It has been a crazy time. And most readers would agree. For the last couple of years, ‘change’ has decided to grab on and take a chokehold in every aspect of life. Global volatility, the state of our country, the state of our livelihoods, the state of our relationships, the state of our physical bodies are all under scrutiny and duress. I’m not at all qualified to speak about the political and economic situation we are currently faced with. So I will leave that to people like Bill Maher and John Stewart. What I think is fascinating is the current state of the entertainment industry. We are seeing an industry in flux. Never before has technology been so easily attainable by one and all. For about $5,000 grand a person can set themselves up as a filmmaker, editor and distributor. Now, I want to make it very clear that just because someone owns the new fangled gizmo that takes gorgeous HD video does not a filmmaker make. A filmmaker has to have an eye. A filmmaker has to have a vision. Just because anyone can shoot a three minute video on the best pro-sumer equipment does not an artist make. Filmmaking is a craft. It takes discipline and sensibility from picking the best script, accessing the best talent for that script, an ear for dialogue and sound, surrounding yourself with experts in their field like art direction, sound, wardrobe and costumes, marrying yourself to a cinematographer who can visually interpret the script and your vision for such. I liken it to the idea that just because someone bought a bunch of paint does not make that person an artist.
I recently chimed in on a blog about ‘How to make a living in the film business’. Just like the state of our country the disparity between the haves and the have nots are reflected in the disparity between the studios (and mini majors) and those who are wholly independent. And I want to be clear. No one is making money at the moment. Not the studios and not the independent filmmakers trying to do what they love. MGM recently filed chapter 11. And yet You Tube is in negotiations t o begin producing content for their channels. Today there are no mid level boutique studios that championed the art house releases like Pi or Sex, Lies and Videotape. Just like the death of the middle class, the boutiques either went out of business or were snapped up by the studios. Hostile take-overs? I’m not sure, but if you can buy the competition then do it. Right now we have a glut of content. There is so much product out there with so many ways to access it that it is overwhelming to the consumer. Do I watch my TV, my DVD, my cable, my computer, my wii, my ipod or what? With so many choices it makes one tired. We tend to romanticize times when life was simpler. It wasn’t simple. There just weren’t as many choices. One thing is clear and that is the internet is the new TV/Theatre. It is the point of delivery. The only difference is that the consumer is also the programmer. So how do you connect with the person who will watch your film? OR How do you find the films that you are dying to see that aren't released in the traditional venues. Film Festivals now have more power than before. In years past it was a communal experience to watch films that wouldn’t make it to your local multiplex. Now Festivals are the only place where an audience depends on the programmer. If you can get into a festival, that gives your film some credibility whether good or bad. With the convenience of watching entertainment at home and the prevalence of ADD, movies and the way they are edited are bending to the will of the viewer. In the US if you have a 90 minute film or shorter then you have the perfect programmable piece of cinema. Film classics like The Godfather or Gone with the Wind or Citizen Kane are way too long. Editing has been tailored to a fast-paced world. Our attention as a culture can’t stand the pregnant pause. I call this the MTV effect because that’s where it began. It is a style that delivers only the peaks of the story. Watch NBC for an evening and you’ll know what I’m talking about. What is the correlation? Our culture has grown accustomed to instant gratification. Our experiences at work and at home fall below our expectations because we are constantly fed a false ideal. We can’t relax. We can’t really relate. I know I am looking at the glass half empty at the moment but there has to be a shift. Is the media and entertainment industry a reflection of our lives or is it being forced on us because execs need to fulfill a bottom line. It seems like everything comes down to the almighty dollar and what it is we value. The flip side of this perception is that filmmakers are now empowered to deliver their works of art directly to their audience. And those audiences are deciding what they want to watch. I read that if you can make a film for under $250K then you can peddle it on the web with your own DVD/VOD and possibly sell the foreign rights and make your money back and then some. Anything higher than that is a gamble and only a studio can afford to sink a major chunk of capital and break even. In another blog I read that Rene Zellweger’s latest film cannot find distribution. So the idea that name talent in front of the camera and behind does not guarantee a theatrical release or even a DVD/VOD with major player. In yet another piece of entertainment news Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boals cannot get financing behind their indie project. Kathryn just won the first female (ever) best director Oscar this past year for The Hurt Locker. Does that not account for anything? Expect the unexpected this year. Surprises abound.
The Golden Globes and SAG Awards were just announced over the past few days. I am excited about ‘The King’s Speech’. I said last week: Colin Firth – Best Actor and Geoffrey Rush – Best Supporting. Also I find Boardwalk Empire among the nominees for best series. I am a big Scorcese fan and have been glued to the tube every Sunday night since it premiered. The only recognizable people are Steve Buscemi and Gretchen Mol. Michael Pitt has only recently come to the forefront for his work as ‘Blake’, a Curt Cobain character in ‘Last Days’, and, of course, Dawson’s Creek. That gives me hope for the actors in A Rogue in Londinium. They deserve to be recognized for their talent and creative spirit. With so much to watch how does a film rise to the forefront of its audience’s attention? Publicity and Marketing? Social Media networking? All of the above? What if a small film with a lot of potential doesn’t have the budget for PR or the kind of marketing required to get the attention it needs? I asked Elizabeth, the director, what her hopes and fears are for the coming year regarding her Victorian drama.
“I will be meeting with a publicist in January.” She told me.
“What do you hope to gain from it?” I ask. “I’m curious myself since I’ve never ventured into the world of marketing.”
“Well, at the very least I hope that bloggers and writers in prominent periodicals and online magazines might say a word or two or even interview some of the actors about the project. I think we have a very interesting model. The way we made it with no outside help could be inspiring to other filmmakers and actors wanting to film their own projects.”
“And the best you can hope for?” I ask.
“The best would be to appear on TV and radio and really talk about the story, our experiences and engage in a dialogue with people out there in the same situation.” She says.
“Define your situation.” I ask.
“Well, we made a period film for under $100K, SAG signatory, utilizing ebay for production design and costumes. Our actors come from the theatre, and our behind the camera team had only one other film under their belts. We have no recognizable names (to date) affiliated.” She clarifies. “When I hear Cinderella stories like these about independent films it really makes me want to go and see them. It gets me excited that the art is still alive despite the financial crisis.”
“So you think A Rogue in Londinium is a kind of Cinderella?” I ask.
“Sure. I’m just waiting for my other glass slipper.” She chuckles.
Posts
