“There is, of course, cause for concern, and even alarm.”
These were some of the first words out of moderator Annette Insdorf’s mouth, at the start of a panel called Snip Snip: Are Cutbacks in Film Distribution and Criticism Affecting Quality Filmmaking? in Telluride on Sunday. She ticked off all the alarming factors––studio-funded arthouse distributors like Paramount Vantage and Picturehouse are shutting down; marketing costs for the average film have risen to the $20 million range, which means that true indie distributors can’t compete; there’s a glut of films in both festivals and in theaters; print outlets dedicated to film have all but disappeared, and general interest publications have come to see critics as a luxury. She closed this listlessness-inducing laundry list with the question, “Will we simply have to read blogs to be informed about non-Hollywood cinema?” The distributors and journalists on the panel (including Michael Barker of Sony Pictures Classics, Anne Thompson of Variety and Scott Foundas of Village Voice Media) ended up taking this querie and running it into a lively, contentious debate. But first, Paul Schrader declared that he’s already heard the death rattle of cinema as we know it.
“Technology is leaving behind much that we are fond of,” Schrader warned. “I personally believe that movies are a 20th century art form, and they’re basically over.” Several times over the course of the session, Schrader expressed enthusiasm for short-form episodic work made on low budgets for small screens. Referencing the rise number of “professional” media makers who have jumped to the webseries format, Schrader announced that he’s currently planning a film that would exist in a couple of different versions: one feature designed for arthouses, and one “X-rated” version, cut into 12, 5-minute episodes, for viewing on cellphones and/or on the web. Schrader’s not planning to go this route because it’s lucrative, but because it’s what he sees as our inevitable future. “There’s [currently] no money in it, but it’s much better to gore the ox than to hold the ox that’s being gored.”
Schrader’s doomcasting right at the beginning of the panel established an extreme for the other speakers to work against. “Before Paul’s apocalypse takes place,” Danny Boyle said, “The star system may change a bit.” He noted that in the six months he was in India shooting Slumdog Millionaire, Will Smith was in Mumbai twice setting up various deals. He predicted that all stars and filmmakers will have to start seeing themselves as global brands–something that might be tough for the British. “We don’t deserve to make films,” Boyle said of his countrymen. “We make music, and we’re good at it, but we get what we deserve, really. Which is Harry Potter.”
Michael Barker, for his part, blamed any downturn in box office receipts on the global economic crisis, and denied that the actual act of distribution had become appreciably more difficult in recent years. “It’s always been difficult. Just the variables change.” He paused. “Paul, you’re killing me, man. I think the danger here is absolutism on any of these issues. I actually think distribution is more exciting now than it’s ever been–you have so many models.”
Barker went on to dismiss the notion that the current indie arm model is in crisis. “I can tell you, it was really tough before video to play these movies theatrically…Mark Gill said we have to work hard, but if any of us worked any harder our brains would fall out. Now, film criticism is in a great crisis. I think the internet has really hurt film criticism, because a blogger with no expertise is given as much weight as someone with enormous expertise.”
But the “sky is falling” meme wasn’t started by Paul Schrader, or even an evil blogger. Even Gill just gave a name to anxieties that have been plaguing the indie industry for awhile. It’s understandable that Barker would be skeptical of bloggers––they’ve certainly failed to give him the benefit of the doubt in the past––but it’s interesting that his company continues to acquire films with built-in appeal to web communities (The Wackness, Baghead, even Persepolis), but have so far been unable to appeal to those communities on the level of a Fox Searchlight, or even some self-distributing filmmakers. Right around the time Gill gave his now-infamous speech at the LAFF, Barker’s company experimented with a new model by releasing Baghead in Austin first –– a gambit which, despite the wide-spread support for the film from both bloggers and critics, failed. Baghead, even with the support of the major studio, has so far grossed about 60% of the final number netted by The Duplass Brother’s last film, the blog-boosted The Puffy Chair. Barker also noted that though he’s “seen more exciting filmmakers from around the world” recently than ever before, “I don’t feel that way about American independent film.” So maybe he’s going to stop buying them?
