Advertisement
How to Beat the Odds with Indie Distributors
|
| Ian McKellen in Lion's Gate's Gods and Monsters. |
You make the movie and then you roll the dice," said veteran independent director Abel Ferrara just prior to the world premiere of his latest feature, New Rose Hotel at the Venice International Film Festival. "That's what being independent is all about."
Ferrara's statement is an eloquent and succinct reminder that for most independents, that's really what everything comes down to-gambling. And gambling that an acquisition deal will be made once the movie is in the can is the indie moviemaker's biggest gamble of all. Years of intense focus, reckless hustle and unyielding artistic integrity can be squandered without the right deal. And the "right" deal is a rarity.
How does it happen? How do you improve your odds? It used to be that distributors rolled their own dice to snatch the next winner among the yearly crop of indie output. And the old adage may still be true for some-that distributors live and die on instincts. But lately, moviemakers do most of the gambling, and much of the distributors' living is now being made with studio backing. Sporting hefty budgets from their studio parent companies, the major indie distributors are fast moving into production, and taking total control away from directors and producers. First-look deals with suppliers, product and talent are often replacing straightforward finished-product acquisitions. And with a reverse effect, under the strictures of new regimes, even financing doesn't guarantee distribution, as in the case of Good Machine's Happiness, originally financed by October. Niche acquisitions are increasingly limited to semi-to-high-profile product - i.e. Sundance winners-or projects with stars attached.
|
| Nick Nolte in Lion's Gate's Affliction. |
"I remember walking around Sundance after we had acquired Pi and a lot of my friends in the distribution business in other companies were basically saying, 'Good luck,' " says Amir Malin, Artisan President. "They didn't think we were going to do more than $50 thousand at the box office. Pi is still playing in a few theaters right now, and it's pulled over $3.5 million at the box-office. Compared to High Art, Slam and all the other acquisitions, it's the most successful one at its level. People are calling up saying, 'That's a film I thought would only play midnights. You guys did a fabulous job.' "
|
| Sean Gullette in Artisan's Pi. |
Buffalo 66, another Sundance hit, marked Vincent Gallo's much-hailed directorial debut and went on to gross more than $2 million at the box office. More significantly, it put Lion's Gate officially in the distribution race. Toronto-based Lion's Gate is a production and distribution company encompassing several operating divisions, from domestic to international distribution, production and home entertainment. It started in '98 by acquiring CPF, Buffalo 66's producer, and closed it with four Golden Globe nominations for two brilliantly marketed post-Sundance acquisitions, Bill Condon's Gods and Monsters and Paul Schrader's Affliction.
To say this new company is feisty would be an understatement. "We can take a small film and make it a medium film. We can take a bland film and make it interesting. We can take an interesting film and make it a cultural obligation," says Mark Urman, Lion's Gate's bold releasing president.
|
| Penelope Cruz in Artisan's Open Your Eyes. |
With the landscape obviously changing in the frenetic world of indie distribution, and 1999's Sundance Film Festival/Park City Follies upon us, representatives of four companies on the proverbial cutting edge-Artisan, Miramax, Lion's Gate and Stratosphere-talked with MovieMaker about acquisition, strategizing, marketing, talent relations, and much more.
Mark Gill
LA President, Miramax Films
Staying Aggressive and Going with Their Gut
MM: Miramax has a history for being trendsetters and pacesetters, especially at Sundance. Last year, forcasters prior to Sundance speculated that acquisitions execs would keep a relatively low profile. You proved them wrong with Next Stop Wonderland. What are your plans for this year?
Mark Gill: Well, we've had the good fortune to have several movies that we already own be selected to play at Sundance, from very modestly-budgeted films to mid-size budgeted independents-some with stars, some without. We'll have our usual selection of lots of Miramax films play. In the area of acquisition we'll be pretty aggressive.
MM: What elements do you consider when you think about picking up a movie for distribution?
MG: The single most important reason-and the thing that everybody who works at Miramax likes about the place-is, 'Did we love the movie?' Not speculations about whether or not you can make money with the film. The second question will be, 'How much do we love it, and how much is it going to cost?' If these two things are in the same neighborhood, then it starts to get interesting and appealing. Then I suppose there's another category which is, 'How promotable is the movie?' That's well down the list. We have a history of being able to promote things that are not categorically easy to promote.
