
TORONTO: As Toronto got into full swing Friday, audiences seemed more enthusiastic about the new films than buyers. At a time when Big Media earnings are up and the box office outlook is bright, the gloomy sales climate here indicates that the shakeout in the indie film sector isn’t over. It is hard to imagine there would be so many star-driven films vamping hard to find distribution. There is the Robert Redford-directed The Conspirator with James McAvoy (which premieres today in a gala screening), the Will Ferrell-starrer Everything Must Go (which I saw last night), the Nicole Kidman lead The Rabbit Hole, the Keanu Reeves-led Henry’s Crime, the Rachel Weisz heroine The Whistleblower and dozens of other pics with strong casts and helmers. I haven’t seen a bad film yet. No doubt the worthy films will find distribution. Problem is, buyers are in no hurry and willing to wait out sellers in order to pay rock-bottom prices for these indies. Films that once attracted $1.5 million in minimum guarantees now bring $250,000, partly because of the old law of supply and demand: there are simply more good indies than capable distributors because the specialty DVD film market has cratered so badly.
Distributors like Sony Pictures Classics, Fox Searchlight, Focus Features, and The Weinstein Co already have their Oscar lineups, so they’ve no need to make a quick deal like last year, when Harvey Weinstein bought himself an Oscar contender by acquiring Tom Ford’s A Single Man. The longer these deals take, the less leverage sellers have. I suspect many of the recent deals I’ve written about have been little more than service arrangements, where financiers engage distributors to bring pictures to the marketplace for a fee. So I doubt there will be any electric auctions this festival like the last Sundance when Focus Features acquired The Kids Are All Right and Lionsgate bought the Ryan Reynolds-starrer Buried.
If so, they will likely come not in the batch of star-driven prestige releases, but the low-budget genre fare coming from the Midnight Madness program. That’s where James Gunn unveiled Super early this morning, with Rainn Wilson playing a wannabe superhero (his power comes from the business end of a plumber’s wrench), Ellen Page as his psycho sidekick, and Kevin Bacon in a hilarious turn as the drug dealer who charms away the superhero’s troubled gal (Liv Tyler). The movie rocked the Ryerson Theatre with shocking Tarantino-esque depictions of violence and sex mixed with camp and humor. Titles like Bunraku and Insidious will also keep buyers up late. It’s the prestige pics that are in for a challenge.
For instance, Redford’s pic was financed by American Film Company (Joe Ricketts) for under $25 million, the company’s per-film max. It’s an historical drama about the first woman executed by the U.S. government and a hard sell without Redford’s name attached.
“All the titles getting the Oscar buzz have already been claimed,” said one indie distributor. Another tells me: “’Some of these pictures have good casts, but maybe they’re dark or in a genre where who knows if the stars will draw? You really don’t know until you see how they play with an audience and reviewers. Nobody’s in a hurry. Will Ferrell just opened a hit in The Other Guys, but are people going to buy him in a serious movie like Everything Must Go?”
I saw that movie, too, and I think Dan Rush’s directorial debut will get a deal. Ferrell’s likeability keeps his drunken lout character from being too off-putting. But will domestic and foreign distributors want it enough to refill the coffers of Twilight producers Marty Bowen and Wyck Godfrey, who put up the bulk of the film’s $5 million budget? I also saw Shawn Ku’s Beautiful Boy, which stars Michael Sheen and Maria Bello as parents of a teen who commits suicide — after he murders fellow students in a rampage. The actors make the most of a spiral of grief and denial, but the film’s a real marketing challenge same as The Rabbit Hole (parents dealing with a child’s death) or The Whistleblower (sex trafficking).
Sellers are hoping that other players come onto the scene and give them more options. This year saw three distributors crap out on festival film deals, and I Love You Phillip Morris, Casino Jack and Happythankyoumoreplease had to be re-sold months later. Bill Pohlad’s decision to set The Tree of Life at Fox Searchlight has ominous connotations for his own distribution company Apparition. Who’s gonna step up? There is hope for Newmarket, which just took on the Peter Weir film The Way Back (financed by Newmarket’s parent company Exclusive Media); Ryan Kavanaugh’s Relativity Media could become a buyer after acquiring Overture; former Apparition head Bob Berney is expected to form a new distribution company financed by GK’s Graham King and Tim Headington. Berney has been seen at Toronto, but if he’s going to be a buyer, it won’t be here. CBS Films, looking to supplement its own pictures with acquisitions, is on the ground here and could be a player for the more commercial pics. Music Box is ramping up.
