October 26 at 8:30am

What are the biggest 3 problems in the indie film community today?

This (“What are the biggest 3 problems in the indie film community today?”) is one of those questions I get asked alot.  I don’’t think there is a simple answer to this. If you read this blog, you already know I can never get my list down to just three answers.  But I get asked this so much, I am going to give it a shot.  Ready, set, go!

I have identified 75 problems which I have posted on this site (38 Problems, & original problems). The list seems to refuse to get shorter, even as problems get solved.  Nonetheless, it’s growth is not a cause for despair, but a truly energizing phenomenon, as I bear witness to our community coming together to make it better.  People are taking chances, experimenting, and daring to think brave thoughts.  So it is not a problem that there are so many problems.  The vast number of issues facing Indie Film is really just one big opportunity.

That said, that question of what is The Big Three gets asked time and time again.  My answers will always change, thankfully.  The question itself is akin to a thermometer, just taking the temperature of the here now.

I think the biggest problem for indie filmmakers is primarily a marketing problem; filmmakers must move from creating a series of “one offs” where they reinvent the wheel each time,  sourcing an audience from scratch on every new project, and instead move to maintaining an ongoing conversation with their communities.  I say this is marketing, because it demands a change it what we are offering from a series of single projects, to a deeper and ongoing relationship.  It requires a change of approach for all artists.  We need a shift of focus and appreciation from product to process.  This the problem as it is experienced on an individual basis for the creators.

That said, for everyone involved in Indie Film simple survival is never very simple. Priorities often become keeping your job, and when that is the case, art of course suffers.  This is that corp. was/is arguably one of the most successful indie production companies in America and we had to shut our office in the same month that we had the #1 film in America (The American) and the first film sold at the Toronto International Film Festival (Super).  We also closed a deal with Focus that month to make an adequately budgeted feature, had another film in post, one shooting, and one prepping.  We have our best development slate ever.  We had virtually no staff or overhead, and it was still too expensive to have an indie film business. This lack of a sustainable business model plagues us in many ways.  Indie film as it currently stands can only be the provence of the young, the wealthy, and the so-committed-you-have-to-judge-us-as-insane.  I may be wrong to use myself as a model, but when after producing over 60 films that pretty much have been uniformly praised and profitable, and the only viable business structure is a film by film singular approach, isn’t it time to completely readdress how this whole shebang is structured?  Or maybe we all need to abandon the belief that this is a business and look at it as more of a field that we are fortunate enough to play in.  And for those that like to watch, we have to stop taking it for granted that the best players will participate, unless we change the nature of our support.

I recognize I being very broad.  To simplify what I’ve already said so far, among the biggest problems in indie film are: 1) The creators’ mindsets; and 2) the overall infrastructure from top to bottom of the industry; so what would be the third?  Why, of course, the very stuff we make.

Content is a pretty extreme issue with many films and filmmakers – both not being original, not being ambitious, or not being truly able to differentiate themselves in the marketplace – but it doesn’t really seem to be a concern for the industry.  It’s hard to see that it is a concern even for the audience either as you don’t really hear them complaining, but they show it by simply not showing up.  As far as the creators, I know I am as guilty of this as everyone.  I keep making feature films because I love them and they work really well for me – but honestly, people in general do not know how to like indie features, and you have to question if it makes any sense to keep the feature as our dominate form.

Not only do we need to change the methods by which we all engage with films, change the structure by which we make, discover, spread, present, appreciate, and engage with film, but we also have to drastically change what is that we make.

So this brings me back to where we started, and perhaps exposes why this is a problematic question to ask.  What are the the biggest problems in the indie film community today? Why the content, the apparatus & infrastructure, and the context by which we all engage of course. I guess, I could of simplified it further and just provided a one word answer: EVERYTHING.

