August
20Why Art House Movies are on the Endangered Species List
I must have been preoccupied because I missed the ‘thud.’
The sound, that is, of the specialty film business landing in the basement.
I didn’t think things were that dire until I saw the numbers assembled by Variety’s box office guru, Pam McClintock. Box office totals to date for 2008 specialty films from the studio-owned art house divisions totaled $161 million to date, compared to $330 million last year and $418 million in 2006.
Little wonder that the acquisitions folks from these divisions heading for Toronto and other festivals show little desire to buy new movies for distribution. (Why are they going? You might ask.)
What these numbers say is simply this: In McClintock’s words, “The worst thing that ever happened to indie film was that the studios decided it was a good business.”
Her numbers include the studio units plus the Weinstein Co. They also include those New Line releases that do not fall into the bigger-budget category.
What’s responsible for these trends? The expectations of the studios for their art films were too high. Their production budgets were too lofty and their marketing budgets too ambitious.
But here’s a bigger question: The filmmakers out there aren’t coming through, either. There are more indie movies being made but, for some reason, they don’t reflect the passion and artistic clout of films of the ‘60s or ‘70s.
“The kids are all trying to be commercial and they’re falling on their faces,” says the chief of one of the specialty divisions who doesn’t want to be quoted.
That may be facile. But something is going wrong in the process and, in the end, it’s the filmgoer who will suffer.
The sound, that is, of the specialty film business landing in the basement.
I didn’t think things were that dire until I saw the numbers assembled by Variety’s box office guru, Pam McClintock. Box office totals to date for 2008 specialty films from the studio-owned art house divisions totaled $161 million to date, compared to $330 million last year and $418 million in 2006.
Little wonder that the acquisitions folks from these divisions heading for Toronto and other festivals show little desire to buy new movies for distribution. (Why are they going? You might ask.)
What these numbers say is simply this: In McClintock’s words, “The worst thing that ever happened to indie film was that the studios decided it was a good business.”
Her numbers include the studio units plus the Weinstein Co. They also include those New Line releases that do not fall into the bigger-budget category.
What’s responsible for these trends? The expectations of the studios for their art films were too high. Their production budgets were too lofty and their marketing budgets too ambitious.
But here’s a bigger question: The filmmakers out there aren’t coming through, either. There are more indie movies being made but, for some reason, they don’t reflect the passion and artistic clout of films of the ‘60s or ‘70s.
“The kids are all trying to be commercial and they’re falling on their faces,” says the chief of one of the specialty divisions who doesn’t want to be quoted.
That may be facile. But something is going wrong in the process and, in the end, it’s the filmgoer who will suffer.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
Drop in on us at the moment to
obtain more knowledge and facts
regarding Drop in on us
contemporary to grasp more
facts and facts anyway
Posted by: unelamnsheerm | 1/16/2012 6:36:54 AM
brinkka2011 says: This was a genuinely extremely beneficial post. In theory I'd like to write like this also getting time and actual effort to make a good piece of writing but what can I say I procrastinate alot and by no means appear to obtain anything done.
Posted by: penis enlargement | 9/28/2011 12:32:30 PM
Hello. And Bye.
Posted by: Utiniaten | 3/1/2011 10:39:12 AM
Nice post, kind of drawn out though. Really good subject matter though.
Posted by: file taxes online | 12/14/2010 8:25:03 PM
Nice post, kind of drawn out though. Really good subject matter though.
Posted by: cost rican yoga retreats | 12/10/2010 5:44:19 PM
Similar systems in mandatory sides take one bait use each snow, with the newest thermal to the train.
Posted by: mall digital signs | 5/19/2010 9:50:42 PM
Though notional governments upheld geographic, if any, passes to arise the morning trust after furman, 37 lifeboats stole in air organize fiscal century state dyers which suffered to jeopardize the perks of white and stewart.
Posted by: clothes | 5/7/2010 9:36:37 AM
Add hot brother, add heat.
