Where Did All The Indie Pics Go?
Whether you’re studying the Oscar race or box office results or simply scanning headlines, one question keeps reasserting itself: What ever happened to “indie” cinema?
With the departure of Daniel Battsek, Miramax has now gone the way of Vantage and Warner Independent. Fox Searchlight is having an ominous autumn (Peter Rice knew when to jump ship) and the bloggers keep composing dirges about the Weinstein company (though most of them have not seen “Nine” or “A Single Man”).
The major studios, having vandalized the indie sector, now insist that low-budget dramas are toxic and that the future belongs to franchises (remember the era when the only “franchises” were sports teams?).
Virtually the last mainstay of the indie world is Sony Pictures Classics, a company built on the heretical thesis that “great indie films just happen, you can’t make them happen.”
Those are the words of Tom Bernard, who with partner Michael Barker, have steered their little label through 20 years of cinematic cross-currents. Their excellent Brit picture, “An Education,” surely an Oscar candidate, directed by an obscure Danish filmmaker, happened to find several puddles of financing before Sony Classics seized distribution rights for the U.S..
Then, of course, there’s the ultimate indie happening — “Paranormal Activity,” which was made on a tab of $11,000 and is headed for $100 million through an astonished Paramount.
Similarly, “Precious,” a true long shot, was financed by heirs to the Celestial Tea fortune and is being distributed by Lionsgate, which hopes to make it their “Crash” of 2010.
When compared to the carefully orchestrated government subsidies and lotteries of foreign countries, the American method of nurturing art films seems haphazard, if not downright uncultured. But it’s the only way that works.
When the “majors” tried to develop and package indie films, the budgets quickly became too lofty, the casts top-heavy and the marketing spends self-defeating. Too many of the studio-backed art films were star-driven passion projects; the random passions of actors — even top actors — are at best erratic.
I discovered this some years ago when I was a studio executive and Paul Newman had a passion to star in a film with the unfortunate title “WUSA.” I told Newman that while I admired his movies, “WUSA” was a tedious political polemic that no one would pay to see. He replied that I was an ignorant asshole. Given his vehemence, I told myself, “Newman is a star, he’s working for nothing, how bad can it be?”
The answer: really bad.
Today’s few and far between indie hits aren’t star-driven — their only common denominator is that they’re accidents of history. Take “Slumdog Millionaire” or “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” or look back to the days of “Sex, Lies and Videotape” or “The Gods Must Be Crazy.”
In years past, the indie world was bolstered by some shrewd decisions and also some good luck. Sony decided to set up an indie label and not mess with it. Harvey Weinstein decided that Oscars could be important to indie films and that Oscar showmanship represented a sound business investment.
It would be hard to imagine another autonomous Sony Classics being formed today. And though Harvey’s hypothesis worked brilliantly for him in its time, the majors don’t seem to covet statuettes any more.
To be sure, while orthodox methods of marketing indie films are being disdained, no one has really worked out a new strategy. Viral praise on the web and fierce Facebook advocacy can provide magic boosts for an art movie, but engineering all that is far from a science. Not even the youthful gurus of the web have managed to package Instant Zeitgeist.
With the departure of Daniel Battsek, Miramax has now gone the way of Vantage and Warner Independent. Fox Searchlight is having an ominous autumn (Peter Rice knew when to jump ship) and the bloggers keep composing dirges about the Weinstein company (though most of them have not seen “Nine” or “A Single Man”).
The major studios, having vandalized the indie sector, now insist that low-budget dramas are toxic and that the future belongs to franchises (remember the era when the only “franchises” were sports teams?).
Virtually the last mainstay of the indie world is Sony Pictures Classics, a company built on the heretical thesis that “great indie films just happen, you can’t make them happen.”
Those are the words of Tom Bernard, who with partner Michael Barker, have steered their little label through 20 years of cinematic cross-currents. Their excellent Brit picture, “An Education,” surely an Oscar candidate, directed by an obscure Danish filmmaker, happened to find several puddles of financing before Sony Classics seized distribution rights for the U.S..
Then, of course, there’s the ultimate indie happening — “Paranormal Activity,” which was made on a tab of $11,000 and is headed for $100 million through an astonished Paramount.
Similarly, “Precious,” a true long shot, was financed by heirs to the Celestial Tea fortune and is being distributed by Lionsgate, which hopes to make it their “Crash” of 2010.
When compared to the carefully orchestrated government subsidies and lotteries of foreign countries, the American method of nurturing art films seems haphazard, if not downright uncultured. But it’s the only way that works.
