Trends: Is Indie Film Destined to Die and Be Reborn?

Posted by Dr. Cole Abaius (cole.abaius@filmschoolrejects.com) on June 25, 2008

Indie Film

If you haven’t read Andrew O’Hehir’s insightful commentary on the sudden marketplace crash of independent film, you should. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Since I doubt you read the entire article since you’re reading our website while playing Rock Band, listening to The Cool Kids and pretending to do homework for your remedial Summer classes, I’ll do as decent a recap as possible considering the depth of his analysis:

Despite the fad-like popularity of indie films looming over the entire industry, threatening to forever destroy corporate-behemoths in a flurry of democratic, fan-based economic coups d’etat – the reality of independent film is much bleaker. Lawsuits, financial woes and studio division closings loom over the future of the industry. The amount of movies in theaters can’t be supported by the marketplace, and indies will be hit as hard as anyone. New media is changing the face of the game, and a world that demands one or two major hits to support hundreds of art house ghosts is in trouble.

O’Hehir is right about a lot of things. Actually, he’s pretty much right about everything, but I’d like to extrapolate his logic to see an even bigger picture. Consider it my brand of Film Futurism:

We’re going to see fewer movies released in fewer theaters, yes. But we’ll also see more IMAX theaters being built, more movies being shot in 3D and a growing number in 4D. Hollywood will still be making bad movies that cost nothing and make millions, but they will continue to release incredible pieces of art that audiences will drive to box offices for despite the influx of home-theaters being built around gigantic HD monitors and cheaper surround-sound speakers.

The independent film world will face a great crisis from a simple, yet confounding, paradox of human life: you cannot sell a movie if you already have an audience.

The real problem with new media that no one seems to be detecting yet is the democratic process itself. For all the complaining some do about Hollywood spoon-feeding us crap, democracy as a business model is far worse. Leaving aside the nightmare of actually finding a decent independent movie in the sea of amateur waste floating on social networking sites, consider for a moment that you’re an independent filmmaker with some real chops. Let’s also imagine that you’re stuck, like so many others, and have no possible route to selling your film after studios and distributors stop buying unknowns at festivals.

According to the Youtube model, you throw your masterpiece up there to the gaping maw of the public. If buzz never catches on, if there’s no tipping point, you’re in trouble. But it’s far worse if you actually do get a million viewers in one week. Because, congratulations, your film isn’t marketable anymore. While creating a massive audience for a film, new media simultaneously reduces the sales potential of a movie.

How many of those million will head to the theaters to see a movie on the big screen that they’ve already seen? How many who felt compelled to write “Gr8 job, dood!!” on your profile page will still feel compelled to spend money for the mega-plex release a year later?

Indie Film

Even if the film is good enough to drive some to see it again, a significant percentage of viewers will stay at home browsing for their next free entertainment fix. Thus, having the most popular film up on Youtube also ensures its death. Plus, if a payment structure isn’t created, no one will want to spend $20,000 on a movie that’s given away for free – effectively killing the chances of anything good cropping up anway. Also plus, entire genres like Thrillers, Mysteries and other single-viewing films will have no chance of breaking away from the computer monitor and onto the big screen. Clearly, letting the people decide what’s good is not good. At least for movie makers.

If the traditional method of delivering independent films to a larger audience fails, and new media can’t take its place, a new method will have to be developed.

What I propose is a middle ground. An elitist democracy. I envision a system of websites that will allow independent filmmakers to show off their wares while industry insiders’ assistants troll the internets for the next big thing. If buzz is created, it’s created between those that have the power to pump the lifeblood of distribution funds into a picture, and not a mass-market nail in the reel canister to the film’s marketability.

In this, I completely agree with O’Hehir that we still need gate keepers. For the early adoption crowd and people who listened to Animal Collective before they were hip, digging through the trenches to find talent is a great past time. But for a giant majority, we still want our great art vetted.

Which brings me to my final large point about the shifting tide of the industry: now, more than ever, we’re going to need film critics. Am I selfishly securing my job for the future? Yes. But It’s justified. Since audiences can’t waste ten dollars to figure out if they’ll like the next unknown flick – and since there will continue to be a growing number of unknown flicks saturating our eyes and ears – critics will play a (ahem) critical role in that vetting process. In a sense, having the Hollywood decision makers as a first line of defense and the critics as a second is how it’s always been. We’re just going to have a lot more to sift through.

I have no doubt that independent filmmaking will survive. Movies have always been the renegade’s art form, and the world is going to see a lot more renegades in the coming years. For whatever reason, audiences have been increasingly adventurous when approaching indie films, and whether that popularity wanes again like it almost always does, indie flicks will still be out there waiting to be discovered. How we discover them and how they break through is going to change, and the studios had better be more prepared than they seem to be.

