Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon Arts & Entertainment

Movie Interview
Killer's kicks
Christian Bale and director Mary Harron talk about yuppie killers, Brett Easton Ellis' novel and forbidden sex in the dark satire "American Psycho."
By Mark Ebner
[01/26/00]

Music Review
Sharps & Flats
A new Gary Numan retrospective fills in the gap between "Cars" and an era when one man and a keyboard actually became cool.
By Mac Montandon
[01/26/00]

Prisoner of love
Why is Mary Kay Letourneau, the 35-year-old teacher who slept with her 13-year-old student, trying to keep her own book out of American stores?
By Austin Bunn
[01/27/00]

Column
Forget Sundance
Former Miramax exec Jack Lechner proclaims the death of the indie as we know it.
By Michael Sragow
[01/27/00]

Music Review
Sharps & Flats
Three chords, 12 bars or just one note -- two Vanguard collections promise the essence of the blues.
By Andy Battaglia
[01/27/00]

Complete archives for Arts & Entertainment

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jack Lechner

Jan. 27, 2000 | Ladies and gentlemen, the rules have changed.

Five years ago, if you scraped together the money to make a nice little movie -- not a breakthrough in cinema history, but not a turkey either -- that movie had a future. It might get accepted at Sundance and other film festivals. Distributors might see it at those festivals, and bid against each other for the privilege of distributing it theatrically. It might play at theaters in New York and L.A. -- and if people liked it there, then it might broaden out to other major cities, and to the college circuit. It might find distributors in foreign countries. And it might play on cable and video, by which time you the filmmaker might already be making your second feature.

That's how it used to work -- not all the time, of course, but a good percentage of the time. And that's why I say the rules have changed -- because it rarely works that way anymore. Most of the independent films being made in America right now will not have a future. They will not be accepted at Sundance. They will not be the objects of a bidding war. They will not receive theatrical distribution in the U.S. They will not play around the world. Many of them won't even end up on cable and video. They will just sit there, collecting dust and debt, while their makers try to figure out what went wrong.

Also Today Forget Sundance Former Miramax exec Jack Lechner proclaims the death of the indie as we know it. By Michael Sragow

What went wrong is that the market is flooded.

What went wrong is that there are too many studio movies competing for theatres, and too many distributor-funded niche movies competing for the space left over.

What went wrong is that there are too many submissions to festivals, and too many slots already reserved at those festivals for directors with established names.

What went wrong is that there have been too many magazine articles about independent filmmakers who became millionaires, and too many people who believed everything they read.

What went wrong is that there are too many aspiring filmmakers who have been so focused on their own projects that they haven't realized the rules have changed.

The day of the nice little movie is over. Kaput. Finito. Dead. The nice little movie could flourish only in unique conditions, and those conditions don't exist anymore. There's no more "American Playhouse" to show them on television. There are no more independent video companies who are starved for product. There are no more art-house cinemas who can't get enough smart movies to fill their screens. For every one of those sectors as well, the rules have changed.

How did this happen? Well, for one thing, the independent film world is a victim of its own success. There was a time when independent films weren't expected to make a lot of money. But then came a string of films from "sex, lies & videotape" to "The Crying Game" to "Hoop Dreams," all of which proved that independent films could sometimes make a great deal of money indeed.

There was a time when the primary alternative to a big studio movie was a foreign film. But the success of American independents -- and the development of a steady independent film audience -- has driven foreign films to the margins, and created an institutionalized industry that funds its own mid-range movies.

There was a time when distributors acquired most of the films they released. But now these companies have pipelines to fill, and they can't rely on the unpredictability of filling them with acquisitions. Sure, they're still acquiring -- and a company like Artisan can still pick up a "Blair Witch Project" at Sundance and hit the jackpot -- but those jackpots are rarer and rarer all the time. That's partly because there's real money at stake now, and that makes people cautious.

And when I talk about independent films, I'm talking about independent films. Films that aren't funded by distributors. Films that don't necessarily have stars in them. Films that don't necessarily have happy endings. Films that break new ground in subject matter and in cinematic language. Films, whether narrative or documentary, which take us into waters where bigger ships can't navigate. When people talk about the boom in American independent cinema, they're talking about something that happened years ago. What's booming now is something else entirely. There are a remarkable number of interesting movies playing in theatres right now, but it's the result of the old independent boom being absorbed by the mainstream, which has been immeasurably enriched by it.

What worries me is how -- and whether -- that cycle can repeat itself. How will the next generation of independent filmmakers make themselves heard? What are the new rules? If the nice little movie is dead, what can an independent filmmaker do to break through the wall of caution and apathy?

Here's what we can do -- what we have to do. We have to change our thinking.

We have to make movies for today -- and tomorrow -- not for yesterday. We have to look long and hard at the projects we're developing, and ask ourselves if they're nice little movies -- or something more. And if all they are is nice little movies, then we should take a deep breath and prepare to make something else instead.

When I was at Channel Four in London at the beginning of the '90s, the British film industry was in far worse shape than the American independent film industry is now. When I considered a project to fund, I would ask myself, "If this film works, could it possibly help to save the British film industry?" If the answer was no, I rejected it. If the answer was yes, I advocated it. I wasn't always right, of course, but I know I was at least asking the right question.

We have to ask ourselves a version of that question now. If this film works, could it possibly help to save the American independent film industry? Could it break through the wall of apathy, and reawaken audiences to what movies can do? Could it influence other filmmakers? Could it create such a stir that your parents hear about it -- and not just from you, but from their friends?

Whatever you think of "The Blair Witch Project," it fit those criteria. So did "Reservoir Dogs." So did "She's Gotta Have It." So did "Paris Is Burning." What made these movies stand out? I can tell you in two words -- artistic ambition. I can tell you in one word -- daring. These movies were gambles. The filmmakers were doing something that you hadn't seen a million times before.

Folks, every movie that breaks through from here on out is going to need to do that. Instead of making nice little movies, we're going to have to take outrageous chances. We're going to have to go out on a limb, and then saw the limb off. And if your film can't do that -- if it isn't unique enough, if it isn't extraordinary enough, if it isn't dynamic enough to compete with all the other movies that are out there -- then be prepared for oblivion, because you won't even get the chance to find out.

Next page | The difference between "Star Wars" and "Krull"