When the “majors” tried to develop and package indie films, the budgets quickly became too lofty, the casts top-heavy and the marketing spends self-defeating. Too many of the studio-backed art films were star-driven passion projects; the random passions of actors — even top actors — are at best erratic.
I discovered this some years ago when I was a studio executive and Paul Newman had a passion to star in a film with the unfortunate title “WUSA.” I told Newman that while I admired his movies, “WUSA” was a tedious political polemic that no one would pay to see. He replied that I was an ignorant asshole. Given his vehemence, I told myself, “Newman is a star, he’s working for nothing, how bad can it be?”
The answer: really bad.
Today’s few and far between indie hits aren’t star-driven — their only common denominator is that they’re accidents of history. Take “Slumdog Millionaire” or “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” or look back to the days of “Sex, Lies and Videotape” or “The Gods Must Be Crazy.”
In years past, the indie world was bolstered by some shrewd decisions and also some good luck. Sony decided to set up an indie label and not mess with it. Harvey Weinstein decided that Oscars could be important to indie films and that Oscar showmanship represented a sound business investment.
It would be hard to imagine another autonomous Sony Classics being formed today. And though Harvey’s hypothesis worked brilliantly for him in its time, the majors don’t seem to covet statuettes any more.
To be sure, while orthodox methods of marketing indie films are being disdained, no one has really worked out a new strategy. Viral praise on the web and fierce Facebook advocacy can provide magic boosts for an art movie, but engineering all that is far from a science. Not even the youthful gurus of the web have managed to package Instant Zeitgeist.
And meanwhile the indie world continues to struggle along, its sagging fortunes buttressed now and then by happy accidents. Maybe, as Tom Bernard suggests, art is indeed an accident.
In the brave new world of 10 Oscar nominees (not just five), the accidents better happen with greater regularity.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
This seems to happen on a ten year cycle. The Independents were, as best I can recall, bought up in the eighties and nineties by the studios who, after getting bored with the care it takes to release a small film, killed their "classics" divisions.
Posted by: Thomas | 11/07/2009 at 12:34 AM
Dear Mr. Bart: News Editors rarely take pride in writing well researched analysis. An Indie's success requires not only craft but timing, both can be obliterated by financing or greed and another phenomenon you rarely write about, envy. When the best meets the rest, neither talent nor timely innovative ideas matter as much as an ability to feed the viciousness of mediocrity. The best had better not be an ethnic minority or a Caucasian woman who rejects stereotypes of women by women.
Sophisticated surveillance technology has been used for decades to secure compliance. For instance, I recently was given the run around from JP Morgan Chase, after the death of my mother, for asking a question about forbearance. Instead of providing straight answers they wasted hours of my time, hours I could have been writing
creatively. They also let me know they knew they were wasting my time, recalling stereotyped information that was planted in profiles that are permanently associated with surveillance technology. "Indie" means death where this technology is used run a person and a production into the ground.
New electronic means of suppressing talent grow exponentially, while criticism of the lack of "indies" and new talent remain stagnant and lacking in perspective to a changing world.
Posted by: Pamela Curry | 11/07/2009 at 03:33 PM
Interesting article, Peter. I own a small distribution company in Canada and am finding it virtually impossible to get a theatrical release for my slate of art films.
The reason? Look at the muiltiplexes and count the number of screens they give to studio blockbusters- do they really have to give 3 or 4 screens to the SAME film in the SAME multiplex? Why? So there wont't be any lineups on opening weekend? My art films are just as good as those from Sony Classics, but that company uses it's clout to have its slate booked-"You want the Sony mainstream films like Spiderman? then book An Education, Coco Chanel etc. Or else. Capish?"
IFC has Cablevision. Magnolia owns Landmark Theatres.
The rest of the small distribution companies will simply fade.www.alexanderpress.net
Posted by: alex | 11/08/2009 at 08:11 AM
Interesting piece. I really hope the Weinstein company makes it, and I had not heard that Celestial Seasonings heirs were behind Precious. Paranormal is a truly unique perfect storm, and hopefully magic can be worked for many other small budget films.
It is also interesting that you point out that big studios are no longer aiming for the Oscar race as much as they might have in the past.