Share
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • Thanks for sharing this article
  • Here's my three: 

    1.  The bleakness and misanthropy of today's independent movies.  Audiences won't go to the theater to be told they suck.  2.  Independent films used to be made by professionals who didn't want to see the studios screw up their best work.  Now it's a fall-back plan for those with no experience who can't sell their scripts to the studios, so they produce them independently instead.  Independent films should be better than Hollywood's best, not a dumping ground for Hollywood's rejects.  
    3.  Audience have always sought out independent movies for the same reason: to see the stories that Hollywood is afraid to tell.  That use to mean stories with realistic sex and violence, but those taboos are gone now.  What Hollywood is now afraid to do is tell heartfelt small human stories.  That's the hole that independent cinema needs to fill right now.
  • dannylaceyfilm
    I'm a filmmaker from Leeds, UK and wrote a blog post recently called 'Distribution, Let's Not Get Too Far Ahead of Ourselves' which touches on what I believe is a real problem for 'indie' filmmaker's the World over. 

    The nuts and bolts of the blog post is that the current distribution model is way, WAY, behind the making of and fund raising capabilities. Filmmaking is a business, there's lots of money going into making films, but not much financial growth coming out the other end. And until a solution to this big problem is found, indie films will not break out into the public domain. 

    Do check out the blog post and leave your thoughts:
    http://www.stadamedia.co.uk/da...

    It's an important and often over looked subject. 

    Danny
  • Damien Ahuir.
    The problems are numerous and it will take a lifetime to tackle them down but there is still a tremendous amount of people that make movies that are interesting but have no marketing plan whatsoever.

    They hope that the word will spread just by people talking... We all have talents, creators, fans, medias and should find a way to bang our head together since we all need one another.
  • Yagityagel
    's really true.. but it motivates me even more to succeed. To triple check the details, to be innovative in my solutions to problems, and to question everything that happens. http://tutkuvideo.com regardless of whether at my hands or another, especially when it seems in my favor.
  • The Rank Herve Leger Dress fashion shows are often populated with celebrities and famous actresses dressed in Herve Leger bandage dresses.Famous fans, Lindsay Lohan, Rihanna and Kate Bosworth.
  • remove
  • great post! i would say the biggest problem is CONTENT and the gatekeepers that support it. every indie film these days that gets trumpeted like Humpday or anything Joe Swanberg makes is total crap. the indie film gatekeepers like filmmaker magazine need an enema and by that i mean they need to clean out the shit that they've been supporting the last ten years and start supporting filmmakers that create more interesting content.
  • I would love to know some more of the work that has been overlooked and why you think it is good. I am not saying that in opposition at all. Do you have a blog or screening series where you promote and analyze the work you appreciate MIke? That is a good first step at changing things around.
  • I think we have to develop a model similar to regional theater or food cooperatives. As independent filmmakers we got it alone to our detriment. It's time for us to band together, into small regional co-ops and produce and market good films. I plan on starting a small co-op that produces feature films for $50,000 or less working with a small team of dedicated filmmakers. We will allocate $50,000 towards marketing and distribution. We can work on each others films, promote each others films, and then teach/mentor others. If we share our knowledge, labor and infrastructure, then we can usher in a new renaissance of American Independent Cinema.
  • Mike
    in an ideal world, you are right, this would be the best thing to do, but you are forgetting one thing- The Ego and as well as know, filmmakers have some of the biggest egos around. if you can form a co-op that makes everyone leave their egos at the door, then yes, you have a solution.

    but where does the money come from? does each co-op have to have a trust fund baby whose parents will write them a check?
  • Conor Slattery
    Oh dear! I've been producing/directing for 12 years now. I started by producing a feature after college. It was rubbish so I thought I'd follow my own path and direct too. I got snapped up by a broadcast company soon after and produced/directed everything that went out for five years. Ultimately the broadcast station declared bankruptcy, although to the people who actually worked there it was known that the board weren't out of pocket upon dissolution, quite the contrary. At that stage I decided to return to the poverty of film. I've worked on other people's productions for the last few years whilst writing a few of my own, winning awards for shorts, the usual story. So I recently came up with an idea set primarily in one location with two main cast - one a well known actor - thinking that I'd make the entire thing for free and then get distribution. Is this a no-hoper?
  • nwrann
    Not necessarily. Just make sure that your market research shows that there is an audience to support the budget.

    If you're planning on spending $10million on it you better have an A lister in it (even then it might languish). If you're planning on spending $50,000 on it you'd probably be able to find enough of an audience to justify that.
  • doghouse
    Ted, in response to yours in response to mine: all I'm arguing, with civility I hope, is that the commercial finance model has given you an undoable job, no matter how admirable your intentions may be (and in fact are).

