Film Fund-amentals: Things to Come

Hard to believe it’s already 2011 and I still don’t have a flying car. No personal robot, either. I’m beginning to think I’m stuck in an endless loop of the 1990s. Much the same could be said of the list of projected movie releases for 2011.

Maybe it has something to due with the fact that a large chunk of the schedule for 2011 looks like a replay of 2010 (which was sort of a replay of 2009 which was a repeat of 2008). Heck, the first major time-waster up to bat is The Green Hornet, which was bumped out of the 2009 schedule (so, like, January is now a prime spot?). Many of the other titles are accompanied by either a numeral two or three (except for Spy Kids 4, and by the way, shouldn’t these “kids” be getting out of college by now?). It’s deja vu all over again for the umpteenth time in the greatest regurgitation fest since the last time my kid had stomach flu (which was also in 3D, as I recall).

In theory, it would only make sense in hard economic times for a business to stick to the tried and true. Too bad this approach hasn’t been working. In a recent Variety news story, the holiday box office is running way off. Variety blames it on the lack of something like Avatar. Since the success of Avatar was a bizarre fluke (based on a contract James Cameron signed in blood years ago with Satan), this is a little like blaming the Great Depression on the absence of a California Gold Rush.

Of the two films that fared at all well during the holiday period, only True Grit may actually be making any real money (estimated budget of $50 to $65 million with domestic gross of $86.7 million and rising). Little Fockers may be the number one film in the country, but with a budget hovering around $120 million and a current box office gross of $120.5 million, it actually will have a focking long way to go before it truly breaks even. Since the overseas gross is even worse (round $70 million, which means it’s going in reverse of recent successful trends), it may prove to be another example of how a stubborn audience is not cooperating with the Hollywood master plan.

Oddly enough, the fifth paragraph of the Variety article is the most interesting part of the story (despite being extremely short and quickly ignored). Two small indie movies — Another Year and Blue Valentine — were last week averaging about $20,065 per screen during a five-day engagement at roughly six locations. During this same time, Little Fockers was pulling in $7,249 per screen at 3,554 sites. OK, we all know that more movie-goers at a mall in Iowa will go see Little Fockers before they would be caught dead at a Mike Leigh film, but the comparison is still very, very provocative. Besides, I’ve been in Iowa. I can assure Mike Leigh that he wouldn’t want to be caught dead there either.

So basically, the central irony of contemporary American filmmaking will continue throughout 2011. The average major Hollywood film will be made for somewhere between $150 million and $5 bazillion. The box office will keep limping down the drain. Indie movies, on the rare occasions when they get released, will still be expected to perform as the main reliable money maker. They will still be looked down upon (except at award time — just look at any of the current announcements such as today’s WGA nominees). Basically, they are back-handed for the rude fact that they’re operating within a budget that can actually be tallied with less than twenty zeros. They work within a rational financial framework while most of the majors are using budget figures that have no basis in any form of economic reality. It really is that simple.

Since indie movies currently exist within the Hollywood community like an unwanted child left on a stranger’s doorstep, it’s no wonder that an increasing number of indie filmmakers are moving online. An entire web series can be done with a few bucks, some basic equipment and a pack of friends who are willing to give it the old school try. Likewise, the web-viewing population is expanding (with a corresponding drop in theater attendance). Gee, does this sound like a growth market or what? It can be done for not all that much cost; you have easy access to distribution; the audience is growing by leaps and bounds. Granted, nobody has quite figured out how to make a profit, but at least the zone is open.

So far, this approach to indie filmmaking has been largely ignored by Hollywood (somewhat similar to how they originally ignored TV until they saw the audience slipping away). That will soon change. Like dogs following a meat wagon, Hollywood will have to pursue the fleeing audience. Once that happens, the scene will change (and not necessarily for the better, since most studio executives have no clue regarding the online universe and largely despise it as an alien presence). But until that moment, it is an indie filmmaker’s virtual best friend.

This venue also offers a form of safe harbor to many young indie filmmakers. The current Hollywood attitude toward the indie scene is not quite up to the generous level of scraps tossed from a rich man’s table. In turn, the average indie filmmaker simply does not waste enough money up the wazoo to be considered important. This will eventually change once Hollywood starts to collapse (and though I don’t totally buy into the End of Hollywood theory, something very close to that is in the process of happening — for one thing, Hollywood is controlled by the same global financial system that is half-imploding, so why would the studios be magically excluded from the meltdown?). But while waiting for the inevitable changes that will result from this collapse, the web series format isn’t a bad place to work at both the art and craft of production.

Heck, it’s almost like a cross between film school and an old-fashioned B movie production house. I suspect that if John Cassavetes were still alive, we would be watching his series online.