Questions Raised Over Michael Moore's "Doc Night in America" Proposal

Last week, I reported on Michael Moore's speech at the IDA Academy reception, during which he reiterated his call for a new documentary distribution initiative, which he called "Doc Night in America":

"Stating that he was tired of reading gloom and doom forecasts of the death of documentaries at the box office, Moore (said) that he was going to be sitting down with the heads of major theatre exhibition chains to propose a business model, which he said he has already worked out, wherein he will try to convince megaplexes to devote one of their screens to documentaries or convince theatres to convert their worst night of the week, Mondays, to "Doc Night in America".  Moore said that he was lining up other filmmakers and studio figures who would "volunteer" to help in this effort, which Moore said would include help with promotion."

Agnes Varnum took one look at Moore's proposal and her eyebrows & questions were raised:

"I’ve come down on Moore in the past for being all bark and no teeth, and perhaps he is ready to roll up his sleeves and really try to give back to his community, but I can’t help but be skeptical of the approach. What is it about this man’s make-up that requires him to fly solo always?

The plan ghetto-izes certain films as unable to make a profit so they can only get into the theater on a night when almost no one goes anyways. By creating a subsidy, it lets distributors off the hook for not doing good business (IE breaking the studio strangle hold on theaters, and picking up fewer and/or better films and investing in their success), and at the end of it, something tells me that Doc Mondays would overall not be worth the effort for theater owners for them to want to continue or expand it....

How long will they go along with the plan if two out of four in a month under-perform even with a strong ad buy? If distributors were helping their films succeed at the box office, as opposed to simply releasing them, theater owners would be more amenable to screening them."

As Karina Longworth noted in a post today, "(w)hen this story broke last week, it was generally reported without comment, positive or negative."  Then pointing to Agnes, Karina wonders:

"Certainly there will be some filmmakers who are happy to show their work in a multiplex at all. But surely there will be others who, having seen the success of films like An Inconvenient Truth and, yes, Sicko, which competed against studio films instead of in their stead, will reject the notion of having their work relegated to a cult experience on, as Agnes puts it, the “night when almost no one goes anyways.” Even if Moore’s plan is a short-term success, is segregating documentary films away from traditional studio releases really the rescue action that the industry needs in the long-term?"

When I heard Moore's sister Anne first raise this proposal in December (and again on Wednesday when Moore re-approached the topic), I thought that it would work best for two types of filmmakers: 

• Grassroots filmmakers dealing with political or social topics that might typically be anathema to box office, but which could support one or two local screenings in a community by reaching out to like-minded audiences. 
• Filmmakers working with smaller releases that may have bookings in the top 10 or 20 markets but may be unable to screen in certain regions of the county due to exhibitor (not distributor) indifference. 

To this latter point, I add my own experience on ABOUT A SON.  Certain markets were gung ho to book the film, but others were completely uninterested.  Often this occurred within the same major exhibition chain, Landmark, where different bookers handled different regions of the country.  Some Landmark bookers loved the film and some did not, leaving the latter markets completely out of our reach.  It would have been great to have even a single screening in some of those places, but without the brand name art house booker in our corner, we were without options.  A plan like Moore's would have been great as an option for both those markets, as well as those not traditionally served by enough art house screens to exhibit those docs not distributed by THINK or Sony or Magnolia or the like.

So, I didn't have the same reaction as Agnes and did not feel that Moore's plan would ghetto-ize docs (at least not any more than they are already).  In fact, I've been advocating for more than two years that filmmakers had to come together and create "a nationwide network of venues, support groups (similar to myspace), radio stations and websites that are solely dedicated to (independent films)" much like the underground bands of the 1980s.  To me, the most intriguing part of Moore's speech is the suggestion that there would be local support "if you played Boise", that someone would connect you with the press or regional film or political groups.  This suggests an infrastructure of some kind, but what?  Is this the "consortium of PR and marketing people at the studios who would support and promote documentary, bolstering the work of smaller companies with limited resources" that Moore spoke of last Wednesday.