Posted by: grand-gambler.com | 4/1/2010 3:48:39 AM
Bart is right on.
My comment is instead aimed at the comments below from disgruntled film makers whining about lack of a distribution deal because of the rat rave studios have created.
Making a film should not be about making money, being guaranteed distribution, or winning festivals. It's about making your film and telling your story... if you only it get to show it to a hundred people, or just your Grandma in Toledo... who cares... you've still made a piece of art and no one can take that away from you.
Posted by: Jimi Patterson | 9/10/2008 10:22:43 PM
Hello everyone, I completely agree with this article and most of the comments on here.
All those superhero movies, such as the Dark Knight, were absolutely terrible. When I go to the theatre, I want to be laid down with issues, I want my mind to be challenged, I want to see amazing actors wrap themselves into their world so much that it's not the character on the script, it's Sean Penn crying and passionately yelling. I want to hear dialogue that's so structured it's ridiculous, where I can see the roof and have the illusion killed for me. I want to have a movie with themes and symbolism that are about as subtle as a hurricane.
Besides, I'm so arty and I so know what I'm talking about, that I comment on articles like this and put the r before the e in the word 'theatre'.
Here's the problem with cinema today and yeah, indie films. Young filmmakers are making movies shaped to their own favorites, the ones that inspired them to make movies in the first place. While we hate how studios work, this new wave of filmmakers is turning their independent practice into a business. It's so damn structured and their arguments are so ridiculously forced and redundant that it's not a movie any more, it's a research paper. Hell, half the 'screenwriters' commenting on this article say their scripts are much better than Dark Knight, but if I got punched for every grammatical or spelling error in your comments, I wouldn't be functional enough to type my own.
The thing that Iron Man and Dark Knight got right was that the filmmakers had fun with their material. If you don't think that there's any character or story in either of those, then you must be clinically insane. You went into the movie waiting to see the movie that the film snob told you about. You never expected to be entertained in the first place. I can understand someone not liking the movie or the film not being to their taste, but to say there's no story present? You're causing controversy for the sake of being heard.
So indie filmmakers, don't think about making something worth watching. Go outside, experience something, then come back home and write a movie you'll have fun making. Chances are, if you loosen up a bit, you'll make something that we'll have fun seeing, too.
Posted by: Snobby Critic | 9/5/2008 12:04:17 PM
You say the films aren't up to snuff compared to the 60's and 70's... but the B.O. data you compare is from the past three years.
The Studio units have made some unwise decisions, but it also just comes down to one year of bad content...
Posted by: Luke | 9/5/2008 10:42:45 AM
Peter is right on. The thud has been coming for a few years now.
I agree that there are far too many filmmakers lacking in technical knowledge of the craft who have likely never read books and are unable to tell a story properly.
But the few filmmakers who have the passion and wit of the 60s and 70s filmmakers are afraid to take risks because rent in New York doesn''''t cost 100 dollars a month anymore. They have also seen many people fail to make careers out of their indie films unless they are a Blair Witch.
Also, the major festivals which are the only way to really guarantee exposure for independent filmmakers without the personal bank account to fund a risky independent release, have been hijacked by the studios to the point that programmers are in bed with sales agents. A big festival in Canada has been in bed with sales agents for a couple years now.
This year some of the top festivals have barred films dealing with certain topics. A popular festival in Utah ruled out films that were about ''''filmmaking'''' this year, and only programmed films by new filmmakers if they were about hot button political issues.
The problem also lies with the film sales agents who consistently tell indie filmmakers with great films "I don''''t know how to sell your movie" to distributors. So, the small cross-section of films that make it to the multiplex let alone art theaters are those that are appreciated by a select privileged few with questionable authority aside from their paychecks. Also of note, the sales agents send their uneducated assistants who have business knowledge only and little artistic sensibility to scout for them.
And finally, Landmark controls the market which has enforced a veritable monopoly over what gets seen.
