Indie Film is alive: "The Kids Are Alright" makes One Million

 With few new indie films hitting the marketplace (and the unusually intelligible studio film, “Inception,” raking more than $60 million), the specialty box office was once again all about “The Kids” as Lisa Cholodenko’s family dramedy expanded very nicely in its second weekend.  According to estimates earlier this afternoon, Focus Features released “The Kids are All Right” grossed $1,027,356 on just 38 screens (up from 7 screens last weekend).  That placed it 12th overall, beating out films playing in hundreds of screens more than it.

The warmly reviewed “Kids” - which seems like a bonafide contender for this year’s Oscar race - details a tempestuous summer in the lives of Nic and Jules (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore), a couple anticipating their daughter Joni’s move to college.  Joni (Mia Wasikowska) has just turned 18, and her younger brother Laser (Josh Hutcherson) wants her to make use of her newfound status as a legal adult to seek out the sperm donor to which both of them were born from.  Enter Paul (Mark Ruffalo), who immediately hits it off with his newfound biological children and in turn begins to send the family into quite the emotional tailspin.

Its sophomore gross amounted to a strong $27,036 per-theater-average, obviously a big drop from last weekend’s mammoth average but a promising one as the film continues to expand. It was the best per-theater-average of any specialty release in its second weekend, grossing well beyond “The Ghost Writer,” which averaged $18,350 back in February, and “Cyrus,” which took in $17,719 a few weeks ago. “Kids” total now stands at $1,776,863.

Speaking of “Cyrus,” Fox Searchlight’s comedy went from 200 to 446 in this its fifth weekend, and appears to have peaked. Grossing $1,075,000, the improvised dark comedy actually dropped off 16% from last weekend despite nearly double the screen count. Its $2,410 per-theater-average was down from $6,875 last weekend.  Still, the $7 million budgeted film total now stands at $5,065,000 with a few more million sure to come, making it one of the year’s top indie grossers. It’s just clearly not becoming the $30 million+ hit Searchlight had with “(500) Days of Summer” last year.

After debuting on an aggressive 110 screens last weekend (one of the widest foreign film openings in some time), Music Box Films took Daniel Alfredson’s “The Girl Who Played With Fire” to 141 screens and saw a 27% fall in grosses. “Fire” grossed $662,379 for a decent $4,698 average. The second film adapted from the popular book series, “Fire” was eleased just 4 months afters its intensely successful predecessor “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.”  “Fire” (which has already grossed over $50 million overseas) has now already grossed $2,001,137, an impressive number for a foreign release.

Meanwhile, two summer success stories continued to perform well. In its fifth weekend, Luca Guadagnino’s critical darling “I Am Love” went from 110 to 140 screens and grossed $420,000, averaging roughly $3,000 per screen and taking its total to $2,666,939. The film, which details the refined world of a wealthy Italian family (led by Tilda Swinton, who learned to speak Italian for the role), is quickly becoming a significant success story for distributor Magnolia Pictures.  It should cross the $3 million mark by the end of next weekend.

Crossing that mark this weekend was another summer hit, Debra Granik’s Sundance prize winner “Winter’s Bone.” The film, which follows a young woman living in the Ozark Mountains played by Jennifer Lawrence, went from 106 to 120 screens and grossed a strong $361,720.  That gave the Roadside Attractions release a $3,014 average and took its total to a stellar $3,078,392.

Another big Sundance winner - Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington’s Sundance Grand Jury Prize winning doc “Restrepo” -  went from 25 to 31 screens and grossed $94,262 for distributor National Geographic. That gave the film a decent average of $3,041 and a cume of $410,497.

Finally, in its fourteenth week in release, Sony Pictures Classics’ foreign language Oscar winner, “The Secret In Their Eyes,” passed the $6 million mark at the box office. The film drew $96,213 on 81 screens over the weekend. - Peter Knegt

400 Screens, 400 Blows - Distribution Blues

You go to the multiplex and scan through all of the titles and decide that there's "nothing good." And sometimes it's true. If only there was a multiplex that let you decide from among all the movies in the world. If viewers knew the number of titles that never make it to the United States, their heads would spin. And you might assume that we get the "best" of all the films, but that's not necessarily true. Some of the greatest cinema masters in the world have trouble finding distribution here. Their films are not easily marketed, and probably not worth the financial risk, even if the rewards would be far greater than financial.

Right now we have one to celebrate: Alexander Sokurov's The Sun (3 screens) very recently snagged U.S. distribution, even though it was made all the way back in 2005. (I reviewed it for Cinematical back in 2006.) Sokurov earned some distinction and a minor arthouse hit with his Russian Ark (2002), which was filmed in a single shot. But aside from that feat, Sokurov is a wonderful filmmaker with a very vivid, painterly style, whose first major films were made in the early 1990s. Ironically, The Sun is the third part of a trilogy about world dictators, the first two parts of which did not get distribution (though the second film, Moloch, is on DVD).

In the 1990s, the Taiwanese filmmaker Hou Hsiao-hsien was roundly declared the greatest filmmaker in the world. He had been working since the early 1980s, and critics discovered him in the mid-1980s. He kept getting better and better, culminating with masterworks like The Puppetmaster (1993) and Flowers of Shanghai (1998). Yet to date only three of his 18 films have received theatrical distribution in the United States. The first two made it because they starred Shu Qi -- otherwise known as that hot chick from The Transporter (2002) -- and Flight of the Red Balloon, which contained Juliette Binoche's finest performance to date.

Unfortunately not even a star is a guarantee of distribution. The latest film from great Hungarian filmmaker Bela Tarr, the wonderful The Man from London, has still not seen U.S. theaters, despite the presence of Oscar-winner Tilda Swinton. And even a recent film from the old-time French New Wave director Jacques Rivette, The Story of Marie and Julien, went straight to DVD even though it starred the exquisitely gorgeous Emmanuelle Beart.

Two of the top rated filmmakers of the 2000s, Pedro Costa from Portugal and Hong Sang-soo from Korea, did not have a single film distributed, even though they earned some of the most enthusiastic acclaim of any filmmakers during the past ten years. Some of Hong's movies made it to DVD in the past couple of years, but trying to find anything by Costa, even if you had an all-region DVD player, was frustratingly futile. Happily, the Criterion Collection will distribute a trio of Costa films on DVD in just a few weeks. (Colossal Youth is picture above.)

Many American journalists have traveled abroad or attended film festivals, have seen movies by these filmmakers, and have managed to draw some attention to them, but even that is just a drop in the ocean. It's mind-bending to think of the brand-new masterworks out there that we will never see. - Jeffrey Anderson

Sydney brings us news of Sundance Acquisitions

The Match Factory picked up worldwide rights to Howl Sundance's opning film in the narrative section.

Shoreline acquired worldwide rights to its second Latino film Contracorriente (Undertow). It had acquired Zona Sur (Southern District) which is also showing in Sundance at Ventana Sur in November and last year acquired La Nana (The Maid) at Sundance.

Paramount Vantage acquired Davis Guggenheim's new documentary about the crisis in public education in the U.S. Waiting for Superman which was developed, financed and executive produced by Participant Media who backed Guggenheim's previous doc An Inconvenient Truth.

Visit acquired worlwide rights to The Taqwarcores before its Sundance premiere.

Wild Bunch licensed U.S. rights to Gaspar Noe’s Sundance 2010 feature Enter the Void to IFC in the firs pre-Sundance deal.

from: http://sydneysbuzz.blogspot.com/

Steven Beer: A Decade of Filmmaker Empowerment Coming

For many independent filmmakers and producers, 2010 - starting with the upcoming Sundance Film Festival - figures to be a watershed year and the beginning of a Decade of Filmmaker Empowerment.  After years of disenchantment with traditional all-rights distribution deals, filmmakers and producers are poised to take matters into their own hands and forge a truly independent path to marketing and distributing their films.

