Swimming Upstream: A Lifesaving Guide to Short Film Distribution

Sharon Badal

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136061257
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film & Video

Short films have come into their own, not least in part due to the incredible new ways to distribute them, including the Web, cell phones, new festivals devoted to shorts--even television and theatres. This is the ultimate guide for anyone who's made a short film and wonders what to do next. Whether your short film is meant to be a calling card, a segue to a feature film, or you just want to recoup some of the costs, this book describes the potential paths for distribution. Written by the short film programmer of the Tribeca Film Festival and featuring contributions from top film festival directors, as well as studio, marketing, and technology executives, this book shows you what's important to the decision makers and gatekeepers. This is the definitive handbook filled with insider information available nowhere else.

Swimming Lesson #1
Testing the Waters: The Indie Landscape

What does “independent” mean?

Regardless of its context, be it politically or culturally based, the word “independent” almost automatically bestows a badge of courage upon whomever it is being ascribed to. Its connotations are positive, its attributes admirable. To be “independent” means to be beholden to no one. To be “independent” means one has the strength and fortitude to stand up against the tidal wave of tyranny, the winds of oppression. To be “independent” means you are free. In fact, the oft-used phrase “fiercely independent” furthers the nearly superhuman characteristics and emotional ability to stand firm.

So what does being an “independent” filmmaker mean?

For some it means not being part of the studio system and being able to maintain the integrity of a project without someone else’s thumb in the creative pie. Keep dreaming, my brave filmmaker friends, and take off the superhero cape for just a moment.

It’s pretty lonely on that self-imposed pedestal, and no one works alone in this business, not if you want your work to be seen by others, that is. There are so many “independent” producer/director/writer/editors that it seems at times as if the filmmaking world is composed entirely of one-person bands. That’s great, really, that you have such a finger on the pulse of your project that you are the only person in the universe who can bring your vision to fruition. But (and it’s a big “but”) what happens when you’re done with that film? After you pat yourself on the back and receive bouquets of praise from friends and family, don’t you, deep down inside (c’mon, admit it), want your film to reach an audience?

In order for your film to do that, you have to understand what’s happening in the industry and where “independent filmmaking” sits in the grand scheme of the distribution universe.

Distribution is getting the film into the theaters and marketing is getting the bodies into the seats. Now, however, those “theaters” and “seats” go well beyond the multiplex. Films reach their audience through a variety of different portals, be it the traditional movie theater, television, or newer electronic media such as the Internet, iPod, or cell phone. Projects segue seamlessly from one distribution platform to another, sometimes simultaneously. Distribution has changed, but the core philosophy remains the same. How do we make that film available to an audience and how do we attract the audience to it?

In the heyday of Hollywood, studios were firmly identified by the use of the company logo (perhaps the original form of branding), whether it was the sky-sweeping klieg lights of Twentieth Century Fox or the lion’s roar of MGM. The phrase “The Dream Factory” was aptly coined to describe not only the escapism of the films itself, but the constant output of features by the studios, swept into grand movie palaces like the Fox Atlanta or the Roxy, where thousands of people sat in rapt attention as the stories unfolded on the screen.

In the fifties life in America changed and so did the movies. A combination of the exodus to suburbia, the popularity of the automobile, and the advent of television caused the movie palaces for the most part to become obsolete. This new lifestyle led to the emergence of the drive-in as well as eventually to the twin cinema, the birth mother of today’s megaplex. Theatrical distribution in the fifties and sixties found it difficult to maintain a constant moviegoing population with the novelty and increasing appeal of television, and it was a tough period for the industry.

And on the seventh day, God created the videocassette player. As people became more accustomed to watching film in the comfort of their living room, studios focused on large-scale blockbuster-type films to lure them off their couches. Consequently, it appears as if now nearly every film is geared to the 18–24 demographic, and that’s because this group wants to leave the house and “go to the movies.” For the older demographics, it’s much easier to say “let’s watch a movie,” rather than “let’s go to the movies.”

Most recently, the traditional theatrical distribution model has been pummeled with the knockout combination punch of digital technology, advances in home theater systems, and rising theatrical admission prices. Many would say this foretells the death knell for the traditional distribution model where a film moves through the pipeline from theatrical to non-theatrical to home video to broadcast distribution, with each revenue stream being fairly exhausted before the film reaches its final resting place on television. What used to be a large “window” between theatrical and home video has been slammed shut. The pipeline is no longer a straight one, but a combination of platforms that can be made available to the viewer when, and how, that viewer wants to watch the product.

