Film Fund-amentals: Wanted, Social Skills

 First published August 31, 2012.

Don’t you just love it when someone seriously asks if they should consider using social networks for business purposes. You can genuinely and sincerely give them a wide-eyed look and go, “Well, duh!”

Yes, we are all stuck using the social networks. I say stuck because like any sane person, I have a lot of ambivalence about the whole idea. I mostly use Facebook because it gives me a chance to keep track of family members whom I only see at funerals. I have a Twitter account, but I am still trying to figure out what I am really supposed to do with the dang thing. I do a lot of professional postings on Linkedin simply because it was the first social site I signed up for and I feel too settled in to move out. I recently signed up for Pinterest but have yet to do anything with it.

I get all socialized out pretty quickly, and if I really had to use this stuff in a major way, I suspect I would be worn to a frazzle in about thirty minutes. Unfortunately, the current process of indie film-making demands otherwise. Even the most anti-social filmmaker has to become a social network butterfly.

The use of social sites is now essential at virtually every level of the business. (And yes, indie filmmaking is a business.) It starts at the very first tentative step of attempting to raise money for a small production, especially if you are using the crowdfunding approach. You can go online and get loads of explanations about the need and application, ranging from the scholarly (Thomas Lambert and Armin Schwienbacher’s An Empirical Analysis of Crowdfunding) to the more layman friendly and concise (Rich Brooks’ 11 Tips for Crowdfunding: How to Raise Money From Strangers). But an article at SoundOnSound.com says it best (Digital Marketing, Social Media & Crowd Funding). The key to crowdfunding is getting a crowd, and this is where the social networks become extremely important.

A major function of the social network sites—is networking. A lot of what goes on there is an extension of what is traditionally called public relations. In the old days, public relations consisted of a lot of socializing, phone calls, and press releases. This also allowed the PR staff ample opportunities to get drunk and order free meals. Those were good days.

Now, it involves the hard work of developing and maintaining various social network sites as a means to create a constantly changing and evolving web of contacts, postings, and information to attract followers and possible associates. You’ve got to pull people in, get them engaged, and maintain their excitement level on an almost daily basis. It’s a full time job.

That is why some people might want to actually get someone to handle it for them. A whole new breed of public relation specialists are out there for this purpose. A good site to go to, in order to acquaint yourself with this possibility is Sheri Candler.com. Sheri Candler is highly regarded within indie film-making and has been developing an increasingly diverse range of approaches to digital promotion. Besides, she and I are connected on Facebook, and I guess she is a friend though we have never met. But I have lots of friends like that these days.

However, many young indie filmmakers are not going to be in a position where they can hire someone to work with them on promotion. So first, you’ve got to bone up on promoting your project and/or business on social network sites. Again, the web is bursting with posts related to the subject. You might start with something like the Forbes article How to Use Social Media to Promote Your Small Business as a general introduction. Then you will want to get some movie focused tips from Are You Brave Enough to Shun Social Media? by Sheri Candler. Finally, there is the engaging presentation Social Marketing for Movies: A Practical Guide by Dave Olson.

Please note that you can easily spend several months online researching these topics. It involves almost as much work as the actual job of promoting. Since you will find yourself using multiple social network sites, you may also want to find some way of connecting them together in order to save on the work load. At About.com there is a guide to the Top 10 Social Media Management Applications. Previously I had mentioned engagement as part of the process in promoting through social network sites. But actually, you are looking for something more than simply “engagement.” You are attempting to build a process of interactivity (see the Sarah Sluis piece All a Twitter. Applications like HootSuite and Ping.fm allow you to integrate, organize and share information more smoothly across all of these social sites. At the very least, it will save you a few hours a day dealing with all of this stuff.

PR used to be a one-way street. Now, you have to engage, interact, and encourage a “discussion” through the social networks. To be honest, this is the truly hard part of the process. Personally, I am the kind of person who finds interactive processes to be truly horrifying. I am always happier with the one-way lecture mode. So I always have to remind myself that those days are gone. Along with the booze and the free meals. Alas!