The distribution downswing has created opportunities for some new players, like Mickey Liddell. Liddell emerged from anonymity to rescue the I Love You Phillip Morris and Biutiful. Latter film sat since premiering in Cannes and winning Best Actor for Javier Bardem, as distributors weren’t knocked out by the dark premise and its Spanish language. Liddell placed both pictures with Roadside Attractions for release in awards season. He’s also behind the Jacob Estes-directed The Details with Tobey Maguire, a film likely to make its debut at Sundance. Sellers like Liddell because he’s backed by a hedge fund guy.
When I met Liddell Friday, he said he’d like to acquire more films. “After the fallout, I’d go to these festivals and see so many movies available. It’s started to turn around a little bit, but people were getting out as I was getting in. I did okay with the five films we picked up, and thought, maybe this is a business. I was interested in Phillip Morris from the moment I saw it, and couldn’t believe it was a true story. When I saw Biutiful, I dreamt about it and woke up concerned about the fictional characters as though they were real.” Liddell is aware of others who’ve tried to gain a foothold in this fragile business and then exited, but said he’s taking his time and keeping his exposure low.
He wouldn’t disclose what he paid for either film, but word is it was next to nothing. His primary role is putting up the P&A that will give each film a chance. That’s a deal many here would be hot for in this cold climate.


The question I have is why they make most of these films? The actors do them looking for awards, but why do money people make them. No one wants to see this crap. The sex trade. That’s a 60 Minutes report not a film. Grieving parents after their kid kills people. Who cares.
Most of these idiots need to be tied down and forced to watch Sullivan’s Travels. And then quizzed on it afterwards. It’s not rocket science. Make fun, entertaining movies and you’ll make money. Make downer flicks with dark themes and go broke.
I also suggest some of these dolts read Peter Biskind’s book on the 90′s independent scene. Miramax bled money the whole time and if it wasn’t for Disney probably would have gone out of business early on. Because these movies never made money.
I think they do it to develop good relationships with the stars and directors, in hopes of nabbing them for more marketable “money-making” ventures later. Play to the artist in them, and they’ll return the favor.
Sullivan’s Travels IS awesome, but some of us like variety. I want to see most of the films mentioned in this article.
So, in answer to “who cares” – I do.
never mind tasteless gay agenda crap like Phillip Morris, yet another art film with tiny niche appeal (people who like to watch straight male actors make out and profess their love for each other with no laugh track)
You sound like a dumb bigot. Are you a dumb bigot? You certainly do sound like a dumb bigot. Are you proud to sound like a dumb bigot? Are you a secret dumb bigot who only shows their idiocy and bigotry in anonymous comment sections? Or are you actually a dumb bigot out loud in real life?
Just curious.
I’ll go one step further and say I think “Waiting for the collapse” is like most homophobes; in reality, he’s scared to death that two men together actually holds some appeal for him, it makes him feel funny “down there” and so he responds by making a point to let the world know how much he *doesn’t* like it. I just don’t buy it. If it really held no interest for him, he wouldn’t think twice about it.
It’s comments like yours that caused studios to invest in shitty, uninspired sequels and remakes instead of original stories with well developed characters and interesting plots. Which most people will agree resulted in a summer of the worst group of films in recent history.
Inception. Toy Story 3. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. The Other Guys. The American. The Kids Are All Right. Cyrus. Salt. Despicable Me. Get Him to the Greek. Dinner for Schmucks.
Yeah, you’re right. The worst group of films in recent memory. Or maybe it just seems that way if all you saw were the bad ones. Or maybe I’m not “most people.” Heck, I even kinda liked Going the Distance and Knight and Day. Can we have another summer just like this next year, please?
I guess you’re not counting horror films as ‘downer flicks with dark themes’. I think you’re talking about adult dramas?
Right now, TV offers better adult dramas than the feature world. So the audience for them is staying home.
The diet you’re suggesting above is all sugar and no protein. That diet will kill anything, including the film industry.
Of course, this is a business, first and foremost. But there’s also an element of respect that encourages actors, producers, etc. to take these chances. Dare I quote Paul Walker — one of the worst actors I’ve ever seen — in the original Fast and Furious… “to some people, that’s more important.”
