Your Great Movie May Never Get Seen

It may be fair and reasonable to tell the arty introverted types, the ones who recoil in horror at thought of a Facebook campaign, that there really is no place for them in narrative filmmaking. And it does no good to counter that the "arty introverted types" dominate art film in other countries, because the U.S. is not "other countries" -- our public subsidies go to corporate America and professional sports, but not to non-institutional art, much less to working artists and films.

So these insufferable blowhards are probably wasting their time. And all they'll have to show, in the end, is unfulfilled pretensions.

However, if we're going to be honest, we need to be honest about the producing and investor sphere as well. How many of the films of professional independent producers in this country have actually turned a profit at the box office, ever? By normal accounting standards (forget the producer's fee and the sale to the self-deceived distributor) has American independent film ever been a viable business, or just a medium of vanity, guesswork and ignorance? And what evidence does anyone have here that these new marketing techniques will actually work?

Is it too terrible to accept that most art does not pay for itself, whether or not that art deserves to succeed? And that other countries solved this dilemma long ago? And that new marketing techniques are not going to solve it? And that American independent film, in particular, has to date very minimal claims to greatness?

In other words, if everything is losing money, who are the real dreamers? Why are the professionals and the marketing people any less deluded than the arty types?

Doghouse, if people actually listened to you there would be no secondary filmmaking market to exploit filmmakers. We're talking an entire industry that feeds off the billions spent on that "vanity, guesswork and ignorance." It doesn't matter if we actually help anyone market their films, as long as they go to the seminars, festivals, and buy the books. This is America. Money is all that matters here.

If you actually come up with something that will make indie filmmakers good enough to make money and support themselves, you'll destroyed the need for this industry. We simply cannot let that happen. So the bullshit rhetoric of how to win pseudo friends and influence people through MyTwitFace must persist, just like the loud blaring commercials, annoying overlays, and obnoxious trailers that step on end credits on "indie" championed outlets like fucking IFC.

Great post, Ted. I appreciate the thoughts that you put out there.

I'm a bit confused and disappointed in the notion that some are bringing up, that somehow engaging with an audience and addressing the fiscal realities of your project are somehow a threat to the creativity and vision of the content. I think it provides a much needed reality check, that can only enhance the content.

Perhaps it's an issue of artistic gratification. I get that, but we have to remember that filmmaking is a much more demanding medium than, say, being a painter, novelist or even a recording artist. The human resources, access to tools and financing are much more crucial. ***Relationships*** are the most important currency. There's no getting around that.

I think the simplest thing to do is to help promote each others' work. of course it helps if we really like said film, but we need it to be AVAILABLE on an accessible medium. if we wish to promote only to our peers, then the tools we have at our disposal could be enough if we know how to use them properly (another conversation entirely) but if we wish to exhibit to a larger, more, dare I say, mainstream audience, then we need to promote in other ways; ways we're all still trying to figure out. (i'm looking at you, Digital Projectors...)

"However, neither Tarr nor Hou would ever get produced in the U.S., so the point may be irrelevant."

And THAT is another part of the disconnect. If we can't even see Hou Hsiao-hsein and Bela Tarr theatrically with any regularity, and if US equivalents can't happen at all (yes, there's the Van Sant Tarr-esque trilogy, which is really good, but the Already Famous have resources we don't have), then many of us on the filmmaker side feel this: what's the point? The kinds of films we love and want to make can't get "1000 fans" ahead of time, tend to be products of singular visions, and are not created through an audience-first paradigm. Can you imagine "Prefab People"'s kickstarter campaign? A relative unknown getting 5000 "fans" behind something along the lines of Tarkovsky's "Mirror" before its even made? I can't even see something like "Trust" or "Stranger than Paradise" getting made this way. Genre films, yes. Films with an attached star (anathema to many of us), yes. Films dealing with a specific issue that has a built in audience, yes. But Art? For some of us, that's all that matters. The whole point of independent film is/was an alternative to audience-driven concepts and market-driven decisions that dictate artistic decisions. The closest we get anymore is Kelly Reichart, and even her films have celebrities attached.