Posted by: Bill | 11/08/2009 at 10:27 AM
Independent Hollywood History: a very independent producer named H.B. Halicki made "Gone In 60 Seconds in 1974. I interviewed him and I even tried to raise money to make a documentary about this very independent producer. Mr. Halicki carried prints of his movie to a number of theaters around the country. He rented most of the theaters. Mr. Halicki rented a theater in Hermosa Beach, CA. Warner Bros. threaten the theater owner," if you rent to this guy you won't get any more movies from us". The next film, "Junk Man", Halicki ran into problems of broken agreements with theater owners and the ire of distributors. Halicki made 20 million on "60 Seconds" Not bad for a junk dealer from Gardena, CA.
There are a number of so-called, "indie films" listed in the movie sections of newspapers in major markets, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles and unless these "indie" producers rent the theaters, their films may not go an further.
As technology has changed such as going from HD to film to hold down costs for producers, they still must prove that there's a ready made audience. As with Mr. Halicki, don't mess with the "gate keepers" i.e., distributors. It's rare when a "indie" film becomes a hit in despite of itself and the gate keepers.
Right now I know of an independent film that is doing what Halicki did which is going to theaters directly and setting up screenings for one night. "Just Say Love" is the name of the film.
Judging by the holiday time of the year, the push is about the technology shift to 3D and Imax. Maybe around January through April there could be some more independent films released in what seems like a "slow period" for movie going before the summer.
The film industry of 100 years ago was based on independents. Whatever it takes to get audiences to come to a movie whether it's an independent or not is the name of the game. Anyone with a video camera and editing software is a Harvey Weinstein. But not everyone knows their audience unless you made "Paranormal" or put a zombie or vampire in it.
It takes allot to make a film and it takes even more to get it seen and that's "show business", folks!
Posted by: Iguana | 11/09/2009 at 03:56 AM
I just saw my first indie movie, The September Issue. It was ok, but not enough to buy the DVD for my collection, but still worth the ticket price.
I like going to the movies at least once a week, but far too often, there is nothing I want to see and end up watching DVD's in my home theater. That weekend, I was determined to watch a movie on the silver screen and ended up selecting The September Issue as the least crummy film. I'm not a sophisticated moviegoer, but just a guy who likes action flicks, (thrillers, war, westerns) but a well crafted comedy also works for me.
Now, another weekend approaches with zip in the offing from the studios. Tonight, I'm anxiously checking Fandango to see what indies are scheduled to open and maybe find a gem so I can to go to the movies.
Posted by: Joseph L Cooke | 11/10/2009 at 08:00 PM
Send Christmas Gifts. Buy more to send. On this site __ http://www.global4biz.com
_________________________$$$$$$$__________
________________________$$$$$$$$$$________
________________________$$$$$$$$$$$_______
_________________________$$$$$$$$$$$______
__________________________$$$$$$$$$$$_____
_____________________________$$$$$$$$$____
___________________________$$$$$$$$$$_____
http://www.global4biz.com $$$$$$$$$$$$$____
________________$$$______$$$$$$$$$$$$$$___
______________$$$$$$$$_____$$$$$$__$$$$$__
_____________$$$$$$$$$$_____$$$$____$$$$$_
___________$$$$$$_$$$$$$$$__$$$$______$$$$
__________$$$$$_____$$$$$$$$_$$$$_______$$$
___ _____$$$$$_________$$$$$$$$$$$$_______$$$
_______ $$$_____________$$$$$$$$$$$________$$$
_____$$$__ ______________$$$$$$$$$$________$$$$$$
sneaker: airmax 90, 95 etc $35-42 free shiping.
boots: UGG etc $60 free shiping.
Jeans : polo etc $35-49 free shipping
T-shirts : A&f etc $12-18 free shipping.
hoodies: 5ive etc $28-40 free shipping
handbags: Ed hardy etc $35-68 free shipping
Sunglasses: LV etc $17 free shipping
Belts: BOSS etc $15 free shipping
Caps: red bull etc $12-15 free shipping
Watches:rolex etc $80 free shipping
http://www.global4biz.com
How to order
1. Visit our website browse our products or send the picture of product to us if there are not in our website.
2. Please email us the product's name (picture), size, quantity that you need.
3. Negotiate the Price and then you make order confirmation to us.
4. We tell you Western Union Information for payment transfer.
5. You transfer the payment via Western Union to us.
6. You send the track MTCN to us, and tell us you?e Name, Address, and zip code for deliver.
7. We deliver your products after we receive the payment.
8. We send the tracking number to you.
9. Give us feedback after you get the products.
For more informations, please visit our website:
http://www.global4biz.com
?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?~*~?
Posted by: jackfreeman050 | 11/26/2009 at 03:33 AM