    Thanks to the expectations attached to investment, you're being asked to identify nominally non-commercial material which is capable of performing commercially, a task which would require clairvoyance. And, demonstrably, nobody possesses that clairvoyance, measured by box-office performance.

    But it gets a good deal worse. You can't reasonably be asked to spend 3-5 years, much of it unpaid, trying to produce a movie you don't like or understand, and which any number of other co-producers don't like or understand. But, if that's the case, we might as well dig a grave for the art form. A script liked and understood by a large number producers is a movie everyone has already seen (or read, when based on a novel). There's no reason in the world to make such a movie, beyond the opportunity for everyone involved to work and eat (no small matter, it must be said).

    The expectation that a nominally non-commercial, non-generic screenplay ought to satisfy commercially instilled expectations is a real piece of perversity. And yet it's a common expectation among readers of screenplays in the indie world. For all the producing miscalculations in indie film, and money down the drain, it's amazing how many self-anointed market experts we have.

    The solution, perversely enough, is to produce movies that few like or understand on paper, when there's reasonable cause to believe the filmmaker can pull off what is currently not understood - showing the viewer something he hasn't seen before, or understood before. Making such a selection, and taking such a risk, is a common function performed by the art selection committees empaneled in most other industrialized democracies to distribute public funds. And members of those committees, often actual writers and directors, may have the ability to see what others can't. They certainly *should* be able to see what others can't. Most of them, after all, have been dealing with the materials of fiction since adolescence, on a daily basis. How many funder and producers can say the same? Or do we want to assert that storytelling is not an acquired skill and not an acquired art?

    But producing the film that nobody likes or understands is clearly beyond the capacity of commercial finance. We can't ask it to work that way, and it certainly hasn't to date. Under our system, we may well make films that get into Sundance; that are well-reviewed; that boast fine production values and excellent performances. But there's no hunger for such product, and no reason to hunger for it. Such productions offer no revelations.

    To close, I find our distrust of public financing systems puzzling. Even forgetting the European and Asian art house golden age, of which we have no equivalent, one need only compare the Sundance Dramatic Competition to, say, the NYFF lineup. And weep. We're so rich, and so large, and so various, and yet we can't do it. There's something in us which insists on making middle-brow movies everyone has seen before and which few will pay to see. That something, I would argue, is commercial finance.
  • I would love to have public funding for the arts in this country, but I don't think it is a solution. Other than the German New Cinema of the 70s (for a period), I don't think much government funding produces much innovative work. You get stuck in groups promoting those that think like they do and unobtainable production cost that prohibits innovative work.
    I think the model of making an initial feature for as little cost as possible, and following it with a slightly more expanded film as quickly as possible, is a model that consistently has born fruit, that is when the filmmaker displays talent and a unique way of telling stories. My first films were with Hal Hartley and we did this successfully for years. You see it again now with Kelly Reichardt, Ramin Bahrini, So Young Kim, and Bradley Rust Gray to name a few. None of these artists are working in mainstream commercial modes. I really don't know a filmmaker who hasn't been dealing with storytelling and craft since a young age in one way or another -- and I trust them to help us find new forms (which is not the same as trusting the market).
    I think part of the problem is that culturally and academically we worship the concept of the genius auteur creator and have neglected building the infrastructure that could expand our subject matter and the appreciation thereof. It is why I think being a producer requires curatorial activities. It is why I think being a producer requires direct engagement with the creative community (i.e. this blog). It is why I think all creative professionals need to cultivate a relationship with audiences. Studies show that more people are exposed to "quality" "personal" work, the more their taste gravitate in that direction. Whether it has been the lack of youth oriented alternative work, or the equivalent of culture organization supported work like symphony or off broadway theater, we have not built the audience support -- and it is not just because the current work falls short. It is because we have not focused on building the necessary infrastructure. And that neglect only serves the business interests of the current status quo.
    We all need to encourage public funding for both the arts and their infrastructure.
  • doghouse
    "I don't think much government funding produces much innovative work.... You get stuck in groups promoting those that think like they do....."

    This is, to me, an astounding admission. You apparently just rejected the whole of modern-day art-house cinema and world cinema in general, in favor of American indies. Does anyone outside the American indie circle agree with you on this question? Do audiences, national or worldwide? It's an honest, if exasperated question.

    "I think the model of making an initial feature for as little cost as possible, and following it with a slightly more expanded film as quickly as possible, is a model that consistently has born fruit, that is when the filmmaker displays talent and a unique way of telling stories."

    That's certainly the American way, and for those who admire the films and filmmakers which emerge through this mechanism (I generally don't, as you've probably gathered), it's perfectly adequate, though perhaps not as democratic and meritorious as it may seem. Again, we return to the question of the absolute value of American indie cinema. But, to use your own terms of reference, it's not that long ago that Hal Hartley, then living in Berlin, was saying that you simply can't get innovative films made in the U.S.

    "I think part of the problem is that culturally and academically we worship the concept of the genius auteur creator and have neglected building the infrastructure that could expand our subject matter and the appreciation thereof."

    I would argue that it's the lack of personal freedom (in the form of access to non-commercial funding), and the American indie infrastructure itself which have guaranteed the mediocrity of American indie film and its very peculiar qualities -- that odd hybrid self-solemn nature, neither art nor commerce, which would appear to be product of the funding requirements. But, again, our views of American indie film, as compared to foreign art house films, are too different. We can't settle which system is better, if we don't agree on which films are better.

    "It is why I think being a producer requires curatorial activities. It is why I think being a producer requires direct engagement with the creative community (i.e. this blog). It is why I think all creative professionals need to cultivate a relationship with audiences. Studies show that more people are exposed to "quality" "personal" work, the more their taste gravitate in that direction".

    Nobody disputes the value and necessity of curatorial activities. The question is who is doing the curating, and its results over the years. Again, our views of indie film are so different that the argument has nowhere to go.

    These differences would seem to be irreconcilable.
  • Joe
    DOGHOUSE - This post and your one before it basically get to the very root of the problem: American indie cinema is neither here nor there. And in order to survive, if there are any indie filmmakers out there in the U.S. making work that really could be called 'art' in international circles, the people in the indie world don't or cannot recognize what the rest of the world would call true art. On the other hand, they don't seem to do a good job of curating the best films from indie filmmakers who only wish to hop the studio wall and work in Hollywood either. I also agree that having those funding groups set up with other directors, writers, etc.... in other words, people who have DONE THE JOB, is the reason international cinema dabbles in all types of stories in a generally successful manner. Those people are better at gauging seriousness of purpose and whether or not the person coming to them has a vision. However, I don't understand what you're saying about the subject matter of American indies being a result of the funding requirements. I would say it's a symptom of wanting to be taken seriously and be called an 'artiste' but actually nothing to say. I'd also say that a disproportionate number of those filmmakers are generally well off... so a lot of the characters in these films come off as hopelessly disconnected from the reality of most people.... there's an inert feeling to the emotions and the problems that makes you stand go back and go, "You think YOU'VE got problems?" to the characters. The biggest single problem is probably bad films, though. There just aren't that many great filmmakers... bottom line. Just because the technology is there doesn't mean people want to watch. However, ANOTHER financing model SHOULD exist and the people involved in deciding who gets the money should be other filmmakers, writers, and actors... NOT producers, NOT agents, and definitely not failed artists from other fields.
  • doghouse
    Joe, I was making the case (or at least trying to) that the indie funding model requires that these films lack *some* Hollywood characteristics -- the material must be describable as "edgy", "quirky" and low-budget for marketing purposes -- but also demands that the films make use of narrative conventions and situations familiar to producers and funders from commercial media. So, to that extent, the funding model pre-determines the content of films which get professionally produced.

    The fact that no one outside Park City is demanding more "quirky" or "edgy" semi-commercial hybrids doesn't seem to deter investors. This is the kind of movie that finance demands, and this is the kind of movie that finance gets, whether the audience wants it or not. For those who get paid along the way, it's grand. And something unusual could still sneak through. Miracles are always possible, despite the best efforts of the indie film establishment. Just don't hold your breath.
  • There is definitely a lack of public funding, but you can't discount state tax incentives, which can be fairly substantial.