I don’t think you read Biskind’s book accurately. Those movies made money. Biskind suggests Miramax’s appetite got to big for its stomach (and budget) and started making super-expensive prestige movies rather than the intelligently budgeted indies that made it a lot of money early wrong. You’re wrong to suggest no one wants to see darker or complicated “prestige” pictures. People want to see those. But, you’re right, it’s a limited number of people. So the big question becomes at what budget do you make movies for that audience. If it’s too big then, yes, you’re bound to lose money. If you make smaller pictures then, no, you can make money if you’re good at what you do. Look at Kevin Smith. He struggles with larger budgets but when he makes small-budget movies for his audience, they’re very profitable. Look at “Clerks 2,” a very profitable (relatively speaking) return to form. Woody Allen’s a more successful example.
It’s called art, jackass.
And from a money perspective, a lot of good art films are made on a relatively low budget. They don’t need to make even a quarter of what a big budget release needs to make a profit.
I suggest you expand your view of what cinema is and can be. There are quite a few filmmakers there only work to create art, not to make money or please an audience. Try Kenneth Anger, Alejandro Jodorowsky, Andrzej Zulawski, Peter Greenaway, Jim Jarmusch etc…
How nice. Let the name calling begin.
Well, pinhead. I’ve seen all of Anger’s films, all of Jarmush’s films, all but three Bunuel flicks ever made and pretty much every major director out there. But none of those directors expected to clueless hedge fund operators to make them rich.
Anger made most of his money on books up until J. Paul Getty III started paying his bills. Jarmush used Wim Wenders short ends from The State of Things to shoot his first film and gets foreign investors to pony up the dough for small budget features based on pre-sales because he’s name. And Bunuel used to film Mexican musicals under assumed names to pay for his amazing Mexican films back in the 50′s.
More importantly, those filmmakers made good films. Most of this modern “indie” crap is just that, crap. Most often, the directors are trying to put together a reel so they have a shot at getting to direct some Marvel superhero movie down the road like the 500 Days of Summer guy did. Or short of that, con some other hedge fund guy into investing the Kansas State Teachers Retirement fund inn a film that will lose 10′s of millions of dollars so the hedge fund guy can meet Charlise Theron at a party.
Oh, and I did read Biskind’s book correctly. I also know that when Disney finally booted hose two cockroaches Harvey and Bob off the lot they discovered shelf after shelf of unreleaseble indie films they bought at Sundance, Toronto and Cannes over the years. And that for every Shakespeare in Love there were 10 Happy, Texases right behind.
Oh, and as long as I’m taking all of you on. These films aren’t cheap. The advertising budgets are just as big as for regular Hollywood films so releasing them will costs between 35 to 50 million dollars which is why no one pics them up. Most of them end up getting basically four walled through distributers that don’t pick up those costs so the producers end up incurring those costs on top of the production budget.
Bill, there is actually a lot of truth and factual accuracy in what you just wrote here. Kudos.
Unfortunately, it is all very clearly poisoned by your personal bitterness and personal feelings of powerlessness.
Do something about the fact that your film life is less than what you’d like it to be and maybe you can come sit at the table with the rest of humanity. And please get off the Right Wing conquest kick, Bill.
Who knows? Maybe one day even you will make a film worth seeing.
Exactly right, and mainstream cinema needs artists more than they realize.
Without Kenneth Anger, there would be no Martin Scorsese. Go down the list of filmmakers DilvishW provided and you’ll find big name contemporary directors inspired by their work.
But we’re not talking about Kenneth Anger or Jim Jarmush. We’re talking about long time producers who want to use the festival circuit to push their career. I mean, you do know the director of I Love You Phillip Morris is the guy who wrote Cats and Dogs, right? Or that Shawn Ku is one of those festival guys who has already made two unreleasable films. Unreleasable prior to the indie world falling apart.
As for John Cameron Mitchell. Well, I like his films but they’re sloppy and no one has wanted to see them in the past. So I’m not crying about a new one not getting out there. I personally enjoyed Short Bus but in that Mitchell really is the second coming of John Waters isn’t he? He doesn’t make great films.
Personally, if you think all these downer films shot like Lifetime cable flicks really need to be seen. I suggest you raise the dough and put them out. Otherwise stop crying. No one wants to see these films and distributers are tired of getting burned on them.
