|
Vocapedia > Media > USA > NYT > Illustrations >
2008-2009
Mickey Duzyj
New Season | Movies
Exploring New Routes to the Indies
September 13, 2009
The New York Times
By MANOHLA DARGIS
and A. O. SCOTT
SUMMER is Hollywood’s silly season, but it’s also when the big
studios dominate chatter and screens with blockbuster blowouts like
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” Fall, on the other hand, is the
industry’s serious season, when the studios trot out the kind of aesthetically
ambitious, modestly priced work that dominates Top 10 lists and tends to clean
up at the Oscars.
In the last two years, however, several studios have shut down or absorbed the
specialty divisions that provided them with some of their most critically
praised titles, films like “Good Night, and Good Luck” and “There Will Be
Blood.” Financing has dried up as the economy has gone sour, and even
well-regarded films have struggled to turn a profit. All of which makes us
wonder if these types of serious, middle-size movies will become an endangered
species.
Yet even as the ranks of studio divisions have thinned, the movies have kept
coming. In the past few years the critics at The New York Times have reviewed
more than 600 movies annually, sometimes 20 in a given week, a trend showing few
signs of reversal. And it isn’t just big studio releases that are bringing
people into theaters: business is also brisk at boutique theaters like the IFC
Center in Greenwich Village. And buying a ticket to stare at a screen in a room
full of strangers is, of course, no longer the only way to see a movie.
Distribution innovations, like video on demand (VOD), which can allow you to
watch movies on your TV the same day they open in theaters, have ushered in a
new age of spectatorship.
Is all this plenty a good thing? Subtitles and Paul Thomas Anderson’s widescreen
compositions don’t look good on a cellphone, and the aesthetic and economic
consequences of these new ways of watching are not yet apparent. Is the audience
for thoughtful, challenging, adventurous cinema growing, disappearing or
dispersing into ever-smaller niches? Will moviegoing, which survived broadcast
television and the VCR, continue in the age of the smartphone and the DVR? Will
there be more movies or fewer? Will they get better or worse? Next year the
Academy Awards will include 10 nominees for best picture. Will the studios fill
those slots with “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra”? Or is there room for a gem like
“Goodbye Solo”?
We will be grappling with these questions in the months to come. To get the
conversation started — and to help clear our heads after a summer of hangovers,
Transformers and inglorious so-and-sos — we assembled, via e-mail, a virtual
roundtable of experts. Seven distributors, some longtime players in independent
film, others relative newcomers, were invited to shed some light on the state of
the industry. We anticipated a lot of gloom and anxiety, so we were pleasantly
surprised to find a healthy dose of optimism not only about their own
bottom-line interests, but also the continued vitality of the art and its
audience. Here is an edited version of what they had to say.
Independent film is dead (again)! Long live independent film!
JONATHAN SEHRING, IFC ENTERTAINMENT The rise and most recent demise of studio
specialty divisions has come about because of size, ego, envy and hubris.
Corporations bought the studios and a different set of economics came into play.
HOWARD COHEN, ROADSIDE ATTRACTIONS When Miramax was a pioneer for this type and
budget of film in the ’90s, the DVD gravy train of the time made them
profitable. Now, they lose money more often than not. (“There Will Be Blood”
reportedly helped sink Paramount Vantage.) Now the only significant upside is
Oscars, and in tough economic times that just isn’t enough.
BOB BERNEY, APPARITION Although there will probably be fewer of these ambitious
films in the immediate period, they will not disappear. It will be interesting
to see if some of these same studios decide to return to the mid-level, auteur
films in a few years, starting these divisions all over again. It’s a cycle that
has been repeated several times.
MR. COHEN True American indies have always had their ups and downs, but I would
agree we’re going through a fallow period where it’s hard to get people to see
them in theaters. Part of it is that the heavyweight casting and heavy TV
marketing used on the more “midlevel” American films, such as “There Will Be
Blood,” have conditioned the audience in a bad way and made it harder on
excellent small films like “Wendy and Lucy” and “Sugar.” They look puny by
comparison without all the ad dollars, and fewer people see them, and they are
gone from theaters quickly. But there are always surprise performers like “The
Visitor.”
