Younger Audience & Creators Tell Old Fogies To Wake The F Up!

If Ted is willing to let me stretch this over two columns, I’ll have other points next timehttp://www.freerun-sale.comhttp://www.n-running.comhttp://www.freerunstyle.com

As an indie/experimental/new american cinema/underground/etc (pick your imaginary catchy critic's tag yourself, or make one up) filmmaker who has been around the block more than once, this whole conversation echoes of very deja vu. First: it has always been so, though in brief periods, here and there, there exists a cultural fluid that let's interesting things happen. It's going on the last few years in the Philippines, where a rush of interesting filmmakers have done a lot with very little. It isn't going on in the USA now because the little pond of filmmaking, especially non-mainstream filmmaking, is part of the larger culture, and right now that is in a virtual civil war which for creative sorts is not playing out too well. Second: most of what those commenting are talking about are some kind of feature (90 mins or so) narrative (actors/stories) filmmaking which is what most younger people have been in effect brainwashed into thinking is all that could be. And most of what is passed off as exciting indie is in fact tired tired tired old narrative filmmaking perhaps given a superficial surface of newness by having present day props, haircuts, etc. and maybe being about how electronic things changed the world. Big deal. I keep waiting and waiting and waiting for kids to make something new, to play NOT rocknroll in some mutation; to make NOT narrative films; to be NOT hung up on superficial fashions. Third: most of the talk here is really about money and marketing and getting somebody to pay for your dream. Unless you keep your "dreams" inside a narrow conventional and commercially viable form, good luck. Of course the dreams others will pay for basically aren't worth having....

I teach these days (in Korea) and while I am 67 years old, most of my students bluntly say to me that I seem younger than they are - in my thoughts, comportment, and work. I have to trick them into getting out of their by-the-numbers narrative thoughts about filmmaking, though once I do, usually a flood of creativity comes out of them (totally not in ways they can "market") and they're happy about it.

I also keep making films - finishing 2 now, longish, totally not for sale. The last films I've made don't get in (many) festivals since the festivals by and large are like the world around them: corporate sponsored, conventional/commercial in their tastes, and basically they act as a propaganda system for a dead culture. Again, dreams not worth having.

www.jonjost.wordpress.com
www.cinemaelectronica.wordpres...

Frank/Frank229: my analysis is strictly market-based. It's also dirt simple. We know exactly which financing models work, and which don't, if the goal is to produce films worth seeing and (in some few cases) which make money. There's no mystery.

With rare exceptions, commercial finance doesn't work for non-Hollywood cinema, and we have thousands of case studies to conclusively prove that claim. Such finance *does* sometimes enrich producers and those on the distribution food chain (though, to be fair, not very often), but it fails on all other counts. By contrast, public financing has a long history of qualitative success, worldwide. But producers and other intermediaries are of little consequence in public finance systems. They're employees of funded filmmakers, not forces in and of themselves. This model sometimes produces great films. Our model, by contrast, produces famous producers.

Two recent cases in point would be South Korea and Argentina. Thanks to public funding, both countries went overnight from having no presence at all in world cinema to being powerhouses on the art-house circuit, with a number of highly regarded art-house features, among them several Hollywood remakes. One Argentine art house film recently grossed nearly $30 million, and the Argentine director of this movie actually works in American TV. But he would have no prospect of making such a film here, short of a celebrity circus. It was a little too adult for American finance, and besides, he wasn't famous. So he went back to Argentina. Pretty funny, no?

In the end, it's not surprising that the usual suspects are still insisting that the marketplace works or would work, if only we implemented their latest New Paradigm or were guided by their 127 points. When there's no alternative to the free market, you either pretend that, contrary to all evidence, there's a free market solution, or you go out of business. And nobody wants to go out of business, if there's still a buck to be made, somewhere or other.

I appreciate what you're saying and think I finally understand... a true 'arthouse' cinema would require financing with zero strings. In other words, no market consideration whatsoever... simply give the filmmaker the money because you're interested in what they have to say on film. I think filmmakers in this country seem barely aware (I include myself) of the public financing options in places like Spain or Canada, where even a movie like 'Cube' got some of it's funding through their film board. But you still have to sell the board on the project, don't you? I think Peter Jackson had this very problem of being ignored while coming up in New Zealand and trying to get public funding. I have to say, though, I dislike that model of obtaining financing a lot less than I dislike the current model, although I don't doubt it involves its own politics.

However... I can truly say that I no longer give a shit. I've grown so tired of this circular argument and all its tenets, be it crowd sourcing, twitter, PMD's, OpenIndie, Indie this, indie that, and at this point, I think it's easier to just go and get better at making films than listen to all this shit. I don't think anyone is truly committed to finding a solution and that all of this is a lot of hot air if it hardly ever produces something worth watching. I'm tired of the internet in general when it comes to all this stuff, to tell you the truth. It's like a black hole that can suck you dry if you let it.

Talk about hitting the nail on the head... this might be the best post I have ever seen on an indie film board, EVER. This is pretty much everything that is wrong with indie cinema. The fact that none of those outlets wrote or cared about your film is hardly surprising anymore. What's funny is how LITTLE talk of the real successes there are in these parts. Audrey, don't you know you're supposed to IGNORE Paranormal Activity? Oh, and all those people making genre short films that are VERY WELL MADE too? I've gotten shit for even mentioning them elsewhere precisely because they got the makers deals, attention, agents, etc. But what about the fact that they are well made? Isn't THAT what we should all be striving for? To be better at our craft? I sometimes wonder if the indie world actually frowns upon good filmmaking.

And doghouse, wouldn't you say that the problem isn't as much (though I partially agree) that younger audiences don't like 'arthouse' films, but that the ones being made today are pure crap? Nearly every time I see something from an American independent filmmaker that purports to be 'arthouse', I just don't see the depth of thought put into it that one sees in classic american art films. I think in FOREIGN art films, one can still see that Bergman-esque deep thought, but hardly ever in those made by American indie filmmakers. And I probably never will. I think today's art house filmmakers are more concerned with the label than what they actually have to say. The point often made is that even those types of films, if they're good, will find an audience. But I'm not so sure I believe that anymore either.

See, the biggest problem here is that when the filmmakers speak up about the selection process and saying everything Audrey put so well in this post, they are often called whiners, or told that they're just mad their film didn't get into Sundance. This HAS GOT TO STOP... the indie establishment is NOT LISTENING. They are ACTIVELY IGNORING the stuff that is doing exactly what they say these films should be doing. Meanwhile, they incessantly push stuff that nobody wants. Like she said, though, ignore us and we'll go away. Many already have. Come on over to sites like Dread Central and Dead Harvey... the water is fine!

AND PETER - You better believe there is a 'THEY' among the GK's, as you call them... but I don't even think Audrey is talking about Hollywood, where I actually believe that things make sense. She's talking about leaving the indie world FOR Hollywood, where you feel your work and skill is more appreciated. It's not about being indie or Hollywood, it's about going where you feel wanted. There is a disconnect between what you and doghouse are saying and what we're really saying, which is that the indie establishment doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's a 'through the looking glass' world where bad is good, good is bad, and craft doesn't seem to even matter. The audience? Forget them, we know what's good for 'em.

