Post-Sundance Indie-Glut Theory

Jonathan Dana, who has run indie companies (Atlantic Releasing and Triton) and produced movies as well as repping and selling and consulting, emailed me a smart theory about the surfeit of Sundance acquisition titles this year, many of which remain unsold at fest's end. Here it is:

The so-called "dumb-money" has started to hit the screens.

The indie market now is split into three basic sections. At the top are the studio specialty divisions and their functional equivalents. They have done pretty well for the most part, it turns out, driven in most cases by experienced hands, sophisticated in co-production, and with enough checks and balances to keep themselves on track, yet with enough independence to take some chances (with distribution assured) and deep enough pockets to shrug off the misses.

At the "bottom" are the "out-of-left-field" indies, always ready to surprise with new talent and enough passion to deliver 1000 newbies a year into the festival vortex. These are always longshots, and I think the batting average for these films has remained steady...occasionally one breaks through, like grass through concrete. No one expects more, and everyone relishes the surprise success of a "Once" or similar classic Sundance miracle. Kind of like the old days. And in the middle are the bigger indies made on spec, without distribution in advance.

There are several subcategories of these middle-ground pictures, and many are made by careful professionals looking to make their films with a minimum of interference and yet with a careful eye on the various sectors of the market that can lead to success, both critically and commercially. But into this arena has recently poured the oft-mentioned deluge of new money, generated from a variety of sources in amounts sufficient to slosh around loosely, connecting itself often to legitimately hungry agencies or producers, often well-meaning, but with a bias towards "getting the deal done" with fewer check and balances than the traditional route, and with standards different, perhaps lesser, than for the others playing in this pricier end of the pool.

Often the presence of mid-level (or higher) stars is enough to drive these pictures, even if the scripts are weak, and the name actors are sufficient to convince inexperienced financiers that there is "enough" star power to make the picture viable, even when the specific picture might be an actor's pet project which may have been bouncing around unwanted for years (no crime), and usually without distribution, the acquisition of which always approaches alchemy.

I have no animus toward this process or to the many producers, myself included, who might benefit from it, but the results of this "glut" are now being seen. Too many movies, often with vague raison d'etres, compete for less and less shelf space, especially as the bar has been raised in both of the other categories, i.e. specialty divisions dominating the Oscars, and indie passion films lighting up both audiences and critics. Over the years I have seen similar cycles develop and recede several times, each with their individual dynamics- -tax driven-- insurance driven- -hedge fund driven, etc, but none ending well for the newcomers as a group.

I would expect the same on this cycle. Eventually the chickens come home to roost, in movies as in politics. But what the hell, we all love it anyway, and every time someone pulls the trigger something wonderful might happen. That's the great mystery, and I think the great aspiration. We all want the brass ring in one form or another. I just hope the hangover won't be too severe this time.

Comments

[T]

The reality is that there is a finite pool of talent and bringing more new money from outside the major players to bare for production increases the number of films made but not the number of good ones—or maybe very very incrementally—because of the limit of the talent pool. Another way to look at it is that year in year out the good projects do get made it seems so there is enough capital to sustain good production.

I have seen this new money cycle many times in my many years in this business.

[Jeff Dowd]

I agree with my friend Johnathan Dana
In addition, what we need now is visionary films, shorts, MyTube videos-- that show what is possible--not narcissistic, so-what movies that were shot before the scripts were ready with no eye on the marketplace--expecially compelling word-of-mouth and reviews. When we started the Sundance Institute in 1981 --we did it to help filmmakers pause before making their movies and work with the best and brightest writers and directors, producers, distributors before shooting their movies. That is the essence of what Sundance is about. Not just making your movie-- while taking advantage of actors, crew, friends, family. loved-ones and financiers because the movie isn't ready to shoot.

It's time to use our incredible power as Americans with technological and financial resources- let's -raise the bar and make great movies-- not good movies that are calling cards.

Let's make the future great. We have the power!

Jeff Dowd
the Dude Abides!
www.jeffdowd.com

[George Simian]

As long as theatrical distribution remains such a solid part of these companies financial plans, it's going to be like this. Even with their own distribution arms, these plans are highly risky. Theaters can't support this glut of films, but home video can.

Unfortunately, there is a stigma attached to straight to video that is enhanced by the press, who refuse to review them. The fact is that for the past ten years anyone who wants to see a decent movie (ie. not a studio movie) out of NY or LA has had only one choice, and it's not theaters. But this sad fact seems completely absent in the discussion of how films are financed, marketed, reviewed and distributed.

IFC cleverly gets around this, by having their own theater in NY, to get reviews, and keeping budgets lower.

But what is really needed is something like Larry Estes and Colombia TriStar in the 80's The films were made to be watched at home. Occasionally one would be deemed theatrical and reap big profits, but mostly these films made their money back because that wasn't part of the initial equation.

[StevenGaydos]

Peter Bart's piece on the subject from almost one year ago is another (pretty amusing) sign that when it comes to the unholy marriage of cash and flash, old habits die hard:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117963893.html?categoryid=1&cs=1&query=%22funny+money%22