than I thought a year ago with development of my DI system, I was not planing on doing TIF support but it fits much better with the RED ONE (tm) workflow now and you can see better results with fewer histogram gaps importing driect from REDCINE (tm) with REDLog 16bit TIF... I just need to make what gets shot is equal to the uncompressed DI in quality...

Best segue on the forum... hands doun!:usd:

afterthought: might 3-D be that one thing that can get a movie buzz... until 3-D becomes ubiquitous, that is?

[David M]

Cheaper projectors and cheaper cameras doesn't really help the problem of marketing costs so that people in the area will interested in seeing your movie...

I think it's a case of Buddy-can-you-spare-a-paradigm?:whistling:
Ten years ago who would have predicted the MP3 revolution? Or near DVD-quality pirate movie downloads off the internet? Or easily available software that lets you copy DVDs on $20 or so DVD drives?
Nobody marketed those, and legal or otherwise, you can't say they haven't been successful.
But CDs and DVDs seem to sell as well as they ever did and I haven't seen too much fall off in the number of video rental libraries (or cinemas for that matter).

[jpp]

I think this is a bad idea (or a good way to waste money).

In Canada, the film and TV industries are heavily subsidized though theatres aren't forced to show Canadian films. TV broadcasters are forced to air Canadian content. Regardless, not many Canadians watch Canadian drama/narrative on TV or in theatres.

This dispute isn't new to the forum, so let's stick with the non-controversial and non-ideological statements we can make about public subisidies:

1) a subsidy system can be demonstrably effective at nourishing talent (e.g., Australia, to take an English speaking country whose talent has penetrated Hollywood). In the case of Canada, I've seen a number of films which could never get financed in the U.S. Whether they were good enough to merit public subsidies in retrospect is an open question. I would argue "yes", but, in any case, there's a potential for excellence which simply doesn't exist in the U.S.

2) Most American art houses show publically subsidized foreign films, not commercially financed American indies. There's no more desire to see commercially financed American indies than there is to watch publically financed Canadian TV. You may still prefer private finance, but we can't pretend it's attaining a desirable market result.

3) the best of the American indies tend to emerge from private but generally non-commercial or non-professional funding arrangements; the "professionals" are largely incompetent at selecting either prestigious or profitable films. This is fine for the few who get the money, but it's no way to sustain a medium like film, where productive careers are not possible without sustained, enlightened and reliable sources of financing.

4 ) any "solution", including public subsidies, will involve waste. I don't know if it's still true, but the U.S. used to spend more on military marching bands, than all of the arts put together. So please: if nothing else, no arguments about wasting taxpayers' money.

5) there are no world-class arthouse filmmakers working in the U.S. today. How is that a tribute to the wisdom of the free market system, in a country this size?

6) can't we acknowledge, once and for all, that not everything good makes money? If there's no desire to subsidize filmmaking in the U.S., fine. But why do we have pretend, year after year, that we don't know what's wrong? Believe it or not, the commercial mindset doesn't always lead to the best possible outcome.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Great read, in all the links, reading is always good for the mind, but nonetheless is just reading, nothing more.

There is plenty of bad news about everything, and there is equally great news about everything.

It is good to know, what it is going on in our market place, but again it is only up to the individual to make his/hers story get Published/Distribuited.

I'm a positive person by nature, and will let nothing ever stand in the way of my success, yes it is true that there is an incredible amount of product, but this to me is good, more to choose from.

Yes the more product there is the harder becomes the selling, but not if you have a great story, and definitely not if you Persevere to your cause.


Continue to make Movies, and Persevere in your cause, no matter what, just remember that the Film Industry it is a Marketing Industry above all, and for such you must always leave finances for your marketing campaign, or no matter how great your film is, you will not be able to let anyone find out about it!

Not trying to teach anything to anyone here, just touching an important point once again!


I embrace Independent FilmMaking and this is why I opened KETCHFRAME STUDIOS, and everything I have is dedicated to it, FilmMaking is my Life, it is what I wanted to do my entire miserable life, and finally I'm doing it, and I'm miserable no more, no matter what happens, no one can stop me now, and don't let them stop you either, make your movie, and spread the word about it, in any means possible, don't let anyone tell you anything unless it is a positive thing, negativity about the economy or anything in life will get you no were, and yes we must be realistic as well, but been negative about a negative situation has no gains, while if you stay positive even in a negative situation, something positive can come out of it.


Okay back to work now!


ciao

[Clint Johnson]

This dispute isn't new to the forum, so let's stick with the non-controversial and non-ideological statements we can make about public subisidies:

1) a subsidy system can be demonstrably effective at nourishing talent (e.g., Australia, to take an English speaking country whose talent has penetrated Hollywood). In the case of Canada, I've seen a number of films which could never get financed in the U.S. Whether they were good enough to merit public subsidies in retrospect is an open question. I would argue "yes", but, in any case, there's a potential for excellence which simply doesn't exist in the U.S.

That talent is so desperate to express itself that one of the primary jobs of the guilds and unions is to keep them from working for free. The talent will nourish itself and the market will keep the chaff from mixing with the wheat. The subsidies nourish the lack of talent... or more accurately, they nourish the talent to fill out forms.



2) Most American art houses show publically subsidized foreign films, not commercially financed American indies. There's no more desire to see commercially financed American indies than there is to watch publically financed Canadian TV. You may still prefer private finance, but we can't pretend it's attaining a desirable market result.

This is exactly the market result I want. If nobody is buying buggy whips why should we keep the factory going?



3) the best of the American indies tend to emerge from private but generally non-commercial or non-professional funding arrangements; the "professionals" are largely incompetent at selecting either prestigious or profitable films. This is fine for the few who get the money, but it's no way to sustain a medium like film, where productive careers are not possible without sustained, enlightened and reliable sources of financing.

This thread started with a concern that there was a glut of films being made. When thousands are made that never find a market- I can't see the need for state intervention to make more unwatchable films.



4 ) any "solution", including public subsidies, will involve waste. I don't know if it's still true, but the U.S. used to spend more on military marching bands, than all of the arts put together. So please: if nothing else, no arguments about wasting taxpayers' money.

Because it is wasted in other areas we should ignore it when it is wasted on your favoured project? I would rather hold a consistent stand against wasting taxpayer money- full stop.



