The real meaning of "data" in film (a prologue)

I begin most of my conversations about film these days with one topic in mind: data. As anyone who has read Moneyball will remember, access to data doesn't necessarily make for better decisions. Thus, my research is not just about getting to the data, but making sure that what we get is useable. And we have already seen some larger companies begin to do this.

Google, Apple, and Netflix make strategic and product decisions around their vast data resources. Hollywood studios have largely ignored the proliferation of data analysis, even as several individuals in the industry have made a half step toward increased data transparency. While this makes for interesting reading, what does this mean for an individual filmmaker?

Over the next week, I will be breaking down data by window (theatrical, VOD, online, etc.) and by who currently has access to that data (distributors, exhibitors, filmmakers, etc.) In doing so, I will illustrate the sheer lack of information in the industry in total. Then comes the scary part.

I will show how little of this data, both financial and marketing, trickles down to the individual filmmaker. We should care about two things after a film's release: who saw it and for how much. My next few posts will show just how in-the-dark most of us are.

There are 5 venues I will be discussing: -Theatrical -Physical Media Sales -VOD (both transactional and subscription) -TV (pay TV, cable, network licensing, etc.) -Direct Sales

Each of these exhibition avenues is a different market and poses a different set of problems. As I go through each of these areas, I'm going to treat them with a hacker's eye. I want to see how close much of the traditional system can be replicated piecemeal.

My primary question is: How can one release a film in as many places as possible while maintaining control over both revenue streams and individualized data? And what are the side effects, both positive and negative?

By the end of this week, I hope to have clearly laid out where the industry stands. This will show how far we need to go to get what filmmaker's need to be successful.

The Clarity and Color of Film Finance

“Let me show you how this is done. First thing, hold the glass up and examine the wine against the light. You're looking for color and clarity. Just, get a sense of it.” – Miles Raymond, Sideways

I believe the film industry is weakened by the absence of an objective, transparent measuring tool for would-be film investors. Many mature industries have created an index of some sort to help the investment community get a read on the sector’s financial climate. The Dow Jones Industrial Average serves as a benchmark for mainstream market activity. The Case-Shiller Indices are well-respected indicators of real estate performance. But the film industry has no such barometer. Some risk prone investors become involved in films with virtually no useful financial information to go on, making a hopeful jump into the abyss with the belief that the journey will have been fun regardless of its outcome. A small group of experienced investors understand how to create assurances for themselves, increasing their chances of financial success. The overwhelming majority of investors, however, choose not to invest in film at all, finding alternative vehicles that provide greater transparency into the mechanisms related to financial returns and the set of past comparables. Both filmmakers and investors suffer from the continued opacity surrounding investment opportunities.

Under the belief that the presence of an objective film index might help alleviate this issue and lead to more sustainable and intentional investment practices, I am researching methodologies through which such an index could be made. Once I have collected sufficient information about the challenges, data types and partners that would need to be involved in making such an index a reality, I will move toward the execution stage. At the moment, I find myself defining the rules for this process…

First thing’s first – what is an index really? In simple language, it’s a set of investments combined to form a score that can be compared at various places in time relative to its own base value.

Line graphs depicting stock performances over time are fairly standard visual indicators commonly used to aid the decision-making process of investors. However, there is no simple or obvious way to make a similar tool related to the performance of film investment – at least not without setting a few things straight. There are a plethora of ways in which films are unlike stocks - below are a few:

comparison

• - Stocks hold value that is theoretically ongoing whereas the revenue-generating life of a film is finite. A film index needs a standard basis to gather revenue information.

• - Companies available for trade on the public market are highly regulated while even studios and production companies owned by publicly traded conglomerates do not disclose financial returns on a per-film basis. A useful film index requires data its users trust.

• - Stock markets allow for high volumes of ongoing trading from many different sources, which all fall into a standardized system, whereas films typically require funding at the front end from a small number of sources and generate revenue from a widely diverse and disparate set of streams during specific windows.

Luckily, there exist other indices related to investments I find much more analogous to films. One such index is Liv-ex, a global marketplace for buyers and sellers of fine wine. As I’ve begun studying the Liv-ex system, I’ve found the practical and philosophical questions its founders tackled highly analogous to the exercise I must go through in constructing the film index. Two core elements are of utmost importance:

1. Defining the criteria for inclusion

As Liv-ex’s director, James Miles, said, “To be regarded as a fine wine, a wine must have the potential to both improve in bottle and appreciate in value, and be actively sought after in the secondary market. To satisfy this requirement, a wine must have a long track record (often centuries rather than decades) and have received strong critical acclaim.”

It is essential that a film index articulate a fine level of specificity in setting the boundaries that demarcate what films it includes. There are many different types of boundaries one might choose. The key, I believe, will be to select a rubric that is meaningful for investors and filmmakers alike and that produces a score that can be used to make projections beyond the list of included films into other parts of the industry. Is an ongoing slate of films made by 25 film producers meaningful? What about a set of sub-indices built within genres? Should the budget of the film be a factor? The length? With the aid of some statistical analysis, practical considerations regarding the ability to get specific data and common sense, I will gradually determine the pieces that might best be used to construct the model.

2. Defining the index’s value

In Liv-ex’s case, James Miles points to the index as a tool investors can use to calibrate fine wine as an asset class within their portfolio, comparable to others such as gold and real estate. He points to the ability for “growers to finance their crop, which for fine wine is often not ready for drinking for a decade or more” – essentially the idea that it provides greater stability for the content, errrr, crop producers. And he points to the burdens of transaction fees leading to low liquidity and slow working capital cycle times throughout the industry, with the transparency of an index serving to lessen those challenges. The analogous value of an index to the film industry is fairly direct.

Screen Shot 2014-02-25 at 9.53.42 PM

"Liv-ex Fine Wine 1000" Index

I have begun speaking with Liv-ex staff and will continue to seek their guidance over the coming months (as well as from other indices serving similarly atypical financial instruments). Down the road when I begin to experiment with functional models, my initial attempts will almost certainly need refining. Everything from the Dow to Liv-ex have gone through periods of revision. With each iteration I’ll seek to bring a useful model for insight into film investment into greater focus. I’m looking forward to working with many of you and sharing my progress.

* To learn more about Liv-ex, visit their website here.

Do Movies Really Matter?

Movies make magic.  They captivate us.  They transform us.  They take the mundane and modify it before our waking eyes.  In fact, cinema assumes a pedagogical role in the lives of many people.  At its best, film travels through the hidden chambers of our minds and alters what already exists; clearly, movies could not achieve this spectacular feat by merely reflecting the norm. [1]

Motion pictures, at their core, expand possibilities.  In other words, cinema represents a very powerful vision of what our future can hold.  That said, my work with the Cinema Research Institute is aimed at impacting the heart of cinema’s most vital role in our society and that, in my opinion, is to increase our vision of⎯ the possible!

New media technology boom

Today, new technology continues to push the boundaries of human connectivity.  And as media culture rapidly changes with these new technologies (digital, mobile, internet, social media, etc); quite frankly, cinema and television still remain highly active sites for the production and circulation of complex power relations.

In his book, Devil Finds Work,  James Baldwin explores certain underlying assumptions found in American media.  He reminds us of the fundamental necessity for storytelling as a critical component of the human experience.  That is, after all, why humans invented poetry, art, music, literature, film, etc.  Baldwin contends that, “in order for a person to bear his [or her] life, he [or she] needs a valid re-creation of that life.” [2]  Wow. Rather profound, huh?!  (Gotta LOVE James Baldwin.)

James Baldwin, novelist, essayist, playwright, cultural theorist

To that extent, the epistemological function of cinema and television in the process of global socialization and human identity formation cannot be easily overlooked.  Cinema (and media in general) provides us with the stories and images of our humanity that help shape our understanding of being-in-the-world. [3]

The question then begs to be asked⎯ what is the psychic and empirical toll on the lives of those marginalized groups whose images, stories, and experiences have become invisible or grossly distorted in the commercial film and television landscape?

