You nailed a key factor in that Indie film was TOO successful. Once the financial value reached a certain level investors and business interests naturally moved in. It is not evil, it is part of the system in that profits generate interest because they represent consumer demand.
For this reason, the vast majority of businesses work on a profit motive. But there is another model - sustainability/growth motive. In this approach, maximizing revenue is replaced by using profit to build up. This is common in young startups. One can make the decision to share the revenue through compensation (the employee-owned model) and use a larger percentage to invest back into the business. This means little excess profit and thus less interest to outside investment.
There is actually a film model for this - the studio system of the mid 20th century. Now, before focusing on the negatives of that, think about some of the benefits it had. Development of young talent in front of and behind the camera; secondary products with niche markets (B films) which included niche genres like horror; and the ability to build infrastructure that fed back into the system.
A modern day indie studio could function similarly by providing a growing pool of talent and portable resources to accommodate productions in our distributed world. The studio could handle distribution in physical locations but also provide a core streaming platform because the reality is the audience may not always be local. That platform being sustainable-oriented would provide an access point where these films wouldn't be competing with budget monsters so making it easier to find these niche films by the audience.
Indie needs to embrace the changing world by recognizing that access to your audience is even better than it ever was; the key is making sure that access that can be found in the big money generated noise. The indie folks also need to explore how they can use these new capabilities to enhance their storytelling in ways that actually engage and interact with the audience.
Thus through telling interesting stories to smaller audiences and providing "easter eggs" of experiences to engage the viewer to catch some attention; provide an outlet for material that may not be interesting to the profit-oriented entities but can be interesting enough to sustain itself.
Thanks for articulating this - my friends and I often refer to the 90s as the Golden Age of film we were lucky to be alive for.
For me the key difference between then and now was that there was sufficient competition across the sector (distributors, video stores, indie cinemas, broadcasters, pay-TV), each with viable businesses, giving many paths to multi-party finance a good-but-risky project.
It feels now that some of this old world holds on, just about, with the help of soft money & tax breaks – but the majority of the English language indie sector has moved to single-party, end-to-end, all-rights financing from the SVoD platforms. A superindie might be able to play Apple TV and Amazon (& HBO/Netflix/Disney) off against each other to get a good deal, but that's largely it. In the 90s there would be at least one adventurous broadcaster *and* distributor *and* sales agent *and* financier, in *each* major territory to approach for pre-sales & acquisitions - as well as the major studios. A determined producer could patchwork something together. But the indie sector is now dependent on studio-like super-platforms, mostly buying all-platform, all-territory rights, which has narrowed output to a relatively few decision-makers. The studio system has been reborn online, but the counter-indie culture hasn't yet emerged as far as I can tell (beyond near-no budget short-form/micro-form on AVoD video platforms).
Nic's points are dead on, and a further complexity in 'how do we solve this' it the diffusion of cultural focus. On the positive side in the EARLY PHASE, the internet, social media, streaming, etc in film, publishing and music allowed for more Points Of Entry for new and aspiring creators to get their work out.
But as these venues figured out how to Monetize Content, it lead to less risks, and approving project based on algorithm, rather than gut instinct, personal taste and experience.
Worse, the diffusion has led to there being no real 'public square' of discourse... in the 90s, ads in papers, a key article, or a few well timed TV spots could get you the eyes you needed to get the ball rolling and reach critical mass where a film or a band or a comic book could be successful. Not Pulp Fiction Money, but successful enough financially that the creators and companies could continue on. Using Apples to Apples, it is mind blowing to me the comparison of promoting the first Tori Amos graphic novel I did 15 years ago, and doing the new one this year. We were doing guerilla no-budget marketing, and were able to do great numbers because there were venues like MTV, Rolling Stone, Spin... even AOL music... that were viable central hubs of promotion. We've been promoting for a year, and we still haven't reached 25% of the awareness for this book that we had for the first one.
From a film POV, I'm constantly thinking 'why the hell haven't I heard of this film?!'
TL;DR the lack of having central voices that elevate independent creative work is a complicating factor in fixing all of this.
Small companies who claimed to care about indie film allowed themselves to be co-opted by studios. It became about chasing dirty money from shady executive producers who skimmed their share off the top and screwed filmmakers over by selling them out to secret TV deals. I don’t think I’ll be around to see any sort of “return to the 90s.” (I hope I’m wrong)
The filmmaking mindset has changed. Outside the Hollywood bubble I rarely meet a young filmmaker who can name 5 indie films from the 80s and 90s. And so it goes. I’m happy to now simply write. Keep up the good fight!
