Since the conversation about internet and day-and-date distribution really started to heat up in 2005, the alternatives to theatrical distribution have seemed to only multiply and evolve, while the general perception of public exhibition has remained about the same: filmmakers like it, but in terms of bottom line, it’s only useful as an extended commercial for ancillaries such as DVD. But is that perception changing? Two related quotes of note popped up in the feeds this morning.
First, Jamie Stuart at Stream:
More and more independent producers and distributors with years of experience are trying to convince indie filmmakers that theatrical distribution isn’t that important…Unfortunately, the thing that most filmmakers understand — and this has nothing to do with advocating the communal experience — is that by going theatrical, the movie is given a credibility that it would otherwise not have…
…does anybody believe that if the IFC Center hadn’t screened its mumblecore series in 2007, the “movement” and its filmmakers would’ve attained the same level of credibility? The three best-known voices from that scene — Andrew Bujalski, Joe Swanberg and the Duplass Brothers — have all received some level of theatrical distribution, whether it’s micro or day-and-date. Are these three great filmmakers? I think the jury’s still out on that. But, by going theatrical, they’ve legitimized the whole handheld DV film festival movement — a movement that until recently, had critics, journalists and distributors constantly complaining about the amateurish production values of the movies flooding fests. Theatrical alters people’s perception. Theatrical makes it a real movie.
And then, screenwriter John August [via The Circuit] whose directorial debut The Nines attracted “buzz” at Sundance in 2007, but failed to make much noise when it was released last year. He’s written a long list post about his experience, in response to Mark Gill’s “the sky is falling” speech.
Theatrical release is kinda bullshit…Even while I was making The Nines, I knew that the vast majority of viewers would ultimately see it on the small screen…It didn’t feel like it at the time, but the theatrical release was really a token, contractually-obligated gesture. We were getting our hand stamped before the DVD…New York and Los Angeles gave enough national exposure to drive the DVD release, which was where they hoped to make their money.
[But] the DVD should have come out much sooner, maybe simultaneously. Because of Ryan’s relative star power, we were able to generate a ton of national publicity. He went on TRL and Conan and every other New York outlet you can think of. But making a college student in Iowa aware of a movie that will never play Des Moines is useless. He’ll forget about it in a week.
So the smart thing would have been keeping our New York and Los Angeles dates but having the DVD come out immediately. I know that invokes the stigma of straight-to-DVD, but if it means that potential viewers nationwide can actually see the movie, hooray.
The shortening DVD windows are a legitimate concern for mainstream Hollywood movies, but for indies, I don’t think it’s even worth serious objection.
Despite August’s use of the word “bullshit”, he doesn’t seem to be seriously suggesting that his film would have done better on DVD *without* a theatrical release. But then, an “indie” starring Scarlett Johansson’s fiancee, with a budget for national promotions an access to shill spots like TRL is in a very different boat than The Puffy Chair, let alone an even smaller film like Finally Lillian and Dan, which is able, through its loose association with mumblecore “hits” to take at least one or two steps out of total obscurity.
Thoughts?
Steven Boone
Film Critics & The Audience:...
Kevin Buist
FilmCouch #86: Happy-Go-Lucky and Adam...
Brandon Harris
Sarah Diamond, ex-Slamdance Chief: The...
Kevin Kelly
Nick and Norah’s Infinite...
Karina Longworth
Religulous Review, Toronto 2008
Paul Moore
Revanche Review, Telluride 2008
Chris Thilk
Telluride 2008 line-up reactions
Lauren Wissot
The Rock + Klaus Kinski = Lust: Jerking...
FilmCouch #86: Happy-Go-Lucky and Adam Resurrected, Telluride 2008
We chat with some of the best filmmakers in Telluride (and the world): Mike Leigh and Paul Schrader!
I tend to agree with the idea that theatrical makes a movie feel legit. The problem on the Nines may not have been the promotion or release, so much as the fact that it really wasn’t a very good movie with a still unknown star.
I’m afraid that to give legitimacy to a film, a theatrical release is necessary. As a filmmaker, there’s nothing quite like seeing your film projected on a big screen and to be in the presence of an audience. DVD or web releases, while great and necessary, just doesn’t provide the right fit for a film, at least at first.
Also, how often to print publications devote articles to straight to DVD or web releases? Hardly ever.
I didn’t see the Nines so I can’t say why it didn’t do as well as August expected. (But don’t most Hollywood insiders have unrealistically high expectations anyhow? ) However, when I read August’s post, I found myself thinking that someone in Hollywood finally (kinda) gets it. Things ARE changing.
