All these wonderful things

Celebrating Zeitgeist

With all the posting that we've done lately covering the difficulties at THINKFilm, it's high time that we throw a little love around for another distributor that is celebrating an anniversary this weekend.

Zeitgeist Films, which is one of the top distributors of documentaries in North America, is being feted with a 20th Anniversary retrospective at MOMA this month.  Last year, Zeitgeist was second only to THINK in total nominations by distributor at the Cinema Eye Honors for Nonfiction Filmmaking, garnering multiple nods for INTO GREAT SILENCE and MANUFACTURED LANDSCAPES.

This year, Zeitgeist has had success with UP THE YANGTZE and CHRIS & DON: A LOVE STORY. and will soon bring festival favorites TROUBLE THE WATER and STRANDED: I'VE COME FROM A PLANE THAT CRASHED IN THE MOUNTAINS to theatres.

So congrats to co-presidents Nancy Gerstman and Emily Russo (indieWIRE has a very nice interview with them) and to the entire team at Zeitgeist and thanks for your continued support of nonfiction filmmaking.

One Week Later, Mostly Sadness Over Gibney v. THINK

With the firing of the starter's pistol in the case of Alex Gibney, et al v. THINKFilm (and the subsequent war of words between Gibney and THINKFilm topper Mark Urman), the past few days have mainly been a chance for a variety of folks to weigh in on the situation, and the response, not entirely suprisingly, is mostly sadness all around.

indieWIRE's Eugene Hernandez kicked things off earlier this week with a detailed piece on Gibney's lawsuit and a further response from Urman:

"'We believed in Alex's film, we invested and incurred debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, so that he could win an Oscar. He did not thank us on Oscar night and he certainly shows no gratitude today," Urman said this weekend. "His film was resoundingly uncommercial and yet we supported it and got it into the history books. How sad that victory was not enough for Mr. Gibney.'"

David Poland weighed in on Monday, acknowledging that his Movie City News is owed money by think - "All of us...know that the bills are not being paid." - and concurring that Gibney's lawsuit is likely an effort to get the rights back to TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE:

"Alex can blame THINK for not spending enough money promoting the film after the win. He can argue that there was a bigger theatrical life for his film and that THINK blew it. But it would be a real feat to prove actionable negligence, unless he has some specific inside info that has not yet become public.

I would assume that this whole thing is simply a play by the very, very smart Mr. Gibney to get back the rights to his Oscar winning movie from a company he is disappointed with and who he fears, reasonably, might soon sell off his property to someone else. And I would assume that Mark Urman, who has been pushed hard by Gibney and is under enormous pressure in a community that he has been a respected and hard-working member of for a long time, is slapping back at Gibney because he has just had it.

(....)

So in closing… Gibney’s claim is goofy, yet the effort is understandable and, I am pretty sure, honorable. Urman’s smackback is goofy, yet the reaction is understandable, and I am pretty sure, honorable. Gibney would not be the first person to scream, “Cut me loose of this nightmare,” before an anticipated ax falls. But his actions do make it harder for others to trust Think as the company tries to move into the future. And if producers won’t get into bed with the company, the company can’t stop itself from dropping out of business in time."

Later, Cinematical's Kim Voynar described herself as "very torn" between "one of my favorite documentary filmmakers" and "one of the most prolific distributors of indie film in recent years".  The title of her post wondered if we all shouldn't start cutting THINK a break:

"I hope very much that the folks at THINKfilm are able to straighten things out at their end, reach agreements with all the filmmakers and advertising firms with whom they have disputes, and come out with their heads above water, in a position to continue championing films. With the folding of Picturehouse and Warner Independent, the world of indie filmmaking is feeling a massive crunch right now, and the last thing indie filmmakers need is to lose THINKfilm, whose president, Mark Urman, is a pretty brilliant guy and a real champion of independent filmmaking."

Early yesterday, the NY Times covered the story in an article from Charles Lyons.  There wasn't a great deal of new information in the piece, which ties the "feud" between Gibney and Urman to a larger set of woes in the indie film world (and a much blogged about speech by former Warner Independent head Mark Gill at the LA Film Festival last weekend).  The bottom line for those of us in the documentary game should come as surprise to no one:

"While never a major player in independent dramatic films, THINKFilm has quietly made its niche a cache of smart documentaries. A reduced THINKFilm would make it even tougher for independent documentary filmmakers to find a distributor, and a reduction seems likely."

Variety's Anne Thompson followed up with a posting this afternoon that fleshes out some of the financial troubles within the THINK/Capco family:

"By all accounts, while library-builder Bergstein has long held a reputation for poorly managing “distressed” enterprises, ThinkFilm was “funky,” as one employee put it, ever since its formation seven years ago. When Bergstein bought it in October 2006 for $18 million plus $5 million in debt, the specialty distrib only got fudgier. When the Toronto office was shut down recently, four years of unpaid minimum guarantees on several straight-to-video films were revealed.

Bergstein has too many fingers in too many pies. He has plowed tens of millions of dollars that could have been used to pay ThinkFilm’s bills into such pictures as The Wendell Baker Story, which flopped, the Jennifer Lopez film Bordertown, which went straight to video, the genre film Bad Meat, Taylor Hackford’s Love Ranch, and David O. Russell’s Nailed, the film production from hell, which has been shut down four times for not meeting its payroll. “Millions of dollars go into the bank from The Devil Knows You’re Dead,” says one ThinkFilm exec. “Then it evaporates and we can’t pay our bills. All our money went to David O. Russell. The walls keep moving, the writing changing. We owe so many people so much money.'"

Meanwhile, films that once were slated for a release via THINK - including Sundance hit MOMMA'S MAN - are quietly being shifted to other distributors.  There've been reports of difficulty surrounding the supposed-to-be-imminent theatrical release of ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED.

Sadness all around.

Is Glenn Beck the Next EXPELLED?

When we wrote about the success of EXPELLED a couple months, I mentioned that it could unleash a flood of conservative-targeted docs.  Specifically, I wondered,

"Is the Glenn Beck anti-Gore film far behind?"

Well, although it's not exactly a documentary (yet it appears to qualify as a concert film), Glenn Beck does indeed hope to tap into that same vein of conservative political comedy.  Specifically, he is using the digital distribution in many of the nation's theaters to project his live "stand up political comedy show" from an event in Dallas. 

Price to watch this event in a movie theatre?  20 bucks. 