    There actually is a way to get these films financed. That is by having a very rich person(s) pay for it. You could call it a commission and then it might appreciated by them as theirs. Seriously, rich people pay for almost all of the indie films, but it's hard enough for people who know what they are doing to make a good film. And really what's the cost difference between making a piece of shit that nobody wants to see and making a masterpiece that nobody wants to see? The rich have all the money right now, and they have more than they used to, so that's where the funding has to come from.
  • Mike
    The rich are stupid and they waste their money on stupid things. Just look at the current election cycle in which $3.5 billion has been spent by to get douchebags elected into office. WTF? And this is an election that largely no on in America cares about. We live in a society that will throw billions of dollars down the drain to get idiots elected rather than spend that money making this world better, like supporting the Arts.
  • The rich have the tools to try to secure the world they want: namely their wealth & influence. We have tools too, but they requires more effort -- that being our voices and actions. The rich have more influence than ever before because of the unlimited ability for corporations to contribute to political campaigns. If we want to change that we, and our circles, must act to change these policies.
  • nwrann
    Everything that you mention here relies completely on the budget level.

    The higher the budget the more "middle-brow" and general-population-appeasing (read: bland) the movie has to be.

    What is really a problem is when a filmmaker makes movie with a low enough budget to afford experimentation and non-commerciality and envelope pushing but instead chooses to go for the bland because audiences might not like (on a broad level) that which they don't already know.
  • ReCinema
    It's really true.. but it motivates me even more to succeed. To triple check the details, to be innovative in my solutions to problems, and to question everything that happens, regardless of whether at my hands or another, especially when it seems in my favor.
  • Mr Eggeps
    "you have to question if it makes any sense to keep the feature as our dominate form"

    this has intrigued me for some time... in the past few years we have seen an emergence of attention towards shorter feature forms (60 - 80 mins)... just today HammertoNail posted a review of Open Five (66 mins) and links to Benten films and their library of films that are also in this form.

    I'm tired of film festivals discriminating against films that don't fit comfortably in their perceived time slots... I want to see long form shorts and short form features... or whatever you want to call them. Let's just see them and experience what can be accomplished with such a form using today's technology and talent.
  • Denise
    Ted I have been a subscriber to your blog for some time. I really like it and find it very insightful and useful, thank-you for making it.

    This is the first time I have written you, I wanted to say that out of all your blog posts I like this one the best. It is very truthful and honest. You told us honestly the problems in your own business and the film business in general. I felt your pain when you described the need to shut your company even though you had lots going on.

    We need to hear these stories from experienced Producers so that we hear the truth. So much of what we hear in the entertainment industry is spin.

    Thank you for taking the time to keep us informed and enlightened. While you may have thought that bringing films to the world was a worthwhile endeavor, I think using your wisdom to help others is a much more worthy cause.

    Bravo.
  • Thank you Denise. I really appreciate you writing this. It is hard for everyone, but it's REALLY hard for those that have not been as fortunate as I, or frankly possessing the privileges that I have had. That said, what a great time to be an artist or an entrepreneur in the arts or both. Big changes are afoot and a lot of well deserving folks will get through the door, hopefully learning to hold it open in the process.
  • i hope you're right about new artists getting in the door, but the fact that you are having a hard time makes it really impossible for me to believe that i can succeed. i'm a nobody and if a somebody like yourself can't make ends meet, then nobody filmmakers like myself should give up now.
  • Mike Timm
    Since the early 90's, what I've seen work is: making your first feature on the cheap, taking new strides in the genre of choice and considering the festival circuit your "distribution" in order to create your fanbase.

    Filmmaking is a repetition art form.
  • Dan Faltz
    Was very perplexed at first to hear of This Is That shutting its doors, but glad that you guys continue to develop films, get them made and out there to be seen, and agree with your assertion that an office isn't necessarily needed these days. As always, I'm encouraged by your ability to change and adapt in order to continue making films - and your willingness to share the good, bad and ugly to generate discussion.
  • Billyyeagerfla
    The biggest problem with Independents is people who do a lot of talking and bullshit. Our film was banned by Sundance, they would not allow our film to be submitted, Ted Hope himself has never replied to my e-mails, or phone calls, it seems to me that EVERYONE AROUND HERE is full of shit.
    http://www.jesusofmalibu.com/
    I wonder how well people can read, watch, or anything for that matter anymore. What a bunch of bullshit info
    http://www.jesusofmalibu.com/
  • nwrann
    There's really only 1 problem:

    1) Independent Filmmakers EXPECT to make money.
    a) Without doing market research.
    b) Without creating their films for a built in fanbase (either through casting, subject or other aspect)
    c) Without budgeting their film with a realistic audience turnout in mind. (get an idea, realistically, of how many people might actually WANT to watch your film, multiply that by the cost of "admission" then figure out your budget)
    d) Without figuring the cost of attracting an audience (Marketing & Distribution) into their budget.