Selfreliantfilm.com pointed to a response to Gill’s speech from Brian Newman of the Tribeca Film Institute, whose gist seemed to be that filmmakers have to stop thinking of theatrical release as the ultimate goal. Newman looks to the music world for inspiration. More music is being made than ever and many musicians can make a modest living doing what they do, without being signed to a major label and without any significant radio airplay. A distribution deal leading to a theatrical release seems to be to filmmakers what “signing to a major label” (resulting in radio airplay) used to be for musicians. My hope is that a suitable structure will evolve so independent filmmakers can make a modest living, much like some of the better independent musicians do today. With the creation of DVD label Benten Films and the DVD production and distribution company Carnivalesque Films, this structure may already be forming.
Interesting post Karina, and a subject that’s become something of a thorn in my side.
In the home video industry, there is still a stigma attached to films that never had a theatrical release, and retailers are certainly more conservative with their purchases of such titles. Films that played at festivals, or part of a series, don’t carry nearly as much weight as those that had a proper theatrical run, even if it was in a single theater for a week.
A title that arrives with great press and a handful of festival awards means less to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video than a Lucy Liu film with a Metacritic score of 14. (Same for your local independent video store, where shelf-space is limited.)
Distributors will often mount small, money-losing releases for this reason, as well as for the much-desired (and much-needed) press coverage. Pullquotes are everything.
However, the idea that a theatrical release legitimizes a film is bullshit. We would have loved to give The Free Will a theatrical run, but simply lacked the resources to do so. Does this make it any less legitimate? Only in the eyes of the myopic.
With the proliferation of micro-budget films, the old model is increasingly under attack. Word of mouth is still a remarkably powerful tool, and the growing success of The Guatemalan Handshake is proof of that. Turns out the Internet is good for something other than free porn.
It’s great to see this discussion popping up all over the place. We’re kicking around a self-release plan for The New Year Parade and are weighing our theatrical options.
It’s difficult because we know a theatrical self-release will only lose money. On top of that, many theaters are resistant to film without a distributor.
Conversely, the film has played really well in a theater and we’ve had great discussions after. The film is about a certain community event and my favorite screenings so far have been those that felt similar to the dynamic on screen - where people walk out talking after and where the energy in the room magnifies the narrative.
We also know that the film could do very well in Philadelphia and plan to kick off the release around New Year’s 09, which will mean lots of free local press, and if we get our ducks in a row, some potential national press as well. We also know that we have the best chance of selling DVD’s as the audience leaves the theater (there are 10,000 Mummers in Philadelphia, which provides a nice base to build a national rollout on).
Theatrical still vindicates a film (although most average viewers are still hearing of films for the first time as they screen through the ON DEMAND lineup). It’s the best opportunity for press and the best way to get word of mouth going because when people leave a theater they have to drive or walk home so they HAVE to think about it, talk about it, etc. If they liked the film, that’s a great thing. If they watch it on their couch and fall asleep (as I seem to do with too many films these days) it’s gone from their brains the next morning.
I would love to see a self-release of New Year Parade! Unfortunately, I missed it when it played at IFFB in April. (Too many good films to see in too little time.)
I guess that my enthusiam for self-release is kind of selfish. There are films that I’ve seen once at a festival that I would love to see again, but I will probably never have that opportunity unless the filmmakers choose to self-release a DVD. Likewise, there are those that I’ve heard about or read about, like New Year Parade, where self-release (or some kind of DVD release) may be my only chance of seeing the film. Sure I’d love to see them on a big screen, but if it’s a good film, I’ll enjoy it nearly as much at home as I would in a theater.
Hey Eric,
Thanks for the support! I’m hoping that we can lock in a theater in Boston because we had an awesome time screening there (and great audience response). We hope to know definitively by early September.
IFFB had an AMAZING lineup this year. I missed so many films that I had hoped to check out because I literally wanted to see everything they had selected. Nice people too!
Take care,
Tom
Ulitmately, I long to see indie filmmakers/distributors think further “outside the box” and on a case-by-case level in terms of theatrical. Some indies, though micro-budgeted and “small”, would be appropriate as a wide open (”wide” by indie standards, i’m thinking 30 or so stragetically chosen screens), as opposed to a platform approach meant to “build word of mouth.” Word of mouth may contribute to the profit of a film, but it can’t get you to a breakeven point alone.