5) there are no world-class arthouse filmmakers working in the U.S. today. How is that a tribute to the wisdom of the free market system, in a country this size?

Not enough people want that particular form of entertainment. There aren't a lot of live vaudeville acts any more and I don't think that deserves a subsidy either. "Arthouse" films aren't of any more intrinsic value than any particular showing of "American Idol", The Dark Knight or an Ultimate Fighting championship bout. Our particular tastes don't change that and relying on the market system will keep those with esoteric interests from bullying the rest into paying for their particular kink.



6) can't we acknowledge, once and for all, that not everything good makes money? If there's no desire to subsidize filmmaking in the U.S., fine. But why do we have pretend, year after year, that we don't know what's wrong? Believe it or not, the commercial mindset doesn't always lead to the best possible outcome.

When it leads to an outcome where millions of people pay for the entertainment that they want while thousands don't get the entertainment that they refuse to pay for... that seems to be an acceptable outcome to me.

[Nick Wolf]

Bruce=What Sundance Success are you refering to?


Dogday.

[jpp]

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.

[donatello b]

"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 ...

[jpp]

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!

[Joel Kaye]

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.]

"...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.

[Shawn Booth]

It is all politics. The theater owners decide which films to screen, from within their distributor's catalog. The distributors decide which film to distribute, from within the catalog of the Studios they are associated with. The Studios decide which films to finance and which artists and equipment to use.

The theaters and distributors are mostly owned by Studios, which in turn are owned by a few individuals.
Even pornography is controlled by few individuals.

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]

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?

[jpp]

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....

[Clint Johnson]

Most modern industrial societies have decided it's in the public interest to subsidize the arts, as they've 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 trillions at politically connected military contractors and agribusiness, and bails out for-profit corporations for trillions more, righteous rage against arts' subsidies is downright ridiculous.


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]

"
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.


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]

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.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think it's a case of Buddy-can-you-spare-a-paradigm?:whistling:
Ten years ago who would have predicted the MP3 revolution? Or near DVD-quality pirate movie downloads off the internet? Or easily available software that lets you copy DVDs on $20 or so DVD drives?
Nobody marketed those, and legal or otherwise, you can't say they haven't been successful.
But CDs and DVDs seem to sell as well as they ever did and I haven't seen too much fall off in the number of video rental libraries (or cinemas for that matter).

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.

[GlennChan]

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.

[Clint Johnson]

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).

[Priyesh P.]

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.]

"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.

[Todd Folts]

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?

[Yannick Hagman]

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.]

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?

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...

[Clint Johnson]

"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.

There may well be a qualitative difference... but one man's "art" is the next man's belly laugh.

Your complaint hinges on your definition of art being paramount and one that should be forced on the unwashed masses who are too ignorant to want to pay for it themselves.

I may be every bit as arrogant about my opinion, I just don't want it imposed on you by the state whereas you are adamant to have the state impose your opinion on me.

You probably won't admit to that, "but there it is".

[Alex Coelho]

Do the masses really want to watch these types of films? I go to a locally owned theatre where they show mostly indie flicks and it's never jammed packed with people because it seems only a few really want to see films with complexity or real emotion. People always tell me that their life is hard enough and indie stories are sometimes a downer. I remember coming out of one of those chain theatres after watching "In the Bedroom" years back and I heard some saying how awful the film was, which was a shock to me since I thought it was one of the best films I had seen in years. I do think there is less quality films out there but I believe we are only going through a cycle.

[Priyesh P.]

Do the masses really want to watch these types of films?
One word : NO. I had a discussion with my friends about this and concluded, that most of this indie-movies were not made for people, but for film festivals.


People always tell me that their life is hard enough and indie stories are sometimes a downer.
Yes, that`s what I`m talking about. Sadness seems to be the easiest and cheepest achievable emotion. But, let`s say "Se7en" built this kind of depressing atmosphere by abstraction, whereas indies take long takes of sad faces, choose decaying settings and pull out any colours of the image.

[jpp]

If Clint is going to insist on blowing this bugle of his again and again (and again), here's my own bugle blast, from a similar orifice:

Thanks to its commercial funding basis, indie film in the U.S. attracts large numbers whose interest is vocational and careerist, not "artistic" or intellectual. It's not uncommon to encounter established professionals (as well as endless wannabes) who claim love and devotion to the film medium, but who know nothing about film history or contemporary work beyond mainstream traditions, and who aren't curious about finding out.

This is exactly what the commercial financing model would predict. Producers who may be expert in the mechanics of production or sales, but unproven and inexperienced in the "content area", have assumed what amounts to an editorial and curatorial position, because they control the money, or access to money (or, in some cases, production resources). We could argue over whether this development is good or bad, but it's unprecedented in the arts, and decisive - or terminal, as the case may be -- because the creation of work is no longer in the hands of artists or even of people making the claim to art. Similarly, in my experience - take it for what it's worth - directors and writers in the indie world rarely share the intense focus and deep mastery of the subject associated with the practice of solitary arts like writing, painting or music composition. There's a reason why they don't: that kind of personality won't survive in American indie film, the primary burden of which is raising money, not making films. And the lack of obsessive focus and vitality is plainly to be seen in the movies themselves. Most of this stuff is made by demonless upper-middle class kids without enough to do, and it shows.

We also need to look backwards: maybe the Golden Age never existed. When was American indie film ever "good"? At best, in my view, there are some interesting case studies, ranging from a non-Hollywood but industry-produced film like "sex, lies and videotape", to a genuine self-produced effort like "Slacker". Great or visionary work? Not likely. Or maybe there are one or two, which most people here would never have seen or even heard of.

So we're caught in a diminishing cycle: very few films worth seeing thanks to the way the films are financed, which incrementally reduces the "profile" of indie film in the U.S., which is turn makes it even even harder to raise money, which in turn narrows the field to even fewer people "with something to say". It's gone so far that in a thread like this you get actual expressions of hostility to non-commercial moviemaking, because the films are viewed as elitist and therefore undeserving of the subsidies which go to professional sports and network TV (not to mention oil companies, military contractors and outsourced torturers).

Flame me all you want for my insufferable elitist attitudes, but for gawd's sake, not another word about evil Canadian film subsidies or the infinite wisdom of the free market. The free market fantasy is one most Americans can no longer afford, as they look at the bill for bailing out the deregulated financial system, and contemplate yet another quarter without health insurance. Even worse, the movies are bad!

