I would venture that this is non-unique to film, as I've heard similar lamentations in the fields of music and other creative / human / innovative arts. It seems to me a symptom of living in a culture and country built on extractive capitalism, more than a failing on behalf of audiences or creatives. Because I do know that we-- i.e. others who don't care about getting rich, and who just want to be able to continue doing good work; and audiences who are hungry for genuine depth and meaning-- are still out there.
First - this Substack is a bright light coming from the rubble pile of the Twitter collapse - and I am grateful. Reminiscent of the Hope for Film blog, but evolved - like a good wine, whiskey, or cheese rich with complexity of experience.
I think there's a key aspect in your descriptions that's missing. When you say, we do the work not looking to make a profit I think the key unsaid element is: we're not expecting to! I think the freedom of expectation of the possibility allows creatives to stay true to the "Let's do it because..." mentality that drives the unique visions without alteration. Pulp Fiction feels like a film that never thought it could make a dime, felt like it was surprised it was completed at all. Ever since its success I've never felt that way about Tarantino's films since. I think the reality of *potential* financial success eats away at the tendency to do it because it's the right thing to do in the film. We second guess, even if only subconsciously, when a misstep can cost us that financial reward.
We need to find a way to ignore those inner voices that suddenly care about losing money and get back to thinking making money isn't the point. Making movies is. Knowing human nature, though, that's a very big ask. But at least we can try.
It's wonderful to see you writing in a longer format again! Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and for everything you do to foster an art-driven film industry.
I wish I had the answer on how to make these changes industry wide. I do believe the dream is accomplishable, because I've seen it on a small scale. It requires a lack of ego and greed from everyone involved. We must go back to the roots of storytellers, sitting around the fire at night, passing along the earned truths from the past. Seeing what we do as a service to our world, rather than a way to become rich and famous. We must recognize the value in all of our crew and cast, and do everything possible to care for them, not just financially, but by creating ethical working conditions.
My team has been able to accomplish this on a small scale on our films, and are working hard to do so on our next feature. To make a film this way makes a challenging industry even more of a struggle, but I don't see any other way to do it. At least when done this way, every member of the team does truly enjoy the journey. Hopefully we can eventually make it a sustainable lifestyle for everyone as well.
I think there is a larger conversation about culture, and where we are politically as a country. I think the big issue with movies is that the whole thing was designed as a communal experience, to experience something collectively in the dark with a room full of strangers. It pains me to say this, but I really don’t think people are at a place where they want to have communal experiences these days. People are hooked on their cell phones and social media accounts while life passes them by.
Movies became a thing in the 30s because the large majority of Americans went through a Great Depression together. Audiences wanted to empathize.
We’ve been on this Reagan, greed is good, mentality for too long, and until we move collectively away from that, I don’t think art stands a chance.
People have been conditioned for too many years now to consume movies for entertainment only (the self), and not to enrich their lives and those around beyond entertainment.
If you add to that the economic immiseration, people don’t have the emotional bandwidth to allow movies -or any art form- to move them.
The work you do is incredibly important, but you must also allow the economic anxieties to change your perspectives and produce work that reflects more accurately the world we live in.
One book that illuminates art + community is David Byrne's, How Music Works. Artists (and consumers) of all disciplines would enjoy this incredible text as a whole, but there's a chapter that specifically speaks to this, 'How To Make a Scene'.
For example, did you know that CBGB's gave the artists the entire door and just made money off the bar? AND once you played at CBGB's you got in for free, spurning on artists to congregate in one place. AND if you put out a 45, it went right into the CBGB's jukebox. All this spurned on the now legendary music scene—but it's just one piece of the puzzle.
I find it truly intriguing that you tied the death of that punk/indie vibe to Pulp Fiction. I wonder if TWC helped create/redefine/corrupt what successful indie film producing looks like. If so, how do we return to that lost ethos in an economically sustainable way?
I think in many ways it's the same old story. Art vs. Commerce with Commerce always taking a victory lap. Many new trends, ideas and even movements like indie film and music begin on the right foot but too often lose their footing the moment cash rears its head. This is a difficult situation. Part of the answer must be to keep producing and creating from the heart, regardless of the bottom line.
