Fig 1. Ad for

Sling Blade, a

critical success

Fig 2. Poster for

Pieces of April

MONDAY JANUARY 26, 2004

Volume 190 Number 17

Studios and Directors in Conflict Over

how Marketing and Distribution is

Handled

By Matt Fischer-Colbrie

Editor-in-Chief

The Indie-movie scene has been booming over the last few years. Hits like The Blair Witch Project, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, 28 Days Later, and Sling Blade have all risen to prominence in recent times. This has pushed a wave of newcomers into the fold as many aspire to find similar riches through this raw form of filmmaking. Concern has arisen however that even with the influx of new independent films on the market, most will not see the light of day in theaters.

Why is this happening? Simply put, advertising costs have steadily increased to the point where studios are unwilling to risk

spending lots of money promoting a film that doesn’t offer a sure guarantee of at least breaking even in monetary returns.

Filmmakers have cried out that the studios are not doing the best possible job in creating a buzz for their movie. Many feel taken advantage of and underrepresented in their control over distribution. “The issue at hand has made it extremely hard for people like myself to gain any kind of foothold in the indie-movie business,” says Julia Tompkins, director of The Crystal Edge; a provocative independent film currently shelved indefinitely at Fox Searchlight Pictures. “The studios as a whole haven’t been able to adapt well to the changing costs. The movie makers though are the ones who end up losing.” The studios in response have said that marketing an indie is not only difficult, but potentially damaging for the company should the film not attract an audience. In addition, they have noted that a majority of these filmmakers have misconceptions about what the word “marketing”

INDIE FILMMAKERS FACE BIGGER BUMPS IN

ROAD TO BOX OFFICE SUCCESS

75th Year

Fig 3. Print ad for

Monsoon

Wedding

actually entails. Warner Bros. Associate of

Distribution, Martin Peterson, says, “Print ads, trailers, media blitzes, pre-screenings, and newspaper layouts are just a few of the many forms of movie advertising.”

These costs add up over time and can drive the big time studios away from independent fare. Even movie houses that specialize in the distribution of smaller, low-budget movies have expressed their unease over how to relieve the stresses these costs have placed upon them.

Today’s Reporter features an article by Reed Martin of Filmmaker Magazine, describing the trials of marketing independent films. Martin offers a broad based view of the situation and provides a good look at the plights of those on each side of the issue.

Also featured in today’s editorial section are two opposing viewpoints on the matter. One of these comes from Eric Stanton, a 28-year old indie producer speaking out on the studios’ lack of aggressiveness with promotion. Stanton is a relative newcomer to the filmmaking world, having recently completed his first film, Heartland. The other is written by Jack Rosens, a Senior Marketing Executive for Universal Pictures, about the risks involved with independent film advertising. Rosens’ 20-year tenure with Universal has solidified his stature within Hollywood. Rosens is a well-known figure within the industry, having promoted many Universal films to box office gold.

OPINIONS IN

Fig 4. Theatrical Poster

for Lost in Translation

Independent Films Lost Amidst

Studios’ Lack of Commitment.

An Editorial Supplement to the Hollywood

Reporter by Eric Stanton, Director and Producer

of Heartland.

Movie studios these days have become a towering goliath in the face of the miniscule indie filmmaker, the David of this struggle. Long gone are the days when companies would generously shell out the needed cash funds for distributing such types of films. Studios now claim that costs have risen far above the amounts of previous years and are no longer as willing to invest such amounts.

The fact is that more and more indie films are not being pushed into the theatrical market, being relegated instead to smaller markets such as video sales and rentals. And that’s if they even get that far.

Though there are a few indie movies every year that make it into the mainstream, Bend it Like Beckham, for example, these success stories disproportionately represent the actual number of films that never make it into the hands of a distributor. Studios are being too cautious in their decisions over which movies deserve distribution money. Consequently, they are also being pickier in

selecting films to purchase from the filmmakers.

Lions Gate Pictures purchased my own film, Heartland, but it was only after weeks and weeks of relentless pitches and phone calls that they finally came to a decision. That was over a year ago. Since then, the studio has mulled over whether or not to promote it, and the outlook is bleak. Even after verbal promises to do otherwise, no good news has come my way. All one can feel at this point is a resentment towards the studio and its lack of fortitude to make good on its word. Some may scoff at this editorial as nothing more than a showing of bitterness from a discontented filmmaker, but I encourage you to heed my comments because I represent a greater constituency on the independent scene. My voice is but one of many.

The recently released film Lost in Translation has slowly built up into a theatrical hit. Already having grossed almost $35 million, Lost has also emerged as a darling of the critics, garnering five Academy Award nominations including Best Picture.

A movie such as this one is a true inspiration for those like myself who are still trying to make an impact in the industry. This is one example of what indie directors strive for with their films, to be

both recognized for their art form as well as be commercially profitable. This poster was one of the early ones released for the film before it received so much attention. Not only is it a good depiction of the film itself, but in my opinion also represents the life and ethos of those involved in the indie world.