For over 30 years, the Sundance Film Festival has been the jewel of the domestic film festival crown.  Year after year, audiences flock to Park City to screen original films from new voices with fresh perspectives.  Film industry executives attend the festival to discover and possibly work with a new class of promising filmmakers.  For the new generation of filmmakers, Sundance is an unparalleled opportunity to gain recognition and screen films before appreciative audiences.

The economic climate over recent Sundance seasons has been harsh however. For many filmmakers pursuing traditional deals with multi-screen commitments and substantial minimum guarantees, January, 2010 is likely to represent another winter of frozen dreams.  The once hot seller’s market where distributors chased producers with rich deals has cooled down considerably. The surviving mini-majors have concluded that marketing and distributing independent films can be risky business.  The recent demise of Paramount Vantage and Warner Independent and downsizing at The Weinstein Company and Miramax contributes to a chilly forecast for this January.

The road from Park City to the urban art house cinema is icy and treacherous. Here is the good news: there are warmer days ahead offering a more stable course to distribution.  The new terrain promises unprecedented control and maximum flexibility as filmmakers and producers hit the distribution trail. Taking advantage of new opportunities in the marketplace, savvy filmmakers and producers will approach Sundance 2010 and other key festivals with a customized empowerment strategy. This new paradigm contemplates the probability that they will contract with several distribution partners rather than seek traditional, one-stop/all rights distribution arrangements.

Producers and filmmakers will craft and execute a distribution game plan that supports their personal priorities and targets specific audiences and markets.  With a sharper eye towards emerging business opportunities, some producers will prepare empowerment plans and budgets designed to efficiently allocate monies to service theatrical and semi-theatrical engagements and fuel integrated digital marketing campaigns. The new empowerment model favors working with experienced publicists and distribution consultants who will help establish and execute a customized distribution program. 

In contrast to the traditional all-rights distribution model, the empowerment model is both practical and opportunistic. It envisions direct sales and individual licenses to cover separate media and markets. It is also scalable to address emerging digital commerce and traditional media revenue streams.  The empowerment model sidesteps middlemen and long term exclusive distribution relationships with entities that are frequently overburdened and under-staffed. Given today’s dysfunctional marketplace, empowered filmmakers and producers are more determined to drive the distribution car and to take a greater role in managing their business.

As strategic distribution counsel and producer representatives, we are actively working with filmmakers and producers who are embracing the new empowerment model. Here are five priority empowerment elements worth considering prior to going to Sundance or another key festival.

1. Establish Goals for the Film - In the past, the industry and media defined success by high profile distribution deals and end of the year awards. The empowerment model encourages filmmakers to establish their goals on personal basis. The filmmaker’s goals are not always shared by the producer and/or the investors, however.  For example, some filmmakers urgently desire a theatrical release so that audiences can see their film in the best environment. This expensive goal often conflicts with investors seeking recoupment of monies. We recommend that the filmmaker and producer establish a consensus and create a priorities pyramid that will serve as a compass for the team going forward.

2. Identify Assets - Take an inventory of the project and review its selling points.  For example, many documentaries discuss topics that have built-in constituencies such as organizations that may be accessed for marketing purposes. Actors in narrative features frequently have agents and managers, all of whom have a stake in the film’s success. They should be tapped to deploy their relationships and resources to help market your film. Sometimes, a film’s location can be an asset such as when a city or state seeks to promote their production incentives and qualifications.  Film commissions frequently have marketing budgets, so it may be helpful to team up with them to help promote the film. 

3. Create a Business Summary and Budget - Along with finishing the film so that it is “delivery” ready, preparing a business plan and budget is a critical step one should take prior to the festival.  The exercise generates important team discussion and helps map out a strategy required to satisfy the established goals.  Once prepared, the producers can assess the anticipated costs and create a realistic budget to cover festival expenses and the costs to support a service or semi-theatrical release. Without this road map, it is easy to lose direction or run out of gas (money).

4. Assemble Your Team - The empowerment model is strategic by design.  It requires the recruitment of experienced professionals to help create and deploy a customized distribution plan.  The old-style sales agent and festival publicist may not always be the best fit.  This is a marathon and not a sprint.  Look to recruit professional relationships that will stay with the film from the festival campaign through distribution so you can implement the plans they helped to design.

5. Focus On Finance Empowerment entails responsibility. Marketing and distributing films is expensive even when you are efficient. In the traditional model, filmmakers and producers used distribution companies as their bank and paid an expensive price - loss of control for many years. The business of marketing and distributing films, like all businesses, requires capital. To stay independent you must bring your own gas to feed the distribution engine, at least until your film starts to generate income. The good news is there are many entities willing to cash flow your festival and P&A budget. Be careful, however, since these are sophisticated banking agreements that require specialized counsel. Please review these agreements with counsel or risk losing control over your negative.

Let’s celebrate the Empowerment Decade. Finally, the tools are available so that the independent vision can extend beyond film production and into distribution. With less dependence on the traditional distribution model we can look forward to perhaps the more innovative filmmaking this January and in the years to come.

[Steven C. Beer is a shareholder in the international entertainment practice of Greenberg Traurig’s New York office.  Steven has served as counsel to numerous award-winning writers, directors and producers, as well as industry-leading film production, film finance and film distribution companies.]

Can't Fight The Future

Prepare to see less shelves of DVDs and CDs at your local Best Buy. In a recent piece from the LA Times, we’ve learned that the mega-retailer sees that the tide is turning for physical products down the line, and is beginning to look towards further supporting digital downloads and streaming services. This doesn’t mean Best Buy will be giving up on new DVD, Bluray, and CD releases—but expect to see less room for older and less popular films and music on store shelves.

Ryan Pirozzi, direct of Best Buy digital media, sums up their new outlook: "Digital is developing as an important channel, and our three-point strategy is to drive adoption of Internet-connectable devices, drive connection and drive consumption using our deep consumer relationships."

And here I thought Netflix was one of the few companies making significant steps away from physical media. The common bond with Netflix and Best Buy is that their current models completely rely on physical media, and if they are to survive in the next few years, they need to cement themselves as leaders in delivering content directly to your living room television (not to mention other rooms and devices).

Best Buy recently signed a deal with CinemaNow to allow access to their library of digital content in future internet-connected televisions, DVD and Blu-ray players, as well as other devices.  They’ve also signed a deal with Netflix to bring their Watch Instantly feature to cheaper Blu-ray players (fascinating that this is becoming almost as big a draw for these players and Blu-ray discs alone). And let’s not forget that last year Best Buy bought Napster—which they haven’t done much with yet, and still remains in fifth place for digital music purchases.

LAT mentions that current execs are already envisioning what a future Best Buy may look like: "Instead of rows and rows of DVDs and CDs, the center of the store will be a ‘hub’ that emphasizes home connectivity by bringing together Napster and the new online movie service with devices needed to watch them."

While that may indeed seem a bit fantastical, if Best Buy becomes an integral part of customer’s digital download and streaming experience, it doesn’t matter what the stores will look like in the future. They’ll survive as long as they remain synonymous with their customers’ media experience. - Davindra Hardawar

Anne Thompson finally gets it.

I'm not saying it hasn't occurred to her before, as she has mentioned the theories behind the pathos behind "Paranormal Activity" and its marketing campaign, but she dove into it a bit more than any of her Mainstream Hollywood Peers have in the past year.