And when I say 'Hollywood' I mean everything that's considered on the other side of the fence from the indie world, the biggest of which is that damned dirty word... GENRE. Like Audrey, I'm an indie filmmaker who loves Alien, Blade Runner, and District 9 as much as I love Persona, The Bicycle Thief, and Ikiru. But I'm also one who doesn't see a huge difference between all of those... I see them all is residing under the heading, "GREAT FILMS".

So at the end of the day, what are we really talking about if it's not about getting into the Hollywood system? What we're talking about is that the indie system doesn't seem to care about good work. I don't even think this is a subjective analysis anymore, enough people are saying it and enough films and talented people are turning away from that system that I'd say its an objective stance at this point. So where else is there to go?

I actually believe what we're seeing is the creation of a THIRD WAY, that isn't really Hollywood and isn't what we know of as 'indie' nowadays. It's a way that is being paved by people like Audrey, finding a bunch of outlets that DO appreciate good work, especially good genre work. The thing, though, even though the arthouse champions might not like it is that... if you do good genre work, 'they' will come. When I say 'they', I mean the agents, execs., and Hollywood money people. So whether you like it or not and wish to maintain your 'street cred' (another stupid term... how about GOOD FILM CRED), good genre films are always recognized. A case in point is that I made a dramatic indie feature, it went nowhere, so I turned to sci-fi for the web, and within two months was sitting in someone's office making a development deal. That might be going the way of development 'hell', but at least I got onto the very edge of the map. I have people I can call now and feel that at least I'm not making films in a vacuum.

Going back to what Peter says, I absolutely believe that about HOLLYWOOD and the STUDIO system, that there is no grand 'they' and that everyone just wants to make good work. While it might not seem apparent from the shit that makes it to your theaters every week, it has been my experience in that world, for sure. The 'choke' point is the money and marketing people, who just don't understand that you can't really predict success in ANY art form. And they never will. It's an uncomfortable marriage that will never go away because all films cost money to make and most of the makers would like them to find an audience, no matter how small. You can hedge your bets, sure, and that's what genre filmmaking can be, a hedge, but that's why you need a head strong director and producer who will fight for their vision. Sometimes this compromise, GASP!, results in better work!

However, I DEFINITELY believe there is a grand 'they' within the indie establishment. Talk about outright ignorance. I'm willing to bet that it is much easier to get a film to Steven Spielberg than it is to get a film to the gatekeepers at a major festival. Something is wrong there, doncha think?

One thing I noticed with that guy who made the short film, 'The Raven' (another film that garnered nary a mention anywhere in the indie world, despite his being OF that world), is that even in the places where the 'story' broke and the film was embedded, nobody mentioned that he had made a spanish language indie feature of 'self-discovery' just a year or two earlier that actually DID play Sundance's international section. I've only seen the trailer, but it looked well made, had good acting and it seems to have gotten him absolutely nowhere. So what did he do? He went and made a genre short film that bypassed the festivals, the indie establishment... pretty much the entire system and went straight to turning that film into a Hollywood feature.

While this IS a slam dunk, it also means that before you see anything non-genre from that filmmaker again, he's going to have to do a shit-ton of alien, robot, and vampire films before getting back to dramatic features. I think a young Scorsese today would make Mean Streets, it would be ignored, and his next film would be an indie Cape Fear. It'd be 10 or 15 years... perhaps NEVER before we'd see Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.

One more thing I wanted to say about Paranormal Activity - I just watched it last night for the first time fully expecting to hate on it and go, "How the hell did THIS become an overnight sensation?" But I'm not built that way. We're all hypocrites if we don't recognize good work, successful or not, and that film had better acting than 99.9% of indie films. I think it could have had two or three more big paranormal moments, but that director was a MASTER at building tension through sound and framing. He deserves all the success that he finds. The fact that it was rejected by Sundance should be seen as a badge of honor these days. And it didn't really get into Slamdance until it was championed by a few well positioned individuals, I believe. But again, that film is an anomaly... you're not supposed to talk about it, you're supposed to wallow in the morass of mediocrity.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post... I think that most of the commenters here took little bits and pieces of Audrey's article without looking at the bigger picture she was painting, which I think addressed every angle. Bottom line - the American indie world is sick and it's not good for filmmaking. Hollywood will let you in before they will.

I love your post Frank. Glad that I seem to be hitting a nerve with so many filmmakers. I was supposed to write a follow-up piece, but I started to feel like: what's the point? Maybe I will, maybe I won't, but either way I'm glad that this is giving voice to a frustration shared by many of us.

Oh and about Paranormal activity: I had exactly the same reaction! I was sure I'd hate it, but I really ended up respecting the director's incredibly smart choices throughout.

By the way Audrey, this is the same Frank, I just had to make up an original name for this disqus profile thing... anyway, I couldn't find your email address anywhere, so I emailed you through info@blackmetalmovie. Hopefully you receive it. I know you and your partner are making a genre film called 'The Egg' and my wife and I are making a well budgeted sci-fi short based upon my web series character called 'The Author'. Anyway, I have an idea that maybe we can get four or five films together and do something like '8 Films To Die For'... the kind of thing Roger Corman knew how to do back in the day! I was really inspired by your talk of 70's filmmakers sticking together... I don't know how many times I've watched that 'The Film School Generation' episode of American Cinema in the last 15 years and wished for a group of like-minded people making similar films to both help one another and challenge each other to do better work. Anyway, if you get it, email me back either way!

I actually said the exact same thing four months ago in the '38 More Ways the Film Industry is Failing Today'. I have the last comment (or rather, the one at the top of the comments section, I guess you'd say) in that entry.

Audrey, I actually have a url waiting for me to do something worthwhile with it called, "Way of the Genre". I've had it for six months or so, and had planned on doing a blog that celebrates, informs, and theorizes on indie genre filmmaking as a way out of the predicament faced by indie filmmakers today - that of feeling like you're on the outside looking in. But like you said regarding your follow-up article, I hardly see a reason to bother anymore. The way I see it, people either 'get it' or they don't, and I'd rather make films than make it my job to try and convince people the indie system is broken and moving to genre is a hedge against that. I'd rather put all the energy and effort into making the best film possible. I figure the people who need to figure it out will figure it out. I see genre as a great equalizer for unconnected filmmakers... if you do horror, you can either scare people or you can't. It depends a great deal on your level of craft and know-how. It also provides a nice measure when you're screening your first cut... it's much easier to tell if the film is working. Same with comedy... are they laughing? Good.

