DEFINTION LOCATION CASE STUDY CHALLENGES
What Is Independent Cinema?
New York and Cinema
The History of the Film Forum
What Is Happening to Independent Cinema?
Classically, an independent film was one that was made outside of the conventional studio system, be that Hollywood, Bollywood or Pinewood. But with the rise of the “independent” labels of the major studios, such as Fox Searchlight and Paramount Vantage, that distinction is pretty much moot. Also, consider that the last three Star Wars epics were made independently (by Mr. George Lucas). Any movie with fast—food tie—ins really shouldn’t qualify, in my opinion. I’d argue that the term “independent film” should be reserved for talking about the movie itself, rather than how it was financed.1 There’s a reason the word “independence” so often shows up in proximity to “revolution” — a shared spirit of frustration, anarchy and apple—cart—upsetting. From their conception, independent films aren’t just made outside of the studio system. They are made in opposition to the studio system, with its relentless need to round off the corners and soften the blows. And in standing against the status quo, independent films help to change it.2 Of course, my proposed redefinition of independent film can’t accommodate many of today’s darling indies, which mollycoddle their audiences with a careful recipe of quirk, warmth and family dysfunction.3 Just the very term “indie” seems to embody that spirit of fuzzy cuteness. I would call on filmmakers to start feeding their movies after midnight, and let their vicious little monsters roar. I propose labeling conventional movies “dependent films.” Try it. It’s fun. Think the early years of Miramax, with the first movies by Soderbergh, Tarantino and others. 3 I blame THE FULL MONTY 1
2
August, John. “What is Independent Film”. johnaugust.com. 31st January 2007. Web. 25 February 2013. <http://johnaugust.com/2007/what—is—indie#identifier_2_706>. Photo © The 400 Blows. Dir. François Truffaut. Perf. Jean-Pierre Léaud. Films Du Carrosse-SEDIF, 1959.
CINEMA
& NEW
Isaac Davis: Chapter One. He adored New York City. He idolized it all out of proportion. Eh uh, no, make that he, he romanticized it all out of proportion. Better. To him, no matter what the season was, this was still a town that existed in black and white and pulsated to the great tunes of George Gershwin. Uh, no, let me start this over. Isaac Davis: Chapter One: He was too romantic about Manhattan, as he was about everything else. He thrived on the hustle bustle of the crowds and the traffic. To him, New York meant beautiful women and street smart guys who seemed to know all the angles. Ah, corny, too corny for, you know, my taste. Let me, let me try and make it more profound. Isaac Davis: Chapter One: He adored New York City. To him it was a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture. The same lack of individual integrity that caused so many people to take the easy way out was rapidly turning the town of his dreams in — no, it’s gonna be too preachy, I mean, you know, let’s face it, I wanna sell some books here. Isaac Davis: Chapter One: He adored New York City. Although to him it was a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture. How hard it was to exist in a society desensitized by drugs, loud music, television, crime, garbage — too angry. I don’t want to be angry. Isaac Davis: Chapter One. He was as tough and romantic as the city he loved. Behind his black—rimmed glasses was the coiled sexual power of a jungle cat. Oh, I love this. New York was his town, and it always would be.1 Manhattan. Dir. Woody Allen. By Woody Allen, Marshall Brickman, and Gordon Willis. Prod. Charles H. Joffe. Perf. Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Meryl Streep, and Anne Byrne Kronenfeld. United Artists Corp., 1979. 1
YORK
Film Forum is a nonprofit movie theater located at 209 West Houston Street in New York City. It began in 1970 as an alternative screening space for independent films, with 50 folding chairs, one projector and a US$19,000 annual budget. Karen Cooper became director in 1972 and under her leadership, Film Forum has grown dramatically. Its current Greenwich Village cinema (on Houston Street, west of Sixth Avenue) was built in 1990. Film Forum is a 3—screen cinema open 365 days a year, with 280,000 annual admissions, nearly 500 seats, 60 employees,
4500 members and an operating budget of US$4.4 million[citation needed]. Film Forum is the only autonomous nonprofit cinema in New York City and one of the few in the United States of America.Film Forum presents two distinct, complementary film programs — NYC theatrical premieres of American independents and foreign art films, programmed by Cooper and Mike Maggiore; and, since 1987, repertory selections including foreign and American classics, genre works, festivals and directors’ retrospectives, programmed by Bruce Goldstein. Their third screen is
dedicated to extended runs of popular selections from both programs, as well as new films for longer engagements. As a cinema of ideas, Film Forum is committed to presenting an international array of films that treat diverse social, political, historical and cultural realities. Unlike commercial cinemas that primarily book high—grossing, Hollywood films, Film Forum’s programs are thoughtfully curated, with attention to unique cinematic qualities, historical importance individually or within a genre and, particularly for documentaries, relevance to today’s world.