With this in mind, I am immensely honored and excited that throughout the 2014-2015 year I have been chosen to work with the Cinema Research Institute (CRI) to tackle tough questions like this.  My research is aimed at excavating innovative film distribution strategies to address issues of media diversity for underserved communities, including but not limited, to Black, Latino, Asian-American, and Native-American audiences and filmmakers.

I’d like to thank the CRI for bestowing me with this prestigious fellowship.  I deeply appreciate your confidence and tremendous support, particularly, the incomparable Dean Mary Schmidt Campbell, the assiduous John Tintori, the percipient Robert Warren, the enterprising Richard Vague, and the astute Colin Brown.  You have selected me to receive this award for a reason, and I will not disappoint.    I desire to thank my vivacious, beautiful, and intelligent mother, Ms. G.B. Walker.  There are no words to adequately express how much you mean to me.   I am⎯ because you are.  Last, but most certainly not least, I desire to thank my most wise, pioneering, and courageous ancestors upon whose shoulders I stand.  Thank you for blazing a trail that I might follow.  I hope to one day extend your legacies and inspire others the way you have inspired me.   Also, special thanks to the tireless Miranda Sherman.  And congratulations to my fellow Fellows (pun intended) ⎯ stay thirsty, my friends.

To the vibrant multicultural audiences,  the under-recognized, progressive, humanistic filmmakers with diverse voices, and to the broader audiences who have multicultural tastes⎯ I see you!!!  I know you’re out there and together we will make a positive impact and our voices will be heard!!!

I definitely real(eyes) that great ideas can change the world, but it requires great people to make it happen.  That’s why I’ll need your help throughout the year, to engage the film and entertainment community in a long-running dialogue, while designing positive solutions toward media equity, as we work diligently to disrupt the status quo in dominant film distribution.  I thank you in advance for your support.   And I look forward to taking this amazing journey with you all !!!

faced

Notes:

1. Jeanette Winterson. Art Objects: Essays on Ecstasy and Effrontery (Random House, 1997).

2.  James Baldwin. The Devil Finds Work (Random House, 1976).

3. See Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (HarperCollins, 2008), 84.

Why Filmmakers Are Crazy (and how I plan to help)

A graphical look at the the success/failure of 2013's Sundance acquisitions. [credit Seed&Spark]

Anyone who decides to produce a film, market a film, or distribute a film is taking a giant risk. If they are taking that risk with their own money, one might consider institutionalizing them. The likelihood of making your money back is exceedingly low in the independent film world. Investors spent $3 billion on the 4,000 feature films submitted to the Sundance Film Festival this year. They will likely recoup 2% on aggregate. The risk is high and even the most successful projects return revenues less than what other industries provide. This is why filmmakers are crazy. Not because they chose to enter this business, but because the business itself is broken.

I'm no Ron Swanson-esque supporter of unrestrained capitalism. But the free market at least provides a transparent link between seller and buyer. One of the largest problems in the film industry is that filmmakers do not sell to the people watching their films. They sell to distributors.

Distributors exhibit oligarchical power over market demand. Given the few number of buyers, they pressure filmmakers into selling films below market rates. Distributors go on to control the cash flows from that point on. They offer limited data on expenses and revenue, no input on strategy, and no information about the audience.

In the end, the filmmaker trades knowledge of their audience and control of their brand for a few dollars. They are playing the lottery instead of working for a living. They do this because there is no other way.

That is, until now.

There has been a groundswell in artist services over the last few years. Preproduction help in financing comes from Kickstarter and Indiegogo. Digital filmmaking has lowered production costs. Direct distribution platforms like VHX and Vimeo On Demand allow for direct selling. Each of these services aims to help the artist find their audience and engage them.

My research will hopefully propel this sea change to the logical step: direct marketing. The goal is to allow filmmakers to reach an audience based on data and exhibited preferences in purchase behavior. It is a massive undertaking, but necessary for the sustainability of the independent film market.

I will present my research in three parts:

1.   The examination of what data about audiences exists and is available, as well how to use it
2.   The redefinition of films in a more complete, actionable format around the ideas of branding and personality
3.   The connection of those films, using this classification, with the audiences who would pay to see them

By the conclusion of my fellowship I intend to show filmmakers a better way to reach their audience. I will demonstrate ways to leverage their own markets without selling their rights to another entity. Finally, I hope to create a framework that artists can follow to take advantage of new technology and information.

Stay tuned, it should be a fascinating year.

When was the last time you asked someone if they went to the movie theater?

And they answered, “I’ll wait for it to come out on Netflix or DVD?” They said, yes, right?

The big-screen experience remains an undeniably powerful way to tell stories. But occasional moviegoers defected by 72.2 million tickets from 2010 to 2012, which represents an estimated $575 million loss to the industry. This trend doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Forecasts peg attendance will decline yet again in 2013.

box office 1995-2012

Full disclosure: I fell in love with movies after my first movie theater experience (the Lion King!). And I still believe there’s nothing better than watching a great movie in a great theater with a rapt audience.

But this fellowship project is not borne out of nostalgia.

the price is right

"The Price is Right" will test whether some type of dynamic ticket pricing for movie theaters can grow attendance, particularly for non-blockbuster event films. In addition, can pushing this over a mobile platform capture extra demand by drawing in people with no previous intention of going to the movie?

The first phase is to gather as much research data as necessary and define the scope and parameters of the test. To achieve this, we will seek out partners and collaborators interested in working with us or sharing their thoughts on the project. This includes exhibitors, distributors, online movie websites, academics, mobile app and tech companies, and other non-entertainment firms with dynamic pricing experience.

The motivation is to answer: Is there any more money left on the table for movie theaters? Is this implosion inevitable? Is my generation permanently attached to on-demand viewing habits? The deck is certainly stacked: there’s fierce competition from other types of media, customer dissatisfaction with the movie theater experience, long-standing industry practices between exhibitors and distributors, and a fear that any change will exacerbate the problem.

If the answer is, “No, I want to watch this movie in my sweatpants and barring the apocalypse, I am staying put,” that is ok. An answer from a real-world, real-time test is good. It’d be even better to move the needle in a meaningful way.

The Blame Game and the Glut-ter Punks

The favorite thing to do on the internet amongst indie film journalists this week seems to be to tear apart Manohla Dargis' piece in the New York Times, "As Indies Explode, an Appeal for Sanity." We don't want to uselessly add to the cacophony, but rather it might benefit to consider the problem that Dargis poses from the perspective of grassroots distribution. And it is a real problem; however, the glut of films she bemoans at  Sundance and then in New York theaters does not just manifest itself out of nowhere. It's simply a natural byproduct of the glut in production that there is generally right now. In fact in a recent survey of film professionals by Thom Powers, Janet Pierson mentions off hand that it seems like there are more people interested in making films than in walking to their local theater to see them. Basically, let's not pretend like the bottleneck is clogged up just at Sundance or New York theaters, and it's not that buyers are trigger-happy. Quite the opposite actually - every year Sundance programs more films and a smaller percentage acquire formal distribution (hence the increasing importance of exploring self-distribution through grassroots methods).

A directive like "take a moment and consider whether flooding theaters with titles is good for movies and moviegoers alike" assumes a couple things and overlooks some others. A simple raised hand might point out that this situation might only describe the situation amongst the traditional theater houses of New York or Los Angeles, dismissing what the spread of films is like in venues in every other city in America. But the easiest criticism has been to say that this statement neglects "four-walling" -- when a film's promoters buy out a theater in New York for the opening weekend. The next logical leap is to point the finger back at Ms. Dargis' own publication, because many use four-walling to exploit the Times' policy that they will review any film that opens theatrically in New York.

But let's look a little deeper. One thing we've often asserted in this fellowship that the glut of production makes branding, or curation -- anything that filters the massive choice that a viewer has to make when gazing upon this sea of films available -- more important and front and center to "distribution" than ever (and in fact distances it from the actual practice of distribution). For better or worse, a New York Times film review (due to their policy) is a form of that curation, precisely because it says "This film had a theatrical release." So the massive number of films available don't render that review less relevant; in fact it exacerbates its importance. And because it's essentially purchase-able via four-walling, it becomes an increasingly artificial symbol of success.