Barker noted that part of his problem with internet criticism is that he doesn’t know which sites to read. “I wish there was a way on the internet to find a site with great credibility,” he said. Though Scott Foundas expressed similar sentiment (I guess these guys haven’t heard of GreenCine Daily), not everyone on the panel was so down on web criticism. Anne Thompson noted that there are “great bloggers” out there, while agreeing on a need for better aggregation. “What I’m praying for is that someone puts together an indie film portal that puts everything in one community. And it will happen.” For her part, Columbia professor Insdorf noted that she recently published her own writing on the web for the first time, for Moving Image Source. “I suddenly realized there was an advantage to doing it online: we could embed a film clip! I am starting to realize that there are good ways we can do this.”
But not many. Schrader said he had once thought that if filmmaking didn’t work out, he could go on to become a full-time film critic. No longer. “It’s not really a living wage profession anymore.” Foundas nodded, “This is a part-time job that requires full-time work.”
Towards the end of the session, Boyle tried to counteract all the negativity. “We’re making it sound like a funeral,” he said. “You have to remember the younger generation. Remember when you were younger, and the old people were always moaning? People said that sound was going to ruin everything–”
Foundas cut him off. “It might have! I don’t think the verdict is in yet.”
“I think the internet has really hurt film criticism, because a blogger with no expertise is given as much weight as someone with enormous expertise.”
I’m getting a little sick of this reactionary anti-blog nonsense. While we’re at it, let’s bemoan the explosion of independent film because not every filmmaker has been vetted by Irving Thalberg. Barker equates blogging with a lack of expertise, which seems silly given that I can name maybe 30 film bloggers with more expertise than 95% of ‘professional’ film critics. The only problem this creates is a supply/demand issue that will continue to degrade criticism as a career (ie, few paid jobs for film critics). I shed few tears for this; film criticism, like poetry or avant-garde filmmaking, will become more and more an avocation rather than a career.
Is this going to become “the” standard panel at all mainstream film festivals from now on? Cuz I’m tired of it already.
One thing everyone on the panel seems to be missing is the empowerment that the internet engenders. I have news for Anne Thompson: A great indie film “portal” already exists. Mine’s called Google Reader, but any good RSS reader will do. I don’t have to wait for somebody else to tell me that another site has great “credibility.” I enable whatever site I want to have credibility by subscribing to its feed.
Also, why do these kinds of folks always have so much trouble “finding” websites? I run a small website that hardly anybody’s heard of and even fewer bother linking to, but underground filmmakers sniff me out all the time and target me for their marketing campaign. Why can’t indie distributors do that?
[...] Yet another interesting piece by Spoutblog’s Karina Longworth in a dispatch from Telluride where she attended a panel on the death of the film scene as we knew it and the dangers of the web as the only form of film criticism. Anne Thompson, according to Longworth, appears to be the only person on the panel who stood up for bloggers and the web community. Before I add my lousy two cents, here is a bit: Barker noted that part of his problem with internet criticism is that he doesn’t know which sites to read. “I wish there was a way on the internet to find a site with great credibility,” he said. Though Scott Foundas expressed similar sentiment (I guess these guys haven’t heard of GreenCine Daily), not everyone on the panel was so down on web criticism. Anne Thompson noted that there are “great bloggers” out there, while agreeing on a need for better aggregation. “What I’m praying for is that someone puts together an indie film portal that puts everything in one community. And it will happen.” For her part, Columbia professor Insdorf noted that she recently published writing for the first time on the web, for Moving Image Source. “I suddenly realized there was an advantage to doing it online: we could embed a film clip! I am starting to realize that there are good ways we can do this.” [...]
Sign me up for the festival panel run by bloggers on bad film critics like Pete Hammond and Shawn Edwards.
Just because film criticism seems to be moving part-and-parcel onto the net and off of print/TV (at least the sorts of erudite, “expertise”-led criticism you and your readers admire), doesn’t mean it is dead. Nor is the motion picture dead.
Change is painful…old folks continue to bemoan the death of their favorite formats…and film bloggers (aka critics aka writers) will have the same challenges that face all bloggers: how do you make a living from it?