For the right projects I'm hopeful things like Kickstarter can help - I'm certainly planning to try, but I'm not remotely optimistic the kind of work I burn to make (and if you don't burn to make something save us all the 90 minutes please!) can do well with the tools and techniques Ted is so optimistic about.

Which is why we look, in vain (unfortunately), to the producing establishment, and the Sundance establishment, and all the usual suspects for help, but get nothing, because the truth is, these people don't actually like Hou or Tarr or Denis or Tarkovsky, and wouldn't make such films even if they could.

And which is why the suggestions you find on this site and other filmmaker sites are so infuriating -- these ideas might or might not work for pop culture sales or Blair Witch type movies. But they certainly won't work for mature films which don't offer new stimulations every 25 seconds.

If the American indie establishment was actually making money and finding popular success, this pill would be easier to swallow. But they don't, and never really have.

In fairness to Ted, it is true that the two most admired art house directors working today (most admired outside the U.S., that is) - Hou Hsiao-hsein and Bela Tarr -- have not have much in the way of theatrical releases in the U.S., though they've both had limited releases on some films, and Bela Tarr's magnum opus, Satantango, seems to play at least once a year in NY,despite its staggering length.

However, neither Tarr nor Hou would ever get produced in the U.S., so the point may be irrelevant.

Ted...I want you to name at least 15 of your favorite unknown films that were made in the past five years right here on this site. If there's more then of course go for it.

Show me. Where are these great films? How do you know of them? Have you seen them? What makes them so great? Why haven't they been seen? It's all very profound rhetoric. But where's the reality? Talk is cheap.

@newfacefilm / thanks for your article - here is mine solution.

http://bit.ly/dBOpCA - 13 steps as a solution for film financing - share info - we are in age of transformation of the film industry.

Well, this is a great place to start as a filmmaker...cowering in fear that your movie will never be seen. That's how all great art's produced, yes?

Anyone else sick of Ted Hope's gasbagging?

How many ways can he write this kind of foundationless sentence:

"...I have the concern that if we don’t change our behavior, we will lose the opportunity to do either for ever."

WE GET IT. IT'S HARD. THE FILM WORLD'S IN TROUBLE. NOW GIVE IT A REST.

Hey Craig D, It's all fine and good if you don't like what is being said or if you are tired of it being said. I have had the great joy of making many movies over the years, and that said, I have also been able to witness many talented artists with good work fall prey to the hopes that "the system" works (or that they will the exception even when they don't have faith in the system). It is possible to build a better mousetrap and the process begins with conversation -- and someone always has to start it (and of course others have to join in constructively). I subscribe to the belief that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
In terms of the problems you raise, that solution is very easy. Just don't come around here anymore and you won't have to grow tired or sick of me! But if you want to help, there's always plenty to do!

Very constructive Craig...

I, for one, am very grateful for all this 'gasbagging'.

I see hundreds of non-Hollywood films a year, and while there are certainly some very good ones, I have yet to see a "great" one that didn't get some kind of theatrical distribution. Others may be good or passable, but that's not the same as saying they somehow deserve a mass-market release.

What films exactly did you have in mind?

Great article, Ted! I always enjoy your reality check! It's soo easy - and comfortable - to slip into the 'build-it and- they will-come' mode. But that's over. It's a new world - it's time to embrace this reality!

You are absolutely right and as an independent film maker you have to be more creative in ways to get your movie out there. That is why Sulset.com helps to build an audience before you even get into editing. the La Times just wrote a story about it yesterday.

The first step—and it is by no means "easy", though it is is simple in concept—is for indie filmmakers to market themselves more, and better, than they are now. Usually the key difference between a terrible film that gets seen and a fantastic one that doesn't is that the former was advertised well. If you make it, they will come, but only if "they" know it exists in the first place. Even if the filmmaker is promoting their film, he or she may not have identified the "they" yet, thus making it harder to reach an audience of any kind.