That is the real problem -- that the theatrical release is still being endowed with that (false symbolic) power. But the dynamics of self-release and grassroots distribution only add to it; a film's release in a New York theater is an event, and if grassroots campaigning depends on events to motivate action, a New York release is the equivalent of Election Day! However, if a film's calendar is peppered with events -- ie regional releases supported by the filmmaker doing a Q & A in person, selling merchandise, offering something special, like a candidate on a campaign trail -- then the importance of New York, as just one city, can be slightly diminished. A film's release should be a constant campaign with momentum consistently maintained around various benchmarks, not one long one that leads to a singular box office day and one write-up in the Times.

But what's most striking is the zero sum game that seems to be at play in Dargis' article between theaters and films (not to mention the false dichotomy of "good film = theater / bad film = VOD" that's assumed here). It's as if the number of theaters has stayed flat while the number of films we're trying to cram in them has skyrocketed. Probably the latter is outpacing the former, but the real opportunity for grassroots bottom-up disruption in the film industry might be located in the exhibition space. We've considered this in our idea for a Yelp-type app for film venues. If a filmmaker, after much deliberation, decides that a theatrical release is really important to their film's campaign (and not just a quick four-wall cash-grab for a review), then they have to open their mind to what kind of space their film can play in. Money that goes to four-walling traditional venues could instead go to promoting the actual run of their film in a less traditional space, or creating and building a real volunteer force to get word out based on that constant fuel of grassroots anything: sheer enthusiasm.

----

On behalf of Josh, Michael, and Carl, we just want to say it's been a great year writing about the film industry as it continues to change in unexpected and interesting ways. We're extremely grateful to John Tintori and everyone on the board at the Cinema Research Institute for the fellowship and the opportunity to think out loud in this corner of the internet for the last 12 months. And thank you to anyone who has tuned in, shared their thoughts, sent along articles, agreed to being interviewed. Grassroots filmmaking is all about community, and you all, along with the people that make CRI happen, are our community. Thank you.

BREAKING! Organizing for Action to organize for film

As this fellowship has been premised on finding the solutions for grassroots film distribution in the grassroots structures and methods of the Obama campaign, it seems highly appropriate that for one of our last posts, we break the news that Organizing for Action -- basically the version 3.0 of what began as Obama for America in 2007, the primary  entity we reference in our research -- is getting into the film game. Why is this exciting? For one, Organizing for Action as is currently is almost a purer form of strictly organizing than it was when it had the very concrete goal of electing Barack Obama president in 2008 and again in 2012. Relieved of that high directive, it can and has been able to diversify the target of the muscle of its still very grassroots campaign infrastructure and volunteer force. It is the perfect time to further diversify their organizing toolbox to include film -- and the possibilities for film are equally as exciting. We have often pondered what an OFA or DNC-like non-profit or national organization / collective for film would look like; without starting a new organization at all, this at least dips the original model's reach into the film distribution/exhibition landscape (in much need of help).

Organizing for Action actually began its efforts in this arena last month with a Day of Action (a common practice for campaigns) organized around nationwide screenings of "Chasing Ice," a documentary that records climate change through rapidly shifting ice structures. Note that this falls very squarely into a campaign that uses the film towards a political end, very explicitly; the "ask" of those at the watch parties was for attendees to opt in to a list that connotes that it is time to take action on climate change.

However, for the filmmakers behind "Chasing Ice," one imagines any mechanism that gets more people to see  their film, especially one in the form of a highly well-funded and reputable non-profit like Organizing for Action, is a positive development. Although the viewing or sharing of the film is not the end in and of itself, it is the tool through which change is accomplished via OFA. And any grassroots momentum around the film has the added effect of bringing more people into the film's circle of awareness -- which similarly can have its own default snowflake expansion of sharing, regardless of political ends. One can imagine a future in which OFA also uses screenings to pool interest in film in general (as opposed to using one climate change film to collect interest in climate change). Perhaps a Film Corps unit within OFA could start -- one run by volunteers particularly interested in screening films of various social importance or relevance.

Sundance_OFA_v10

The latest news, though, is that OFA is having somewhat of a coming out party (literally and figuratively) as an organization interested in film at the all-important Sundance Film Festival. Former Obama for America campaign organizer and White House official Jon Carson (now the director of OFA) will be hosting a party to talk a little bit about what they'll be up to in this interesting new chapter. Anyone interested in the cross-section of grassroots distribution and grassroots campaigning who finds themselves in Park City should attend. At least one member of the CRI Fellowship will be there to hear what's up!

Grassroots Movie Theaters- Concluding Idea Series, #3

In previous posts, we have explored how grassroots and DIY exhibition could be a viable way for filmmakers to distribute their films instead of relying on conventional distribution deals.  However, many of the filmmakers we have interviewed have noted how exhausting it can be to spend time and money to both make their film and distribute it on their own. Before the digital age of film, it was easier for new filmmakers to get discovered since fewer movies were being produced.  With the influx of films that get submitted to festivals along with Hollywood's growing tendency to only distribute blockbuster movies that appeal to a global marketplace, it is increasingly difficult for independent filmmakers to distribute new and original films.

Since studios are taking less of a chance on distributing independent films in movie theaters, a potential solution is for independent filmmakers to create their own movie theater circuit.  In a previous post, we interviewed Jay Craven, who successfully distributed his films by creating his own screening circuit in rural New England towns. Jay was successful at screening his films this way by targeting the same rural New England towns where many of his films were set.  He was able to then tap into an audience that would be interested in the cultural aspects of his film.  He also targeted small rural towns where locals were more interested in attending major events in their hometown instead of going to see blockbuster movies in a theater that could be over a half hour away.

What if a collective of independent filmmakers and community organizers created their own distribution circuit, based in towns that are likely to have a strong base of independent movie goers? Not only would this help films that slipped through the cracks on the festival circuit get noticed, but the films that did well on the circuit would get publicity that could help attract a deal with major distributors by showing there is a demand for the film at the local level.

However, finding the right locations to establish these grassroots movie theaters would be key, along with an effective outreach strategy on the ground to publicize film screenings at low costs.  From our background working on the Obama campaign, organizers played a key role in building relationships with supporters and community leaders through one-on-one meetings and cold calling. Similarly, organizers could be hired to build relationships with people in a community to determine the best places to screen films and recruit volunteers to help publicize the screenings. Another key strategy in the Obama campaign was collecting contact information from supporters at rallies, house parties and other events so they could email and call supporters to get involved in future events.  Similarly, a grassroots distribution collective could collect data from audiences at the screenings to better target and market their films in the future.  The data could be shared among the collective so every time a new film is distributed the filmmaker won’t have to start from scratch.

In one of our previous posts, we interviewed Kate West and Jacob Perlin who manage Artist Public Domain and Cinema Conservancy respectively.  The objective of both companies is to enrich culture through finding new venues for independent film.  Jacob suggested one thing that could help independent filmmakers would be,

“Some type of affiliated network where there is someone representing different regions who have more knowledge about it. Like for instance, if you have a [certain kind of] film in New York the goal is Film Forum because it gets the biggest best audience.  But what happens if your film doesn’t get in there? Well the traditional thing was always you open your film in Manhattan because Manhattan is better than Brooklyn but that isn’t the case anymore. Also, do you open your film at BAM or Nitehawk?  Someone outside of New York is not going to know the difference…there are so many iterations that only someone here could know and advise a filmmaker.””

What if there were a group of organizers who worked to distribute a slate of films in the non-traditional venues Jacob discussed in the quote above?  If done effectively, the films could attract buzz for independent films that big studios would never take a chance on since they lack the big stars and the special effects that appeal to a global marketplace.  Furthermore, running local campaigns for independent films based on word of mouth and grassroots strategies like cold calling and one-on-one meetings, might be a cheaper and more effective way of reaching the niche audience for an independent film compared to running a traditional movie theater P & A campaign, which is often expensive and targets audiences that are more interested in seeing blockbuster movies.

