Indie film execs ponder the future at BAFTA East Coast panel

By Sarah Sluis
FJI writer Doris Toumarkine reports exclusively for Screener on a May 27 gathering of leading New York-based film executives.

Indie veteran Mark Gill famously suggested at the height of gloom that "the sky is falling" on the specialized movie business. That prognosis got an encouraging if hardly conclusive update from a panel of high-level New York-based executives in the thick of the action at a May 27 BAFTA East Coast event at Scandinavia House in Manhattan.

The good news they reported is: The sky is still up there, although the forecast remains uncertain and evolving. The nominal topic�"Has Distribution Been Democratized at the Expense of Capitalism?"�was not resolved except for the politically inclined Focus Features CEO James Schamus drolly noting that "the Chinese have proven that capitalism can happen without democracy."

But the focus of the event was on indie film in our democracy and how that business might heal itself and make capitalism proud. Observations abounded, if not answers.

Concurring with the notion that the pipelines for movie consumption have indeed opened up, speakers pondered which new business models might also have profits running through those pipelines for content creators and deployers.

Journalist Anthony Kaufman, who has followed the independent scene for years and served as moderator, got the discussion going with the proclamation that "the [specialized] industry is in transition, not in decline." So far, so good.

Reminding that ticket, DVD and foreign sales are down and online distribution and video-on-demand activity haven't made up for the loss in revenues, he challenged the panel�Sony Pictures Classics co-chair Michael Barker, National Geographic Films president Daniel Battsek, Focus Features' Schamus, Cinetic Media founder and lawyer/sales agent/distributor John Sloss, and CAA agent Daniel Steinman�to come up with ideas for what can be done to get things on track.

Battsek, referring to his native U.K. where the emergence of multiplexes helped turn things around for independents, suggested "good movies in good theatres" might be a solution, that building more quality theatres stateside might get more people in seats. And Barker cited exhibitors like Cinemark and Regal that have screens dedicated to specialized product, making it easier for art-house fans to find them.

Regarding the so-so profitability, if any, of films on VOD, at least as seen by filmmakers and their sellers, Steinman, who sells films to distributors, suggested that the on-demand films need better marketing to viewers. The problem, as he sees it, is that there are just so many titles available and it's hard and confusing for consumers to find what they want.

Panelists referred to a number of other pressures, including piracy. In fact, Sloss proclaimed piracy "the real problem, as all we're going through a reorientation." Schamus pointed to Spain and Korea as the worst piracy offenders and Sloss backed this up with his observation that in Spain pirating movies is almost a badge of honor, that it's a "cultural" inclination that people "enjoy" and has become a "frightening habit."

Barker too called for a secure digital platform to guard against piracy, but also said there needs to be "a meeting of the minds on DVD price points."

Panelists pointed to the economic inefficiencies of the pricing of content, which does not reflect the true supply-to-demand ratio.

The conundrum of windows reared its head, with Sloss opining, "It's ridiculous having to wait so long after theatrical" for other outlets to be available, a delay viewed, right or wrongly, as fueling piracy. Others noted that there's no guarantee that getting ancillaries out earlier will counter piracy.

The strategy of day-and-date releasing got mixed notices. Some panelists agreed that simultaneous releases would be appropriate for certain, narrowly targeted films like the upcoming Restrepo or Alex Gibney's new documentary about Elliot Spitzer. With regard to the latter, Sloss said it might work first going into VOD, then theatrical, as "it has built-in awareness." And Battsek even suggested that to better understand day-and-date, "maybe we should take some risks and sacrifice a few movies to find the way to do this."

Barker agreed that perhaps the strategy could work for some films but explained that "the goal is for [Sony Pictures Classics] films to become evergreens, and day-and-date cuts off that opportunity." In other words, good films need a lot of exclusive time in theatres to generate the needed word of mouth and the revenues this produces.

CAA's Steinman agreed. "We don't put movies together thinking of the IFC or Magnolia [VOD] model. The way that money gets made for filmmakers is with theatrical happening first." Barker concurred, saying that "for a fair shake, filmmakers need theatrical," but he admitted that "if it seemed right, we would even experiment with a day-and-date situation."

And there's still the murky business of where and how much revenue there is in the VOD business, critical information that trickles back to filmmakers as rarely as the money does. And because VOD and DVD titles are so numerous, panelists joked that there is a clear advantage to films beginning with the letter "a" or a number to put them at the head of the long availability lists consumers must pore through.

Of course, the lower the budget for a film, the better, at least in terms of seeing a return. Kaufman suggested that the "bright budget" these days for indies is about $450,000. And while the trend is that directors and actors are cutting their fees, Steinman said that agents advise their clients not to work on spec.

The importance of P&A money these days was also addressed, as financiers also need to raise that cash, especially when no domestic distribution deal is in place for their projects. "We're more in the P&A business than ever before," declared Steinman.

As for the importance of marketing films to young audiences via Facebook or Twitter and other online sites, Barker observed that the studios, as opposed to the smaller distributors, are dealing with the Net the way they deal with TV. But Battsek pointed to the fact that using the Net is difficult because "everyone is pushing their products there, so it's more difficult than taking out a New York Times ad."

Overall, guarded optimism in spite of so many unanswered questions permeated the discussion, as did an acknowledgement that change will be inevitable if not yet identifiable. The somewhat upbeat vibe was also assuring, as these big guns of the indie sector seem less prone to the cheerleading done by their counterparts atop the studios and corporate conglomerates�a reflection of the indie films themselves, which tend to be more in touch with reality than mainstream fare.

But then, certain big-gun producers in the BAFTA audience like John Heyman and David Picker, known for their big-budget tentpoles and studio affiliations, might beg to differ.