[number6]

If Clint is going to insist on blowing this bugle of his again and again (and again), here's my own bugle blast, from a similar orifice:

Thanks to its commercial funding basis, indie film in the U.S. attracts large numbers whose interest is vocational and careerist, not "artistic" or intellectual. It's not uncommon to encounter established professionals (as well as endless wannabes) who claim love and devotion to the film medium, but who know nothing about film history or contemporary work beyond mainstream traditions, and who aren't curious about finding out.

This is exactly what the commercial financing model would predict. Producers who may be expert in the mechanics of production or sales, but unproven and inexperienced in the "content area", have assumed what amounts to an editorial and curatorial position, because they control the money, or access to money (or, in some cases, production resources). We could argue over whether this development is good or bad, but it's unprecedented in the arts, and decisive - or terminal, as the case may be -- because the creation of work is no longer in the hands of artists or even of people making the claim to art. Similarly, in my experience - take it for what it's worth - directors and writers in the indie world rarely share the intense focus and deep mastery of the subject associated with the practice of solitary arts like writing, painting or music composition. There's a reason why they don't: that kind of personality won't survive in American indie film, the primary burden of which is raising money, not making films. And the lack of obsessive focus and vitality is plainly to be seen in the movies themselves. Most of this stuff is made by demonless upper-middle class kids without enough to do, and it shows.

We also need to look backwards: maybe the Golden Age never existed. When was American indie film ever "good"? At best, in my view, there are some interesting case studies, ranging from a non-Hollywood but industry-produced film like "sex, lies and videotape", to a genuine self-produced effort like "Slacker". Great or visionary work? Not likely. Or maybe there are one or two, which most people here would never have seen or even heard of.

So we're caught in a diminishing cycle: very few films worth seeing thanks to the way the films are financed, which incrementally reduces the "profile" of indie film in the U.S., which is turn makes it even even harder to raise money, which in turn narrows the field to even fewer people "with something to say". It's gone so far that in a thread like this you get actual expressions of hostility to non-commercial moviemaking, because the films are viewed as elitist and therefore undeserving of the subsidies which go to professional sports and network TV (not to mention oil companies, military contractors and outsourced torturers).

Flame me all you want for my insufferable elitist attitudes, but for gawd's sake, not another word about evil Canadian film subsidies or the infinite wisdom of the free market. The free market fantasy is one most Americans can no longer afford, as they look at the bill for bailing out the deregulated financial system, and contemplate yet another quarter without health insurance. Even worse, the movies are bad!

Could you guys argue in smaller paragraphs? Time is short.

[Alex Coelho]

If it has a negative impact on the people...well its the free market...if it has a negative impact on corporations...well we need to intervene. I love how government works... no welfare for the poor but welfare for the corporations. The indie film industry will always suffer some when they follow a philosophy of profit over substance. This is not only effecting film but music as well...I can't remember the last time I listened to the radio and I am in my early 30's. Are we living Orwell's 1984.

[Priyesh P.]

no welfare for the poor but welfare for the corporations.

you should see the state of german films. the whole "film industry" grew around subsidies. the system is so tight, there`s no way in for the real indies. instead of developing a vital industry we got one that wholly survives on life support and produces dead material that is hardly enjoyable.

p.s.: don`t misunderstand me, the mind numbing blockbuster & mainstream crap is not what i`m after either.

[jpp]

you should see the state of german films. the whole "film industry" grew around subsidies. the system is so tight, there`s no way in for the real indies. instead of developing a vital industry we got one that wholly survives on life support and produces dead material that is hardly enjoyable.

Without film subsidies and patronage in Germany, Fassbinder would probably never have emerged. Also, Herzog, Wim Wenders and Volker Schlöndorff, when they were still making decent films. I'm not up much on contemporary German cinema, but what about "The Lives of Others"? I would guess there was public money in that film?

The fact that art subsidy systems are corruptible and prone to rot isn't reason enough to kill them off altogether, any more than we outlaw free enterprise every time a business goes bankrupt and costs the taxpayer money.

Granted, there's no ideal system. But one has to try. What we've got now in the U.S. clearly isn't working. There's gotta be a better way....

[Sarah C.]

I'm with Tom!!
~Sarah



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?

[Clint Johnson]

If Clint is going to insist on blowing this bugle of his again and again (and again), here's my own bugle blast, from a similar orifice:

This has been a tit for tat volleying back and forth with you voicing your opinion every bit as vociferously as I. It seems that you view the act of disagreeing with your belief system as de facto asinine and not worthy of equal footing.


Thanks to its commercial funding basis, indie film in the U.S. attracts large numbers whose interest is vocational and careerist, not "artistic" or intellectual. It's not uncommon to encounter established professionals (as well as endless wannabes) who claim love and devotion to the film medium, but who know nothing about film history or contemporary work beyond mainstream traditions, and who aren't curious about finding out.

I agree that most film maker wannabes focus on the mainstream at the expense of a rounded understanding of the field. This cuts both ways though and a like percentage of the "artistic or intellectual" filmmakers are actively hostile toward mainstream traditions. The first leads to uninteresting action without substance while the second leads to unwatchable substance without action.


So we're caught in a diminishing cycle: very few films worth seeing thanks to the way the films are financed, which incrementally reduces the "profile" of indie film in the U.S., which is turn makes it even even harder to raise money, which in turn narrows the field to even fewer people "with something to say". It's gone so far that in a thread like this you get actual expressions of hostility to non-commercial moviemaking, because the films are viewed as elitist and therefore undeserving of the subsidies which go to professional sports and network TV (not to mention oil companies, military contractors and outsourced torturers).

I am not hostile toward non-commercial moviemaking as long as the money comes from people who want to create it. It is undeserving of the subsidies which go to professional sports and network TV... but professional sports and Network TV are also undeserving of the subsidies that go to them. (consider the bracketed examples condemned as well)


Flame me all you want for my insufferable elitist attitudes, but for gawd's sake, not another word about evil Canadian film subsidies or the infinite wisdom of the free market. The free market fantasy is one most Americans can no longer afford, as they look at the bill for bailing out the deregulated financial system, and contemplate yet another quarter without health insurance. Even worse, the movies are bad!

