Indie Filmmaking Is Surging Despite the Odds

Indie film lottery
Thomas James

As weary festgoers departed Sundance last weekend, my thoughts turned not to the winners, who reaped the accolades and the distribution deals, but to the roughly 4,000 losers — all those who engaged in the melee with lofty expectations and equally lofty credit-card bills.

Sundance, after all, is an exercise in fiscal self-immolation masked as a film festival.

But each year, the festival raises a question: Why are more and more indie films getting made in defiance of all the warning signs? The majors released only 120 films last year vs. 204 in 2006, whining all the way about shrinking margins. Now look at the indies: The New York Times published some 900 film reviews last year (75 more than the year before), most of them of indie pictures. Variety last year carried 1,080 reviews.

Then there’s another anomaly: Survey the Oscar nominations, and you discover the ever-growing presence of independent financing behind supposed major releases. “American Hustle,” “Dallas Buyers Club” and “Wolf of Wall Street” wouldn’t have been made without hefty funding from non-Hollywood sources. There’s clearly a lot of venture capital out there — but in these particular instances, we’re talking truly adventurous capital.

The increase in such film financing is even more counterintuitive because the mantra among CEOs and financial gurus is that niche product is doomed in today’s entertainment universe. As the Economist put it last week, “Every media executive is searching for the golden release.”

This of course contradicts last year’s hot theory that the Internet was changing the demand curve for film and music — that the combination of limitless shelf space and the deployment of more sophisticated search algorithms would vastly increase the market for niche product. Remember the popularity of Chris Anderson’s book “The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More.”

Well this year’s iteration is focused on selling more of less — fewer pictures that all feature giant budgets and equally colossal worldwide marketing campaigns.

To be sure, this hasn’t inhibited filmmakers from entering this year’s festival lottery. After all, new platforms beckon. The majors may disdain indie product, but Netflix and Amazon are ablaze (looking for hits). And there are success stories. “Tiny Furniture” may have grossed less than $400,000 at the domestic box office, but it propelled Lena Dunham into a bountiful HBO deal. “Don Jon,” starring Joseph Gordon Levitt, found an optimistic distributor in Relativity after its Sundance bow, went on to gross $24 million domestically, and got Levitt a TV show too.

So the dream is alive and well, despite the odds. And sometimes the success stories are downright delicious. In 2005, John Singleton, the high-energy filmmaker who broke through with “Boyz N the Hood,” figured out a strategy for cracking Sundance. He’d produced a new film called “Hustle & Flow” that was so hot he wouldn’t even screen it. Not, that is, unless someone came up with a great offer in advance.

When he finally was persuaded to hold a private screening, the buzz was so positive that a bidding war broke out. Paramount ended up paying $9 million for the rights, but also had to agree to co-finance two additional films.

“Hustle & Flow” turned out to be something of a hustle. The film did only modest business in the U.S. ($22 million), and Paramount never made the next two films.

Yes, it’s possible to beat the system, and the success stories prove it — sufficient to encourage all those daddies who are being prodded by their filmmaker children to let them shoot for just six more days and charge it to their credit cards. Clearly they’re on their way to auteur stardom; even if the festival circuit turns them down, there’s a beneficent algorithm out there that will surely discover them.

After all, the great filmmaking public cannot subsist on hits alone — especially when there’s a vast universe of potential flops on the horizon.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 3

Leave a Reply

3 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. TheBigBangOf20thCenturyPopCulture says:

    The reason why indies are as much of a collective risk as majors is that they are helmed by the same amateurs or bohemians who’ve yet to make it into the mainstream. Back in the day, it was unique avant garde talents left out who were forced to resort to indie productions. Today it’s more a matter of lack of money than wealth of vision that defines the genre. If the segregated playing field was the same as it was back in the 60s, indies would reclaim classic cult status instead of serving populist pipe dreams.

  2. Brenda Battle Jordan says:

    The new documentary “Mitt.” Ken Jordan and Brenda Battle Jordan May be in this one, they came to our home as they were working on Mitt Romney documentary.

  3. Truth says:

    When the success stories for making it through indies (but outside of festivals) is Dunham, Gordon Levitt, and Singleton . . . you know you’ve got a major problem.

    Joseph Gordon Levitt was already a well know actor starring in hits such as 500 Days of Summer and The Dark Knight Rises before Don Jon. The fact that Don Jon found distribution and made some cash has less to do with “indie” filmmaking and more to do with Hollywood connections. And you know that’s the case, Mr. Bart.

    John Singleton is another ridiculous citation of success through indies. He was already an Oscar-nominated director who made big budget Hollywood movies such as (2 Fast 2 Furious) before Hustle and Flow. The man had plenty of Hollywood connections with big studios and was not an “outsider.” His career has floundered but that has less to do with indies and more to do with Hollywood.

    Dunham was lucky enough to be blessed by comedy god Judd Apatow – this allowed her to have her TV show. In addition to lucking out with the connections, she was also smart enough to continue to extend the “connections” circle by hiring Brian Williams and David Mamet’s children.

    So, all three examples are rather ridiculous. Maxing daddy’s credit card out on making indies will only get you so far. Having the connections are way more important.

    Of course, if you come from wealthy parents that’ll always help with the making of “so-called indie” films. You know, like Megan Ellison {hailing from Larry Ellison (billionaire software giant)} producing “American Hustle” or Riza Azia {hailing from the Prime Minister of Malaysia} producing Wolf of Wall Street. Then if you’re just wealthy (and don’t have direct familial ties to Hollywood), you can call yourself indie.

    Maxing out credit cards and rising to stardom is a fairy tale bigger than Walt Disney ever dreamed and you know it’s true, Mr. Bart.

More Voices News from Variety

Loading