Oh, and by the way. Scorsese had a lot of influences and Kenneth Anger was hardly at the top of the list. Try reading about an artist before you say something that dumb.
Just for the record, I Love You Phillip Morris resembles a very mainstream film if only people sat down and watched it. It’s very reminiscent of Catch Me If You Can and certainly isn’t arthouse in its tone or production values. It’s big, brassy, funny and indeed romantic. The only reason it’s considered “niche” is because the two main characters are gay and that’s the only reason it had difficulty finding a distributor. The story is fascinating and Jim Carrey is incredible, exercising his trademark comedic chops and dramatic chops in equal measure. If people could get over their own prejudices, they’d find that it’s a very enjoyable and engaging film.
Get your facts straight. Prior to Beautiful Boy, Shawn Ku directed Pretty Dead Girl, a musical short about necrophilia and The American Mall, an MTV musical about working in the mall. It’s hardly accurate to say “Shawn Ku is one of those festival guys who has already made two unreleasable films. Unreleasable prior to the indie world falling apart.” It’s unnecessary and disturbing that you attempt to malign filmmakers with statements that are not based in any reality. – T
These movies get made and ‘safely’ financed by star driven presales and the acquisition buyers at Toronto and the movie going public know there is nothing authentic about them. These are “vehicles” for stars trying to “stretch” and are inherently unmarketable. Raymond Carver would roll over in his grave if he knew his story was a Will Ferrell vehicle. Imagine Richard Jenkins in Everything Must Go and a real movie may have resulted.
The only one laughing all the way to the bank is Stuart Ford.
These movies get made and ’safely’ financed by star driven presales and the acquisition buyers at Toronto and the movie going public know there is nothing authentic about them. These are “vehicles” for stars trying to “stretch” and are inherently unmarketable. Raymond Carver would roll over in his grave if he knew his story was a Will Ferrell vehicle. Imagine Richard Jenkins in Everything Must Go and a real movie may have resulted.
The only one laughing all the way to the bank is Stuart Ford.
Comment by Xavier — Saturday September 11, 2010 @ 6:54pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST
Bill – there is little doubt that you know cinema, but you’d make a more convincing argument if you acknowledged some of the successes with in the indy film world.
And in terms of Bob and Harvey, they’ve certainly found a winner this year. I’m sure that you’ve seen it, right?
Sorry, I haven’t watch that Colin Firth snoozer yet. I was watching the great films coming out of France this weekend. They seem to know how to entertain people. Unlike the English who only make two kinds of films, snoozers about the elite or films with old people taking their clothes off and dancing.
Here’s my point and maybe you’ll get it. I was teaching film overseas in the middle east a couple years back. I showed them Little Miss Sunshine and they stood up and applauded at the end. Why? Because it was fun and entertaining. I showed them The Queen and they hated it. Now I love Stephen Frears myself, but they were like – who cares about the Royals. Probably doesn’t help that they weren’t big fans of the English in general but still. I bet if I’d shown them High Fidelity they would have loved it.
All I’m saying is making films about the Royals, or sex trafficking or kids who kill do not relate to regular film fans. They don’t want to see it. But make films about things they understand like a dysfunctional family that is trying to take a road trip and they will. And you can still get some bigger issues in there as well.
Oh my God. God forbid someone should make movies that attempt to be good and not just hoover up more shekels for a corporate overlord. Yeah, people should be forced to watch Sullivan’s Travels–because I’m sure that was the inspiration for The A Team and Killers and Clash of the Titans. The mirth of a Preston Sturges movie. People need to have this “Everything must be about profit!” mentality burnt out of their heads–in this business, at least.
These movies get made and ’safely’ financed by star driven presales and the acquisition buyers at Toronto and the movie going public know there is nothing authentic about them. These are “vehicles” for stars trying to “stretch” and are inherently unmarketable. Raymond Carver would roll over in his grave if he knew his story was a Will Ferrell vehicle. Imagine Richard Jenkins in Everything Must Go and a real movie may have resulted.
The only one laughing all the way to the bank is Stuart Ford.
I saw “The Whistleblower” with Rachel Weisz a few weeks prior to its unveiling in Toronto this Monday and its a very good film, very disturbing and Rachel Weisz give another great performance that deserves another Oscar. It would be a damn shame that it can’t find a distributor because there is no one to market it right.
who cares about any of these films? super is the only one that sounds fun. how does this sector of film business survive? it’s over. its now all about event films and animated family films.why do you people cover it? no one will ever see 99 percent of these films. how do these companies survive??who cares???
