With digital technology, more people have the means to make films, and with more festivals, a place to show them. But what is the future of the independent movement? Being a genre of its own at this point, will it be integrated into the mainstream so much that it loses its distinctiveness? Or will it split into so many niches that its power is lost beyond a select few? I think neither will happen, as long as filmmakers and studios work together to preserve the creative and ambition of independent films.
The first danger is that independent movies will become more and more like mainstream movies. Now, whenever a director makes a well received indie, he is immediately sent scripts and offers by the major studios. These may turn out to be entertaining movies, but probably nothing that is pushing the envelope. The solution for this really lies on the filmmaker. He or she should wait for the right script to come, or produce their own script, instead of jumping at the first offer that looks good. Young directors such as Wes Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson, Sofia Coppola, and David O. Russell have all taken the time to produce an original movie every few years, and continued to expand the possibilities of the medium.
The second danger is that independent films will flood the market, and divide it into so many parts that niche audiences turn into a few people. Every week, 3 or 4 movies are given a wide release of more than 100 theatres, but 5-10 movies are given a limited release. At this point, the market is not able to support all these releases, and consequently, many of the limited releases movies lose money in the theatrical market. The solution here is for different techniques for distribution. Mark Cuban, the owner of HD films, has experimented with releasing a film in select theatres, on DVD, and on HDTV on the same day. While not hugely successful, this experiment was good for the industry, especially with changing technology. Movie theatres and some kind of home distribution will always exist, but they will eventually look very different. Not every one of the 10 limited release movies has to be put into theatres. There is an audience for these 10 films, but that the majority of that audience isn’t going to make it to the theatre. But if these movies are continually forced into theaters, eventually studios and producers will stop putting up money for small films which are very likely to lose money.
There is an interesting alternate solution to the distribution problem, which takes its inspiration from the independent music movement of the last 20 years. With equipment advanced and cheap enough, musicians were able to record their music without label money. The next step was getting their music out there, which was solved by a combination of the emergence of smaller labels and the internet. The same type of movement is underway for filmmakers – in the last couple years, a small group of filmmakers have self distributed their films. While extremely difficult, it will only get easier for future filmmakers, when local festivals and movie clubs work with small distribution companies to form a network across the country. Filmmakers will travel this circuit, going from city to city to show their movie, much like bands have been doing.
If this becomes a success, major studios may want to become involved, as they did when some independent films first started being incredibly financially successful in the 90s. The difference here is that the circuit would be a slightly different distribution model than had ever existed before. On their own, smaller companies (the equivalent of smaller record labels) can produce and distribute small films that can travel this network. Of course, the major studios will continue to pluck talent from successful “circuit” movies, but the circuit, which would depend on so many smaller companies, should be able to survive and profit everyone involved without being crushed by the media conglomerates.
Film is a collaborative art form, and the success of independent films is going to take a collaboration of artists and businessman. Filmmakers have to work with or without the studios, to find their niche, and not compromise their film to do it. And the studios and smaller companies need to seek out and create new forms of distribution, whether on inch by inch screens on portable devices, projectors in underground clubs, or giant screens in large theatres.
Notable DVDs this month:
“Stalag 17” (March 21) – Director Billy Wilder took a niche genre, and made it his own, as he had many times before. In this case, it’s a prisoner of war movie, starring William Holden. Included are a commentary by a couple of the actors and writer, and a feature on the true story of the camp.
“Capote” / “The Squid and the Whale’ (March 21) – Two Oscar nominated films that were produced by independent companies. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was deservedly nominated for the title performance of “Capote”, while Jeff Daniels should have been nominated for his portrayal of the narcissistic, charismatic father.
“King Kong” (March 28) – Peter Jackson’s follow-up to the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy has a very quick turnaround to DVD, perhaps because of the relative disappointment of the US box office gross. Jackson always loads up his DVDs with special features, and “King Kong” is no exception. Documentaries on the production take up the second disc, including a feature on how New York in the ’30s was featured.
• Alex Mechlin writes on the first of every month, exclusively in Lumino Magazine.
Powered by AkoComment 2.0!