As usual, I have quibbles. Or are they bigger than that? The definition of the "indie" films which you seem to be pointing at is, in my view, is lacking in just those things you ask for - boldness, etc. Well 90% or more of the films you would cite as indie gold, were, basically, rather conventional narrative films with the quirk that they were underfunded. Very few stretched any cinematic boundaries, though they tended to violate certain social norms and gender-bended, etc, but in terms of cinema, meh. A few exceptions, Korine and maybe a few others (perhaps including yrs trly).
And because of this wishy-washy stick-to-the-story conventionalism, they were natural bait for $$$ minded people who gobbled them up, and gobbled they were. There was nothing in them that could not be commodified and sold. And even the most radical (like Korine) proved to be fair game and with enough $ went for T&A (always a sure seller) and turned to Spring Breakers.
So first, your premise that the 90's were some golden era is just false - most the indies of the time were worn out conventional narrative films with a twist or two, usually not cinematic, but socio/political.
As far as reviving something like that, well, forget it. The cinema of earlier times is dead, wiped out by more factors than I can cite - the net, streaming, dumbed down audience, politics as pure spectacle, the broad addiction to celebrity, etc etc.
Cyndi Lauper: Money Changes Everything. And more than you are accounting for - most young people have no idea of the cinema you speak of, and Marvel rules. Money Changed EVERYTHING. And on purpose.
Agreed. I remember at Telluride this year thinking that although the films selected were good, as usual, the finest available, I wasn’t the only one who thought there was a dearth of great films. Nothing I’d been anticipating with anxious expectation or felt like it was one for the ages. We are in a creative lull. I’m hoping it’s the calm before the deluge of new and innovative films just coming over the horizon. It feels like the pause has lasted long enough.
My absolute favorites at Telluride were all docs-- perhaps it was my mood. But between Adam Curtis’ Taumazone and Corridors of Power and All The Beauty And The Bloodshed I wa a blown away in each instance by the storytelling, boldness, aesthetics and completeness of all.
I loved reading this. I’m so happy I found it. You’ve always been a mensch. Sharing these anxieties, realities and…hope is generous. Thank you for starting this, Ted. I’ll be following.
You nailed a key factor in that Indie film was TOO successful. Once the financial value reached a certain level investors and business interests naturally moved in. It is not evil, it is part of the system in that profits generate interest because they represent consumer demand.
For this reason, the vast majority of businesses work on a profit motive. But there is another model - sustainability/growth motive. In this approach, maximizing revenue is replaced by using profit to build up. This is common in young startups. One can make the decision to share the revenue through compensation (the employee-owned model) and use a larger percentage to invest back into the business. This means little excess profit and thus less interest to outside investment.
There is actually a film model for this - the studio system of the mid 20th century. Now, before focusing on the negatives of that, think about some of the benefits it had. Development of young talent in front of and behind the camera; secondary products with niche markets (B films) which included niche genres like horror; and the ability to build infrastructure that fed back into the system.
A modern day indie studio could function similarly by providing a growing pool of talent and portable resources to accommodate productions in our distributed world. The studio could handle distribution in physical locations but also provide a core streaming platform because the reality is the audience may not always be local. That platform being sustainable-oriented would provide an access point where these films wouldn't be competing with budget monsters so making it easier to find these niche films by the audience.
Indie needs to embrace the changing world by recognizing that access to your audience is even better than it ever was; the key is making sure that access that can be found in the big money generated noise. The indie folks also need to explore how they can use these new capabilities to enhance their storytelling in ways that actually engage and interact with the audience.
Thus through telling interesting stories to smaller audiences and providing "easter eggs" of experiences to engage the viewer to catch some attention; provide an outlet for material that may not be interesting to the profit-oriented entities but can be interesting enough to sustain itself.
Just a thought.
Thanks for articulating this - my friends and I often refer to the 90s as the Golden Age of film we were lucky to be alive for.
For me the key difference between then and now was that there was sufficient competition across the sector (distributors, video stores, indie cinemas, broadcasters, pay-TV), each with viable businesses, giving many paths to multi-party finance a good-but-risky project.