I have no problem with your elitist attitude, I just don't like you demanding everyone else pays for them.

The financial system in the United States needs "bailing out" because of socialist intervention in the home lending market. The government created the FNMA with the express purpose of fixing a "failing" of the market system so that people who shouldn't get a loan could get a loan. They kept adjusting the rules to allow this state sponsored ponzi scheme to build up to the point of its inevitable collapse and then stepped in to save the country from the "failure of the free market".

Like democracy, the free market is not perfect... but also like democracy it is a hell of a lot better than everything else we've tried.

[Joel Kaye]

The financial system in the United States needs "bailing out" because of socialist intervention in the home lending market.

That seems misrepresentative to me. Bush deregulated the lending industry which temporarily propped up a failing economy, allowed for easy private profits for his friends and then when the whole idea failed he forced the U.S. taxpayer to bail the corrupt "free market" businesses out.

So yes, he privatized the gains and socialized the losses. Not free market at all. In fact, the worst version of capitalism you can possibly imagine - Steal from the poor and give to the rich. It's not a system to be proud of or support.

I don't think that's the same as funding the arts though, I tend to agree that public funding of the arts might not be any better because it doesn't solve the fact that artists still have to be salespeople and work the system.

[jpp]

This has been a tit for tat volleying back and forth with you voicing your opinion every bit as vociferously as I. It seems that you view the act of disagreeing with your belief system as de facto asinine and not worthy of equal footing.

Public financing is the dominate reality of film production in most countries other than the U.S. I can't help that. I could cease to refer to it, or pretend it doesn't exist, so we wouldn't have these endless free market debates. But in that case, it would make more sense not to discuss film finance at all, since we can't refer to this dominate feature of film finance without ideological disputes.



I agree that most film maker wannabes focus on the mainstream at the expense of a rounded understanding of the field. This cuts both ways though and a like percentage of the "artistic or intellectual" filmmakers are actively hostile toward mainstream traditions.

Who, for example? And even if it were true, what harm does the hostility of a powerless arty type do Hollywood or American Idol?



I am not hostile toward non-commercial moviemaking as long as the money comes from people who want to create it.

On that basis, I guess Michelangelo would've had to pay for the Sistine Chapel out of his own pocket. That absurdity aside, modern industrial societies are rife with subsidies which make commerce and civilized life possible. Even beyond the question of fairness (football is subsidized; Charlie Sheen is subsidized; why not arty films?), I can't share your mercantile view of the world. Some things are worth paying for, even when they're not widely appreciated, in the same way we maintain civil liberties, even when majorities would prefer to do away with them. It's called "civilization". Until you can do away with waste, fraud and corporate welfare, why should anyone heed these lectures on the evils of art subsidies? Is bad art really the worst we have to contend with today?



The financial system in the United States needs "bailing out" because of socialist intervention in the home lending market. The government created the FNMA with the express purpose of fixing a "failing" of the market system so that people who shouldn't get a loan could get a loan. They kept adjusting the rules to allow this state sponsored ponzi scheme to build up to the point of its inevitable collapse and then stepped in to save the country from the "failure of the free market".

It's really besides the point, but you haven't been following this one closely enough. The loans on the books on the quasi-government mortgage companies are actually pretty good quality -- far better than the subprime stuff which was pimped by the major investment banks. However, the subprime crisis has had a cascading effect on the mortgage market and home prices, so that even the better mortgages are no longer safe, because debt is greater than equity.

But of course, I know: it's all the fault of the government. And, under Bush, you're actually right. Put the free-market types in charge, and just watch them raid the national treasury.


Like democracy, the free market is not perfect... but also like democracy it is a hell of a lot better than everything else we've tried.

Most Europeans would not agree with you. You don't hear about it much in North America, or it's presented as a subject for ridicule -- imagine, the Danes get six weeks' vacation! and free health care! hilarious! and subsidized movies! -- but there are other ways of organizing society. The studies done to date indicate that citizens of these countries are far better off than we are, not only in their own estimation, but on all public health and social welfare indices.

[Joe G.]

"That seems misrepresentative to me. Bush deregulated the lending industry which temporarily propped up a failing economy, allowed for easy private profits for his friends and then when the whole idea failed he forced the U.S. taxpayer to bail the corrupt "free market" businesses out."

As they deregulated the Savings and Loan industry previously. And another Bush, name of Neil, profited handsomely from that scandal. It's an old formula.

Risk is made public. Profits are made private. This is plutocracy at its finest.

[Clint Johnson]

That seems misrepresentative to me. Bush deregulated the lending industry which temporarily propped up a failing economy, allowed for easy private profits for his friends and then when the whole idea failed he forced the U.S. taxpayer to bail the corrupt "free market" businesses out.

So yes, he privatized the gains and socialized the losses. Not free market at all. In fact, the worst version of capitalism you can possibly imagine - Steal from the poor and give to the rich. It's not a system to be proud of or support.

I don't think that's the same as funding the arts though, I tend to agree that public funding of the arts might not be any better because it doesn't solve the fact that artists still have to be salespeople and work the system.

That particular bubble has been building since 1938 and it has been a long succession of presidents who have pumped hot air into it. Bush and his cronies just happened to be the latest to cash in on it and had their hands on the pump when the bubble popped. But yes, funding for the arts is no where near on the same scale as that disaster.

I still think it is morally superior to try and convince people to support you than it is to lobby the state to use the threat of violence and incarceration to force others to support you. Being a salesperson may not be the noblest of professions but it is far far better than being a lobbiest - a salesperson whose client is the bureaucrat spending other people's money.

Let me be clear in that I am not an anarchist and believe that in any population of humans there is a vacuum of power that will be filled with a state of some kind or another. That said, taxation becomes a necessary evil- and I do emphatically mean evil as it is the indentured servitude of the population to a ruling class and is a horrible thing. I strongly feel that there should be a VERY high standard of necessity for the confiscation and expenditure of this extorted wealth.

Voting in the ruling class has shown itself to ameliorate the damage they do better than any other system - and capitalism has shown itself to take care of the needs and desires of the population better than any other system. We just have to keep a vigilant eye on those who would use one of these systems to subvert the other to their own ends, "noble" or otherwise.

[Joe G.]

"Could you guys argue in smaller paragraphs? Time is short."