I wrote/produced/directed/edited a 35mm feature with great indie actors recently which opened the Woodstock film festival to great reviews and has gone on to several film festivals, and I have still had to fight tooth and nail to get this film released theatrically because people don''''t know how to sell the film. The industry only wants Juno''''s and Little Miss Sunshine''''s, but if I''''m not mistaken, several hundred other films are made each year.
Posted by: Emmet Gidalia | 9/4/2008 3:50:04 PM
I agree that the reason that indie distribution is dying is because of the digital revolution.
It's not just that the passion for filmmaking is not there, the ability to tell, shape, and craft stories is no longer there.
I've been a filmmaker for 25 years. When I came up, I was mentored, guided, apprenticed. The digital revolution means that "anyone can be a director." All of the years of honing one's craft is now collapsed down to a few minutes and a manual. Films are about great stories not just the technology to get something shot.
The art and craft of filmmaking has died and people don't want to pay to see bad movies. And so goes independent cinema. . . . .
Why are all those distributors going to Toronto????
Posted by: Renee | 9/3/2008 7:45:37 PM
Blah, don''t blame vidgames and this and that for the downfall of the indie genre. First - good indies get picked up. Period. Look at Hamlet 2 - solid, funny, INDIE that gets picked up for distribution. A lot of current indie filmmaking is reinventing the wheel. Look at the Dark Knight. Say what you will, it''s a masterpiece of writing, directing, acting... it''s all-around a great movie. And it''s been hugely profitable. Was it successful because it was new and fresh and different? No, in a lot of ways it was conventional (in terms of Hollywood) but it was well-executed. Now anyone with a couple thousand dollars can be an "indie" filmmaker and dedicate themselves to something cold that audiences don''t get or relate to, because it''s new and fresh...and it''s not good. I also think there has to be a distinction between real indie films and art house films. Look at "There Will Be Blood" - reasonably low-budget, fairly small marketing budget, but it was good and it made a decent profit. The downfall of art house started when studios decide to bankroll a movie like "Cold Mountain" to the tune of 100+ million dollars - buying Oscars is one of the least cost-effective strategies in film. I think this is the backlash of the industry liking indies too much and changing them into something they weren''t. Indies and arthouse won''t go away, but the studios need to strike a balance.
Posted by: Chris | 9/2/2008 7:17:40 AM
Everyone can get a pen, it doesn't mean they can write a novel.
Posted by: Patrick | 9/2/2008 1:52:18 AM
I agree with the main article. And the quote by the unnamed "chief."
Now here's another quote by a poet that can apply just as easily to the subject and practice of movie making and distribution.
"It is a sad fact about our culture that a poet can earn much more money writing or talking about his art than he can by practicing it."
~W.H. Auden
Posted by: phx tzu | 9/1/2008 7:26:23 PM
I work with a single-screen movie theatre in Central PA. It would be showing small films tomorrow if only it didn't have to cope with with demands from distributors that first-run films be kept on past the point of profitability for the the theatre.
The theatre could make a business of showing 2-3 films a week; but it's impossible under current distribution requirements for the big first run films.
Posted by: prwiley | 9/1/2008 11:11:54 AM
I am a young film director that is trying to find a producer. In my country, Romania, is even impossible to get a budged over 300.000$ because we have like 10 cinemas in the entire country. I ve written a script about illegal races, and tried to make it original, with human characters, not the usual bad and good guy. Despite my efforts, no romanian producer was intreastead in my script. I am trying to find some investors but until now I had no luck.
When I go at one of those 10 cinemas I see movies like Dark Night or Hulk where huge budgets where wasted for scripts 10 times dumber than mine...
Posted by: comaradu | 8/31/2008 6:48:29 AM
I agree that movies are getting worst each year. I think that new media (pc games, youtube) and that we ran out of good ideas are the main causes. I personaly want to direct a script that I have worked for more than a year but I can't find a producer. I see Batman - Dark Boring and I ask myself why this movie has a big producer, and the script is so bad that even a 5 years old kid can see that, and my script which is 10 times better , doesn't have any chance?!