PUBLISHED MARCH 3TH 1989
The Film Forum To Be Razed For Office Space Film Forum, a lower Manhattan twin movie theater that shows foreign, classic and independent movies, will be demolished within a year to make way for a 20— to 25—story office building, Karen Cooper, the theater’s director, said yesterday. ‘’It came as a total shock and disappointment,’’ she said. ‘’Arts organizations are so fragile, and losing one’s home is tantamount to death.’’ The announcement followed an agreement between Trinity Church, Film Forum’s landlord, and Edward J. Minskoff Equities, a developer, to build on the theater’s site at 57 Watts Street. Ms. Cooper said Minskoff wants Film Forum to move out in August and will help the theater find a new location and build a new theater. Film Forum will need to raise at least $1 million for a new theater, she said. ‘’We’re not the kind of developer that puts people out on the streets,’’ said Bruce Brickman, an executive vice president of Minskoff. ‘’Our brokers are looking at several locations to accommodate them, and we’ve pledged our support.’’ He declined to say whether the support would include money. Escape Clause in Lease Film Forum, which was founded in 1970 on West 88th Street, rented its building from Trinity Church in 1980 under a 21—year lease that
included a clause providing for Trinity to pay Film Forum about $275,000 if the theater was demolished, Ms. Cooper said. Minskoff has assumed that obligation, and the church — which owns considerable real estate in lower Manhattan — has not offered any financial support, Ms. Cooper said. ‘’The arrangement with Film Forum was quite clear that we intended to develop the property, and the lease was written to reflect that intention and that it was a temporary home for them,’’ said Christopher Walters—Bugbee, Trinity’s director of communications. ‘’But we are combing our own holdings in search of space that would be usable for their purposes.’’ Ms. Cooper said, ‘’The letter of the law is that they owe us nothing, but I think there’s a certain moral obligation for a church as a landlord to be more forthcoming.’’ ‘’Film Forum is valuable to the city’s cultural life and has been a good tenant,’’ Mr. Walters—Bugbee added, ‘’but we have an obligation to maximize our resources for the church and its programs. We don’t feel we have a moral obligation to Film Forum any more than Film Forum has a moral obligation to underwrite a soup kitchen for the homeless.’’ Photos © Vivian Maier
Yarrow, Andrew L. “The Film Forum To Be Razed For Office Space.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Mar. 1989. Web.
PUBLISHED: AUGUST 21, 1989
The Film Forum Will Rise Again, On Houston St. After Film Forum, the two—screen movie theater in lower Manhattan, is demolished next month, a new, larger theater will open next spring on West Houston Street, between the Avenue of the Americas and Varick Street.
Ms. Cooper said. ‘’We’ll have a gracious lobby and a different architectonic look, but we’ll maintain our spirit.’’ The marquee from the Watts Street theater will be saved and reinstalled.
The present theater at 57 Watts Street — which has shown classic, foreign and independently produced movies — will close on Sept. 4, and an office tower will be constructed on the site by Edward J. Minskoff Equities. The new 10,000—square—foot theater will be twice the size of the present one, and will have three screens with 137, 148 and 173 seats respectively, Karen Cooper, the theater’s director, said.
Film Forum has signed a 20—year lease on property at 209 West Houston Street, Ms. Cooper said. The forum was founded in 1970 on West 88th Street and a decade later signed a 21—year lease with Trinity Church, which owned the Watts Street site. The lease included a clause providing for Trinity to pay Film Forum about $275,000 if the theater was demolished. Minskoff, which purchased the property from Trinity, has agreed to pay Film Forum a ‘’The new location is superior to where we are, ‘’substantial amount’’ in exchange for moving, but our programming will remain the same,’’ Ms. Cooper said.