There is no doubt an effort for independent filmmakers to create their own screening circuit would take a tremendous amount of time, money and resources.  However, in the long run, it could have a greater impact than Kickstarter and other crowd funding sites that may help a movie get made but often fall short in helping an independent film get seen by a major audience, which after all is the most critical step for gauging whether or not a film is successful. A collective of filmmakers that create their own screening circuit and use grassroots organizing to target their audiences locally may be the secret weapon independent filmmakers have been looking for to help balance the recent tide of blockbuster movies flooding the theaters.

Why Studios Don’t Care if Hollywood Movies Tank and How Grassroots Exhibition Could Rescue Independent Film

My name is Carl Kriss, and I have been working as a research associate for Josh Penn and Michael Gottwald’s CRI fellowship on grassroots distribution.  Like Michael and Josh, I worked on the Obama campaign for both the 2008 and 2012 cycles and have been fascinated by how grassroots models from the campaign world shed light on new ways to distribute independent film. In fact, I've noticed a connection in the current struggle between independent filmmakers and Hollywood studios and the challenge Obama faced in the 2007 primary when he was running against the establishment-backed candidate, Hillary Clinton. In the early days, Obama and his team were at a major disadvantage in fundraising and name recognition, but the campaign was able to employ a historic grassroots operation on the ground and online that empowered volunteers to get out the vote and set records in fundraising by reaching out to small donors. This made me wonder whether a film collective could use grassroots organizing methods to distribute a slate of independent films that would normally not be seen in traditional movie theaters. The first step towards answering this question may be to figure out why studios are so interested in funding blockbuster movies over independent films in the first place, especially when many big budget flicks like Disney’s Lone Ranger and Sony’s After Earth continue to tank.

A recent article in the New York Times titled “Studios Unfazed by Colossal Wrecks” sheds light on why studios continue to spend more resources to distribute blockbuster movies instead of indies. In the article, Anita Elberse, a professor at Harvard Business School observed that even though more films are failing at the box office than before, it still “turns out to be a winning strategy.  It makes sense for the studios to spend disproportionately on a select group of the most likely winners. And they are the big budget franchise films with identifiable characters and global appeal.”

So studios seem to be intent on saturating the box office with blockbusters and sequels.  The article notes,"The studios collectively released 17 blockbusters between May and the beginning of August.  The summer season has rarely supported more than nine hits, according to Doug Creutz, senior media and entertainment analyst for Cowen & Company, who predicted this summer would generate numerous box-office flops."

Mr. Creutz adds that,

“The major media companies are so big that nothing but a blockbuster really makes sense. Say you make a low-budget comedy and it brings in $150 million. So what? That doesn’t move the needle. You make a blockbuster, you market and promote it, and it plays around the world. You can do the sequel and the consumer products and a theme park attraction. The movie itself is almost beside the point. All Disney is going to be doing is Marvel, Star Wars and animation.”

This is where grassroots distribution can rescue independent film.  With the advent of digital distribution, it has never been easier to screen movies at a low cost. A collective group of filmmakers and community organizers could distribute a slate of films at venues like drive-in's, union halls and school auditoriums for low costs and help prove to studios that there is a demand for independent films at the local level. We plan to explore this idea further in our next post for our 3rd Concluding Idea Series.

Exit polls: useful or useless?

One of the advantages of living in a country whose government has decided that film and art in general deserves state support (example: the United Kingdom... Not an example: the United States), is that that state support also manifests itself in the form of an organization like the British Film Institute, which has as a directive to study its country's film industry. They can serve as cinema "think tanks," and this kind of intensive analysis is particularly appealing to us as something we've also seen in grassroots political behemoths like the Obama campaign. A brief perusal of the BFI website shows not only the stats they've gathered on titles in the theatrical and VOD markets, but comprehensive studies on things like the habits of "avid cinemagoers," diverse vs. mainstream audiences, and case analyses about specific multi-platform releases. All of these would provide a more solid starting place for any U.K. filmmaker looking to better understand the potential of their audience But what raised our eyes most of all is that BFI conducts exit polls! On every release they support, they give a questionnaire to its audience. We were immediately drawn to this because in our ongoing quest for more data in the film world, it seemed like a revelation that the BFI was collecting valuable information from its audiences. It seemed to say that the kind of information collecting of the Obama campaign was not a pipe dream for films.

However, in looking at the actual poll, it seems that the only questions asked are about marketing and/or how the audience member ended up in the audience: "sources of information" (how did they hear about the film) and "baits to attendance" (what got them to go see it). When we think data in an organizing sense, we think email address, name, age, possibly even phone number or geolocation. It allows us to build a profile, per our interview with Dan Wagner, but it also provides a means of communication with our audience via email. Are these kinds of questions -- ie the fact that 30% of people who went to see Blue is the Warmest Color knew about it from magazine reviews or articles, or that 46% wanted to see it because it won the Palme D'Or -- at all relevant for filmmakers themselves? Or just publicity people, marketing companies, etc. It certainly tells you where you can make an impact with your marketing dollar, but only when this data is crossreferenced against itself. And the variety in (budget, genre, everything) in these titles is vast.

Is there any conclusions to be drawn from this practice through the lens of grassroots filmmakers? Or is it all for naught? Tell us what you think in the comments section.

An Interview with Obama for America Targeting Guru Dan Wagner

_­Happy Holidays from the CRI team! Since a recurring theme in our research is that more data and precise targeting would improve the distribution of independent films, we interviewed former Obama analytics guru and entrepreneur Dan Wagner. Dan revolutionized targeting for political campaigns by working as the Chief Analytics Officer on the 2012 Obama campaign.  Previously in 2008, Dan had worked as the National Get Out the Vote (GOTV) Targeting Director for Obama and as the National Targeting Director at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for the 2010 election cycle. In 2012, Dan and his 54 person team of analysts worked to create the analytics models that targeted undecided voters and supporters through media outlets and offline canvassing and phone calls.  You can read more about Dan's work for the Obama campaign and how it relates to targeting for film, in our blog post here.

After the campaign, Dan received funding from Google's Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, who was a technology advisor for the campaign, to start a new firm called Civis Analytics. Headquartered in Chicago, Civis uses the technology and analytics strategies from the Obama campaign to help companies, non-profits, and campaigns utilize their own data to target their audience/consumers and build stronger data driven organizations.

We interviewed Dan to get his thoughts about how an analytics model could be applied to help distribute film, and the conclusions were fascinating. Here, we’ll share some of what we learned, with accompanying quotations from Dan.

1) Start with who likes you, not who doesn’t like you.

There’s an automatic assumption when we think about data that the starting point should be to gather as much as possible about the entire pool of potential consumers/audience members/voters. But Dan told us that during the whole endeavor of gathering data on the Obama campaigns began in Iowa in 2007, focusing on turnout – in other words, getting as many likely supporters to turn out for the caucus as possible. Dan and other team members used statistical models to identify people likely to support then candidate Obama, then integrated these models to the voter file and what the other operations of the campaign were doing (ie constituency outreach, volunteer recruitment). In other words, you can do more by perfecting the profile of someone who does like what you’re offering than you can by trying to deal with the whole sea of data out there.

In the film world, Dan yielded the notion that probably, through things like AMC rewards cards, etc., some large consumer information company is indeed analyzing that large sea of data about filmmakers in general, for the sake of the exhibitors and the distributors. But in the independent film world, why worry about coming up with a system to try to do the same? Which leads to the second conclusion:

2) The most valuable data is the data under your feet.

Dan encouraged independent filmmakers to look wherever they could and do whatever they could to gather data sets about the audiences going to their films. That could be as simple as a Facebook page; that could mean trying new things like a sign-up sheet after screenings. By pooling and cross-referencing these data sets, you can come up with a more and more finely attuned profile of the kind of audience member that likes films like yours. To further this process, Dan says the question becomes “When we create a product, how can we display it to a range of people to see how we can maximize the potential of a more targeted approach?” In other words, “test drive something specific, and see who likes it.” Michael suggested limiting the test art house theaters in New York, like BAM and Nighthawk, but Dan warned against a regional approach.