Posted by: comaRadu@yahoo.com | 8/31/2008 6:38:28 AM
Many filmmakers are so wrapped up in having a singular voice and vision, that they miss the mark and make films that they would want to see themselves... But I think it's about sharing. It's about the audience... The word independent suggests such a separation from the group. Film is interdependent, it relies on a crew... a cast... an audience... producers, studio execs, etc... The filmmaker has to have the openness, strength and humility to see the film to it's successful completion while serving the best interests of everyone involved and the project. And that does not seem independent in any way.
Posted by: Nick Dillon, Writer / Director THE REBEL | 8/30/2008 10:06:56 PM
Listening to you.
In the cool
celerity of a
diffident young
bird I try
to forget a dying
behaviour, the
sound of a picture
and a luminous
care, easily,
like an earnest
desire.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Posted by: Francesco Sinibaldi | 8/30/2008 1:52:37 PM
make a movie. or dont. see a movie. or dont. a big budget movie can suck and so can a no budget. good is good. bad is bad.
Posted by: jimmy stewart | 8/29/2008 6:13:09 PM
Dave Rice is correct. Give them 12 choices in the mall and they will go. Eventually the ones they like become blockbusters the ones they don't like as much make money anyway. The video game business does better because if the kids want video games give them the real thing. A video game. But if they want a movie give them a movie. Please stop trying to make everything the same thing. We now have to put so much music in movies that movies are music videos. Music is no longer meant to be heard it is meant to be watched. So what have we done? We've wrapped it all in one and made a terrible product. I have to agree with Dave. Batman stunk! That was not a movie. Yes, it was on a large screen. But that was not a movie. A movie should have a story, texture, should be layered with character and most of all not bore and leave us with nothing. So Mr. Bart, please keep taking a stand and don't let Guber twist your arm. All we want is a good story.
Robert Kellner
26 years old
Posted by: Robert Kellner | 8/29/2008 11:39:50 AM
Indie films just aren''t tailored for everyone. Not everybody loves Victorian-era films. Not everybody wants to see real sx. Not everybody wants to watch people "mumble" on screen (we get enough of it at home). I know there are a million and one different kinds of indies, just make the kinds people want to see. They don''t have to be blockbusters, but they must contain some commerciality to be successful. That''s all, man. It is simple enough. If you tailor something for a specific crowd, only they will want to see it.
Posted by: nel | 8/29/2008 10:16:04 AM
The problem isn't the movies or the distributors. Although it's true there are a lot of tepid movies being made. AFter all, making a small well-reviewed film that does no BO gets you nowhere in your career these days. But that said, the larger problem is, hate to say it, the audience. The prime 25-40 year old urban, educated audience for indie film has aged out and they have been replaced by a generation that's used to games and the internet - they want it fast, they want to be entertained, they don't want to be challenged. They can't even have a 5 minute conversation without the need to text someone. Two hours in a theater watching people talk? Not interesting.
Posted by: bear | 8/28/2008 8:08:48 AM
At the same time as asking to be an indie film, we are constantly coaxed into making it more commercial which is where it fails due to the fact that it stops becoming what was intended in the first place. And if it's not "commercial" enough, then no one cares about it or cares to make it.
Posted by: JO MARR | 8/28/2008 12:47:30 AM
The ease of internet access, along with digital film equipment, is spawning lazy new filmmakers who believe a film is made simply by pointing a camera and calling 'action'. I see very little passion in these new, coming up filmmakers. Even less dedication to excellence of idea and execution.
The good news is that I expect this moment to pass, and great rule-breaking indie film to re-emerge.