Then, for God's sake why do you insist on including the entire quotes in your posts?

At least the person you quoted actually said something relevant.

[Priyesh P.]

but what about "The Lives of Others"? I would guess there was public money in that film?


Shiver...that`s exactely the type of film I don`t want to see. The GDR is not my history nor of my interest, I`m not german - but the germans seem to live in the past - if it`s not the Nazis it`s either GDR-nostalgia or Stasi movies, the rest consists of vomit-inducing teenie-crapfests or comedies.
60 years of film subsidies didn`t improve the "industry" in this country to get strong enough to stay alive by itself nor did it produce enough works of art to justify the enormous amounts of money wasted in it - Fassbinder and Herzog were good directors, but that`s it...
The whole system is not much more than deluxe job creation scheme for film workers.

[Alex Coelho]

Instead of subsidies, how about if the Government actually exerts its power by using antitrust laws to break up this media empire. I think it will go along way to bringing about a positive change in Hollywood. However, I know it will never happen b/c the media industry flows a lot of money through the halls of Congress. Sometimes I wonder if we are heading to some cataclysm collision between the "haves" and "haves not."

[Clint Johnson]

Public financing is the dominate reality of film production in most countries other than the U.S. I can't help that. I could cease to refer to it, or pretend it doesn't exist, so we wouldn't have these endless free market debates. But in that case, it would make more sense not to discuss film finance at all, since we can't refer to this dominate feature of film finance without ideological disputes.

You are right, it is almost impossible to make a film or television show in any country without the production company dipping into the corporate welfare trough. There is no way around it, if I want to work in the industry, I am tainted by it through association. It is there and I will hold my tongue when someone gives constructive instructions and hints on how to make use of it - I will reserve my rant for when it is held up as a good thing in need of greater extorted funds.



Who, for example? And even if it were true, what harm does the hostility of a powerless arty type do Hollywood or American Idol?

Contarily, I would ask if you could find a single one of these indie/outsider/artistic film makers who holds that mainstream tradition has any merit? Besides, I wasn't positing that this failing on the artist's part would harm Hollywood in any way- I was saying that in their bigoted and single minded antipathy against mainstream tradition they do harm to themselves and their art by making it pedantic and boring.



On that basis, I guess Michelangelo would've had to pay for the Sistine Chapel out of his own pocket. That absurdity aside, modern industrial societies are rife with subsidies which make commerce and civilized life possible. Even beyond the question of fairness, I can't share your mercantile view of the world. Some things are worth paying for, even when they're not widely appreciated, in the same way we maintain civil liberties, even when majorities would prefer to do away with them. And, as a taxpayer, I believe I'm entitled to this indulgence, since I get no tangible benefits from military spending and subsidies to big oil. On the contrary, both reduce the quality of life. And until you can do away with waste, fraud and corporate welfare, why should anyone heed these lectures on the evils of art subsidies? Or is bad art really the worst we have to contend with today?

Michelangelo wouldn't have paid for the Sistine Chapel himself, he would have spent those years working on sculptures like he actually wanted to. I've looked up at the ceiling and it is a fine piece of work... do you think that they wouldn't have built themselves a fancy church if there had been a separation of church and state? Would his sculptures have been of more artistic worth? He seems to have thought so.

Some things are worth paying for. The problem is that most everyone has a different opinion of what that particular "thing" is. If there is a wide consensus of this "thing" then there will be enough people to pay for it voluntarily via the market. When the special interest group gets small enough they can no longer talk others into paying for it so they turn to the state to force them to pay for it.

Personally, I think that the single most important thing that the human race will ever do is spread to space. There are four key moments in our history as a species. Bracketing our existence is our emergence as a species and our extinction. Between those two points there are only two other fundamental points, our near extinction approximately 60,000 years ago that seems to have triggered a great increase in our intellectual capacity - and our expansion off this planet. Everything else is inconsequential footnotes and only one of those four things will have any impact on life and the universe at large.

That said, I don't think that the state should be funding space exploration either. If I don't think that the state should be funding the most important thing that any living organism will ever do... you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it should be paying for someone to promulgate their personal opinion.


It's really besides the point, but you haven't been following this one closely enough. The loans on the books on the quasi-government mortgage companies are actually pretty good quality -- far better than the subprime stuff which was pimped by the major investment banks. However, the subprime crisis has had a cascading effect on the mortgage market and home prices, so that even the better mortgages are no longer safe, because debt is greater than equity.

The banks gave out these subpar loans because the government gave them a way they could sell off their exposure to defaulting mortgage holders. They most certainly did not sell their best and safest mortgages to these organizations. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac hold about half the mortgage debt in the US and it is these ones that are going into default. It is a real shame that there is a very real cascading effect that has reached out to marginal, but heretofore bankable, home owners.


But of course, I know: it's all the fault of the government. And, under Bush, you're actually right. Put the free-market types in charge, and just watch them raid the national treasury.

The people who become most powerful, in politics or economics, do so because they love power and are willing to do the most to get it. You should no more wish Bill Gates in charge of your lives than Barack Obama. Liberty means that we leave as little power as possible in their hands, with very few means to coerce the individual. While the worst of the business folk will lie and cheat you if they can, Politicians are far more dangerous because they prefer the use of legally monopolized violence as a means to their ends.

If you refuse to buy Windows Vista, Bill won't ever know about it (especially now that he's retired to do disjointed commercials with Jerry Seinfeld) but if you refuse to pay for the state's activities you will be hunted down... and if you resist those armed men you will be shot. When you ask for something from the state, a moral person should remember how they got that money.

[jpp]

I will reserve my rant [for public financing] when it is held up as a good thing in need of greater extorted funds.

Fair enough, but where's the rant castigating the failures of private finance? It seems to me you're perturbed not by the defects of the product, but only by the means of financing it. In other words, it looks like you're more interested in preserving orthodoxy, than achieving quality.



Contarily, I would ask if you could find a single one of these indie/outsider/artistic film makers who holds that mainstream tradition has any merit?

Sure. Me. My work may still be "pedantic and boring", but it's not for lack of exposure to popular culture, past and present. Of course, there are limits....



Michelangelo wouldn't have paid for the Sistine Chapel himself....

