Looks like you are a new visitor to this site. Hello!
Welcome to Hope For Film! Come participate in the discussion, and I encourage you to enter your email address in the sidebar and subscribe. It's free! And easy! If you have any suggestions on how to improve this website or suggestions for topics please don't hesitate to write in to any of the blogs.
(If you keep getting this message, you probably have cookies turned off.)
I have been playing with my Twitter, not obsessively mind you. I don’t want to go blind or get hair on my palms. Mostly I use it to link to interesting articles that I don’t have much to say on, things I wish others would read too. You know, the stuff I would like to have a conversation about. Follow me and see where it goes…
But alas, I think I have to move to Brazil to get it. I was reading in Variety, how a distributor (Rain) there has gotten all their art cinemas to go digital and use the same software management system, enabling them to get their films via satellite. They then allow the audiences to organize themselves via a social network platform and select what films they want to see where and when.
Rain’s COD will allow moviegoers, grouped in online MovieMobz.com film clubs, to recommend what films play when and where over Rain’s digital cinema network.
Once exhibitors slot a film, virtual cinema club members can buy tickets, refer further wishlists to friends and, exploiting MovieMobz’s social networking system, let other people know what films they’re attending.
“For the first time in the market, we are offering new opportunities for the entire cinema chain: Consumers can choose their content; exhibitors can more efficiently program their screens; and content licensors can more easily find their audience,” Lima said.
MovieMobz will book film screenings of new and old features as well as niche content.
Ahh….. one day soon, maybe America will catch up.Tweet
I got a nice, and very well researched, reply to the piece I wrote for Tribeca on the NY State TV & Film Tax Stall-Out from Alex Brook Lynn. She gives a great overview of how we got in this jam. Check it out over on The Arch.Tweet
I got this email from filmmaker/blogger Jamie Stuart, and thought it was a good spark for some discussion…
1) The spark that fueled indie film in the ’80s and ’90s was the marketing concept of the “breakout” — first time filmmakers establishing themselves with trademark styles and no money. These filmmakers were the poster children for the movement. Now, however, the paradigm has shifted to a situation where filmmakers are making small, dirt-cheap movies for niches and their friends; the debut film isn’t as important so much as slowly building a track record. In this model, indie film has essentially become regional folk art. I think we need to return to the prior model, but there are some things holding that up. Like:
2) A lot of the pillars of the scene have fought their battles and moved up in the world. The “dependent” phase from the mid-’90s through the early ’00s gave a lot of people a raise in options. Instead of struggling to make a movie for 6-figures or for maybe $1-2M, budgets swelled to $6M as a low, all the way up to $15-25M (some even higher). In this context, I think a lot of these pillars are self-admittedly not as in touch with new talent anymore, and they’re glad they don’t have to do guerrilla scrambling anymore. I recall a panel with you and Christine at Tribeca a few years back, where you both admitted that you were no longer in a position to find and nurture new filmmakers anymore.
3) I think we need to re-think how movies are made. Micro-features and DIY productions use crews in a much different manner than movies made for 7-8 figures, and I think producers need to study what people like myself are doing. For example, the NYFF46 series I created last fall was a 4-part non-linear sci-fi/action mind-bender — it was made for an entire budget of $75, and at least 70% of the time, since I was shooting it while starring in it, nobody was even behind the camera. Now, I happen to think that under the circumstances, the project had pretty good production values. Not that I expect larger budgeted productions to use the exact method I did (they wouldn’t have to if they had money), but there’s got to be something that can be learned and adapted from what I and others have done.
4) Now, if you combine all of the above, you get another problem. It used to be that aspiring filmmakers started with a small budget, either on a short or a small feature, and that was used as a calling card to get a larger budget. The issue here is that due to the drop in budgets based on prosumer cameras and editing, producers don’t seem to take those projects as seriously. What they mistake, however, is that you’re getting an equivalent production value as before, only it costs a fraction of the amount. But producers aren’t saying: “Wow! Look at what so-and-so did for so little. Imagine what they could do with a larger budget? I want to work with him!” Instead, they seem to be looking at the budget, and on that basis alone, writing it off: “Let me know when you’ve moved on to bigger things, but for now, you’re a small fry.”
5) The internet is not the savior. The internet is great for sales and marketing, but it’s a lousy delivery method. The quality is terrible. I’ve never looked at the internet as anything other than a means to get exposure and establish myself — so I can get OFF the internet and make real features. However:
6) Internet filmmaking still isn’t taken seriously. It doesn’t matter how good my work is or how good it looks, there are people who simply, either by virtue of the size of the player, or through general snobbishness, don’t consider it serious filmmaking. I think a lot of the indie community still believes in the film festival model: If you’re a serious filmmaker, you need to submit to festivals. They seem almost fundamentalist in this regard. And it’s holding up progress.
All of that said, I’m still of the belief that the biggest problem in indie film right now is simply the product. When indie film was booming in the ’80s/’90s, young people like myself were drawn to it because it seemed to be the most creative arena in filmmaking. Not now. Young people look to big FX blockbusters as the most creative arena. People now equate indie film with poor production values, cheap-looking handheld photography, amateurish acting, etc. They look at it as a joke. I approached the prospect of DIY filmmaking from the view that ambitious films could now be made inexpensively — I’ve always used tripods, dollies, cranes, special FX. But DIY filmmaking on the whole went in the opposite direction — small, handheld slices of life. And while that aesthetic certainly has its place, it’s never going to find a larger audience, in my opinion. Until we shift out of this phase and DIY filmmakers start creating ambitious pictures at dirt prices, the movement will remain derided. And until the bigger people start lifting up the small, there’s going to remain a major class divide.
On his Indiewire blog, Anthony Kaufman made the kind of observation I love: simple, right before us all, but ignored time and time again by the mainstream. His point is that all the corporate acquisitions of art film companies have only led to disaster, and maybe this extends to old school media companies too. The problem seems accentuated when it is an entity with new media dreams that acquires the traditional media company; what once worked with steady cash flow limps its way into non-existence.
Since I was pushing the big 4K projectors on the exhibitors a few hours ago, it only makes sense that I now push pocket projectors on all filmmakers. Who needs an exhibition hall when you can project from you iPhone for under $300?! Me, I still like the old fashioned cinema, but I can also get excited about every abandoned building being transformed into a movie theater on the fly.