Adventures in Self-Releasing: Indiewood By the Numbers

by Jeffrey Goodman | Published August 7, 2009

I’ve been obsessed with the Box Office Chart that appears on indieWIRE every Tuesday for a while now. So I thought I’d go through the top 15 American narrative movies on this week’s list and see what we can learn from the numbers. Something can be learned from every single movie on the list, but since The Last Lullaby is an American narrative, I thought I would make that my focus:

1. 500 Days of Summer
Distributor: Fox Searchlight; reported budget: n/a (my guess $5 million minimum production budget, $5 million minimum marketing budget, since they are buying TV advertisements); opened on 27 screens on July 17, 2009; box office gross: $4,070,615 as of July 31, 2009.

Backstory: Premiered at this year’s Sundance (acquired by Fox Searchlight prior to the festival for an undisclosed amount); music video director Marc Webb’s first feature; produced by Mark Waters, director of box office hits Mean Girls and Freaky Friday.

Verdict: So far on track to become one of the top-grossing independent movies of the year. But also seems like the type of project, like Juno, packaged in Hollywood to look like Indiewood. Not sure unknown moviemakers can aspire to a first project like this.

2. Shrink
Distributor: Roadside Attractions; reported budget: n/a; opened on two screens on July 24, 2009; box office gross: $16,443 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Premiered at this year’s Sundance; directed by Jonas Pate, who directed the 1997 acclaimed Deceiver with his brother; stars Kevin Spacey.

Verdict: Too early to tell, but numbers aren’t looking terribly promising.

3. The Hurt Locker
Distributor: Summit Entertainment; reported budget: $11 million production budget; opened on four screens on July 3, 2009; box office gross: $4,015,070 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Premiered at last year’s Venice Film Festival; directed by Kathryn Bigelow, formerly married to James Cameron and director of acclaimed films Near Dark, Point Break and Strange Days.

Verdict: Probably the strongest reviewed American narrative of the year so far. Using its strong critical support and a slow rollout, looks like it’s on its way to some admirable numbers.

4. War Eagle, Arkansas
Distributor: Empire Film Group; reported budget: $1.1 million production budget; opened on seven screens on June 26, 2009; box office gross: $74,281 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Stars Brian Dennehy and Mare Winningham.

Verdict: Don’t know much at all about the Empire Film Group, but seem to be doing an OK job getting the movie out there.

5. Shadowland
Distributor: Self-distributed; reported budget: n/a; opened on one screen on July 24, 2009; box office gross: $5,420 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Missouri-produced movie that made its theatrical premiere in St. Louis.

Verdict: Will be interesting to see how the movie does if it goes outside of Missouri.

6. Humpday
Distributor: Magnolia Pictures; reported budget: n/a; opened on two screens on July 10, 2009; box office gross: $200,822 as of July 30, 2009.

Backstory: Premiered at this year’s Sundance and sold for a reported mid-six figures; directed by Lynn Shelton, director of last year’s My Effortless Brilliance, winner of the 2008 Independent Spirit Someone to Watch Award.

Verdict: Despite strong critical buzz and tremendous support from the indie world, still doesn’t seem to have a great foothold in the marketplace.

7. The Answer Man
Distributor: Magnolia Pictures; reported budget: n/a; opened on six screens on July 24, 2009; box office gross: $12,998 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Premiered at this year’s Sundance; stars Jeff Daniels.

Verdict: Its first week totals are looking pretty grim.

8. Loren Cass
Distributor: Kino International; reported Budget: n/a; opened on one screen on July 24, 2009; box office gross: $2,135 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Apparently a difficult movie that has received some stellar reviews; played at Locarno Film Festival and CineVegas.

Verdict: Probably a movie that can do a little box office in select cities as long as it’s in the right theater and able to find its way in front of the local critic.

9. Whatever Works
Distributor: Sony Pictures Classics; reported budget: $15 million production budget; opened on nine screens on June 19, 2009; box office gross: $4,440,243 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Woody Allen’s latest movie; stars Larry David.

Verdict: Pretty disappointing numbers for Woody. Better than Cassandra’s Dream, but way off from his last effort, Vicky Cristina Barcelona.

10. Surveillance
Distributor: Magnet Releasing; reported budget: $3.5 million production budget; opened on two screens on June 26, 2009; box office gross $25,352 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch, director of Boxing Helena and David Lynch’s daughter; stars Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond.