It feels now that some of this old world holds on, just about, with the help of soft money & tax breaks – but the majority of the English language indie sector has moved to single-party, end-to-end, all-rights financing from the SVoD platforms. A superindie might be able to play Apple TV and Amazon (& HBO/Netflix/Disney) off against each other to get a good deal, but that's largely it. In the 90s there would be at least one adventurous broadcaster *and* distributor *and* sales agent *and* financier, in *each* major territory to approach for pre-sales & acquisitions - as well as the major studios. A determined producer could patchwork something together. But the indie sector is now dependent on studio-like super-platforms, mostly buying all-platform, all-territory rights, which has narrowed output to a relatively few decision-makers. The studio system has been reborn online, but the counter-indie culture hasn't yet emerged as far as I can tell (beyond near-no budget short-form/micro-form on AVoD video platforms).
You are right on. Excellent point,
Nic's points are dead on, and a further complexity in 'how do we solve this' it the diffusion of cultural focus. On the positive side in the EARLY PHASE, the internet, social media, streaming, etc in film, publishing and music allowed for more Points Of Entry for new and aspiring creators to get their work out.
But as these venues figured out how to Monetize Content, it lead to less risks, and approving project based on algorithm, rather than gut instinct, personal taste and experience.
Worse, the diffusion has led to there being no real 'public square' of discourse... in the 90s, ads in papers, a key article, or a few well timed TV spots could get you the eyes you needed to get the ball rolling and reach critical mass where a film or a band or a comic book could be successful. Not Pulp Fiction Money, but successful enough financially that the creators and companies could continue on. Using Apples to Apples, it is mind blowing to me the comparison of promoting the first Tori Amos graphic novel I did 15 years ago, and doing the new one this year. We were doing guerilla no-budget marketing, and were able to do great numbers because there were venues like MTV, Rolling Stone, Spin... even AOL music... that were viable central hubs of promotion. We've been promoting for a year, and we still haven't reached 25% of the awareness for this book that we had for the first one.
From a film POV, I'm constantly thinking 'why the hell haven't I heard of this film?!'
TL;DR the lack of having central voices that elevate independent creative work is a complicating factor in fixing all of this.
Small companies who claimed to care about indie film allowed themselves to be co-opted by studios. It became about chasing dirty money from shady executive producers who skimmed their share off the top and screwed filmmakers over by selling them out to secret TV deals. I don’t think I’ll be around to see any sort of “return to the 90s.” (I hope I’m wrong)
The filmmaking mindset has changed. Outside the Hollywood bubble I rarely meet a young filmmaker who can name 5 indie films from the 80s and 90s. And so it goes. I’m happy to now simply write. Keep up the good fight!
As usual, I have quibbles. Or are they bigger than that? The definition of the "indie" films which you seem to be pointing at is, in my view, is lacking in just those things you ask for - boldness, etc. Well 90% or more of the films you would cite as indie gold, were, basically, rather conventional narrative films with the quirk that they were underfunded. Very few stretched any cinematic boundaries, though they tended to violate certain social norms and gender-bended, etc, but in terms of cinema, meh. A few exceptions, Korine and maybe a few others (perhaps including yrs trly).
And because of this wishy-washy stick-to-the-story conventionalism, they were natural bait for $$$ minded people who gobbled them up, and gobbled they were. There was nothing in them that could not be commodified and sold. And even the most radical (like Korine) proved to be fair game and with enough $ went for T&A (always a sure seller) and turned to Spring Breakers.
So first, your premise that the 90's were some golden era is just false - most the indies of the time were worn out conventional narrative films with a twist or two, usually not cinematic, but socio/political.
As far as reviving something like that, well, forget it. The cinema of earlier times is dead, wiped out by more factors than I can cite - the net, streaming, dumbed down audience, politics as pure spectacle, the broad addiction to celebrity, etc etc.
Cyndi Lauper: Money Changes Everything. And more than you are accounting for - most young people have no idea of the cinema you speak of, and Marvel rules. Money Changed EVERYTHING. And on purpose.
Agreed. I remember at Telluride this year thinking that although the films selected were good, as usual, the finest available, I wasn’t the only one who thought there was a dearth of great films. Nothing I’d been anticipating with anxious expectation or felt like it was one for the ages. We are in a creative lull. I’m hoping it’s the calm before the deluge of new and innovative films just coming over the horizon. It feels like the pause has lasted long enough.
My absolute favorites at Telluride were all docs-- perhaps it was my mood. But between Adam Curtis’ Taumazone and Corridors of Power and All The Beauty And The Bloodshed I wa a blown away in each instance by the storytelling, boldness, aesthetics and completeness of all.
I loved reading this. I’m so happy I found it. You’ve always been a mensch. Sharing these anxieties, realities and…hope is generous. Thank you for starting this, Ted. I’ll be following.