I don’t mean to sound apocalyptic. I imagine that this phenomenon will pass by without the typical movie-goer even taking notice. The price of popcorn is much more pressing than the face of independent distribution switching gears to survive. But if the studios can’t regulate, we’ll all notice a difference when movies like No Country for Old Men have no chance at an Oscar but Beverly Hills Chihuahua suddenly wins Best Picture. I doubt that Hollywood would let that happen, but if it does, I’ll be hiding out in my home-theater until the smoke clears.

Editor’s Note: If you have time, take a look at this very interesting response from Kent Nichols, one of the creators of AskaNinja. He definitely has a point about new media.

Related Reading:

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

Matt Griswold

Many great points, Cole -- so let me address just one in which I agree with your premise, but not necessarily the conclusion: Critics. In a world of limitless choice, we must rely more and more on qualitative filters. True, professional film critics are a valuable filter (to some, anyway), but they have two basic flaws: (1) they speak for their own tastes, not the peculiarities of their reader; and (2) they don't scale.

1. Yes, we need filters -- but that doesn't necessarily mean "experts", especially in the judgment of something that is so subjective. Friends, social connections and algorithms can all provide that filter -- quite possibly with more relevance to my own tastes and proclivities.

2. The second issue with critics is scale. A professional maven can't really provide much of a filter for such noise, since they can't take in much more than a fraction of what's out there. Essentially they can curate and approve the cream of the crop, but that doesn't really address the problem of information/entertainment-overload.

Gatekeepers welcome... but I think your model needs a third layer to truly address the noise and glut of endless choice. Now, off to cast my vote for Beverly Hills Chihuahua!

Sujewa

Not everyone is freaking out about the "sky falling" for indie films:

http://diyfilmmaker.blogspot.com/2008/06/real-i...

I think the film industry will look more like the book industry soon; tens of thousands of different titles (in '03 I believe over 100,000 books were published in the US) becoming available for consumers each year, w/ some becoming super gigantice hits, & others having a quiet but solid following.

All in all, the current developments are very good news for real indie filmmakers & of course the medium itself; digital filmmaking & web publicity (& web based distribution) will make it possible for more artists to make movies.

- Sujewa
http://www.diyfilmmaker.blogspot.com/

Cole Abaius

@ Matt

I can see your point pretty clearly. And I agree that friends and social networking can do some of the heavy lifting, but they can't completely replace critics. You're right about the nature of critics, but not about the outcome. I approach criticism by being as steady as possible in my own tastes - that way, if a reader almost never agrees with me or almost always agrees with me, they will still be able to draw useful information about whether or not to check out a film.

I argue we'll need critics more in the future because of the influx of material. Someone has to watch out for the productions that don't have the money to buy commercial time - and then get them to your eye balls somehow. You may be right about scale, though, but it means a supplement is needed, not that critics won't be.

@ Sujewa

I agree that the film industry will start to resemble the book industry. And that's a bad thing. The publishing industry is in worse shape than film right now. If DIY books are included in your 100,000 figure, and I suspect they are, then the news is even worse. Vanity publishing is destroying that industry because it's basically a scam. A fraction of a percentage point ever see any money at all from it while the gigantic hits you speak of are done through the major houses still.

Oh, and even with all the developments in camera technology, the cost of production is going - surprise! - up. Probably because expectations are also going up. Making a film for less than $20,000 is going to look like you made a film for less than $20,000.

But you're right that more artists are able to make movies. That's part of the problem. Indiewood can't support the influx. The entire market can't support the influx, and it leaves most indie filmmakers with 500 DVDs of their feature sitting in their closet collecting dust next to their ambition.

What we're seeing is an implosion.

Sujewa

Hey Cole,

I think the film industry resembling the book industry is a very good thing. Last year 100 new indie book stores opened in the US according to the ABA (i think the American Book Association is what the initials stand for); more info. here:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=...

An important segment of the Stranger article:

"This is the hour for these independent publishers to ascend. By fully embracing e-books, blogs, and a public that is dying to not be condescended to, any one of these independent presses could thrive in this year's market. The fact that bookstores are opening in huge numbers and that the independent bookselling industry appears healthy, especially in this economy, is a sign that everyone should be paying attention to. These small publishers should work with these new independent bookstores in ways that the arrogant major publishers never do, by promoting each other and by telling the world, in no uncertain terms, that books are alive and well and doing just fine, thank you very much."

