Advertisement
So: Sidetrack Films, the producers of Aaron Rose and Joshua Leonard’s doc Beautiful Losers (see our SXSW coverage here), have signed a deal with Nike to sponsor the film’s release in five cities, starting with its New York premiere this Friday.
Like Mark Rabinowitz, who wrote a post on indieWIRE’s new Docsider blog pondering What This All Means in relation to the state of documentary film distribution, I have mixed feelings about this.
The most obvious, knee-jerk response is, of course, something about how big bad corporations are big and bad, long live indie DIY poverty integrity, etc. But Beautiful Losers is a film about artists (Harmony Korine, Mike Mills, Barry McGee, Shepherd Fairey, etc) who started as cultural reactionaries very much in line with a DIY ethos, and then found ways to work within the system and for corporations (designing ambiguously racist sneakers for Adidas, directing Bud Light commercials starring members of the Silver Jews, etc) without losing their identities. If this kind of deal makes sense for any film, it’s probably this one.
So on one hand, it’s great to see a corporation supporting an art form in need of support. On the other hand, should we really take this as a sign that Nike cares about documentaries (or even film, or even art), or is it just a cash deal for cred? On the other hand, in a market niche that has all been abandoned by Hollywood distributors (partially because said distributors are abandoning their indie divisions, but that’s a topic for another time), and where grossing even $1 million is considered a victory, shouldn’t we keep an open mind about docs reaching a wider audience By Any Mean Necessary?
One thing that sticks in my throat a bit: the indieWIRE story mentions that Rose “has a longstanding relationship” with Nike––in 2005, he partnered with the shoe giant on “two limited ‘Beautiful Losers’-inspired Nike Blazer Hi shoes” (and, as part of the deal for the film, Rose will work with Nike to produce “22 Nike Dunk Hi shoes each telling a different part of the ‘Beautiful Losers’ story.”) This may be a groundbreaking moment in indie documentary distribution financing, but is it going to mean anything in the long run if this kind of deal is only open to indie filmmakers who happen to have existing relationships with corporations?
Questions, questions. Got any answers?
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Answer: Whatever it takes to get the job done, i.e. get a film in front of the most eyeballs.
Well, not “whatever” I guess. If Nike recuts the film to focus on the doc subjects wearing their product, then that would be bad. But if Nike just fronts the money and doesn’t mess with the film, then more power to the filmmakers. It’s tough out there these days.
Ok, 25-year-old me is screaming his head off at 38-year-old me, but I’m just going to tell that kid to shut the hell up.
As long as sponsors don’t touch the film- with the possible exception of presentation credit- I’m all for it… and have been for years. Being a producer and having worked in film fest sponsorship for years I look at it just the same. It’s just basically a “single film, film festival.”
A straight sponsorship has tremendous value for a filmmaker trying to get the film out plus the sponsor doesn’t have to worry about their brand being associated with films that might conflict with their business objectives/brand strategies. Essentially the brand gets to curate their own “single film, film festival” and I imagine that makes the brand managers VERY happy. Plus for the filmmaker NO P&A COSTS to recoup and the power of the brand’s advertising and pr departments. No indie distrib can match that.
My gut feeling is that the important piece to preserve is the filmmaking itself - if it can be made with integrity and control, then I think the “any means necessary” is fine, provided the filmmaker (and in the case of docs, the subject) is comfortable with it. My producer and I were just talking about how Oprah recently did another show on children of divorce and were daydreaming about getting on Oprah with our little 10k low-budget indie in order to get it to the widest audience possible. Sometimes that mass media or corporate stamp vindicates the film for an audience who may have misconceptions about independent film. Many of the press outlets that we use to promote our films are owned by major corporations that fill your myspace page with ads or clutter your trailer on YouTube.
Honestly, I haven’t owned a pair of Nike’s since my “pumps” in 8th grade, but I wouldn’t turn down a pair with stills from my film on them.
I worked in a high school for several years and often saw how many kids were into really good indie music, while indie film had a snotty, boring connotation to them. I’d ultimately love to see indie films work with indie fanzines and labels to promote, but sometimes the subject matter is more conducive to Nike. If that opens young people up to ‘arthouse’ films or more obscure titles, that’s a pretty cool thing in the end.
[...] and independent cinema seem to be joined at the hip of late after the hub bub surrounding the Nike/ Beautiful Loosers marketing, Eurostar/ Somer’s Town release and Harmony Korine’s Thornton’s/ [...]
To be honest i say thank u to Nike 4 the deal. Atleast a small amount of people got to see the doccie. Which is awesome i know i would kill 4 a chance to experience the full doccie instead of short clips. I doubt the doccie will reach our shores.
But thanx to Nike 4 being Indie with us even if the agenda might not be the same.
WTF!?
This is a total crock of shite. How many sneakers editions can Nike churn out, every week there’s some lame new edition tapping into one of their shoe designers youth or what’s currently cool or some other bullshit. The connection between this film and Nike is loose at best and it totally is cash for cred. What bothers me is that this film, the shoes that it will spawn etc will come and go and nobody will care or even know it all happened. It’s all happening in a bubble smaller than Beaverton.
It’s a load of self-congratulatory noise. Someone DO something that MEANS something instead of all these hipster idiots jerking each other off. So tired of being sold ‘vacuous vapor.’
Nothing is worth anything anymore, it;s just always the ‘next’