Why no one is buying your indie film
Anne Thompson’s Variety article on the challenging market at Sundance this year is worth a read for anyone considering the indie route.
I’ve written several times about my festival experience with The Nines, and how the classic paradigm of how indie films get bought and distributed is almost a myth. Most Sundance movies don’t sell, and many of the sales aren’t profitable for either side. We remember the exceptions, the break-out hits, but those are more elusive than we think:
Last year’s most-ballyhooed Sundance sales found no glory at the domestic box office: Focus Features’ $10 million worldwide acquisition “Hamlet 2,” Searchlights $5 million “Choke,” Overture’s $3.5 million “Henry Poole Is Here,” Paramount Vantage’s $1 million-$2 million “American Teen,” and two Sony Pictures Classics pickups, ‘The Wackness” and ‘Baghead” (which were bought for under $1 million).
Hamlet 2 was easily the most commercial, but it made $5 million. You can understand why buyers are gun-shy, and why indie financiers are hard to find.
So what should a Sundance filmmaker expect?
A great audience, smart questions and very cold weather. Like The Nines, some movies will find distribution after the festival, but more and more filmmakers will need to be looking for alternative ways to get their movies out into the world. But I suspect the festival itself will be more enjoyable than it has been for years, with more focus on the movies and less on the deals.
Articles
January 16th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I would economically summarize Anne Thompson’s article — or, more generally, its subject matter — as:
Dear Indie Film Director,
Idiot.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Because more work was put into bucking the Hollywood system and creating a film with a unique voice (which is honorable if your voice is entertaining) than thinking about who the audience is for the film and how it will sell. Too many times indie filmmakers cop the attitude of “if I make it, they will come.” Well, it’s not the field of dreams out there. I know, I’ve been there and have the unsold films to prove it. You need to put work into figuring out your audience and help build it. Otherwise, how can you expect someone to buy your film when you don’t even know who they should sell it to…
January 16th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Well, they’re not going to find anything like ‘The Dark Knight’ at that festival, or any movie that can bring in the audience like it. At least the film companies are still showing up and paying, if not too much, for some of the films. I wonder if there will be anything worthwhile there this year…
January 16th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
S, I find your response a bit… unnerving. I know you’re “economically” summarizing the subject, but it stings. Anyone who pursues to create art, to slave through the challenges of putting together a film, isn’t interested in economics, because if they were, they’d invest their money in… I don’t even know anymore, Berkshire Hathaway?
The old adage is true. If you go into the film industry for the thrill of making millions from your hot and fresh “Juno” story, you won’t make it. I don’t think that the indie directors and producers and whatnot feel like failures, or at least I hope they don’t. They made the movie to be seen by an audience, and each person who gets to see it is another success for them, for getting their vision in front of someone.
Sure it’s naive and sentimental, but what dream isn’t?
January 16th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
“Well, it’s not the field of dreams out there.”
Sure it is. Forgo economic security to invest in something that others think is crazy only to end up with something that, ultimately, only you and one of your relatives are enjoying.
Sounds exactly like Field of Dreams.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Like other commenters here, I’m glad indie films are finding a harder time getting distributed. Sometimes when I’m going to see a hilarious high-concept comedy like “Mall Cop” or “Yes Man,” or a re-make of an 80’s horror film, or even a re-make of a recently successful movie starring the same actors as the original (“Fast and Furious”), I wonder why anyone would go through the trouble to make a personal movie when there is clearly no immediate or long-term return on investment. Not only are indie filmmakers foolish, but they’re arrogant to think they should have the right to compete at the box office with the offspring of infallible studio market research. Every time an indie film plays at my local cineplex, I get discouraged to think of all the tweens who could instead be watching “Twilight” for the eighth or ninth time. Ok, gotta run, I’m off to see Jennifer Aniston in a new romantic comedy!
January 17th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
From the article: “…Last year London left Sundance without having sold “Mysteries of Pittsburgh,” starring Peter Saarsgard…”
Is this the “Mysteries of Pittsburgh” the Michael Chabon BOOK? I adore that book. Where have I been that a whole movie has been made from it and I didn’t know? Oh, wait, no one bought the movie… BOO!
I guess I’ll be joining Mike at the new Jenn Aniston comedy.
January 17th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
John:
I think what one can expect from Sundance is dependent on where one is in their career.
For you, John, you are established, and, therefore, selling a film at Sundance is your chief goal.
For me, I am seeking to establish myself and a career. Therefore, Sundance is one of those avenues of getting that first notice. Sure- many go to Sundance and fail. Many also go to Sundance and suceed. Maybe not at distribution for the project that have at Sundance, but in creating relationships for that next project.
I totally see that process like a lottery, and, I, therefore, have no expectations that my film project will get in for 2010. But, I got to say that I would be crazy not to realize what Sundance means. I would love to have the option of saying, “It did not work out” rather than, “they never selected me.”
So, sure, I may not make money on that first project. Although, even on that front, we should note that every few years we are told independent film is dead. Yet, it rises again and again.
Moreover, I can agree that the reality is that the industry as a whole is changing. No one knows where this business is going. Including the big tent producers and/or studio films.
I am proceeding on the advice of Sean Penn’s producing partner, whom I met a few years ago. “Look at this as a career. Get your stuff made. But realize you are not just one project.”
I have no way of knowing whether this is the right way to see the business. However, this is how I am approaching it.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
@Carol:
Mysteries of Pittsburgh was written and directed by my former assistant, Rawson Thurber. I’ve seen it three times, and love it. But the fact that it didn’t sell quickly despite good notices and a name-brand cast is emblematic of the challenges of indie film.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
How could “Hamlet 2″ only make $5 million? I just watched it on DVD and thought it was hilarious. Maybe it will make up some of its losses through rentals.
January 18th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Hope you are still reading this post, John.
re: Mysteries of Pittsburgh… Good luck to Rawson Thurber. Anybody that loves that book as much as I do would be someone who’s films I’d be interested to see.
Any chance it’ll wind up on video so I can watch it?
January 18th, 2009 at 7:23 am
that was “whose” films, not “who’s” films…
January 18th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Yeah, it’s emblematic of the challenges of an indie film if you consider said “challenges” usually revolve around non-commerical art films, regardless of the cast.