Posted by: Arye Michael Bender | 8/27/2008 9:59:23 AM
The indie scene is just going through the same cycle as indie TV house a couple of years back. The studios get interested in their ideas, either try to copy them, or buy them, witness: Spelling, Rhysher, New World, New Line, Miramax. Ultimately the corporate committee-decision studio can't make the fresh new ideas work at studio budgets and the indie shingle dies. Enter Lionsgate, ShineReveille, Mark Burnett et al and the next cycle of fresh shingles emerges to generate game changing shows.
Posted by: Ross | 8/26/2008 11:23:28 PM
Dave Rice's comments are on the money. who needs crappy films based on comic books, video games. who needs all these speical efffects?
Frankly,I would just rather stay at home and watch TCM. I prefer Robt Osborne to introduce a good old Hollywood movie and watch it.
Posted by: ernie | 8/26/2008 5:33:41 PM
Alan -- while a 16mm CAMERA was relatively cheap -- THE FILM was not, nor was getting it processed. The digital camera is more expensive up front, but cheaper to shoot on ... that's why at the Palm Springs Film Festival sad-sad Kodak was trying to get the kids to shot on 16mm ...
Posted by: Big Bomb | 8/26/2008 4:34:46 PM
Target the market? The market wants a decent film. At least one that is trying to be good. Take the crap out that fills the malls and put in 12 "independent" films and guess what? The kids will eventually start going to the movies and paying for them. The good ones will become blockbusters. It's not the marketing it's choice. Let video games stay as video games. Get them the hell off the big screen. Let films be films. Stories. Events. I fell asleep in Spiderman, I couldn't stand Batman and Ironman was a bore. There was nothing good about it. Let's be honest.
Posted by: Dave Rice | 8/26/2008 3:57:56 PM
Peter,
What is independent film anyway? Almost every good movie is called independent. Why don't we stop the name calling and just make movies. Why Dark Night is even called a movie is beyond me. It was awful! The first scene was the best, it was the trailer scene and after Heath in introduced you could hear the snoring in the theater. Why the media is so excited? Who the hell knows. The "movie" was a bore. It would have been a nice five minute short. Now back to movies. Deliverance, Serpico, Sling Blade, Jaws, The Godfather...these are movies. They have a story. Time passes and you have no idea where it went. You think about them afterwards. For the love of God, can't Peter Guber get involved in story telling. He seems like a nice enough fellow on the tube, he's made enough money, we need real movies again. There is one theater, the Landmark Theater on the West Side of L.A. that show decent film. It's owned by Mark Cuban. The only man in the entertainment business willing to put his money where Bart and Guber's mouth is. Come on guys, let's do something about it. Please.
Posted by: David Rice | 8/26/2008 3:54:14 PM
I am tired and perplexed by this belief that all a filmmaker needs to make a film is a camcorder and a few bucks. That mentality is why there have been a flood of filmmakers who don't understand the craft of filmmaking and don't have the vision. They merely want to "make a film". Indie films will thrive once again when the screenplays are better as well as the execution.
Posted by: Questnew | 8/26/2008 8:34:17 AM
I have been an attorney to the indie film world for many years. I have committed my practice to help them realize their dreams and passions. I disagree that the films aren't as commericial as in the earlier years. It is not that. It is simply that the distributors lost track on how to target the market and how to individualize the marketing efforts. They simply find a way to slap it up there without much planning and thought. That is why the revenues are down. Additionally, the indie filmmakers need to find a better way to postion themselves in this new wave of media. With the federal incentives under The American Jobs Creation Act, 2004 and the States fighting over how much to give back to you if you spend money in their state, it is in fact the best time to be in the indie film world. We all have to just be smarter in how we approach it.
Posted by: corky kessler | 8/26/2008 7:52:21 AM
The answer is that indie films aren't getting any screen time at the multiplex.
why do the chains build cinemas with 24 to 30 screens and then show only 6 different films? Once I went to one such multiplex showing Zohan in 4 cinemas. in each one., there were on average 50 patrons and 200 empty seats. You could have put all the patrons in one cinema, and then you would have had 3 free screens for indie, foreign or art films.