In that same entry four months ago, I left comments about how the thing many (all?) of the biggest directors have in common is they started out in genre. Even Aronofsky... Pi has a very strong sci-fi/psychological horror element to it. Nolan did film noir. Lucas did sci-fi, Spielberg made UFO and war movies as a teenager... P.T. Anderson did a crime story short film and a mockumentary. There's this notion over the last few years that indie 'artistes' deserve an audience for their navel pickings committed to celluloid (more like 1's and 0's these days). And the entire indie community supports this notion, which is why you have all this hand wringing about finding a way to get these films an audience, when, for the most part, an audience doesn't exist. This is becuase either the films aren't very good or they would only be good for a very small audience and nobody wants to accept that. And that very small audience is difficult to engage even when you have a good dramatic film. Meanwhile, it seems that all the filmmakers who have come before the current generation have always known it's this way and accepted it... just last night I watched a documentary on James Toback wherein Woody Allen said something to the effect of, "There's never been a big audience for personal filmmakers, that's just the way it is." Then the interviewer (typical of the HUGE disconnect from reality I've noticed among New York's indie filmmakers) said something like, "Don't you think they would if they gave them more of a marketing push?" Woody Allen swiftly killed that noise, repeating the same thing again - "These films do not and never will have a large audience."

Where I will agree with a commenter like doghouse is that yes, art house cinema is dead, but I don't believe the reason is commerce, its because if there is anything good out there, serious cinema being made by young people that is exploratory, sincere, and, most importantly, GOOD, then I haven't seen any of it on the festival circuit. If someone came along that made films like Jarmusch, Scorsese, or a young Polanski, I'm sure those with their ear to the ground would find it. But I get the feeling that much of what IS allowed into the indie system (especially via filmmaker magazine, IFC, Sundance, SXSW, etc.) is by people who have 'paid their dues' so to speak on the festival circuit or could hire a publicist and have the connections to get their film in front of the selection people, but they were never very good filmmakers. They're good at attending parties, giving Q&A's, and taking great photos on the red carpet with hot chicks. Ok, I went a bit far there, but I'm trying to make a point... which is that there's this whole very well connected universe of entitled young people who have no problem getting their crappy films financed and into festivals. I work as an editor in television in New York and I know a lot of people who have made bad films, but because they have friends who work for Gawker or the Huff Post or other media outlets and their parents or relatives are well connected, they have NO problem getting their film press coverage and into festivals. Meanwhile, THE AUDIENCE DOESN'T CARE FOR THESE FILMS AND NOBODY IS READING THESE ARTICLES EXCEPT OTHER WELL CONNECTED LITTLE BRATS.

Doghouse has also said that funding BEFORE the film is made is the major part of the problem and that the no budget paradigm doesn't work for arthouse cinema... it's an odd duck, because by all indications, dramatic, personal films SHOULD be the one kind of no budget film that does work yet it rarely, if ever, does. I honestly don't have an answer for that. Historically, most art house filmmakers have had to go and pull together $50-$250k in order to get their film made and this usually involved somehow getting financed by schlock producers or people with deep pockets and a philanthropic bent towards persona cinema. Many of them haven't been great at raising money, but their short film work will eventually find them a producer who is.

If anything, this is probably the biggest problem... that the producers who would normally find the kind of personal filmmaker that can command a life-long audience seem preoccupied with helping out people making films that the wider audience can see through... in other words, films with a transparent agenda, films informed by very little life experience, or films that take themselves so seriously that the audience notices and is turned off. I guess it's a problem of the producers AND the lack of good personal filmmakers... we seem nearly incapable of producing truly intelligent, somewhat objective filmmakers with interesting things to say. For some reason, I also have this gut feeling that something about the indie world today is the antithesis of truly personal filmmaking. I find that what they think is personal is usually this really off-putting, whiney, knee-jerk left leaning, 'twee' cinema full of passive aggressive characters and nobody to empathize with. They forget to put in the human element. It's like how they love cinema that emphasizes diversity but rarely emphasizes that which makes us all the same, as 70's cinema did so well. It's a very weird mindset that dominates the indie world right now when it comes to what constitutes "personal filmmaking"... I just don't know what the solution is other than to let the current system burn out and let the ones who see that as inevitable build something else in its place.

Thanks Audrey, but you're doing fine here.

As you're new to the blog, you won't know that a few others have been flogging these and related questions for some time now, and also getting a skeptical reception. It's not surprising that the latest bunch of hopefuls don't want to hear that their student loans are likely to be the first and last significant economic event of their indie film careers. And the presiding powers are understandably outraged by the suggestion that, whatever their producing and entrepreneurial talents, which are considerable, they're still unfit to curate an art form, and always have been.

You mentioned Antonioni and Chris Marker as a measure of of your own interests, but you'll have a hard time finding anyone in the indie establishment who knows who Chris Marker is, and who isn't bored to death by Antonioni.

It should be clear by now that no art form can live and breathe when it's superintended from the outside in this way, but it's also true that many people have an interest in sustaining that model. Small wonder your age cohort is indifferent to alternative film. Unlike previous generations, it's had no exposure to classic [non-American] art film through funky urban repertory houses (long gone) and we can't really expect younger people today to be excited by inoffensive middle-brow American movies funded, produced and programmed by persons who would rather be working for Rupert Murdoch or Time Warner, and who (contrary to popular belief) often know very little about art house cinema and who actively dislike it what they do know.

Truth is, young people today are far more likely to absorb workable film aesthetic from select Hollywood movies, than through American indies. "Genre" is in fact a time-honored approach to reinvigorating cinema. Have a look at the "New Korean" cinema, for example. And of course Sundance movies are also genre movies -- though one of somewhat limited appeal, to put the matter gently.

I looked over the boards and saw that you're quite right; y'all have been going in circles here around these issues. I consistently like your posts, doghouse, and like many others on here, wonder in what capacity you work in film, or if you do. But, as you've retained your anonymity for so long, I doubt I'll persuade you to reveal all.

I can't speak to others' familiarity with classic film; I'd assume and hope people working in the medium have a solid footing in that regard. But, it's not like I'm seeing it in the films today, so who knows?

As to people finding Antonioni boring. Well. Fuck 'em.

Well, you know, for better or worse (often the latter) I ALWAYS have more to say. Besides - what's better than an Excuse To Not Write?

Some disclosure (again!): given what I understand the definition to be, I may almost BE one of the hated Old White Men so often alluded to on this thread. (But remember this: inside every 45-year-old man is a 25-year-old kid wondering what the hell happened.) (That's true, by the way,) So that's my vantage point.

As to your summary points... agreed wholeheartedly about the importance of genre to a younger audience, but I'd also submit that the desire for a strong (strong) genre film does not decrease with age. I often state without guilt that the "Smart Popcorn Film" is a personal Holy Grail of mine. (Speaking of, if one considers "Inception" to be genre, those numbers spread evenly across the board, I think.) And, during those times when I tuaght in film schools, the student scripts I read realy weren't all that radically different-- it seemed to me that they were trying to tell the same stories, through the admittedly different lens of their experience. As for that character-driven, navel-gazy stuff, of which my demographic is supposedly enthralled... honestly, did anyone really like those deeply-titled indie films of yore? (Weight of Water, Myth of Fingerprints, Bodies, Rest, and Motion, all that?) I didn't.

As to the establishment not taking note, that may be true but it is not for a want of interest. I've seen a lot of outside-the-box scripts floated to more well-known clients of mine; it simply feels like there's a chicken-and-egg issue in play. The stars are reluctant to be the first person in the pool, but the filmmakers cannot move forward without the legitimacy of "attachments," so the thing stalls, and it's a pity. As to the Gatekeepers, (I'm just gonna call 'em GK's, if you don't mind), it feels to me as if the GKs serve different masters than they did a few years back, which indeed problematic.