We have the Internet and mobile technology, and an entire generation of young people who spend more time on the computer or with their iPods than they do in front of a television. Regardless of the alphabet letter this generation is assigned (and perhaps it should be “Generation W” for “web”), they experience entertainment without regard to viewing environment or screen size. They want their entertainment to be immediate and accessible.

There are a lot of branches of the entertainment industry in tears. The music industry is crying because CDs are becoming obsolete. The film industry is sobbing because it is more difficult for a feature film to find its audience. The television industry is weeping because TiVo and digital video recorders have meant they have to rethink the whole advertising model. When the major television networks provide episodes of their most popular series in full for viewing on their web sites, clearly things have changed.

These changes directly affect how and where films are distributed, especially films that we consider “independent.” If we agree that the primary characteristics of an “independent film” are that the film was produced and financed outside of the studio system, has a relatively low budget in comparison to the Hollywood product, and, in most cases, is of a specialized nature, then we have to look at distribution in a new way.

Even with all these changes one thing has remained constant: independent filmmakers continue to raise the money, make their films, and seek a distributor. “Indie” film has gone through its own roller coaster ride of sorts, rising and falling in popularity as the cultural zeitgeist changes. Each calendar year seems to bring forth one or two breakout independent films, such as Napoleon Dynamite or Little Miss Sunshine. Films like these have bucked the odds, finding both a distributor and an audience, and become widely popular and successful. Technology has fostered the ease with which independent filmmakers can create their projects, be it in less expensive shooting formats or the ability to edit on the computer, but the challenge still lies in finding a distributor willing to take on the risk of releasing the film.

Even though large umbrella corporations represent many smaller entertainment companies that cross media platforms and appeal to different audiences, independent film is still difficult to market in the theatrical realm; in fact, it has become even more difficult to obtain distribution. Independent film does not inherently appeal to a large audience immediately. These films must be nurtured carefully to theatrical fruition, and the marketing and distribution plans are critical to the film’s ultimate success. Even with a stellar strategy, many independent films will never exceed their initial specialized audience appeal.

Many filmmakers of short films aspire to make a feature one day. Short film is a good way to test the waters with your talent and your ability, and it’s important to understand what you’re up against before you begin the journey.

This book therefore begins with essays and interviews about the current film distribution environment by the people who are the decision makers. This industry overview from some very prominent professionals will help you to understand the distribution landscape as you embark on your filmmaking journey.

JACK FOLEY is President of Distribution for Focus Features and has shepherded the distribution of many critically acclaimed and successful films there, including Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 21 Grams, Lost in Translation, Motorcycle Diaries, and Brokeback Mountain. He began with October Films and worked through the USA Films and Focus transitional periods in which he handled films such as Topsy-Turvy, Being John Malkovich, and Traffic.

Mr. Foley has had a lengthy and illustrious career in theatrical distribution, starting out in 1975 with Columbia Pictures in Sales, in which he worked for ten years in that company’s Boston, Des Moines, Kansas City, and Dallas branch offices and then segued to DEG Entertainment in Southern Sales.

He was President of Distribution for MGM from 1987 to 1993, during which his releases included A Fish Called Wanda, Moonstruck, Rainman, and Thelma and Louise.

From 1994 to 1996 he was President of Distribution for Miramax, during what many consider to be one of the peak periods for that studio, and as such he distributed Pulp Fiction, Il Postino, The Crow, Emma, Trainspotting, The English Patient, and Scream.

He also worked in exhibition as Film Buyer for City Cinemas for several years.

Mr. Foley works in New York City and lives in New Jersey, happily in both cases!

Gore, Penguins, and the Cultural Zeitgeist of Distribution

By Jack Foley

I’ve worked in theatrical distribution for 30 years. My career has been spent making critical decisions that impact a film’s life always in distribution. Over these years, the distribution business has radically changed. The business has grown more competitive and expensive. The decisions that you have to make regarding how to position a film’s opening, from release to release pattern, every weekend has become increasingly difficult, sometimes seemingly impossible. Today, there is a glut of product competing for the same dollar. The glut imposes severe demands on studio heads to carefully scrutinize the competition: minimize competition for exactly the same demographic target; evaluate the competition each weekend, prior to and thereafter, gauging how long the target demo will sustain its attention for a film. The opening weekend box office is absolutely the essence to a film’s success in the long run. Distribution plays a huge role in contributing to that success from opening throughout its life. It’s not an easy job since so many people, and the time they gave of their lives to their films, rely upon distribution.