Some of my favorite movies are movies that have been made for under $20,000. So no problem with that one. Three good under $20K (or near it) titles that you should check out: Medicine for Melancholy ($25K), The Puffy Chair, Dance Party USA.

Hollywood had a virtual monopoly on US film production & distribution for over a century. Thanks to digital video & the web that's ending. Ultimately the important thing is that audiences are happy & also that artists who want to use the film medium to tell stories get to do so.

There will still be room in the marketplace for good Hollywood & indiewood movies, & good critics.

Also, it is not that difficult to sell 500 DVDs without the help of indiewood; I know several dozen people who've done so.

Hollywood getting out of the fake-indie films biz/indiewood is a good idea. Maybe they'll just get back to picking up & distributing some indie films from time to time, the thing that got this whole thing started back in the 80's with Stranger Than Paradise, She's Gotta Have It, etc. Other indie films can be self-distributed or distributed through small off-Hollywood companies; on DVD, perhaps internet VOD, w/ the help of festival play or DIY screenings. Since a lot of these real indie movies will be made for low budgets, it will not take too long for them to make a profit.

And, as in every business, some projects will fail, as they do now in Hollywood/Indiewood & the real indie world. That's cool, that is the way it is.

I am looking forward to the day when there are 50,000 new movies available for consumers each year, through several outlets; Hollywood/indiewood, & real indie distributors, & direct sales through filmmakers.

In this country of 300 million & world of 6 billion or so, there are still many interesting stories, from the present & the past, that have not been told through film, partially due to the historically very high cost of making & selling movies/the Hollywood prices. Digital video & the web will/is changing that.

- Sujewa

Sujewa

Also, re: the 3 under/near $25K movies that I mentioned; Medicine for Melancholy will be available from IFC in '09 I believe, it is now in festivals. The Puffy Chair is available on DVD & through Netflix now. Dance Party USA is available on DVD w/ the director's other ultra-low budget, digital, well reviewed movie Quiet City, from the DVD label Benten Films.

Cole Abaius

@ Sujewa

I love your enthusiasm. You're obviously a huge fan of low-budget or otherwise true independent films.

But the changing environment will affect all those things you love. Having a ton of stories and experiences to share is fantastic and romantic and wonderful, but in the dirty business side of things, the publishing industry is failing, and having 100 stores open in a country of 300 million isn't exactly a strong indicator of change. Besides, we'll have to wait and see how many of those stores fold. I'm curious to know how they define an "indie bookstore" as well.

The average American watches 18 movies for every book she reads.

Let's assume that number stays static. All things being equal, it's unlikely that we'll start to watch more movies during the year. The problem then becomes one of basic opportunity cost. In a world where 50,000 movies are made each year, but where the public can only watch so many per year, the marketplace is unsustainable. Thus, while it's thrilling to see so many story tellers out there, the sheer number of them is a weight that the consumers can't carry.

The problem isn't that SOME projects will fail. It's that MOST of them will. And it's not looking likely that we'll see commercial viability for independent studios and distro any time soon. Movie-making is a very, very expensive art that requires a disgusting amount of start-up capital and an even more disgusting amount of liquid capital.

The issue with the indie world growing is that there's no current model for them to make money. And, as idealistic as you sound, trust me, money is what matters here. (And the internet is no help in that department either). Most movies lose money. They lose big. Which is why studios rely on that $300 million domestic payday from Iron Man to fund all the losers. There is no chance that indie makers will have that backup. Thus, it becomes a lottery for which 10 indie films out of the 50,000 made each year actually break through and turn a profit.

There's only so long investors can handle pouring money into a market that doesn't return, and quickly, the well will dry up.

That's also the deplorable state of DIY and Vanity publishers. They snake people's money because they sell them a false dream of becoming the next big writer. They print things on the cheap, force people with no marketing expertise to market their own work, and the giant majority of them are utter failures. Great for Grandma to have a copy of your book. Terrible if you're serious about being a published author. Mimicking that environment or the indie publishing environment for films is even more despicable.

And how could you have possibly liked The Puffy Chair? :)

mike1630

This post is kind of "bang my head on a wall" frustrating :P Especially this paragraph:

"How many of those million will head to the theaters to see a movie on the big screen that theyâ€™ve already seen? How many who felt compelled to write â€œGr8 job, dood!!â€ on your profile page will still feel compelled to spend money for the mega-plex release a year later?"

Gr8 job, dood? If, as a filmmaker, you can put your low budget film on a site like YouTube and pull in a million views in a week, then you have pull, because, chances are, you can do it again. And the film is still *yours*, yours to license out to TV networks who will pay to air it, yours to put on DVD and sell online to a % of the million people who watched it for free online.