MM: What is an example of a budget for the promotion of a movie?
MG: Well, it depends. It could be anywhere from $300,000, to several million dollars. These are the hardest decisions we make.
MM : What are they based on?
MG: They're based on how we can maximize the value of the movie. There are companies that do their budgets based on a percentage of the budget of the movie, or a percentage of the sales they expect. We do it more based on gut and past experience. It's usually Bob and Harvey (Weinstein) and myself and a couple of people in the room.
MM: So you don't base it on how much money you expect to make from the film?
MG: Not necessarily. Each case is totally different.
MM: How much do you stand behind a film if it doesn't do as well as you initially expected at the box-office?
MG: Well, there're different ways of releasing movies. Obviously there's a platform version of a release, starting with a couple of cities and then working your way out. And then there are movies that open on a lot of screens at once. Most of the movies at Sundance, obviously, are platform releases-though we have the famous case, of course, with Sling Blade, which also did very well. It's another one of those case-by-case things.
MM: In general, though, are you willing to stand behind the film until it finds its audience?
MG: Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. There are plenty of situations where movies just don't find their audience, they go nowhere and they lose their theaters. The biggest problem we're facing right now is that there are too many movies fighting for theaters. So if you don't start pretty strong, you have maybe a week or two to recover from that. If you don't recover pretty quickly, the owners won't sit around; they'll boot you out.
MM: Do you think the new art screens that are being added in several cities will change the situation?
MG: It's not nearly enough. There are just so many more choices for movies than we had even three years ago. But it won't last. Too many of these movies just aren't making money. There will inevitably be cutbacks where you will be reducing the releases. Our parent company is already doing it. It'll be another couple of years before you see the shake-out in independent films. The pie isn't getting bigger, everybody is just getting thinner slices.
MM: What should a filmmaker expect once you start working with them?
MG: The most important thing is the conversation about how to market the movie, the advertising, the publicity, and if the director has a good story to tell. Then, it's not just about promoting the cast, but also promoting the director. Robert Rodriguez had a great story in making El Mariachi. The third element is the movie itself, and are there adjustments that need to be made? A lot of the filmmakers get to Sundance and they run out of money, or time, to do all the things they wanted to do. We have a conversation with them about the things they would like to do, or things we can suggest to make the movie more successful either artistically or commercially.
Amir Malin
President, Artisan Films
A Strategy of Creating the "Event" Film
MM: Pi was a risky proposition-this small, esoteric, black-and-white film, with no names or stars-and you turned it into a big success. How?
AM: Nothing comes easy. What we saw in Pi was first, a very talented director and second, a film that we thought hit a certain segment of the audience. When we bought Live, which became Artisan, we wanted to have a very strong identity out there that skewed younger. We wanted to bring to the arthouse medium a younger audience, which I think has been lost. In selecting and acquiring Pi, there were a lot of things going on for us. We wanted to be in the Darren Aronofsky business, and we did that through the acquisition of Pi and a deal that included involvement in his next two projects. We also felt that as a film it was not going to be per se "review sensitive." Most art film distributors today have a reliance on review, to allow the critics to do the work for you-in other words to have consumers out there read the reviews and let that be the major factor they use to come in and see a film. Our feeling was you can't do that anymore. So what we saw in Pi, and what we wanted to create was, paradoxically-because it was made for $50 thousand-an event film. People in certain demographics, people who live in large urban centers, who love film, would go see and enjoy and make Pi compete with what the studios were doing in the summer, which was basically Godzilla. The results show we were very successful in doing that.
MM: You said something about wanting to establish a very strong identity in the distribution arena. How do you pick your movies, the ones that you acquire and the ones you produce?