The look on Bill Murray’s face is a perplexed and sullen showing of apathy towards seemingly everything, a showing of pathos in the picture. This too is representative of the indie filmmaker who has yet to find success in the movie market. There is no real science to movie marketing; studios seem almost random in their choosing of what they will and won’t release. Such actions leave directors and producers exhausted in their wondering of what studios actually want out of their films.

The background behind Murray shows a cityscape beyond the hotel room windows. Murray is waiting above the city, looking in from the outskirts, much like myself and many of my colleagues, who have had a glimpse into Hollywood and the industry, but do not yet have a ticket in.

To me, the most influential message of the image however is the phrase at the top of the poster that reads: “Everyone wants to be found.” What better way to exemplify the trials of an up and coming film artist than to sum up in one sentence what all are hoping for. This is the theme of independent filmmaking at its core. Though on the periphery are matters such as making film for arts sake and for monetary reasons, a realistic interpretation is that many of us do what we do to gain that aforementioned foot in the door of the industry with the prospect of future opportunities.

Only with the help and assistance of the studios though can this be possible. Until they can

shape up and accept the fact that rising costs are a matter of the natural effects of inflation and changes in the industry, independent filmmakers will be left out in the cold, merely looking longingly at Hollywood in the distance, waiting to be found.

Filmmakers Have No Sense of

Distribution Costs Placed on

Studios.

A rebuttal to Eric Stanton’s comments on Indie

Film marketing, by: Jack Rosens, Senior

Marketing Executive for Buena Vista Pictures.

Recently, I got word of some comments made by Eric Stanton, an independent filmmaker trying to express his disdain for movie studios because of their so-called “lack of commitment” to promoting indie films, ones including his own. First off, let me say that he is incorrect to declare that studios don’t do enough to market these types of films. There are a variety of legitimate factors that have led to this impression of indifference towards indie films. What Stanton lacks is an insight into the belly of the film-marketing sector of the movie industry.

What has been occurring recently as described by Reed Martin in his article is the upward surge in costs of distributing a film. Obviously, studios must tread more slowly as a result. Stanton points to this as the studios just being picky, but it is much deeper than that. In Martin’s article, Bob Berney, president of Newmarket Films, makes a very logical point as he says,

Fig 5. Buena Vista post-production and

marketing personnel working on various

films

“To aggressively open an independent film you think has a real shot, it’s very tough to spend under $1 million. The problem is that a lot of films out there don’t even cost $1 million and won’t do $1 million at the box office.”

If you do the math you’ll see that on many occasions, the studio stands to lose money on almost all independent movies, save those few that transcend into the mainstream. The incentive for studios to even buy the rights in the first place is based on the hopes that the film can be one of those that do become widely profitable.

The studio is not the enemy here. Nor is it an obstacle that has to be “overcome” as Stanton puts it. It stands to serve as a transistor in taking the film from the filmmaker and spreading it to the public. We’re trying to make money just as the filmmaker is, for this is a business relationship.

Stanton expressed how the studio, after buying his film, decided to shelve it in favor of other projects. He said they didn’t follow the verbal commitment set forth. In defense of the studio though, the matter is that that’s all it is: a verbal understanding. Without anything being officially written down, the studio isn’t legally obliged to do anything. Perhaps it was also Stanton’s choice in distributor that led to this situation because at Buena Vista, such incidences are rarely heard of. Though I can understand Stanton’s annoyance and frustration with this process, this is how the relationship functions and no one is at fault if some component of it does not work.

Studios like to broaden their production base to include all types of movies, even those that aren’t $300 million blockbusters. This offers security because if a largely budgeted movie performs below standards, it doesn’t mean a huge financial strain for the company.

At Buena Vista, we are as fully committed to our efforts at

promoting lower-key films of the indie variety, as we are our summer hits. Our facilities and departments work side by side on

these two diverse film types. As seen here in this post-production office, teams gather together to touch up films as well as prepare certain elements for advertisements such as TV ads, trailers, and theater posters. The main element behind our goals and product values is teamwork, both within the company as well as with clients such as the filmmakers themselves, whether they are established or not.

This photo shows the ease in which this is accomplished. Offices are situated so that interaction between employees is encouraged- you’ll find no cubicles in our facilities. Notice the two team members conferring in the back- I’ll say it again, teamwork is a must. In order to effectively present a film to the public, the filmmaker must be on-board with this team to ensure fluidity and ease of decision-making.

If the team and studio decide that it is not the right time for a certain project, then the filmmaker needs to understand that this decision isn’t one that comes lightly, but rather is calculated and long thought out. Unfortunately then, sometimes things don’t work out to the wishes of a filmmaker, but the studio does make sound

Fig 6. Advertisement for

Bend it Like Beckham

decisions in what to promote and what should be left for the time being.

I’ll be honest, finding success as an independent filmmaker is tough but it isn’t impossible as Stanton alludes to. There are those films that do find large box office returns. Stanton mentions Bend it Like Beckham as one of the recent indie hits.