I may not be stating this well, but I always fight against a perceived notion that there's a "they" (the GK's) who doesn't want you. In my experience, that's simply not true. What is true is that, much as everyone thinks they're a "maverick", the smart money likes to be SECOND up the trail. You need a trailblazer, and those are indeed rare. In my experience, Hollywood has ALWAYS been conservative-- no one gets fired for saying no. If you passed on Forrest Gump, well, bummer, but lots of people did. If you said yes to Rollerball (or Pluto Nash or even All the President's Men...), well, ours is a feudal society. Rituals must be maintained, heads must roll. You're out. So it behooves a filmmaker to be both aware and respectful of the nature of the risk they're asking a GK (or a star, or a funding source) to take.

On another note: my first trip to Park City was when I had a feature at Slamdance (and I'll always have a soft spot for the "festival up the hill," as I call it); the following year, an actor I worked with was in two films at Sundance. I've gone every year since, simply because I like it. Yes, it's a market. Yes, it's commercial. Yes, programming decisions (as far as I can tell) seem sometimes to be made with an eye on saleability. To which I (heretically) say: so what? In the past three years alone, I've been fortunate enough to see An Education, Winter's Bone, I love you Phillip Morris, The Messenger, In Bruges, etc (and not able to get into Blue Valentine or 500 Days of Summer or Frozen River, among others), overall, some of the best festival lineups I've come across.

I see it as a workable marriage: more commercial projects (and the talent involved) get a certain "street cred" by being at a festival with "independent filmmakers," while folks such as you and I get access that would otherwise be unavailable. I simply don't see the problem with that. Perfect? No. But what in this business is? And, like you (I'm sure), these same projects of mine were also An Offical Entry in the Bill's-Mother's-Garage-in-West-Springfield International Film Festival-- and, yes, it's a lovely experience, and I've seen some wonderful films. And I'm up for a keg of beer and filmmakers in various stages of inebriation anytime (really, I am). But you and I both know it's not the same.

But I digress.

In your case, it strikes me that the thing for you to do is to do EXACTLY what you're doing in EXACTLY the way you're doing it. The GK's can be a group as stubborn as donkeys and, sometimes, "persuasion" means getting whacked on the head with a two-by-four-- and the strongest two-by-four that you wield is your success. I trust that you'll get the rock a little further up the hill on your current film, and a little further on the one after that.... and then somebody, somwhere, will suddenly say they loved ALL your films, all along, and you'll be off to the races. Gate free.

Thanks Peter. There's something very warm in your approach that makes it nearly impossible to disagree. Normally, being a hardened and suspicious person, I 'd suspect that you were trying to kill me with kindness. But nope, I can't do it. I bet your clients love working with you. Thanks for all your feedback.

Looking at audiences solely by demographics such as age, gender and race takes you down the wrong path in how to market your indie film. Hollywood uses the four quadrant approach because they need to convert 30 million people into paying customers to break even. For the most part indie film appeals to a much more niche audience.

Think psychographics over demographics to reach your audience. Who cares what age they are? Look at what interests them. People don’t classify or label themselves by their age but they will by their interests. Aubrey you are 34 and you made a film to appeal to a young audience. If you go solely by age you wouldn’t be considered a relevant target to watch your own film. You’re one year away from what a marketer would consider middle age. But clearly you don’t feel middle age.

One of the difficulties in the discussion is defining what makes an indie film. There is no data to support the claim that indie film needs to attract a younger audience. Indie film has always been an older audience and the festivals are just one example to prove it. There IS data to show that indie film needs to expand the size of the market… regardless of age.
This is how I interpreted what Ted was saying in his statements about telling a relevant story.
Great discussion going here!

on the flip side, it doesn't help that young people really don't give a crap about indie film. they are apathetic and you can't really do anything about that except make movies about the stuff they care about.

Apparently I could have written my piece using many fewer words. I largely agree with your points here and below. But let's not indiscriminately knock old white men. Most of my favorite directors fit that bill. Sure, that has something to do with privilege and access, but, well, this is really opening another conversation entirely, and I promised myself that today all my energy needs to go into my script. But yes, largely agree, we can't bring a horse to coolaid and try and make it drink.

great post audrey! you are right, the gatekeepers are a big problem. their tastes are horrible and it doesn't help that most of them are old white men that can't relate to young people anymore. any time you have gatekeepers championing an entire film "movement" based around banality and boredom of yuppie douchebags, then yes, indie film will lose its young audience. i am talking about mumblecore, rather mumblebore. from filmmaker magazine to sxsw to sundance, they all supported this crap and for the life of me i don't know why. but this isn't just about mumblecore, i think it goes a lot deeper and whatever mindset caused this horrible filmmaking "movement" to get attention is at the root of the problem you are discussing.

the gatekeepers tastes have ruined american indie film and there is no going back. the only way to fix this problem is to create an entire new system apart from the establishment.

Yes, exactly. The only way is to create a new system... the old one is too diseased to ever recover due to YEARS (my last count was approximately six years) of poor selection decisions. I shall dance upon its ashes!

Bravo, Audrey. I support every word.

What's not to like about this comment? Thanks Zach! ; )

If independent film is viewed as a commodity, then the critics here are right: there are no gatekeepers, just market forces. If we accept this line, it follows that if that market decides it doesn't want your commodity, or wants it only to a certain measure (even to the measure to which you can afford to promote it), or doesn't care to finance it all, then you received exactly as much justice as you're entitled to, and there's nothing to "whine" about. Markets simply "are", they're neither wrong nor right.

Unfortunately, this position is either 1) absurd (what's the point of alternative cinema, if we're going to demand that it be responsive to the same market forces as explicitly commercial cinema?); or 2) is itself wholly unresponsive to market forces, given the failures, financial and critical, of American independent film. The market has spoken, and loudly: it doesn't want American independent films in their current form. If you believe in markets, why are you still making them, or seeking to make them?

The alternative is to accept that independent film is not a business in the usual sense. But, in the absence of enlightened institutions which might support it (in this country), it remains subject to the exigencies of commercial finance an impossible and, as we've seen, a losing arrangement. In this world, "gatekeepers" are those with money, those with access to money and/or to production resources, and those capable of promoting finished films. If you can't make your films on your own personal resources, and don't care to devote your life to fund-raising or defrauding your friends and relatives and then spending years as publicity agent and distributor, then you're subject to gatekeepers.

This production model has been disastrous for the films, but some people still seem to love it.

I wish I knew who you were, Doghouse, because you say some of this much better than I do. I get tripped up in the emotion, but you just nailed it.

Audrey,

Pleased to make your (virtual) acquaintance. I've read both your wonderful article and the thread that follows, and I've got a few somewhat tangential observations.

Me, I'm a filmmaker as well, but in the interests of full disclosure i should also say that my day job is being an on-set acting coach on a Big Procedural Network Series. (To the perfectly reasonable question of why a procedural would need an acting coach, I'd reply: you'd be surprised.) (But I digress.) I should also say that this is my first regular gig --I am now "a proud member of the Paramount family"-- and much to my surprise I find the check-on-Friday, clock-puncher's life appealing indeed, which has undoubtedly colored my thinking on all this.