Verdict: Prospects looking pretty grim.

11. The Stoning of Soraya M.
Distributor: Roadside Attractions; reported budget: n/a; opened on 25 screens on July 3, 2009; box office gross: $519,727 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Won Audience Award for Best Feature at the 2009 Los Angeles Film Festival and runner-up at the 2008 Toronto Film Festival.

Verdict: Someone is spending a good deal of money on P&A.

12. Treeless Mountain
Distributor: Oscilloscope Pictures; reported budget: n/a; opened on one screen on April 24, 2009; box office gross: $56,602 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Premiered at last year’s Toronto Film Festival; second feature from So Yong Kim, director of the acclaimed In Between Days.

Verdict: The movie has been out there for three months. Doesn’t look like it will even break $100,000, but impressive that Oscilloscope has allowed it to stay in theaters for so long.

13. Away We Go
Distributor: Focus Features; reported budget: $17 million production budget; opened on four screens on June 5, 2009; box office gross: $8,865,132 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Directed by Sam Mendes, previous winner of the Oscar for American Beauty.

Verdict: Doesn’t really seem like a success story for Focus.

14. Tetro
Distributor: American Zoetrope; reported budget: $15 million production budget; opened on two screens on June 12, 2009; box office gross: $346,359 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

Verdict: Can’t be numbers that make Coppola very happy.

15. Management
Distributor: The Samuel Goldwyn Company; reported budget: n/a; opened on 212 screens on May 15, 2009; box office gross: $928,685 as of July 28, 2009.

Backstory: Premiered at last year’s Toronto Film Festival; stars Jennifer Aniston.

Verdict: Someone is spending a good deal of money on P&A.

Just a few final thoughts:

a. I think this list shows how rare it is for a first-time director to make a movie that does real, break-out numbers.

b. It also shows that even movies those movies that star Kevin Spacey or Jennifer Aniston—or are directed by the likes of Woody Allen, Sam Mendes and Francis Ford Coppola—are struggling in the current landscape.

c. Lastly, I think these numbers demonstrate how few indie success stories there are. And, in many ways, that has probably always been the case. Although I’m purely guessing, because I don’t have access to many of these movies’ budgets, I would say that the only movies on this list that will end up “in the black” financially for the investors are The Hurt Locker, maybe (500) Days of Summer and, depending on the size of the advance they actually received, Humpday.

After living in Los Angeles for seven years, Jeffrey Goodman returned to his hometown of Shreveport, Louisiana to direct The Last Lullaby. Co-written by the creator of Road to Perdition, and starring Tom Sizemore and Sasha Alexander, The Last Lullaby was filmed entirely in and around Shreveport and financed by 48 local investors.

SHARE THIS STORY

COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT

Comment by Gilbert on 8/07/09 at 6:56 am

Wow! Another great list of movies you have here. Based on the reported figure, seems like not all people are into this kind of movies. Am I right?

Comment by Gary Sesnik on 8/07/09 at 12:35 pm

Can you post some numbers of more successful strings of independent films from when the market was supposedly better?

I don’t feel that the current landscape or your particular distribution problems are that unique. From what I’ve seen they’re the same problems indie film has always had. And many solutions have come up that you have yet to exploit.

For example, most films (and this is across the board) make more money from DVD sales and TV rights than they do from the box office. This is especially true for indie films who often get loans for their budgets based on the rights for the DVD and Cable sales (i.e. it’s assumed that’s where the money will come from). Last year, the box office brought in 10 million while home video brought in 24 million. That means the box office was actually less than 1/3 of the total income. From: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article6639171.ece

With indie film we shouldn’t be expecting most to break even in box office alone, as this article points out:
http://www.moviemaker.com/articles/article/small_market_big_box_office_3197/

Granted that article is 6 years old, it at least shows that your problem is not a new one and that theatrical releases are not the breadwinners for indie film. The article before was focused on the current decline of DVDs, which is worth noting, but that area of the market (whether you look at DVD or Blu-ray or digital) is where you need to be looking. That’s where everyone else is looking.

To put it simply, aside from film enthusiasts, your audience is going to want to be able to see your film as easily as possible. Driving to one of your rare screenings is not feasible for most people if not for the distance than maybe for scheduling conflicts or whatever may pop up. A DVD is always there.