Film Fund-amentals: The Decline and Fall of Hollywood

 First published September 6, 2012.

In many parts of the country, the leaves are already turning brown. It is due to drought, not seasonal change. The same is true at the box office.

The 2012 box office is at its lowest level in…well, take your pick. According to a recent report, it has been the worst box office since 1993. I seem to recall that an earlier report placed it as the worst since 1995. Some analysts predict that the final tally for the summer box office will be down by 3 per cent  from 2011, and you may remember that 2011 was already down to a 16 year low at the time. Likewise, 2010 saw the lowest attendance since 1997. Inexplicably, the mid-1990s were the golden years, and it’s all been downhill ever since.

Based upon many of my past postings (see Dickens of a Mess), the steady decline of the Hollywood box office isn’t exactly a surprise. I have been warning and explaining this point for the past two years. So, at the moment, I am more amused by the latest “insider” take on the problem. The latest is that the 2012 drop is being caused by…(drum-roll please)…the Olympics.

Is there any real evidence that the Olympics would create a conflict for movie viewing?  No. There is not a single shred of data to support this assumption whatsoever. But that’s OK. Prior to the Olympics, the drop was due to the Colorado theater shooting. Before that it was caused by the weather. Before that is was due to….You get the point. Eventually, someone will blame it on sun spots.

One of the few articles on this decline that makes sense is Tom Shone’s recent post at the Guardian web site, called Summer at the Cinema. Of course, Shone commits several unforgivable transgressions in his thinking. He first demonstrates the suspect nature of Hollywood accounting, by reference to the mysterious extra ticket sales generated by Paramount back in 1994 from theaters that didn’t exist. Then he changes the current box office record by adjusting the box office of old films for inflation and comparing them to the modern list.

Once that adjustment is made, Avatar doesn’t even make it onto the top ten. Instead, the highest grossing film in history is Gone With the Wind, closely followed by Star Wars. Even Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs aces out Avatar. One reason why Hollywood does not like to adjust financial figures is because the results might make the modern whiz kids look bad. It should also be noted that with the exception of Titanic, all of the top ten titles are over thirty years old.

In reality, the decline of the Hollywood cinema has been going on for several decades. The advent of the digital revolution has simply accelerated a process that was already well under way. Heck, some folks would argue that Hollywood never really recovered from the invention of television. Certainly the whole Hollywood system is still straining from the forced collapse of the old studio system, starting in 1948.

In his article, Shone argues that the vast changes and increase in home entertainment options have been the primary force shrinking the box office. That is certainly true. At this point, the changes are not just shrinking the box office; they are replacing the whole system. The digital revolution has and will continue to alter the entire structure of both distribution and production. It will prove to be the most profound event in the history of cinema since the invention of celluloid. Actually, it will be the end of “cinema” and the beginning of some new digital form. It is the single greatest threat that the conventional Hollywood film industry has ever faced. But it’s not the only threat.

An inability to adjust to any form of rational business and financial modeling is the other great threat facing Hollywood. The Hollywood film industry has always had the odd distinction of being a business based upon large amounts of spending in the hope that a precious few movies will actually make a profit. In that regard, the business structure more closely resembles gambling than any kind of rational enterprise. People in the business will insist that this is the reason why only a select few (that is “Them”) are capable of understanding the biz. Everyone else is a dim wit.

Of course, this is total nonsense. Addicted gamblers have the same rationale and attitude. Likewise, addicted gamblers usually go belly up while they are doubling down. In the old days, in Vegas, these guys would eventually be found in a back alley with a pair of broken legs. But in Hollywood, they merely become executive producers.

The entire financial model used by Hollywood is completely unsustainable. The system is propped up by financial institutions using models that are often only half-sustainable and interfacing into financial models that have been borrowed from other businesses (for example, the mortgage industry) without any form of adjustment for film assets. When those approaches fail to work, as inevitably they do, they then fall into line with the gambler nonsense of the Hollywood insiders. Meanwhile, the insiders are desperately hoping that the Chinese will come in and simply give them money. Good grief, this sounds like the federal government.

