I never told Robert Redford to suck it
I want to expand, redirect and challenge some of the discussion on my earlier post about Sundance, The Nines, and the death of independent film.
For starters, many in the P2P world were all too happy to declare victory over, well, logic. (The Nines Director: Forget Sundance, Use P2P Instead). That’s incorrect on a lot of levels.
In the article, I said that leaking a copy online at the right moment would have certainly increased awareness, and might have helped sales of tickets, DVDs and paid downloads. Notice that I really am talking about sales — that antiquated notion where people pay for things. My thesis is that if you make it at least as easy to obtain something legally as illegally, a fair number of potential users are happy to pay for it.
And I said nothing approaching, “Forget Sundance.” I said that Sundance buzz is annoying and meaningless, but that doesn’t mean the festival is irrelevant. Quite the contrary. Film festivals are public events in which thousands of people come together to watch challenging, independent film. The failure of arthouse distribution for indies makes festivals even more essential, because without film festivals, most of these movies would never screen before an audience.
Sundance is the Grauman’s Chinese Theater of festivals — you really do want to premiere there, to reach the biggest number of eyeballs at once. For two weeks each year, the American media pretends to give a shit about non-blockbusters. People stand in line to see documentaries, and Parker Posey is considered a star. It’s Fantasyland. So you trudge up and down the snow-covered streets, visiting all the different outlets and pimping your movie.
But wait. Didn’t I say the buzz is useless?
I think it is, at least as a component of the traditional bought-at-Sundance, released-six-months-later cycle. But if you could shorten that, and get those buzz-worthy movies from Park City in front of audiences worldwide in two weeks, I think you’d find some real success. Studios do this all the time with their quasi-indies, premiering them at a festival as a launch pad. We did it with Go in 1999.
Would it be difficult to go from Sundance to worldwide in two weeks? Absolutely. The lead time on a commercial DVD is still six weeks or more. But pay-per-view, iTunes and Netflix online have a lot more flexibility. All the legal work (clearances and contracts) would be a scramble. But we absolutely could have done it with The Nines.
Where does that leave theatrical?
I don’t know. My hunch is that for indies, the arthouse circuit is best left to special events and filmmaker Q&A’s. The Academy has rules about how long a film has to play in theaters in order to be eligible for awards, so for certain films, that may be a factor. But what readers outside Los Angeles may not realize is that many of the award-contender movies are sent to voters on DVD before they’re playing theaters.
Other small notes:
You can disagree with me about whether Once tanked. I loved the movie, and felt it could have and should have made a lot more. Its low budget is ultimately irrelevant, because the real money was spent on marketing.
A Sundance award-winner from this year, Ballast, dropped its deal with IFC and will self-distribute. The director gives a lot of good insight about why, and just how low the dollar figures are. If I were in his shoes, I might have done the same thing. With The Nines, we had Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis, who were big enough names to generate some minimums. Without any stars, it’s tough to shake out more money.
Also notable is that Ballast was to be distributed through IFC’s First Take program, which debuts movies simultaneously in theaters and by video-on-demand, much like 2929′s HDNet Films program. It seems like the right idea, so I’m curious whether the business model will work.
The Sundance folks are adamant that it’s a festival, not a market. Redford himself has said, “We have to remind people of who we are and what we’re about…[W]hen buyers are coming in and looking at the guide (for commercial product), I don’t care about what’s commercial. I think we should leave that to the mainstream.”
Coming back to one of the key ideas in the original article, I’d stress that the real measure of success for an indie film’s release is how many people saw it. Festivals let people see your movie. So do theatrical, DVD, pay-per-view, TV and yes, piracy. Finding the right combination these elements is the challenge. I don’t think I have the answer, but I can safely say it’s not what we did on The Nines.
Articles
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
It just depends what your goals are. For me, direct to DVD is a doable, lucrative path. In order to make money doing this, you have to have a plan and a genre film. The formula is simple – an internationally viable film, either horror or action, with recognizable stars.
As for Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis, for your type of film, I’m not sure if the names were big enough. This thought comes on the heels of a meeting with my distribs, who claimed Gary Oldman was not big enough to carry my $5M film in prepro now. Now if Gary Oldman is considered “not big enough”….god help us.
The people that sell these flicks for us really do know better.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
@Adamo Cultraro: Another thought to consider is that while Ryan Reynolds is certainly a recognizable name, The Nines is not really the genre for which he’s known. So a lot of his “quirky comedy” folks might not be attracted to that kind of film – or, having seen it – not be inclined to forward it among their social group.