What's sort of interesting is the description of the event posted on the website of Fathom Events, who are distributing the feed to more than 300 theatres.  If you'd never heard of Beck, you'd never know that he's coming from the right side of the aisle:

"In the tradition of George Carlin and Bill Cosby, Glenn’s performance is equal parts storytelling and stand-up…a two-hour show with Glenn’s unique point of view.  The first half of the show will take aim at an election season unlike no other—it’s non-partisan and no-holds-barred.  The second half is Glenn’s “pull no punches” stump speech.  If you’ve ever wondered what a politician might sound like if they told the truth and reflected the real values of real Americans, this is it!  Hold on for a live experience that shows Glenn Beck to be more than just a “thinker,” but a truly funny entertainer who says exactly what’s on his mind."

Not sure if they release figures for these events, but would be interesting to see how something like this does.  Could political documentaries use one time only events at higher prices to spur bigger box office?

The New Documentary Marketing as Expressed by AMERICAN TEEN

Much has already been made about Nanette Burstein's forthcoming AMERICAN TEEN.  At Full Frame, there was practically a knock-down drag-out over whether the film should have even been programmed, what with it's various constructed elements (the fact that there was no such fuss at Silverdocs or True/False says a great deal about all three festivals).  We wrote approvingly about the film's construction during Sundance and previewed its theatrical poster, a nearly direct copy of John Hughes' THE BREAKFAST CLUB. 

We're less convinced over the latest marketing effort in support of the film, which we first saw over at Jeffrey Wells' place.  In a series of ads for the film, people are invited to become "fans" of characters in the film, characters - if anyone needs reminding - that are actually real teenagers. 

Having met some of these kids at Sundance, I get the impression that they are pretty ready for their Hollywood Close-Up and are also under no illusions that they are being sold as archetypes, even if they suggest, in sotto voce, that they are more complicated that their assigned stereotype.  But even with that, I wonder if they are prepared to become marketed commodities.  Click on me and become my fan to win tickets to Lollapalooza?

(When you do click through, you are directed first to the AMERICAN TEEN website, where the trailer begins playing.  Keep going and you can "meet" the five focused characters identified by GEEK, REBEL, PRINCESS, JOCK and HEARTTHROB, along with mini bios like "Mitch Reinholt is an attractive and charming Varsity basketball jock with a soft side."  You can keep clicking through to Facebook to "become a fan" and win the concert tickets.) 

Earlier this year, there was a great deal of hand-wringing (mostly from concerned others) when Errol Morris admitted that he paid some of his subjects.  This, of course, was not news to most working nonfiction filmmakers.  Even those of us who don't pay our subjects (I have never done it and would be opposed to it in my own films), recognize that our subjects are often called upon long after the film is finished to attend film festivals, premieres, do press and otherwise represent the film in which they appear.

So, here's an open question.  Am I missing something or are we entering new territory when we begin selling our subjects' very identities - even with their apparently enthusiastic permission?

Alex Gibney Files Suit Against THINKFilm

On the heels of Anthony Kaufman's piece in indieWIRE yesterday offering new details into THINKFilm's financial situation, Oscar winning director Alex Gibney has filed a lawsuit against THINKFilm, alleging non-performance and fraud.  Specifically, Gibney's production company, X-Ray Productions asserts in its suit that THINK didn't have the financial resources to properly release TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE nor to take advantage of its Oscar victory. TAXI has made just $275K, the lowest take for a Best Documentary Oscar winner in nearly a decade.  With THINK already the subject of various lawsuits, it appears that the claimants are hoping that the suit may prompt the film to be returned to the filmmakers.

From a just released press release from X-Ray:

"X-Ray asserts, among other things, that ThinkFilm did not have the financial resources to properly release the film and fraudulently concealed this fact from the film’s creative team, its investors and the film’s sales agent, Cinetic Media Inc.  Further, the demand asserts that ThinkFilm’s actions damaged “Taxi,” its commercial reputation and its future possibilities for commercial success.  X-Ray seeks damages, payment of legal fees as well as a termination of its agreement with ThinkFilm and a return of its distribution rights.

(...)In conversations with some of the film’s principals, it seems clear that many of ThinkFilm’s problems are the result of actions taken by its parent company, Capitol Films, and its principal, David Bergstein.  Glascoff noted that Mark Urman, President of ThinkFilm may have been frustrated by his inability to get needed cash flow from Capitol.  “Nevertheless,” notes Glascoff, “lack of disclosure was a serious problem.”

Gibney is less diplomatic. “I was particularly upset,” says Gibney, “ by the way that Think took advantage of the many small vendors – publicists and web designers – who gave Think discounts because of the important message that “Taxi” had to convey.  Rather than reward them for their hard work – which helped to earn the film an Oscar – ThinkFilm is refusing to pay them.”

indieWIRE has In-Depth Article on THINKFilm Financial Crisis, Disputes Reported Rosy Outlook

Anthony Kaufman, writing for indieWIRE, has just posted an in depth report on the status of THINKFilm, which we have been covering extensively since last month (You can find our coverage here, here, here, here and here).  Despite a blog posting by David Poland last week that asserted THINK had found European money to shore up its finances for at least a year, Kaufman disputes such a rosy forecast:

"In recent days, rumors have circulated that Capitol could receive a cash infusion from international investors, making it possible to pay off its debts and keep THINKFilm alive, but no such deals are immediately evident.

Ed Hayes, an attorney for Mammoth Advertising, told indieWIRE that he expected Capitol and THINKFilm to find a way to pay its debtors. 'I would be surprised if they didn't try to settle," he said. "When I've spoken to them on the phone, they were confident that they would work something out.'"

Kaufman also gets THINKFilm head Mark Urman on the record about the current state of affairs at the distributor:

"I feel terrible if people are hurt by our financial problems," he said. "We're not moving forward on other people's blood, I can assure you. We're not fucking people; we're in trouble. And if people end up getting fucked, we're fucked, too, and we can all be on the unemployment lines together."

(...) Even with its money problems, Urman said the releases of HBO's "ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED" and Azazel Jacob's "MOMMA'S MAN" can go forward. "If I didn't think we could get what they deserve, I wouldn't be proceeding with them," said Urman. 'These films are not cash-intensive films. These films will get everything they need. I will not engage with disappointing myself, our team, or our filmmakers. I insist that the films get what they deserve or I won't even begin.'"

As we noted earlier this week, THINK had a very successful opening for their current doc release ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD.

