"in 2003, 455 films were released, 275 of those were independent, 180 were studio films. last year 677 films were released, so you’re not imagining things—there are a lot of movies that open every weekend. 549 of those were independent, 128 were studio films. so, a 100% increase in independent films, and a 28% drop in studio films, and yet, ten years ago: studio market share 69%, last year 76%. you’ve got fewer studio movies now taking up a bigger piece of the pie and you’ve got twice as many independent films scrambling for a smaller piece of the pie. that’s hard. that’s really hard." - steven soderbergh on the state of cinema.
case study: what's a bigger risk for a studio? a $150 million blockbuster or a $5 million 'indie' film.
well, according to mr. soderbergh (in the article linked above) the answer is, sadly, the $5 million 'indie film.'
it breaks down like this and it comes back to something i've been circling around, discussing, and sharing articles about for weeks now: distribution. see, the way a studio looks at it, that little film is still going to cost around $20-$30 million to distribute and market domestically. and since exhibitors (read, movie theaters) take about half of those profits, in order to just cover the film needs to gross $70 million.
as soderbergh asks, is it more common to hear of a $5 million film pulling in $70… or a $100 million film pulling in $300 million.? this also gets into the international market where films now are making the majority of their money.
so what films cost $100 million+ to make and sell REALLY well overseas? the franchises. why do you think we churn out a million iron mans and avengers and star wars and fast and the furious and james bond and lord of the rings and all your other major tentpole releases each year?
the studios aren't dumb. and they know how to placate the worldwide audience. hell, i love those big movies. but it presents a problem when disney would rather invest hundreds of million dollars in a bomb like john carter or universal in a stinker like battleship than to help a dynamic filmmaker like shane carruth get his small film into theaters.
but that's where we are. we are in the age of tentpole releases. disney will churn out two marvel films and a star wars film starting in 2015. it will be pragmatic and calculated. some of those movies will probably be an incredible amount of fun (i could not be more excited to see what JJ does with star wars, for example). but it means they are less willing to take real creative risks on younger, potentially game-changing directors.
i'm of the belief that the best content will find a way to find its audience. but even a couple decades removed from the 90s… would it be as easy for tarantino and PTA and wes anderson to begin their careers today. perhaps. i mean, look, the fact that a film like benh zeitlin's beasts of the southern wild can garner an oscar nod for best picture speaks volumes about the capacity for great content to still find an audience. and it is encouraging when a film like ryan coogler's fruitvale station can win the grand jury prize at sundance and find a summer release, or when an indie film like daniel patrick carbone's hide your smiling faces (an audaciously strong debut if there ever was one in recent memory) can gain such accolades coming out of tribeca.
but perhaps we shouldn't look at these film as outliers. perhaps they speak to a change that is occurring in the film industry for those brave enough to embrace it. the san francisco film society (which hosted soderbergh's state of cinema speech and is doing some special work with independent film through current director, ted hope) was an ardent supporter of beasts of the southern wild and awarded the filmmakers a grant to complete the film. same goes for fruitvale station. and hide your smiling faces only entered into production after a successful Kickstarter campaign and was supported by IFP through its Narrative Labs program (dee rees' criminally under seen pariah also went through IFP).
are we starting to see a trend here? there are new communities forming around supporting the independent filmmaker. and if the studios and gatekeepers are going to pick up their ball and go home to play with luke skywalker and iron man, then we will find new tribes to hang out and work with. but this will ONLY work if we truly are invested. it will only work if there are more ted hopes and ifps of the world dedicated to helping filmmakers find their audience. and it will only work if we take the lead of filmmakers like carruth and zeitlin and coogler and carbone and rees and act brave enough to explore and navigate these new channels.
and to the gatekeepers? i leave you with a quote from my other favorite recent keynote address from comedian, patton oswalt:
"this isn’t a threat, this is an offer. we like to create. we’re the ones who love to make shit all the time. you’re the ones who like to discover it and patronize it support it and nurture it and broadcast it. just get out of our way when we do it. if you get out of our way and we fucking get out and fall on our face, we won’t blame you like we did in the past. because we won’t have taken any of your notes, so it’ll truly be on us."