Thursday, October 29, 2009
does a movie have to be an event?
Here's the thing: with "This is It" making such a huge splash (and generating Oscar buzz of all things here in Hollywood) and Oprah/Tyler Perry's "Precious" on it's way to being the new "indie" success (with big box office to back it up), is my sneaking suspicion that an indie film has to be an "event" before press and/or audiences pay attention coming true? Alan Franey (Vancouver Film Festival) made note that while individual ticket sales at his festival were up this year by a good amount, year-round programming attendance was down. His theory? That audiences will only use their allocated movie allowance on screenings that are events...in other words (well, my words) screenings that have something of the circus big top supporting them. Can it possible be that this is true? and if it is, what does that mean for all our indie-industry new-distribution hype about finding the audience? Are we just fooling ourselves into thinking they will come if we don't offer balloons, a big tent and some famous people hawking like a carnival barker at the door? Past successes might have foretold this awful thought...Blair Witch was definately a great 'event-film' once it hit Sundance. But I just don't want to believe this is all we have ahead of us...I want to see what new wave distributors Thomas Mai (Festival Darlings) and Richard Abramowitz (Area 23) come up with before I give up all hope.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
unfortunately (?) I'd have to agree that this particular audience member will only use her hard-earned dollars to attend "events", instead of "just screenings".
ReplyDeleteHowever, my definition of an event may be a little different from the Ringling Brothers version - for example, I would consider a participatory discussion / service opportunity / relevant juxtaposition to be more enticing than a carnival barker and popcorn.
For example: the primary reason I'm interested in Precious is because of the NPR discussion (I hadn't heard of the film otherwise), and i can still remember the conversations engendered by the book. It's *those* conversations that make me want to see the movie, not the producer or director or even the actors. Now, if I could attend a screening at our local rape crisis center, i'd pay extra, just for the discussion afterwards - is that what you mean by an event?
it's exactly what I mean by an event if I could qualify by calling that a "good" event rather than a "hyped" event. I want people to want to see my films because of something like an NPR story, but I don't want my film to become a saturated press event because of something like Oprah and Tyler Perry. Even as I write this I realize the snobbish nature of my elitism. But one is based on education and the other is based on celebrity profile. One is long lasting. The other is fleeting. One means my films subject matter has an audience. The other might just as well be Jerry Springer. or, as you said, a Ringling Bros event.
ReplyDeleteBut in the Precious example, I really want to see the film because of conversations that took place 10 years ago - the NPR story just made me aware of the film's existence.
ReplyDeleteCorollary: I saw Where The Wild Things Are because I liked the book so much (now pushing 30 years ago), and was terribly disappointed in the film. Disgusted, even. I can't think of an event that would have made it up to me.
Though that dinghy he sailed was fantastic.