David Poland Says THINKFilm Has a Big New Cash Infusion

The roller coaster continues.  From DP's Hot Blog:

"Just as it seemed that ThinkFilm was about to be no more and many were accounting for the bills that would never get paid, here comes $150 million from overseas. Expect the company to low-key it, trying to avoid a rush on their bank-not-ruptcy. But word of anticipated movies that are moving back onto the production schedule, finished movies no longer being sold off, and everything actually being distributed should break shortly.

I have no idea how the various projects that were having trouble in production will be affected. But $150 million is plenty to keep the company in business for at least the next year."

POV's Tom Roston & THINKFilm's Mark Urman Criticize the Big Blogger-Media-Complex

The P.O.V. Blog's Tom Roston had a piece up yesterday criticizing us (although not by name) for the pieces we wrote last month about financial troubles at THINKFilm.  (You can find our original posts here, here, here and here.)  In the piece, Roston gets THINKFilm President Mark Urman on the record not so much about the state of affairs at THINK but about the speculation about the state of affairs at THINK.  Says Urman:

"If one wants to chronicle the woes, one is simply adding to them. Thus far, all the writers who purport to set the record straight do so by recapitulating all the half-truths and false assumptions only to halfheartedly refute them. I am stymied as to why so many film writers are much quicker to cover our problems than they are to cover our films."

While Roston acknowledges that Urman hasn't said much about the current state of THINK, he argues that Urman's remarks are "a fair assessment of the overall vibe that the blog-media-complex is treating THINKFilm like the latest chum thrown in the water".

Earlier in his piece, Roston ridicules the posts themselves, arguing that they were little more than gossip:

"A lot of the "reporting" on the issue has referenced unnamed sources, and there's been a notable lack of comment from Bergstein or ThinkFilm. It appears that some of the "reporters" didn't even seek comment from the subjects. And lest we forget, a lawsuit is just a legal claim, not a statement of fact. Not that I'm saying there's no truth in the matter, but I've just been bothered by how the rumors have surfaced as news when, really, there have been very few hard news stories (there's been one Variety piece) covering the situation."

Oy, where to begin? 

As Karina Longworth alludes in her own piece today, there've actually been four Variety articles about the THINKFilm situation (May 12, May 14, May 29 and June 1), the last of which notes that another lawsuit had been filed against the company by Mammoth Advertising.  This would seem to cut to the heart of Roston's complaint - hell, if Variety thinks the story merits FOUR articles, maybe there is some truth to it!

But really, the fact that there haven't been "hard news stories" about THINK's situation is a reason to doubt what's been said on those awful blogs?  Strange notion that, considering that everything that we reported in our "controverisial" "BREAKING" story was backed up less than 24 hours later by Variety.

As for Roston's contention that we didn't even seek comment from THINK, I think several points are worth noting.  First, as we've mentioned previously, we've had an off-the-record email exchange with Mark Urman.  I have given him on-the-record questions about the state of THINK's financial affairs but have yet to receive a reply.  I should also note that more than once I have been given information about THINK that I have felt was either gossip or unverifiable and have not run that information.  Finally, one should note that in Variety's most recent story, requests for comment from THINK are referred to a PR company, which gave no comment.  Even Roston himself can't get anything out of Urman on this point, as Urman's comment starts off with "Let's not get into the whole THINK thing."

But finally, Tom, if you're gonna criticize me and put ironic quotations around the idea that I've done "reporting" on this topic, then you should name me and link to the posts in question.

Tom Hall & Bob Alexander Respond to Jonathan Marlow's Thoughts on Festivals and Distribution

Previously, we posted a response to Jonathan Marlow's piece at GreenCine about film festivals and independent distribution.  Now, some of our favorite people have responded in blog posts of their own.

The Sarasota Film Festival's Tom Hall, who has written extensively in the past about whether or not festivals represent a new distribution system - as well as the controversial practice of paying out screening fees for films - weighs in with his usual thoughtful and extensive response:

"I really take exception to this article (and Marlow's later claim that any one who says otherwise has a vested interest in the exploitation of filmmakers) and the idea that somehow low-ball , "exposure-driven outcome" deals by for-profit distributors are the same as non-profit festivals building word of mouth with one or two screenings of a film for a paying audience. The cost of renting theaters, equipping them with video and film projection, staffing the booth, organizing travel and accommodations for the filmmakers, staffing for programming, marketing and press for the films in both the national and local press? That cost FAR OUTWEIGHS the income generated by single ticket and pass sales at most film festivals. So, with festivals essentially subsidizing film screenings (which generally operate at a loss) with sponsorship dollars, I am not sure how the festival is prostituting the filmmaker. In fact, the whole argument is bullshit. Non-profit arts organizations are not structured as a replacement for traditional for-profit distribution models. Film festivals are not theater operators or exhibitors, take no money from the concession stand, and use the revenue generated by film tickets to help offset the cost of showing the films. We are not distributors, do not share in a national distribution plan, do not exhibit a film more than once or twice, and generally don't turn a profit on ticket sales. I've never met a rich film festival employee in my life."

Also objecting is Indiepix' Bob Alexander, who argues, rightly, that it's not the job of festivals to provide that which eludes indie distributors:

"A film that has been in several festivals and won some awards has, as many of you know, been screened and judged worthy by several panels and further reviewed by awards judges. That process represents the view of the independent film community better than any other process today — certainly better than internet popularity contests — in terms of what’s good. What’s “popular” is not necessarily “good” independent film. I offer, as examples (dispensing with unnecessary adjectives), “Four-Eyed Monster” and “Super High-Me”. The difference between “good” and “popular” is an important distinction that we should not forget.

The fact that films that play prestigious festivals and win important awards don’t get distribution has zero to do with how well festivals do their job. It only has to do with how poorly would-be distribution companies do theirs! On the face of it, festivals have correctly pointed out the best in independent film. But the distribution executives repeatedly ask: “how can I sell that?” 

Pardon me, but isn’t that exactly what they’re supposed to do?  Isn’t that why they’re paid the big bucks?"

Also check out posts on this topic from Agnes Varnum, Karina Longworth and Sujewa Ekanayake.

An Annual State of the Industry Post and Some Festival Advice for Filmmakers

Distribution companies shutting down (or seemingly on the rocks).  New technologies seeming to arrive on a daily basis.  With all the fast and furious changes in the independent film world, it's become necessary to take a somewhat yearly look at the state of our union and to question whether we are abiding by an old, outmoded system.