But to the point. There seems to have been a good amount of trashing of "gatekeepers" on this thread. (and I am assuming we are specifically referring to Gatekeepers as opposed to Decision-Makers; in other words, agents, managers, development execs, major critics, and the like, yes?)

Well... why?

I find this bashing a misplacement of energy. I like the gatekeepers. I think their function is essential, for without them there is only noise, and eventually attention is paid to the LOUDEST thing, which is (as many of us realize) seldom the BEST thing. With self-generated publicity now essentially free, with graphics programs now allowing anyone to have fancy poster art, it has become more difficult than ever to discern quality. Which is, it seems to me, the core issue here. (I tell my students that art is not democratic. Quality never is. It is competitive, it is elitist. But it endures.) You use your own film as case-study evidence that people will find quality and pay to see it, and I agree. Like it or not, the function of a "gatekeeper" is to be a "discerner," if that's even a word, of that quality. And we need them.

Think not? To anyone reading this, I'd ask: have you made (or been involved with) a film that got into a film festival?

When you got in, did you tell your friends? Brag, a little?

Oh, and.... was it Sundance?

Because here's the deal: anyone who screens films submitted to Sundance (or any film festival) is a gatekeeper. And if you've ever jumped up and down because you got into a prestige festival, you are applauding not only the gatekeepers themselves-- but the very existence of the process.

Out in the indie world (wherever it is), I've always heard a lot of grumbling and general shit-bagging of major festivals like Sundance (oh, the Politics! The Pretension! The creeping infestation of Hollywood!). It's all said without a trace of humor or irony-- because, ya know, there's no time for humor or irony! We've got to finish our sound mix in time to make the Sundance deadline!

Ahem.

And if, IF, a film gets in... the first thing everyone involved with the film does is spread the word: we got into Sundance.
They shout it from rooftops, they bore their friends: we're going to Sundance.
"Who the hell is that guy?" "Don't you know? His last film was at Sundance."

It matters so much because so few get in. And that is completely due to the Gatekeepers. And the grumbling, in my experience, comes primarily from people who don't get in.

I'm sure you're right about new marketing strategies, and the path you followed, but here's what else I know: your film is good. And I haven't even seen it.

So find new gatekeepers. Keep looking. What I feel a lot in Holywood these days is fear. People here are smart, and everyone knows that no one knows what's next. And for the record, the idea that Hollywood suppresses good ideas is a crutch. While Hollywood has, regrettably, grown more corporate, and thus far more risk-averse, everyone is looking for the Next Big Thing. People want to make money and if and edgy, out-of-the-box film for 22 year olds makes money, then lets do it.

So it may be that the current crop of gatekeepers may not be the gatekeepers we need. Fair enough. But as one who's taught scores of young filmmakers (and, at last guess, over 2,000 actors in various stages of development, I can tell you that the concept of "gatekeepers" is not the problem.

More to say, but man this is getting long.

Yes, I always need an editor.

Peter Kelley

Hi Peter, I appreciate your feedback and notably, your tone. Thank you for nut succumbing to internet rage. And it's nice to meet you as well. I will never begrudge someone having a lot to say about film, no complaints here.

My first above-the-line film was in Sundance. Honestly, it wasn't very good. And when my current film got into a good festival, I was relieved, and only applauded the fact that I successfully navigated that minefield. I did not use it as a gauge of quality, but as a gauge of perceived quality. That's where the festivals come in and tacitly (well overtly, really) endorse a certain aesthetic or direction in indie film. After getting into a good festival, my next step is to get quotes from publicists, so that we may spread the word of perceived quality.

My current film is much better, in my estimation, than the earlier film that got into Sundance. This one didn't get in. There are surely all kinds of reasons for that. One reason, no doubt, is that it didn't match the taste of the programmers. We heard from another prestigious festival that they loved our film (everyone does when they reject it), but they'd had two "metal" films the previous year, so didn't want one this year. Maybe that was their "soft landing" lie. Maybe not.

Anyway, to be honest, all the filmmakers I know, many of whom have shown at Sundance, roll their eyes at that whole game. We the filmmakers know it's a game, and it's a very political game. And it's a game that holds us hostage. Because these prestigious festivals are prestigious for one reason: they are really markets masquerading as film appreciation festivals, so they straddle the indie and Hollywood worlds. Along with programming films that they love, they are making decisions about what they think will sell, and therefore keep their festival competitive. It's a snake swallowing its own tail. Their stamp of approval means buyers and players and critics see your film (and therefore, there's a great chance of them buying it). I'm probably exceedingly stupid for saying all of this aloud; worse, for writing it on an internet page that can be pulled from the archives.

I love going to film festivals, many of them treat filmmakers extremely well, they allow me access to foreign films I wouldn't otherwise have, and mainly because I love meeting other filmmakers and comparing scars. Am I cynical? Yes, but in the most optimistic of ways. I wholeheartedly agree with the person who commented earlier that it would be helpful if there was more sharing amongst us about who you can trust, who'll steal your money and leave you shirtless and bloodied in an alley. I'm totally available for references, btw. And as you might expect, I'm totally honest.

I could use an editor myself, Peter.

Reeling myself back in to your points, the film I discuss in this article is exceedingly (natch) good, but I don't make that claim in the article, because that's not my argument. My argument is if you want a young audience, the kind of movie (genre, subject, plot) matters a great deal. My second point is that the establishment isn't taking note of the (kinds of) movies that get a young audience. My third point is that these movies are also not supported by the gatekeepers.

Thanks for giving your perspective, and if you have more to add, I'd be happy to read it. No matter the length.

"1) Filmmakers working together and supporting each others' films. Reagan fucked us all on this one, it's been everybody out for themselves ever since his reign of scripted terror..."

Its not the manufacturing age anymore - its the information age. What is scarce is attention so why would another filmmaker want to share its fans with you? How exactly did Reagan bone us all on this as well? I'm not a fan of the deregulation of the banking system but you make reference to the 70" movement and then talk about the financial movement of the mid 80's. Additionally, as a result of Reagan there were more tax shelters announced for independent cinema allowing people to write down investments in films during that time frame than any other time in history. The Monarch Fund and Sentinel Hill Fund totaled over 1.5 Billion that went directly into non studio films.

"...There are interesting filmmakers going today who I'd be into getting together with, but they are spread far and wide...."

Uhhhhhh....It's 2010 and the tools for collaboration in the cloud are so abundant and so cheap that its kind of ridiculous that you are using that as an excuse.

"... 2) There were producers willing to put up significant sums to enable these movements. Our economy is not likely to reward invention, as those with money tend to batten the hatches during downturns (although Sept. was an absolutely fantastic month for Wall Street.)"

The current digital economy is rewarding INVENTION all the time. Narrative films are hardly an invention and people with influence are indeed putting their eggs into the new faces of innovation within modern media and in many cases walking away with a smile on their face.

"Films don't get made in a vacuum. Gatekeepers have an immense impact on what gets financed, made, seen at festivals, bought and distributed. Nothing imaginary about this hierarchy whatsoever."