So the whole thing is a complete mess in the process of imploding. Which is sort of OK. The Hollywood system is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Sure, they have money (kind of – it’s borrowed from everywhere else) and political clout (which is how they keep trying to derail the digital revolution). But what they really need is financing based on bona fide risk analysis and a cooperative approach to digital adaption. Well, that and maybe a few original ideas. Unfortunately, they are resisting any form of financial discipline while mindlessly trying to tame and devour the emerging digital process.

Hollywood will not fall over night. Instead, it will collapse much like the Roman Empire. It will splutter and misfire, spinning into various smaller pieces as it slowly dissolves and scatters into a strange collection of hybrid forms (in between some really splashy shows in the Coliseum). Most likely this process will take about ten years. Hopefully sooner.

And by the way, every time I make a prediction like this it ends up happening a lot sooner. I’m way too conservative these days.

Film Fund-amentals: “F” Is (Still) for Fake

 First published September 15, 2012.

It’s not often that a low budget indie movie scores international attention. Too bad. The past couple of days have been a grim reminder that there really is such a thing as bad publicity.

The current firestorm, protests, and deaths over the YouTube tape Innocence of Muslims  is a nasty tribute to the global power of the digital process. It is also an example of how much fakery and deception goes on out there. For all practical purposes, the movie doesn’t actually exist. Sure, some kind of a movie was made last year but it is highly likely that the stupid thing was never completed.

Aside from the ongoing international crisis caused by this exercise in provocation, this movie is also an incredible lesson in the darkest aspects of indie production. Every emerging detail concerning the making of Innocence of Muslims is a detailed study in fraud and deception.

Based upon accounts from people involved at various stages of the production, the original film was some sort of ultra low-budget flick called Desert Warriors. Set 2000 years ago, the movie was supposed to be a presentation on violent inter-tribal warfare in the Mideast (curiously minus the Romans who would have been around kicking the most butt at the time). The film appeared to have involved a lot of green screenwork, some really cheap stock footage from old movies, and a protagonist with the odd name of Master George.

The main figure behind this movie was a mysterious guy named Steve (or Sam) Bacile (with various spellings) who was either 52, 56, or 75 years old, depending upon which documents you look at. He seems to have been the screenwriter-producer of the film. Some people involved with the movie thought he might have been Egyptian, though he seems to have claimed that he was Jewish and of Israeli citizenship. Evidence now suggests that he is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian from Egypt though even this is in some doubt. Like everything else in this bizarre tale, every detail could change by the time you read this post. The only real thing about this guy is his previous conviction for fraud. Add in Alan Roberts as the initial director – a man barely known for a handful of soft-porn films in the 1970s – and you have the most dubious line up since Plan Nine From Outer Space. It should be noted that it seems that Roberts sort of vanishes somewhere early in the making of the film and is not supposed to have anything to do with its later alternations.

Though the film did receive a single-day play at a second run theater in Los Angeles, it managed to fly under everybody’s radar. Promotion work for the movie consisted of a woman standing outside handing out fliers and attracting what I suspect were ten winos looking for a place to sleep it off. At that screening, the title was reportedly Innocence of Bin Laden.  10 people stopped to watch the flick.

The footage used in the YouTube presentation has the look of scenes slapped together in a rough cut with marginal post-production work on the digital effects (along with the possibility that it was a mix of footage from several productions). You can clearly see the separation between the characters and the inserted background. Likewise, every time there is a long shot, the characters appear to be slightly hovering over the desert. This clearly indicates that the digital work on the movie was never completed. The average weatherman at a small TV station has better visual effects.

Presumably, the YouTube piece was thrown together as a promo in hopes of getting more money to finish the movie in a new version. Despite a previous claim that the film had a $5 million budget, it probably was made for something closer to the $100,000 stated by the weirdly named Jimmy Israel, a real estate agent who was involved briefly in the production (and whose name isn’t Israel – he just uses it for business purposes). Somewhere along the way, someone did an extensive, and extremely noticeable amount of dubbing on the movie’s dialogue. Suddenly, Master George was now called Mohammad and the flick became a derogatory, and highly inaccurate presentation on the founding of Islam.