As Siona said, this is a larger problem across all fields of art and media... I loved being an art director in videogames in the 90s and 00s, because it was very punk rock/film circa 1920s, where your imagination and ideas often outstripped what the technology could do, so problem-solving and getting around budget limitations was driven from a creative POV.
For games, the Pulp Fiction moment was the demo of the games industry was the Playstation 3 tech demo at E3. The press was going "OOOOH! AHHH!" at the incredibly realistic depiction of Trafalgar Square, rendered in interactive real-time. For those of us who made games, the reactions was "Oh, fuck."
I clearly remember going down the street to a restaurant with a couple of producers, lead programmers and art directors after that demo and 'doing some math' over drinks, breaking down how much it cost to make the thing we had just seen that lasted less than 5 minutes.
Our estimate was that it was between $500k-$1.5m
At that time, budgets for AAA games on the high end was around $2m.
It was a terrifying moment, realizing that the consumer expectation would be IT HAS TO LOOK THIS GOOD, and with those budgets, a lot of mid-size and small developers would shut down, and we'd be looking at a field dominated by genre-heavy franchise titles, and that the innovation that made games interesting... and that ironically gave us the unexpected blockbusters... would be deemed financially too risky.
(Which is exactly what happened)
How do we cultivate a new audience for indie art in the face of the massive shift towards BIG COMMERCE?
Hell if I know. As always, I'm looking forward to your thoughts in the matter.
Echoes of Tarkovsky. There are those of us who haven't abandoned the dream. The infrastructure fueling and delivering our dreams has gone into hibernation. The proper mechanism - or the "Good Machine" like great poetry, will see its reemergence. After all, "All That Breathes" manifest in this current environment - so at least, there's "Hope." Thank you for the discussion, Ted.
I would say this is uniquely American. This is the country of the individual – underpinning the principles on which this country was founded. I am only surprised it has taken so long to come to where we are now. And I don’t understand why. But since we are here now, what can be done about it? How can we work together to make indie films possible? I see there are two ways. One is antithetical to this American socio-political-economic system, so maybe impossible – change at the government-level, emulating other countries that have a Ministry of Culture that supports and finances film. There are co-productions among countries and their ministries that allows for further multinational funding. But, since we don’t have such a Ministry, we cannot be part of this system. I would love someone to introduce, fight for, and pioneer this at the highest levels. But given the founding principles, I honestly don’t think this is possible. The second way and leaning into the fact that the film industry is primarily a business, an industry in America, is to encourage more of the venture-capital model. Get a group of investors together, fund original auteur-driven rather than audience-driven films, make ten 3-5 million dollar films a year (as I suspect that Ang Lee film made for one million back then, would cost now), working with statistical-backed hope, that one out of the ten would make enough to pay for the rest. High risk, high reward. If I were only producing, that is what I would do. Any takers?
I felt like there was some exciting potential in the UK ifeatures model as a low budget way to work with new directors and actors (hello Florence Pugh!) It's a tiny investment all under 1million, a lot 500-800k. But even this has been abandoned...
Thanks for sharing your insights once again Ted. We've missed them! The commerce piece collides with American culture and there are no easy answers. The dreams are still there, and fire burning in many indie filmmakers. Now, more than ever, the visionaries do need to surround themselves with team members who understand the business, to help them find the right path. It's amazing to me how so few of our filmmaker clients are concerned with how much money they make. They just want to elevate their careers, get better and find a way to earn a living.
Strange, but I remember watching it in the theatre with a friend and thinking this was either a validation of Indie film or the death of it. I took the same friend to see Amateur and he just wanted to compare it to Pulp Fiction.
Really appreciate the ability to pinpoint the shift from art to commerce. With AI undermining the traditional systems in all industries, I'm optimistic we'll have to find a new way to value work, perhaps offering a return to form.
So beautifully said.