    (what most filmmakers will find after doing the proper analysis is that their intended film is way too costly)

    So many Filmmakers focus only on the film and what it takes to make it, rather than on the audience and what an audience is willing to pay for it. If a Filmmaker's benchmark of success is profit based, they will have a PROBLEM time after time if they don't remain focused on audience, budget and revenue.

    If a Filmmaker's benchmark of success is art based, without an expection of making money, then they can do whatever they want and will be successful, if they consider themselves successful.

  • doghouse
    1.. A preponderance of films which are either indistinguishable from Hollywood product, or fail to meet international art house standards.

    2. Exclusive reliance on commercial and/or private finance, a proven model of failure. There are no art-house traditions, in any country, on free market models. That the issue never even arises in these discussions is a continuing marvel.

    3. Curating producers and professionals who, consistent with other American professional classes today, are slow to accept blame and responsibility (see #1, above), and who are performing in areas beyond their capacities, experience and training. The role that Ted and many others claim for themselves has no precedent in the arts, and for good reason: it leads to mediocrity and financial loss.

    All of which really really comes down to one point: the attempt to turn indie film into a sustainable business is the problem, not the solution. The fact that, in the U.S., there *is* no solution (see #2 above), shouldn't blind us to the diagnosis. We may never make films which make money. But we could certainly make far better films - if only we could stop pretending, once and for all, that the movies are wonderful and that the problem is the market.
  • 1. Agree with the preponderance of the indistinguishable but think international standards are more fluid, and that's a good thing. Change is coming.
    2. Public funding would be a nice thing, but I think it does lead to an entrenchment of the status quo which leads to things like "international art house standards". I long for the forever shifting. I think that shift from deprivation to abundance will allow for distinct circles of taste to develop, if we give it a little help. That said I would love for you to expand upon this point across a blog post or two. Consider this an invite.
    3. I am a bit unclear as to this point. I think you put me into this doghouse, and it's true, I must act between my best guess as to what I can do and financially survive at the level I want, and that which makes me glad to be alive and using my labor. Sometimes I guess wrong, and sometimes I am surprised and things go better than I hoped. Better movies would be a great thing, but what do you do when it seems like that is not the concern of either the creators or the community of appreciators?
  • So, essentially, what you are saying is anyone who hopes to make even the slightest bit of a career out of making movies (i.e. being able to make a living out of doing something they love) are kidding themselves and should give up?
  • No, but those that try to follow the path as it has been proposed for the last two decades are being foolish. You can't make a film and think you can sell it to the distributors. Everything needs to be rethought, but in that is opportunity like never before, both in terms of the stories we tell, how we tell them, the form they take, how they are discovered, presented, and appreciated. The trick is recognize the world we live in right now, and be willing to take some risk as to what the future will be. The next is not so much dictated as willed -- we must act for the world we want.
  • What you say is definitely true, although I think a good start would be to stop calling our films "content". "Content" is a term cooked up by people who build cool machines and need stuff to play on them - it doesn't matter to them what it is. We don't cook dinner to grind it up and stick in a sausage casing; that's where the scraps go. They can salt up a sausage all they want, but they can't turn it into a steak.

    I would just add that it isn't only independent film that is having all these problems. It's pretty much every business, every art form, that is in crisis. People in every field have to do more with less money and fewer employees. Unions are the enemies, just because they're trying to keep their workers from being exploited. Credit for small business is non-existant - which is particularly bad for film. People have less money. There are less places to buy things. The huge corporations put all the small businesses out of business and then went bankrupt themselves.

    On the positive side, there has never been so much that needs to be said by artists who can offer some perspective on all of this.
blog comments powered by Disqus

This site could not have been built without the help and insight of Michael Morgenstern. My thanks go out to him.

Help save indie film and give this guy a job in web design or film!