Jonathan Marlow had a good piece up at GreenCine Daily last week that calls on filmmakers to do just that, wondering if too many of us "otherwise intelligent people (are) still playing by the studio rules":

"When the likelihood of success for films made on spec (that is, a film made with private money on the hopes of selling it to an established studio or distributor) approaches the same statistics as the chances of winning the lottery, why do so many filmmakers persist? Why do they essentially follow the same established patterns?...

The whole (to oversimplify) festival-circuit-followed-by-theatrical-release-followed-by-
video-debut-followed-by-television-sale - the notion of cascading windows of availability - was created to benefit the multiple-sales cycle of the studios, in essence carving out different periods of time to sell the same "product" again and again. Conversely, this process rarely benefits independent filmmakers at all. For just-starting-out directors, playing by these tired rules generally does more harm than good."

Marlow goes on to note that the flourishing of film festivals a decade ago (note how many fests are celebrating their 10th anniversary this year) has led to an alternative distribution system, although one that holds little financial gain for filmmakers:

"The festival circuit (has) become an ersatz distribution system unto itself that, for the most part, keeps money away from the makers. The ten or 20 dollars you spend on a ticket (or the $50 to $500 you spend on a pass) rarely finds its way into the hands of the folks behind the camera. For all of those folks that were frustrated by the late-1990s business model of mere exposure-driven outcomes, these same folks generally have little complaint when festivals routinely screw them the same way. If you're going to prostitute yourself and your work, wouldn't you want to at least be treated with a little respect? To stretch the analogy, isn't the distance between "street-walker" and "call girl" really a matter perspective?"

"If the proverbial theatrical release is elusive and the video business is flat or in decline (depending on which statistic you tend to support), what else is there to expect out of the proverbial festival tour beyond the face-to-face that filmmakers get with their audience? The undercurrent of a point from these words is that if you're traveling to a festival, you might as well enjoy the experience when you get there. Any other expectation misguided at best."

There's a lot of interesting stuff to digest and discuss in Marlow's piece and, if I may, I want to add a bit of personal perspective on festivals, starting with a respectful disagreement on his suggestion of filmmakers routinely getting screwed over.

When we posted our list of the top festivals for documentary, it was our hope that filmmakers would be able to see through the maze and fog of the festival circuit and could make more educated decisions about their festival strategy.  Ah yes, the vaunted festival "strategy", wherein one plans a roadmap for which one has little to no control over the steering.   The festivals that were mentioned on that list (along with a few others that for one reason or another didn't get mentioned this time) can provide a benefit that extends beyond a monetary fee.

That benefit varies, of course.  Some festivals offer the possibility of distributors in the audience.  Some have panels or social settings where you could strike up a conversation with the likes of HBO's Nancy Abraham or Magnolia's Tom Quinn.  Some have large cash prizes in their competitions.  Some attract well-respected/well-read critics or bloggers.  Some are known for treating filmmakers like kings - who doesn't want an all-expense paid trip to a resort town where one can dine on scotch and lobster?  And nearly all offer a community experience - a chance to meet other filmmakers from around the world and socialize, share notes and commiserate.  Depending on your desires, any one of the above could be a reason for you to attend or let a festival screen your film, whether money flows your way or not.

With that in mind, here is some (unsolicited) advice about festivals that I think every filmmaker should know.

PART ONE - SUBMISSION FEES

I'm of the belief that once you have played a major festival (and I consider all of the festivals in our top 10 - plus Berlin, Cannes, Venice, Rotterdam, Telluride & AFI - to be major) you shouldn't pay submission fees, except under extraordinary circumstances.  And I think you should never pay a submission fee if a festival requests to see your film. 

What are extraordinary circumstances?  Maybe there's a certain festival that you really want to play - perhaps it's a top fest, maybe you have friends or family in the region - and the festival refuses to waive the fee.  First ask yourself what this may say about the festival (its hospitality, its willingness to work with filmmakers, the depth of its pockets) and then decide whether it's worth it for you to pay the $35, $50 or more.  If it is, then go with God, but don't make a habit out of it.

PART TWO - SCREENING FEES

The not-so-secret secret of the festival world is that someone is probably being paid, even if you aren't.  Fees vary so greatly that it's difficult to come up with a standard, but many films are paid $500, $1000 or more to screen at fest.  Some even split box office revenues with the festival - a nice incentive for filmmakers to work hard to get an audience for their film.

Some festivals don't pay screening fees on principle (wherein often the rich - or those with distribution already - get richer and the poor get nothing).  Some don't have the financial resources to pay for filmmaker travel and a screening fee.  But at a certain point on your festival run, you probably will have reached your saturation point.  You've played (or been rejected) by all the major fests and you've been to enough regional fests to keep you in messenger bags and Stella Artois commemorative glasses for a lifetime.  This is probably the point at which you should start asking festivals (if you haven't already) to pay to screen your film.

PART THREE - FILMMAKER HOSPITALITY

If I invite someone over to my house, I feel like it's my responsibility to feed them, give them something to drink and tell them where everything is.  It's what we like to call "being a good host".  If while that person is at my house I ask them to do something to make my house better - painting, fixing, setting up my edit system - then it's also my responsibility to compensate them in some way.

Funny then how so many film festivals have lost sight of their host function, gearing up with the expectation that their guests bear some of their costs of living.

I don't have much sympathy in this regard.  There are already too many festivals.  No one is forcing you to create a cinema event in your town.  But if you're going to do it, then I feel your most basic responsibility is to be a good host.

Ideally, I don't think a filmmaker should have to pay a penny out of pocket from the moment he or she steps onto an airplane to the moment he or she returns home.  That includes airfare, transport from the airport, lodging, transport to the screening venues, transport (or directions if walkable), food and drinks throughout the day, alcohol if required, access to wifi or computers and a guide to the city.  If a festival can't do this, they might as well call it a day.

Now, I'll admit that many of the fests we included in top festivals fail to meet this high standard.  Some will pay for some of these things (airfare OR lodging, for example) and at least one of these (SXSW) puts most of the costs back on you.  Because these festivals may offer other important perks (not to mention the prestige of having their logo on your poster) you'll probably choose to forge ahead nonetheless (as I have).

But if a festival won't pay all your expenses and can't offer even a modicum of prestige, then what's the point?

(Note: Next year we will be weighting our festival rankings toward those fests that do pay for expenses, while still taking a fest's various profile-raising attributes into account.)