"The Film Forum Will Rise Again, On Houston St." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Aug. 1989. Web. 28
“WE MAY SOMEDAY LOOK BACK WITH GRATITUDE AT FILM FORUM’S REPERTORY OPERATION AS A GOLDEN AGE UNTO ITSELF” Philip Lopate, The New York Times Repertory has become endangered species in the United States becuase of the difficulty in obtaining good quality 35mm prints, the astronomical cost of shipping prints internationally and the labor intensive nature of research, design, printing, and dissemination of detailed promotional materials.
Repertory survive at Film Forum because of their dedication to presenting an exciting, diverse selection and their commitment to the highest quality restaurations and re—releases.
Film Forum remains one of the few in the U.S. to present full— time repertory programming, with creative double bills rich in rarities — and breathtaking new prints of established classic. They’ve premiered nearly 1,000 new and restored prints. Their festivals can be devoted to Film Noir, Billy Wilder, Pre—Code, Agnès Varda, Robert Ryan, Fritz Lang, Al Pacino, or silent gems with live piano accompaniment. Their goal will always be to keep classic movies on screen where they belong.
Psycho through the ages; Anne Heche, Janet Leigh and Marion Cotillard
The State of & Festivals Independent FilM Geoff Gilmore: Evolution v. Revolution,
Everyone speaks today of this being a moment for change. And yet the truth is for independent film, change has been constant. As the Director of the Sundance Film Festival over (nearly) the last two decades, I’ve witnessed an ongoing and constant evolution. Indeed every passing year has seemed to proclaim the end of an era and the beginning of a ‘revolution’! And each year it seems independent filmmakers expand the realm of the possible. As viewed over an extended period of time, there certainly has been remarkable change. The numbers of films produced as compared to the mid—1990’s has quintupled — there has been a complete change in the marketplace in terms of films distributed (doubled), companies competing (tripled), and the standards for success, (A million dollar gross twenty years ago vs. ten million a decade past vs. twenty—five today). Most importantly the overall visibility and significance of independent film and its players, that generation of filmmakers that produced the Coens, and Tarantino, P.T. Anderson and Todd Haynes, Errol Morris and Michael Moore and the rest have had a distinct impact on American film culture and its industry. All of these changes are significant and real. But after thirty years of independent film, have we reached an end? Is the independent arena creatively moribund and/or has the audience itself changed either because of a generational shift or simply a transformation in public taste? Perhaps more critically, are the changes with financial or structural models that fueled the independent arena’s growth now outdated or passe? For over three decades, video/DVD and cable were the revenue safety net for independent film and equity financing its fuel, and that may simply no longer be the case. So where are we now? I know most media and journalists seek definitive answers. All I know are the questions but I think they are instructive. Perhaps I’ll start with what I know best, film festivals and the business of film markets. The numbers and range of film festivals globally has grown exponentially, but in terms of the business, there really are still just a handful of festivals that service the various national and international film industries. Essentially those key film festivals e.g. Cannes, Toronto, Sundance, Berlin, (and perhaps for specific arenas, Pusan, San Sebastian and Dubai), have become primarily industry events, existing as platforms for film for various and sundry purposes such as film sales, publicity, critical and jury accolades, filmmaker and talent opportunities and media exploitation etc. But when festivals are evaluated purely as markets we tend to overlook what is most crucial, the quality and inventiveness of the filmmaking and the emergence of new filmmakers, actors, writers and other creative forces. Two years ago more films sold out of Sundance than any year since we’ve begun and then last year sales were less than half of that previous year. In most people’s mind the films last year were at least as good, interesting and successful as the year before, if not better, yet one festival was regarded by media pundits as a success, the other as a failure. Even the idea that the performance of films in the marketplace should be regarded as part of the festival’s purview suggests that the
hype and buzz of festivals is of our own making. Is it? I tend to think that’s not what a festival’s primary mission is. That said, festivals have changed and the industry aspect of their existence is entrenched. If festivals are to remain relevant to what has always been their lifeblood (young people, new talent, and a new generation), their mission must continue to evolve. To this end they need to expand their accessibility and their creative focus and they need to take risks, to create the atmosphere for that aforementioned expansion of the sense of the possible. If festivals don’t continually rethink how and what to showcase for the future, even without abandoning their traditional cultural purpose and aesthetic standards, then the festival world will go the way of the dinosaur. But what are the possibilities for change? Are festivals healthy? Well yes and no. It’s not at all clear that a