This is getting ridiculous. Your position here, which looks like cultural relativism ("who's to say what's good?") aggravated by market fundamentalism ("markets are always right and can be nothing be right because market outcomes are always right"), leaves us nothing to talk about here. Best move on.


The people who become most powerful, in politics or economics, do so because they love power and are willing to do the most to get it. You should no more wish Bill Gates in charge of your lives than Barack Obama. Liberty means that we leave as little power as possible in their hands.

Sure, but we live in the real world, and nobody is dismantling nation-states any time soon. Pretending there's no difference between Bush, Bill Gates and Barack Obama is sheer privileged madness. The difference could well be one between life and death for people not as fortunate as we are. Not everyone is insulated from the real-world consequences of power.

[number6]

"Could you guys argue in smaller paragraphs? Time is short."

Then, for God's sake why do you insist on including the entire quotes in your posts?

At least the person you quoted actually said something relevant.

Thanks for being brief.

[Clint Johnson]

Fair enough, but where's the rant castigating the failures of private finance? It seems to me you're perturbed not by the defects of the product, but only by the means of financing it. In other words, it looks like you're more interested in preserving orthodoxy, than achieving quality. Frankly, I don't care how films are financed, and am equally unoffended by public and private financing, if the results are promising.

The private financing of film and television has created some truly bad material but "The Simple Life" does me no harm by its mere existence. I don't watch it nor pay for it. When private financing in a project fails to deliver, the people who invested in it lose. When public financing of in a project fails to deliver, they demand more money from me.

The "orthodoxy" is, as you've endlessly pointed out, for the state to subsidize the arts that cannot sustain themselves... I have no interest in preserving that and I certainly don't agree that it creates any semblance of quality. It isn't that state funding can be corrupted, state funding is itself corrupt and it is nearly impossible for anything good to come of it.

You seriously don't care where the money comes from? I could go the organized crime and they would be interested in using a film production to launder the money made from the slave labour of women smuggled into the country and forced into prostitution. It is being done as we speak and your concern would be whether the artistic results would measure up to your standards?

Damn, that is some serious dedication to the arts. I'm more leery about that whole "the ends justify the means" argument.


Sure. Me. My work may still be "pedantic and boring", but it's not for lack of exposure to popular culture, past and present. Of course, there are limits....

A kneejerk contempt for what is mainstream and popular, exposed to it or not, doesn't give any artistic credence to a work created as an anti-idea.



This is getting ridiculous. Your position here, which I would characterize as cultural relativism aggravated by a market fundamentalism which would dismay Adam Smith, leaves us nothing to talk about here. Best move on.

I have no illusions that I will change your mind, I'm writing to the rest of the folk here. Most of them fall in the spectrum between us and if I can sway a few over away from state funding being THE answer... then I have done some small good in this world.

Cultural Relativism? Really? Hmm, I suppose I am arguing that your cultural bias isn't a fundamental truism for everyone else and shouldn't be imposed on them... which would make you an ethnocentrist who believes that your art is fundamentally of greater value and should be imposed on others.

Market fundamentalism? You say that as if it were a bad thing?


Sure, but we live in the real world, and nobody is dismantling nation-states any time soon. Pretending there's no difference between Bush and Barack Obama is sheer privileged madness. The difference could well be one between life and death for people not as fortunate as we are. Not everyone is insulated from the real-world consequences of power.

We do live in the real world- in the midst of history, not at the pinnacle. We do need to have real change, just not the rehashing of leftist or rightist ideas that have failed countless times already. While they want to build the nation state's power and influence, I would argue against it at every turn.

Saying that you are the most changarific and changiest changifier the world has ever seen doesn't mean that there will be any change or that the change will be for the better. Although it would be hard to see how Obama could be worse overall than Bush has been, but, the choice is between Obama and McCain and there... all I see is two sides of the same coin.

One side wants to take away your civil rights while the other side wants to take away your economic rights. People need to realize that free markets are as fundamental a right as free speech. What these candidates are offering is the illusion of safety and the appearance of helping the downtrodden.

I'm not well insulated against the depredations of the state, only those who work for the state or give big enough campaign contribution (and can be tapped again) have any insulation. I have in the past, and may well in the future, lived well below the poverty line. Four years without electricity or running water and our family in a one room cabin. But hell, it was backwoods, we had roof over our head and didn't miss meals so it wasn't anything that would elicit sympathy from those who are homeless and haven't ate for a few days. Just giving my proletariat bona fides.

And... what was the subject again? Uuhhhmm indie films and the dire straits of the same. Right, so here are some random thoughts on the subject.


I think there are more independent films being made today than at any other time in history- I also think that most of them are crap.
Marketing is a major stumbling block for the few that are not crap to get noticed.
There has been a glut of films on the market from the majors as they ramped up production in anticipation of the directors, writers and actors negotiations. As they filter through there will be a bit of a trough.
The majors are contracting and limiting their schedules which means that trough will likely come up to a lower level which will cut down on the noise their marketing machines make. It should also leave more blank screens for distributors to go into indie acquisition mode to fill.
Theatrical distribution is moving toward primarily "event" films due to the high price and effort needed to go out to it. Big action and comedy get the greatest boost from being on the big screen and so that is what will get the most distribution.
Cheaper projection technology will allow a greater number of smaller and more flexible venues that could give limited theatrical runs for more esoteric and less popular material. It might also allow for more flexible pricing.
The distributors need to use that theatrical release as marketing for the DVD, BluRay and Internet download releases. There is no real way to market the theatrical release so use it as a means to an end, not the end.
What is the highest price one can charge for an internet download before it becomes tempting for the people to just pirate it? My guess is that download to own a high definition 1080p movie has to be less than $5. A television quality series might be, per episode, $1 for sd and $1.50 for HD.
Film and television critics have been taking a pummeling lately but I think there is a need for them... even if it is a mob generated critic via ratings in Netflix or Zip.ca. The big movies will get thousands of reviews while the indie may only get one- but if that one reviewer has reviewed a few hundred other movies then there is a database that can be cross referenced with others to create a list of people who "if you liked THAT, you might like THIS." What they need to do is create an open standard for rating and reviews that anyone can set up a front end for and all the social networks can tie into. The more ratings, the more chance that an indie film can rise above the noise on its own merit. Hey Google, you got room in the lab?
People, try not to work on a movie or show that you don't respect. I know that isn't always an option, the kids need new shoes and groceries don't just buy themselves... but if you are an above the line person you occasionally have some leeway to say "No thanks, the money is good but can we find a better project?" The less major studio mediocrity that is made, the less marketing noise the good indie film has to overcome.