The claim made by various cast members that their lines had been changed through dubbing holds up under scrutiny. The poor sound quality, variations in vocal tones, and obvious problems with synchronization clearly indicates that entire sections of new dialogue had been added to the footage. The name of the movie’s main character, Master George, sounds like an obvious set up. Somebody needed the performers to be saying a three-syllable name that began with an “M” to help facilitate the post-production change of the name to Mohammad. This would suggest that the anti-Islamic provocation of the movie was intended from the outset, though the cast and crew appear to have been unaware of this intention.

So basically, the movie is sort of a hoax. A very dangerous hoax with a background story that may take months to sort out while investigators attempt to find out exactly who is who and what charges can be invoked. Likewise, the many layers of duplicity involved in the production plays like a textbook guide to everything you need to look out for in the indie world.

For example, always make sure that you have some solid clue about the identity of anyone you are dealing with. Film is an art of illusions, but the people involved in the process are all quite real and should be able to prove it. Every story about the so-called making of this movie suggests that virtually no one had a clue about the guy running the show.

Digital production works, but you need to do it right. The same goes with every aspect of the film making process. Likewise, digital distribution opens you up to a worldwide audience. The Internet allows you massive access. It also gives you a vast range of total strangers to potentially piss off. You might want to keep that in mind. Unfortunately, I suspect in this particular case that was the intention.

Attempting to promote your work via YouTube is a tough sale. You have to find someway to get attention. It pays to promote through some means that is provocative. Keep in mind that there is a major distinction between “provocative” and “provocation.”  The first can help to perk up interest in the movie. The other often ends up in the filing of criminal and/or civil charges.

Film Fund-amentals: Infrastructure

 First published September 23, 2012.

As he prepares to jump from indie production to his new position as the Executive Director of the San Francisco Film Society, Ted Hope has posted a strangely provocative blog piece. Provocative, because Hope is calling for a major rethink of the entire enterprise. Specifically, he is asking for a massive reshaping of the whole concept of film into a much larger – and rapidly changing –  concept of its entire infrastructure.

You don’t hear many people in the film industry discussing the question of “infrastructure.”  Not really. Most of the commentary concerning film – big and small – is extremely narrow in its focus. At least half to two-thirds of mainstream reporting on the industry is gossip oriented (like whatever current charges are pending against Lindsay Lohan). The remaining amount is often made up of whatever movie was number one last weekend in a fight for the ever shrinking box office. (Eventually a movie will be a hit because it made $1,250.29!) Occasionally, someone will write a piece about technical or artistic issues, something like Lindsay Lohan Makes Come Back After Parole.

Much the same is true of inside Hollywood reporting. Often it is focused on which company is trying to buy out some other company. That is followed by updates on spiraling budget figures for current productions and announcements about the same six guys switching jobs between the same six studios. Every so often, there will be updates on movies whose production has been sandbagged by Lindsay Lohan’s latest arrest. Occasionally there will be a “think piece” about the decline of the business – usually rounded out by the theory that the audience will come back tomorrow because tomorrow is just one day away (much like Lohan’s next arrest).

In the indie world, the overwhelming focus is on the never-ending search for funds. In his blog post, Hope especially narrows onto the unfortunate degree that most indie filmmakers have to work from project to project with no chance to take a broader perspective outside of this immediate and singular pursuit.

Even when an indie filmmaker finally gets the needed financial backing, that simply means that they must move into the next obsessive crisis: actually getting the movie made. This is then followed by the third crisis, finding a distributor. The average indie movie process often becomes a seemingly endless quest as the single project potentially takes over the next five to ten years of the filmmaker’s waking existence. It becomes less a business and more of an eccentric lifestyle. Add to this the fact that most of the film industry simply doesn’t care what the average indie filmmaker is doing. No wonder the indie filmmaker quickly becomes both obsessive and disheartened. Eventually, they become convinced that the entire industry is stacked against them. Unfortunately, they are correct. It is designed that way.

