How To Video Challenge
FILMMAKER
The Magazine of Independent Film

FILMMAKER BLOG Blog RSS Feed

Saturday, January 28, 2006
SELF DISTRIBUTOR NO MORE 


In Filmmaker this issue writer-director Andrew Bujalski interviews Caveh Zahedi, whose I am a Sex Addict won the new Filmmaker-sponsored "Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You" award at the Gotham's this year. As a sidebar to the piece, Zahedi penned a "Self Distribution Manifesto" explaining the moral imperative behind his decision to distribute his film himself. Zahedi started the piece by admitting that he had always dreamed of getting big distribution deals for his film and that none were forthcoming for Sex Addict. But midway through he turned what could have been a sour-grapes rant into a rousing call for filmmaker self-actualization, even quoting Hegel in the process:

"The truth is that self-distribution is fun, and not only is it fun, it’s empowering. Which brings me to the heart of the matter: whether an outside distributor would do a 'better' or a 'worse' job releasing the film is immaterial. The real question is: why are we making films in the first place? The answer for me has something to do with wanting to humanize the world. Hegel teaches us that we make the world our own by altering it, by leaving our own imprint on it, by reshaping it in our own image. This is the crux of my argument for self-distribution. It’s less alienating. It’s more organic. And it’s more human."

So, I was a little surprised when, shortly after our issue hit the stands, I read in Indiewire that Zahedi will not actually be self-distributing his film. Following the Filmmaker/Gotham award, I am a Sex Addict was picked up by IFC as part of its new "First Take" program, in which indie films will receive simultaneous theatrical and video-on-demand releases.

Figuring that there were perhaps some situational ethics at work here -- quote Hegel until a real distributor pops up for your film -- and perhaps feeling a bit embarassed to have run such a passionate "call to arms" from a filmmaker who has just saved himself months of licking envelopes and sticking screeners into FedEx packages, I decided to challenge Zahedi via email to explain himself to our readers. If you've seen the film, you know that he's a wily rhetorician, and after hitting send I sat back and awaited what I was sure would be provocative and combustible response.

Unfortunately for me, Zahedi's reply was, like his film, disarmingly sincere. Here's his answer to my question on why he bailed on his plans to self-distribute his film:

"I ended up taking the IFC deal because of the people who work at IFC. I liked them as people, and they convinced me that it would be a partnership as opposed to a 'purchase.' They also convinced me that I would still be very much involved in the actual work of distributing the film, but that I would be doing it as part of a team rather than having to go it alone. In short, they convinced me that the experience would be one of greater community rather than less.

I still stand behind what I wrote. I do think it is important to valorize the actual work of distribution, and that self-distribution is as noble and valid an endeavor as self-financing. But I also believe that if there are good people who love your film and are offering to help you get it out into the world, refusing their help would be contrary to the purpose of making the film in the first place."


# posted by Scott Macaulay @ 1/28/2006 01:23:00 AM
Comments (2)

 
Zahedi had booked & played Sex Addict in Seattle before the IFC deal was announced, so he was self-distributing prior to the new development. What's important in this story is the fact that he embraced the idea of self-distribution(as opposed to running from it as many indie filmmakers do) and actually started work on that project. Today's indie filmmakers should consider indie/self-distribution to be a part of the process of making an indie film. That way, whether the film gets picked up by another distributor or not, all the work will not go to waste. This attitude also frees you up to tackle whatever subject (no matter how "non-commercial") you want, gives total casting freedom, etc. Indie films should offer things that Hollywood & Indiewood don't or can't. Knowing that the film will get seen by an audience will give the indie filmmaker more courage to experiment, I think.

Sujewa
http://www.wilddiner.com/
# posted by Anonymous Sujewa Ekanayake @ 1/28/2006 11:37 AM  

 
Hey Scott,
I sent an email but I don't know if you got it. The end of "The Schizoid Man" interview with Rick has a chunk of an interview with Caveh pasted into it.
# posted by Blogger Wiley @ 1/31/2006 3:02 PM  


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?



WINTER 2009

RECENT POSTS

FILMMAKING FROM THE HOODS
I ALWAYS WONDERED ABOUT THAT...
"LION IN THE HOUSE" DIRECTOR BATTLES CANCER
FILMMAKER WINTER 06/SITE RELAUNCH
1000 BLOODY RED PIECES OF SARAH REDUX
1000 BLOODY RED PIECES OF SARAH: A FILMMAKER BLOG ...
TOUCH ME IN THE MORNING
THE SCIENCE OF IT ALL
IS AMY PASCAL REALLY AMY PASCAL?
CURRENT AFFAIRS


ARCHIVES

Current Posts
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008

home | archives | blog | resources | fest circuit | back issues | buy print subscription | buy digital subscription | digital sample | subscription FAQ | advertise | contact

© 2009 Filmmaker Magazine