It’s almost, but not quite, the equivalent of doing the film with no stars: there’s some recognition already, but you have to rebuild the image of the people associated with the film in order for it to be well-received.
This is, of course, assuming you can’t spend millions on P&A to re-educate the audience to the awesomeness you are delivering.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Great point, Earl.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Hey, look on the bright side – a commenter on that P2P site called you “the diametric opposite of Eli Roth”. Nice.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Hi John,
I recently wrote/produced my first feature (ultra-low budget NY walk-n-talk comedy, no major names–I was watching Baumbach’s Kicking and Screaming on repeat when I wrote it) and we came across a lot of the issues you raised (down to the idea that maybe we should just get ourselves ripped, if only for the exposure in places like Pirate Bay). While we didn’t have anything against festivals, for us, it didn’t seem like the right (or likely) fit. If the goal, at end, is to have the most amount of people see it, then why not let the whole world have access rather than just festival attendees? Is the only reason money? If so, why not create an incentive for people to buy/download the movie other than wanting to see it for the first time? Maybe through extra features, maybe so they can show it to friends without crappy compression rates, or maybe just to help out a charity (in our case we give a portion of the money to a charity, which relates to the subject of the movie). There are a lot of reasons people buy things. Personally, I tend to buy DVDs of movies I’ve already seen.
For people in our position, wanting to make back a pretty small budget and get our names out there, free on Youtube wasn’t actually a bad idea. We were lucky enough to speak with the folks at Youtube–they said they’d world premiere it (making it the first feature, they confirmed, to be world premiered by the site in full). So we put together a revenue model and did it.
You are, of course, right that festivals, buzz, traditional distribution, all come with major major benefits. But in our case (and it seems in a lot of cases these days), when all you want in the early stages of a career is to get seen, then free is risky, but worthwhile. And it can even make back certain budgets, though maybe not the kind that have major names involved.
In any case, thanks for your posts. It’s great to see how a writer/creator in your position handles these issues. I hope you keep making great movies (I watched The Nines recently, in addition to your written work), and find great ways to distribute.
best,
daniel nayeri http://www.cultofsincerity.com
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I generally agree with your points John, but I think for far too long filmmaking aspirants have just said, “I’m going to make a film and take it to Sundance” without realizing the odds against them not only to gain entry into the festival, but then to find a distribution deal that wasn’t disappointing.
The big festivals do give you and your film pedigree, and that does have career value, but as you have found it doesn’t necessarily add to your immediate bottomline.
Ultimately I think Sundance will either need to embrace mantle of a marketplace that has been foisted upon it or get even more aggressively anti-mainstream and weird in its selections. Sales at this years fest were way down and that could continue to be a trend.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Your thinking is dead right, John.
Ages ago, when I bought film rights for Canal+ in the Netherlands, we did an experiment with the Rotterdam Film Festival.
On smaller films that premiered at the festival, I negotiated a deal in which the Pay TV would air 5 movies ON THE NIGHT OF THEIR FESTIVAL PREMIERE.
Before the event, everybody in the industry believed the distributor (a major arthouse distrib) was insane.
The festival received tremendous exposure through our joint marketing of the event and so did these 5 films. The distributor got a nice wad of cash for the exclusive airing and those film lovers outside Rotterdam experienced a bit of the festival in their homes.
When the films were released theatrically, they got more interest than other festival releases, for the same reason.
Everybody won.
(The first day after the festival, I was contacted by the distributor to see if we could work together on the next edition.)
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Just so I said it — I fear the day when you can’t talk to us like normal people anymore just because of all the Janko Roettgers-es. -synthian
July 4th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Great article John. So, the Nines didn’t make that much money or get the exposure you hoped it would. But will it lead to more directing work?
July 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Earl… I think the Cruise/Kubrick combination in Eyes Wide Shut had similar problems. Fans of either may be unlikely fans of the other. Then again you don’t know what you’re capable of, or how good you are at something until you try it. You have to make the audience open their eyes a little, as it were.
Reynolds was fantastic in this movie. Cruise was too in Eyes Wide Shut, despite the nut factor.
I really enjoyed your movie, John.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
ugh…barfing all over this post, mainly because i think nothing beats beating a movie in the confines of a theater and that applies even more so for ‘smaller’ films. If films like “the nines” were routinely pre-released on DVD or other alternative channels I fear you’d be shutting down our local independent theater.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
John,
I’m curious about why you decided to do such a unique film for your directorial debut rather than capitalizing on your considerable commercial success to do a more mainstream film? Actually, I’m curious about your career overall because it seems to be a nice mix of the unique and/or Indie (Go, Big Fish, The Nines) and the straight commercial (Charlie’s Angels, etc). Was this a practical decision, an artistic choice, or both?