Coming soon to a theater near you ...
MR. COHEN Aesthetically, I don’t think anything will ever replace a 40-foot
screen and a shared audience experience. My confidence in that keeps me in the
theatrical game. I hope there will always be people in our society who can
afford that luxury.
MICHAEL BARKER, SONY PICTURES CLASSICS When I started in this business over 29
years ago, there was no home entertainment to speak of and rarely, if ever, did
television play independent or foreign language films. Former porno houses and
bowling alleys became art theaters, and the major circuits never played an
independent film of any kind. Yes, independent films always opened and did well
in New York City, but quite often these films didn’t go to many places west of
the Hudson River. Today we have major independent theater circuits (Landmark
Theaters, Angelika theaters, the newer digital Emerging Cinemas) that have an
insatiable appetite for independent films.
ADAM YAUCH, OSCILLOSCOPE LABORATORIES People still want to go out to the movies
on a date, or as an outing with friends, and hands down it is still the best way
to experience a film. There is something to be said for the whole experience,
even buying a ticket, queing up, finding your seat, the energy of an audience
when they laugh or feel emotion, not to mention a big screen, a powerful sound
system, a dark room, and the film playing from beginning to end without being
paused to answer the door or the phone. The whole experience of going to the
movies can’t really be compared with watching something on your TV or phone.
People have not stopped going to concerts even when they can listen to a band’s
CD.
... Or to a laptop or plasma screen or cellphone.
MR. SEHRING New platforms like VOD and streaming over the Web have democratized
the specialized business, taking the opening of a movie like Spike Lee’s
“Passing Strange” out of the exclusive domain of New York City filmgoers and
making it available to audiences around the country at the same time. These new
platforms are enabling more filmmakers to connect with audiences they would
never have reached before. In many cases new home-theater systems (and even some
large-screen computer monitors) are a better viewing experience than some of the
older art houses around the country.
MR. BARKER There is a huge appetite for content out there in a current
marketplace that has so many formats and platforms: Theatrical (35-millimeter,
digital, 3-D), DVD, Blu-ray, pay TV, cable TV, pay per view, iTunes, Internet
feeding new electronic devices, Crackle, pay download sites, iPods, new
satellite networks, the Playstation network, the Xbox network, etc., etc.
MR. SEHRING There is no question that subtitles don’t look great on a cellphone,
but I have heard Steven Soderbergh say many times that he doesn’t care how
someone sees one of his films, what he wants most is for audiences to see his
films, and if that means delivering them to film lovers on iPods or laptops then
so be it.
STEPHEN GILULA, FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES How the films are accessed, whether
through Netflix, one of the other mail systems, VOD or downloads is not the
primary issue. Creating awareness of a film, marketing it and making it an
event, is the key to success in capturing attention and getting people to take a
chance and commit time to it. With the seemingly limitless number of films now
available, it appears that most people watch films they already know about. VOD
and downloading are already significant sources of revenue for successful films.
It is the smaller, lesser known films that still struggle to find an audience
anywhere — theaters, DVDs VOD, cable or downloads.
MR. YAUCH I think that VOD, streaming and/or downloading will soon replace the
rental market. And buying DVDs will just be for serious collectors, or when
someone really loves a film. DVD sales are becoming more like people who collect
vinyl records.
MR. COHEN Something to remember, though, is that some of the excellent writing,
directing and acting talent from those “midlevel” films has shifted to TV —
i.e., “Mad Men,” “The Sopranos,” “Six Feet Under.” If the VOD offering isn’t
better than those great series, or isn’t following some significant zeitgeist
from the theatrical release, what’s going to make people watch it in this
format?
So many movies, so little time.