If the box office is less than 1/3 of your market, you still have a long way to go (and that’s assuming you’ve had a full box office run). Your DVD run in theory should require more effort and marketing from you than your theatrical run so far has.

I feel a little bit like you’re looking at the theatrical run as the main ticket, but over and over again that’s proven not to be true for indie film. And these numbers you posted need to be looked at as only being 1/3 of the way there. Any of the films that have made half their budget back at this point should be looking pretty good. I think films like “500 Days of Summer” and “Away We Go” are especially likely to pretty much explode on DVD. They’re films that are in demand, but the audience doesn’t have access to them yet.

Comment by Jeffrey Goodman on 8/08/09 at 1:25 am

Hi Gilbert,

Thanks so much for your comments.

I don’t know. It’s a tough question. Does it mean people aren’t into these kinds of movies? Or does it maybe mean when big-budget movies are spending $50M to get our attention and get us into the seats that smaller movies can no longer compete? It’s tough to say.

All the best,

Jeffrey

Comment by Hunter on 8/08/09 at 2:22 am

Interesting topic this week… glad to see some objective analysis here, although it is not clear what conclusions to make or data to extrapolate from one and a half figures per film (box office gross and a guesstimate of budget).

As someone else said, theatrical release is only a small portion of the equation. And all this speculation is moot anyway when you don’t know how much the film cost.

I think it’s fair to say that the “success” of blockbusters lies (in part) in their broad appeal. The $50 million wouldn’t do any good if the appeal wasn’t there to begin with. Anyone in marketing will tell you that the decision to greenlight a film and the process of marketing is all about appealing to as many of the four quadrants as possible.

Also, I would hesitate to use the phrase “no longer compete,” because that seems to imply that indie films were once competitive in budget and appeal, and the logical extension of that is that somehow indie film has been victimized, which isn’t the case.

I wonder, Jeffrey, if it would have painted a more complete picture to analyze films that have already been released on DVD? Seems a bit like stacking the cards.

Not to harp on it too much, but isn’t the blog’s purpose supposed to be the education of the reader, with a healthy back-and-fourth from writer to reader?

I’ve been reading since the first post and at first was quite happy to learn some of the ins and outs of the indie world, but lately it seems like the message you’re professing is “give up, the environment is too hostile and the prospects are grim,” and not to be disrespectful, but it comes off almost like you’re trying to convince yourself of something.

Not exactly what I want to read, week after week—just sayin’. And for that matter, it’s not exactly the kind of image I would want to project and leave on the Internet for all of eternity (once Google caches it), because it’s not *exactly* the kind of thing that would instill confidence in future investors.

By the way, are you a reader of Nikki Finke?
I find this blog invaluable in expanding my understanding of the inner workings of Hollywood.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

The writing is impeccable, sharp, to the point. There’s editorializing, but always with facts and links to back it up… a good read.

Just skimming the headlines, you can gleam huge insight: GI Joe opens big, Julie and Julia does will with effective counter-programming.

These are the types of topics I had hoped to read about and discuss here, and I think that’s probably what many of your readers are hoping for each week. I only keep reading because of my interest in you as a local filmmaker, otherwise the negativity would’ve driven me away a while ago. Of course it’s your podium, so you’re obviously free to use it how you want, but I thought I’d mention it.

I wonder if next time we could hear what you’re planning to do, marketing-wise, to increase your chances of making a profit on the DVD release—what strategies, what creative decisions you’ve made, etc.

You’re in a position with this blog to make some wake (and simultaneously build up some PR??) with that kind of “reporting,” so what do ya’ say?

Comment by Jeffrey Goodman on 8/08/09 at 9:22 am

Hi Gary,

Thank you so much for your comments.

I will work on posting a list from a “supposedly better” time. And we’ll look and see if there’s really that much difference from how things are now.

I completely agree with you about the value of the DVD rights. And, I never meant to suggest otherwise. In fact, I represented to my investors that a very basic breakdown for a movie is 20% box office, 25% cable, and 55% DVD. So I completely agree that box office is really only a very small piece of the pie. In fact, the common saying nowadays is that distributors expect to lose money on the theatrical but do it to advertise the cable and DVD sale, which is when they start to make their money back.