I started to agree with ^Bill, but then I turned on the TV and ‘Monster’s Ball’ was playing and I was riveted. As a working writer I sometimes wonder why movies like “Anti-Christ” get made…but the fact is there IS an ass for every saddle. However, the appetite for confrontational fare has certainly shrunk to a fraction of what it once was. There are a ton of reason for this, but to me it comes down to the simple fact that consumers listen when the AP reports Box Office numbers…for some unknown reason and it influences their decisions. The kids just check twitter and see what everyone’s talking about.
We all face immense competition for our entertainment dollar with the internet, apps, etc. Volume of content is not the problem (although quality is…) Competition for our time IS a problem. I like to be entertained as much as the next person but the fact is that movies are MORE than commerce, they are the intersection between art and business. And every now and then it’s okay that the art gets the nod, because we need films to remind us of our humanity. To challenge our self-imposed truths and find something grain of connection with what makes us tick…and most of us don’t want to spend the TIME to ask ourselves those questions…much less take the time to listen to a filmmaker pose them.
Movies CAN do that.
Great post. The fact that you fully understand is no doubt one of the reasons why you’re a “working” writer.
all hat and no cattle says all that needs be said. thank you for an intelligent comment i will refer to in my conversations.
I am as sick of the event films and cartoons as anyone, but for the smaller films to work they need to be popular with someone other than the hipster set. There is space for reasonably budgeted features, but maybe you should tell the stories Middle America wants to go watch, not “edgy” movies that mostly tickle the fancy of inbred Hollywood Mac-toting transexual baristas who wear geek glasses and skinny jeans and date their stepfathers. Yes, every big city has that scene, but the numbers don’t add up and moreover just having these films in the arthouse is like a giant billboard telling normal people GO AWAY.
ohmigod….
“not “edgy” movies that mostly tickle the fancy of inbred Hollywood Mac-toting transexual baristas who wear geek glasses and skinny jeans and date their stepfathers.”
ROFLMBAO….(screaming & kicking my feet up…GUFAW!!!)
you gave me the hiccups with that rant above ^^^^^^^!!!!!
PRICELESS!!!
ohmigod…
go pitch it!!!
What the hell are you talking about?
There are film festivals all over this country that showcase indie films, and yes, even middle america has people in it who use macs and “wear geek glasses and skinny jeans.” Get your culture war bullshit out of this discussion, because you’re bringing nothing to it.
normal people???? dude, live and let live and quit being so narrow minded that you have to categorize people into what’s normal according to you. Over the past 500 hundred years in the art world it’s the artists that broke out and did something different that influenced some of the greatest periods in the arts…there’s room for everyone.
“minds are like parachutes…they only work when they’re open”
If you don’t know anyone who appreciates adult dramas, who exactly are you hanging out with? Or perhaps I should be asking who you have for home room.
Some of these comments are positively inane. If the indie world turns to genre because that’s all that sells, we are missing out on all the films that inspire and enrich our lives. The reason why most of us got into this business in the first place.
It’s a sad world when all that’s left in the marketplace are empty event movies based on graphic novels that no one read and the poor man’s Tarantino 5M indie that relies on gimmicks to win an audience.
Middle America went to watch The Blind Side and Precious. They were dramas that entertained but left people with some hope. Recently I watched Winters Bone and it is one of the most depressing movies of all time. I would have been better off staying home and watching a documentary on television. Studios that want to make real money have to find a way to do it that doesn’t alienate the audience. It can be done but rarely is. These award worthy films are mainly for the industry. Only established studios with cash should be doing them.
Observe Redford, received no differently than any no-name first-time Indie director, and scarcely any better — which begs this question: “if Caesar, with all his genius, cannot find a way, who will do so now?”
I would hope and think that there is enough room in the American film market for both entertainment and art. But to the angry, narrow-minded folks that slag off artistic ambition, I wish only good times and a lifetime of feel good four quadrant fare. You only live once, why think and feel anything different from what you already think and feel?
Does everything really have to come down to issues involving your fear of human sexual behavior for you? What a right wing simpleton you must be.
>> maybe you should tell the stories Middle America wants to go watch, not “edgy” movies >>
Why not make some of each?
If all I got to see was stories Middle America wants to go watch, I’d commit suicide by cheese grater.
