Throwing rocks in glass houses: Is the film *business* really broken?
“It’s no trick to make a lot of money, if what you want to do is make a lot of money.”
-Citizen Kane
***
IT seems like since the 2008-2009 dismantling of a bunch of high-profile independent distributors (THINKfilm, Warner Independent, etc.) there’s been a lot of talk (and a modest amount of action) about how “broken” the film industry (read: distribution) is. Furthermore, the changes in film—and let’s face it, all content—distribution over the past few years has lead to some very real, undeniable changes: the rise of (ahem) hybrid sales agents/distribution consultants, split-rights distribution deals, DIY releases and the obstinate growth of digital-only deals with, admittedly, a terrifyingly low-income average for most films released in this manner.
Despite all of this, I feel like there’s an elephant in the room that few people are acknowledging in private and fewer still in public: film outside of the “business” of distribution/marketing/etc. namely, independent production and private financing is significantly more “broken” than film distribution.
How is it that we can count 50,000+ feature films getting produced every year, an astronomical increase in supply over the past 20 years, and blame the market for not supporting this meteoric growth? How is it that experts can be so woefully ignorant of the reality that audience attention is a zero-sum game and there aren’t any more – and may even be fewer than ever before – people watching independent films today than any other time in the past 50 years – marking flat or declining demand? How is it that an entire industry can ignore this re-jiggering of supply and demand and still assume there’s a potential for – if not feel entitled to – a fiscally healthy industry and market?
Denial is a powerful thing and some truths are hard to swallow. The fact is, there’s very little that’s legitimately broken about film distribution, or the business in general. There are significant inefficiencies, sure, and single films make massive mistakes or brilliant strategic plays resulting in highly unusual income (for worse or better, respectively) – but that doesn’t change the fact that, by enlarge, most of the 50,000+ films produced each year financially fail because they’re just not what audiences want to see. I’m hard pressed to put it so gently, as my first instinct was to go one step further and say that the vast majority of films produced each year simply aren’t good enough for a large number of people to waste their money – or even time – on. And if you don’t think the necessary quality of what most people will spend 90+ minutes on is fairly high, check out this must-read “long term view” by Netflix – because there’s a really good reason they’ve been licensing so few independent films since Q4 2012, and it’s not exactly a secret.
Granted, I tend to take somewhat of a pessimistic look when I take a populist approach to the state of filmmaking. But most days I don’t shout “doom and gloom” but rather whisper it – because just as was the case in pre-digital aggregator times, abject failure isn’t a market condition but rather wholly preventable – the truth which remains true, the truth which isn’t warped in the fun-house mirror of outspoken producers, gurus and other bullshit artists is that filmmakers are more empowered today to make a living via content creation than ever before–but if they want sustainability, the content better be DAMN GOOD. There isn’t a simple answer as to how filmmakers can avoid failure once they’re actually distributing their films (regardless of whether it’s being distributed DIY/themselves or with distribution partners) but there is a simple guideline as to how a filmmaker can make relative success significantly more likely: make films you know people want to see, not the films you want to make.
And this suggestion can be easily misunderstood, I know. To be clear: no, I’m not suggesting independent filmmakers try to make four-quadrant films – in fact, that’s almost precisely what I’m arguing against, as independent filmmakers are best served making films that only cater to a relatively small — but easily identifiable — audience. To put it another way: creating a piece of art (a film) for the sake of expression (because there’s a story you want to tell) and without serious consideration for the potential audience (and what stories they actually want to consume) – the current “default” of almost all independent filmmakers – is a terrible business strategy — and no amount of post-completion distribution planning can save the investment behind a film that, from an investment perspective, never should have been made in the first place.
When comparing the “old” and “new” landscape of distribution, the most clear-cut delineation between the two is that it’s now recognized as crazy (and/or stupid) to plan a release of your film on the gamble of being accepted to a top-tier film festival and selling the film for a large advance/mg. And that’s still true. But there’s another “old” and “new” that we should recognize, a reality that threatens that which is held sacred – art/expression/originality and, some would say, “voice” – and here it is: if you want/need to plan for a film to be financially sustainable (read: to make back it’s budget) you need to make a movie that can sell – which is to say making a film that you know, before having actually made it, that people want to see it once you execute it.
As both a consultant/rep and hobbyist, I work with (and help make, respectively) more than a few microbudget features that are, to be perfectly blunt, clearly not developed with audiences in mind but rather are made because filmmakers just want to make them. There’s a place for these films and I’m hardly suggesting people stop making them. What I AM suggesting is that filmmakers stop expecting – and planning for – returns that would indicate any sort of sustainability making films for the sake of art and self-expression rather than for audiences. What I AM suggesting is that filmmakers think very carefully before audaciously (and I don’t use the word lightly) seek outside investment for films that can (and will) be made because the filmmakers have a story to share rather than being made because they’re well thought-out investments.
What I AM suggesting is that filmmakers, other content creators and all of us in the business of distributing content ask an important question: when and why did we start thinking that the fiscal sustainability of making-then-selling art – for profit – is something the film industry is entitled to?