[jpp]

You seriously don't care where the money comes from? I could go the organized crime and they would be interested in using a film production to launder the money made from the slave labour of women smuggled into the country and forced into prostitution. It is being done as we speak and your concern would be whether the artistic results would measure up to your standards?

Actually, you gave a pretty good description of the business practices of a number of American companies. Indentured slaves, including children, work 18 hours a day in factories which produce American products, and American oil companies routinely partner with genocidal governments. There are in fact pending court cases (in U.S. courts) against American oil companies in Nigeria and Burma. I believe the charges include mass murder, the use of actual (not metaphoric) slave labor and forced prostitution. Some of this money no doubt makes its way to Hollywood.

For my part, I was concerned only with public and private finance, and hadn't thought of organized crime, but I'm glad you raised the issue and reminded everyone that investment capital is often tainted by atrocious crimes against humanity.



A kneejerk contempt for what is mainstream and popular, exposed to it or not, doesn't give any artistic credence to a work created as an anti-idea.

What do you want me to say? That I love reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond, Seinfeld and Cheers more than Shakespeare, J.S. Bach and Carl Dreyer? How about your own exposure? Do you really know anything about the culture you dismiss with such contempt? Do you think popular filmmakers like Spielberg and Lucas share your contempt -- and possibly your ignorance? I can assure you, they don't....



It isn't that state funding can be corrupted, state funding is itself corrupt and it is nearly impossible for anything good to come of it.

There's a good deal of truth to that if you mean the Bush administration and right-wing government in general, but more interesting is the implied notion that private money and power have no destructive effects in the world. We clearly don't live on the same planet. In fact, let's go farther: in the words of John Dewey, "politics is the shadow big business casts on society". In that light, bad government is often indistinguishable from the private enterprise in which you put all your trust. It's no secret that business lobbyists write Republican legislation, so it's hard to see why you would object to Bush & Co. At worst, the Bushies are skimming some off from the top.


Cultural Relativism? Really? Hmm, I suppose I am arguing that your cultural bias isn't a fundamental truism for everyone else and shouldn't be imposed on them... which would make you an ethnocentrist who believes that your art is fundamentally of greater value and should be imposed on others.

Who's imposing anything on anyone? We've already established that the State funds Charlie Sheen, pro football and big oil. Am I an ethnocentrist for demanding some diversity in the matter?


Market fundamentalism? You say that as if it were a bad thing?

Yeah. Like all religions, it leads to madness.


I'm not well insulated against the depredations of the state, only those who work for the state or give big enough campaign contribution (and can be tapped again) have any insulation.

I was talking about villagers who get bombed in their beds in Afghanistan and Iraq, thanks to the Bush Doctrine. In the last week or two, I think the total was something like 130 innocent villagers, most of them women and children. Last time I checked, the U.S. hadn't declared war on British Columbia. So you ought be pretty safe in your bed.

But let's call it a day. I can't parse the rest of it, and the U.S. will never support art films, so the argument is as pointless as it could be.

[GlennChan]

Guys, I didn't mean to open up such a polarizing debate. But if I may, I'd like to point out that opposing film subsidies can satisfy both 'lefties' and 'righties'. In my opinion, we should subsidize homeless people instead of art films.

From a left-wing perspective, would it not make a lot of sense to get our priorities straight?? Would we rather build homes for the homeless or would we rather make "art" (or indie films)?

From a right-wing perspective, it either doesn't matter or it would be slightly better to subsidize the homeless. By providing housing and food, the homeless no longer have to beg and can focus on getting productive jobs (because begging doesn't create any wealth).

Is this not common ground we could all agree on?

[number6]

In my opinion, we should subsidize homeless people instead of art films.

From a left-wing perspective, would it not make a lot of sense to get our priorities straight?? Would we rather build homes for the homeless or would we rather make "art" (or indie films)?

From a right-wing perspective, it either doesn't matter or it would be slightly better to subsidize the homeless. By providing housing and food, the homeless no longer have to beg and can focus on getting productive jobs (because begging doesn't create any wealth).

Is this not common ground we could all agree on?

(post removed: decided I might be giving away too much information)
This is the plot of an Indie art film so yes... this is on topic.

[Mark Toia]

WOW!!!
This thread has just scared me away from ever doing a film.
I'd like to say thank you to you all.

I think I'll stick with AD's, then Retire early.

Good luck to all who tread this path to doom and gloom.

[Joe G.]

This textbook Ayn Rand Libertarian propaganda is morally indefensible. It's fed by irrational ideological formulations that never matched reality:

"While the worst of the business folk will lie and cheat you if they can, Politicians are far more dangerous because they prefer the use of legally monopolized violence as a means to their ends."

"While the worst of the business folk will lie and cheat you," AND POISON YOUR AIR AND WATER AND GIVE YOU CANCER AND HIRE THUGS TO MASSACRE YOUR LABOR LEADERS AND BRIBE THE POLITICIANS TO MAKE IT ALL LEGAL, AND PUT YOUR CHILDREN IN SWEAT SHOPS FOR 16 HOUR DAYS...

The gross ignorance of the history of the labor struggle in the western world is not to be tolerated.

He uses a wedge issue like "funding art" to push his radical reactionary ideas that really don't have any merit. Been there, done that, the workers had it quite miserable. They rose up and put regulations and laws in place to restrict the brutal immoral excesses of the businessmen which you don't seem to have any knowledge about.

Case closed. I have nothing further to say to you. Go rant in your Ayn Rand oppressed white people anger club. You aren't fooling me.

[jpp]

In the ongoing dispute with Clint, it seemed best to keep quiet on this one, but what the hell, it's a slow Sunday. One more dip in the lake:


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.

Just imagine if you were right. In 3 years from now, virtually everything beyond consumer grade will likely be delivering resolution approaching or exceeding 35mm. And by then, higher end cameras (Epic, for one?) may well exceed the dynamic range of film. For maybe half the purchase of an EX1 today, you should be able to rent that equipment for 3 or 4 weeks. You may even get it for nothing, if the owner/DP believes in the project.

