Independent Film Distribution: Anyone's Game Allison Victoria Carroll Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Independent Film Distribution: Anyone’s Game Allison Victoria Carroll Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Fine Arts in Film and Television at The Savannah College of Art and Design ©March 2012, Allison Victoria Carroll The author hereby grants SCAD permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic thesis copies of document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature of Author and Date _______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________/_____/_______ Amy Lerner‐Maddox (Sign here) (Date here) Committee Chair __________________________________________________________________________________/_____/_______ Bear Brown (Sign here) (Date here) Committee Member __________________________________________________________________________________/_____/_______ Amanda Kulkoski (Sign here) (Date here) Committee Member Independent Film Distribution: Anyone’s Game A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Film and Television Department in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts Savannah College of Art and Design By Allison Victoria Carroll Savannah, Georgia March 2012 Table of Contents 1. Thesis Abstract 2. Independent Film Distribution: Anyone’s Game 33. Works Cited Page Independent Film Distribution: Anyone’s Game Allison Victoria Carroll March, 2011 This thesis focuses on independent film distribution and viral marketing. It was necessary to delve into the origins of independent film distribution and marketing in conjunction with how it shaped the film industry today. In order to fully investigate this topic it was essential to thoroughly define what an independent film is, in addition to the different types of independent film. Another important aspect discussed by this paper is the beginning of the independent film buzz, starting with Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989), and how the film influenced what was to happen in years to come in the film industry. Another topic is viral marketing techniques being utilized by independent filmmakers. This paper compares The Blair Witch Project (1999), which had the first notable viral marketing campaign, with District 9 (2009), which came out 10 years later and got its start on the Internet. Because of the ever‐changing nature of the film industry, this paper will also briefly discuss relatively new marketing and distribution strategies, such as day and date, and the films that have found success under these strategies; namely, J.C. Chandor’s Margin Call (2011). The way independent films were marketed when the “indie blockbuster” occurred and the way independent films are marketed now are completely different, but effective in their own right. This paper goes on to explore these differences as well as how these techniques apply to young filmmakers today. Lastly, this paper discusses these emerging types of independent film distribution and how they relates to the marketing and distribution of my thesis film, Light (2009). 1 The “Golden Age” of Hollywood is over. There is no surprise in that statement. While big budget films and Hollywood directors are still in demand, a new genre is gaining prominence: the independent film. Viewers are looking to films with lower budgets and, at times, lower production value in exchange for unique ways of viewing films. The relative success of independent films is proof that audiences are hungry for these unorthodox methods and ideas. For the purpose of this paper, I will be analyzing several successful independent films and their ever‐changing methods of distribution and marketing, starting with one of the original “indie blockbusters”, Steven Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989). This paper will also examine Oren Peli’s Paranormal Activity (2007), Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez’s The Blair Witch Project (1999), and Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 (2009). The four aforementioned films have come to be extremely well known, both for the unforeseen amounts of money they earned and for their unlikely appeal to mass audiences. However, many independent films fall far short of being called blockbusters and yet manage to make money and reach niche audiences just the same. As an example of these, this paper will also briefly touch upon J.C. Chandor’s Margin Call (2011), an independent film taking a different route that has also enjoyed a certain degree of success. After examining the similarities and differences of marketing techniques and distribution deals, it is imperative to relate the outcome to independent films being made now, for which I will use my thesis film, Light (2009), as an example. The term “independent film” has changed drastically over the years and requires a re‐examination. In order to discuss them as accurately as possible it is 2 necessary to narrow down the definition of the term “independent film”. Michael P. Connelly author of the book, How to Make a Movie With A Very, Very, Low Budget, says on his website, that a technical definition for independent films is, “Any movie that was funded with less than 50% of money that came from one of the “big six” major film studios”.1 Since the average viewer is rarely aware of where a film’s budget comes from, the term “independent” is being used with increased frequency. Because of this, it is necessary to put the definition under more scrutiny. While some of the budget for these films may come from independent sources like individual investors, film grants, personal funds, and fundraising, it often comes from “splinter divisions” of major studios.2 Some of these “splinter divisions” include, but are not limited to: Paramount Classics, Sony Pictures Classic, Fox Searchlight, and Focus Features. Additionally, numerous independent films may in fact be funded independently in regards to their production budget, but their marketing/prints and advertising budget could be enormous due to a distribution deal from a large studio. The lines are so severely blurred now that pinpointing an all‐encompassing, accurate definition of the term is nearly impossible. Jon Reiss, author of Think Outside The Box Office: The Ultimate Guide To Film Distribution And Marketing For The Digital Era, likes to use the term “hybrid distribution” as opposed to independent or do‐it‐yourself distribution. The term hybrid distribution comes from Peter Broderick, a distribution strategist who says, 1 Independent films and festivals. Michael P. Connelly. 2007. Web. 06 Jun. 2011. <www.makeindependentfilms.com>. 1. 2 Ibid 3 “…hybrid distribution allows filmmakers to combine limited deals with different distribution partners (e.g. educational, theatrical, television, home video) and direct sales from their website.”3 Reiss goes on to expand the term to, “…any time a filmmaker or media content creator uses a variety of techniques (conventional and/or unconventional, working with companies and/or DIY, old school and/or new school) in order to distribute and market their content.”4 Both definitions speak to an independent filmmaker’s need to combine all the necessary fundraising and distribution alleys in order to get their film out into the world. This topic will be revisited later in the paper when discussing my thesis film and my goals and strategies for marketing and distribution. The means in which independent filmmakers raise money have also changed. They have taken to the Internet with websites like Kickstarter.com and Indiegogo.com. These websites allow filmmakers to set up fundraising campaigns with goals for their film’s budget that they must reach in order to receive the money pledged. They can upload videos that introduce the above the line crew and discuss what the film is about. Gift packages are also made an option for people who pledge at certain tiers. These gift packages often include DVDs, t‐shirts, posters, as well as associate producer credits or a “thank you” during the end credits. So long as the filmmakers achieve their fundraising goal, they are given the amount of money raised minus a small percentage taken by the site. The money raised can include 3 Reiss, Jon. Think Outside The Box Office: The Ultimate Guide To Film Distribution And Marketing For The Digital Era. Hybrid Cinema Publishing, 2010. 22. 4 Ibid 4 funds for production and post‐production; some filmmakers even use these sites in order to raise funds for film festival submission fees, which can be very expensive. Often considered the first stage for independent films, festivals are an integral part of the process, granting filmmakers exposure and, in some cases, distribution deals. This trend began in the 1980s and has continued into present day, although now film festivals must battle the popularity and ease of the Internet, as well as an influx of independent films and festivals. Since the success of Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape, film festivals have also been increasing rapidly in numbers; more and more film festivals are popping up in cities all around the globe. Acceptance into a large and prestigious film festival can mean thousands of eyes are on a filmmaker’s work and, if it is good enough, it could lead to a distribution deal, be it studio or otherwise. Sex, Lies, and Videotape centers on a man who is having an affair with his wife’s sister until another woman enters the picture with very strange sexual fetishes. This was one of the first independent films to strike gold in the festival circuit when it screened at Sundance in 1989, which was then still known as the U.S. Film Festival.5 It harnessed one of the biggest distribution deals as well as investment returns during its time, being an even better investment than Batman (1989).6 Sex, Lies, and Videotape was made on a $1.2 million budget and in the end 5 Perren, Alisa. “sex, lies and marketing: Miramax and the Development of the Quality Indie Blockbuster.” Film Quarterly, Vol 55, No. 2 (Winter 2001), pp. 30‐39. 29 Jun.