PART FOUR - LOCATION

Sometimes, you may choose to play a festival because the chances are slim that your film will ever play in that town or region even if you were to get the vaunted theatrical release.  Few indie films make it to South Dakota, for example, so if the mythical Mount Rushmore Indie Film Festival (MRIFF) invited you to screen, you may see it as an opportunity to gain exposure in that particular market prior to a release on DVD (where anyone with access to Amazon or Netflix can pick up your movie), even if MRIFF offered nothing in the way of remuneration.

That doesn't mean that you should fork out your own hard earned dollars to attend MRIFF - in fact, it probably means you should stay home.  But it may still make sense to you to send and screen your film.

PART FIVE - MAKE SMART CHOICES

Another reason for the list of 25 festivals (plus a few on the bubble) is because I often see smart filmmakers make foolish choices when it comes to their festival strategy.  A filmmaker should make every effort to premiere at one of the major festivals.  If you are successful, you'll probably start getting invited to other festivals, some major, some minor.  You might end up playing a handful of major festivals before you are done.  Witness MAN ON WIRE - it premiered at Sundance and went on to play at True/False, Full Frame, Tribeca and Hot Docs and will screen at Silverdocs and Los Angeles - 7 out of the top 10 festivals. 
But chances are you are not MAN ON WIRE and therefore you need to carefully consider your choices.

What happens if you don't get into your first choices of major festivals?  Well, for one thing, don't panic.  I tend to think that most films tend to find the festival journey that's right for them.  Maybe a major fest isn't in your film's future.  That doesn't mean that you can't find an audience or that you won't gain something big by playing what you may consider a minor fest. 

On my first short film (which was a narrative), we were bypassed by nearly every major fest.  After nine months of submissions, we ended up getting programmed by the LA Short Film Festival.  A writer for indieWIRE saw the film, wrote about it and later suggested the film for the then nearly brand new Sarasota Film Festival.  I went to Sarasota, met a bunch of filmmakers, got inspired to make a documentary feature and less than a month and a half later, I was making my first feature film, GIGANTIC.

AND FINALLY PART SIX - COMMUNICATION

If you don't know this about me yet, I am a big fan of festival programmers.  They love film, they love filmmakers and they want to put on a great festival.  To do this, they make choices based on a lot of different factors - films they love, what plays to their audience (or their board of directors), balancing with other titles, filling out sidebars.  Sometimes, these choices are subject to derision or the raising of eyebrows.  Often the deriders are those who, for one reason or another, didn't make the cut that year.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard of the misplaced email or letter sent by the scorned filmmaker.  That misbegotten "you may not get my film but just watch it's gonna be a huge success" note might feel good for a moment but, like leaving a message on your ex-girlfriend's answering machine, it's a bad, bad, bad idea.

When I talk about communication, it's important that your communication with festivals is courteous and respectful of the fact that - whether you make it into the festival or not - you are one of hundreds of filmmakers vying for their attention and that, despite what I may infer with parts one through five, it's not all about you.

Just as I expect festivals to be a good host, I expect filmmakers to be good guests.  And that starts with the moment that you submit your film.  Think of it like applying to a good college.  Make a good contact in the admissions office (programmers).  Write a good essay (make a good film).  Keep your package simple (label your DVD with your contact information).  Follow up to make sure that they've received your application.  Wait patiently.  And don't suicide a single school (festival).

If you get in to a festival, make yourself available to them for press.  Make a contact that you can rely on (and who can rely on you).  Meet your deadlines.  Have a healthy dialogue about screening times and potential audiences.  And treat everyone with respect.

If you don't get in, how about sending a letter of thanks for their consideration (you're going to make another film, right?) and how you look forward to meeting them down the road.  And then move on.

Festivals, whether they pay you or give you face time with Debra Zimmerman or put you in a fancy B&B, can be your friend.  More importantly, they can be your partner in reaching an audience for your film that you might otherwise miss.  And yes, they can be part of an "ersatz distribution system", particularly at a time when fewer films are being distributed.

But like all parts of your filmmaking journey, it's up to the filmmaker to be educated and to make smart choices.

THINKFilm Update: Some Filmmakers are Getting Paid as Lawsuits Begin

Two weeks ago we reported that indie distributor THINKFilm - the most prolific distrib for documentary over the past few years - was in the midst of a financial crisis (see original posts here and here).  Specifically we had been told that filmmakers and vendors were about to file lawsuits in an attempt to recoup monies owed to them.

Since then, we have heard from two different filmmakers that - after threatening lawsuits against the company - they have been paid what they were owed.

This does not seem to be the case with vendors, however, at least not yet.  Since our initial reporting, I've heard more stories of vendors being owed tens of thousands of dollars.  Now, as Nikki Finke reports, a Boston-based agency called Allied Advertising is suing THINK for "breach of contract, fraud and deceit, and unfair business practices", alleging millions of dollars in unpaid bills.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that THINK spent months trying to convince its creditors that a company reorganization (specifically the closing of their Toronto office and the shifting of bill-paying to Los Angeles) was to blame for delayed payments and that this "scheme" was in place so that THINK could continue to acquire films:

"Between January 2008 and May 2008, defendants paid millions of dollars to acquire the rights to new feature motion pictures (or the right to produce or distribute such films). In order to convince film owners, producers, production companies and other third parties that it had credibility with advertising agencies such as Allied, to professionally and effectively advertise forthcoming motion pictures, defendants needed to create an impression that they were paying print and advertising obligations as they came due, which was not true. In furtherance of this scheme, defendants needed to deceive Allied into believing that a payment schedule would be presented and honored in good faith."

While this account squares with what we have been told first hand, one might argue (if one wanted to be charitable to THINK) that the company truly believed that a turn-around was coming and that bills could be paid.

It should be noted that I have had an email exchange with THINKFilm's Mark Urman over these issues.  We hope to have a an on-the-record comment from him in the near future.

David Poland on the Trouble with Trouble

It's worth noting a piece written tonight by David Poland on his new Hot Button blog about our writing here on the travails of THINKFilm (as well as Nikki Finke's writing on the financial state of Capitol Films and the Weinstein Co.).  While Nikki gets the brunt of David's ire (no surprise there), he offers a caution for us, as well:

"There are two stories on the web today that may be 100% true… but also concern me deeply. It’s not about pulling back the curtain. That’s the job. But there is a kind of malignancy in the idea that what has always been gossip is now being published by bloggers as “news”… and then, followed up on, even without any real confirmations of anything nefarious, as a way of self-glorifying… even getting down to the “send me your complaints about people who pay you late so I can humiliate them too!” gamesmanship. But who can blame Ms Finke for her gutter urges. They have gotten her so much attention so far!

