It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
While excessively enthusiastic – Who is paying $24.95 for a DVD? – it presents ideas that will need to be incorporated to sell movies in the future. He misses certain points. It’s not easy to market over the web. How do you draw people to a website? How many blog websites are out there with limited audience? There is no common show? Attach an ad to a Youtube hit? A Funny or Die video that is circulated around? Build upon festival buzz. The only people who know about festival buzz are the people who attend the festival? Sell to them. Everybody is screaming the internet, the internet, but it is currently harder to build buzz on the Internet than anywhere else? The audience is unlimited but harder to reach. Ask the thousands of webisodes filming? It’s low costs that makes the effort worthwhile. You still need critics’ reviews. So you still need to pay for screenings. As I see it, the success rate of such a venture will be about the success rate of the indie theatrical business right now. You are not making a million dollars of Internet distribution, as of yet? Trust me. And when you can, the cost to get that amount will rise exponentially. It’s the nature of business. I believe with all heart that cinema distribution is still the way to go. The problem with indie cinema is dearth of theaters, miniplexes, located a few blocks from from the multiplexes. People don’t have time on their hands. They want something close by. I mean fifteen minutes close by. Because they don’t have the budget, the indie distributors need time to build an audience. Not enough theaters out there for the product has created a cut throat world of one week and you’re done. It is even more cutthroat out there than for the studio films. Ten years ago, somebody should have converted all those second run theaters into indie cinemas instead of closing shop.
The whole exhibition thing needs unpacking. No one goes near it. Repeal the law prohibiting studios from owning theatres so studios can distribute indies profitably.
It’s sure a conundrum…one thing that’s noticeable at least in my area (suburban Northern VA, normally a good place for non mainstream fare) is the dearth of indie film trailers at the major multiplexes. They used to consistently run ads for films such as “Thank You For Smokin,” “LMS,” and even “Juno.” The only ad I saw the entire summer was for “The Wackness,” which in my opinion had just a horrible trailer.
Overall though, it’s a strange phenomenon this year. “Man on Wire” and “Elegy” had just a one week run at my local indie cinema. I don’t know what the problem is…
“I don’t know what the problem is…”
it’s still the movies. when something like Juno can make 100 million dollars, Little Miss Sunshine can make 60, and even really small stuff like Facing the Giants or Once can crank out 10 million each. It’s not quite the fervent playground it was in the 90’s, but the product is still out there. It’s just that no one finds the films being released that interesting.
Personally, i have more independents playing in my local area than ever before. Ever since we got the digital theater in town, i see one or two indies every week playing here. Yes, they are only playing a week for the most part, and the reason it’s only there for a week is that no one is going to see the films.
It’s still the films.
I don’t agree with that – there are terrific films out that people just aren’t seeing because they aren’t being publicized or because the marketing people don’t know how to deal with them and abandon them.
Interesting that 3/4 of the examples were Fox Searchlight releases.
“the marketing people don’t know how to deal with them…”
That sir, is the proverbial nail on the head. The film has to be marketed well, and the indies have kind of lost their way in that regard.
I loathed Juno, but it had a great trailer.
“Interesting that 3/4 of the examples were Fox Searchlight releases.”
Probably because they’re the only major minor that’s able to market their product effectively right now.
Oh, and to answer Dave’s question:
“What is THE ANSWER to the indie problem of the moment?”
The answer is scaling it back. After the indie boom of the 1990’s, they began to treat it as a business, the minis got acquired and festivals became acquistion bidding wars. And at the end of the day, the model has proven that it doesn’t work. Too much independent content with too few screens to show on.
Once every studio got an indie division and started treating the independent film market like a bidding war the end was already written. Then when the film festivals started accomodating the stars and studios and accepting films based more on personal relationships and star power than quality, it took about a decade, but the market is now flooded with independent product and the only difference in any of them is the name on the box that get the financing, that gets the bid, that puts it into the theater with marketing departments unable sell the films.
The cruel truth is that money killed the independent film market. Too many companies putting out too much product choking the marketplace. It’s a good thing. The market has to die before it can live again.
You people are all pathetic. If you can’t reach a certain market saturation by putting indie movies on more screens, you can’t make the grade. The problem is how screens are allocated and who controls them.
What is all this talk about screens? It’s all about publicity and marketing, it seems to me.
see raskimono above
He’s right about marketing, but theaters are closed because people stopped going to them because they’d rather stay at home and watch DVDs.
Could it be that the audience for these films hasn’t expanded, but the number of titles has. An audience of 1000 people having 10 arthouse titles to choose from will naturally produce lower figures than if the same 1000 people only had 3 arthouse titles to choose from.