The entire history of the American film industry has been based upon monopolization. Beginning in 1908 with Thomas Edison and the Motion Pictures Patent Company and continuing with the evolution of the classic Hollywood studio system of the 1920s and 1930s, the main model of the film industry was based upon various attempts at ruthlessly controlling both production and distribution. The modern mainstream film industry no longer has the type of vertical and horizontal monopoly system that existed in the old days. But they still basically run it in much the same way. They do so through the sheer force of financial control.

OK, it is a little more complicated than that, but by the end of the day it all comes back to money – who has access and who doesn’t. The vast majority of this financial control is in the hands of a very small line up of major companies who maintain a closed shop system. Likewise, these companies are dominated by a small collection of senior executives who are basically bound together by their own language, social customs and rituals, forming a closed set of folks who maintain a surprisingly narrow – if powerful – life. It’s almost like a pack of Freemasons except that Hollywood has fewer secret handshakes.

So yes, indie filmmakers are screwed. To the wall. Then again, maybe not. The digital revolution has emerged as the potential equalizer. The main problem is figuring out how to use it. Not just in the technical sense, but also in its commercial and artistic range. The last two are already proving to be the wild card issues in the process.

The commercial possibilities of the digital approach is in a rapid state of development. The audience is already shifting to adapt it, and the business model is evolving in a great hurry to catch up with the audience. The situation resembles what happens when a radical shift in the environment results in the predators having to relocate in order to keep up with the prey. For the next phase, most likely, a series of competing business models will come and go before a totally successful approach locks itself into place.

But the artistic model will be the major challenge. In part, this is what Hope is referring to when he states that “The shift from a product business model to that of a relationship with the people formerly known as the audience…is a huge transition that won’t be easy.”  At its core, the digital form operates in radically different ways from the traditional cinema. Just as the classic Hollywood cinema evolved from the early nickelodeon, the digital form will evolve from film. It is a new form in the making.

By its highly defined and established nature, Hollywood is stuck in the old model. Only indie filmmakers have the ability to quickly adapt and develop within this new niche. The indie cinema has much to gain by doing so, and nothing to lose.

Filml Fund-amentals: Where Scammers Roam

 First published September 29, 2012.

There’s seems to be a mythic notion that I have money. How else can I explain the great movie “investment” offers I receive every week.

So let me first set the record straight. I don’t have money. Not really. Certainly not the $10,000 to $10,000,000 that various folks are hoping I will want to invest into their movies. I am even having to pass on an offer of cheap land in India (though what I would do with a couple of acres over there leaves me baffled).

The internet is a vast land of opportunity. Not necessarily good opportunities, but lots and lots of offers. Some are legitimate (though those folks are increasingly moving over to the crowd funding sites). Some are extremely illegitimate. That is especially true of most people offering some form of “evaluation” services and/or financial “arrangement” offers.

Then there is the vast gray zone. Over the past year I have seen and examined a wide variety of movie investment offers that wander somewhere between possible scam and presumed incompetence. Offers that would be too good to be true if anyone could actually figure out what the offer was about. Movie deals that sounded as if they were being made up after one too many shots of vodka on a Saturday night. In other words, they were almost stupid enough to be real.

Which is why I have stuck to a real basic routine for evaluating the legitimacy of any proposal. The actual evaluation of any business deal is a long and difficult process. But normally I can make a reasonable evaluation of the possible legitimacy of the deal itself within about two hours (and that includes several major coffee breaks). In many cases, I can make that determination within 30 minutes. That also includes a coffee break. I like my coffee.

First and foremost, I go online and try to find out if the person making the offer even exists. These days, almost everyone alive has some form of online presence. Anyone trying to make an indie movie has to have an online presence. The only known exception to this rule is the nitwit who was behind that anti-Muslim film on YouTube. Obviously, he didn’t want to be found.