I think your confusing "gatekeeper" with "risk mitigator" in this sentence. The gates are basically gone for anyone who delivers a product to market now. You shouldn't be negative towards a group or individual for not giving you their money if they truly don't feel comfortable with your project.

On a side note I will check out your sci fi flick when there is something to see as I am a big fan of the genre.

good luck.

I've been preaching this for a long time now: Independent filmmakers need to be looking at new forms.

I can absolutely tell you with 100% certainty that the gates are very much in place. Yes, everyone can release their movie for free on youtube. Just, good luck recouping your investors' money, getting anyone's attention without the press that a theatrical run brings, or making #2 with that business plan. Filmmakers don't even have to access to itunes without an Apple-approved middleman (who takes a fat chunk of profits). There's always Hulu, right? This is the information age, you're right. You have to cut through the chatter and as of right now, there is no better way to do that than with a theatrical or major cable run, with a publicist or two by your side.

You sound like you work in the financial sector. I'm partially talking about the business end of things, but I'm also talking about the soul of a medium I am passionate about. In my opinion, American indie film has lost its vitality. That is losing it its youth. And I don't want to see that kill American indie film. I WANT kids to go see movies, I just wish there were more than 1 or 2 indies a year that I could truthfully exhort everyone I know to go see.

And don't assume that I'm talking about traditional narrative. I'm sure you haven't seen UTLTU, but we do not take a traditional storytelling approach. The best film of year, Enter The Void, does not take a traditional approach. Far, far from it. There is room to innovate with film. We just need to prevent the stratification of wealth and resources that is killing the American economy from killing film. There's nothing free about the free market. But there's no point in debating that.

Audrey,

Perhaps what we are not seeing eye to eye on are the costs associated with today's proposed middlemen or gates. If all you need is access to the big three (itunes, amazon, and netflix) then I believe www.distribber.com has a really affordable listing solution at around 1500 bucks. They don't take any gate revenue after the fact and in my opinion that is a pretty good deal.

You can also go to http://dynamoplayer.com and put your film up for there where you control 70% of all revenues from your own online VOD program that is embeddable on any website you want.

Is this not easy? Do you still think that they are taking too much revenue for providing such a cheap and manageable service?

Again, good luck with the sci fi film.

David, this is a fantastic comment, and these would seem to be great resources. I haven't used them myself, but on the face of it, they look like solid options.

What remains is the other side of the story though, that these things really only work if you can direct people to your access points. For that, you need more press than just a facebook page and website can deliver.

And let's not forget that the main issue here not how to monetize your film, but how to keep indie films alive in the theatrical format.

But again, I think it's great to point to digital avenues of distribution that (again, seemingly) offer a more filmmaker-accessible option. One could, with a strong enough film, do theatrical with a service deal (if they could cover the upfront P&A cost) and have solid digital distribution options once people knew about their film. Not bad.

I meant Anvil - not The Kids Are Alright. Sorry.

Dylan, I think your post was as self-referential and 'woe is me' as Audrey's was. I don't think either of you have stated who you're talking about when you are speaking about this indie 'establishment'. So I ask either of you - who is this in reference to? Do you really believe there is an old guard of gatekeepers? Do you honestly believe they're actively trying not to let you pass through?

I do agree that independent film is a very loose term and too many films get grouped together. However, that just further contradicts your points about this old guard of independent film, or establishment. What it seems you are both referring to, specifically, are financing companies that produce indie films - or distribution companies that release independently made films. And since you were distributed through Variance, I'd have to further surmise that you are referring to distribution companies that get their films a substantial theatrical release.

But isn't this completely contradictory to what you are both saying? That these companies are broken? Why do you want to be accepted by them if they aren't working? They don't have a clue how to market to death metal fans - so why would you have wanted them to take the film on? So you can go around saying your film was distributed by so and so and came out on X amount of screens? That's about as useful to you as being repped by CAA.

You also make a misguided point about The Kids Are Alright in comparison to your film. Just because it made 140k in a much smaller number of markets doesn't mean it would have made anywhere near what TKAA made on their screens and P&A spend. In fact, chances are the film would have made about the same money if not slightly more than already did. And then you'd be talking about how the distributor screwed you, and the filmmakers are always the losers in the end. And that may very well be true.

But it still goes back to - why do you care? Why do you want to be accepted by a broken system? It sounds like you want some sort of pat on the back. Or someone to reach through the thousands of indie films that get made each year - and yes there are thousands - and find YOU. And put you on a pedestal. I am part of the 'young' - probably one of the only indie producers under 30 who has been able to raise an 8 figure budget for my indie and get it distributed - but I know that means nothing. I know that Ted became a veteran by putting in the hours, weeks, months, years and decades of hard work. No one is going to hand you anything. One or two films doesn't make you part of a new movement.

And yes, I definitely agree that the system is broken. And I think new distribution models (and marketing strategies) need to break through, and we are seeing them in their infancy... leave the old ones behind.

Of course my post is self-referential, by nature it has to be. I'm referencing something I've actually done.

Make no mistake, I'm not "woe is" anything. The question has been asked, repeatedly, "where are the young arthouse audiences". And Audrey and I are saying "hey look, a chunk of them are over here". Simple as that.

Congratulations on getting your film produced. 8 figures is indeed a lot to raise (ahem, self-referential?). What I'm saying here is that your 8 figure budget film, while an independent film by nature, lives in a different world than what we're doing over here on this end of the field. That's fine. There's room for both.

And it's not that my point is contradictory, it's that you're missing it- of course I don't think with a $20 million P&A budget that UNTIL THE LIGHT would've grossed nearly as much as KIDS ARE ALRIGHT. What I'm saying is the opposite, that you shouldn't try to compare the two. Apples and oranges. And it's ok to exist on the end of the spectrum where $140k is a good gross if you budget accordingly.

Nobody's asking to be handed anything. You've either misread what Audrey and I have written or are tweaked about something you've read that's struck a nerve.

P.S.- if you're the producer I think you are (you're right, there's not a lot of under-30s who've pulled together 8 figure budgets)- without naming names, how'd your investors take those results? Don't worry- we can talk about getting your next film out, just aim to keep the budget under $300k and we'll get you profitable. New movement ahoy!

Also, should note that that's an iPhone typed comment after a bottle of wine with some friends. Only mild punchiness intended.

There is nothing "woe is me" about me. I fight; I don't whine. I don't think you get where we're coming from. Did the French New Wave whine? Did the Dogme guys whine? Did the Japanese directors of 40-50 years ago whine? Did the new Hollywood movement whine? Or did they make and distribute their films? They made and distributed their films.

Now, do Dylan and I whine? Or do we make and distribute films? We make and distribute films. This is a call to arms, brother, not a pointless complaint.

Again, I will say this: films do not get made in a vacuum. The gatekeepers have tremendous impact on what gets financed, made, seen at festivals, awarded, distributed, etc. They absolutely maintain the status quo, and that is a status quo that is being rejected by youth, without whom American independent film can not survive. Get it?

My point is that the established indie scene (the gatekeepers) are not paying attention to, supporting or fostering the movies that reach the audience that is essential to the medium's survival.