You might be able to do a limited release of an online panel of your movie, and then have a Google consumer survey where people can report back on their movie, and then you could say these are the people the movie appeals to across the country. So you're looking at it more as broad customer feedback, and looking at that feedback in terms of who likes this and how you could go wider. You could go in New York and look at who liked it but that's going to be a limited subset of people who already go to see independent films in New York City.

3) Surprise surprise: a consortium of data-gathering films would greatly enable the ability to use that data wisely.

A recurring theme (or pipe dream) in our research is the possibility of a grassroots collective of filmmakers that pool their resources – in other words the equivalent of an Obama for America infrastructure, but for film. Dan hit on this when he talked about how each state used to be doing its own data management, until the DNC stepped in:

Many years ago every state was doing its own thing… which is trying to define people that like Democrats. And what we did in the DNC in 2010 was we said: …[W]e're going to combine all this data and define for you who we think like Democrats and you'll have more precision because we'll have more time to spend on architecture and it'll get faster and cheaper. And before… the type of research they could do was bounded by their own capacity and resources.

And that's the same position someone who's a filmmaker and a small team is in. They can only collect the kind of research that is within their resource set which is probably small… But working together as a lot of people who are thinking about a similar audience you could probably do that.

The fundamental genius of the DNC was they went to these people and they didn't say give us your data. What they did is they said, give us your data so we can poll it. And you're going to get the technology infrastructure and the historical list of ID's that we will hold in that store for you. That's a good deal. So when you think about these people who are participating in these data agreements, they need to have an incentive to do it.

Dan connected the dots already, but a consolidated grassroots consortium could give filmmakers a similarly solid incentive to join: data management handled in house, and a more targeted idea of what an audience member who could like their next film would look like, for the sake of craftier, more efficient marketing efforts next go-round. As Dan puts it: “A bunch of people working together, like a mini-studio, could get consumer info – ‘we looked at 20 films, these are the people who like them… These are the people who like independent movis’ and then over time validate that.” In other words, this mini-studio or collective, could create pretty accurate profile of someone who likes independent movies in general, “and then generalize it for lots of promotion afterwards.”

4) This sharing of data amongst films necessitates a broader, more shared, more abstract notion that an audience could opt in to.

Dan spoke to the power of creating a broader banner under which a collection of films could solicit this data. Giving information on behalf of a film is a strange ask of an audience member; giving information on behalf of a bigger idea about what film could be is not so strange and potentially more appealing. Dan cited the example of Beasts and the limited grassroots work we did with that film.

You could imagine a case where you have a second or third movie that in principle is as good as Beasts. And you formed a way to share with a second audience and you say that this is not just about Beasts this is about bringing you into a community of independent art and you're going to be a part of that. And people say, 'Oh, I'm in.' And you're kind of building a community of people not just for that one movie but about all these other movies that are going to come out. You're building this community of people and also a set of data in terms of a list that grows over time of people who care about this. To use an organizing model that suggests sharing data between films over time. Because once a film is done, it's done, but you can capture that behavior and pool that into new films that are coming out overtime. You could offer them previews, fundraise for Kickstarter, all sorts of things.

In conclusion, Dan asserted that there is a different feeling one has when watching a film like Beasts than there is when watching a big blockbuster like Superman. Perhaps the starting place for the creation of a grassroots collective would be: what is that feeling? How can we articulate it in a mission statement for a large organization that could appeal to audience and induce them to offer information about themselves, in the name of that mission statement/feeling?

"Future of Indie Film" Panels: Does Anyone Know What's Going On?

It seems no festival or event related to independent film is complete these days without a panel dedicated to contemplating the future of distribution in the industry, given the ever-changing landscape of possibilities. (In fact, this morning, our team will participate in an illy Salon through the Cinema Research Institute, where we contemplate an iteration of these very questions). It also seems no panel like this is complete without much commentary, many observations, and almost no sense of what will actually happen to independent filmmakers in the future, near or far. It is a very disruptive time, indeed. Consider this most recent summary of everything plaguing the indie soul, from a write-up from IFP, article titled "The 7 Questions That The Indie Film Community Is Grappling With Now":

[A] "growing frustration at how money circulates in the community, how people can develop careers as filmmakers where there's so little funding to go around. There's also a growing concern that... the indie filmmaking industry is getting too concerned with building itself around institutional funders and the work from corporations that indie filmmakers use to help pay rent and sustain themselves."

That's a litany of problems to start with... and we'll get back to them. However, one such panel I recently came across did offer a distinct conclusion I thought particularly helpful when thinking about grassroots distribution and do-it-yourself solutions. That conclusion? That "doing it yourself" should not necessarily be the default solution if you do not get traditional distribution! And similarly, that traditional distribution deals should not necessarily be the first thing sought -- in fact grassroots solutions, or retaining rights and carving them up yourself may prove more lucrative and successful for everyone involved, if it's the right film. These thoughts came from Andrew Herwitz of the Film Sales Group in a conversation about Stacey Peralta's Bones Brigade. Bones Brigade had a built in industry around it -- it was a history of the birth of skating. This provided multi-faceted opportunities for branding, premium content other than the film. The representative from TopSpin -- the Direct-to-Fan service that was engaged -- noted that "there were deals to do"; in other words, traditional distributors were interested in the film, in significant ways. But it turned out it was not the best economic model for this film, given its particulars.

Sundance dream vs retaining rights

What really made the difference here is that Herwitz and the filmmakers took the deliberate step to actually stop and calculate -- through some math and science -- which distribution mode (in their hands or someone else's) made sense for the film. That is not normally a step; the default of a filmmaker is that if no one wants their film, they should push it out through other modes themselves. But Herwitz says "listen to the marketplace." The idea that because no one wants your film means that you should do it yourself is not actually necessarily the equation. Bones Brigade just happened to be about something that would offer enough premium content and keep momentum with fans and supporters such that it ended up being four times more profitable for Peralta than other distribution modes would have been. (Their summary: free downloads of non-film content built the marketing database; the database and social sharing of this material drive attention to the pre-sale of theatrical tickets and ultra premium high margin products; the pre-order ends the same day the film is available on transactional VOD; direct purchasers and social sharing drive more fans to VOD and DVD on release. The campaign didn't have anything for people to spend money on until Day 95 of the campaign -- that's how much excitement there was).

What made Bones Brigade a successful grassroots distribution campaign is the same thing that made the Obama campaign successful. There was a built-in, almost cult-like audience, with momentum along the way defined by the unlocking of or access to new content: be it videos from or about the campaign, new bumper stickers or similar swag, or events that the President or his surrogates would be at. For example, if you opted-in to the email list or donated a set amount, you got an item in the mail. Similar to how the Bones Brigade audience was not asked to spend money until well into the campaign, every part of the Obama machinery and brand was set to prime supporters to turn out for the most important day: Election Day.

There is strategy, math, and science to this. At another panel on the same inevitable topic, "Digital Discourse -- The Future of Media Distribution and Content Creation," held at the WGA and hosted by No Film School's Ryan Koo, Mark Schiller of Bond360 opined that "it used to be that you would hold everything back and wait and wait... Effective strategies now mean sharing immediately." I'll disagree; I think in fact that the expectation of sharing that fans and audiences have these days makes it even more important to be deliberate and patient with how and when content is shared. Just as the primaries built momentum into the start of the general election campaign, which then led to a marker of 100 days from Election Day, which then led to the revelation of the Vice Presidential candidate, which then led to the beginning of Early Vote, which then led to the Get Out the Vote drive of the last few days, films should deliberately punctuate their distribution campaign in a similar manner.

That takes a lot of effort and time. And yet somehow, increasingly the consensus seems to be that independent filmmakers should have a second job. "If your goal is to make films, then you need to look at it not as a place to make your income," was a quote that came out of the aforementioned 7 Questions panel. But then again, this shouldn't shock everyone. Yes, political campaigns are careers for some people. But not the candidates themselves. The idea is to take a few months to campaign, to achieve office so that you don't have to do it again for another four or six years. Similarly, filmmakers should not wear themselves out thinking that this kind of large scale grassroots outreach campaign has to be their whole life. In fact (and this may come as a bigger shock), it's not even necessarily the right choice for their film! 