But I do think that before we all start jumping up and down about this (in favor or against), there's much more to be learned and asked.

• There are at least 100 nonfiction films that have premiered at a major festival in the past year which are still pursuing a theatrical distribution scenario.  Even with 52 weeks in a year, that barely covers half of those un-distributed titles, so one must presume that not every film that wants to take advantage of this system could.  How would films be chosen?  Would filmmakers pay a fee (a la Truly Indie)?
• What kind of infrastructure would be necessary to coordinate one-off screenings in markets all around the country?
• Where would the revenue go?  How would it be split?  Is there an incentive for filmmakers to try to get larger audiences?

I don't want to throw cold water on this, because I think it could be a very intriguing and interesting idea.  I'm just not sure how its done without having substantial infrastructure.  But it's worth paying attention to and I think it could be of significant benefit for filmmakers.

Comments

[Agnes Varnum]

I do get a little snitty when it comes to Moore, mainly because I think he's more of a grandstander than someone who gets in and rolls up his sleeves. I think your comments are right on target and in line with what I'd advocate for - getting together folks like yourself with experience and ideas to brainstorm. Did Moore, or will he, tap the community or just go off an do his own thing? We'll see. I didn't mean to throw cold water...

[Britta Erickson]

The Denver Film Society at the Starz FilmCenter has been doing DocNight on a once-monthly basis for the past two years. As an extension of a our film festival model, we always fly the DocNight filmmaker in, do outreach to interested groups and we always sell-out. The filmmakers always seem appreciative to connect with an audience outside of the festival circuit and make a few bucks. So, to be clear, I don't always agree with Mr. Moore, but I think this an idea worth exploring. And, if people are interested in starting a DocNight consortium, I'd happily participate in the planning.

[Sean Farnel]

There are several models for such a circuit around the world. In fact, my first job out of film school was running one, which started in Northern Ontario and became the Film Circuit, which now stretches across 100 cities/towns in Canada. Its run by the Toronto International Film Festival Group.

Concept is simple...centralized programing/booking and print traffic support run by TIFFG, working with local groups which market and manage the box office. They pay rental on cinema, 35% of Gross to distributor (or filmmaker). Local group does all the promotion, so have a stake in a successful event.

Most of the screenings take place on off nights in local cinemas, both commercial and independent. Groups (usually volunteers, or sub-committes of other arts activities in these towns) run weekly, bi-weekly or monthly events, depending on level of interest. Many of them also have annual mini-fests. Alot of these events are extremely well attended.

Its been running for about 15 years, and works. Emphasis here is on generating box office for Canadian films, and also supporting limited run films which are not getting to multiplexes in these smaller cities.

For docs there are similar models in Holland and Denmark, that I know of.

But...this is all, in a sense, subsidized by the charitable non-profit status of these organizations. I know these budgets well, and like festivals, it simply does not work as a for profit model.

[AJ Schnack]

As I'm about to take off for Columbia and True/False, I'm wondering whether it would make more sense to grow a network of micro-cinemas or alternate screening venues that are supportive of screening docs, rather than trying to convince the AMCs and Regals of this world into turning screen 14 into a doc-centric venue. Not to say the latter idea doesn't have value, nor that Doc nights like the ones Britta describes aren't great, but it might be a better, longer term solution for the health of doc distribution.

Sean's take on what they've done in Canada is particularly interesting, where they are lucky to have a non-profit element to the program. Perhaps it could be a model for Moore's program - but who would subsidize so that there are actually profits for the theatre and, potentially, the filmmakers?

[Matt]

I think it is clear that the current distribution model for documentaries is clearly broken.

This distribution model does not serve what the people want to see, but rather is designed to perpetuate the stranglehold major corporations have over distribution of key cultural content.

This same pattern is happening in other forms of cultural distribution as well, from music to books.

Moore's idea has obvious shortcomings. But as part of a collaborative process to take back the distribution of culture away from hordes of disinterested and myopic accountants, I celebrate it.

Matt