When AJ Schnack sends out a blog entry as "BREAKING," when it is, in fact, neither breaking or news, you have to wonder. Again… the unnamed sources who are trying to get paid – and there has been quiet talk that Think paid Alex Gibney off almost completely after he ran a threat through Stu Van Airsdale at Defamer –  may be telling the story 100% straight.  Or they may not. 

The reason there are rules in journalism on sourcing is not because some crazy ass sources are not sometimes right… but because once someone is smeared in the press, it is hard to take it back.

Capitol and Think may be going under. They may not. But the feeding frenzy around their troubles tends to make a lot of assumptions… some of which may be true and others which may not be."

I responded to Poland's post on his site, but the gist of it is this:

I think it would be a huge blow if THINKFilm were to bow out of the indie film world and particularly a blow to the potential of nonfiction theatrical distribution (even if the company is not as interested in docs as they were a year and a half ago).  However, no one is served (particularly filmmakers and vendors who have working relationships with THINK) to pretend that a situation is rosy (or benign) if it is becoming malignant. 

There are always rumors and people are always slow in getting paid.  Sometimes it feels like the whole indie film world is one paycheck away from boarding up the windows.  I've had the personal experience of losing tens of thousands of dollars when a distribution company went bankrupt without notice.  It was certainly not pleasant (in fact, it's a burden that continues to this day) but I don't think I've ever mentioned it here.

It's been a rough couple of weeks.  I've written two pieces - this morning's story about THINK and one about the shuttering of Discovery Films - which had not been reported elsewhere.  In both cases, I sought and received confirmation from someone who didn't have a rooting interest in the outcome before printing the stories.  If there are mistakes - or if someone has a different take - I hope you'll contribute to the discussion.

It should be noted that Variety has now gone to press with a new story that backs up my post from Wednesday morning.

BREAKING: THINKFilm's Financial Troubles Date Back to Last Fall, A Flood of Lawsuits Coming

What is Mark Urman doing in Cannes when the company has no money to pay anyone?

That was the rhetorical question raised to me by one person who is owed tens of thousands of dollars by THINKFilm, debts that date back to last fall.  This contradicts an earlier Variety report that suggested THINK was recently caught off guard by a money shortage related to reported difficulties at sister company Capitol Films.

This person is set to serve THINKFilm with papers in the coming days, one of many expected lawsuits that will attempt to force the indie distributor to pay off some of its creditors, who range from filmmakers to vendors to consultants.  Another indie film insider told me that they knew of at least three films that are owed money by THINK and that two of those films are preparing for legal action while the third is in arbitration.

This confirms what I was told last month by a filmmaker, who said that their lawyer was preparing to force THINK into bankruptcy in an attempt to collect monies that were owed.

One indie film veteran told me this morning that they were given a shifting series of excuses for months, somewhat recently told that the decision to shift operations from Toronto was to blame for the lack of payments.  These excuses came to a halt recently when they were told by Mark Urman that they should not expect to see any payments.

When I asked if, in the face of a flood of pending lawsuits, they could see any way out of the situation for THINKFilm, the indie vet flatly told me, "No."

Update: Variety has posted a new story that backs up this post and quotes CapCo head David Bergstein.

Previously: Big Trouble in Indie Land - Is THINKFilm on the Ropes?

Big Trouble in Indie Land: Is THINKFilm on the Ropes?

Lots of buzzing about the uncertain financial state of indie film distributor THINKFilm.  In the wake of a number of stories chronicling the troubles facing Capitol Films (you may have read about them having to shut down production on the Jake Gyllenhaal film NAILED due to lack of money), the spotlight has now been focused on Capitol's sister company THINKFilm, both owned by parent CapCo, headed by David Bergstein.

On Monday, Variety reported that THINK's own financial difficulties may not be new:

"American distrib THINKFilm is known to owe substantial amounts to media outlets, among others. The company was going to announce the acquisition from Senator Entertainment of WHITE MALE HEART this week, but then canceled its press meetings.

Further problems emerged last week when THINKFilm execs suddenly discovered there was no money for Friday newspaper ads for Helen Hunt’s much-hyped Toronto pickup THEN SHE FOUND ME."

Stu at Defamer notes a separate Variety article that says Oscar winner Alex Gibney threatened to take THINK into bankruptcy "after the company failed to pay him his fees" on TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE.

Over a month ago, a filmmaker (and THINK alum) told me that their (extremely well known indie film) lawyer was about to sue THINK for payments, not just on their documentary film but on a slate of THINK titles and filmmakers that were owed money.

Tuesday night, another filmmaker told me that the company is behind on paying many of their filmmakers and have concealed their financial situation from filmmakers and vendors.  They said that some are owed money in the six figures range.

THINK cut back on its documentary acquisitions this year after loading up in 2007 on a number of titles that underperformed at the box office.  However, they have two high profile releases planned for summer - Werner Herzog's ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD and Marina Zenovich's ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED, which the company is to release immediately after it's premiere on HBO.

The news about THINK comes after a week of tumultuous developments in the nonfiction and indie film worlds, including the shuttering of Picturehouse, Warner Independent and Discovery Films and the purchase of the Sundance Channel by Cablevision (parent of Sundance competitor IFC TV).

BREAKING: Word Circulates that Discovery Films is No More

With two major films due in the coming months - Werner Herzog's ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD, which THINKFilm is to release, and James Marsh's acclaimed Sundance winner MAN ON WIRE due from Magnolia - word is spreading that Discovery Films may be about to close and in fact may have already ceased most operations.  It appears that Executive Producer Andrea Meditch has already exited the company.

In conversations last week and over the weekend, four separate people told me that the closure of the Discovery Films unit will be announced shortly. 

Focused on theatrical, high profile documentary projects, Discovery Films had previously produced Herzog's GRIZZLY MAN and was involved with IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON.  There are extremely high hopes for the theatrical potential of MAN ON WIRE, considered by many to be one of the top nonfiction films of the year.

In a February piece in the Hollywood Reporter about the theatrical aspirations of cable networks (Discovery Films was a unit of the Discovery TV networks), it was reported that Discovery planned to be involved in 2-4 films per year.

There had already been considerable speculation about Discovery's ongoing sponsorship of the AFI Silverdocs film festival, with word circulation that Discovery would scale back its participation in the festival.