I would venture that this is non-unique to film, as I've heard similar lamentations in the fields of music and other creative / human / innovative arts. It seems to me a symptom of living in a culture and country built on extractive capitalism, more than a failing on behalf of audiences or creatives. Because I do know that we-- i.e. others who don't care about getting rich, and who just want to be able to continue doing good work; and audiences who are hungry for genuine depth and meaning-- are still out there.
First - this Substack is a bright light coming from the rubble pile of the Twitter collapse - and I am grateful. Reminiscent of the Hope for Film blog, but evolved - like a good wine, whiskey, or cheese rich with complexity of experience.
I think there's a key aspect in your descriptions that's missing. When you say, we do the work not looking to make a profit I think the key unsaid element is: we're not expecting to! I think the freedom of expectation of the possibility allows creatives to stay true to the "Let's do it because..." mentality that drives the unique visions without alteration. Pulp Fiction feels like a film that never thought it could make a dime, felt like it was surprised it was completed at all. Ever since its success I've never felt that way about Tarantino's films since. I think the reality of *potential* financial success eats away at the tendency to do it because it's the right thing to do in the film. We second guess, even if only subconsciously, when a misstep can cost us that financial reward.
We need to find a way to ignore those inner voices that suddenly care about losing money and get back to thinking making money isn't the point. Making movies is. Knowing human nature, though, that's a very big ask. But at least we can try.
It's wonderful to see you writing in a longer format again! Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and for everything you do to foster an art-driven film industry.
I wish I had the answer on how to make these changes industry wide. I do believe the dream is accomplishable, because I've seen it on a small scale. It requires a lack of ego and greed from everyone involved. We must go back to the roots of storytellers, sitting around the fire at night, passing along the earned truths from the past. Seeing what we do as a service to our world, rather than a way to become rich and famous. We must recognize the value in all of our crew and cast, and do everything possible to care for them, not just financially, but by creating ethical working conditions.
My team has been able to accomplish this on a small scale on our films, and are working hard to do so on our next feature. To make a film this way makes a challenging industry even more of a struggle, but I don't see any other way to do it. At least when done this way, every member of the team does truly enjoy the journey. Hopefully we can eventually make it a sustainable lifestyle for everyone as well.
Mr Hope,
I think there is a larger conversation about culture, and where we are politically as a country. I think the big issue with movies is that the whole thing was designed as a communal experience, to experience something collectively in the dark with a room full of strangers. It pains me to say this, but I really don’t think people are at a place where they want to have communal experiences these days. People are hooked on their cell phones and social media accounts while life passes them by.
Movies became a thing in the 30s because the large majority of Americans went through a Great Depression together. Audiences wanted to empathize.
We’ve been on this Reagan, greed is good, mentality for too long, and until we move collectively away from that, I don’t think art stands a chance.
People have been conditioned for too many years now to consume movies for entertainment only (the self), and not to enrich their lives and those around beyond entertainment.
If you add to that the economic immiseration, people don’t have the emotional bandwidth to allow movies -or any art form- to move them.
The work you do is incredibly important, but you must also allow the economic anxieties to change your perspectives and produce work that reflects more accurately the world we live in.
One book that illuminates art + community is David Byrne's, How Music Works. Artists (and consumers) of all disciplines would enjoy this incredible text as a whole, but there's a chapter that specifically speaks to this, 'How To Make a Scene'.
For example, did you know that CBGB's gave the artists the entire door and just made money off the bar? AND once you played at CBGB's you got in for free, spurning on artists to congregate in one place. AND if you put out a 45, it went right into the CBGB's jukebox. All this spurned on the now legendary music scene—but it's just one piece of the puzzle.
Here's the abbreviated version via his website: https://davidbyrne.com/explore/american-utopia/press/how-to-build-a-music-scene-according-to-david-byrne
I find it truly intriguing that you tied the death of that punk/indie vibe to Pulp Fiction. I wonder if TWC helped create/redefine/corrupt what successful indie film producing looks like. If so, how do we return to that lost ethos in an economically sustainable way?