new generation will embrace festival attendance and exposure in the same manner of the last generation. And as festivals have evolved, is their cultural mission dissipating in favor of more manipulated industry function? Can festivals keep their integrity and even expand their meaningfulness to a range of constituencies? As they move into the future, will cyberspace and other forms of outreach (broadcast, cable etc.) become more a part of festival events in the same way of most sporting events? Will new forms of media become a part of so—called film festivals? As always the answers will be driven by the artists but festivals have to keep their eyes and ears open to freshness and diversity. Indeed the answers to most these queries are the portrait of our future. But what about the present state of independent film? Is the independent film arena truly struggling or are the production and distribution of independent films as difficult as they always have been and always will be? Maybe we can address this by asking several questions. First of all, there is the question of audiences — their tastes and motivations. A close second is the range the difficulties (both familiar and new) inherent in distribution. Many people say there are too many independent films produced given that the pipeline for distribution is so narrow. Even though more films are reaching the theatrical marketplace, the subsequent competition for audience and the perceived failure of many works in that theatrical arena creates an outlook that independent film is in crisis. Is it true? Again the answer is complicated. Audiences are changing. The over thirty—audience is the target for much of the independent arena — whereas the new generation represents an interesting contradiction. There is no question that the current college audience is much more sophisticated about cinema— about art film or international and independent work— than was my generation 30 years ago. But frankly they seem to have less interest in it. Or at least they have a greater range of activities to engage in and thus are more selective and demanding about how they are going to spend their hard—earned dollars. It’s difficult to say whether the new generation will continue to harbor the passion for film that we had. Independent film has broken a lot of ground and had a lot of suc-
cess in the last two decades. But what was innovative then is now familiar. Whether new audiences can be intrigued by innovative independent work, coaxed by critics, and motivated by marketing, whether they will be interested by new subjects and artistic invention, remains to be seen. Structurally the biggest issue facing independent film is the theatrical distribution bottleneck. As long as theatrical exposure is the driving force to a film’s revenue streams in the so called ancillary markets, video/ DVD, pay cable etc. then the expense of that theatrical release, the crowded marketplace and the competition with studio and specialized divisions of studios for that same filmgoer, creates a unique challenge. And if specialized distribution and the potential of new technologies, i.e. the Internet, are the answer, the question still remains how to reach filmgoers — how does marketing on the Internet succeed whether it’s viral, social community or niche, and when will revenue streams from new distribution mechanisms actually be significant? Theatrical admissions have trended downwards for a number of years and the importance of consumer preference and choice, of filmgoers seeing films when and how they want, is essential to success for the film industry in the future. The “long tail” of availability, the keeping of films in the market for longer periods of time is especially important for independent film. And that a film’s release is ordered by an antiquated theatrical universe is one of the fundamental obstacles facing the independent arena. Indeed why are films “seasonal” instead of “evergreen?” The practice of dating films, i.e. assigning a year of release, strikes me as a holdover from the marketing past. How and where films will be made available depends on the establishment of new outlets and new strategies. It simply makes no sense that most of the year’s quality films are all released against each other in a cutthroat fall campaign. In the future perhaps festival platforms could further serve to give films long—term visibility. At the very least new web venues, transformed marketing strategies and dynamic new concepts for consumption are at the core of making films available. Finally, the question as to independent film’s health rests with the real driver of success — the films themselves. Each year, the Sundance Film Festival presents a spectrum of new independent film, features and documentaries, mainstream and edgy, international and domestic. I can’t emphasize enough how sure I am that the overall aesthetic value of independent film has over the years continued to evolve, develop and mature. Some of the best filmmakers in the world got their start at Sundance, and many of the world’s new filmmakers have been affected and influenced by a generation of work that is ambitious, innovative and embodies the personal qualities of storytelling that is independent film. Each year independent filmmaking is rich with the promise of discovery — a new festival’s program, new filmmakers and stories. And that itself is a real cause for optimism and hope. Geoff Gilmore is the Director of the Sundance Film Festival. Photo © Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid