I ran into Chris Dorr last week and had a good conversation with him about the many different ways the film world needs to engage with social media. One of the ideas here offered was exhibitors and festivals utilizing FourSquare. I tweeted the genius idea and sure enough soon learned that at least one film festival was ahead of the curve. AMERICAN SPLENDOR created a soft spot in my heart for Cleveland and now learning what the Cleveland International Film Festival was up to brought a sweet pang of joy.
Today’s post is a guest post from Mathew Seig of New York Foundation For The Arts. We are thankful he’s picked up on this question and hope many of you also offer up suggestions.
WHO CAN REALLY HELP INDIE FILM?
Small film festivals, but they need help from larger ones.
Assuming that we care about films playing to a live audience in a dark theater, film festivals are the most likely venue that most independent filmmakers are going to have. For that purpose, the thousand or two thousand small U.S. festivals are as important as the largest. So instead of focusing solely on the large festivals that usually dominate our attention, let’s consider the small local and regional film festivals where independent films get most of their exposure. Large or small, film festivals have an important place in the changing world of independent film discussed by Ted Hope (“The New Model For Indie Film: The Ongoing Conversation”) at New York Foundation for the Arts on May 28, 2009 and then posted on TrulyFreeFilm.
As with so many of the independent films that they show, small festivals (and community micro-cinemas and similar venues) exist thanks to the largely unpaid efforts of serious film lovers. They don’t offer premiers of star-driven films or attract distribution representatives, but we increasingly rely on small festivals to nurture artists and audiences, and to bring personal and specialized cinema of all kinds to out-of-the-way communities. Yet small festivals share with filmmakers an urgent need to adapt to the changing circumstances of the entire business. Unlike the concern we regularly hear for filmmakers, distributors and theaters, there isn’t much hand-wringing about the fate of small festivals, or their quality, or much information about how they can keep up with the times, grow and improve.
Small festivals are largely staffed by people with a strong love of film but often without much knowledge of exhibition. To survive, prosper and grow, they need information, support, encouragement and useful criticism. The people who can best help them are those who have experience managing successful festivals, and who know how to develop relationships with audiences, sponsors, distributors and filmmakers.
Large festivals are some of the most logical places to institute this process. They provide important access to films, filmmakers and distributors, so they are already attended by representatives from smaller festivals. Adding educational programs, festival labs, and networking opportunities for their smaller cousins and for people entering the business would strengthen the entire community. A thousand healthy film festivals will help many thousands of filmmakers.
1. Some festivals will pay you 2. Maybe they can do a PAL dub for you 3. Foreign fests could supply you with translation that you can use later on DVD 4. Connection to local theaters
Jon Dieringer, my former assistant on ADVENTURELAND — and who was a lot of fun, did good work and you should hire –, recently did a “cheat sheet” distilling a lot of the information from this blog. I think he did a very nice job and I will be funneling his work to you over the next few days. Feel free to provide any suggestions on how to enhance it further.
I am starting if off with what started off the blog: Film Festival Strategy
Festival Goals
Plan A has got to be that you will need to be the leading force in the distribution of your film. This is the DIY model.
Plan B is that various experts will all want to work with you on Co-Distributing your film, albeit for a fee.
Plan C is that buyers for different media will want your film and you need to be able to evaluate how to mix and match these offers — or even accept those offers at all.
Plan D is that someone will make an offer of such an amount that it is worth considering giving up all your rights to your film for the next twenty years.
Okay, I think it’s obvious that I prefer to look at the opportunities and solutions before us, as opposed to the problems and concerns, but I am afraid this post may obscure that just a tad.
I am going to be on the Fox Business News network’s “America’s Nightly Scorecard” (630P-730P EST) tonight and I thought I would put my mind to what issues are affecting indie film right now. Off the top of my head I came up with a few issues that we need to solve to return to the glory days of years passed. I am sure with your help, we can come up with some more too.
I don’t have time to rank them so maybe you can let me know how you feel.
Too many leisure options for film to compete without further enhancing the theatrical and cinematic experience.
Too many “specialized” films opening to allow such films to gain word of mouth and audience’s attention.
Too many films available and being distributed to allow films to stay in one theater for very long, making it more difficult to develop a word of mouth audience.
No AccessLack of access — outside of NYC & LA –to films when they are at their highest media awareness (encourages bootlegging, limits appeal by reducing timeliness).
Distrib’s abandonment (and lack of development) of community-building marketing approaches for specialized releases (which reduces appeal for a group activity i.e. the theatrical experience).
Distrib’s failure to embrace limited streaming of features for audience building.
Reliance on large marketing spend release model restricts content to broad subjects (which decreases films’ distinction in marketplace) and reduces ability to focus on pre-aggregated niche audiences.
Emphasis on upfront compensation for star talent creates budgets that can’t reasonably recoup investment.
HP&W fringe levels at too high a level to allow low-bud production to benefit from know how and talent of union labor.
Lack of media literacy/education programs that help audience to recognize they need to begin to chose what they see vs. just impulse buy.
Collapse of US acquisition market requires reduced budgets for filmmakers, and thus resulting in limiting content.
Collapse of International sales markets requires reduced budgets for filmmakers, and thus resulting in limiting content.
Foreign subsidies for marketing of foreign film makes reduces buyers’ acquisition appetite for US product.
Foreign subsidies for foreign productions contribute greater budget percentage than US tax rebates do, allowing foreign productions to have larger budgets and thus more production value and expansive content — thus making it harder for US product to compete.
Recession has reduced private equity available for film investment.
Credit crunch has reduced ability to use debt financing for film investment.
Threat of piracy makes library value of titles unstable, which in turn limits investment in content companies and reduces acquisition prices, which in turn reduces budgets, which in turn limits the options for content — so everybody loses.
No new business model for internet exploitation at a level that can justify reasonable film budgets.
Lack of community embrace of new creative story expansion models that would facilitate audience aggregation and participation (to seed, build, drive audiences).
Emphasis on single pictures for filmmakers vs. ongoing conversation with fans has lead to a neglect of content that helps audiences bridge gaps between films and that would prevent each new film to be a reinvention of the wheel for audience building.
Panic due to the 15 year promise of crystal clear downloads over internet despite the reality that it still has not developed — allowing the fear to move to a business practice of inactivity.
Bootleggers have developed a platform that allows audiences to simply download whatever they want where ever they want whenever they want — something that the film industry has yet to do.
Loss of job for newspaper based film critics reduces curatorial oversight which lessens word-of-mouth and want-to-see.
Reliance on synopsis style reviewing fails to provide enriching cultural context for film and thus reduces audience satisfaction.
Lack of marketing/distribution knowledge by filmmakers limits DIY success.
Indie filmmakers mimic Hollywood’s obsession with regurgitating past success models, by regurgitating past festival hits’ story-lines or navel gazing. Cinema is 100 years old but we still tell the same stories in the same ways. Audiences get bored, move on, play video games.
Amer-Indie filmmakers are only recently starting to look at non-US-centric stories that can “travel” into international territories.
America has no funding for the arts so filmmakers have to develop material based on pre-existing markets instead forward thinking inspiration.
America has no co-production treaties (other than Puerto Rico’s Letters Of Understanding) that allow filmmakers to access foreign soft money subsidies.
The specialized distributors force exhibitors to program for full week runs, preventing them from developing local community audience or niche programs on off nights.
The truly independent exhibitors are not yet developed into a collaborating organization that would allow true independent features to be easily booked nationwide.
There is no independent collection and disbursement agency that could allow DIY distribution to take hold.
Filmmakers still believe that festivals are first and foremost markets and not media launches.
The ego-driven approach to filmmaking vs. one of true collaboration generally yields lower quality of films and greater dissatisfaction amongst all participants.
Lack of real role models who represent integrity and commitment to the craft (in order to inspire others).
Corporate hierarchy and access that is driven foremost by privilege (college, connections, class) limiting diversity and new content and approaches.
Inability for filmmakers to influence iTunes editors to promote their work.
Referring back to your post “Who Do you Really Need to Meet at Film Festivals?” I wanted to talk about how we (film festivals) can be helpful to filmmakers beyond the hope of a big distribution deal… I think I can speak for most of us when I say that festival programmers are in this because we are truly passionate about film, and really want to help films find their audience. I think there are many ways that festivals can help independent filmmakers reach out into our communities and build their audience. Our audience here in Ashland is hungry for truly independent film (and for the interaction with filmmakers that is such an essential part of the festival experience). I hope that we can continue to work with filmmakers to develop new business models that will benefit both their distribution efforts, and a healthy future for film festivals and independent theaters, as well.
You asked for some suggestions… I mentioned recently in a response to your blog (http://www.ashlandfilm.org/News.asp?NewsID=30), that our festival helps to bring back festival films for theatrical runs at our home base, the Varsity Theater (part of the Coming Attractions theater chain). We work with their Programmer by giving suggestions of films we think are appropriate, and then we help them by publicizing the films to our mailing list (building on the word-of-mouth that was created during the Festival), and by use of in-kind advertising that we have with local media.
I’ve heard many positive stories from our filmmakers about meeting up with other programmers and exhibitors during the festival who have then gone on to book their films at their festivals and theaters. These are people who are often on our juries (another benefit to having your film at a festival – a great way to build relationships and get exposure to people in the industry). For example, Richard Beer, the Artistic Director of Film Action Oregon/The Hollywood Theatre Project in Portland (and part of The Art House Convergence happening at Sundance this month) is on our Advisory Board, has been a juror at our festival, and he and I often share ideas about films we are excited about. This has been mutually beneficial for our programming here at the festival and at the Hollywood Theater, and especially for the filmmakers whose films we both screen. Recently Richard told me that after meeting director Todd Darling at our ’08 festival, he programmed SNOWMOBILE FOR GEORGE as part of his weekend documentary series, and after seeing THE CAKER EATERS here, he invited it to POW Fest (where it won Best Feature) and will be giving it a theatrical run this spring.
Filmmakers have told me about selling large numbers of dvds after screenings (in our lobby), collecting emails from the audience to continue their outreach, and of making contacts with attending press (also often on our jury). I think the Art House Convergence at Sundance is a very exciting opportunity for programmers of festivals to network with exhibitors, and for filmmakers to meet us all.
Personally, I’d love to hear more from filmmakers about their successes and especially about what festivals can do to help self-driven distribution efforts, so we can offer more than the hope that “your film [will] be discovered and you [will] be given a pot of gold and the keys to Hollywood.” 🙂
………………………………… Joanne Feinberg Director of Programming ashland independent film festival 8th Annual, April 2-6, 2009
joanne@ashlandfilm.org www.ashlandfilm.org P.O. Box 218 Ashland OR 97520
non-profit (501) ( c ) (3)
Ted adds:Joanne’s wish to hear more from filmmakers about how the festivals can help is ours too hear at TFF. What ideas do you have?