The news about Discovery Films comes on the heels of a tumultuous week in indie film - the shuttering of both Picturehouse and Warner Independent as well as Cablevision's apparent purchase of Sundance Channel.  All of the developments have to potential to have a major effect on nonfiction filmmaking.

Big Industry Changes: Picturehouse, Warner Indie Folds; Rainbow Media Buys Sundance Channel

Just arrived in New York City - for those of you who haven't seen the huge breaking news of the past 48 hours: Warner Bros. (as has been rumored for weeks) has shuttered both Picturehouse (which released THE KING OF KONG) and Warner Indie (which made a huge hit and Oscar winner out of MARCH OF THE PENGUINS).  Eric Kohn at indieWIRE has a full report.

Meanwhile, Cablevision's Rainbow Media, which owns the IFC TV network, has apparently bought the Sundance Channel, which is a big development for nonfiction filmmakers, since Sundance is perhaps the biggest TV outlet for documentary film and there is speculation as to whether Sundance might ultimately be folded into IFC.  Much more on this in the days to come....

Look, Up in the Sky...

Cinematical unveiled the poster for the forthcoming Larry Charles/Bill Maher nonfiction, RELIGULOUS, which is an almost sure-fire hit when it opens in theaters June 20.  Now, the question is, which festival will premiere the film - Cannes?  Or a certain US documentary festival that's closer to the release date?

The Great April Box Office Test - YOUNG@HEART, OSAMA, SOP and EXPELLED May Decide The Future of Docs

With Wednesday's opening of the film YOUNG@HEART, Fox Searchlight (which hadn't picked up a documentary for distibution in a decade) kicked off what will be the first big test for nonfiction in 2008.  While Sundance hits AMERICAN TEEN and MAN ON WIRE wait in the wings, a quartet of films debuting this month - two from among the most well-know of all doc filmmakers - stand poised to offer a remarkable guage on the current landscape for theatrical nonfiction.

All four films - YOUNG@HEART, WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN?, EXPELLED and STANDARD OPERATING PRODECURE - could be (and perhaps should be) box office successes.   After all, we have new films from Errol Morris (SOP) and Morgan Spurlock (OSAMA), a film from perhaps the best of the "dependent" studios (YOUNG) and what may be the best-made, conservative-leaning nonfiction title to come down the pike (EXPELLED).  But each will be challenged not only by the recent atmosphere for documentaries but also by a variety of questions, including audience, timing and quality.

Will YOUNG@HEART, a crowd-pleasing documentary about a group of seniors that performs as a rock and roll choir, benefit from Fox Searchlight's well-known expertise in marketing and releasing.  Wednesday's opening in 4 theaters averaged $894 per screen - not a disaster but also nothing to scream break-out hit.

Will EXPELLED, a film arguing that those scientists and teachers who believe in Intelligent Design have been unfairly targeted, accomplish what no conservative nonfiction title has yet to - find a wide theatrical audience.  Distributor Rocky Mountain Films (which has had some small-scale success with religious-themed films in the past) aims to open the film wide - at least 900 screens - next Friday.  Will the film be able to draw conservatives - who don't have a track record of supporting documentaries in the theaters - as well as open-minded independents and liberals.  For years, many have asked why we haven't seen more well-produced documentaries with conservative ideas.  EXPELLED may well be the first of a wave or may provide evidence that the audience for such films (theatrically, at least) is small.

Will WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? be able to draw on Morgan Spurlock's everyday guy appeal and capitalize on the success of his first film, SUPER SIZE ME.  The film, which is almost certain to divide critics, also debuts next weekend, providing a kind of interesting compare and contrast with Nathan Frankowski's EXPELLED.  Although OSAMA tries to thread political lines between right and left by not taking an activist position - Spurlock is presented as a kind of blank slate, a surrogate for an audience wondering what kind of world we live in, circa 2008 - some might view the film as naive or simplified within such a framework.  Whereas SUPER SIZE ME had a direct message - fast food is bad for you - OSAMA ponders a more ephemeral question - why can't we be friends?

And finally, will STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, the first film for Oscar winning director Errol Morris since FOG OF WAR, be able to wade through it's own divided critical opinion, as well as the fact that the film is the fourth on the topic of Abu Ghraib and is sure to be compared to the Oscar-winning TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE.

Much to answer in April - with many fearing that if all four films find difficulty at the box office, it may be the final straw for distributors and filmmakers with theatrical stars in their eyes.

Manohla Calls HBO's Bluff and Reviews POLANSKI

Kudos to Manohla Dargis and the NY Times for running a review in Monday's edition of Marina Zenovich's ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED, the Sundance hit turned HBO premiere that has set the film world abuzz with its undercover Oscar run somewhere just south of Bronxville.

As noted in our piece yesterday - as well as in posts by Stu Van Airsdale, Karina Longworth and Eugene Hernandez - HBO's goal was to qualify under the newly revised AMPAS rules for documentary features (you have to play for a week, two screenings a day, in the Borough of Manhattan and the County of Los Angeles.  It was all supposed to happen without anyone noticing.  But after a weekend of bloggers spouting off (with sentiments ranging from Oscar rules are ridiculous to shame on HBO), the Gray Lady herself weighed in:

"WANTED AND DESIRED, which opened on Friday without advance press screenings, was bought by HBO at the Sundance Film Festival in January. Its one-week theatrical run will make it eligible for Academy Award consideration, though given that organization’s often pitiful record when it comes to nonfiction film, it seems unlikely that a movie this subtly intelligent would make its short list. That’s especially true because the director, Marina Zenovich, refuses to wag her finger at Mr. Polanski, even when presenting the sordid and grimly pathetic details of his crime, like the Champagne and partial Quaalude he furnished the 13-year-old girl and her repeated nos."

For years, these types of Oscar qualifying screenings have been going on, particularly in August in Los Angeles, where whole theatres are turned over to rotating screenings of films that won't officially be in theaters until months later, if they make it to theaters at all.  The LA film press has always let this pass by without notice, without reviews, a kind of gentleman's agreement if you will, as if to say, these films aren't really playing - despite the fact that admissions are charged and the public is, in fact, welcome.  Despite the raft of online coverage and the NY Times review, the LA Times has yet to cover the Polanski doc's run in Pasadena.