But that’s not because I don’t want to see any of those films, it’s because I don’t want to see _only_ those films. Gimme variety. Don’t declare one audience the only one to cater to.
I’m sure Bill and like-minded(mindless?) ilk are huge Michael Bay fans. Hollywood’s current credo must be: Never underestimate the willful stupidity of the general public.
put out good, smart quality films, promote them well and they’ll find an audience. give them crap (summer ’10) and see what happens…………
A lot of people would like to see these kinds of films, myself and most of my friends included. Part of the reason they don’t make money is because they don’t receive wide distribution. In the past 10 years, I’ve lived in three different states, and was never closer than 50 miles to a theater that played indie films. The local theater will have Alvin and the Chipmunks or Twilight on 2 – 3 screens instead.
I want to tap into this Zeitgeist of anger and animosity toward indie filmmakers.
It’s so prevalent, there must be that tremendous galvanized, clearly-defined mass market that so many believe exists for EVERY film EXCEPT the works of indie filmmakers.
So, my next script will be about a group of filmmakers who, during a Tweetup at Groundworks in Hollywood, get slaughtered by a group of hateful zealots who worship Warner Bros. and traveled over the hill specifically looking for vulnerable victims. I’m thinking Sam Peckinpah.
(Huh? He’s what?? Oh. Never mind.)
It will be the first billion dollar domestic gross box office.
I have been in the independent business for over 40 years and I find the dialogue about acquisitions to be off point.
Acquisitions are driven by the market and films that are economically driven have to be driven by the market. Producing films is exciting because a good film can break the rules but even with stars good films are a matter of qualification not quantification. Unfortunately for the marketplace the films Mike Flemming talks about are not good enough.
Stars also have become devalued for a variety of reasons including a
overdose of movies fnanced which has always happened by cycle. But now movies including great movies are available on so many platforms it is harder from marketing and quality to break through.
The economics of NetFlix etc do not support indpendent production or experimentation so economically films live or die from the tradtional markets and with Walmart representing with Sams over 50% of the video market little room or opportunity to drive consumers to a specific title. Large selection with limited revenue per title is a non theatrical economic model. Video fueled production for the last 25 years now it is simply an ancillary market to otehr distribution. Foreign markets dont need our movies except tentpole hits
Agents dont understand the economics of the market and have a justfiably short term approach. Press looking for biding wars rather than analytic
interpretation are an extension of celebrity journalism not trade journalism.
Festivals are festivals and markets are markets and they have a different purpose.
The novelty of independent production has worn off
Good post, in a myriad of clueless ones.
The fact is you can succeed if you’re smart. Andy Garcia isn’t going to get rich with City Island but the producers are getting their money back and some profit. Why? Because they made a good film that people enjoyed, made it on a budget with most of the actors working for less money. Then they four walled the film, worked hard on promoting to the point of contacting friends and asking them to go see it. And there you have it. But little has been written about the film and it’s success by the “indie” blogosphere. You know why? It was a film about family. It wasn’t sexy.
But there is an audience and a business model for every film. The one guy on here went on and on about Kenneth Anger. Anger made art films. How did he do it? He worked as a working writer, saved his money and filmed on 16 MM. The films are great. he got some very interesting people involved in them and now they are considered classics of a kind.
What he didn’t do is spend millions on his films, use big name actors (unless you consider Marianne Faithful or Manson family member Bobby Beausoliel a big name) or expect to get main stream distribution.
The interesting thing about this whole discussion is that so many people seem to want to argue that a certain group of people should get to bake their cake and eat it too. They should get to make films that few people want to see, but be supported like other filmmakers who do. I say anyone should be able to make the films they want to make, but then live with your decision. Kenneth Anger certainly did.
More importantly. Anger made a film just last year and not one of the people on this board including the guy who cited him seems to be all that upset that his film isn’t getting mainstream distribution. Why is that?