A Review of the Latest Discourse on Self-Distribution

One very useful website we've discovered, not only for keeping on top of the latest fluctuations in the ever-changing landscape of the independent film "industry,"  but also for a hearty conversation about these fluctuations, as well as a straight-up resource for independent filmmakers aiming to do-it-themselves, is No Film School. Interviews with people and organizations changing the game are regular, as well as profiles of these organizations and lists of tools, websites, tutorials that can be of great use to the filmmaker starting from scratch. Perusing No Film School's articles about distribution is a good way to take the pulse of what's on in that world at the ground level. Many recent entries correlate with and elaborate on things covered through our study. For example:

An interview with the creators of Simple Machine ("a peer-to-peer marketplace that allows anyone to become a theater and anyone to list a film to be shown") builds off of and actually diverts the dialogue we had with Arin Crumley about the race to the bottom, technology-wise, in distribution:

So this all started as just a film trafficking tool, a way to move digital film prints into theaters, making the physical process easier, but I quickly realized that it wasn’t the physical process that was holding anybody down. Theaters were so bogged down in the bureaucratic processes and political relationships necessary to run their business, that despite expressing enthusiasm about the idea of single-night films and more eventized screenings, they couldn’t actually get their shit together to commit to anything. At which point I realized that I wanted to make this available to anybody who wants to show a movie off their laptop.

Essentially the Simple Machine creators realized that as increasing numbers of filmmakers had means to physically distribute films themselves, "distributors" weren't the problem, but rather the exhibitors that are entrenched in their ways of dealing with traditional distributors. These conventional exhibitors are not as nimble as the film landscape itself these days. So they must be routed around -- something Jake Perlin mentioned in our conversation with him and Kate West.

Another conclusion from our talk with Arin was that as distribution gets easier, "distributors" become more important as brands -- a way to group the plethora of "content" out there. These brands can shape exhibition too - as Simple Machine's Nandan Rao says: "That's why I think that, to some degree, film festivals are successful. They provide a very different context than the traditional theatrical experience."

Nandan also had a pretty conclusive conviction about the debate as to whether independent film really is a profit-making venture, but from an unforeseen angle: "I don’t really see making independent filmmaking an economically viable proposition at this point, and I don’t know if it’s ever going to be from the payments of end-consumers. The effort of building the context for people, of educating and establishing connections and relevance, is probably always going to be more than what you’re making back." This assertion assumes that you, as the filmmaker, want to ensure the absolute optimal and proper reception for your film -- that that is more important than making a quick buck. For an independent filmmaker, that's a safe bet. But the trade-off may just be that that effort to put out your film in the "right" way will cost you any profit on the back end.

No Film School also covered Vimeo's recent offer at the Toronto International Film Festival of $10,000 (and 90% of sales) for a 30 day digital distribution deal. Will filmmakers coming out of festivals, desperate for any compensation or attention for their film, increasingly gravitate towards short term digital deals, that pre-empt the theaters? What does this mean for a "campaign" model? Campaigns are built on momentum. Does a film being available in short term on a pay site like Vimeo on Demand deflate the momentum towards something like a potential theatrical run/tour... or is it the perfect promotion for it?

A constant topic in our study is how to access information on audiences -- how to get them to "opt in" to the campaign or life of a film, so that they can be accessed, activated, and energized. In a profile of the distribution platform Chill, and how they offer "Inside Access" to the making of a film, the No Film School writer notices a pattern based on a simple equation between content and opting in: "In terms of DIY or self-distribution, the trend seems to be in favor of gated content — the idea of entering your email address in exchange for content. Audiences want content and creators want an easy way to directly contact their audiences." This seems simple enough, but if a user doesn't already have enough of a reason to want to see the content, even that sign-up ask can be too steep. On the Obama campaign, it was never required to enter information to see new content like videos; it was more in the interest of the campaign to use publicly available modes like YouTube. It may be the same for filmmakers: it is more helpful to have access to content totally unblocked until you can be sure there is a premium on what you are creating...

Which is exactly why "touring" or physically "campaigning" (from place to place) with a film has become more popular -- there is an irreplaceable premium on seeing a film in person with its filmmakers (ie that different context, like a festival, that Nandan mentioned). That should assure that some form of a theatrical element (even if it's more like an "event" and less of a "run") will always have a place in a film's life, say filmmakers like James Swirsky and Lisanne Pajot, who asserted:

As we watch how digital media has changed the music industry it’s all about hearing them in person, and that’s where bands are making money. It’s not the easiest life touring and you have to be a special kind of person to do it. Even with the internet and having access to everything you want, people are still looking for cultural experiences or artistic experiences in person. We live our lives on our smartphones connecting with people that we don’t actually connect with in person, so I think that’s what films are going to do.

This begs the question: is going on tour with a film part of the "optimal context" you're providing to the audience in exchange for the possibility of profits, or is it a means to the end of cutting out the middleman and reaping direct revenue?

These are just some of the many topics being explored in the self-distribution world; what's very clear is that while many people think they have the answers, the questions just keep coming.

Grassroots Film Collective- Concluding Idea Series, #2

As we get closer to the end of our fellowship, we are publishing a series of blogs that propose would-be final project ideas related to our research on grassroots film distribution. Although we have decided not to turn these ideas into our final project, we hope the series will spark a conversation about possible grassroots tools that will help independent filmmakers distribute their films.  Part 1 of our series was a site that would serve as a Pandora for movie trailers, offering users the ability to type in their favorite movie and instantly watch trailers that relate to that film.  You can read more about our idea by clicking here. Our second CRI final project idea is a Grassroots Film Distribution Collective.  In our study we have found that many independent filmmakers, especially first time directors, feel overwhelmed when they distribute their films.  One of the many directors who we interviewed that felt this way is Marcia Jarmel who co-directed and self-distributed the documentary, Speaking in Tongues.  Although the film had a successful distribution run, Marcia commented, "I started out thinking I could do everything myself, and made myself pretty nuts for a while. It is much, much easier to have an army of people helping you. I think most filmmakers do not have that.”

This lead to us wondering if a film collective could be formed so that when audiences 'opt-in' to a film project--i.e through a crowdsourcing site like Kickstarter, or if they give their information to a volunteer at a community screening, the information is shared and passed on to a group of filmmakers that later use the data to target their audiences in future campaigns.  The mission of the group would be to build one big audience for a slate of films by sharing distribution information and resources with like minded filmmakers.  This is different than the normal distribution plan to build a big list for one film and then never use it again or wait to use the list for two to three years later when the director makes another film.

Unlike other non-profit consulting, this would be a group of independent filmmakers who pool together resources to distribute their films. The group would focus on developing a volunteer structure similar to the neighborhood team model, in which Jeremy Bird, former Obama National Field Director, discussed in our interview here. In the interview Bird suggested community organizers could help distribute films by connecting with non-profits, recruit volunteers to help set up community screenings and call through consumer data to identify target audiences for certain films.  This is similar to an approach that filmmaker and political activist Sandi DuBowski, who we interviewed in a previous post here, adopted to distribute his film, Trembling Before G-d.  Building a grassroots film distribution collective would take significant time, but overtime, if the films did well the data and grassroots resources pooled together by the collective could become invaluable and possibly compete with the publicity campaigns of major studios.

We look forward to your feedback on our second CRI final project idea in the comment secant below. In Part 3 we will discuss an idea for a website that enables filmmakers to plug in information about their film and find out which campaigns would be most effective to distribute their film.