I am excited, like Barker, for all the new formats of creative expression and product distribution. This, along with apparent corrections in the marketplace due to a glut of film products at all levels, does not spell utter doom. Just…CHANGE.
[...] Longworth’s report on a Telluride panel on the end of film (and film criticism) has me thinking about these issues [...]
Good post, Karina.
What strikes me most from the panel members’comments is their apparent concern, and possible confusion, with technology’s impact on film criticism. Just as cheaper cameras and the Web are widening the world of filmmaking, so it is widening the world of criticism. Filmmaking is no longer in the hands of a few companies, and neither is criticism.
While some could argue that the increase in available films is a bad thing, because it crowds the market to the point that it becomes harder for films to be seen, I would offer that the models for film distribution have begun, and will continue to evolve to accommodate the increasing number of available films.
The same argument can be made for the increased availability of film critiques by bloggers. While that increase does not bode well for the traditional model of film criticism, one that limited “credible” film criticism to the hands of only a few critics on the payroll of major print publications and other traditional media, the new model for film criticism widens the scope of participation and offers movie-goers more choices. Instead of choosing from 10 or 100 critics, film fans can choose from 1000, or 10,000 or more critics. Is that a bad thing? From the perspective of the consumer, no, it’s a good thing.
Technology is also impacting the definition of “credibility”. The internet has added many more voices to the conversation that used to include only a few recognized “experts”. Increasingly, internet users are interested in the opinions of peers, rather than limiting themselves to just the opinions of experts. Movie-goers on the Web are seeking out blogger critics with whom they can personally identify, those that share similar tastes, interests, and demographic characteristics. Those commonalities makes the blogger-critic “credible” in the eyes of the reader. Spoutblog is a text-book example of this phenomenon. I would wager that if Spoutblog readers were polled, the results would show that Spoutblog is reaching movie-goers that identify with this blog much more so than they would with critics that fall within the traditional criticism model.
Each internet user is determining, for themselves, what is a credible site and who is a credible blog film critic, based on their own personal criteria. If Barker doesn’t know which sites to read, then perhaps some web surfing time is in order. After all, isn’t that one of the orginal pleasures of the Web? Conducting a search, clicking on links, surfing sites, discovering new things, is what it’s all about.
Mike said: Is this going to become “the” standard panel at all mainstream film festivals from now on? Cuz I’m tired of it already.
I couldn’t agree more.
“I suddenly realized there was an advantage to doing it online: we could embed a film clip! I am starting to realize that there are good ways we can do this.”
This quote reinforces the impression that there’s an ivory tower where the windows open on the real world every so often. Yes, the internet has less editorial oversight but that doesn’t mean that percentage-wise the criticism out there is any more or less crap than the newspaper critics were. Published critics just got paid more.
[...] hustling for money––but it’s nice to see some counterpoint to all the indie film doom and gloom going [...]
Karina’s ‘doomcast’ does make for interesting reading, especially in that it reflects the views of some people of prominence in the field. But I have to say I totally agree with Mike Everleth’s comment here - especially as someone who runs a small, almost invisible, network for independent filmmakers to come together and collaborate, among other things.
The internet will always be different things for different people and once someone learns to sift through the chaff, it is quite rewarding. Especially when it comes to community building and offline networking. Not to mention finding news and information, honing your skills, promoting your film, finding distribution, discovering talent and a lot more, very useful things. This is of some significance in the indie world, for no-budget and low-budget filmmaking in particular, as networking enables us to become a ‘collective force’ much like what Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures postulates.
I found this article through my own site, where I have embedded an RSS reader for all things ‘independent filmmaking’ (my only keywords). As for credibility, it is something that grows on you - heaven help those who take things on face value on the internet! Jane Green’s comment here is very succinct on this point. All the comments here are further proof of this point in some ways.
So, ‘Movies are over’ is presumptuous at the least.
I just came across a website (The MovieMatrixs.com) that is now serving as a distribution hub online for independent films. The creators believe that they are starting a REVOLUTION in the film industry, and notes that they are able to provide a full online line promotional campaign for every single film that is featured on their website, and also create revenue streams for full feature length indie films. As a film maker, I say its about time!