Normally, this is the easy part. You run their name through the search engine and start scrolling through the material that turns up. Most indie filmmakers looking for investors will have a Facebook site that you can access. To be honest, I would only take the information on their Facebook site at (no pun intended) face value. Everyone tries to put the most positive spin on a social network site. For example, they could have a post saying: “Talked with Tom Hanks yesterday.” What it could really mean: “Tom Hanks’ lawyer called with an injunction.” You have got to take online information with a grain of salt, and maybe a shot of vodka.

If you are lucky, you may find some type of third-party reference to the person you are looking up. That can be useful if and when it is an honest-to-god objective third-party viewpoint. Good con artists can (and do) set up bogus web sites in order to falsely present what appears to be third-party references. That means that you also have to check the legitimacy of the web sites you are looking at. There are various ways of doing that through IP addresses (just use WhatIsMyIPAddress.com). If you use the Firefox browser, you can download and use Flagfox. Trust me, you will not be paranoid in double-checking these web sites.

Another bad indicator is when you discover that the person uses his or her name inconsistently. I recently checked into a film proposal with, either, several persons involved with the same last name or one person with several first names. The material is surprisingly unclear, but it sounds as if it is the same person. Let’s be honest, why should you trust somebody who can’t even trust their own name? Besides, in filmmaking (and most every other form of business), the person’s name is their brand and the only reason they would keep flipping the brand around is simply to confuse both the potential investor and future investigators.

Same goes for the company’s name. During the past year, I have seen one so-called indie film production company go through at least three different names. That is simply two too many. Again, why should you trust them if they don’t even trust their company’s name?  Also, always be concerned if the company’s name bears a striking resemblance to a different and more famous company name. The confusion created by the name similarity is not a coincidence and it is always a bad sign. If this were a football game, a flag would be thrown on the play.

Likewise, be very careful about references people make to the many famous people that they claim are connected to the project or that they claim to “know.” I have recently seen several projects being pitched online in which the filmmaker claims to have various famous names “interested” in the movie. Aside from the fact that “interested” doesn’t mean a thing in this business-lots of movie folks hate saying no, but they rarely mean yes-any indie movie is lucky if they can get one known actor involved. Five to six famous names? Unless the filmmaker is Wes Anderson, it is extremely unlikely (as in impossible). Unless they can offer firm proof of a “name” person’s involvement, this is another major flag on the play.

Always be on the alert for the “Martin Scorsese” effect. There are hundreds of thousands of people out there claiming to have some type of vague, ill-defined association with Martin Scorsese. More people than Scorsese has probably ever met in his whole life. And the alleged association is always nebulous. Like, maybe they once worked in a New York coffee shop and he stopped in one time, you know. They served him his espresso and so naturally they and Marty are tight with each other. I used to throw a flag on Marty’s name every time it appeared in a proposal. Then I ran out of flags.

Even better (or should I say worse) is when they refer to all of the major people involved in the movie but won’t say who they are…like suddenly everyone got real shy? Instead, they merely claim that they are using an editor who is associated with Martin Scorsese (what is it with this guy’s name) or a screenwriter who once wrote for Spielberg etc etc.  Most professionals in this business will allow you to use their name if they are involved with the project. If you are not using their name, it is because they are not working on your movie.  No “ifs,” no “ands”, no “buts.”

As a general rule, if you encounter any of these issues, that should be a major warning sign about the proposal. If you encounter two issues, that should send you running out of the room. If you are faced with three or more and are still wanting to invest, then please just do yourself a favor and send me the money.

I promise to spend it wisely.

Film Fund-amentals: Can Hollywood Be Saved?

 First published October 6, 2012.

Obviously my knee jerk response is to say no. But that tends to be my knee jerk response to many things. Twenty years of fatherhood does that to a guy.

However, the question is being raised in many quarters. During the past year there has been a virtual parade of articles ranging from a CNBC piece on the end of movie studios to critic Andrew O’Hehir’s speculations on the death of film culture, along with Keanu Reeves’ view on the death of analog film-making and numerous pronouncements by the British and European press. Almost every component of the industry has received its own obituary. You would think that the Mayan Apocalypse just happened and Southern California has vanished into a giant wormhole from outer space.