Pandora for Movie Trailers- Concluding Idea Series, #1

As we approach the end of our fellowship, we will publish a series of blogs that reflect ideas we came up with while discussing our final project for CRI. Although we decided not to pick these ideas for our final project, our hope is the series will spark a conversation about possible grassroots tools that will help independent filmmakers distribute their films in the future. The first for our CRI final idea series, is a website that acts like Pandora for movie trailers. Similar to Pandora, you would type in a movie you like, and the site would instantly create a station that plays trailers that are related to that film.  The user could then give the film a thumb up or a thumb down.  Based on your responses the site would try to figure out your movie preferences and play other movie trailers that you might be interested in.  The website would also provide links to sites like Amazon, Netflix and Fandango making it easy for the user to watch the film of a trailer they liked online, buy a ticket to see it in movie theaters or buy it on DVD.

In our research, a recurring theme is that a lack of data and transparency in distribution has inhibited filmmakers from being able to effectively gather information about their audiences and market their films.  This website would help solve that problem by motivating people to opt-in through an interactive and engaging interface while also collecting important data about their movie preferences. Filmmakers and distributors could then use the data to target their audiences and distribute their films without starting from scratch or spending millions on a publicity campaign for their film.

B-Side is a distribution company we studied early in our research that adopted a similar strategy by creating a website that festival goers could use to organize their schedule and review films.  They were able to then use the contact information and data from their website to set up a record 1600 screenings of the documentary Super High Me on 4/20 which later lead to the film selling 85,000 DVD's and grossing 3.4 million dollars in the first year. To date, the film is the second most watched titled on NetFlix Instant.

Furthermore, a Pandora for movie trailers website could establish partnerships with movie theaters, art houses and online distribution sites like Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu by offering free publicity for online and offline distributors.  This could potentially raise awareness for independent films and older movies that are often overlooked or forgotten about.

We look forward to hearing what you think about our first CRI final idea in the comment section below.  In Part 2 of our CRI Final Project Idea Series we will raise the possibility of a Grassroots Film Distribution Collective.

illy Salon at the Cinema Research Institute

Earlier this week we filmed the pilot episode of the illy Salon at the Cinema Research Institute featuring John Sayles and Matthew Weise in a conversation about narrative at the intersection of film and games in an evolving media landscape. The conversation, moderated by CRI Advisory and Faculty Committee member Colin Brown and enriched by CRI Fellows and members of the NYU Graduate Film community, touched on issues of authorship, independent markets, and audience interaction. The conversation was a blast to hear and will be available via Tribeca's Future of Film website in early November. New episodes will be released once a month through May 2014 - stay tuned!

Thoughts on "Dream": Can Filmmakers Mobilize Audiences with an Ethical Spectacle?

Given the release of Grand Theft Auto V last week, now seems as good a time as any to share thoughts on a book we read on a recommendation from a friend in the filmmaker community: Stephen Duncombe's "Dream: Re-Imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy." Generally theorizing that progressives could learn a lot from the fantastical image-making that the Right has executed at will in political theater (see: George W. Bush on the aircraft with the "Mission Accomplished" banner), Duncombe, who is a professor at NYU, spends much time articulating how the violent, sexual id-like impulses that are allowed to play out in Grand Theft Auto 4 are not cause for shameful moral hand-wringing, but rather that the popularity of the game speaks to the power of channelling fantasy through performance as an Other in the Other-world of a video game. (For more insight on video game narrative and storytelling, see CRI fellow Ryan Silbert's work here). What does this all have to do with grassroots distribution? In discussing what has hobbled progressive politics in the past, Duncombe actually does hit on many of the fundamental elements of grassroots movements that we have considered through the lens of film. For example, he derides organizations that recruit young "activists" on the street who stop you to ask for your money -- these are not empowered people. "This method... severely circumscribes the playing field of politics, disconnecting potential activists from political activity... What is asked from the passerby is equally alienating... This sort of politics discourages the creation of the very thing needed for democratic change: everyday citizen-activists" (pg. 66). These young organizers have not been respected, empowered, and included -- they are not in charge of the change they can create, as they would be in a truly grassroots organization. As a counter example and one in which the political activity is distinctly "image making," Duncombe cites MoveOn (much discussed by Nicco Mele in our conversation with him) and their campaign to democratically create an anti-Bush ad to play during half time of the Super Bowl. MoveOn "turned to its amateur membership, asking them to use their handicaps and desktop editing software (or access to moonlit professional facilities) and create an ad themselves... [which] resulted in a low-cost, high-quality product and the donations required to get it broadcast. MoveOn works because it invites its members to play" (pg. 75). The use of the word "play" here denotes the connection between grassroots movements and a video game like Grand Theft Auto; in both the key is that people at every level are participating in a meaningful way.

What Duncombe gets to in his book is a call for an "ethical spectacle" that progressives can collectively participate in. Some minor examples he gives is the participatory role-playing of the Billionaires for Bush, and the power of the presence of huge numbers of cyclists in Critical Mass. Because he's writing about the need to make "images," it seems like the connection between grassroots politics and grassroots film would be a clear one. In fact he calls attention to the fact that political "grand-standing" often learns the wrong thing from Hollywood -- the posturing around it instead of the power of its images:

"The mainstream models of progressive politics, from the professionalized Democratic Party to the ritualistic "March on Washington" of those further to the left, don't learn from celebrity culture; they ape it. A star on the platform is seen and heard, while the rest of us merely watch, applauding at the right moments. This has to change…. we need to look downward, concentrating on building local organizations where all participants can witness the efficacy of their participation and, in turn, have their participation witnessed by others…" (pg. 112)

If progressive masses continue to be treated as the audience, with certain leaders as the pedagogues, their politics will go nowhere, says Duncombe.

The natural conclusion to Duncombe's thinking is that filmmakers are the perfect ones to create and/or benefit from an "ethical spectacle." However, this could go two ways: 1) filmmakers are appropriately tuned to be the one making the image-based spectacles (through their films) that could motivate the masses in progressive politics. In other words: progressivism benefits from film / the medium), or 2) filmmakers could benefit from using the tactics that Duncombe proposes for the purposes of getting audiences to their films. So film benefits from progressivism / its field.

The second idea is less interesting than the first; in many ways we've been exploring how filmmakers could use grassroots tactics to get people to their films for the last 9 months. A participatory spectacle that is separate from the film itself is, however, an interesting idea, if only just another thing in the filmmakers' grassroots quiver. An example that comes to mind is the parade that the True/False film festival holds to kick off the weekend's festivities. Not only does anyone get to participate, but the costuming that is encouraging is in line with the broader idea of the festival, which is to constantly explore the line (if there is one) between what is "true" and "false" in documentary film. Another creative way the festival does this: their yearly game show "Gimme Truth!" in which participants guess whether 2 minute documentaries are real or fake. It's worth pointing out that these "spectacles" move forward an idea of a festival in general (which in turn of course promotes going to see films), but not the notion of going to see specific films.

The first idea -- that film can provide progressive politics with an ethical spectacle -- puts us firmly in a social action cinema landscape. Inherently any films we're talking about are being utilized for an external purpose (to move politics forward). However, filmmakers could still learn from what Duncombe finds in games like Grand Theft Auto 4: that the target audience creates meanings for themselves. Often "social issue" films feel very didactic and polemic, with little room left for multiple conclusions or interpretations. One can name a million documentaries like this, but even a fair number of narrative features do this and limit their audience as a result -- "Promised Land" comes to mind. "Whereas such multiplicity of popular interpretation was once seen as a problem that the artist… had to overcome, this openness to meaning is now built into the art itself… This is exactly how an open spectacle should work: planned, guided, and artfully created, but open to modification, indeterminacy, and contingency at both the level of form and meaning," says Duncombe on page 136.

In conclusion, though, one wonders if the medium of film is inherently too based on a paradigm between audience and thing looked at -- just like the speaker and the audience at the March on Washington or a Democratic Party Convention. Duncombe cites Situationist Guy Debord: " 'The role played by a passive or merely bit-playing 'public' must constantly diminish'… What an organizer of ethical spectacles must do is provide plenty of opportunity for intervention at an intimate and personal level, for this will translate into some sort of action that is transformation to both the individual actor and, ideally, the larger society" (pg. 130). Today more than ever, films have other mediums through which their audiences can "participate" in the world of the film -- something we discuss in an older post here -- but how can this be channelled meaningfully and not subsumed by market-based "fan culture" spaces?

