Great list, Richard. Outside of horror, many American nondē filmmakers rely on grants that implicitly require an "Eat Your Vegetables" agenda to win funding, which in turn yields films that are rarely crowd-pleasing. Layer on the rigid identity categories festivals have embraced in recent years, and you get a set of perverse, anti-commercial incentives in an already parched ecosystem. If we’re going to move into the next phase, either these institutions will have to reopen themselves to a broader range of work, or they will need to be replaced by something new.
Everything you say applies to the documentary world, not just Hollywood. Nice to get a dose of hope and inspiration amidst all the doom and gloom. Thank you, Richard!
I really appreciate this positive outlook on the film industry at large. Yes, there are a lot of things changing and as a result certain things are fading away. But, new exciting things are happening and there is so much opportunity! Some people can get caught up in focusing on what is being lost since what is to come is less clear but I truly believe there are great things to come if we lean into these opportunities.
Ok, this is cool. I’m down to see interesting art again, not content… but here’s a question. How is it that the arts in general remain so “head in the sand” about the general bigger picture. Like, the whole societal system is fucked. If you don’t think that capital and all those concepts are intimately tied the wars and ecological collapse we’re seeing around the world, then i hate to tell you, you’re living in a dream world. So when are the arts going to get on the survival of humanity vibe and start helping create and shape a society that doesn’t function along a different version of the tracks that got us to this shit storm in the first place? I get it, we all have to eat, and short termism is a programming we are all exposed to from birth. Maybe this is the wrong meeting….
Also, question about The Ladder. It says it's for those in the first 20 years of their entertainment career. So, since I've been a re-recording mixer for over 30 years, but started making films 6 years ago, would that exclude me.
Theaters SAY they want new stories. But where are their matinee or midnight screenings of true indie feature films or screenings of short films before a feature? And I'm not talking about passion projects by A-list actors and people with longtime connections In the industry. Or the "Eat your vegetables" type of dreadful social justice garbage coming out of places like Sundance workshops.
I keep reading about all these romantic ideas of Nonde, but unless both large chains as well as the supposed Arthouse/community theaters themselves become actively involved with indie film promotion, and not expecting the filmmakers who have spent all their money trying to make a good film to pay for the advertising for the theater, it's just all a bit pointless, isn't it.
I was reading the plight recently of an indie film, where the filmmakers were planning attended screenings of their film across the country. They ended up only being able to get 7 theaters. Of which, if memory serves me well, more than half were 4 wall situations.
They lost money on that trip. So not only did they not make money for the film, they went further into debt.
So, yeah. Theaters can SAY they want new stories. But their actions say something else. Again, my own experience has proven that. 120 independent theaters contacted. 5 responses. 2 weren't interested. 3 offered a 4 wall.
While making the list, I noticed all the supposed Arthouse/Independent play the same blockbuster hits they say they're tired of. So what these theaters really mean is, they want fresh stories with the same 10 A-list Actors you see in every movie.
But I hate to break it to them. That's not going to happen. So, they can either start getting actively involved and building their own local audiences who will come to those screenings and matinees . Or they can continue to watch theater attendance drop, because people are tired of the same focus-grouped to death, Ai corrected generic drivel, with the same small pool of A list Actors.
There's really no difference between having 10 people in a theater for a movie whether it's a blockbuster flop, or indie film. Except, they can show the indie film for less, while still making top dollar on concessions. But in the case of the indie film, you can actually possibly start building an audience.
I appreciate Richard's sentiments and am a paid subscriber of The Ankler, because it allows me to keep abreast of what is happening in HOLLYWOOD…but is what he speaks about here the definition of NonDē?
This feels out of touch with what is happening in the independent film ecosystem on so many levels. YES, we still need money to make films - especially to pay ourselves and make this work sustainable; YES there are so many great films out there outside of the studio system and independent and regional theaters (especially outside of LA) already are booking them and bringing them to audiences, and YES we absolutely still need marketing dollars. Ingenuity is great, but $100k for a truly indie film (not one that premiered at Cannes) is not really an independent marketing budget. I hope we CAN get there. Mostly, we need trade voices who are willing to help us change the perception and narrative within the industry itself.