Which might as well be the case. Between the faltering box office, the digital revolution, the sky rocketing production costs, and the creative dead end of the modern Hollywood film industry, some studio executives must feel like they are simply waiting for an asteroid to impact at Hollywood and Vine. Even to look on the bright side involves the somewhat laborious task of finding it.

There’s an old saying that there’s nothing wrong with the movie industry that good pictures can’t cure. However, the widely noted end of creativity in modern Hollywood suggests that the “good pictures” are all long gone. At the very least, it seems like a slim prospect unless it is a original approach to an old idea (for example the remake of True Grit).

Besides, this notion begs an answer to another question: What is good?

One would like to think that high aesthetic quality has some type of eternal placement (“O sages standing in God’s holy fire”). But commercially, the real standards have to do with the infinitely more transient tastes of an ever shifting audience. Sure, I am comparing apples with oranges but you can’t sell oranges to an audience hungry for apples. It is possible that certain recent movies, like Tree of Life, may eventually be viewed as a major cinematic classic. But right now,  a film like The Hangover is the more highly esteemed audience favorite. To use the standard misquote of the other old poetic line: “Behold, ye mighty, and despair.”

An odd assortment of folks are firmly convinced that a return to solid family values will vastly improve the box office. Granted, a certain amount of reasonably decent-to-extremely good box office has been generated by various animated family films. But that is about it. The commercial patterns really don’t favor this theory and it all feels more like a bit of wish fulfillment. There is clear evidence that a certain amount of films made on a low to modest budget and pitched to an older audience has some strong possibilities (for example, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel). But the “family value” market doesn’t quite exist, at least not in the manner that some people might think. The whole concept of the modern American family is under going such a massive sociological change that no one is really sure what that term really means these days.

Since I have mentioned the track record for animated movies, it should also be noted that animated films in 3D have provided the one solid return for the 3D process. Just a few years ago, 3D was suppose to be the salvation of Hollywood. Fortunately, most folks have moved past that false assumption. Digital 3D has paved the way for many major changes in the industry, but instant box office success hasn’t been part of the picture. Except for animated movies. A lot of people like cartoons in 3D. It really isn’t enough to save Hollywood, but it certainly keeps Disney in a hopeful mood.

The switch to digital production and distribution is suppose to save Hollywood. OK, it threatens to completely destroy the independent film exhibitor market. But it also offers a vast reduction in the cost of distribution that would be a major plus to indies if only the major companies would let them use it. Likewise, digital production is suppose to lower the otherwise exorbitant cost of modern movie making. But the major theaters and distributors are not too interested in loosening control over the emerging digital distribution system. As for production cost, it is simply the nature of Hollywood to bloat the budget no matter what. These boys could be making flip books and it will still cost over $200 million.

Which sort of brings us back to our question about Hollywood.

I suppose anything can happen. However, I truly and very deeply doubt it. Most of the economic and business structure of the mainstream film industry is elaborately designed to produce the kind of negative and largely self-destructive results that are currently predominate. Within the industry, there does not appear to be any meaningful interest in pursuing any type of significant change or reform to this system. Mostly, the industry is focused on how to suppress innovation and find various ways to achieve ownership control over digital processes in a determined effort to monopolize the new systems.

Most likely, these efforts will fail. Attempting to control the digital future is a bit like playing Whac-A-Mole. Buy out one company and twenty more upstarts appear. Which is OK. If Hollywood were successful in controlling it, they would undoubtedly choke the life out of it.

But either way, the mainstream film industry is over. Oh sure, the Fat Lady has yet to sing. However, she is warming up in the wings.

Wagner, any one?

Film Fund-amentals: What Is Reality

 First published October 12, 2012.

It is the age-old philosophic question. What is reality (or, actually, what is the nature of reality)? According to Plato, it was mathematics. For the Romans, it was the flesh and blood material of the natural world. After the Enlightenment, it turned into a conflict between rational human intelligence and nature.

But today, it is Honey Boo Boo. Oh well, at least we don’t have to deal with all of that math stuff that so enthralled Plato.

