You know, I still have no idea what the fuck "truly free film" means. It's sounds like some crackpot academic utopian idea. Is this an advocacy of Socialism? Is that it?
# posted by  Anonymous @ 12/07/2008 4:37 PM  

 
Hey Anonymous,

What I hoped to represent with the "Truly Free Film" moniker is something more accurate and indicative of the goal of working outside the mainstream. Generally speaking, a filmmaker who hopes to make a living has had to create for the mainstream market; if they are responsible individuals, they have to make work that they anticipate will sell. If the Internet remains open and equal for all, and we truly work to utilize it, and we work together, we can now create for the true niches, even for audiences that we aggregate ourselves. Granted the infrastructure is not there yet, and it won't be built by outside forces, but it can be built, owned, and maintained by those that will most benefit from it -- and with that comes the prospect of earning a regular and decent wage for the creative work that you do (or work facilitating the viewing of that work). I would call it more Economic Democracy than socialism.
Ted Hope
# posted by  Ted Hope @ 12/08/2008 6:19 AM  

 
Yeah, what does that mean? That you give it away for free? Who's going to pay for it?

Anyway, a little o/t, but I know you're always looking for good news in the indie film business and I came across this article, which maybe you didn't see. These guys see the economy tanking in traditional sectors, so they see, I guess comparatively, that the independent film business has a lot going for it. Hope the link works...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/07fe4d7e-c485-11dd-8124-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
# posted by  Anonymous @ 12/08/2008 7:50 AM  

 
Thanks for that link -- not OT at all.

That's the kind of article, though, that calls into question the definition of "independent film."' I think the average no-budget filmmaker is not a good credit risk, and the legal and bank fees required to close these deals would be a multiple of the film cost. They are obviously referring to films that have some kind of distribution infrastructure behind them, I would think.
# posted by  Scott Macaulay @ 12/08/2008 1:00 PM  

 
Scott, I actually think that "Content, Form and Change" is the kind of article that calls into question the definition of being an independent filmmaker - or any kind of artist, for that matter. As someone who works in multiple media, I don't FIRST make expressive decisions based on what format will move the most units or attract the highest number of twits - I don't have the luxury of that choice. Maybe some people do, but that's a different process. My creative decisions based on what will most clearly convey the expression or concept I'm dealing with - on what FEELS right. Are there ramifications to those decisions in the day and age? Does Corey Arcangel have a leg up on Francis Ford Coppola? You bet. But both are doing sincere work in the media in which they feel the most fluid and in which they can most accurately and sincerely express themselves. The danger with articles like this is that they lead to insincere work and the same kind of self-censorship that makes filmmakers to try to write "marketable" scripts. You cannot pander to an imaginary audience. You can only be true. And then - this is the key - you can take as much creative care of that expression as you can. THIS is where the creativity and care must come in. But that is not one of the three options that Heffernan lays out.

I think that the following interview MIke Plante did with Phil Solomon a while back on Cinemad would provide a great service and counterpoint to Heffernan:

http://www.cinemad.iblamesociety.com/search/label/Phil%20Solomon

It's up to all of us to fight for, create and sustain the work, market and world we want to live in. We have to be as creative with the business and distribution lives of our work as we are with the work itself. And this option is not really discussed by Heffernan. To use her own example, Kraft Foods hasn't stopped making cheese because it doesn't work in the digital age, but they ARE being more creative and intelligent about how they're marketing and taking care of their products out in the big, bad digital world. Throwing up our hands and trying to change what we're doing - what we feel compelled to do for whatever reason as artists and filmmakers - is not the solution. Taking better and more creative care of ourselves, our work and the lives it leads - is.
# posted by  Braden King @ 12/08/2008 2:21 PM  

 
Hi Braden,

Thanks so much for posting.

I'm not sure you and Heffernan are saying things that are radically different. (And, keep in mind, she's coming from the point of view of a writer for a newspaper, the NY Times, that is is actively and visibly struggling to transition to a model that blends the virtues of print with the possibilities of the web). This sentence from her piece seems to me to represent the point of view that one approach is to maintain a level of care and craftsmanship:

"People who work in traditional media and entertainment ought either to concentrate on the antiquarian quality of their work, cultivating the exclusive audience of TV viewers or magazine readers that might pay for craftsmanship."

I agree that trying to out-2.0 the Web 2.0 audience, especially if your brain is not wired that way, is a losing proposition. But I do think that unless one understands how audiences are changing in the way they watch and learn about work that one is relegating oneself to a shrinking pool of viewers and financing. Perhaps a filmmaker can change just by understanding more about how communities form around their work and just find new ways to interact with them. They would be working under what Heffernan calls the "antiquarian model," but that's okay.

I will admit to always being interested in how technology changes form and content, and that is the other element of Heffernan's article. However, I don't think that this development is new to the Web 2.0 world. On one of the conversations on Ted's site, I read a filmmaker talking about how despite changes in technology that songwriters were still just writing songs. Well, yeah, but the history of 20th century music, both popular and avant-garde classical, has been transformed by the technological possibilities of the recording studio and its ability to shape and contour sound. So, I guess my point in this long ramble, which has drifted away from your post, is that form, content and our notions of what is "true" are always changing as a result of what's all around us. You're right, when it comes to a certain kind of expression, Cory Arcangel does have a leg up on Coppola, although I'd also argue that the traditional storytelling skills of a Coppola are still vital as well.

I guess I feel that it's important to think about all of this even if one is going to wind up deciding to simply do what one has been doing. By doing so, that becomes an active choice, not simply the result of remaining on autopilot.
# posted by  Scott Macaulay @ 12/08/2008 2:46 PM  

 
I think you're right that the company in the ft link isn't talking about no-budget films, but if I read it correctly, they were going to build some of their own distribution network. And even if they don't, it was still a little bit of optimism. I love the idea that, while film is a risky investment, at least it's better than a company like General Motors, where there is no risk - you're guaranteed to lose money.
# posted by  Anonymous @ 12/08/2008 6:41 PM  

 
You are completely right -- I looked very quickly and didn't take the time to read it thoroughly. Now that I have, it does make clear that the business they are going into is distribution or, perhaps even more accurately, sales. They also mention wanting to broker film libraries.

What makes this business an okay one (that is, assuming you are able to sell what you acquire) is that sales fees are paid before equity investor recoupment. But it is nice to know that there is institutional money out there wanting to take a bet on this sector.

What I found interesting is that central to their business seems to be the acquisition of Moving Pictures magazine, which seems to have its distribution label. I remember when Film Threat used to do that, but I haven't ever come across a more industry-centered zine that tries to make that balance work.
# posted by  Scott Macaulay @ 12/08/2008 8:21 PM  

Post a Comment