I think we have to build a new financial model for cinema up from the bottom, one that is committed to activating all revenue streams, and recognizes to do that it has to be committed to theatrical, dynamic, and non-synchronous. We have to reverse the differential that currently exists where "perceived" values is only about 40% of the actual value, and that the creators are prohibited from owning the results of their labor, or sharing in success based bonuses. The foundation of it all is a direct & primary relationship between the audience and artist. That is NONDĒ!
I agree with all of this. I also believe that the chasm between hollywood and independent film runs deep and they are currently two very differently-operated prongs of the industry. Hopefully the two can converge once again.
I am not sure I want them to converge. I don’t want SC-indie to be a farm league; it needs to be its own thing. Fine for filmmakers to go between the two worlds, but one is not the child to the parent. Until we make a separate system sustainable without any dependency on the mainstream, filmmakers will never be treated appropriately.
Agreed. But I’m still confused as to how Richard’s post supports/offers any real actionable advice towarss a sustainable NonDē system. With all due respect to the authors and as a paid subscriber to both substacks.
I have been writing this substack for close to three years because it is hard to explain why we need, what we need, and how to build and then maintain. It has taken me over 500 posts. And you are looking for answers in a single post? The concept of a takeover is to share what excites you. And he did. Am I missing what you are looking for?
For me personally , one of the things that was a big negative in his post, was the whole "Revival cinema " part. How does taking up screen time with old films, that were blockbusters in their own time, help current indie filmmakers. It doesn't. I see numerous substackers writing reviews for these old movies. Like, seriously? I don't give a crap about a review of a film that's decades old.
Yes, plenty of them do- especially independent exhibitors (many of which are non profit.) You can check out the cinemas that are part of Art House Convergence as a starting place.
I understand what both Mark and Lela had to say and the others who questioned NonDe. Non-Dependent is a very hard thing to accomplish, unless you are totally off the grid. In the case of filmmaking, unlike many other art forms, you depend on so many other people to get a project made and then once it is completed, you have to deal with others to get it out to the world.
I still like the word independent, even though not every independent film is great or even good. I think independent filmmakers have to become more interdependent, and I don't mean working with the big studios, but becoming more international in both their scope of their productions and their potential audience.
We need constructive plans and venues for the independent filmmaker to get their films funded, produced and distributed to a worldwide audience.
This is what I am committed to doing, but the language also is important. I often hear the world revolution, but that is often going in a circle, with a new group on top, but it is not necessarily always an improvement on what came before.
Okay, here is another word, rapid-evolution, this is positive change, but at more than a leisurely pace. We need plans on how we can work together to make this happen. Too much of the time we feel alone in this struggle, let's talk about concrete things we can do to solve the problems we face as independent filmmakers. Let the discussion begin.
Great list, Richard. Outside of horror, many American nondē filmmakers rely on grants that implicitly require an "Eat Your Vegetables" agenda to win funding, which in turn yields films that are rarely crowd-pleasing. Layer on the rigid identity categories festivals have embraced in recent years, and you get a set of perverse, anti-commercial incentives in an already parched ecosystem. If we’re going to move into the next phase, either these institutions will have to reopen themselves to a broader range of work, or they will need to be replaced by something new.
100%
Everything you say applies to the documentary world, not just Hollywood. Nice to get a dose of hope and inspiration amidst all the doom and gloom. Thank you, Richard!
Such an honor to read an article that is so genuinely behind one of the greatest art forms in the world! 💯🎬
Much to say about this, but mainly, hell yeah.