AM: The process of either acquiring a film or producing a film is no different for us than any of the other companies out there. We have a strong acquisitions staff here at the company; I am responsible for the acquisitions department, and we have a very strong production staff as well, which is overseen by my partner, Bill Block. We solicit scripts; scripts are sent to us. Producers come in, they make pitches. We develop projects, we go to film festivals, we go to markets, and we are invited to screenings. Basically, along with Miramax and Fineline, Gramercy, October and the others, we tend to see the films when they're ready to be screened by the producers, or by the filmmakers. We make our own individual decisions based on a lot of different criteria. There are films that have been picked up by Fineline, or October and Miramax, that we have passed on. You look at some of the films that have been touted as big acquisitions in the marketplace, like HurlyBurly. The competition for HurlyBurly was not that great. Fineline internally made a decision this was a film they wanted to acquire and there was a price they were willing to pay. It's simply that for us that movie didn't fit in, and maybe it was the same for a lot of other companies. There haven't been too many times in the past 15 months, which is how long we've been around as Artisan, where we've had to say we know that we're looking at this project and so is the competition. There have been no major bidding wars. It doesn't really happen anymore, which may be good, because we're all trying to create a different identity in the marketplace.
MM: But what films appeal to you as a company?
AM: What we're trying to do with the company is to be in the business of what one would consider specialized product, arthouse product, but also inherently commercial product. We're making a thriller with Roman Planks right now which is in post production, a $30 million film called Ninth Gate, that stars Johnny Depp. That, unlike Pi, is inherently a commercial film. We're making a film in Chicago called Stir of Echoes, which is being directed by David Kebb, one of the top writers in Los Angeles, starring Kevin Bacon, and it is more on the horror/thriller side. Unlike a Fineline or October or Sony Classics, which tend to be only involved in art film, and unlike Newline, which tends to be only involved in more commercially oriented films, Artisan is going to be mixing it up between specialized product and more inherently commercial product. Our films' common denominator will be that they will skew young, and the marketing for all of them will be very aggressive.
MM: So when you go to a festival like Sundance, where there are a lot of first-time directors and young directors, what makes you want to create a relationship with them?
AM: You're always looking for the new team that's coming in. That being said, there are always risks attached to being involved with first-time directors. They may have shown a great deal of raw talent in their film, but there may still be a lot to be desired. So we're always going back and looking, not only at the product that the filmmaker has done, but what he or she has going on inside. I would say we spent hours and hours and hours with Darren, talking about his idea, not only for Pi, but more importantly what he had in mind for down the road. That convinced us that he really has the goods.
MM: You sound very filmmaker-friendly as a company.
AM: We are filmmaker friendly; we have a heavy commitment to the filmmaker and the filmmaking process. On the other hand, we are a company-a very large company with over $200 million in revenue. We have a library of more than 6,000 titles, one of the largest in the world. Our library alone generates about $150 million for us every year, giving us the ability to deal with the vagaries of the theatrical business.
MM: So as a filmmaker, what's fair to expect, and what do you expect from filmmakers you're working with?
AM: We don't think the process of making a film begins and ends with the delivery of a print. If you talk to the filmmakers that we have been involved with, that process continues throughout the marketing campaign. We explore their ideas of what they think is best for the release of their film. We try to collectively cultivate a marketing plan for the film that makes sense both for the film and for us as a company.
MM: What if the film doesn't perform?
AM: Many years ago someone told me there's no such thing as a bad book, just a bad book publisher. There's no such thing as a bad record, just a bad record distributor. And there's no such thing as a bad movie, just a bad movie distributor. As a company we are trying to really handle only a certain amount of films per year. We don't want to release any more than 10 films, but we want to roll up our sleeves and do the best job possible for each film. That doesn't guarantee that a film will succeed. This fall we released Permanent Midnight, starring Ben Stiller. It was a project we liked very much, even though it was already shooting when we got involved. We were very satisfied with the finished product. Ben Stiller did a phenomenal job acting in the film and David Kebb did a terrific job writing the script and directing it. We spent a good deal of money and time in promoting and releasing the film and it didn't click. It had very limited success, and we take that to heart. What we do constantly is go back and make judgments about what we did and what we didn't do on any given film. The reality for all of us is that there are films that are going to succeed in the marketplace and films that won't. As glamorous as this business is, it's a very difficult business. Luck is very much a factor in the success of a film. But at the end of the day, there is a tendency for the director to always blame the distributor for films that don't work-and for the distributor to blame the product that just didn't have an appeal on the marketplace.
MM: What are your plans for Sundance this year?