Posted by: Rick | 8/25/2008 3:06:35 PM
At some point indie movies became "cheaper" movies to the big studios and took up all the indie screens. Plus, all the indie filmmakers started going to Fox, Paramount, etc to get their pix financed - which is still the studio system - instead of uncles/aunts/etc. The indie attitude got lost.
Also, let's not forget the surge of the documentary. Fahrenheit and Inconvenient made it seem like doc's were going to be the new thing. But with all the screens being allocated to documentaries compared to the 90's, there really aren't many breaking out.
Digital Distribution would appear to the be the new frontier that should re-open doors and minds.
Posted by: joemovie | 8/25/2008 2:05:20 PM
Art house movies are not on the endangered species list. the art house itself is. once indie filmmakers come to terms with the fact that getting their films seen is more important than the increasingly vanity-laden concept of standing in the back of a darkened movie theater staring out at a mostly empty house, then art house movies will thereafter be known as digital releases and the good ones (rare, rare, rare) will be consumed hungrily online.
Posted by: johnny case | 8/25/2008 1:31:51 PM
All this talk about technology. The indy end of the business crapped out because the scripts stank about as bad as the flops the studios have been turning out. Try to make movies that you don't feel dirty or depressed watching. It's the only way to get people away from videogames and other attractions in the attention economy.
Posted by: Banjo | 8/23/2008 12:05:08 PM
If you are looking for a more detailed opinion on the state of independent film vis-à -vis the box office and the specialty industry’s overall psyche - I would refer you to Mark Gill’s keynote at the L.A. Film Festival''s Financing Conference back in June. You can find it posted online at various sites. It was an insightful aggregation of the events that have ripped apart the specialty market this past year. It is well researched and accessible, bleak and inspiring. I would recommend reading it to see a high-level perspective beyond the technical elements of filmmaking from someone who must balance business and creative.
Posted by: Schmitty | 8/22/2008 4:55:58 PM
Dan
while you can buy a dv camcorder for, say, $1000-2000 it won't be of the quality needed to make features. such cameras are for family outings, etc. currently, canon's quality video cameras start at $5k and go up from there. (a 16mm film camera back in, say, the 60s, 70s, or 80s didn't cost as much [in adjusted dollars]). that's a pretty penny. when that changes i think we'll see good indy features again that don't have bloated budgets, get twisted out of shape by a big studio trying to make them into something they're not, require a lot of advertising, etc.
marry that with better online distribution platforms and you have a new digital indy industry.
of course, if you think you can get outfitted for $2k, fine. we see things differently. you certainly can make digital movies with low-end equipment but that doesn't inspire (some) people. that doesn't mean it can't be done. however, i'll wait for the price of high-end equipment to come down a bit more before i commit the energy to it. i believe others filmmakers will too.
Posted by: alan | 8/22/2008 12:59:29 PM
I don't agree that the digital revolution will change the indie market for the better. The revolution is already here. For $2,000 you can buy all the equipment you need to make a film. That''s a pretty low threshold.
The ideas just don't seem to be there these days. The passion doesn't seem to be there. It's been a while since an indie movie has grabbed you by the throat and made you say, whoa! Nobody seems to be doing anything creative. Indie movies seem to be resumes for mainstream work.
Posted by: Dan Zee | 8/22/2008 12:42:26 PM
the digital revolution should turn all this around. when you can make a movie w/o paying for film/dailies etc you'll once again see passionate truly indy stories. digital cameras and internet distribution will make this possible. after the cost of buying (or renting) a digital camera a crew will be able to produce a movie for a few thousand dollars (or whatever they have in their pockets). the pictures that result will be way to low-profile for studios to get involved with except, possibly, through distribution on their websites and/or dvd deals.
we're almost there -- the cost of good cameras is still a bit high and the quality of online display is still a bit low, but that will even out soon enough. looking forward to it
Posted by: alan | 8/21/2008 6:16:07 PM