The Democratic World of Independent Filmmaking

The future of film is finally here. And its going to be a bumpy ride.

Just as the word processor provided the tools for thousands of new novelists to join the ranks of the unpublished or unread and easy music editing software has enabled millions of garage bands to upload their unheard songs to the Internet, the excitement for ultra-low budget films and modest budget films have flooded the market, drowning out some potentially great projects among the thousands hitting the market. In every field, the production of content has exploded while the audience has remained flat or even shrunk.

Mark Gill, former president of Mirimax Films and current CEO of The Film Department presented a bleak picture at the L.A. Film Festival regarding the state of independent film and the motion picture industry more generally. His litany of woes included the shuttering of indie film houses, the erosion of Wall Street Capital, and the brutal glut of product. 5000 films submitted to Sundance?

The loss of key independent production houses provides the clearest indication that the market is changing radically. Digital distribution from has radically reshaped the ability for a filmmaker to gain access to an audience, but it has yet to provide any monetization. (And remember the lofty visions if ifilm.com and atom.com - now both TV portals.)

Moreover, the naive hope of "the long tail" is giving way to the more economically rational "fat middle" model for content distribution. While the long tail postulated that the Internet and other low-cost distribution mechanisms would provide much more sustainable revenue streams for products in a longer life cycle, this had always been the case. Publisher's backlists have provided much of the revenue for book publisher, music labels, and television producers. The Internet may have helped this modestly, particularly for niche markets, but the audience must know about the content in the first place. An unknown band will not do better on the Internet five years after it first put its songs on Napster. If it didn't get a buzz, it won't get downloads.

Advertising, promotion and social buzz are critical to public awareness of entertainment. Mere access is never enough.

The reality of the Fat Middle is that blockbusters and modest hits will be able to maintain their backlist status better because of the ease of access to the content. Netflix recommendations are far better than Blockbuster shelves for encouraging the rental of a five or ten year old movie. But the key is the audience awareness of the content. Like the rat swallowed by the snake, the lump continues to shrink as it travels through the body being digested. Revenue streams will simply have longer viability. If the audience was not there in the first instance, the public is unlikely to discover a hidden gem in the Netflix or YouTube aisles.

Mark Gill ended his talk on an up note. "But if you really want to make movies--even after all the unvarnished bad news I've dumped on you today--then by all means do it. ... [T]he independent film business--leaner, harder-working, but still wearing black and drinking too much caffeine--will indeed survive."

He's certainly correct. But today's filmmakers need to recognize that the engagement with the audience begins well before the movie is shot. Websites, shorts, novelizations, or other tools are critical to move one's film from the 5,000 submissions to the 5-20 independent films actually supported for theatrical release.

Making movies may be easier than ever; getting them seen is not. Welcome to the business.