There is a difference between living in a fantasy and acting out a fantasy of change. This is what Duncombe explores, and what grassroots filmmakers could afford to explore with their work.

A Conversation with the Filmmakers of Four Eyed Monsters- Does Digital Mean Distribution No Longer Matters?

Following our case study on the independent film Four Eyed Monsters, we decided to interview the filmmakers themselves, Susan Buice and Arin Crumley.  Four Eyed Monsters paved the way for DIY and online/grassroots distribution.  After the film premiered at Slamdance in 2007, the filmmakers found themselves in territory familiar to many independent filmmakers, a successful festival run followed by no distribution deal.  Susan and Arin then decide to market the film themselves by using innovative online tools like a videocast that documented their struggle to distribute the film.  They also created an online petition where fans could sign up to show their support for the film in order to convince local movie theaters to agree to screenings. Eventually Four Eyed Monsters successfully grossed a total of $129,000, $100,000 of which came from online sales. Below is some select excerpts from our interview with Susan and Arin, followed by our key takeaways.

MG: With Four Eyed Monsters it seemed like where you succeeded was on your own and not with the traditional gatekeepers of independent film.  When you look at the big picture of the independent film industry, how do you guys characterize what you did and how it's different?

SUSAN BUICE: A lot of what we were doing was a reaction to the feedback that we were getting on the film festival circuit…We ended up talking to distributors and they said “We like your film but you’re not famous and we can’t really sell a romantic comedy with no famous people in it to an audience; it’s too hard to market.’ And so we were like: we’ll become famous.  We’ll make people 'like us.'  We’ll make this video podcast; we already have this footage. And it wasn’t like ‘Oh we’ll get in this for fame,’ we [said to ourselves] we’ll make something so people have that connection and want to watch a film about whether these two people end up together or not together… So we knew we had this content that was leading into another project and we figured that other project would just be a continuation of Four Eyed Monsters because it was documentary stuff as opposed to narrative stuff.

We were telling distributors ‘we still want you to distribute the film but we’ll just take care of the marketing’ and they [told us] 'That’s not proven, let’s not do it.'  And after we got kind of shut down we [asked ourselves if] we still think it’s a good idea, do we believe in the idea enough ourselves that we would distribute it ourselves if it works. And that’s when we decided to move to my parent’s house and start making video episodes.

MG: You guys got an audience actually in the wake of trying to put out a film and then it ironically allowed you to put out a film in a profitable or break even way. Let’s say I'm not making that film whatsoever [a comedy\drama about online dating]; how do I structure my campaign in a way that uses the takeaways from you guys?

ARIN CRUMLEY: There’s this kind of dream that there’s this social medium button you press and it all works…The difference I believe is the volume of additional content.  Like how much extra stuff other than the movie exists.  And in our case we had more media than the film itself.

You need to create a story world, story universe. And that is maybe not something the filmmaker has planned for. They were hoping they could just get a consultant to come on in and read a little manual and then they’re going to get all the answers and they just have to do that and they’re all set.

For people who love the cinema medium there’s this resistance like “I don’t want to go design video games, that’s not what I do. Why do I have to do that?” No one said you have to do that. I mean in our case we got to make a video podcast that we wanted to make and other documentary media that was really fun to work on. So I think that should be the design challenge. What would be cool that relates to your project that you can make and create a media presence around it?

[For example:] create a trailer that is similar to a Kickstarter or crowdfunding campaign that creates a campaign to distribute the film.  It shows the trailer and then the director pops up on camera and says, “I can’t release the film; sorry, but I would love to… If you can simply request and tell me where you guys are we can do this and we can bring the film to your town”…And they did this with Paranormal Activity after we did this with Four Eyed Monsters and they got like a million people to request local screenings which gave the studio confidence to spend money on a wider release.

MG: Cause that's sort of the magic of Kickstarter, though you're technically raising money what Kickstarter also does is identify an audience. In a way what you're basically saying is you don't need the actual funding part you just need to manifest demand for it?

ARIN CRUMLEY: We are now in an era of post-crowdfunding explosion. So what does that mean? Crowdfund everything? Not necessarily. I think it means something else as well.  There are phases to your production, and different phases that previously wouldn’t have involved marketing of any kind now might.

And this is the idea of [Arin’s website] OpenIndie and other sites like Flicklist -- an app that lets you list films you want to see.  And they're working on a bookmark where on any page any filmmaker could put this universal button [that communicates] “People, hit this button -- this is the only way we’ll know what platforms to put this on or what cities to put this in or what countries this should go to”... Just ask, who are the people who want to see this thing.

MG: Because you were one of the first pioneers to build an online audience, do you think you will distribute your next film by yourself and possibly skip the film festival route? Or do you still see value in those gatekeepers and possibly getting a distributor?

SUSAN BUICE: I still see value in film festivals but it's different than I initially thought. Pre-Four Eyed Monsters I thought you could go to festivals to prove your worth and get picked up.  Now I look at going to film festivals as a way to generate buzz and as a way to meet people for your future career.  Not even to help your film necessarily, but to help you get a job on another film or to help you make your next movie.  I think if we go to film festivals with our next project that is going to be our goal.

ARIN CRUMLEY: It's like a non-event to distribute something. You will, in the process of authoring a film, distribute it; you will put it in a format that is distributable and that is distribution -- you're done. [With] digital, it's invisible.

The conversation about distribution should really just stop. It's so easy. There really should just be a conversation about marketing… The question really is marketing. And I think the answer is… media brand. Sundance is a media brand, HBO is a media brand.  And I think the opportunity right now is to create those media brands.

Key Takeaways:

In conclusion, our interview with Arin and Susan brings up the possibility that distribution has become so easy through digital and online tools, that the process of trying to get a "distributor" to pick up your movie could be more about branding. For example, getting your film distributed by Sony Pictures Classics isn't meaningful in terms of the actual practice of distribution -- ie delivering the film itself to the theaters.  Technology is increasingly making service they provide look more and more overvalued. The P & A costs spent by the distributor often means the filmmaker never recoups. However, the advantage of having a distributor like Sony Pictures Classics is that your film has been validated by the SPC brand. Just like your film playing at Sundance is kind of an award-like validation -- it helps legitimize and market your film but doesn't actually have anything to do with your distribution. Eventually anyone could have the power to digitally send their film to a theater. So what is a distributor left to do? Marketing. Something else that can be increasingly done on the internet.

However, when more and more people have the ability to market, brands mean even more because they help a customer make sense of the chaos of the marketplace.  This explains why festival submissions have increased over the years and major studios still dominate the marketplace.  Since new technology has made it easier and cheaper for people to make movies than ever before, there is a growing need for studios and festivals to act as the curator to the influx of independent films produced over the years.

Nevertheless, Arin highlighted the potential for filmmakers to build their own brands through creative online content like the video podcasts they created for Four Eyed Monsters. The Obama campaign was able to adapt a similar strategy to supersede the conventional news and media markets by generating its own media channels through YouTube and online listservs.  This enabled the campaign to communicate with its supporters efficiently at inexpensive costs and successfully build its own identity. Could filmmakers gain more creative and monetary control of their films by designing their own marking campaigns online instead of relying on studios and conventional movie theaters to brand their films?

However, the Obama campaign was only successful at moving its online community to action through a massive offline effort through phone calls, one-on-one meetings and door to door canvasing on the ground. Recruiting such a large grassroots team for distributing a film does not seem feasible.  Still, the success of the Four Eyed Monsters' videocast reminds us that we should not underestimate how creative online content can be used to build relationships and loyalty with an audience – just like the creative videos of the Obama campaign contributed to a feeling of community and loyalty. Furthermore, with film, it is likely there may be less of a need for as much on the ground organizing as that which is required by a political campaign.

In future posts we plan to further explore creative and resourceful ways filmmakers can build their audience online without relying on the traditional gatekeepers to brand their film.