Hi Audrey

I loved Until The Light Takes Us and agree with your points. I'm also 34 and work alongside loads of people younger than me who know next to nothing about films let alone Indie ones. They are literally aghast when they see the amount of 'old' (pre-1960) or 'foreign' films in my collection. I despair.

I think the MTV Generation have let a genuine love of films and their history slip. All they want to see these days are films with lots of hype, they all go and see the films with the best trailers. Only Indie films like Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project seem to succeed. The big cinema chains here in the UK don't give much screen time at all, if any, to the best Indie films being made worldwide. In Cardiff we're lucky enough to have the Chapter Arts Centre where your film was shown and they have some brilliant screenings of both Indie and classic films. Just the other day Hitchcock's The Lodger was shown with a live orchestral band playing a score to it. I have to say the average age of Indie film audiences in there is well over 30.

It's a shame to see a lack of auteurs around that created the French New Wave and New Hollywood Movements of which you speak that gave us some of the greatest films ever witnessed. Exciting times they must have been. I mostly watch World Cinema nowadays as that is where all the interesting ideas are coming from.

Good luck with your new film project too which sounds very promising.

I agree with your points, Audrey.

Yes, the indie film biz fell into a blasé mindset as it evolved into a world parallel to the studios, where the ONLY differentiation is the source of funding. (Yes, I'm doing a survey, and that IS the only differentiation so far.)

With the collapse of the indie film biz, we have an opportunity to make INDIE FILM BIZ 2.0 more dynamic, more passionate, and more accessible.

I hate to date myself, but what you described sounds a lot like the world of film just before it was cracked open by EASY RIDER. Many people think of the film business at that time as 'preaching TO those young people' until EASY RIDER actually identified WITH the 'young people' of that time.

It will happen. There are many of us--and age has nothing to do with this revelation--who know that an entire generation is being ignored, and we are looking for our own inspiration that might open the path to the Millennials. Not as a marketing methodology, but as inclusive conversation.

And CONGRATULATIONS on your success with your film!

Thanks Michael, New Hollywood is a little different because they already had some success. Trust me though, I'm working on that angle. ; )

I'm normally a big fan of all the posts on here but I'm not sure I get this one. So we're talking about seeking the "youth" audience yet the subject matter is some black metal that proudly represents more murder, church arson, etc than music. I didn't realize that is our current youth. Sounds like a few guys with trenchcoats. Maybe we should stop talking about Antonioni, Fellini, Marker, and science fiction and the "ignorance" of film history, and start making better films. I know I don't have the answer and I don't claim to be an expert. My first and only film to date was meant for a niche audience and I think a decent niche audience found it. We used the social networks, radioshows, podcasts, film festivals and I think we were able to get people excited. We kept the budget in line with what we believed the market demand. I'm more concerned with "filmmakers" lack of understanding of the film business than I am with the audience ignorance of film history. These talks of establishment are frustrating because the whole point of indie is not to make unwatchable films (not saying that anyone here is) but to not think like the establishment. What's more concerning to me is that indie filmmakers are not a band of brothers like the studios are. The studios while seemingly competing are nothing more than an oligarchy. Too often I see indie filmmakers that are constantly paranoid that someone else is going to steal their idea, take their financing. I would love to see us band together. Help each other find that audience. Disclose who the good sales agents are, the bad ones, the good distribution cos, the bad ones, what kind of deals are people getting, demand that we be able to see our VOD numbers a little sooner than 7 months after the fact (come on it's electronic).

I know I may get beat up for this post because a lot of you are more well versed in film and history, but I hope you don't discount what I'm saying about the model changing. Ted, had a great post the other day of all the things the indie producer is now required to do. I wish you all the best in your endeavours and am happy there is this forum where we can share.

I totally agree Tajmilan, that it behooves filmmakers to know more about the business. It's a necessity. I actually replied to someone below about the idea of filmmakers banding together, this is what I said: "If you look at things like the French New Wave or the New Hollywood movement of the 70's, you see two things working in conjunction that allowed them to happen: 1) Filmmakers working together and supporting each others' films. Reagan fucked us all on this one, it's been everybody out for themselves ever since his reign of scripted terror. There are interesting filmmakers going today who I'd be into getting together with, but they are spread far and wide. 2) There were producers willing to put up significant sums to enable these movements. Our economy is not likely to reward invention, as those with money tend to batten the hatches during downturns (although Sept. was an absolutely fantastic month for Wall Street.) I'd love to see a New Wave of American film; I'm guest-writing again soon and that's part of my follow-up."

I (38 y.o. Female) appreciate the intelligent wake-up call message. I've been feeling in total limbo re: films. I'm not into horror, I'm totally bored with "indie" flicks--not sure what's indie about them except they aren't 3D--and I'm craving something that reflects the excitement and edginess I feel about our current (what? Place in history, evolution, institution disintegration?) state.

I don't think it is any surprise that independent film doesn't appeal to males under 30. I do think you are confusing 'the establishment' with the indie film world. Hollywood and the studio system do not constitute independent films. Sure, they gobbled up a few distribution outlets and have vanity banners that have mostly fizzled out, but they are not in the same game. Unless you made a film to win an Indie Spirit Award or some festival prize - why does it matter if anyone in the indie film world knows who you are?

Indie Film Producers don't hold the keys to any kingdom. They typically don't control financing. They typically cobble together financing from a variety of sources. So now that you have a film that came out and made a profit you are part of this 'established film world'. I'm not sure what you're looking for from everyone else out there that is trying to develop, package, cobble and beg for money. An award? A parade?

Is what you're saying - why won't anyone take our next film seriously since my first one made money? Or is it - why was our film passed on by so many indie distributors?

To the first point - every indie film is a new animal. Just because your last made a tiny sum doesn't mean your next won't lose some investor his shirt. And who is 'anyone'? You just produced an indie that made money - why can't you produce the next one? Why don't you need someone else to do it? They're just going to have to go raise money, try to attach talent, etc... You can put together a proposal, highlight your past successes, call desired talent's reps until they send you a cease and desist letter... Also, you made a documentary and are now trying to make a feature. That's not always an easy transition. They are two unique processes and that can't be ignored.

To me, the second question is more valid. Becaue I think what is being discussed here and in past posts, and a lot of the posts by anyone in indie film is - indie distributors may just not be ready to market films the way they need to be marketed today. You might hope that these dist's use social networking and events based promotion and targeted cross-promotions to market a film, but they have a hard enough time booking theaters and handling traditional marketing. Their resources are limited. You are seeing a few new ones crop up that are adapting - and quite well - but the truth is that getting mainstream press, even in the indie film world, is hard. And making a tour of college campuses, no matter how much money you're bringing in, just isn't as valid to say Filmmaker Magazine as a limited theatrical run. You say you haven't heard from them or Indiewire, etc... and that you were contacted by some horror/sci-fi sites - have you contacted them???

I respect your post and what you're doing, but it seems as if you want to be pitied. And it's hard to do so when you've made a film, made money on that film, have gotten press and are complaining about having to do it all over again. Or working harder to get more press, or make a bigger film. That's what we do. The money may have dried up a bit recently, which have probably caused budgets to shrink - but I can't imagine that making an indie 20 years ago, 10 years ago or 5 years ago was easy.