AM: Last year we picked up two films. One was Pi, the other was Open Your Eyes, by Alejandro Amenabar, which we will open in the spring. He is one of the foremost directors working in Europe today, and has a great feel not only for working with actors and actresses but a great visual style and a great sense of story. So if we end up with another Amenabar and Aronofsky we're in great shape, but if we end up with 50 percent of what we got last year, we'll also be very happy.
Mark Urman
President, Lion's Gate Releasing
Brilliant Marketers Prudently Seek Fresh Faces
MM: Are you still a moviegoer?
LG: Very much so. I like trash, I like art, I like everything in between, as long as it's good-or good of its kind. So when I go as a fan, I'm just looking to see that my time is well spent. I want to be entertained and to be moved just like anybody else.
MM: What about when you go as a distribution executive?
MU: Well, there's a second review happening simultaneously. I obviously have to concern myself with the commercial potential of a film I might distribute. My partner, Tom Ortenberg, and I are moviegoers; we are discerning, but not too obscure in our orientation. We'll decide, 'Did I like it, did he like it?' If we both liked the film, this is already an indication that two rather different people responded favorably. And once you've thought of these three things-did we like it, will it satisfy other people, and can we sell it-you've really thought of absolutely everything except its cost. And it doesn't even make sense to think of cost until you've analyzed the first three things.
MM: What are some elements that make a movie stand out?
MU: Well, I always think in terms of media. Our films are media and editorial driven, they're largely well-reviewed films, and if they're not, they're seriously crippled at the box-office. They get a lot of publicity and are driven more by that than by advertising, which is a cash transaction. When we advertise our films we spend a lot of time and money creating the ads and buying the ads. But since they cannot compete with Hollywood films in respect to visibility or advertising push, it's the acclaim that drives our films. So I look at every film in the sense of: 'Will it get good reviews, and is there something to write here, an interesting emerging personality, or a theme that taps into some elements of the subculture?'
MM: How do you decide on the acquisition of a movie?
MU: It's taste, but it's also judgment and experience. I mean you can't have worked in a business for 20 some odd years and not have learned something, and you can't have been involved in the distribution and marketing of independent films for a decade and not have a kind of inventory of precedents. But it's never a sure thing. So it's taste and trend, and competition, and God knows what else. We can control a lot of that. You can shape peoples' perception of a movie; you can get them to like a movie more than they might. If you prepare them properly you can, by simply choosing the right date of release, guarantee that it will be more or less visible and more or less threatened by competition.
MM: Lion's Gate got a lot of attention at Sundance last year with Vincent Gallo's Buffalo 66, or maybe the company was able to bring a lot of attention to the film and to the director. What's your company's orientation when it comes to dealing with new directors?
MU: It's often more productive in selling a film to have a fresh face than a known face. The media and audiences are more and more are focused on the young. Once upon a time nobody had ever heard of Quentin Tarantino. When I hooked up with Quentin, he'd never been to a festival. He'd never seen snow. I took this boy to Sundance-and he kind of exploded. All of a sudden, seven or eight major magazines were doing features devoted to him. So it's no more risky working with him than Sidney Pollack, who has been around for about three decades doing fine work, but there isn't necessarily that much to say.
MM: What is more important to you as a company, to buy a good film or to start working with a hot new talent?
MU: I think that everything begins with a good film. And then, hopefully, it was made by somebody you like hanging out with for eight or nine months-because it takes that long in the way of partnership and collaboration to bring a film to the marketplace. You do need somebody who is user-friendly. It's very difficult to do your job correctly if you don't have the support and input of filmmakers who, in a way, know their film better than anybody. They know what they've tried to communicate and can help you find the equivalents in your advertising and your publicity and your whole marketing efforts. We like to work closely with our filmmakers. But as a company, I don't think that we're particularly interested in picking up a film simply to forge a relationship with a hot new talent. It's got to be film by film.
MM: What's an example of a deal you'd possibly offer a filmmaker when you want their film?