From her Blog:

Paranormal Activity‘s $20.2 million gross ($26,530 per screen) on 760 screens marks a sea-change, a new way of looking at the $35 million that studios tend to spend on a wide opening. With the coming reduction of pictures in the marketplace—The Film Department’s Gill predicts that less than 400 will be released in 2010—perhaps it’s time to reexamine the marketing and distribution rules and regs that have developed over the years. Are they all necessary? Wide openings are not the only way to go. Paranormal is at $33.7 million after a month, with less than $10 million in advertising.

Those who say Paranormal Activity could have had a number one opening are missing the point. This is not the old paradigm: take the number one slot at any cost by blasting ads at a mass audience. It’s a new approach: build buzz and anticipation slowly, and foment a sense of low supply and high demand so that audiences are clamoring for the picture. Oren Peli’s cheap vid-thriller goes from 760 screens this weekend to 1800 next. And yes, Paramount couldn’t just snap their fingers and score 1000 screens. Next weekend, they will double the screen count.

Now Paramount’s marketing people are offering parties at the first ten local cinemas that sell out on the midnight show on Thursday night/Friday morning October 23. (AICN’s Harry Knowles announced this, so naturally his local theater, The Alamo Drafthouse, was the first to sell out.)

The point is, you don’t have to pay for a wide release—as long as you have a good movie. And it doesn’t have to be a cheap genre film. It just has to be something that audiences can get enthusiastic about. They could have done Whip It (which Searchlight previewed) or Zombieland or District 9 this way. Yes the studios spent plenty on advertising those movies. But what if the studio didn’t have to spend as much as they thought?

With fewer movies in theaters and less clutter, maybe there’s more room for playing around in the margins. The reason the studios have built up these huge spends is fear, basically—-make a lot of noise and take no chances. The actual number of theaters that are necessary for proper returns on movie is really more like 800. Seriously.

The Return of "ARAYA": Interview with Margot Benacerraf

In 1959, Venezuelan filmmaker Margot Benacerraf was one of two winners of the International Critics Prize at the Cannes Film Festival for her feature “Araya” – the other was Alain Resnais for “Hiroshima Mon Amour.” Benacerraf was the first Latin American filmmaker to be honored at Cannes.

However, her success was fleeting. “Araya,” a visually striking non-fiction study of the salt miners in the Araya peninsula of northeastern Venezuela, has barely been seen during the past half-century. The film didn’t play in Venezuelan cinemas until 1977, and relatively few Americans caught it when it was part of a touring 1987 retrospective of Latin American films. “Araya” is only now in U.S. theatrical release, in a beautifully restored print, through the distribution auspices of Milestone Film & Video.

"Araya" had its premiere at Cannes in 1959, but it was not theatrically released in Venezuela until 1977. What kept the film out of theaters for two decades?

“Araya,” for it’s own characteristics, has always been a difficult film to distribute even having been awarded numerous times and celebrated in so many festivals. Since the beginning, “Araya” was marked for its particularity. Inside the distributors/exhibitors pre-established categorizations, “Araya” didn’t fit in any genre and it didn’t feature any international stars.

After the enormous and unanimous critical success at Cannes and other festivals, people talked with more formally of “a cinematographic account” of “a grand composition”, of “a painting told with a poetic rhythm”, and so on, “like a poem”, but even so the distributors didn’t go for it in those moments, and later for various and differing reasons the co-producer and I didn’t put in the effort until as soon as the opportunity presented itself in 1977.

When you were shooting the film, how did the salt marsh workers react to having their daily labor captured on camera? And have you ever been contacted by the men and women in the film about the production?

The salt-makers collaborated a lot because I lived with them before filming so that they became familiar with me and the presence of the camera wouldn’t interfere too much with their actions. I should say that they accepted my requests with goodwill and patience. They had never seen a camera and didn’t know exactly what it was all about, but they trusted me. I’ve returned to “Araya” various times during all these years and we’ve always continued maintaining very warm relations.

"Araya" had several U.S. playdates in 1987. What was the reaction by audiences at that time?

Very good, but without any consequence.

Prior to Milestone's release, have you ever been contacted by a U.S. distribution for the film's theatrical release in the American market?

I was contacted by Latin American Video Archive (LAVA) in 2005, but then they ran into economic problems they had to close their doors and cancel all of its activities by the end of that year, “Araya” was referred to Milestone by LAVA’s director Roselly Torres, who was interested in its distribution.

How is "Araya" appreciated today in Venezuela?

For the past 50 years, no other Venezuelan films has had the prestige, nor obtained the prizes that “Araya” has received. With that, I am able to say that in Venezuela it is considered an icon. A little bit ago in the month of May, the 50 years of the Cannes Festival awards were celebrated with the projection in various theaters, and now there will be other projections and other various ceremonies in the country’s universities. - Phil Hall

Indie Future: Mechanic Offers Answers

Always one of the smarter players in Hollywood, ex-Fox studio chairman Bill Mechanic (now owner of the production company Pandemonium LLC) gave a keynote speech Tuesday morning on the future of the indies at the Independent Film & Television Alliance Production Conference. Is he looking for a job (there’s a big opening at Disney, where he used to run home video)? Maybe.

In any case, his analysis of what’s going on is strong. As always, Mechanic fights for the interesting, challenging and original over standard-issue formula fare:

It’s disrespectful if not downright dumb to think audiences can’t tell the difference between the original, which occasionally might even have some fresh faces, and the copy, which almost always is populated with retreads. It’s like thinking you can sell yesterday’s news under a different banner.

AND

While use of the internet and video games have dominated leisure time activities, movie consumption is down or flat over the same period. And, more to the point, you can see that there is a 21% drop in film going amongst the core target audience and a 24% drop in the next key category, 25-39 year olds.

And yes, these charts beg another question: if the audiences are shifting, why isn’t the product shifting as well. Name 5 mainstream films this year that successfully targeted an over-30 year audience. In that way, Hollywood in the broadest sense of the word is much like Detroit. It’s a manufacturer’s mentality that reigns, seemingly indifferent to the consumers it serves. Ignore whether the consumer likes our product as long as they buy it.

Market it and they will come.

and MY personal favorite (I've been saying it for years): "We have too many insignificant movies clogging our distribution channels."

read the rest on Thompson's Blog here: http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2009/09/29/indie_future_mechanic_offers_some_answers/

The ultimate in Custom DIY Distribution

Remember the Flaming Lips-soundtracked documentary trailer a while back in February? About the mushroom hunters Gary Lincoff and Larry Evans? Well, the Canadian doc is about to get some unique love.

To promote his new documentary Know Your Mushrooms, the CBC reports that Ron Mann is releasing the film on a customized USB stick -- one shaped like a cute, tooth-filled shroom (seen to the right). I'd love to see DVD storage folks come up with a shelving unit for this.

Following a British company that released Ghostbusters on a 2GB flash drive with digital rights management, the Toronto-based filmmaker is taking a more share-friendly approach. Basically, people buy these USB keys for $59.99 -- which, I might add, are said to be almost sold out -- and are then encouraged to upload and share the film. Mann says: "We did this as a fun project. It wasn't a commercial venture." Nevertheless, it's a smart idea -- warm people to the film, and then how can they resist the charm of shroomy movie keys?

But best of all, he doesn't plan to stop there. Remember the 1999 cult film Grass? He's gearing up to re-distribute that flick on a USB key shaped like a joint. The possibilities are endless!

This is how you do it!

