January 8, 2003

If You’ve Got a Niche, Scratch It

The hills are alive with the sound of money … and fame.

Except they’re not hills, they’re Wasachs and, as we all know, money and fame are fleeting at best and illusionary by film industry definition. Two things have inspired this brief poetic digression: The looming Sundance Film Festival and a spate of year-end recaps that once again struggle and fail to assess the so-called independent film scene.

Let’s begin with one simple fact. There is no independent film scene. There is a dependent film scene; there may even be an alternative cinema. But the people who work outside the mainstream do not in any significant fashion have a way of networking. There isn’t the infrastructure of a studio, and organizations, such as the Independent Feature Project, can only do so much to coalesce all the interests and splinter factions working unconventionally if we are to presume the majors represent the norm.

Let’s also be clear that a healthy percentage of these “independents” are striving to be taken into the fold. The few with the talent and ambition to create movies not shaped by cookie cutter molds also invariably understand they shouldn’t be working at or for a studio.

Several Sundances ago, I ran into a filmmaker whose two decade plus career has largely been fueled by alternative financing and specialized theaters in the U.S. and abroad. He was presenting his latest movie at the festival and was happy about its response and the attention he and the film were receiving. Let’s just call him Ralph (obviously not his real name). Now, Ralph, in my opinion, is not only a conspicuous talent but very lucky. He’s been able to direct a film almost every year and, in an aside to his wife Alice, I asked whether he appreciated this fact. She felt he did but added that there was one thing he’d yet to achieve that remained a very real goal. I waited in anticipation of something lofty. “Ralph,” she said, “wants to make a really successful film.”

Now, Ralph has made very successful movies. What he wants is to make a mainstream film that will attract a huge audience, and it has little to do with landing a big pay day. It probably won’t happen because his perspective is too idiosyncratic for conventional moviegoers. This is borne out by a couple of films he made for studios. Now, I don’t begrudge him for harboring that fantasy; I understand it completely. Filmmakers are communicators and want to have a dialogue with as many people as possible. I suspect that the Coen brothers and Jim Jarmush know they have a core appeal to a sliver of society. Without pandering, they strive to expand that base and not simply, so to speak, preach to the converted.

Jarmush and the Coens are alternative voices but their position within the film industry is not homogeneous. The Coens are about as mainstream as you can get without succumbing to the Bel Air circuit and lifestyle. They and their films receive Oscar and Golden Globe nominations, attract name talent and are distributed by companies with the wherewithal to successfully compete with the blockbusters as counter-programming. Jarmush films appeal to a smaller segment, and that simply means he has fewer financial options and a more limited talent pool at his disposal. He adapts quite well to the physical limitations because his artistic vision isn’t based on pyrotechnics or marquee value.

Movies are an odd commodity. They can cost more than $100 million to produce or as little as $100,000. Tens of millions more can be spent in marketing and promoting an individual title. Yet, when you arrive at the multiplex or reach the cashier at a video outlet, you’re likely to pay the same amount to see either product or all that come between. It’s perhaps because of this that films with very different agendas get lumped together and, worse, are compared using the same yardstick.

Most of the majors have release slates that include films they develop and produce, movies on which they partner with another company (often splitting domestic and international rights), investment structured as negative pickups and straight acquisition. Miramax, for instance, financed Chicago, partnered on The Gangs of New York and acquired such pictures as In the Bedroom and Tadpole. The financial risks on each are quite different. The $35 million domestic box office generated by In the Bedroom translates into a success but that same result would be a balance sheet loss for Chicago.

It also should be noted that Chicago and Gangs are films intended for a mass audience. Bedroom and Tadpole didn’t have to play on 1000 screens to be successful, but the former title crossed over and the latter did not. Some acquisitions are for the mainstream (Half Past Dead with Steven Seagal) while others will play specialized venues (Welcome to Collinwood) and a few that are viewed as having limited appeal will cross over into the mainstream (My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

There used to be an obvious distinction between the majors and independents. I recall an industry analyst who observed that studio pictures were designed to break even or better and, as a result, indies rarely made money. But that was almost 20 years ago. Since then the picture has become muddier as studios established, disbanded and re-established specialty arms. The dilemma for the studios is that they’re not truly interested in movies that, after considerable time, energy and nurturing, return a profit of $2 million. What they’re in the market for is something that can start small and cross over like The Crying Game or The Full Monty.

Let’s imagine for a moment that My Big Fat Greek Wedding was largely confined to playing specialized venues. Immediately ones options shrink from 30,000 to 500 screens. But let’s say in this hypothetical situation the picture is able to average 300 playdates over 20 weeks with an average theater gross of $7,000 a week. We all know that Greek Wedding has a box office of more than $225 million. In the alternate scenario it grosses $42 million and, historically, you’d be hard pressed to find more than a handful of movies that have made more than $30 million (Imax movies being a unique exception) primarily from niche exploitation.

A few of the majors have divisions that are solely in the acquisitions business such as Paramount Classics, United Artists and Sony Classics (its only production, Auto-Focus was financed from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon profits). Increasingly, the shift has been to move away from buying and to produce, as has occurred with Fox Searchlight and appears to be the direction of Focus. It all boils down to the fact that fewer and fewer films made without any assistance from the majors are turning profits, significant or modest.

The 2002 box office of My Big Fat Greek Wedding was slightly more then the combined gross of 250 movies released in North America by non-majors last year. And that doesn’t begin to address the hundreds of films that go direct-to-video or cable annually.

Among the top 50 worldwide grosser last year, only three - Greek Wedding, France’s Asterix and Obelisk: Mission Cleopatra and Gosford Park (USA prior to being acquired by Universal) - were produced without studio financing. To that number, one can add just nine American indies that grossed more than $10 million globally. In descending box office they were : Monster’s Ball, In the Bedroom, Jonah: A Veggie Tale, National Lampoon’s Van Wilder, Super Troopers, Frailty, Bowling for Columbine, The Good Girl and Kissing Jessica Stein. The total doesn’t even add up to the compliment required for Sundance’s dramatic competition. Five of the films were acquired following festival screenings and two were given healthy assists following Golden Globe and Oscar nominations.

There’s still more bad news for American indies when one compares domestic performance to international box office. Though I hate to go back once again to My Big Fat Greek Wedding, I must. That film has already generated $60 million outside North America with such major territories as France, Germany, Mexico and

Japan yet to open. It should ultimately gross more than $100 million overseas. Of the remaining American movies only Monster’s Ball and In the Bedroom grossed more than $10 million internationally, respectively 33% and 25% of their domestic tally. In that respect, Bowling for Columbine and Van Wilder were most impressive with international box office approaching 50% of North American performance and Jonah might not even receive theatrical exposure.

It’s not necessary for these films to gross $100 mlllion and take out self-congratulatory trade ads. They do not operate in the same arena as Spider-Man or anything with a Roman numeral in its title. The sad part of it all is that, despite the analyst’s dire view of their viability two decades ago, while their profile has risen, the financial picture has darkened.

So, let’s add another word commonly tossed about with indie, specialized and niche. That word is “alternative.” While the best of off-Hollywood fare is different and unique from its mainstream brethren, most of it is imitative. And given the choice of seeing a police drama with state-of-the-art effects and a romantic comedy featuring movie stars or the same genres made with unknowns on bargain basement budgets, where will your (insert local ticket price here) $9 be spent. All things being equal, it’s not hard to figure out most people’s choice. The alternative has to be truly alternative and not simply cheaper if it hopes to retain a voice that’s different from the mainstream and viable in a cruel and unforgiving marketplace.

EMAIL THE AUTHOR