Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Is Independent Cinema Dead? Variety Editor Peter Bart Says So

Posted on Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 by Peter Sciretta


The following quote is attributed to Variety’s Pam McClintock:

“The worst thing that ever happened to indie film was that the studios decided it was a good business.”

And while I agree with that statement, I’m not sure I agree that Independent Movies are on the “endangered species list” as Variety editor Peter Bart writes in his latest blog entry. Bart claims that studio expectations for their art house divisions were too high. “Their production budgets were too lofty and their marketing budgets too ambitious,” Bart writes, pointing towards the downward box office trend for specialty films in 2008. Here are the Variety numbers:

2006: $416 million
2007: $330 million
2008 (so far): $161 million

While I do agree that the specialty film market is on a down turn, I think it is unfair to point to 2008’s numbers as an accurate indication of such. For example, Juno was probably the biggest indie film of last year, earning $143 million, and it wasn’t released until December. And there was no indication that it would be such a huge hit. Heck, no one had even seen the film until Telluride/Toronto. So I think it is far to early to count 2008 out.

That said, I think the quality of films being produced is not the real problem, but instead the marketing pushes behind them. For my money, The Wackness and American Teen were on level with the mini-major indies of years past, but both films were poorly represented to the mainstream public. One only has to look at the posters for each of the films mentioned to understand a problem exists. But this isn’t anything new. Picturehouse released King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters last year, and it barely went on to break a half-million dollars domestically. The film is one of the best reviewed movies of all time, and has huge appeal to the number one demographic in this country.

The problem is that the mini-majors don’t know how to sell a movie that can’t sell itself. Sony Pictures Classics doesn’t understand how to market a film, instead they prey heavily on possible award nominations for the needed push. And Fox Searchlight seems to be the only studio that knows how to market these type of films correctly. They have released eight “studio indies” in the past five years that have made over $32 million at the box office. But on the other hand, even Searchlight’s future line-up seems a bit weak. Choke is a low-budget R-rated comedy with the ability to reach the college-aged crowd, but it certainly doesn’t have the mainstream appeal of a Juno or Little Miss Sunshine. Don’t get me wrong, I love the movie, but there is only so far a film like Choke can go.

So what is the answer? Is independent film dead? And if so, who is to blame?

Discuss: What do you guys think?

Comments 

Related Posts

  • No Related Post

Tags

Fox Searchlight, Independent, Paramount Classics/Vantage, Picturehouse, Sony Classics, 

  • 2006 and 2007 were outlying aberrations; Juno and Little Miss Sunshine being the captains of those two teams.

    Further, using the box office figures to determine whether or not independent cinema is thriving seems really misguided (this is a comment of Bart, not Sciretta); that's what has always set indies apart from big budget mainstream -- they are not designed and produced with money in mind, first and foremost. The argument of film quality as it relates to revenue is sometimes valid but largely indies only make huge money if they're popular/culturally popular more than if they're really great movies (which, obviously, does have a whole lot to do with marketing but also casting and concept).

    In short: no, it's not dead. If anything, it's on the precipice of exploding (and I mean actual independent cinema, not Indiewood Fox Searchlight sort of things).
  • if he thinks independent film is dead, then he obviously isn't watching independent films.

    films like old joy, primer, mysterious skin, and brick have been released in the last 2-3 years and are all great.

    filmmakers like gus van sant and jim jarmusch still work independently and make great films.
  • september11th
    i think if sites like this talked more about independent films, there would be more excitement for them. but instead every day its vin desal and transformers and twilight and the next comic book reboot and the everything we would hear about anyways from 30 million dollar marketing campaigns.
    independant films are dying off because of bullshit like avatar, where hundreds of people develop ways to kill off the spirit of film to begin with; and this is what gets the headlines. 'new cgi developed to replace actors, new cgi developed to replace cameras'. if people are truly more interested in that garbage then of course independent films are going to die off.
  • Aldrich R.
    Independent Film will never get a marketing push as intensive or inventive as you describe Peter because their stories/themes are deemed by a studio to be inappropriate for mass distribution in the first place. The burden lies with their creators to craft a marketing design and build interest. Led mainly by a director, an independent film's marketing must be directed with all the intensity and love of a "and my nuts hurt". Yes, you read that correctly.

    It is a rather heavy burden but all independent directors of recent memory have needed to guide their movie's advancement into the consumer arena and sure they were viddied by a public that had been courted into the theater. This quite different that corralling them into a blockbuster movie.
    Each independent film is different and most marketing firms in their price range are made up of formalists that 100% of the time are thinking up ways to sell boxes of Kelloggs, McDonald french fries, Cola Pop, arm chairs, etc NOT Narratives, Character's, and pre-recorded staged human interactions (in all their complexity).
  • I'm assuming Part was referring to indie as an INDUSTRY, not indie in and of itself. Independent cinema as a viable business is certainly on the downturn, mainly because it's just harder and harder to compete with major releases on a marketing level.

    Peter alludes to marketing making or breaking indie movies (i.e. SPC vs. Fox Searchlight), that's really what it comes down to. The less aware the public is of an indie movie, the less successful it will be, so the less likely the distributor will release more indies.
  • *GROAN* I cringe at these general, misguided definitions of the term, "independent film." Juno is not an "indie film;" "Little Miss Sunshine" is not an indie film. The term really needs to be defined properly, or maybe RE-defined. It actually meant something many years ago. Now it just sounds trite, specifically when used in the above fashion.