500 Days of Summer Release Schedule

If you read the SLASHfilm Blog regularly, than you know that they fell in love with this film at Sundance called 500 Days of Summer. It’s a wonderful indie comedy about falling in love and breaking up. It’s a Fox Searchlight release, which means they are doing their patented platform roll-out, which means that it may not hit your neck of the woods the same time that it hits some of the larger cities.


Friday, July 17th

• Boston
• Chicago
• Dallas/Ft. Worth
• Los Angeles
• San Diego
• New York
• San Francisco
• Seattle
• Toronto
• Washington, D.C.

Friday, July 24th

• Atlanta
• Austin
• Baltimore
• Cleveland
• Denver
• Detroit
• Houston
• Indianapolis
• Madison
• Milwaukee
• Minneapolis
• Montreal
• Philadelphia
• Phoenix
• Portland
• St. Louis
• Vancouver

Friday, July 31st

• Albany
• Albuquerque
• Ann Arbor
• Boca Raton/West Palm Beach
• Buffalo
• Calgary
• Charlotte
• Cincinnati
• Columbus
• Edmonton
• Fresno
• Halifax
• Hartford/New Haven
• Honolulu
• Kansas City
• Kitchener
• Miami/Fort Lauderdale
• Nashville
• New Orleans
• Orlando
• Ottowa
• Pittsburgh
• Richmond
• Rochester
• Sacramento
• Salt Lake
• San Antonio
• St. John
• Tampa/St. Petersburg
• Tucson
• Victoria
• Winnipeg

Friday, August 7th

• Anchorage
• Asheville
• Baton Rouge
• Birmingham
• Boise
• Champaign/Decatur/Springfield
• Charlottesville
• Colorado Springs
• Corpus Christi
• Dayton
• Des Moines
• El Paso
• Fort Myers
• Gainesville
• Grand Rapids
• Harrisburg, PA
• Ithaca
• Jacksonville
• Knoxville
• Lansing
• Las Vegas
• Lexington
• Louisville
• Memphis
• Norfolk/Newport News
• Northampton/Springfield
• Oklahoma City
• Omaha
• Portland, ME
• Providence
• Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill
• Reno
• Sarasota
• Santa Fe
• Spokane
• Syracuse
• Tallahassee
• Tulsa

Nothing ever really dies as long as there are People to remember it...

Chris Thilk over at MovieMarketingMadness.com has pointed out a wonderful thing:

(from Chris T @ MMM) There’s a cool self-organized movement afoot called MobMov. Using the site – and being sure to get permission from property owners and others – people are able to organize what are being called “guerilla drive-in” experiences. Basically they find a movie, find a place to screen it and then organize people to the screening, which has the feeling of a drive-in/tailgate party mixture. Love this idea. Love it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

With hundreds of chapters across the globe, the Mobile Movie is bringing back the forgotten joy of the great American drive-in. Powered by cars and video projectors, "mobmovs" are easy and affordable to set up. Abandoned warehouse walls spring to life with the sights and sounds of a big screen movie. read more

MobMov.org has been in operation since 2005, and is the earliest "revival drivein" of it's kind. In fact, the term "MobMov", short for Mobile Movie, was originally coined by Bryan Kennedy, the founder of mobmov.org, to describe the unique "drive-in that drives-in" method he developed.

Today, MobMov.org is powered by do-it-yourself'ers like you across the globe, all joined together in the goal to bring drive-ins back, in a new, sustainable way. It's free to join and lots of fun.

People used to think "Drive Ins" would die out; they were wrong. The power of community is a formidable one.

http://mobmov.org/

Gilula and Utley Take Fox Searchlight Reins

Stephen Gilula and Nancy Utley have been named presidents of Fox Searchlight Pictures, Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairmen Tom Rothman and Jim Gianopulos announced Tuesday. Gilula and Utley, who both served as Searchlight’s chief operating officers, will report directly to to Gianopulos and Rothman. The former COOs of Searchlight, they fill the formal gap left by the departure of the former company president Peter Rice who recently took a top post at Fox’s broadcasting unit.

During their combined tenure at Searchlight, Utley and Gilula have marketed and distributed 77 movies, earning over $1.3 billion at the domestic box office as well as 46 Academy Award nominations and 15 wins. Both were named COOs of the specialty division in 2006. Searchlight’s “Slumdog Millionaire” earned earned twelve Oscar nominations and eight wins, including Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay this year in addition to Best Picture nominees and Best Original Screenplay winners “Juno” and “Little Miss Sunshine,” and Best Picture nominee and Best Adapted Screenplay winner “Sideways.”

“I am delighted to continue to have the privilege to work with an extremely talented and enthusiastic staff, supportive management, and supremely gifted filmmakers in one of the best jobs in our business or any other,” commented Utley in a statement. ““I am extremely proud of all that we have accomplished at Searchlight and look forward to continuing the tradition,” added Gilula.

Prior to Fox Searchlight, Utley was Twentieth Century Fox’s executive vice president of marketing, overseeing all aspects of media, research, publicity and promotion for the company’s theatrical releases. She also held posts as vice president of media, senior vice president of media and research, and executive vice president of marketing, media and research. She came to 20th Century Fox from BBDO, where she was senior vice president of new business. Beginning her career at Grey Advertising in New York as an assistant media director, she left eight years later as vice president, associate media director. She holds a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University.

Gilula served as president and chief executive officer of Landmark Theatres, which he co-founded in 1974 with the NuArt Theatre in Los Angeles, eventually growing to 140 screens. Gilula spent five years on the board of directors and executive committee of the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and served as chairman of NATO of California/Nevada for six years. Gilula began his career as a film booker/buyer at United Artists Theatre Circuit in San Francisco.

Upcoming releases for Fox Searchlight include the Sundance favorite “500 Days of Summer,” directed by Marc Webb, Sundance Award winner “Adam” directed by Max Mayer and “Amelia” directed by Mira Nair and starring Oscar winner Hilary Swank, Richard Gere and Ewan McGregor. - Brian Brooks(indieWire)

Baby(ies) find a family

Some good news in the Distro world: Focus Features acquired domestic and select international rights to nonfiction feature “Baby(ies)” by filmmaker Thomas Balmes. The film is an original idea by Alain Chabat who produced the feature with Amandine Billot and Christine Rouxel through his Chez Wam production company. Focus will also release the film in Mexico, Italy, Scandinavia, Korea, and South Africa. In related news, Focus has also entered into a first-look deal with Chez Wam’s Los Angeles-based subsidiary Wam Films. “Baby(ies)” is currently in post-production for release in 2010.

The Plot: Capturing on film the earliest stages of the journey of humanity, “Baby(ies)” simultaneously follows four babies, in Mongolia, Namibia, San Francisco, and Tokyo, respectively, from birth to first steps. Every shot tells a story, as the adventure of a lifetime begins.

The Cinematic Civil War – Part 2: Getting To The Battlefield

All The Old Familiar Places….

You’ve shot your film, edited it, did all the finishing polishes, and now you’re ready to go, but you’re a first time filmmaker, so it won’t be easy. Let’s also assume that your film is of the best quality possible; it will make things more applicable. The good news is that you’re far, far from alone; every single filmmaker in this industry has been exactly where you are right now. Naturally, the first instinct is to send your film off to film festivals in hopes of recognition and appreciation, and that’s a very good instinct, but its not the only option you have.

The Short Route

You made a short film. You sent it off to festivals and it did well, won a few awards, maybe a few featured posts on blogs or coverage in a trade, but no distribution deal has come your way. As American Filmmakers we have to face our first hump: Short Films have no Market in America.