So if you're correct that resolution and dynamic range are enough to make indies competitive, there will be so many competitive indies that the competition will bury itself in its own technical excellence. But can this be right? Isn't acceptable theatrical quality already as cheap and accessible as it can possibly get?

I for one would say "yes". In the end, the lack of celebrities in your masterpiece is a far greater disincentive to festival directors and distributors than the defects of, say, full screen projection of Canon HV20 footage. And notwithstanding [uninformed!] claims here to the contrary, distributors don't give a damn. A grunge look consistent with the performances and the production design (or lack thereof) may actually enhance indie box-office potential. The movie is supposed to be different, after all. And if you achieve a great look with the HV20, that also satisfies the marketing dept. -- it means viewers can tell themselves that they can also achieve fine results with a $700 camera.

There's a dirty secret in indie film marketing: you're not really selling the movie. What your selling is a fantasy about making the movie, an appeal to the illicit filmmaking desires of the multitudes. And a significant fraction of the indie audience isn't even interested in the film: they're would-be filmmakers doing market research.

There's a good case to be made that the medium peaked years ago; the fact that so many of us are trying to enter an overpopulated field through technology is proof of the hopelessness of the endeavor.

That said, interesting work is still possible on the margins -- maybe. But that work hinges on funding, not resolution or dynamic range. And as this idiot has already said a million times before, commercial funding is by definition hostile to the qualities indies usually need to be commercially successful. Whatever you think of them, the biggest non-celebrity indie successes (Stranger than Paradise, She's Gotta Have It, Poison, The Unbelievable Truth, Swoon, Slacker, Clerks, Brother McMullen, Pi, Blair Witch, Brick, etc.) were not commercially financed. That should tell us something, about commercial finance(?)

Andrew Young began the thread touting the quality of the work, but lamenting the state of distribution. So, FWIW, the view here is dimmer: few distribution opportunities, but relatively few films deserving distribution. This unwinding has been going on for a long time, and it will continue for a long time, because there are always new players ready to lose their money (and waste their lives?). No learning seems to take place; one wave just replaces another. Which is why indie film looks to be alive, when it's really all but dead in the U.S. (though not elsewhere!).

Of course, it's still possible to make an idiosyncratic masterpiece for nothing, or very little. Odds are that few people would actually see that masterpiece, because most folks in independent film, including festival directors, want Hollywood movies in indie wrappers, not challenging or unfamiliar material. But some fine day you may have a screening, and if you live long enough, your fame or your cult may grow.... You may even be offered an episode of Law & Order, if you know somebody in the front office. So the future is rosy....

[Tom Lowe]

The fact is, that only one out of a million people could or will ever truly make a masterpiece film. They are more likely to make a great looking masterpiece indie for $400K on Red One than they are on an HVX200, or even 16mm. That is the point.

A million novels get written every year, and only a handful really get properly published by a big house. The difference is, any Joe can sit down with a laptop and write a brilliant novel.

Technology is simply leveling the playing field for cinema a little bit, and that's a good thing.

[jpp]

Technology is simply leveling the playing field for cinema a little bit, and that's a good thing.

The key phrase there is "little bit". IMHO, it's next to nothing, but there is a small case to be made that 35mm production value did salvage some indies (I can think of two: "The Unbelievable Truth" and "George Washington". And both were made for well under $100K.) But they're not masterpieces, either, the world wouldn't be poorer without them.

[Tom Lowe]

By "a little bit" all I was talking about is the difference between Red One (essentially S35mm) and something like the HVX200 or shooting 16mm with a very limited ratio of used vs unused shots.

Masterpieces like Badlands and In the Mood for Love have been made relatively cheaply. Let me ask you this: Would you like to see Badlands shot on a DVX100? No thanks.

I agree with you that the improvement in terms of leveling the field is small, but it's still significant to the 1-in-a-million filmmaker who DOES manage to pull off that 1-in-a-million low-budget masterpiece.

[jpp]

Let me ask you this: Would you like to see Badlands shot on a DVX100? No thanks.

Of course not, and you're right: Badlands is a good example of production value being absolutely critical to the experience of the movie. But nobody in his right mind, with Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek, and the budget Malick had at his disposal, small as it might have been, would have shot that film with a DVX100. So it's kinda beside the point.

I'm not saying production value or camera quality doesn't matter, but that camera quality probably doesn't matter on low budget productions which have other more glaring defects or aren't attractive to distributors for other reasons. And the marketing of indies raises a host of other questions. A professional sheen isn't necessarily an asset in all cases.


I agree with you that the improvement in terms of leveling the field is small, but it's still significant to the 1-in-a-million filmmaker who DOES manage to pull off that 1-in-a-million low-budget masterpiece.

I dunno. Imperfections can become part of the seductive charm of cinema. Maybe a 16mm Badlands would have had other qualities.

OTOH, it IS conceivable that somebody in a low tax bracket will pull off a feat which would have been all but impossible, before the advent of this equipment. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Priyesh P.]

maybe it was the fact seeing tom cruise in a cheapish video look which made it kinda special for me, but nonetheless, after a few minutes of watching "collateral" the crappy image didn`t impact on the film`s entertaining qualities. highest resolution is not the most important point. "city of god" was mainly shot on 16mm, but it had such breathtakingly beautiful images that I was shocked to hear how seemingly "easily" César Charlone captured the picture...

[tillHavis]

In his book Going Sane Adam Philips writes

“Discussions of sanity and madness are always discussions about what people want to be and to like. Like any moral discourse these discussions involve competing claims about what people should be capable of being.”

If we substitute the words sanity and madness with Film I believe we get to the heart of both JJP and Clints point of view.

One in a hundred thousand filmmaker is a Rembrandt; in my experience the cream always rises to the top in the end. You cannot contain the really talented. They exist as naturally as we breathe, but they are rare, and may not be recognized in their lifetime; but one thing is sure they will always create. Why?
It’s in their nature. No amount of funding or lack of funding will prevent them.
The problem is we encounter them so rarely we sometimes doubt they still exist.

For me its like watching an audition for a talent show, you have to sit through a lot of s@£$e to get to the good stuff.
The one thing that baffles me is some people people’s films are so bad I find it difficult to understand how they cannot see this themselves.


I guess this is the million dollar question ?