MU: Well, it depends on who else is interested. Before you even sit down with these people and express your interest in the film, and your enthusiasm, you decide among yourselves what its earning potential is. And then you just do your math. If you think you might lose money, you go in thinking: 'All right, I like the movie, I'm willing to gamble, but I'm not willing to pay anything for it.' That's the worst possible deal for a filmmaker; but it's fabulous if there's no other deal. If the film doesn't work, you're not taking a big loss and they at least had the benefit of exposure. People do make films to have them seen. A lot of them don't make money. It's a rare independent film that breaks $2 million-which doesn't necessarily mean they don't make a profit. A film can go through an uninteresting box-office performance, but still have a profitable arrangement on the output deal and on the ancillary value.
MM: What do you do when a film doesn't perform. Do you give it a chance to find its audience?
MU: You don't always have that luxury. If the film opens in New York and doesn't perform, it becomes kind of difficult to credibly place it in other cities. But we do not withdraw our support from our movies that quickly. We are prudent in our expenditures and we always spend in proportion to what we think the films can earn. If we believe in a film and think that it can catch on, we'll continue to support it. The problem is that the theater can throw you out after a week.
MM: Do you see the company going more in the direction of production vs. distribution or vice versa?
MU: Well, we have a separate production division; it's up the hall. We work very closely together but it was never meant to be an exclusive relationship. We want to have the freedom to go to a film festival and pick up a Norwegian film or a French film or something that was made in somebody's garage for $60,000, like Daytrippers, which earned millions of dollars for us. And you can't make Daytrippers, you have to find Daytrippers. A film like that spontaneously combusts. By the same token, a company should have freedom to produce something that can be an ideal commodity for cable, or that will be sold to a studio.
MM: What are your plans for Sundance this year?
MU: What is good for our company is not necessarily good for another company. We are a company that I think does a wonderful job and I think our films are marketed brilliantly-but we don't have high overhead. It is not so old; we are populated largely by young people who work very hard. So, for me, a film that performs at a certain level can pay the bills, whereas for a company like Miramax that same film would be small potatoes. Last year we picked up two films that were shown at Sundance, but we picked them up after Sundance, Affliction and Gods and Monsters. I think those films will do very well for us, but it is important to know that we picked them up after Sundance. We were interested in Affliction before, and we certainly became very interested in Gods and Monsters at Sundance, but it seemed more prudent to wait. As one waited, the price came down to a level that enabled us to pay no more than made sense.
MM: So what's realistic for a filmmaker to expect from you specifically?
MU: Well, if we go after a film-which is not the same thing as if the film comes after us-I think the filmmakers should be prepared to encounter distributors of rare and unique intelligence. Within minutes of seeing a movie that excites us, my partner and I have sat with filmmakers and really coherently mapped out the campaign, and often without a dress rehearsal. If the movie has the potential to attract an audience, we create a brilliant trailer, brilliant ads, we get attention for movies like nobody gets attention for their movies. You can shape peoples' perception of a movie, get them to like it more than they might. It's amazing how much we can control. Even in instances where we haven't gotten a film because people threw a lot more money at them, it was with a heavy heart that they kissed us good-bye-because they somehow felt that we'd do a better job and care more.
MM: And, since you've made the distinction, what if the filmmaker comes after you?
MU: It's a question of whether we like the movie. A lot of these filmmakers do their homework, which doesn't mean that every company will like their movie. But I would like to think that a well-prepared producer, a well-prepared team of filmmakers, would go to Sundance and have a clear sense of what it is that Miramax does, of what October does, Fineline, Fox Searchlight, and yes of what it is that Lion's Gate does. And I would like to think that we are on a list of five to seven preferred distributors who could take a Sundance type film and turn it into an audience success.
TC Rice
VP of Distribution and Marketing, Stratosphere
The Pitbulls of Marketing and Distribution
MM: What brought about Paul Cohen's resignation?
TCR: Corny as it may sound, it was creative differences between him and Carl Icahn.
MM: How will it affect Stratosphere?
TCR: We'll be going full-steam ahead. Heading more toward production, though we will remain very much into acquisitions. We currently have six films slated for release in 1999 and we are looking for finished product and films.
MM: Do you expect you will go to Sundance for some acquisitions?