Getting a million views online is putting your foot in the door - but it's not the old-media's door, it's a better and more open door, the gate keepers aren't penny-pushers, it's the audience itself.

Sujewa

Hey Cole,

We'll just have to see how things go. However, whether Hollywood/Indiewood lives or dies, actual indie filmmakers will make movies & show them to people & sell DVDs or whatever the future replacement home ent. format will be for decades to come. Several DIY filmmakers have been making & releasing movies for a number of years now; definitely selling more than the 500 DVDs that you were worried about earlier (some names: Jon Moritsugu, Lance Weiler, Rick Schmidt probably, John Sayles (in some cases fully DIY, many cases hybrid DIY/Studio situations), both Greg Araki & Jim Jarmusch have great control in getting their movies distributed - from what I hear, also Todd Verow - makes & releases his own stuff, that's just a few names off the top of my head).

To learn more about how the film industry may resemble the book industry in positive ways, go check out this post of mine:

http://diyfilmmaker.blogspot.com/2008/06/book-i...

Production wise the real indie field is bigger than Hollywood at the moment (4000+ off-Hollywood movies against 600 or so Hollywood movies by Mark Gill's count). The next phase in real indie biz development will be figuring out the best ways to distribute each off-Hollywood movie. Which filmmakers should be able to do in time. Actually, they can all set up websites, make DVDs, advertise right now if they want to; but most likely new distribution ventures such as IFC In Theaters will pop up to deliver the new movies to their audiences. Also I think film festivals will take a more active role in helping filmmakers beyond the fest scene; distribution partnerships, screening fees, etc. These developments are already at work on a small scale.

The Gate Keepers/critics thing is total B.S. As the Gate Keepers have done a horrible job in regulating Hollywood's output for decades. Critics are merely commentators on an industry, filmmakers & studios will make & sell movies with or without critical support & in spite of harsh criticism. Critics, unfortunately, are not essential for filmmaking, distribution, & film watching. However, critics can be useful, form time to time, for films & for audience members.

Later on, nice blog, gots to go order 1000 DVDs :) of my completed movie Date Number One, & get the gear rentals done for a DV shoot of a new film that I am shooting this weekend. Will check back on this thread next week.

Also, Puffy Chair was funny & sweet; rough camera work at points, but entertaining movie. I hear the Duplass Bros. follow up Baghead is good also, looking forward to checking that out.

- Sujewa

ridwanzero

After last post on marketing without search engines, I decided to follow up with a strategy you can use to get quality free traffic. One of the easiest ways to get visitors to your web site is to spend money. Nothing is more effortless then paying for traffic. But if you can’t afford it or don’t want to pay, there’s an equally simple but free way to get traffic: ad swaps.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Cole Abaius

@ Everyone

All very salient points. If you haven't read Kent Nichols's response, you should, the link is above. He also makes some solid points which seem to agree with yours, Mike.

Here's the deal, I'm the token Futurist of FSR. I can't wait for the singularity, worship Ray Kurzweil and want New Media to be the Brave New World just as much as anyone else, but so far it's been more hype than product.

The nagging questions are these: What makes it greater for artists? This seems to be irrefutable for some reason although I've never seen any data that backs it up. More people, means more competition. Not necessarily a good thing for someone trying to get discovered. If the market gets flooded, it's easier to drown.

What's the next step after getting your million Youtube hits? Selling to a TV network so they can broadcast something that's available for free online seems laughable - and so far hasn't happened. Selling DVDs of something that's also viewable for free is just as bad a business model. Plus, no matter what, you're still dealing with the Old Guard - those nasty gatekeepers.

So for that, I will make one major caveat: If you're an artist just looking to get your art viewed by people - New Media is incredible. If you're trying to get discovered or make money, so far it's not nearly as impressive as everyone wants it to be. And the main reason is the sheer amount of crap out there.

So if it's not Old Media's Door you're getting your foot into, who's door is it? What does New Media's Door look like? And how many filmmakers are actually likely to get one million hits? In a week? Ever? An abysmally low percentage, I'd be willing to wager.

Anyway, I'm super negative about what's going to be a really sun-shine revolution of independent artists taking over the reigns from the evil corporations, and I'll be happy as soon as I'm proven wrong.

@Sujewa

Puffy Chair was a bit boring to me, and the camera work killed me, but you're right to be excited about Baghead. It's fantastic. Check it out as soon as you can. Good luck with your shoot!

Trends: Is Indie Film Destined to Die and Be Reborn?

Related Topics:

Related Reading: