Today’s guest post is by Orly Ravid of The Film Collaborative (TFC), the first non-profit, full service provider dedicated to the distribution of independent film. Orly was featured as one of HFF’s Brave Thinkers Of Indie Film, 2010.
*This is Part II of the “If I Were a Filmmaker Going Sundance…”
*Part III to will be written in the aftermath of the glow of the fest.
Sundance 2011, insofar as distribution was concerned, saw a spike on both the traditional sales and the DIY front. 26 deals were done so far and more to come. One difference between this year’s Festival and those of recent years is that several acquisitions were done prior to the Festival and more deals occurred right at the beginning of the Festival rather than taken several days or weeks to materialize. In addition, some of the acquisition dollar figures were bigger than in recent times. There was a definite sense of ‘business is back’ (though mostly still for bigger films with either name directors or cast or both – and this we address below). And DIY is seeing a new dawn with directors like Kevin Smith announcing a self-distribution plan and Sundance’s solidified commitment to helping artists crowdfund (via Kickstarter) and market their films (via Facebook for example) access certain digital distribution platforms (in the works and TBA).
Starting with the deals. So far I counted 26 (one at least was a pre-buy / investment in production) and two so far are remake rights deals.
I only list the deal points that were publicized… meaning if no $$$ is listed then it was not announced. [...]
There is a better mousetrap.
One of the problems with the old way of making a film — with the belief that someone would buy it – is that the apparatus only applied to a few select films aimed at the widest audiences. Yes, occasionally a filmmaker hit the lottery and everything aligned perfectly to engineer a sale, but by now we see that clearly as the exception and not the rule. Some of the beauty that is being revealed during The-Collapse-Of-The-World-As-We-Once-Knew-It (COTWAWOKI), is that new experiments bring a wider selection of work to a wider selection of community.
Reading the NY Times recent article on how music labels are taking they DIY approach that they had for bands, are applying it to films too, frankly warmed my heart — or whatever that is when you get the warm wave from the top of your head down through your toes. [...]
I recently had the pleasure of coming across this fine bit of reading, and I thought it summed up our current state of the film biz quite well. And heck, it may even protect you from some liabilities down the road…
The Parties hereby acknowledge that there is presently no executed agreement with any distributor to distribute the Picture. The success of the Picture will be dependent upon the Company’s ability to complete the Picture, the attractiveness of the final product to distributors and the distributors’ willingness to commit substantial sums to promote the Picture successfully. The Company will not have the financial capability to distribute the Picture itself. The gross revenue derived from the Picture is dependent, among other things, upon the interest of distributors and their ability to obtain suitable distribution via theatrical, television, home video, and/or other media, and in selecting proper release dates and appropriate advertising and promotion for the Picture. The negotiation of final distribution agreements, which frequently occurs (if at all) near the time of completion of motion pictures, will have a substantial impact upon the amount of receipts available to the Company from the exploitation of the Picture. There is no assurance that such negotiations will result in revenues or profits to the Company. Furthermore, although the Company has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the Picture to be distributed, there is no assurance that the Picture will be distributed or that such distribution will be profitable to the Company. The fact that any distributor derives profits from its distribution of the Picture will not, in turn, assure that the Company will also derive profits therefrom.
Film Independent sent out the following email:
We have spent the last ten years making the Film Financing Conference an invaluable experience for filmmakers, and as the industry is swept by very significant changes, we want to rise up to meet those changes with programs that meet filmmaker needs at this moment. With that in mind, the Los Angeles Film Festival has created Seize the Power: A Marketing and (DIY)stribution Symposium, a new program specifically designed to help filmmakers navigate marketing and distribution in the growing age of new media and to promote an open dialogue on the impact and exciting possibilities the changes in our industry bring. [...]
Collen Nystedt of MovieSet pointed this lecture (2/7) out to me via Facebook. It’s not a pretty picture.
You have to skip the 4min corny intro, but amidst the doom mongering, Peter Dekom puts an interesting position out there. He describes the current industry situation as the “antichrist of independent filmmaking” (end of pt.3). Unfortunately he’s not referencing Lars VT either. Dekom doesn’t put much stock on the long tail, but illustrates how the industry is built around movies that do well theatrically (pt.4). Without theatrical success, there’s not much else that can happen from a business perspective with a film these days, he says. So much for the hope of a VOD salvation…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_5lCDiDsOs
The main thrust is that our industry is in a serious disconnect from our audiences. It is clear that the model consumers like least is pay per use — yet Hollywood is still dedicated to this. Dekom argues that we have to wake up both our business models and our copyright laws (and I wish he explored this latter part more) to adjust how people actually behave. Embrace reality! Wake up and smell the instant coffee!!
[...]
I got hipped to this by MovieCityNews. I had not read John Battelle before, but in his broadside he sums up what he doesn’t like about the iPad and he sums up our current situation pretty damn well:
Media traditionally has gained its profits by owning distribution. Cable carriage, network airwaves, newsstand distribution and printing presses: all very expensive, so once you employ enough capital to gain them, it’s damn hard to get knocked out.
The web changed all that and promised that economics in the media business would be driven by content and intent: the best content will win, driven by the declared intent of consumers who find it and share it. Search+Social was the biggest wave to hit media since the printing press. And the open technology to make better and better experiences has been on a ten year tear: blogging software, Flash, Ajax, HTML 5, Android, and more and more coming.
Read the rest of the article here. I look forward to reading more of him in the days ahead.
We are in a battle where the hope and promise offered by a free and open internet is challenged by the traditional drive for total control by excessive capital.
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!