This is a prime illustration of great indie movie marketing. Going back to Reed Martin’s article, the campaign strategy for this film was well formulated, as well as very efficient in searching out the proper audience. The ad itself appeals to soccer fans excited to see it for the sporting moments, teen-girls for its strong depiction of women, and even to guys for the two beauties on the cover. The bigger concept that is represented here is the teamwork idea I discussed earlier. The two girls on the cover unite together as one pumps her fist in the air, celebrating victory. Similarly, when there is a bond connecting the company and filmmaker, then everything comes into place, and just like the Beckham girls, everyone wins.

Staff Response on Opinions By Alan Lansing, News Editor

The topic centered upon in today’s paper brings together some varying and argumentative viewpoints as seen by the editorials from Eric Stanton and Jack Rosen. Also important is the article from Reed Martin that offers a factual, less opinionated view, which is helpful in clarifying the ideas of each

party with actual data. Both editorial sides feature their set of ideas as to what is really the problem with the promotion of independent works in the Hollywood.

Stanton uses an appeal to pathos as he pleads his case that the studios are at fault in their lack of acknowledgement of verbal agreements with filmmakers. Meant to be understood by others from the indie scene, Stanton’s statements certainly draw upon the emotions of what he describes as the general consensus among fellow filmmakers. He usage of the Lost in Translation poster is both effective and relevant to his concerns.

The poster in relation to Stanton’s ideas is also strong in relating the ethos of the indie filmmaking society. The image of

Bill Murray staring longingly into the camera and Stanton’s relation of this to struggling filmmakers is a powerful message. Both the image and analysis compliment each other to heighten this effect. Rosens’ rebuttal to Stanton centers more on the appeal to logos than that of pathos. Rosen describes the reasonable motives in defending the actions of film studios. He states logically that film companies are in place to make money, not potentially lose it on risky ventures like independent films. He does not rule out the distribution of indie films, just that it must be done with care. Rosens also notes the timing involved with releasing an independent film, something that involves the use of kairos. He also talks of teamwork within Buena Vista Pictures, surreptitiously incorporating in a strong sense of ethos for the company while connecting it to his idea of the type of relationship desired in managing clients such as lesser-known filmmakers. He also adds in a poster from Bend it Like Beckham to further establish his ideals of working together to win.

Fig 7. Poster for 28 Days

Later, one of the recent films

to find success through

online marketing

The overall statements presented by both parties show that this is definitely not a one-sided issue. Both bring up valid points and there is no decisive “winner” in this sense. Hopefully indie filmmakers and the Hollywood studios can come to a consensus so that we, the public, can continue to enjoy the great variety of films in the movie industry.

Editor’s Note:

You’ve

read about what it takes to get a film to the distribution stage, but what about the actual marketing processes a movie goes through? Tomorrow’s paper focuses on the

many different aspects of film advertising. How do different campaigns target their desired audience? What has the rise of online marketing done to change the industry? How are different films “packaged”? Is the advertising strategy to blame for an under performing blockbuster? All these questions and more will be addressed in Tuesday’s edition so you won’t want to miss it.

Works Cited:

1. Hollywood Reporter Logo. The Hollywood Reporter. 25 Jan. 2004

<https://www.ieserv.com/THR/comboc.asp?promo=MNWSTD>

2. “Box Office Data.” Yahoo Movies. 2003. 25 Jan. 2003

http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice/latest/rank.html

3. Lost in Translation. 2003. Movieposter.com. 25 Jan. 2004

<http://www.movieposter.com/cgi-bin/mpw8/viewPIDn.pl?pid=MPW-

7358&title=LOST+IN+TRANSLATION>

4. Bend it Like Beckham. 2003. Divxbg.net. 25 Jan. 2004

<http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=divxbg.net/66/Bend%2520It%2520Li

ke%2520Beckham%2520(2002).jpg&imgrefurl=http://divxbg.net/indexx.htm&h

l=en&h=230&w=164&start=29&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbend%2Bit%2Blike%

2Bbeckham%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie

%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN >

5. Monsoon Wedding. 2002. Movieposter.com. 26 Jan. 2004

<http://www.movieposter.com/cgi-bin/mpw8/viewPIDn.pl?pid=A70-

14764&title=MONSOON+WEDDING>

6. Pieces of April. 2003. Moviposter.com. 26 Jan. 2004

<http://www.movieposter.com/cgi-bin/mpw8/viewPIDn.pl?pid=MPW-

7555&title=PIECES+OF+APRIL>

7. 28 Days Later. 2003. Movieposter.com. 26 Jan. 2004

<http://www.movieposter.com/cgi-bin/mpw8/viewPIDn.pl?pid=MPW-

5007&title=28+DAYS+LATER>

8. Sling Blade. 1996. Movieposter.com. 26 Jan. 2004

<http://www.movieposter.com/cgi-bin/mpw8/viewPIDn.pl?pid=A70-

10568&title=SLING+BLADE>

9. Martin, Reed. “The Price of Promotion”. Filmmaker Magazine (Fall 2003):

68-74, 85.

10. Hollywood Logo. Markheayn.com. 25 Jan. 2004

<http://www.markheayn.com/con6-Hollywood-sign.jpg >

11. Buena Vista Post-Production Office. Disney.com. 25 Jan. 2004

<http://disney.go.com/studiooperations/post/imaging.html>