*When I use the term “Market”, I mean it in the most economic sense, you could make the argument that due to YouTube, Short (Media) Films are actually the most popular form of media to date and more people have viewed video on YouTube than every single film ever made combined. However, YouTube is free. It costs nothing to watch or post videos on it. (more on this later)

There are primarily 3 reasons we make short films:

-1. We have a vision for a wonderful little piece and it doesn’t need to be more than that.

-2. We have a vision for a wonderful story and make the short as a Demo in hopes of raising money for a full feature.

-3. A showcase of our skills and an addition to our reels and resumes.

Naturally, we want as many people as possible to see our work and sometimes it’d be nice to recover any money we put into it. There are several ways to do both that are just beginning to develop in this new age of Do It Yourself (DIY) Distribution.

In October 2008, through the distribution deal with Shorts International, “Centigrade” a Canadian Short Film made by Madison Graie & Colin Cunningham (no relation), became the first Live-Action Canadian made Short Film distributed on iTunes. In March 2008, the same film became the first Canadian film to qualify for the 2009 Oscars when it won the Best Narrative Short prize at the Cinequest Film Festival, an Academy Awards-sanctioned event.

“In making this short, we didn't expect it to be a financial success,” says Cunningham, the film’s lead actor who also wrote and directed it. “This deal opens doors to aspiring directors and producers.”

Cunningham and Graie are currently in discussions to turn “Centigrade” into a feature. The 17-minute film, which is about a man trapped in a trailer that is slowly burning up, captured 5 Leo Awards, which honor the British Columbia Film and Television Industry, and has qualified for the Genie Awards.

Since iTunes first became user friendly in 2004, anyone could distribute video and audio podcasts for free through the program, but in February of 2007, iTunes started to open its doors to Indie Filmmakers, with the film “That”, available for download at the cost of $1.99. It is currently unknown what the profit share between the Mac Company and the Filmmakers is. iTunes has since stated that it will sell video outside of its larger deals with companies like Disney and Lionsgate. Another note about distribution through iTunes is that the company will not distribute your project if you are giving it away for free somewhere else.

Just recently in January ’09, The Sundance Institute joined with iTunes to release 10 short films which played at the festival, available for free download. "We are thrilled to be able to highlight a selection of short films from this year's program free online on the iTunes Store for those who can't make it to the Festival," said Trevor Groth, Sundance Film Festival Senior Programmer. "The 10 films offer a sample of the diversity and originality of the 2009 Sundance Film Festival shorts program."

With these few examples, we can see the trend of profit based releases for Short Films beginning to rise, but not everyone is keen on having their short film’s watched on a laptop, some believe that their films should ideally be shown at a theater.

Over the past few months, a movement of traveling exhibitions and film festivals has been on the rise. Groups of filmmakers and artists are joining with each other in order to take their films and projects to more people and expand their audiences.

Currently, as part of the “American Sabor: Latinos in U.S. Popular Culture” exhibition, 3 films made specifically for the exhibition that bring Latino music and dance to life. Each short film (approx. 6-8 minutes long) features performance footage and filmed interviews with artists and experts, and the narratives examine key events in the history of post-World War II Latino music.

- “Rivalry at the Palladium” tells the story of the musical rivalry between Tito Puente and Pablo “Tito” Rodriguez, two Puerto Rican mambo masters.
- “Dance! Dance! Dance!” explores the effects of dance crazes such as tango, mambo, and cha cha cha have helped introduce Latino music to broader audiences.
- “Hollywood” looks at Hollywood’s role in creating images of Latino artists.

These three shorts are not the only art being displayed in the exhibition, many artifacts, wardrobes, musical scores and speakers will also be featured, but it serves as a successful example of a group of artists traveling with their work. Some artists have decided to take a cue from Music Groups. In January ’09, New Media group “The Collective” announced plans to compile the short films of several filmmakers (much like bands compile their music videos and bonus content) and release them over a series of affordable DVDs in effort to bring both exposure and funding to filmmakers.

“There’s really no market for shorts here,” says Ryan Strouss, V.P of The Collective. “with the right marketing and the right art, we can target specific audiences that already exist. Not only would they enjoy these films, but potentially use them as tools in an educational setting.”

The Featured Way

You made a feature film. You sent it off to festivals and it did well, won a few awards, maybe a few featured posts on blogs or coverage in a trade, but no distribution deal has come your way. You put effort, time and money into the project and you hope to recoup it, as well as give your film exposure. Now what?

The dream of some filmmakers today (those who wish to use their Indie Films as a jumping point to the Studio System) is for a high priced negative pickup. The film they made is bought, including all rights and intellectual property, by a distribution company for national and foreign wide release. This scenario, per capita, is uncommon, varying buyouts, but not unheard of. Motives for wanting such a deal are wide reaching, but if this were the only way, there’d be no call for creative thinking and new ways to reach your audience that makes this industry so surprising. And what are those alternative methods? How much of it can be considered Self-Distribution?

What are the reasons to Self-Distribute a film? Naturally, again, the first goal is of course to get your work seen by as big an audience as possible, but there’s also a very valuable secondary reason many of us don’t think about, yet partake in quite often when discussing our projects: to document our experience, to make the notes available for our peers so that they may learn from our experience. Currently, real Self-Distribution exists in the indie rock world to an extremely high degree, but not for indie film at the moment. So how do we cultivate it?

Some of the previously mentioned methods for Shorts can be applied to feature films, but in my opinion, the best and most successful example of alternative distribution is Gary Hustwit’s documentary “Helvetica”. I have been following Mr. Hustwit and his methods with great interest for quite a long time and I am constantly surprised and impressed by both.

Gary first began the project as a self-described “geeky side project” about design and font, but found himself more and more committed to it as time went on. During the height of project activity, he began to show the film to several design firms, taking it on its own mini-tour before the project was complete. Not only did he expose the film to hundreds of audience members and create a niched buzz, but he also received valuable input from the people who knew the subject better than he and ended up incorporating some of it into the film itself.

“Helvetica” had its World Premiere at the South by Southwest Film Festival in March 2007. The film subsequently toured film festivals, special events, and art house cinemas worldwide, playing in over 300 cities in 40 countries. It received its television premiere on BBC1 in November 2007, and was broadcasted on PBS as part of the Emmy award-winning series Independent Lens in fall 2008. The film was nominated for a 2008 Independent Spirit Award in the "Truer Than Fiction" category, and was shortlisted for the Design Museum London's "Designs of the Year" Award. An excerpt of the film was included in an exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. If you’re interested, and I hope that you are (you should be! Support your peers!), the film is currently available for download on iTunes as well as DVD and Bluray formats. How many self-distributed films can claim the same right now? Not many.

Now, should you wish to go theatrical with your feature, but have no offers on the table, you may consider a Service Deal, which, up until 1999/2000 was most popular with books, but has since seen an increasing viability in films. In a recent article in Filmmaker Magazine, Jon Reiss articulated the intricacies of such a scenario: “With no theatrical offer I investigated service deals. These used to carry a fair amount of stigma: “Your film isn‘t good enough for someone to release it so you have to pay them to do it,” but in the current landscape, where theatrical is often (or only) seen as merely publicity for ancillary markets, service deals are less stigmatized and increasingly even the norm.”

There are “Indie-distributors-For-Hire Services” out there should you wish to take that route, such as “Artistic License” (http://www.artlic.com/) and “Truly Indie” (http://www.trulyindie.com/) and they may certainly be useful in expanding and cultivating self-distribution campaigns for certain features.