July 4th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I’m not sure Once tanked.
Budget €180,000 (estimated) $150,000 (estimated)
Box Office $9,437,933 (USA) £630,834 (UK) AUD 1,078,631 (Australia) LBP 6,708,161 (Lebanon)
None of these numbers (taken from IMDB) include worldwide sales of DVD’s, television sales and soundtrack.
I’d love for my 200,000 dollar film to tank at well over ten million dollars.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
John August: “I…told Robert Redford to suck it”
You mind if I quote you on that?
If memory serves, this is not the first time you have been misquoted and had to write a follow up to respond to it. It’s almost as if these writers lack basic comprehension skills.
By the way, John, I was wondering why you (not you specifically, but those in charge of the movie) decided to make The Nines available for sale on iTunes, but not for rent. In Canada, it’s $19.99, which is $5 more than in the US, despite the dollar being on par.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:30 am
Roger Ebert has mentioned this before and I think it’s a good idea. It’s time for festivals to be counted and contribute to the box office gross of films. If a film has a successful festival run, that means people are going to see it. It’s not the same throngs of people lining up at the multiplex, but the film is finding an audience, and festivals should give a percentage of those box office receipts back to the filmmakers. I realize that festivals also need that box office revenue to continue running, but it seems to me that there should be some sort of compromise where a percentage of ticket sales go back to the filmmakers and count toward the box office grosses. Or am I off base here? Is there a compelling reason why festival receipts should not count toward box office?
July 5th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I think it was Harvey Weinstein who said, “It doesn’t matter if I buy a film for a dollar, I still have to spend $20M marketing the damn thing.” In other words, mark, it’s time to stop quoting production budgets and box-office returns and then marveling at the RIO on a $200k flick.
I’d going to disagree with John August on two points:
1) Success is not how many people see your film. Success is whether or not the returns on your film allow you enough financial stability to make another film. I am more than willing to grant that return may include intangibles that ultimately contribute to the ablity to make another film.
2) I disagree that “without film festivals, most of these movies would never screen before an audience.” Although we’ve had some festival success with some of our film, and those success ahve no doubt contributed to those films’ reaching their respective audience, our best selling, most widely seen film has not been in one festival. Not one. So far, 18 months after it’s release on DVD, it’s grossed about $250,000; and because we self-distribute, a much large chuck of that gross goes into our company’s war chest than if we had gone the traditional DVD distro route.
And Robert Redford should suck it for allowing that ugly, dehumanizing, but worst of all, boring piece of crap DESTRICTED play at Sundance.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
John, Synthian, first of all I’m amused by the fact that I’m apparently not one of the normal people anymore … but to be fair, “Forget Sundance” was part of my article’s headline, with the article itself making reference to the very buzz factor you’d been talking about.
And yes, it may have been a play of words to be provocative and catchy, but that happens to be best of us. Heck, I’ve heard some people even use headlines to declare the “death of independent film” :)
Happy belated Indie day everyone!
July 5th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Janko- Hey, I’m not saying you’re not one of the normal people… Haven’t the foggiest!
What I’m saying is: At this point I can count the honest mentors I have in Hollywood on one hand. Every once in a while, someone who has already succeeded turns around does something that is truly cool. We can thank them and throw whatever power we have behind them… or we can make it so that every time they try and help someone, they get Picasso-f*ck-distorted and spend actual minutes on self defense. Either way, the argument that goes: “But other people do it!â€? died a long time ago… like, with apartheid. – So I’m not entirely sure that mimicking tabloid headlines qualifies as moral high ground.
It’s the same reason I shield my eyes when I walk past those massive news stands on Sunset. You’re totally aware of how far-from-context those headlines can be… and you know that if you look, they’ll be about your friends.
Call me a radical, but I think pretty much any guy should be able to answer questions like, “Hey, how’d that work out for ya?â€? without his f**king lawyer present. (Or in truer J.A. context — without HER lawyer present.) You dig?
July 6th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Great article, but I just wanted to say that the title is hilarious.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Hi John –
This whole “Indie film is dead” discussion that the blogosphere has been having is really a lot of hooey…
Indie film (whatever that truly means) has movedon. It is the “Studio Indie” business model that is taking its hits to the groin — and for the most part deservedly so.