I sit here reading some of these comments and I have to wonder: How in the hell do some of you peasants even wind-up on an industry trade site? Really? You say we should stop making thoughtful, dramatic, dark, adult movies? You mean like TAXI DRIVER? Or GOODFELLAS? Or maybe even DEAD POET’S SOCIETY or UNFORGIVEN? You morons do understand that there is, in fact, an audience for everything, right? That not everybody who makes or gets involved in film does so to be famous, rich, or another “reality TV” piece of human garbage, right? That some of us actually have stories to tell, share, and offer as exploration for and of our fellow humans, good and bad? Guess what, morons? These movies make money, too. Thanks God we have them, to counter absolute feces like PIRANHA 3-D. Or yet another remake. Or yet another passionless, crass exploitation of the mass public. You morons blow me away, frankly. The indie biz has hit a bit of a speed bump. Not due to lack of demand, but due more to the ineptitude of traditional distributors to navigate “The New World.” That’s all it is, morons. People still want to see interesting little films and TV shows that don’t star Kim Kardashian or Angelina Jolie. The entire population of the world isn’t as dead between the ears as “Bill” up there (first post). Nothing at all wrong with big, fun movies. Hell, I love ‘em. But to suggest that filmmaker actually stop making intelligent, small, dark, substantial films? You’re a dumb pfhuque, indeed.
I love how the “smart” people always resort to name calling. How very junior high school of you.
Did you even read my post? Or did you just react to it. I’m going to guess I can stomp your brains out when it comes to watching great films. How many times have you watched Andrei Rubilov, El or Hidden Fortress? Have you seen any Ninon Sevilla flick? Have you watched The Mother and the Whore on the big screen? Have you watched the entire Swordsman Trilogy from Tsui Hark? I’m guessing probably not.
These indie films are not great films. Most of them are boring, overacted and cheap in terms of their subject matter. A movie about parents who’s kids killed their classmates? yeah, that’s universal. Back in the day that was a gratuitous made for TV movie starring Sally Struthers, which is what it should be.
These films don’t sell because they don’t appeal to anyone. The only audience they have at all is senior citizens who need to watch something at the Laemmle’s. Seriously. All the indie filmmakers think they’re making films for the elite. No, dude. You’re making movies for seniors. Go check it out. Go see these films away from the festivals and the premeires.
Go see Greenberg and Cyrus and The Single Man in the theaters around the country. The last time I saw that much grey hair was when my mom was rehabbing her hip at the residential center.
No one wants to see this crap!
Bill, you are an underdeveloped being. To sit in your (almost certainly) tiny little hole of a world and decree that “no one” want to see films like THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT and so on? Well, you’re just a sad, poisoned little mushroom of a person. Mean, too, to speak of old folks like myself in such a degrading manner.
For your information, I don’t know anyone in the indie biz—and I know a few—who are rising from bed every morning to make films for an imaginary “elite” class. They make films for human beings, for real people. Even for trolls like yourself, Bill.
I cannot imagine what a sad filmic world we would have were people like yourself in a position of any sort of power whatsoever (and from your post, you clearly are in no power position, at all). Can you imagine a world of only big, dumb studio fare? No smart TV shows? No AMERICAN BEAUTY films? Or BOYS DON’T CRY? Or GRAND TORINO?
Bill, what the film/TV business does not need is more people like yourself. Fortunately, I doubt any of us will have to worry as your reach into the world probably isn’t longer than your 30″ computer screen will allow.
Oh, and Bill? Only childish Right Wingers use the expression “name-calling”. Are you a childish Right Winger? Sounds like you could be, since you’re only interested in money and conquest, not quality or precedent or cultural enrichment. You’re a regular McHuman Being, Bill.
And adding to my comment about distributors above, the other factor in the indie world being bruised right now is unrealistic budgetary and salary commitments for films that clearly have limited appeal. And yes, limited appeal is okay, but not when you have a film like WINTER BONE which is clearly not RIVER’S EDGE territory costing thrice what it realistically should. Not to say BONE did, but just sayin’.
And I am certainly glad a film like BONE got made, as it must drive people like yourself crazy that someone would be willing to explore dark, dramatic material and be successful doing so, while you sit gazing at your feet, eagerly awaiting the next SHREK and thinking yourself God.
face it, bill, Bob MacKenzie is hardly the only one who thinks your comments are bullshit.
A Single Man was my favorite film of 2009, actually. Did you see it, Bill?
As a matter of fact I did. I quite enjoyed although I think The Wonder Boys was a better showcase for this side of Douglas. And I am very sad that we may not have any more Michael Douglas films to watch from here on out. That makes me very sad.
The fact is I like a lot of films and I see almost everything. I did not like The Kids Are All Right, however. Not because of the subject matter but because it played like a bad episode of Two and a Half Men with Mark Ruffalo standing in for Charlie Sheen. I didn’t like Wndy and Lucy last year because I didn’t believe it at all. It was phony right down to the set-up.