But you mention AWAY WE GO. Let’s take a look at it. Again, admittedly this analysis is limited as I have no idea how much money Focus is actually spending marketing the movie in theaters. But let’s guess $15M just so we can discuss.

Okay, so in this scenario, Focus has $32M (production and marketing) into the movie. So far, they’ve made $8,865,132. But remember they’re splitting that, probably around 50-50 with the exhibitor (the various movie theaters). So, for matter of discussion, at this point, we’ll say they’ve made $4,233,50.

Okay now if that’s 20% of what they’re ultimately going to make, we multiply that by 5 and end up with $21,167,50.

So you can see in this scenario that Focus ends up losing about $11M. And granted this is just numbers for America. But a movie like AWAY WE GO isn’t likely to do big numbers abroad. There’s no real star power in it to attract business in other countries.

Once again, I admit the limit of some of this analysis. But knowing the box office of a movie can begin to give us an idea of the total numbers that movie will do. And it’s this math above that led me to make my concluding statement in this week’s post.

Does this all make sense?

All the best,

Jeffrey

Comment by Airjordanpremium on 8/09/09 at 9:37 pm

Thanks for sharing something can be learned from every single movie on the list and making your focus on the American narrative

Comment by serenalin on 8/11/09 at 2:01 am

well done, well written, thank you for writing, Link Text

Comment by paul chau on 8/14/09 at 7:55 am

Hey Jeffrey
just caught on reading your blog and man didn’t realize it was open season on you. I just want to say that i enjoy reading your blog because it is about one person’s journey,views and emotions as you go through a tough ride in making and distributing an indie film. I know it was never your intention to be viewed as an expert so i read it knowing that as with anything you read, it is a viewpoint only. below is an intersting article that was in the NY Times I believe and in the theme of self-distribution. The budget levels of the some of the films mentioned are in the under $2 million dollars range so a better comp to your film. The article further confirms my belief that if you make a lower budget indie film, you have to be prepared to self-distribute if you don’t get a deal you like. In other words, self-distribution has to be a pre-set Plan B as opposed to something you do last minute because you didn’t get a good traditional deal. By pre-set Plan B, I mean you have set aside in the budget some level of P&A;money, have a defined audience, a way to reach that audience, etc. Anyway below is the article and thanks for sharing your journey.