Reality television – and its strange evolution – has become a topic among indie filmmakers. To be honest, I first discovered this fact when I heard Christine Vachon tell a large collection of young filmmakers that they should consider it a crucial emerging genre for indies. At first,  I thought I had misunderstood what she was saying but…no, she said it. Several times.

Later, as I wandered lost through the streets of lower Manhattan (because the entrance I needed to the 4^th Street subway station had seemingly vanished) it occurred to me that an indie application of the Reality format is sort of a natural extension of indie history. Well, that and the fact that I always get lost in lower Manhattan. Heck, the last time I barely got out of a major gang incident because of the kindly intervention of a helpful couple from the Nation of Islam.

As bogus and disreputable as most Reality TV shows appear (because they are mostly bogus and extremely trashy), the form is weirdly derived from the documentary cinema. It is especially derived from elements of cinéma vérité. Heck, it even has a few qualities that resemble components of the French New Wave, especially movies like Adieu Philippine.

Sure, the average reality show lacks all of the grace, style, and humanity of everything I just referenced. But they do have cheapness of production and gritty stylization. The main reason why Reality shows have become so predominant on TV is the simple fact that they can be produced for pennies compared to filmed drama. It’s a cheap form. OK, it’s a cheap form showcasing cheap people doing cheap and cheesy things. But it is quite inexpensive to produce.

Add to this the rise of online presentation as the rapidly emerging venue for many young indie filmmakers. A lot of the stuff people are posting onto YouTube is already working in much the same vein as Reality TV. Just go onto YouTube and search under “ex-wife.”  Personally, I can’t believe some of the stuff people are posting and it all plays like a bad night on Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. So one of the major distribution systems is already gamed toward this format.

Mainstream film-making is toying with the form. Cloverfield was basically a Godzilla movie done as a Reality show. Same goes with the original Paranormal Activity – sure it didn’t start out mainstream, but Paramount is milking this “franchise” for every nickel it is worth. The Hollywood adaptation is still largely a mix and match of traditional narrative structure and cell phone aesthetics (I almost got sea sick while watching Cloverfield). But these movies have demonstrated the commercial validity of the form.

For indie filmmakers, it almost sounds too easy. In theory, it provides the possibility of establishing a presence in a manner that involves little cost in either production or distribution. Unknown cast members with little acting experience can be a plus within this format. A rough, unprofessional “look” to the movie is virtually mandatory. It’s all win-win.

Of course the likelihood of seeing a single dime out of this type of production is almost zip. Getting viewers is also a major fight. In fact,  that is the biggest hurdle of the game. The online universe is more crowded than a Tokyo subway train at rush hour and the battle for the viewers’ attention begins at the search engine level on YouTube.

The filmmaker is best advised to seek out something that makes for an effective tag and/or title. For example, “Angry Ex-Wife” is a good one on YouTube. “Guy Blows Himself Up” is another good one. You can spend the better part of the day looking up all kinds of possibilities, some good and some just simply demented. I suspect that it is a form of research you should do before you even try to think up an idea. You also will want to do the research at home. The workplace environment is not ready for some of the things you might find.

You cannot expect to go anywhere financially with this type of production. Then again, I don’t know. You have companies like Makers Studios who are creating a successful business model out of this approach. However, it is a lot of work and most young indie filmmakers are not up to the task, if only because they are not in a position to produce the amount of material needed to successfully make it a full-time business. The internet is a hungry monster that is always demanding more.

So you are back to the “presence” issue. This involves getting attention and making people aware of your work. Maybe even finding a way to maneuver from a small one-shot deal toward a larger production. Maybe, just maybe, toward something more resembling a full-blown movie. At the very least, a longer and more elaborate effort.

So I came to realize that Vachon had a point. Since I had dealt with Vachon before, and had come to the quick realization that she knows more about this business than I do, I was not really surprised to find that out. I was simply surprised at the ever strange directions that this whole business is taking. As I always am.

But then I was also surprised to find that the 4^th Street entrance was on 7^th and that nobody who lived in the area had any more of a clue than I did. So what do I know?