if the vigilance had continued...

the new a&e series, the beast, sounds like the feature version of my short film, 'an exercise in vigilance'. according to this review, it's looks promising:

"The Beast is similar in many aspects to THE SHIELD in its elements but is much higher brow. The acting is better the writing is more crisp and the storyline is not transparent. You dont really know what is going on, who is crooked, who is not but you definitely find yourself wanting to know more."

supporting wikipedia

my latest donation cause is wikipedia. not only do i use the site constantly, i also believe in their goal which they so eloquently state as:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.

that is definitely something worth supporting.

so i encourage you, if you're a user of the site or believe in the free dissemination of information and knowledge as far and wide as possible, to also contribute.

getting facts straight while the sky is falling

back in june, mark gill of film independent gave a keynote speech, in which he explained how difficult the current climate is for independent film. it's spread around the internet like wildfire and has even been quoted in the los angeles times.

there's been a lot of discussion about the points he raised, but i was surprised by a fact he mentioned about the most popular film on netflix:

We also know there's an opening for quality based on data from the good folks at Netflix. Yes, they rent plenty of tentpole movie dvds, just like everyone else. But they also have the most accurate collaborative filtering technology I've seen. Type in 50 movies you like, and Netflix will tell you--with remarkable accuracy--what other films you will like.

This is how a relatively obscure film from 1974 became the most popular picture among Netflix's six million subscribers: because it's really good. The movie, by the way, is "The Conversation."

so i wrote netflix and asked them if this was accurate and how it was determined. here's what steve swasey of netflix's public relations had to say:

Christopher,

"Crash" is the #1 rented film of all time at Netflix. Below I’ve pasted the Top 100 list off my Netflix account.

“The Conversation” is not on the Top 100 list.

Netflix has 8.7 million members, not 6 million.

Mark Gill may be citing a New York Times article by David Leonhardt from a few years ago in which David wrote that Netflix gives life to hidden movies like “The Conversation.” But I don’t really know.

david seems to be on the right track. i found the article. here's the relevant section:

The company's servers also sift through the one billion ratings in its system to tell you which movies that you might like, based on which ones you have already liked.

The result is a vast movie meritocracy that gives a film a second or third life simply because — get this — it's good. Last year, "The Conversation" (average rating: four stars) was the 13th-most-watched movie from the early 1970's on Netflix.

so not exactly the most popular movie on netflix. at all.

makes me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of mark's facts, and the relevance of the conclusions he draws from them.

why isn't this going on in LA?

from the comments on this hd for indies article about the death of the independent film business model, comes this about living room theaters:

Hey Mike,

Interesting the timing of your rant… I am tinkering with the wording about what IS an “indie” film to you? Is it a movie where the money comes from private investors and/or somewhere besides a studio’s resources? Is it a movie made outside the boundaries of executives who dictate how a movie should and will be made? If you define what IS indie to you, you might find a path to profitability for “indie” projects a little easier.

To touch on a couple of points, and share my thoughts on how “indie” filmmakers can potentially make money: Sean, you mentioned Ballast and I have some personal experience with the “release” of this film and where Lance Hammer (the filmmaker) could have done better for himself.

Originally Lance signed a “distribution” deal with IFC after Sundance. He became unhappy with that arrangement for various reasons and decided to self-distribute. He worked with experienced distribution exec MJ Peckos who once was with First Look and Tartan.

I had randomly met someone who personally knew Lance at “the Conversation” down in Berkeley in October. He thought the theater that I work with (Living Room Theaters) here in Portland would be perfect for Lance’s film and said I should see if we could book it. Living Room’s programming department pursued the film and we were told, “Lance is only interested in playing 35MM.” Living Room Theaters is a new concept that is 100% digital-only and built from the ground up to support foreign/independent films and their filmmakers. Ballast ended up booking at the Hollywood Theater on the other side of town (another “indie” venue) and it did not gross well enough to hold. That was the end to Ballast’s Portland theatrical run.

To bring this back full circle… Sean, you specifically mention how you saw ‘fuzz’ in the projection which was caused by FILM PROJECTION that Lance insisted on having for his film. The viewing environment and your experience seeing Ballast was marred by the venue. This is where the vast majority of “indie” filmmakers screw themselves by limiting the revenue potential on “their” movie because of some personal quest for specific fulfillment. Another movie - “Manda Bala” by Jason Kohn suffered the same theatrical fate. If these films had played at Living Room (digitally), I guarantee they would have played longer, grossed more, and made more money for the distributor/filmmakers.

All of the “mini-majors” (Focus, Fox Searchlight, Paramount Vantage) that Mike mentions are using the very same marketing methodology for all of their releases as the majors which is why they are so insanely expensive to market/distribute. It’s also why they are all going out of business. Their methods are more akin to a science project for every film.

Here in Portland, we have found ZERO correlation between newspaper print ads and box office ticket sales for limited releases, yet EVERY SINGLE distributor INSISTS on doing them. This is a LARGE amount of money coming directly out of what the distributors could be making as PROFIT for EVERY film they distribute - in EVERY city. Instead they are throwing it away on an antiquated belief that there is effectiveness in them.

A while back, a local bi-weekly newspaper mistakenly ran the wrong ad (for a film that wasn’t playing) for Living Room. We braced ourselves for the pissed off customers who would arrive to find that movie not playing. NOT A SINGLE PERSON in the entire week showed up expecting to see the film.

Good “profitable” runs at Living Room can go for 8 or more weeks, and if more filmmakers would seek out venues like Living Room throughout the country, they would find ways to profitability. Theatrical runs feed reviews which help feed awareness which drives further marketability.

I could go on and on… I whole heartedly disagree with you Mike that there isn’t a business model for “independent” films - but then again, we might not be defining “independent” the same way.

Steve Herring
Drink Me Pictures and Living Room Theaters
Portland, OR

after looking at the site for living room theaters i really wondered why something like that doesn't exist here. i'd love to have an option like this nearby. the closest theater to us to play these types of films is usually 18 miles away in hollywood (the sunset 5).

i also found it fascinating that there was NO correlation for newspaper ads. i've often thought this (as i haven't looked at a newspaper for film times in probably 10 years), but it's amazing to see it confirmed so strongly.