Long Live Miramax, and Independent Film

It’s nearly impossible to find pieces in mainstream journalism that offer anything other than a dreary view of today’s independent film market. That’s why Michael Cipley’s piece in the April 25th edition of The New York Times, “A Rebuilding Phase for Independent Film,” offers a refreshingly optimistic perspective.

Ostensibly a commentary on Bill and Harvey Weinstein’s reacquisition of Miramax Films (deal negotiations are ongoing), the article also studies the impact of the move on the ailing indie film industry as a whole. Indie film, it concludes, is not dead — it has simply been sleeping off one hell of a bender. And the Weinsteins are leading its charge back onto our theater and television screens.

To anyone who works within the feature film industry or simply loves movies, the last couple of years have been a dark time. We saw the shuttering of specialty distributors like Picturehouse, New Line, Warner Independent, Paramount Vantage and ThinkFilm. Studios began to shy away from anything that didn’t scream “blockbuster,” a trend that’s more prevalent today than ever. Nevertheless, Cipley reports “signs of life” on the indie front:

“The struggling indie scene is getting a boost from fleet-footed, penny-pinching guerrilla operations that are trying to resuscitate the business by spending less on production, much less on marketing and embracing all forms of distribution, including the local art house and the laptop.
A result has been a flush of energy reminiscent of early days in the 1990s dot-com boom, with a touch of old-fashioned indie-film spirit thrown in.”

The reason behind this “flush of energy”? Well, the reemergence of the Weinsteins may have something to do with it, sure — their folk heroism lends an air of glamour and excitement to anything that bears their name. But as the article goes on, what becomes clear is that for today’s filmmakers, glamour has nothing to do with how distributors plan to eke out a profit from a low-budget film distribution.

The key, Cipley writes, lies in greatly diminished marketing budgets, craftier selling strategies and lower expectations overall. He uses 2009’s A Single Man as an example:

“That film, written and directed by Tom Ford, took in only $9 million at the domestic box office. But the Weinstein Company acquired the rights for far less and held its promotions in check, rather than spending heavily to chase an audience, and Oscars, as it might have done only two or three years ago. Mr. Weinstein said the film would yield a return both for his company and for its producers.”

Cipley also points out the potential in exploiting platforms like VOD with the intention of later making a profit on DVD, which flies in the face of today’s conventional philosophy that the DVD market is dying:

“Producers cannot recoup their investment from the marginal payout from on-demand showings, but a run on [independent film channels] brings recognition that helps increasingly entrepreneurial filmmakers make money on DVDs — from foreign release, sales to airlines and, often, at screenings for political, religious or other groups, often with appearances by the writer, director and cast.”

In other words, forget the Weinsteins. The future of independent film lies not with the guys with deep pockets, but with those who have the know-how and the patience to maximize a film’s potential in today’s rapidly evolving marketplace.