InDigEnt

I'm going to talk about an article I read because it applies to what I'm doing. The article is here:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70074-0.html?tw=rss.index

The basic premise is that it is impossible to make money of DV movies and they are using InDigEnt as an example. However, there is a logic gap in the conclusion. First of all, Pieces of April made 2 million at the box office - plus whatever it brought in on video. That movie alone probably paid for the other 16 movies - and I thought that this was the whole concept. You make a lot of money hoping for one or two of them to break out. And other would have seemingly made profit. I can't imagine "Tape" cost that much to make and it's boxoffice was in the hundreds of thousands - again, just domestic box office.

The largest logic gap is this: Part of their model was to allow celebrities or established people make their own films that no one else would make. But just do it cheaply. Wait, roll back the tape. These are movies that apparently despite a celebrity attachment - a bunch of other financial sources deemed would not make enough money to be worth financing.

So... where's the shock? The whole strategy therefore is that you're making a niche market movie. A movie that is really meant to be of interest to one particular audience. And, if you're lucky, it will crossover. "Paris Is Burning" is a great example of a cross-over movie. I'm sure the filmmakers weren't thinking "Oh boy, this will be a national hit" as they were documenting the drag queen competitions in New York.

And "Pieces of April" did just that - it crossed over and even earned an Academy Award nomination for one of it's actors. Hello! This sounds like a success. Maybe they were hoping for more crossovers. In order to do that, they would have to start aiming at more mass appealing material at which point they will be competing with larger studios and their charter will be broken.

Last point on this. I have see a few InDigEnt movies and I will say that all of them have a very "indie" feel to them. Hand held cameras, nothing slick. Seems like that is the style. Tape, notably, seems like it was shot live with just a guy sitting in the room with a camera. But that's sort of what seemed to make it cool. But that's not a big popcorn audience movie.

There's an audience for that... just not a big one.

Myself, I like well designed, solid movies. I see movies as the modern form of opera. I want the grandeur. Even in a simple story - I want every sense touched. Unless the story calls for it, I don't want a film looking like a home movie. By breaking established film style with a cinema verite, you are not avoiding artifice - you are making a definite statement. A strong one.

So, what am I doing differently?

Good question. First - I'm picking an established genre. I feel like Hitchcock was making "art films" in established genres. I like to think that just as you can choose to make a movie verses a novel, you can pick a genre which is an established form of communication to tell your story. People obsess over Shakespeare's greatness, but rarely mention what a genre writer he was. He just did it well and put some heart into it. That's the key. Don't get hung up on the labels, and don't RELY on the label either. Second - I plan to shoot it like a "real film." It's not a cinema verite. I'm going to use one of my cheats and bring in the ability to make things looks "cinematic" (and I don't mean make video look like film... I mean make anything look like "cinema.") Thirdly - I'm also trying to go for a niche audience with my casting.

I read a book a couple years back that I recommend called "Cult of Marketing." One of it's points was that even if your base/core audience/customer might not be the largest - they are the most dedicated and you must feed that because they are the ones who provide the base for the rest of the customers. Many other good points in that book.

Will all of this thinking work?

Tune in to find out.