MR. BERNEY There has been a glut of films, many of which probably shouldn’t have
been made or released. Plenty of cash and willing investors wanting to play in
the film business made it difficult for the stronger films to have the time to
breathe and let word of mouth take them to their full potential. It wasn’t
healthy at all.
MR. SEHRING The one comment from my colleagues that drives me nuts is that there
are “too many movies.” If one looks at specialized film as “art,” it is the only
art form I can think where people who work within the industry say there are
“too many” of. I never hear anyone in the music industry say there are too many
songs, no one in publishing says there are too many books, no gallery or museum
says there are too many paintings, no one in fashion says there are too many
designers — why too many movies? When my colleagues say this it sounds like the
anti-immigration, protectionist rhetoric from the far right.
MR. GILULA The oversupply of films has been a critical factor in the
difficulties encountered by smaller independent American and foreign-language
films. There is a huge imbalance in the market for movies. There are simply many
more films being made than the public can possibly watch. Distributors don’t
determine the supply. A flood of money funding independent production, along
with the development of inexpensive high-quality cameras and production
equipment, have made it easier than ever to produce films. The barriers to
production have never been lower.
And with the breakout “crossover” successes going all the way back to “sex,
lies, and videotape,” investors and filmmakers became prospectors and
wildcatters, not for gold or oil but for fame, glory and careers. The huge
financial returns on a tiny number of films out of the thousands and thousands
of independent films made over the past few decades have blinded many people to
the realities of how difficult it is to recoup investments and actually make
money in the movie business. But the glamour of the movies, and the chance of
going to Sundance and/or the Oscars has created an irresistible urge for many
people to take out their checkbooks.
ED ARENTZ, MUSIC BOX FILMS There does seem to some relief in sight as one of the
happy effects of the recession is that there will be less money for
ill-considered U.S. independent productions, and the studios seem intent on
producing fewer but bigger budgeted movies. Still the unnecessary theatrical
release in New York and Los Angeles will continue largely due to the vanity of
the film’s makers. Producers either insist contractually that their film will
open in these cities prior to DVD, VOD and TV or now more commonly go the
“service deal” route, where a distribution company is hired to release their
film.
The Golden Age is now.
MR. ARENTZ With the risk of sounding Panglossian, there are actually more
cinemas in the U.S. dedicated fully or at least open to showing off-Hollywood
and foreign-language films than ever before. Certainly the age demographics of
the art-house audience are a cause for concern but there are enough
countervailing tendencies to give cause for optimism. World trade applies to
culture as well, which suggests Americans, or at least a certain segment of the
population, will increasingly have an international and interdependent outlook.
This group will invariably be drawn to well-chosen foreign-language films. On
the supply side there are simply too many good international filmmakers for
there not to be a future for foreign-language films in the U.S.
MR. GILULA The Bergman-Fellini-Truffaut generation has already moved on to a
wide range of movies. The younger generation is selectively embracing
alternative film, but mostly English-language American independent films.
MR. COHEN The past tends to cast a fake rosy glow, at least in terms of
foreign-language film. Did more people go to see “The 400 Blows” and “The Virgin
Spring” when they were first theatrically released than went to see “Gomorrah,”
“Persepolis,” “Let the Right One In” or “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” in the
last couple of years? Doubt it.
MR. SEHRING There are great filmmakers making movies all over the world.
Economically not all may warrant a theatrical release but there is definitely a
substantial (and growing) audience in this country for great movies from all
over.
MR. BARKER What happens when the Bergman generation is gone? You will have the
Almodóvar and P. T. Anderson generation. And it’s growing every year.
MR. YAUCH There are creative people out there who are driven, who are going to
find some way to make their film no matter what. The fact that there is less
financing out there will just make people get more creative about how to get it
done, and thus it may weed out some of the people who are in it for the wrong
reasons.
I hope it means better movies.
Exploring New Routes to
the Indies, NYT, 13.9.2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/movies/13darg.html
|