Of course, a big part of good stuff not getting seen is that it's often experimental, subversive, niche, or a host of other things that big studios don't want to touch because there are no sales figures to back it up. The Internet is blowing the lid off of that whole scene but at the same time filmmakers need to be doing the numbers, finding out exactly who/how many are interested in what they have, so that they can justify commitments from investors and distributors.

There are also a lot of sites cropping up lately like OpenIndie that seek to make demand known and showcase those projects that have a lot of it (which, again, would be the result of marketing). This is a good idea but currently it's only known about by people in the industry. When one of these sites goes mainstream that'll be when things start to change. Alternatively we may find an existing gatekeeper become benevolent to indies in the face of its own demise—AMC Indie, Paramount's new junction, etc. seem to be heading that way. They're certainly exciting, but as a filmmaker I wouldn't really get my hopes up, because in 2010 and beyond, there's no need. We have all of the tools to do that work ourselves; it's just a matter of building our own support network that operates outside of and at times between the existing system.

This means making our own connections, organizing our own venues, developing our own distribution outlets, etc. In that sense, collaboration is absolutely right. But to complete it we will have to foster friendly competition between ourselves, since without that we will simply be feeding each others' egos. I see this a lot already. Indie filmmakers complement other indie filmmakers' horrible films simply because they want to win over their favor, or because other people say it's good. While it's true that some schmoozing is essential in this industry, we need to keep each other honest and accountable, because none of us will move forward unless we learn from our mistakes—and we're going to be making a lot of them in this new frontier that doesn't have any established rules or regulations yet.

A few years ago, weren't you campaigning for us to make less films? I don't know if they're making less films now, but they are definitely distributing less. Distributors have closed there doors, not just on indies. Financed studio films with stars aren't getting made because producers can't get distributors.

On the positive side, theaters are getting fed up with studios. Audiences are getting fed up with Hollywood. If ever there was a window of opportunity out there, it seems like now would it.

The idea of making less films goes hand in hand with collaborating more on each others. If instead of focusing on solo work, more collective activity would yield more films reaching the audience.

And I agree that this is the time of opportunity.

I think that maybe there is a disconnect on this board, if you are really talking about collaboration. Most of the stuff on here seems to be about selling and/or financing but not about creating. That's great information for producers, especially in these times when producers are expected to do more for less. Selling a film at a festival isn't the goal anymore, and figuring out how to take a film to theaters or alternative platforms are important if people want to keep making these films. That's great that there's this site for that, and thanks, Ted.

But part of my frustration with some of things said here, and I think a lot of others on this board seem to have this, is that many of us are not producers, but writers and directors. We look at this information and simply get overwhelmed and depressed. We do live in a world where we think our film will be great and because of that people will see it. As much as a fantasy as that may be, without it, we'll never get through the process, because it's hard getting this shit made. Not all of us are very good at producing, or can get excited about it in the way it is necessary to, if you want be good at it. And mostly, when you start crossing the line, and looking at the audience when you're creating, you start to make work that is less good. And when you look at it as a driving force of your work, then you might as well go to Hollywood and try to make A-Team, which despite toxic reviews and the fact that it's a flop, will go on to make more money than 95% of all the indie films made this year, combined.

Which is why the producer/director relationship works so well. One person has the vision. The other one can think about who wants to see it. It's a collaboration, no question, but a good producer keeps the fantasy going. And isn't that part of what this site is supposed to be? Maintaining the fantasy that the future is going to be brighter than the past because of technology or the internet, that one day the revenue will come?

Michael, you're right.

To some of us it seems irresponsible not to have some kind of plan for return on investment for a film. Ted IS a producer, and he's a damn good one, so naturally his concerns would be broadcast on here.

HOWEVER, as technology develops, as the platforms change and the actual structure of film production and distribution changes, it all gets wrapped up into one thing. Its so hard NOT to concern yourself with this stuff as the director/producer relationship starts to blend. I would absolutely love to be free of the burden of worrying about finding an audience, but as no one else has stopped up to bat to champion the work i write and direct, I have to do it myself. And because of that I have to face a truth: once that aspect has worked its way into my blood, it may be hard to get it out. I fear it may taint my creativity, and I'll never really know if it did or didn't.