If you are in this business to be accepted by some sort of imaginary heirarchy than you are doomed. Independent film is hard enough without trying to guess the marketplace or be something you're not. Focus on telling the stories you want and that excite you, and adjust your budgets accordingly. And hopefully link up with a distributor that shares your vision. Never settle, but always be realistic.

Films don't get made in a vacuum. Gatekeepers have an immense impact on what gets financed, made, seen at festivals, bought and distributed. Nothing imaginary about this hierarchy whatsoever.

Audrey is bang-on correct here. There's a lesson here that people should be paying attention to. For all the talk about "where's the youth audience", when you look at the films that have been self-released or service-dealed in the past few years, UNTIL THE LIGHT stands out.

There's been gobs of talk about the massive success of ANVIL- but if you look at the grosses ($667k on 27+ screens at a time), UNTIL THE LIGHT TAKES US was actually far more successful on a per-market basis ($140k on never more than 3), and certainly more successful in relation to the P&A spent- we didn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on print ads- hell, we only placed any in four markets- and actually MADE money. And as Audrey noted, nobody seems to care- except the audience.

We had to fly under the radar with the "indie film press" nearly the entire time- they never covered the success of the film, in fact- a certain leading indie film site never bothered to place the film on the calendar, despite repeated requests. We never played a single Landmark theater, and whenever a theater asked for a "minimum print ad spend", we politely and firmly declined. In fact, with the exception of the good people at Alamo Drafthouse and Laemmle (both true friends of indie film), we never played a single chain theater. We would play the indie house in town, sometimes not in the optimal neighborhood, and work each market using volunteers to get the audience to fill the house- breaking house records at several, to the surprise of theater owners. When we had trouble getting a theater to book the film, we were able to leverage each market's local audience to call the theater en masse and ask for it- and it often worked.

Why? Because, first and foremost, Audrey and Aaron made an absolutely fantastic film. Content is king. Secondly, because we had a distinct audience in mind, and Audrey and Aaron knew how to reach it, but we didn't limit ourselves to just that crowd. We'd hit bookstores and indie record stores the same time we'd hit the metal stores and websites. The metal kids would show up the first night, but then, the rest of the audience would show people who had seen the trailer, read some press (the mainstream press was far friendlier to the film than "indie press" was), read the great reviews, or had been hit with some great materials- or, had seen their metal friends talking on Facebook or Twitter and were curious.

The simple truth is that "indie film" is not a catch-all phrase, and it's being treated like one. UNTIL THE LIGHT TAKES US and THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT have absolutely nothing in common as far as budget, scope, target, release, or company backing. If you cover "indie film", and your focus is on getting an interview with Annette Bening, then that's fine- but you're not covering indie film, you're covering studio films that come out on a bit fewer screens. You be honest about that, and we'll be realistic about it, and we'll work from there.

But yeah- a little support from the gatekeepers of the "indie world" would be absolutely lovely in the future. Or they may find themselves more and more irrelevant to the younger audience, who we'll continue to find a way to serve whether or not we get any help from the old guard.

Genre films always get a raw deal. In fact, it's a pretty similar pattern to indie film in that they've been absorbed by Hollywood. Hollywood took all the soul out of them, filled them with money and then took over that entire category in the marketplace by filling up all the screens. Good genre films are still out there, and still hard to find. If you're looking for the Sundance crowd to give some respect to genre films, that's just not going to happen. They like their horror undark rather than undead. They like to save death for things like depression and other things like that they use to drain all the fun out of their films.

I'm not really sure how important this whole issue of appealing to younger audiences is. It's not really the job of Ted Hope or the indie "establishment" to cater to young people. They should be making films that please them, which are generally adult films or intelligent films. Bob Dylan doesn't write songs for the next young generation - and why should he? There's young people for that. (Sorry Ted, I know you're way younger than Dylan.) It's always tough for young people to get their voices heard, and the ones that are embraced by the mainstream, ie. establishment, are always going to be the most palatable. But that's why young people are given things like optimism and enthusiasm and energy. Cynicism isn't something most people are born with; it has to be beaten into you, year after year. Why don't the grown ups stop worrying about the kids, who have plenty of options, and start worrying about the grown ups, who really don't have shit to go see and generally have stopped showing up when there is something to see? People over 30 seem to be to less catered to than people under 30.

This discussion isn't so much about responsibility except the responsibility to stay in business and stay relevant. Bob Dylan doesn't make music for young people NOW, but when he was coming up he was right in line with his generation. That's how he got so famous.

The point Ted made at the cage match was that, if Independent film cannot reach new audiences, it will be relegated to the world of the fine arts, which are only supported through philanthropy. They are important, but cannot survive on their own.

So this conversation is not about the idea that anyone is responsible for anyone else, but about reaching new audiences so as not to go extinct.

What's so bad about philanthropy? For cinema that is not aggressively designed as a revenue earning project, this model seems to make the most sense...

That was my point about Bob Dylan. He used to appeal to young people when he was young.

As far as this statement goes.. if Independent film cannot reach new audiences, it will be relegated to the world of the fine arts, which are only supported through philanthropy. .. it's kind of ridiculous. It's as if independent film represented an art form in and of itself, separate from all other film. Who cares if what was once considered "indie" film goes extinct? They don't make Westerns anymore either. But they still make films.

Agreed, I hate that indie film has become an ossified genre. I would love to see no separation in peoples' minds at all between a great Hollywood movie, a great independent, and a great TV show. Good is just good.

Audrey,

Your complaint, in various forms, has been voiced for many years, though it's rarely heard in public - that the tastes and market judgments of the "gatekeepers" of indie film have been killing the medium for a long time. Not many middle-aged white women like indie film either, certainly not enough to keep the medium in business. So that market is hardly a justification for perpetuating the Sundance and/or Tribeca neighborhood norms or, as you put it, juvenile (my word) movies about self-discovery.

There has always been a parallel "indie world", though unfortunately most of it is virtual. We're talking about films which never got made, or which disappeared because they failed to satisfy prevailing conventions.

The generation contemporary with the gatekeepers never succeeded in knocking those gatekeepers out of the way. And of course our financing models constrain the gatekeepers as well. Maybe your generation will have better luck.

I wish, but I tend to think not. If you like at things like the French New Wave or the New Hollywood movement of the 70's, you see two things working in conjunction that allowed them to happen: 1) Filmmakers working together and supporting each others' films. Reagan fucked us all on this one, it's been everybody out for themselves ever since his reign of scripted terror. There are interesting filmmakers going today who I'd be into getting together with, but they are spread far and wide. 2) There were producers willing to put up significant sums to enable these movements. Our economy is not likely to reward invention, as those with money tend to batten the hatches during downturns (although Sept. was an absolutely fantastic month for Wall Street.) I'd love to see an New Wave of American film; I'm guest-writing again soon and that's part of my follow-up.

Our economy does reward invention. Feature films are not invention. I'm always encouraging filmmakers to look at new and different forms altogether if they want to make a mark.

I actually think that is the single biggest issue to all of this; filmmakers themselves are looking backwards for their success.