Marketing
Fights are exciting.
If you've been following Sundance, there's no doubt you've heard of the bizarre story about a fist fight breaking out at the fest. If not, here's Karina Longworth's chaotic retelling (really makes you feel like you're there and the middle of it.)
In this cynical world we live in, I have to get this out of the way - I believe the conflict to be legit, not staged. The people involved are all above that sort of malarky, and it's not really such a great go-out-and-tell-all-your-friends story like the Adolf Hitler birthday cake thing.
Now, taking a closer look, this is a pretty fun, pretty exciting news item for people who follow the happenings in the film world. Just look at all the elements: you have the man who is the basis for one of the more beloved characters in recent film history, you have a film critic - which brings in people's feelings of criticism and judgement, you have somebody standing up for himself, and you have random elements attached (Jackie the Joke Man). It's everything you could want in a word-of-mouth story. Without the event happening at a press-heavy event such as Sundance, it'd be sure to mutate into an absolutely insane story as the real life telephone game was played.
So, is this an instance of "No such thing as bad publicity"? Not really. If this is all sort of sham (which, again, I highly doubt), it's a poorly put together one. The story emphasizes the wrong elements (The producer of the film, rather than the film itself), hinges on the film not being great, and the story can be told without even mentioning the name of the film (see?). Everybody remembers the ad where the Gorilla plays the drums for "In the Air Tonight", nobody remembers it's an ad for milk.
So, if it's not a good promotional tool, why is it so exciting? Simple - it brings back the feelings of a time when independent film's edge wasn't just on the screen. The edge came from the people involved and it was exciting. I distinctly remember being very young and watching Harmony Korrine on Letterman talking about butts and being surprised that they could get away with going the places they did on TV. It stuck with me, I didn't know his name, but I knew that the guy who wrote Kids was absolutely nuts.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not making the tired old, "Indies have lost their edge" argument. First of all, I don't believe that it's necessarily independent film's responsibility to be edgy, second, on the screen in the past few years you've had movies ranging from Joe Swanberg's Kissing on the Mouth, to Todd Solondz's Palindromes - two films that pushed boundaries that mainstream film wouldn't. That said, the elements outside the films are nothing but edgy - Swanberg is one of the nicest people you could meet, Solondz is terribly shy and awkward. Neither one is going to leave an indelible mark on a young person's brain should they be on Letterman (and they should, but that's for a different time).
To expand, I can't really think of any sort of real craziness that has emerged in recent years. Those who are pushing boundaries in interviews are the same people from a decade ago - Korine is still telling his outlandish stories to where you're not sure what you're going to get, Larry Clark is still hanging out with some very young kids, Crispin Glover is still nuts, etc. In recent years, there hasn't been the strong personality coming from off-camera that really captures people's imaginations.
And yes, Dowd has been around for quite some time, and has let his personality show for his whole life. But the incident brings back the sort of "anything can happen" mentality that indies showcased throughout the 90s, instead of the current "studio flicks, but quirkier" image that is held by the zeitgeist now. The whole thing reminds me of the '97 incident where Quentin Tarantino beat up Don Murphy for his handling of Natural Born Killers. It allowed QT's passions to be seen extending beyond film geek minutiae and the incident quickly became legend.
Of your favorite indie filmmakers this decade, who's really standing out off-set? Which breakout filmmaker makes you say, "I want his life?" Who out there really excites you and makes you just wonder what they're going to do next?
I'm hard pressed to think of anybody.
What incident recently has made you really interested in a film - not a trailer, or still, or positive review - but something outside of the film made you interested in the independent film world?
Outside of some sale somewhere or the whole Slumdog story, nothing really stands out.
And why is this? It's hard to believe that there isn't an eccentric, outgoing filmmaker these days. There has to be crazy stuff going on out there besides this. Has the desperado element of filmmaking translated from doing whatever it takes and not giving a fuck to just making a film without money? Yes, a lot of this has to do with what is getting picked up (the Frozen Rivers over the Frownlands), and all the other issues I belabor and gripe about here... but, of what we have, should we be making it exciting?
Just a thought.
The Golden Globe that almost wasn't: Slumdog Millionaire
I'm not one for the award shows really, but, every once in a while do I get behind a film and really root for it. Like everyone else on the planet, one of my favorite films of the year is Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire - which took home the Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director Golden Globes I first got exposed to the film by working a press day with Danny himself at Austin Film Festival. You better believe it was a great day. I'd always thought that Danny was one of the best working today (Yes, before it was cool!) and just being around him and hearing him talk about movies made me feel like a better filmmaker just by being nearby.
Right now it's a tough market for smaller films - so tough that Slumdog nearly didn't get a release.