I have liked almost every French film that has hit our shores this summer and I wish to god we had a young actress with half the charm of Vanessa Paradis. I also think more attention should be paid to the success of City Island. But I guess that film is too safe for the indie film crowd. Those producers fourwalled their film and worked their asses off to make it profitable.
I’m with you.
mcKenzie that is.
Hey Bill and ‘Waiting for the collapse’, perhaps if enough people like you get together, the law can be changed so that films you don’t want to see can be made illegal. No? It’s clear that if it’s not for you, it shouldn’t be for anyone. And anyone who likes these ‘smaller’ films is a ‘hipster’. Yes, that makes sense. Damn, if we’d only thought of this before! We could have eradicated all movies, TV, books and art that aren’t instantly hugely popular and for all the family! More populist entertainment! More! There’s just not enough! Just make sure there isn’t a market that by its very nature costs less and makes less, because less people want to see these films. Urgh! Stamp all that out!
I like big films when they’re good, small films when they’re good, family films when they’re good, foreign films (those ones where they speak in a funny language?) when they’re good, even ‘dark’ films that you feel shouldn’t even see the light of day.
Get an imagination.
This is the most amazingly stupid bunch of people I’ve ever come across. You really must work in Hollywood.
IF there was a market for these films then they would put fannies in the seats. You know how I know there isn’t a market? Because no one goes to see these movies. How can you argue with the facts. What are you? Politicians. Black is white and white is black. Nooo!!!
You want to see these movies. Put the 10 to 20 mil to produce it. Film it yourself and then raise another 10-35 grand to make prints, market and distribute the film. Or just stay at home and watch them on your big screen TV. BUT please don’t come on here and whine that someone should put these movies out for the good of society. Because honestly, no one wants to see them. And they aren’t that good either.
I love that you want to cite the likes of Jarmush and Anger. But Jarmush has a solid overseas following and Anger’s movies regularly screen at museum. Why? Because people want to see them.
i am amazed by the stupidity of most of these comments.
there IS a market for people who are so sick of being treated like morons.
i would rather watch a film like rabbit hole (which i’m seeing on tuesday), which may be depressing but could also be an interesting examination of the human condition and grief.
…i’m assuming something like that is probably too high brow for most people. i guess they’d rather watch the expendables.
that being said, i was at ryerson last night watching super. a great film that is original…and judging by the comments i’m seeing here, it’s probably way too smart to actually make bank.
The theatrical motion picture is the king of entertainment. Have confidence that the form exists for a reason, even while breaking it. Think of the person in the theater seat first. Don’t waste his time and money. Have a good reason for keeping him their beyond two hours. Start as close to the end as possible. Please make sure he doesn’t stick to the seat-clean the theaters! The obvious always needs repeating.
I have one sentance that will shut you all up. THE HURT LOCKER is still in the RED. These movies don’t make money! End of discussion.
Aside from the name-calling this sounds like a nice, juicy dinner conversation. I so enjoy people with strong (smart) opinions and I love coming here to read them. More wine?
The big films will succeed at a smaller level, and the little films will exceed expectations. The best film I’ve seen in Toronto so far is A Horrible Way To Die. If you have a smart script and good performances audiences will come.
Great to find such a lively discussion about one of my favorite subjects – movies! A “great” film may be very difficult to market and have a hard time reaching an audience that will champion it. A not so great film may be easy to market and become profitable in spite of itself. So from a profit perspective the “great,” yet hard to market film may not be so great after all. And the mediocre, easy to market film may actually be pure genius…if you want to make money in film. I made my first feature about a Junkie Nurse working the night shift at a convalescent home, a dark comedy, and I hope to connect with fans of Drugstore Cowboy, Harold and Maude, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Office Space, and Repo Man. All these issues of art vs. commerce come up daily for me. My film’s won awards on the festival circuit, we’ve got distributon offers, Netflix added JUNKIE NURSE as a “save for later” option, but I’m not going to get richoff the film. I’m very pleased with how it came out and excited to make more films. I will say I’m more focused than ever on the marketing side of the process. I’m very curious to see how filmmaking changes with all the new social networking and internet viewing options becoming available. It seems like you’d be able to directly reach your ideal audience somehow now, or very soon, through the internet.