I think in many ways it's the same old story. Art vs. Commerce with Commerce always taking a victory lap. Many new trends, ideas and even movements like indie film and music begin on the right foot but too often lose their footing the moment cash rears its head. This is a difficult situation. Part of the answer must be to keep producing and creating from the heart, regardless of the bottom line.
As Siona said, this is a larger problem across all fields of art and media... I loved being an art director in videogames in the 90s and 00s, because it was very punk rock/film circa 1920s, where your imagination and ideas often outstripped what the technology could do, so problem-solving and getting around budget limitations was driven from a creative POV.
For games, the Pulp Fiction moment was the demo of the games industry was the Playstation 3 tech demo at E3. The press was going "OOOOH! AHHH!" at the incredibly realistic depiction of Trafalgar Square, rendered in interactive real-time. For those of us who made games, the reactions was "Oh, fuck."
I clearly remember going down the street to a restaurant with a couple of producers, lead programmers and art directors after that demo and 'doing some math' over drinks, breaking down how much it cost to make the thing we had just seen that lasted less than 5 minutes.
Our estimate was that it was between $500k-$1.5m
At that time, budgets for AAA games on the high end was around $2m.
It was a terrifying moment, realizing that the consumer expectation would be IT HAS TO LOOK THIS GOOD, and with those budgets, a lot of mid-size and small developers would shut down, and we'd be looking at a field dominated by genre-heavy franchise titles, and that the innovation that made games interesting... and that ironically gave us the unexpected blockbusters... would be deemed financially too risky.
(Which is exactly what happened)
How do we cultivate a new audience for indie art in the face of the massive shift towards BIG COMMERCE?
Hell if I know. As always, I'm looking forward to your thoughts in the matter.
Echoes of Tarkovsky. There are those of us who haven't abandoned the dream. The infrastructure fueling and delivering our dreams has gone into hibernation. The proper mechanism - or the "Good Machine" like great poetry, will see its reemergence. After all, "All That Breathes" manifest in this current environment - so at least, there's "Hope." Thank you for the discussion, Ted.
I would say this is uniquely American. This is the country of the individual – underpinning the principles on which this country was founded. I am only surprised it has taken so long to come to where we are now. And I don’t understand why. But since we are here now, what can be done about it? How can we work together to make indie films possible? I see there are two ways. One is antithetical to this American socio-political-economic system, so maybe impossible – change at the government-level, emulating other countries that have a Ministry of Culture that supports and finances film. There are co-productions among countries and their ministries that allows for further multinational funding. But, since we don’t have such a Ministry, we cannot be part of this system. I would love someone to introduce, fight for, and pioneer this at the highest levels. But given the founding principles, I honestly don’t think this is possible. The second way and leaning into the fact that the film industry is primarily a business, an industry in America, is to encourage more of the venture-capital model. Get a group of investors together, fund original auteur-driven rather than audience-driven films, make ten 3-5 million dollar films a year (as I suspect that Ang Lee film made for one million back then, would cost now), working with statistical-backed hope, that one out of the ten would make enough to pay for the rest. High risk, high reward. If I were only producing, that is what I would do. Any takers?
I felt like there was some exciting potential in the UK ifeatures model as a low budget way to work with new directors and actors (hello Florence Pugh!) It's a tiny investment all under 1million, a lot 500-800k. But even this has been abandoned...
Thanks for sharing your insights once again Ted. We've missed them! The commerce piece collides with American culture and there are no easy answers. The dreams are still there, and fire burning in many indie filmmakers. Now, more than ever, the visionaries do need to surround themselves with team members who understand the business, to help them find the right path. It's amazing to me how so few of our filmmaker clients are concerned with how much money they make. They just want to elevate their careers, get better and find a way to earn a living.
Strange, but I remember watching it in the theatre with a friend and thinking this was either a validation of Indie film or the death of it. I took the same friend to see Amateur and he just wanted to compare it to Pulp Fiction.
Encouraging words. I miss the IFFM of the 90s.
Really appreciate the ability to pinpoint the shift from art to commerce. With AI undermining the traditional systems in all industries, I'm optimistic we'll have to find a new way to value work, perhaps offering a return to form.