TCR: Absolutely. Our film, Hideous Kinky, with Kate Winslett, is going to have its North American premiere at Sundance this year. And depending on what's there, if the films have the body and substance that we feel warrants distribution and if there's the possibility they'll do business at the box-office, certainly we will be right in there elbowing everybody out of the way trying to get them.
MM: Is there a possibility that you might find a film very saleable, but you hate it and you still go with it?
TCR: Absolutely. Whether you love them or hate them, if you see a film that is sellable you must take it on and you must sell it-you'd be crazy not to. Because it's those films that enable you to take on the films that might be more questionable.
MM: A large part of the success of a movie is dictated by odds, unforeseeable elements. From your end, how much of it is a gamble and how much of it is science?
TCR: Ultimately, it's about 50-50. If you have a film with a name director and a name cast that is a specific genre, you will be able to fairly well predict the minimum it will do at the box office. On the other hand-and this is true for basically all the independent distributors-a good portion of what you pick up and what you take out there is gut instinct of knowing what will work in the marketplace and what won't. Just having that feeling at the back of your neck. If you take
Inheritors, for example, and you look at it from a purely business standpoint, you figure we had to be out of our minds. It's a foreign film, has no names, but it's a good movie. It won at Rotterdam. It's had wonderful success at film festivals, and we have filmmakers' awards to know that it's not just our instincts telling us that this film is going to make it. We were extremely lucky with The Thief because it had the same problem, but with an Oscar nomination behind it, and audiences responded to it.
MM: What's more important in the acquisition process: to form a relationship with a hot new filmmaker or just to acquire that single film and make the most out of it?
TCR: I would say it's most important for us to acquire a given film, and if we're able to establish a relationship with that filmmaker, that's wonderful.
MM: And when you deal with a filmmaker, what kind of deal do you offer them in terms of advance P&A and final cut?
TCR: We are willing to negotiate on virtually any level if it's a film that we believe in. We are in the enviable position, I think, of being able to compete for a film at the same level that our biggest competitor can-whether that's Miramax or October or Sony-without it being necessarily a huge strain. That being said, we're very cautious. We're a start-up company. On acquisitions, we don't exercise the right of final cut, but we might need to change some minor things here and there to comply with network requirements or censorship problems like swear words and the likes. That's always done with the filmmaker, though. And P&A is normally figured out according to the type of release and the expected returns.
MM: Once you've acquired a film, how much are you willing to put behind it? You could be lucky to have an overnight hit, but it could be a sleeper hit, a film that needs time to find its audience.
TCR: There's any number of small distribution companies that are out there in the marketplace that open a movie in New York and Los Angeles or Chicago, or wherever. Get great reviews, great box-office grosses, but they don't have the ability to maximize the potential of the film because they're not financially equipped to do that. They don't have the money to make 20 prints by the end of the following week, to really take it out there and kick out a number. We have the ability to get behind the film when it opens and really maximize its potential.
MM: Tell me a little more about the logistics of opening a film. What determines the kind of opening a film can get, what kinds of agreements with the exhibitors?
TCR: The decision about how to market a film really boils down to the film itself. Certainly if you have the stars and the director, then you know you have the chance of getting magazine covers and TV shows and newspaper coverage, which automatically upgrades the level of the film. If you don't have those elements and you have a film that is quirky and very focused on its audience, then you have to focus on that audience. It's pointless to go to a commercial level if that's just not in the inherent make-up of the film. What you need to do to maximize the film's potential is to maximize the awareness of its audience-whether that audience is two people or two million people-and you have to determine with each film where that audience is and how to reach them. All this has to happen before you open.
MM: What is reasonable for a filmmaker to expect from Stratosphere?
TCR: That we will compete from a purely ideal standpoint, and that we will compete with any of our competitors. We are very dedicated not only to our films, but to the filmmakers. We don't buy something if we don't believe in it. We are the pitbulls of marketing and distribution because we won't let go. We will give the filmmaker 100 percent of our ability and our energies and our effort, regardless of what it cost us to acquire that film.
MM: What do you expect from the filmmaker?
TCR: I expect the filmmaker to be out there
supporting his film too. There's nothing more irritating than a
filmmaker who complains about having to be out there to promote
his own movie. MM
SHARE THIS STORY |
TAGS |
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
YahooAdvertisement