With the increasing amount of interest in data portability and digital mediums these days, several companies, like iTunes, have taken advantage of that. Netflix is of course known for their monthly rental fees and unlimited rentals/free shipping costs, but now, they’ve started to massively upload films and TV shows onto their server, which, discounting the cost of bandwidth and space, is a great cost saver for them, which also makes it more feasible for the company to snatch up a few indies. After all, if they stick with a purely digital deal, there’d be no cost in manufacturing DVDs, so it becomes less of an economic and bureaucratic process for them, thus making the purchasing of indie films more appealing.

At the moment, Netflix targets primarily the big releases and Hollywood films, but other sites, like Amazon.com and Jaman.com have a more indie targeted niche, and SnagFilms.com, a service that lets anyone host a movie for free on their own Web page. Sure, many of us would like to have the feeling of holding that DVD copy of our own film in our hands and on our shelves, and many of us are wary of digital distribution, but now many of us are getting the digital deals that can keep us going through these venues. YouTube even has a “Screening Room” channel for professional short films and features that will generate revenue from ads on the site, though the filmmakers themselves will not likely see those profits.

Another great example of this is Hulu, NBC’s answer to “you can see it for free, like YouTube, but you’ve gotta watch a few ads so we can still make money” has made some wonderful, landmark headway for Indie Films in an ironically corporate delivery system. In August ‘08, Director David Modigliani struck a deal that made “Crawford” the first film to make its debut on Hulu.com. Hulu, like YouTube, also offers tools that let people post these videos directly on their own blogs, Facebook pages and other sites (though one has to wonder how that will now work with Facebook’s recent grab for content and use rights). Since going up on the site, "Crawford" has been the top movie and one of the most-discussed videos on the site, says Hulu, which UNFORTUNATELY does not release the number of views its videos generate.

Modigliani’s agreement with Hulu was brokered by “B-Side”, an Austin company that runs the Web sites of over 200 film festivals. Like Hustwit, using email addresses and other data gathered from festival goers, “B-Side” organizes screening events around the country where movies are shown for free as a way to drive DVD sales. Now, with films like "Crawford," “B-Side” is applying the same strategy to the Web.

Hulu didn't pay anything up front for "Crawford." Instead, the company shares revenue generated by the six advertisements that run at various points during the 74-minute film, so yes, as with television shows on Hulu, there will be commercials. Neither Hulu or “B-Side” will say how much that amounts to, of course, but “B-Side” only expects it to cover the company's initial expenses on the film, which they say is only a few thousand dollars. At a time when interest in politics was running high, “B-Side” was banking on a return from selling "Crawford" on DVD, offered online for $19.99. Modigliani self-financed the film so he has no investors to pay back. He used his credit card and used tax-deductible contributions made through the Austin Film Society for the movie's $100,000 budget.

There are great strides yet to be made, but for the first time we can see what the future may look like for us as an industry and as a family. Studios will ALWAYS make movies, fans will always crave tactile contact with their favorite films through Limited Edition DVD releases and technology will always set the standard for budgets, but if Indie Rock is any indication of the paralleled movement our Industry is heading for, as it has traditionally been, we, the indie artists, will always find the new ways to venture before our corporate cousins, and they, in turn, will follow suit upon proof of viability. After all, if we look to bands like Radiohead, they are paving the way by exclusively releasing their albums online and available for download with a “name your own” price, and since doing that, more than twenty-five widely released artists have followed suit.

A Note…

*in my opening statement I had said “let’s also assume that your film is of the best quality possible”. The reason I say this is because, unfortunately, a lot of the films, hell, MOST of the films made each year are crap. That’s not discrediting the talent of the cast, crew and all those involved, but sometimes the pieces just don’t fit and the film will never see the light of day. If we are to survive as a community, we must acknowledge that we will always have weak links, but we should not discourage them from making films, we should help to nurture them, educate them and embrace them as we would have done unto us. This cycle will never stop, there will always be bad films, but if we work together, we can show that we’re not all to be judged by the worst of our kind, and we lift those who lift themselves.

The Cinematic Civil War – Part 1: Maps & Borders

“the not-so-truly-independent film, no matter how 'other' it calls itself, is often simply trying to sneak a place, it seems, amongst other films, bigger films, measured often by their commercial success, or the social advancement accorded its makers… No matter how passionately many filmmakers talk about their Vision, too often the overriding impulse is to garner admiration from bigwigs who can finance bigger films, and the attendant, supposed, freedom this will bring for future work. I would argue that this future work is already devoid of inspiration, as it is based upon a filmmaker whose work was made, at least in some measure, in order to secure career options, rather than having been made out of a serious, undeniable urge to craft a particular film, regardless, totally regardless, of its career implications.” - Jay Anania

WHO WE ARE

Know what you want out of this industry before you get too far into it. We all know the general diction of where we’d like to end up, but the roads that take us there are never easy, never simple, and never a straight line. The speed bumps and detours along the way can misguide us, steer us off course, and sometimes change our destination entirely. It is this guiding philosophy that truly separates us; our “sorting hat” if I may make a Harry Potter reference.

Some are in the industry because they like the atmosphere; regardless of their station and the longer we do this, the more of them we meet. Some of us know career Production Coordinators, UPMs, Grips and Transportation Captains, that’s what they do, and that’s what they will do. They’re distinctively interchangeable from project to project and Studio to Indie. It doesn’t make them more or less filmmakers than directors, producers, DPs and actors, all the creative types… right? And I address them here to ensure that they are not forgotten and remind us all how incredibly vital they are to Production, they are a film’s arms and legs.

Although all these people are important players, they are by their very nature, not the ones who truly steer the direction of our world; rather it is the people who create, originate, develop, nurture and finish with their films, and many times those people have more than one title. At some point in their lives, these people made the decision to “work in the movies”. Some want to work within the Studio system, some wanted to work outside of it.

WHAT WE DO

When this is all we do, we have to do it well. We have to make a living off of it. But not many of us are able to do this full time. Not many of us work only in this industry.

The Indie community is comprised of countless individuals and tribes wandering the world. Some just make one film and that’s it, others a few, and the rest continue to make one film after another until they can’t. When you’re an Indie filmmaker, it sometimes feels as if they world is against you and the bigger community at large doesn’t want you to succeed, no matter how many successes you’ve already had. And it feels like that a lot.

If we are the true Indie filmmakers that Anania mentions above, then we run the risk of becoming bitter; we work on our own films, developing one project at a time for what can be years on end; tweaking our characters, refining our shot lists, rethinking our scores, retooling our team, re-scouting our locations, re-evaluating available technology. And all the while we do this, a studio puts 30 million dollars into the next “Scary Movie” riff or a tweeny movie about horny kids. We see these movies coming out with horrible scripts, terrible jokes and phoned in cinematography and they make us sick. We think “for 30 million I could have made 30 to 60 amazing films, son of a bitch.” In that moment, we have the option of taking two roads, the one we planned on taking, or the easier road with a seemingly more stable [financial] future.

WHAT WE WANT

In his statement, Anania defines this Civil War that we seem to find ourselves in. We either make the films we want to make because we truly believe [and know] they’re wonderful and new and we continue to make films like that, or we take our first truly independent film (and for the same of argument assume this first one is a great success) and use the status gained from it to crossover into the studio financing side for future projects.

I believe that as long as you know where the roads will take you, there is no right or wrong choice.

However, because of that, I’m in a very small minority. Over the past few months my trade and travels have exposed me to many Indie Filmmakers, and most of them has a hard line view on these two options. It seems that out of these filmmakers, the majority of them want to use their first film as a launch pad for bigger projects with bigger budgets and more wide-release exposure. In contrast, the other filmmakers wish to make all their future films like their first film (in this case: well-developed, new, hopeful, honest and modest) without care of studio pickup for distribution. The small minority that I find myself a part of is the group understand both sides of the argument, but is honestly fine with whatever the means are so long as the vision isn’t compromised.

An interesting, and perhaps revealing, bit of insight is that out of all these people, their current, personal, economic situation helps them make these decisions. The bulk of us who are not so well off lean towards the career launching “crossover” films, and the bulk of us who are content with our current economic situation lean towards the continued Truly Free Films of our origins.

TO THE BATTLEFIELD... IS IT LEFT OR RIGHT?

And what are the pros and cons of each choice? The Truly Free Film or the Post-Crossover Film. Over the next four weeks, we will be dissecting the advantages and disadvantages of each with the help of those filmmakers who have been down these roads before, and who knew, and didn’t know, where they were going, starting with distribution.

Not Picked Up in Park City? Filmmakers Look Forward to DIY Release

Anthony Kaufman over at Indiewire has a great speculative article about the potential future of Indie Distribution and some of the larger festivals. Pasted below.

Not Picked Up in Park City? Filmmakers Look Forward to DIY Release Options

The scene at the Sundance Film Festival. Photo by Peter Knegt.
The year is 2014. Joe the Filmmaker just found out he’s going to Sundance with his debut film. His trailer is online the next day. He’s got posters at the printer, and a marketing consultant on the phone. In the days leading up to the festival, he hits up bloggers for press, notifies all his Facebook friends and buys ads both online and in print. After winning a special jury prize for innovation during the final day of the festival, he plugs his movie into the IDN (Indie Distribution Network), selling it directly to indie-minded audiences around the country for viewing on their Internet TVs and iPhones, while a percentage of the proceeds feed directly into his bank account. Done.

While we haven’t exactly arrived at the above sci-fi scenario, there are established filmmakers who are already planning to bypass conventional distribution. Both Lance Hammer (“Ballast”) and Randall Miller (“Bottle Rocket”) say if they were to go to Sundance again, they wouldn’t wait for a company to acquire their film, but use the festival as a launchpad for a do-it-yourself release.

Most filmmakers, however, still say they’re going to Sundance with the hopes of a distribution deal. But now more than ever, they also have a backup plan if the acquisition dream doesn’t become a reality.

“The bottom line is that the old model—let’s go to Sundance and cross our fingers that someone is going to buy it—is ridiculous,” says veteran publicist Cynthia Schwartz, whose firm 42West is repping 15 films at this year’s festival and also consults on several DIY releases during the year. “Filmmakers have to take control. If they get a distributor, terrific. But if they don’t, they have to have a Plan B. And for the first time at Sundance, I feel like people are getting that.”

“Make your own plan. Create your own destiny,” continues Schwartz. “That’s really how things are going. Use the Sundance prestige to get your opening, not necessarily in February,” she adds, “but maybe in April.”

But distribution consultant Steven Raphael, who worked closely on Lance Hammer’s release of “Ballast,” says using Sundance as a platform is a good idea, in theory, but practically, it’s far more challenging.

“Some people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we haven’t completely transitioned yet,” he says. “You still have to use the old-school methods.” If Joe found out about his Sundance acceptance in November, he’d have just a month to get everything in order, says Raphael. “Are your theaters booked? Are your posters ready? Is your media set? Consultants don’t work on projects for four months just to get paid,” he adds. “You need four months.”

Veteran director Joe Berlinger, who famously self-distributed both his 1992 Sundance Audience Award winner “Brother’s Keeper” and his 1996 Emmy-winner “Paradise Lost,” says he’s prepared to launch a DIY release of his latest Sundance entry, “Crude,” a verite look at the infamous “Amazon Chernobyl” environmental lawsuit in Ecuador. “A film like this requires tender loving care and a specialty plan, but if a distributor doesn’t think they can do that,” says Berlinger, “I’d feel comfortable doing that myself.”

Berlinger, who is repping the film himself, says that if he isn’t close to a deal by the end of March, he’ll start making plans for a summer or fall release. While he acknowledges the difficulties of the theatrical market for “a tough film,” he says he has modest financial goals. “I’d be very satisfied to get in 10 to 15 cities, and we have some core constituencies that we can appeal to: There is a greatly underserved Spanish-speaking audience; there is a big and growing environmental audience.”

Berlinger also wants to appeal directly to the college market. “A distributor may consider that an educational and not a legitimate theatrical market, but if I self-distribute, I’m going to put myself on a college circuit, where this film gets widely seen,” he says. “And if that’s the communal viewing experience that most people have seeing this movie, I’ll be very satisfied.”

Similarly, Kansas-based filmmaker Kevin Willmott, who directed 2004’s “C.S.A: The Confederate States of America,” which was a surprise hit for IFC Films, sees value in the college market in respect to his new Sundance entry “The Only Good Indian,” a revisionist Western starring veteran Native actor Wes Studi. As a college professor at the University of Kansas, Willmott travels with his movies to colleges around the country. “All of that can be nurtured and developed and it can generate revenue,” he says.

While Willmott is confident that “The Only Good Indian” will sell to a distributor, he also acknowledges the reality: “If you can’t sell your film, you have to distribute yourself.” To that end, Willmott says they’ve already started targeting those communities that would gravitate to the film’s provocative subject matter, through radio and online interviews.

“If you run into difficulties selling your film or not, you have to connect with those people who will be interested in the film,” he says. “Then it’s just a matter of getting it to them.”

Visit Films’ Ryan Kampe, who is repping Ry Russo-Young’s gritty NYC-set character portrait “You Won’t Miss Me,” says he’s in no hurry for the film to reach its core U.S. ticket-buyers post-Sundance, instead planning to build word-of-mouth on the regional festival circuit. “This film has some legs,” he says. “It’s not just relevant at Sundance, but relevant for the entire year following Sundance.”

Kampe admits that there may be a point when they discuss alternative options for releasing the film in U.S. art-houses. However, he adds, “I can’t tell you whether it’s three weeks after Sundance or six months after.”

C Plus Pictures’ Mike Landry and Carlos Velazquez will have waited more than a year to launch a DIY theatrical release of their Slamdance 2008 entry, “Frost,” which they plan to 4-wall at Landmark’s Sunshine Theatre in New York this spring. By then, they’re hoping to apply what they learn from the experience to their latest Slamdance 2009 effort, “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Undead” if it also goes unsold.

With sales agency Traction Media on board, the filmmakers say they’ll consider partnering with the company on a limited theatrical release if they don’t have a significant deal six months after their Park City premiere. “With digital rights becoming such a hot commodity and you don’t know what’s going to be next,” says Velazquez, “you want to have as much control as possible. There’s something empowering about that model.”

And it doesn’t work, adds Landry, “The only way we can learn is through trial and error.”

Indie Film: The Great Dedication

“Is it worth it for me to do this anymore?” That was the questions I was asked a few days ago by a colleague, and a question that I eventually asked myself.

What she was referring to was her economical situation. Over the past several months, there have been more and more outlets for Indie Film Makers to showcase their work thru a variety of media, and mostly the Internet.

I firmly believe that the Internet is the most valuable tool in almost any endeavor today, be it Film, News, Business or Medicine. YouTube has revolutionized media, Google Videos has redefined how people access News Sources, and although Film has remained a constant, its politics have not.

The Film Community itself benefits most from the Internet, there are wonderful sites such as Indieoma, and KCRW, as well as blogs, such as Ted Hope’s Truly Free Film, Scott Macaulay’s Filmmaker Magazine Blog, and Mikel Wisler’s Cin-Posium. Each of these sites is an invaluable resource for news, cinematic analysis, and the discussion of ideas. Sites like YouTube, iFilm and AtomFilm are great showcases for shorts.