Also, not every indie distribution strategy can be compared to the indie music scene. With film the stakes tend to be higher, not just in terms of negative cost but profit participation, talent and property releases, chain of title issues, etc.
I’m a big advocate of including the p&a budget in the upfront fundraising for the “production cost” of projects, it’s just a necessity these days, even if you are looking to sell domestically– it’ll help you get a better deal.
“strategically” I mean, excuse the typo
We’ve been trying out, granted on a small scale, a model in which the venues, through their own network, handle releasing a film to a limited number of other venues. The latest example is LA FRANCE, which is opening in New York this Friday. This model is actually so that titles which would normally not even see the light of day, actually get into theatres, get reviews, and potentially help with auxiliary sales.
I’m a firm believer in the theatrical experience for a ton of reasons that are all quite obvious and I don’t need to get into. So nothing has made me happier lately than seeing the start of a widespread debate about the future of theatrical distribution. I think we’ll soon see real, positive change in the marketplace.
Right now, what we’re all seeing is a lot of theory and best guesses popping up about latest trends in the marketplace. A lot of the writings are coming from actual filmmakers, the entrepreneurs; rather than canned statements by industry leaders that have risen (or merged) to dominance over the past few decades in the Indie scene. The entrepreneurs have the real incentive to push themselves, to innovate, turn this theory into practice–there will be a lot of good choices and a ton of mistakes. And we’re seeing that here, in the comments of this blog, John August’s blog, everyone else: people sharing experiences with self-distribution, from flukes that were happy accidents to earned success and earned failures. It makes sense that the dialogue is arising, just as the means of production became affordable and more accessible in the 1990’s, leading to a brief but potent dominance of the filmmaker in the public imagination of independent film, now the means of distribution are becoming affordable and accessible in the same way–while the cyclical absorption of the independent distribution companies formed during the 1980’s and 1990’s by studios is completing. The latter (the absorption) will have a lasting impact on the distribution/exhibition businesses, as well as a continued, enormous influence on festivals as acquisition markets, and is the paradigm from which all of our “sky is falling” type concerns are coming from.
Perhaps, now that producers, filmmakers are focusing their attention on distribution in a serious way (at least I hope) basically for the first time in history, the sharing of all of this information will create innovations that will make for a healthier, better environment for audiences and films alike. Alas, a utopia!
It’s instructive to look at Mark Gill and John August among others, right? They’re smart and concerned and they have experience, but read between the lines. Here’s an obvious point: aside from the sensationalist coverage of treating a major industry shift as a doomsday event, the biggest negative aspect of entrepreneurs writing about all of this is that each has at least a sliver of self-interest, an agenda that is aligned with their business-plans, the basic need to survive. As do I.
So, perhaps we shouldn’t be looking to these essays without also taking a hard look at the moves that specialty exhibitors are about to make–not the most vocal bunch. Taking this step-by-step: if the shift that we’re witnessing in the industry actually is seismic by proportion, we’ll see a need among theatrical exhibitors to respond to that. Aren’t exhibitors the gate-keepers for demand? They have schedules to fill, screens to project onto. The reason that we’re seeing x-hundred of films reach theaters every year is because that’s the amount that exhibitors will program. Are Landmark, Reading, Laemle, etc. all about to start shuttering because of the lack of films coming out of Paramount Vantage, Picturehouse, Warner Independent, Think and soon even maybe Focus? Who is going to step in and take their place? The idea is at first almost laughable, but if this is the case, first exhibitors may have an aligned incentive with filmmakers whose films aren’t being serviced, to get in there and try something new–like, look elsewhere and make some new relationships.
Indications of this already: a lot of capital is being moved into P&A funds, independent of specialty divisions, funds geared to take advantage of increased access to distribution and the changes within distributors’ structure. Look to the producers, who will need to actually have a distribution plan and P&A money as part of their financing strategies for independent films. Look to all of the areas that major studio distributors just didn’t have the incentive to be involved with–like community outreach and bit-torrent leaks. The discussion has already opened to include these topics, but it’s mainly in the comments section of blog entries like this. What else should we be looking at?
In the meantime, the doomsday stuff is serving no one. Questioning a film’s Theatrical outlook is great, and we all agree it’s going to lead to great storytelling in different forms of media. But anyone dismissing Theatrical categorically is failing to realize that it will never go away. It’s ancient, as old as storytelling and the discovery of fire.
[...] it, after I somehow figure out how to end it. I’ve been convinced, lately, by a couple of posts which suggest that theatrical distribution may be a bit less legitimate than in the [...]