I mean, back in the early ’90s indie boom it’s not like all of these arthouse films were grossing big bucks. There were a few big hits just like there is today, the medium titles and the small titles. Except this day there are about ten times more films out there and they’re being distributed through competing methods.
Or am I off base?
I am with Camel on this one. There is simply TOO MUCH PRODUCT and TOO FEW PEOPLE TO SEE IT. Let’s be honest: we are the rare filmgoers who actually want to see most indie cinema. The rest of the nation could give a crap most of the time unless one of these movies just CLICKS. Outside of that having, no one wants to see close to any of these indie films.
Does it have anything to do with quality? Nah. We are simply a cineplex going society now, and indie films rarely get screens at cineplexes. So T Holly is right as well.
This means you can market these films all day, but the indie films that have hit recently are flukes. The confluence of events that had to happen to make those movies what they became is astounding. Assuming that this same confluence of events could happen more often, is a bit of an large assumption to me.
Let me also add that many of these films are COASTAL PROPERTIES. Which means they are really not for the middle of country consumption, unless that MAGIC CONFLUENCE HAPPENS, and play mostly in New York and LA. Sure they may play in Chicago and other bigger cities in the Mid-West and South, but this does not change the fact these films are dumped on the coast first. They are shown to the left and right before the middle. How exactly does anyone expect to make money when they ignore the middle?
IOIO – They ignore the middle because less people live there. Everyone makes jokes about ignoring ‘flyover’ states but the majority of the population of the United States live in coastal regions. With limited marketing budgets they are going to go where the people are.
“Interesting that 3/4 of the examples were Fox Searchlight releases.”
And that those were also comedies which are easier to market. Of Searchlights top 20 films, 15 are comedies (or have comedic elements) 3 are horror/thrillers, One cop movie, and Antwone Fisher. Searchlight acquires things they know they can sell, often staying away from docs and subtitles. With most of those hits I am sure most of the audience doesn’t even realize they are watching an ‘indie’ film.
And even after watching them how many even enjoy them. After watching people shake their head with confusion at the end of ‘Old Country’ and yawn through ‘the queen’, I am sure the regular mall going audiences often feel burned going to see “the best film of the year” only to not get what the hell all the excitement was about.
But whether the argument is too few screens or not enough audience the problem remains of too many movies. I am fine with the demise of WIP and would like to see Thinkfilm, Roadside Attractions, Weinsteins and Magnolia close up shop as well. Snow Angels, VCB, and Man on Wire would have found distribution regardless of whether these entities existed. It is tougher for films like Man on Wire to get out to the marketplace and hold on to screens with all of the clutter out there.
The other aspect of this is that some studios are not aiming to make more than a million dollars.
The SPC/IFC strategy seems to be put a movie in theaters to generate reviews and awareness, but do not spend any marketing dollars since they will not be recouped in the theatrical run. All revenue will come from DVD, VOD, and years of play on cable. This limits the audience but in the long run the difference between a movie being on 25 screens and making 1 million and being on 340 screens and making 4 million is negligible. This long tail, low risk, small profit strategy allows them to release the smaller or offbeat films that Searchlight or Focus wouldn’t touch, like Dark Blue World or My Winnepeg.
So just because they are all looked at as ‘dependents’ or ‘indies’ they shouldn’t all be clumped together as if they have the same business model.
“They ignore the middle because less people live there. Everyone makes jokes about ignoring ‘flyover’ states but the majority of the population of the United States live in coastal regions.”
That’s only possibly true if you count every state that has a coast (including one abutting the Gulf of Mexico) to be a coastal region.
The six million people who live in my city would likely consider the five-to-six hour drive to the Gulf of Mexico to put us firmly outside of a “coastal region”, however.
Dark Blue World? What an odd title to bring up.
It is obscure but Dark Blue World is one of my favorite SPC titles, it certainly isn’t a very big film and its doubtful that any other dependent distributor would have released it other than SPC which was able to due to their distribution strategy. But you can certainly substitute the films 2046, Junebug, or the Band’s Visit as small or foriegn films that dependents like Searchlight or Focus ignore as not worth the trouble or cost to distribute.
And yes RDP I was including the gulf states, mostly because populations are traditionally centered around port cities. So while you might not consider your city a gulf region isn’t the population of your state centered closer to the water?
I was merely trying to say that for the sake of distribution, if you want to go where the population is the most dense (in terms of numbers not intelligence) you need to go to the outskirts of the country and not the interior.