So why ask “if its worth it?” The question itself has a fundamental root that varies from person to person; “what are you seeking?”

An Indie Film Maker is making a film for one of two reasons; A) Creative and Artistic Expression resulting in wonderful discussion, and, if done well, merit; or B) Creative and Artistic Expression resulting in fiscal yield.

If you’re a Film Maker who is a choice B, then Indie Film is the hardest route to take and you’ll probably find yourself asking “Is it worth it for me to do this anymore?”. Each of the previously mentioned websites and blogs are nothing but supportive of Indie Film, but looking over their contents closely, it all points to a potentially disturbing trend; the end of Indie Features.

While shorts will always be around (they’re an essential resume tool as well as the ultimate creative outlet for anyone with a camera) Indie Features will most likely be trailing off. Both Ted Hope and Scott Macaulay have been championing Indie Features for years as well as offering invaluable insight into the Community, some of their recent entries have all mentioned potentially new ways to distribute a film, and most of them are not as profitable as some Film Makers would need them to be.

While I won’t spend too much time on the details of these new distribution avenues (Ted and Scott are much more articulate that I in their posts and certainly more interesting in their explanations) they are indeed very promising when it comes to attaining an audience. Things come into existence when they’re needed, so why the need?

Over the past two years the number of Indie Features made each year has almost tripled. There’s plenty of supply, but the amount of demand is never exactly written in stone. Recently, Paramount announced that it was closing its Indie Division, Paramount Vantage. The company has been harshly criticized for doing so by the Film Community at large. Several of the PV’s films were up for an Oscar Nomination this year, such as There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men (Winner of Best Picture). As to why they’re closing it, there are many thoughts on the issues, including the questionable reasons the company itself has publically stated, but one fundamental opinion that most people have is that the top brass simply has no idea what they’re doing and wish to target more formulaic and financially safer films.

The reason the number of films being made has grown is because the technology to make them has been accessible to just about anyone who wants it, but some argue that it devalues Cinema. To quote a line from The Incredibles, “I’ll give my technology to everyone, and when everyone is Super, no one will be.” Or , to a lesser extent, the Andy Warhol argument of how making multiple copies of a piece of artwork takes away from its “essence.”

But does an increasing number of Films made each year really devalue Cinema? I don’t believe that it does, although the concerns and arguments made by those who do are valid and do hold water. These new methods of distribution are mainly intended for the amateur and “lesser known” Film Makers, for films that may gain festival entrance but not attain the big distribution that they want, and for films that do not go to festivals at all.

While my colleague does understand this point, she feels that she is being strong-armed out of her goals by the larger studios and distributors. The films that she makes are of moderately considerable budget size (SAG Modified Lows or Lows) and have one or two recognizable actors in their cast. She has not had much luck with distribution lately, and as almost any Film Maker who has had their film successfully distributed can tell you, there are an almost infinite number of factors involved with attaining distribution, and later on, the right method and medium of distribution. The simple fact on whether or not the film is good or bad also has a lot to do with it, too, but that’s another topic to be discussed at a later time.

When making a Film with money from a private investor, or any investor for that matter, one should make sure that the budget is realistic and that you can get what you want for what you have. You can’t make a 5 million dollar film with no recognizable actors attached and a decent story with nothing unique and expect to attain distribution that will yield a 5 million dollar ROI plus whatever interest on the investment there was. I wish it were so, I really do, but you have to be pragmatic about Indie Film. I’d like to think that for 5 million dollars a film could attract some recognizable names looking for a payday. That would, of course, increase the films production value. Although you may or may not like it, sometimes that’s just how it works.

If you’ve done your homework and researched the market as well as the media, you’ll be able to find a successful, similar project made in a similar way and can build your model off of that.

One Indie Film my colleague often mentions is The Puffy Chair, (one of my favorites). Made for 15k and sold for 150k to Red Envelope. The film enjoyed wonderful reviews and accolades from several festivals, which naturally peeked interest in it and eventually attained the Duplass Brothers a distribution deal. But in order to understand how that happened, you have to understand how the film was made; there were no recognizable actors, an almost non-existent crew, and (most importantly) a very good story.

Short films will, unfortunately, probably never have the amount of merit in the mainstream as features do, which is a shame because we can all think of at least one or two movies that we know were atrocious and don’t understand how anyone could greenlight that piece of *#$t. And if you’re like me, you can’t really watch a full feature film comfortably from your computer, (though on that note, there are these nice little things called S-Video Cables that will solve the problem, look into them) or if you’re like David Lynch, you can’t watch a Film comfortably from your phone device, or, as he so eloquently put it in 2008, in (ironically) a YouTube video, “You can’t watch a *@#$%^&! Feature film on your *@#$%^&! phone, are you *@#$%^&! serious?!” Yes, I do believe watching a full feature film on your phone kind of ruins the experience, but I can certainly tolerate a 5 to 15 minute short.

Personally, I think its wonderful that new film makers have access to such things as YouTube and phone clips, it puts their work out there, gets it seen by an audience. And most of the people who make those kinds of films know exactly what they’re making and aren’t expecting the world as a result.

The simple fact of the matter is that making a successful Indie Film takes a great deal of dedication, passion and commitment from the Film Makers, as well as an understanding of the community (and, sometimes, the politics of the industry). It’s even harder to attain distribution. Its not easy to make a career out of this industry, it’ll wear you down, test you, break you and rebuild you. You’ll receive both positive and negative criticism that you must learn not to take personally. You must learn that delicate balance of loving what you do, but being critical of your work, and, most importantly, you must never, ever, ever, give up, because if you do give up, then it wasn’t worth all the effort in the first place, was it?

Viable Online Distribution of Indie Films

A growing problem for Indie Film Makers is distribution. While reputable Indie Film Makers have it easier than amateurs (though not buy much) when it comes to attaining distribution, the entire concept of distribution is almost redefined every month. The ideal placement that most Film Makers aspire to is Theatrical, and to a lesser extent, DVD. The most widely used form of distribution today is the online world, sites like Youtube, iFIlm, and various other "user" based sites, all free, which hardly, if ever, provide a financial yield to the Film Makers. Recently, however, that has changed with Gigantic Releasing, an online website where Indie Film Makers have the chance to post their films.

Mark Lipsky, Gigantic's president stated: "The picture quality is far superior to most other streaming sites today, the ticket price is utterly affordable, and there will be absolutely no advertising to get in the way of the film-going experience. Gigantic is introducing a sweeping change to the way movies are distributed, and this is just the first step." adding "Unlike other emerging sites, we are not simply ad salesmen aggregating content nor are we repurposing old content. We're an actual film distribution company doing what distributors have always done. We seek out and acquire titles that we believe will be viable in the marketplace, we work tirelessly to market and promote those films and now, by enabling first-run national access, we will be dramatically expanding the market as well as reinvigorating the existing audience for independent fare."

The price for each film is $2.99 for unlimited 3-day online access. Gigantic also offers free content from the company's existing database of work.

This is an extremely wonderful new way for film makers of all kinds to gain the credibility and exposure they seek. If you're like me, you may find watching a film on your computer a little uncomfortable, but with the new stream rates and such compu/tv breakthroughs such as AppleTV or even an S Video cable, you can send the image to your television to enjoy a more "cinematic" experience. Gigantic is a company that we should all be watching closely, because they may very well be the future of distribution, and at the very lease; a part of it.