I really appreciate this positive outlook on the film industry at large. Yes, there are a lot of things changing and as a result certain things are fading away. But, new exciting things are happening and there is so much opportunity! Some people can get caught up in focusing on what is being lost since what is to come is less clear but I truly believe there are great things to come if we lean into these opportunities.
Ok, this is cool. I’m down to see interesting art again, not content… but here’s a question. How is it that the arts in general remain so “head in the sand” about the general bigger picture. Like, the whole societal system is fucked. If you don’t think that capital and all those concepts are intimately tied the wars and ecological collapse we’re seeing around the world, then i hate to tell you, you’re living in a dream world. So when are the arts going to get on the survival of humanity vibe and start helping create and shape a society that doesn’t function along a different version of the tracks that got us to this shit storm in the first place? I get it, we all have to eat, and short termism is a programming we are all exposed to from birth. Maybe this is the wrong meeting….
Also, question about The Ladder. It says it's for those in the first 20 years of their entertainment career. So, since I've been a re-recording mixer for over 30 years, but started making films 6 years ago, would that exclude me.
Sorry. Typo. First 10 Years
I will continue to be the cynic.
Theaters SAY they want new stories. But where are their matinee or midnight screenings of true indie feature films or screenings of short films before a feature? And I'm not talking about passion projects by A-list actors and people with longtime connections In the industry. Or the "Eat your vegetables" type of dreadful social justice garbage coming out of places like Sundance workshops.
I keep reading about all these romantic ideas of Nonde, but unless both large chains as well as the supposed Arthouse/community theaters themselves become actively involved with indie film promotion, and not expecting the filmmakers who have spent all their money trying to make a good film to pay for the advertising for the theater, it's just all a bit pointless, isn't it.
I was reading the plight recently of an indie film, where the filmmakers were planning attended screenings of their film across the country. They ended up only being able to get 7 theaters. Of which, if memory serves me well, more than half were 4 wall situations.
They lost money on that trip. So not only did they not make money for the film, they went further into debt.
So, yeah. Theaters can SAY they want new stories. But their actions say something else. Again, my own experience has proven that. 120 independent theaters contacted. 5 responses. 2 weren't interested. 3 offered a 4 wall.
While making the list, I noticed all the supposed Arthouse/Independent play the same blockbuster hits they say they're tired of. So what these theaters really mean is, they want fresh stories with the same 10 A-list Actors you see in every movie.
But I hate to break it to them. That's not going to happen. So, they can either start getting actively involved and building their own local audiences who will come to those screenings and matinees . Or they can continue to watch theater attendance drop, because people are tired of the same focus-grouped to death, Ai corrected generic drivel, with the same small pool of A list Actors.
There's really no difference between having 10 people in a theater for a movie whether it's a blockbuster flop, or indie film. Except, they can show the indie film for less, while still making top dollar on concessions. But in the case of the indie film, you can actually possibly start building an audience.
I appreciate Richard's sentiments and am a paid subscriber of The Ankler, because it allows me to keep abreast of what is happening in HOLLYWOOD…but is what he speaks about here the definition of NonDē?
This feels out of touch with what is happening in the independent film ecosystem on so many levels. YES, we still need money to make films - especially to pay ourselves and make this work sustainable; YES there are so many great films out there outside of the studio system and independent and regional theaters (especially outside of LA) already are booking them and bringing them to audiences, and YES we absolutely still need marketing dollars. Ingenuity is great, but $100k for a truly indie film (not one that premiered at Cannes) is not really an independent marketing budget. I hope we CAN get there. Mostly, we need trade voices who are willing to help us change the perception and narrative within the industry itself.
I think we have to build a new financial model for cinema up from the bottom, one that is committed to activating all revenue streams, and recognizes to do that it has to be committed to theatrical, dynamic, and non-synchronous. We have to reverse the differential that currently exists where "perceived" values is only about 40% of the actual value, and that the creators are prohibited from owning the results of their labor, or sharing in success based bonuses. The foundation of it all is a direct & primary relationship between the audience and artist. That is NONDĒ!