Warner Independent Pictures picked the film up for five million dollars initially, but then began to run the projections and they didn't like the commercial prospects. The film was put into the film festival circuit where Danny and this style of movie is popular, but essentially the film was dead in the water. However, the film absolutely killed at Toronto and Telluride film festivals causing Fox/Searchlight to enter into the scene and partnered with WIP to get the film out there.
It's far from the first time that this sort of thing has happened - most notably it happened to Little Miss Sunshine, too (although, it was the foreign sales that put LMS into doubt).
So what can we learn from this?
There's really two ways to look at it - The pessimist sees the turmoil and difficulty of getting a film released. That films that went on to make a gajillion dollars at the box office and DVD and racked up the awards by the bushel almost didn't make it to American audiences. The optimist sees films that resonate with audiences rising up and overcoming the current obstacles facing them (especially in Slumdog's case).
But really, these stories illustrate the frustrations in predicting audiences' appetites. Many times these prediction formulas are deadly accurate, but that doesn't mean they're really working. So often does a film seem to do everything right - cast big, be a really great movie, get great reviews but fizzles at the box office. Just as often a film comes from nowhere and "breaks out".
So what do we do with this? If you could figure out how to semi-accurately predict a box office gross you'll be richer than you can ever imagine.
I tend to take it as a point of encouragement.
Look at Slumdog - look at all the arguments going against it - Americans don't like subtitles. Americans don't like foreign films. Americans don't like movies with non-American leads. Americans don't care about India. Americans don't like movies that deal with depressing concepts (Indian poverty). American's don't care about "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" anymore. Etc., etc. etc. A lot of these arguments apply to the brilliant Let The Right One In, which is outperforming expectations as well, but not to the Slumdog degree.
While it doesn't mean that these arguments are dead - it does mean that a surprising segment of the moviegoing audience will shed their inhibitions every once in a while for a film that really reaches out and touches people. Will they go to every one of these real and genuine movies? No, not at all.
But every once in a while... they will come out, despite having all the baggage of unmarketability on top of it.
Isn't that really what a lot of all of this movie malarky is all about? Reaching out and connecting with people who wouldn't be reachable otherwise?
Just another way that Slumdog is inspiring. From a film that almost didn't get released (I think this effectively kills the "Film Festivals are irrelevant in a non-buying market" argument pretty well).
WIP picked up Slumdog Millionaire for $5 Million and nearly didn't release it. As of right now it has grossed $34 Million and won 4 Golden Globes.
Right now it's a tough market for smaller films - so tough that Slumdog nearly didn't get a release.
Warner Independent Pictures picked the film up for five million dollars initially, but then began to run the projections and they didn't like the commercial prospects. The film was put into the film festival circuit where Danny and this style of movie is popular, but essentially the film was dead in the water. However, the film absolutely killed at Toronto and Telluride film festivals causing Fox/Searchlight to enter into the scene and partnered with WIP to get the film out there.
It's far from the first time that this sort of thing has happened - most notably it happened to Little Miss Sunshine, too (although, it was the foreign sales that put LMS into doubt).
So what can we learn from this?
There's really two ways to look at it - The pessimist sees the turmoil and difficulty of getting a film released. That films that went on to make a gajillion dollars at the box office and DVD and racked up the awards by the bushel almost didn't make it to American audiences. The optimist sees films that resonate with audiences rising up and overcoming the current obstacles facing them (especially in Slumdog's case).
But really, these stories illustrate the frustrations in predicting audiences' appetites. Many times these prediction formulas are deadly accurate, but that doesn't mean they're really working. So often does a film seem to do everything right - cast big, be a really great movie, get great reviews but fizzles at the box office. Just as often a film comes from nowhere and "breaks out".
So what do we do with this? If you could figure out how to semi-accurately predict a box office gross you'll be richer than you can ever imagine.
I tend to take it as a point of encouragement.
Look at Slumdog - look at all the arguments going against it - Americans don't like subtitles. Americans don't like foreign films. Americans don't like movies with non-American leads. Americans don't care about India. Americans don't like movies that deal with depressing concepts (Indian poverty). American's don't care about "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" anymore. Etc., etc. etc. A lot of these arguments apply to the brilliant Let The Right One In, which is outperforming expectations as well, but not to the Slumdog degree.
While it doesn't mean that these arguments are dead - it does mean that a surprising segment of the moviegoing audience will shed their inhibitions every once in a while for a film that really reaches out and touches people. Will they go to every one of these real and genuine movies? No, not at all.
But every once in a while... they will come out, despite having all the baggage of unmarketability on top of it.
Isn't that really what a lot of all of this movie malarky is all about? Reaching out and connecting with people who wouldn't be reachable otherwise?
Just another way that Slumdog is inspiring. From a film that almost didn't get released (I think this effectively kills the "Film Festivals are irrelevant in a non-buying market" argument pretty well).
WIP picked up Slumdog Millionaire for $5 Million and nearly didn't release it. As of right now it has grossed $34 Million and won 4 Golden Globes.