When “The Age of Stupid,” a climate change movie, “opens” across the United States in September, it will play on some 400 screens in a one-night event, with a video performance by Thom Yorke of Radiohead, all paid for by the filmmakers themselves and their backers. In Britain, meanwhile, the film has been showing via an Internet service that lets anyone pay to license a copy, set up a screening and keep the profit.
The glory days of independent film, when hot young directors like Steven Soderbergh and Mr. Tarantino had studio executives tangled in fierce bidding wars at Sundance and other celebrity-studded festivals, are now barely a speck in the rearview mirror. And something new, something much odder, has taken their place.
Here is how it used to work: aspiring filmmakers playing the cool auteur in hopes of attracting the eye of a Hollywood power broker.
Here is the new way: filmmakers doing it themselves — paying for their own distribution, marketing films through social networking sites and Twitter blasts, putting their work up free on the Web to build a reputation, cozying up to concierges at luxury hotels in film festival cities to get them to whisper into the right ears.
The economic slowdown and tight credit have squeezed the entertainment industry along with everybody else, resulting in significantly fewer big-studio films in the pipeline and an even tougher road for smaller-budget independent projects. Independent distribution companies are much less likely to pull out the checkbook while many of the big studios have all but gotten out of the indie film business.
“It’s not like the audience for these movies has completely disappeared,” said Cynthia Swartz, a partner in the publicity company 42 West, which has been supplementing its mainstream business by helping filmmakers find ways to connect with an audience. “It’s just a matter of finding them.”
Sometimes, the odd approach actually works.
“Anvil! The Story of Anvil,” a documentary about a Canadian metal band, turned into the do-it-yourself equivalent of a smash hit when it stretched a three-screen opening in April into a four-month run, still under way, on more than 150 screens around the country.
“I paid for everything, I took a second mortgage on my house,” said Sacha Gervasi, the film’s director.
Mr. Gervasi, whose studio writing credits include “The Terminal,” directed by Steven Spielberg, nearly three years ago, began filming “Anvil!” with his own money in hopes of attracting a conventional distributor. The movie played well at Sundance in 2008, but offers were low.
So Mr. Gervasi put up more money — his total cost was in “the upper hundred thousands,” he said — to distribute the film through a company called Abramorama, while selling the DVD and television rights to VH1.
The aging rockers of Anvil have shown up at theaters to play for audiences. Famous fans like Courtney Love were soon chattering online about the film. And an army of “virtual street teamers” — Internet advocates who flood social networks with admiring comments, sometimes for a fee, sometimes not — were recruited by a Web consultant, Sarah Lewitinn, who usually works the music scene.
The idea behind this sort of guerrilla release is to accumulate just enough at the box office to prime the pump for DVD sales and return the filmmaker’s investment, maybe even with a little profit. “Anvil!” has earned roughly $1 million worldwide at the box office so far, its producer, Rebecca Yeldham, said.
Finding even relatively small amounts of money to make and market a film is, of course, no small trick. “The Age of Stupid” raised a production budget of about £450,000 (about $748,000) from 228 shareholders, and is soliciting a bit more to continue its release, Franny Armstrong, its director, said.
“Money has simply vanished,” said Mark Urman, an independent-film veteran, speaking of the financial drought that has pushed producers and directors into shouldering risks that only a few years ago were carried by a more robust field of distributors.
Many of those distributors have either disappeared or severely tightened their operations, including Warner Independent Pictures, Picturehouse, New Line Cinema, Miramax, the Weinstein Company, Paramount Classics and its successor, Paramount Vantage.
Typically, the distributors have paid money upfront for rights to release films. That helped the producers recover what they had already spent on production, but it often left the distributor with most or all of the profit.
Mr. Urman’s own position as president for distribution at Senator Entertainment evaporated this year when financing fell through for a slate of films. So he started a new company, Paladin, to support filmmakers willing to finance their own releases.
In September, Paladin is expected to help the filmmaker Steve Jacobs and his fellow producers release “Disgrace,” a drama with John Malkovich that is based on a novel by the Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee.
The film won a critics prize at the Toronto International Film Festival last year, but no attractive distribution offers. One key to releasing it without a Miramax, said Mr. Urman, is to minimize expensive advertising in newspapers or on television and play directly to a friendly audience — in this case through extensive promotional tie-ins with Mr. Coetzee’s publishers.
“Everyone still dreams there’s going to be a conventional sale to a major studio,” said Kevin Iwashina, once an independent-film specialist with the Creative Artists Agency and now a partner at IP Advisors, a film sales and finance consulting company. But, he said, smart producers and directors are figuring out how to tap the value in projects on their own.
Some big companies will still be on the hunt in Toronto this year, where the annual festival is scheduled to begin Sept. 10.
“We’ll be there in full force,” said Nancy Utley, a president of Fox Searchlight Pictures, which last year acquired rights to “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The Wrestler,” both screened in Toronto.
“It’s a great opportunity for us,” said Robert G. Friedman, a chairman of Summit Entertainment, which acquired “The Hurt Locker,” directed by Kathryn Bigelow. The film was offered in Toronto last year and has already been mentioned widely as an Oscar contender.
But some filmmakers and producers pointed toward the festival have already started working for themselves, rather than waiting for the few remaining, and ever fussier, buyers to swoop in.
In fact, the next-wave Tarantinos are in Canada already — coddling not prospective buyers, but concierges, who just might steer people to promotional parties and screenings.
“These guys have figured it out,” Barry Avrich, a member of the festival’s governing board, said of the do-it-yourself crowd. “They’re into all the cool hotels, to get the concierges thinking about them.”

Comment by Jeffrey Goodman on 8/15/09 at 12:12 pm

Hi Paul,

Thanks so much for your post. I think that piece in the NYT is very good and a must-read for all of us. I really appreciate you sharing it here. I was going to post it in next week’s entry, but you beat me to the punch.

I particularly like these comments of yours, “The article further confirms my belief that if you make a lower budget indie film, you have to be prepared to self-distribute if you don’t get a deal you like. In other words, self-distribution has to be a pre-set Plan B as opposed to something you do last minute because you didn’t get a good traditional deal. By pre-set Plan B, I mean you have set aside in the budget some level of P&A;money, have a defined audience, a way to reach that audience, etc.” I agree with you 100%.

What’s the latest with SCALP?

Thank you, Paul, for continuing to read and sharing your experiences, too.

All the best,

Jeffrey