Someone at the studio level convinced investors/ financiers that it was a good idea to mass release niche appeal films. Even as DVD was the primary revenue source for every movie in a studio’s release slate, they thought it was a good idea to put a “quirky indie darling” from a festival into 1000 theaters across the USA in order to make money. All they really did was increase the overhead for each film. “Quirky”
I ran into this several times even on my D2VD side of the business. Filmmakers wanted to “Give” us their film in order to get it into Blockbuster, not realizing that it costs money to release a movie even just on D2DVD. Based on projections there were some movies we would never see a penny on even if we had acquired it for free.
It seems insane to think that Studios convinced investors to do the same. Thankfully, today’s filmmakers have many tools at their disposal to directly connect with film fans outside of festivals (or in conjunction with), magazines and the like. You can even get free marketing information (just not from me).
What I’ve always found is that Festival buzz is good for the filmmakers, but really doesn’t add anything to the actual sales of the film. Producers would be better off concentrating on creating a sellable, accessible film.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Wow – rambled a bit on that one…sorry.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Its funny how filmmakers get into all these variables of theories as to why their film did not do better, and they never stop to think, “Oh damn….maybe my movie just sucks.” I saw The Nines. It was a chore to watch and not the least bit enjoyable in any way. It was one of those films that feels as if it thinks its smarter than you in an obnoxious quasi-intellectual level. Terrible terrible film. That is why it failed….be honest John.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
@Shawn:
While a sizable percentage of viewers and critics disagree, fine let’s say you’re right and The Nines sucks donkeyballs. That’s why I included 22 other Sundance classmates in my original example, all of which sold and all of which faced a meat-grinder when they hit theatrical. Watch all 22, and if you think they all suck, then this is probably not a meaningful discussion for you to be having.
@Bill Cunningham:
The majority of the movies I cited were not released by studios’ indie labels, and never got that small-wide release.
@Tony Comstock:
Just to point out that every filmmaker makes his or her last film. So basing a movie’s success on whether it allows a filmmaker to make another has a logical limit.
And most movies aren’t self-distributed, so I stand by my defense of festivals.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Shawn,
If you found the film a chore to watch and felt that it was one of those films that thinks it’s smarter than you, perhaps it’s just because you’re aren’t really bright enough to understand it. I do notice that this is a common complaint among those who I would not tend to think of as all that bright.
Besides, the fact that films that are terrible (Meet The Spartans, anyone) DO sometimes make so much money doesn’t exactly make your theory all that valid. You don’t have to have been around a long time to realize that sometimes, good films don’t make money. John’s question is, why? Of course it’s a lot more fun to act the moron and tell him it’s because his movie sucked.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
While I’m no festival regular, I’d also say they serve a purpose just in offering the chance to meet people in the industry and make friends. And I don’t mean the hard-sell, “hey, great-to-meet-you-here’s-my-card-come-see-my-film-gotta-run” type of schmoozing crap. But just meeting good folks who, like myself, are starting out and are fun to have a beer or 10 with. This was one of the main things I enjoyed about Austin last year and a reason I might trek all the way from Australia for it again this year. That and the chance to learn a few things from some pretty handy writers.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:58 am
RE: Logical Limit
Just because your film made enough money to make another film, doesn’t mean you have to. But better to chose not to, then be unable to because you can’t scrape together the budget. If all that matters is eye-balls, better to make handicam virals and load them onto YouTube. I stand by my definition of “success” ;-)
RE: Most Movies
It’s entirely inaccurate to say that “most movies aren’t self-distributed.” Most movies” aren’t distributed at all. “Most movies” play a handful of unknown festivals (if any) and disappear. “Most movies” that play at the “real” filmfests (Berlin, Cannes, Venice, Toronto, Sundance) aren’t distributed at all (self or otherwise.)
Are film festivals a viable way to promote a film? Sure. Are they the best? Maybe. Are they the only way? Absolutely not!
July 10th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Just wondering your take on Eric Wilkinson’s experience with P2P and his film, The Man From Earth.
http://www.rlslog.net/piracy-isnt-that-bad-and-they-know-it/
July 18th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
‘I never told Robert Redford to suck it’
Hmm… what would a child psych, or Shakespeare, or Freud, make of this title?
Have you, as yet, not had the opportunity to ask RR to blow you, or, have you not yet admitted your openness to being blown by RR, or, have you not admitted your openness to being blown by your own future past-perfect imaginary self?
Just curious, John
(or, Marcy Forgey’s first cousin; the one who terrified her in childhood with my plastic, red, toothy, glow-in-the-dark, T-rex).