I agree with all of this. I also believe that the chasm between hollywood and independent film runs deep and they are currently two very differently-operated prongs of the industry. Hopefully the two can converge once again.
I am not sure I want them to converge. I don’t want SC-indie to be a farm league; it needs to be its own thing. Fine for filmmakers to go between the two worlds, but one is not the child to the parent. Until we make a separate system sustainable without any dependency on the mainstream, filmmakers will never be treated appropriately.
Agreed. But I’m still confused as to how Richard’s post supports/offers any real actionable advice towarss a sustainable NonDē system. With all due respect to the authors and as a paid subscriber to both substacks.
I have been writing this substack for close to three years because it is hard to explain why we need, what we need, and how to build and then maintain. It has taken me over 500 posts. And you are looking for answers in a single post? The concept of a takeover is to share what excites you. And he did. Am I missing what you are looking for?
Excellent! Appreciate it.
For me personally , one of the things that was a big negative in his post, was the whole "Revival cinema " part. How does taking up screen time with old films, that were blockbusters in their own time, help current indie filmmakers. It doesn't. I see numerous substackers writing reviews for these old movies. Like, seriously? I don't give a crap about a review of a film that's decades old.
Hear you. I think it helps in that it gets people going to the cinema as a practice. Which in turn will hopefully lead them to return for new films.
Yes, plenty of them do- especially independent exhibitors (many of which are non profit.) You can check out the cinemas that are part of Art House Convergence as a starting place.
mebbe ‘explain or interpret NonDe thanks .. 🦎🏴☠️🎬
Hey Thomas. Welcome to HFF. NonDē is Non-Dependent film -- in contrast with "indie" which has been more about the success of individual films & filmmakers, whereas NonDē is dedicated first to the sustainability of the art, artists, and ecosystem. I've written about it here quite a bit, as have others on FilmStack. Check out: https://tedhope.substack.com/p/what-is-nonde-for and https://tedhope.substack.com/p/50-concepts-to-benefit-non-dependent-distribution and https://tedhope.substack.com/p/non-dependent-distribution-masterclass
I work in videogames and lots of these concepts are tranferrable directly to my industry. NonDe games... will think on it..
Well, one thing the terrifier has made very clear. You don't REALLY need an A-List cast to sell a movie.
I understand what both Mark and Lela had to say and the others who questioned NonDe. Non-Dependent is a very hard thing to accomplish, unless you are totally off the grid. In the case of filmmaking, unlike many other art forms, you depend on so many other people to get a project made and then once it is completed, you have to deal with others to get it out to the world.
I still like the word independent, even though not every independent film is great or even good. I think independent filmmakers have to become more interdependent, and I don't mean working with the big studios, but becoming more international in both their scope of their productions and their potential audience.
We need constructive plans and venues for the independent filmmaker to get their films funded, produced and distributed to a worldwide audience.
This is what I am committed to doing, but the language also is important. I often hear the world revolution, but that is often going in a circle, with a new group on top, but it is not necessarily always an improvement on what came before.
Okay, here is another word, rapid-evolution, this is positive change, but at more than a leisurely pace. We need plans on how we can work together to make this happen. Too much of the time we feel alone in this struggle, let's talk about concrete things we can do to solve the problems we face as independent filmmakers. Let the discussion begin.
Love this. Especially #3!
What is “NonDe” filmmaking?
Hey Karl, as I mentioned to Thomas above: "Welcome to HFF. NonDē is Non-Dependent film -- in contrast with "indie" which has been more about the success of individual films & filmmakers, whereas NonDē is dedicated first to the sustainability of the art, artists, and ecosystem. I've written about it here quite a bit, as have others on FilmStack. Check out: https://tedhope.substack.com/p/what-is-nonde-for and https://tedhope.substack.com/p/50-concepts-to-benefit-non-dependent-distribution and https://tedhope.substack.com/p/non-dependent-distribution-masterclass "