The truth about grosses

Opening weekend is a big view into the ultimate box office life of a film. You can usually judge the ultimate gross by the opening weekend by using 2½–3 times multiple: a $30 million weekend indicates a $90 million dollar ultimate box office. Evaluating the ultimate box office result relative to the normal trend is insightful. The ultimate box office trend a film develops speaks about its breadth of appeal or lack thereof. The deviation from the normal weekend trend, or any of the many industry grossing trends, demands understanding since it reveals specific demographic results that arose beyond the normal. The trend could be anomalous or indicative of a new commercial development in the business. That information could come be useful when distributing similar films in the future. God is in trends and God is nuanced.

God lives in popular culture. Gross trends manifest cultural consciousness in the marketplace, generally and specifically. Trends define consumer desire and values. The greater the gross a film generates, the greater the measure of value popular culture reflects for a film or genre. Commercial and high-end/art filmmakers should live by that creed. Hollywood thrives on this format of filmmaking: give them what they want. Art films do too: Jane Austen is a product. Money measures cultural value for a movie; it is not, however, a measure of art.

Clearly, today, comedies are king in value to popular culture. The most successful films in the market recently are comedy. America wants or needs to laugh. Many of these comedies are wholesome and are particularly targeted at the family. Family films, which are generally comedies, are live-action or animated and the type of movie that plays to all ages without segmentation. They are the most expensive films for families to patronize; yet families patronize them copiously. Ticket purchases for the whole family are expensive. Concessions purchases aggravate the cost for a family. I will leave out transportation, parking, or any other costs. Yet, families are undaunted by these costs, apparently regardless of income, since these films perform consistently well nationally. Consider the events Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potter, or any of the animated blockbusters, like Shrek. The penguin world of Happy Feet with over $200 million at the box office reflects America’s love affair with penguins: they certainly marched with happy feet to the box office again for these creatures.

Family films reveal that family values are critical to popular culture, they are popular culture. Every studio realizes they have to be in the family business now, that they have to exploit this cultural gold mine while it is hot. Every studio, beyond Disney’s branded hold on family entertainment, knows there is too much money at stake, too much to lose by neglecting these values. Now recognize that the weekend gross is not an announcement about success alone, but is also heralding the measures of society’s cultural values.

Jane Austen, the queen of the art film story, reflects the cultural values society has in a limited way for high-end movies. Pride and Prejudice, popularized by Kiera Knightley’s starring role, found success in smart upper income and middle income theaters throughout the nation when it was released. It actually played beyond the art circuit level due to the commercial appeal Ms. Knightley brought to the film. It is one of the biggest grossing period films in history at $30+ million U.S. box office. Americans love Jane Austen. Her stories, told and retold, grow bigger in value with each new version in popular culture.

Brokeback Mountain defied industry wisdom by grossing $83 million U.S. It also defied the idea that Red states and Blue states are separate and do not share the same values. The massive success of Brokeback Mountain denied thoughtless, if not arrogant, industry wisdom as it deviated from expected trend results among industry watchers. Brokeback Mountain, a so-called gay cowboy movie when it opened, clearly demonstrated that America thinks for itself, beyond the rhetoric of pundits. The nation embraced the film, a great film, and went to see it throughout the country, Red, Blue, all 50 states. Brokeback denied the thought that the conservative right has a hold on the minds, hearts, and moral values of the nation. The film’s success, its deviation from jeremiadic trendsetters, reveals the importance of understanding why trends and departures from them are important. An honest distributor must interpret the language of grosses, recognize what the trends say about cultural values, and proceed with his plans for each release strategy, film by film.

Movies as business

Theatrical distribution persists as the engine for the entire movie business from the beginning to the end point of all the ancillary markets. A theatrical release is the consummation of the marketing campaign. A theatrical release brings down to the ground the message that’s been put out on the airwaves via television, radio, even newspapers. Seeing a movie in a theater is the final marketing experience for a film, leaving the viewer with the power of their message, which they broadcast, by word-of-mouth to others. Word-of-mouth is critically powerful in its ability to validate or destroy a film’s importance in popular culture by declaring the viewer’s satisfaction based on artistic merit. The will may be in the nation to see a movie, but the experience has to be satisfying. The most blessed phrase arising from word-of-mouth is: you have got to see this movie. That phrase consummates a great release strategy. Word-of-mouth can create a powerful historical moment for a movie that will embed it in current popular culture and perhaps enable it to endur...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1. Testing the Waters: The Indie Landscape
• 2. Learning to Float: The Buyers
• 3. The Deep End: Exploring All Options
• 4. How I Learned to Swim: Filmmaker Survival Stories
• 5. Little Fish, Big Pond: Thinking Globally
• 6. No Lifeguard on Duty: Internet and New Technology
• 7. Navigate the Rapids: Film Festivals
• 8. Waterlogged: My Story
• Swim Test: The Workbook
• Index