    As a poster above said, using income as the sole measure for success is unfortunate and not necessarily telling the entire story. Yes, this is a business like any other, and profit is king, but so far this year, I've seen a handful of solid lo-budget to no-budget works (whether fictional narratives or documentaries) that barely registered on most radars. So, for those films, filmmakers and the audience members like myself, who appreciate them, and will continue to do so, indie film is most certainly NOT dead.
  • John
    The marketing campaigns for these types of films are starting to blend into the exact same set of trailers and posters. If the marketing team behind an independent movie has no idea what to do with it, they just throw together one of those really obnoxious hand drawn posters and call it a day.

    Also, how exactly can indies transcend this tiny little box people put them in when they're shown on less screens than the latest Uwe Boll travesty.

    Do the studios do anything about this? No. They just go and shut down Picturehouse, Warner Independent, and Paramount Vantage.
  • orange cinema
    i'll have to think and research before i can coome up with an answer to this one, but that one statement does sum it up pretty well.

    all's i gotta say is that 'the wackness' is one of the top 3 films i've seen in 08'. what gets me about this film, is that out of all the movie web sites i surf, peter (/film) was the only place i really found articles about it. in that sense, i realize that /film doesn't get the same volume of hits as AICN, but for me that has always made this site more of an indie place - which always proves more fulfilling, less 'cookie-cutter', and original against the others.

    is that a good analogy of indie film in the blogging era? if this truly is a consumer driven industry, and all the 'hip sites' are reporting the same stuff, then it does make sense that the indie films would be an endangered species if only 1 in 100 film sites are talking about these great independant films.

    but i really got off topic so i'll come back when i can answer it better.
  • Josh
    1. Please link to the Variety blog post.

    2. Are those figures revenues or profit? Why do studios and the media salivate over box office gross instead of profit, homeskillet?
  • Patrick O'Riley
    American Teen sure does get a lot of love here, considering it was just a modern day re-enactment of the breakfast club with a bunch of kids being fed lines for an hour and a half.
  • Agony
    I could give a shit who makes money. Film can be art, regardless of budget or profits, so in that sense, Indies aren't going anywhere. It's the same thing that's been happening in the music industry. True artists will find a way to continue to make their art as they see fit, and the clever ones will find a way to get them seen/heard, regardless of major/minor studio/label involvement.

    If you're concerned about the industry of it, you're concerned about the wrong thing; as evidenced by many of the headlines we've read here over the past few months, the studios for the most part do not know what they are doing when they interfere with the creative process. And sometimes a success is just catching lightning in a bottle, and it can't be replicated with knock-offs and trends.

    If anything, Indies will be more prominent in the near future if movie studios continue down the road they're on (just like the major record labels). When this happens, you will see more DIY and directors/writers/producers that find clever ways to finance their movies, ie. Independently.
  • The idea of the independent film as a huge moneymaker is dead. @john: Sure, they're are plenty of great films being made today, but those movies didn't even make $5 million combined.
  • DW
    There's absolutely nothing indie or independent about Juno. It was internally developed by Fox Searchlight and at least one other director before Reitman came around, and had a $9 million budget from the studio. "Indie" has practically become a curse word because of this nonsense.

    This kind of degraded, watered-down and co-opted notion of independent film is what's obscene, not that some mega-corporations can't consistently convince audiences that their low-budget offerings have street cred.
  • DW: This article is about studio produced independent films - mini-majors like Fox Searchlight producing films for under $20 million
  • DW
    Peter: I'm aware, but a phrase like "studio produced independent films" should rightfully make rational human beings throw up in their own mouths a little. It's a complete affront to all the struggling filmmakers working with real scraps. I understand why the studios have tried to claim that terminology, but I can't fathom why anyone but those execs buy into and perpetuate it.
  • Kokushi
    Peter, Blame FOX!!!!!!!!
  • andy
    this year's b.o. consisted primarily of big studio flicks, so it's not really a surprise the little indie flicks aren't getting a lot of love -- who has time or even the inclination when you've got iron man, dark knight, tropic thunder, etc.?
  • not all films being put out by fox searchlight, focus features, paramount vantage, etc., are being made by studios.

    take the film Once from last year. that was a truly independent film that got made, showed at sundance, then picked up by fox searchlight.
  • gah
    It's way too early to be making this claim. Alot of good stuff is slated to come out still. However, terrible marketing killed alot of accessible indies. In Bruges and The Wackness were both very good films that could have had broad appeal that died due to bad marketing.
  • Hunter Stephenson
    Bullshit story. When newspapers, trades, dead tree media say something is dying, it's usually true: They are.
  • K
    I've made seven feature films that have screened at major fests and had theatrical releases. They are real indie films made with blood and little money. Therein lies the difficulty as so many here have commented. Juno and the like are not indie films. However our entire system including the festival world has sold itself off for corporate dollars. There are very very few indie films that see any real play these days. It is a very difficult time. It is frustrating to say the least to watch many brilliant young filmmakers (talking people who have already made films not first timers wanting to make a film) with no opportunities and many wasted years. Our nations credit crisis and debt are not helping either. I will continue to make films because I must however I cannot see our road getting any easier - any time soon. All the talk of digital downloads has gone on for several years now with no real revenue stream in place. If anyone thinks filmmakers make a living off of Netflix revenue they are sorely mistaken.

    If you love film - support it.
  • A blog at Film Industry Bloggers goes into detail about making a movie for under $500,000 and how it can make money. The guy who wrote it, British feature director Richard Janes, says that Indie's are not dead... But the way in which studios got involved with them are...

    Have a read... He even gives a budget and samples of how much indie movies have made....

    www.FilmIndustryBloggers.com/thebritishfilmdirect...
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.