The interesting thing here is that while all of this has been going on for years here in Los Angeles - indeed, I had a piece last August about eventual Oscar winner TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE's forced scramble to complete an undercover run so that it wouldn't be disqualified by a pending television broadcast and I don't think a single blog linked to the story - it's now really happening for the first time in New York due to the new rules.  The story broke on Defamer, but maybe wouldn't even have run under the site's old LA-based editor.  However, it was a natural piece for NY-based Stu to print. 

That LA-denizen Dargis brings the story into the mainstream dailies via her position as chief film critic for the Times makes the irony even nicer (although I loved Karina's imagery of the Times putting Manohla on the A train).

Meanwhile, much more coverage online in the past 36 hours, including Anne Thompson's not so surprising defense of HBO:

"It's the HBO way. The fuss is all about the HBO launch--and getting an Oscar nom, natch--not building a successful theatrical release. Marina Zenovich knew this when she made her rich HBO deal"

Erik Davis at Cinematical disagrees:

"If they have to screen it theatrically in order for it to be in the running for an Oscar, why don't they screen it at a reputable indie-centric theater in NYC, like Film Forum or the IFC Center. Sh*t, screen it at my apartment -- I bet more people would see it at my crib than on West 181st street."

In the comments to Eugene's post on Sunday, Bryan Stamp of Participant draws the bigger picture on HBO's maneuvering and the Academy's fumbling:

"The nominating process is at least inefficient, and at most fundamentally fucked up. There are other motives at play inside the branch than simply ensuring nominations for the best films. Obviously, the Academy's rule of last year yielded one of the most polarizing shortlists in recent memory, not to mention a seemingly hypocritical list of films that qualified only by the minimum standards. Rather than honor the films that actually had marketing dollars and higher profile releases (most of which were more "cinematic or "theatrical" and in my opinion "better" than the actual shortlist) the shortlist was contrary to the very purpose of the rule (to guarantee that the eligible films were legit theatrical films). So instead of honoring widely liked films released by mini-majors (which helps raise the profile of the entire pool of films, and the genre itself), the rule and the committee failed to achieve that. From the shortlist, the eventual nominees were mostly deserving; it’s just a shame that some of the best theatrical/cinematic documentaries of the year were ignored (by the Academy, anyway, and a large percentage of the population)."

Meanwhile, Karina reminds us that this Oscar talk is overshadowing the film itself and that's "(say it with me now) Bad For Cinema", so let's go back in the Spout archives and revisit Karina's original review of the film.  That piece, combined with the impassioned reader comments on Dargis' review, suggest that this is exactly the kind of conversation-starting, thought-provoking, debate-inciting film that many documentaries strive to be.

Wow, if only such a film was in theaters.

HBO Laughs at the New Oscar Rules, Qualifies POLANSKI Doc On W. 181st Street

When the Academy loosened its qualifying rules for Oscar Docus last fall, more than one longtime member of the doc community told me that the difficulty of the new rules would be finding theater screens in art house-challenged Manhattan.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Coliseum Cinemas on W. 181st Street, where for the rest of this week, you can check out the Sundance favorite ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED at 2 PM and 4 PM.

As reported Friday by Stu at Defamer:

"Where is the marketing? Where are the reviews? Where is the heated discussion about the Polanski case?...

HBO Documentary Films purchased Wanted and Desired for $1 million out of Sundance, planning a cable premiere and a DVD release — but no theatrical run. Except that to qualify for an Oscar, you have to screen "for a minimum of seven days in both Los Angeles County and the Borough of Manhattan."...  HBO is protecting its audience for the June 9 cable premiere and keeping its Oscar hopes alive by dumping it in the farthest reaches of Upper Manhattan for the bare minimum two afternoon screenings per day...

This isn't exactly the kind of treatment supposedly Oscar-worthy films deserve, is it?"

In Los Angeles, the same bare minimum is taking place at Laemmle's One Pasadena, deep in the basement bowels of an alley off of Colorado Blvd.

Look, God bless HBO.  They've been pushing documentary as much or more than anyone for decades.  And Lord knows that Sheila Nevins should have been invited into the Academy years ago.  I give them that and a bag a chips.

But like they're bought and paid for run of WHITE LIGHT/BLACK RAIN last year, HBO is, once again, laughing at the Academy and it's nonsensical rules.  No matter what the Academy does in terms of setting the bar for true theatrical runs, HBO writes the check and qualifies.  14 cities?  No problem.  Manhattan?  We'll take care of it.

What they won't do is give the film a real theatrical opening.  Put the movie at the Film Forum or the IFC - two venues that would likely take the film in a second - and let it get reviewed and be seen by paying audiences on a big screen?  Nope, not interested.  Even though a film about Polanski that was a hit in Park City might actually be a big draw in Manhattan (not to mention doc-phobic LA)?  Still not interested and please go fuck yourself.

And I don't buy Stu's insinuation that this is about "protecting its audience" for the HBO premiere in June.  Sheila has made it clear that she thinks "the war is over between TV and theatrical", but in the same interview, she said that "Maybe the happy home for documentaries is the very short theatrical release with no expectations".  The latter is not what's happening here.

So, not on the merits of POLANSKI - which I haven't seen but have heard great things about - but the Academy's a bunch of suckers if they shortlist any HBO film when HBO won't even do the minimal work to allow that film to be a true theatrical release.  Give them a raft of Emmys.  Give them Peabodys.  Give Sheila the Academy membership that she so deserves.  But don't let them anywhere near the Kodak unless the films get reviewed, get publicized and get seen by paying audiences.

181st Street's a joke and no one at the Academy should be laughing.

Don't You (Forget About Good Marketing)

Via Cinematical - the poster for Nanette Burstein's forthcoming AMERICAN TEEN.  Genius?  Too on the nose?  I vote for the former.

In Theatres: Cinema Eye Nominees CHICAGO 10 and THE UNFORESEEN

Two of my favorite nonfiction films of 2007 - Brett Morgan's CHICAGO 10 and Laura Dunn's Spirit Award-winning THE UNFORESEEN - debut in theatres this weekend and both deserve your patronage. 

CHICAGO 10 is opening in, natch, Chicago, as well as progressive hotspots like NYC, SF, LA and Boston.  THE UNFORESEEN opens today in NYC and spreads to the above plus Austin in the coming weeks.

As I wrote about these films in my list of the best of '07, both take imaginative and startling leaps (Happy Leap Day one and all) with craft and style.  And both, deservedly are nominated for Cinema Eye Honors - both in the category of Outstanding Achievement in Graphic Design and Animation, with CHICAGO 10's Brett Morgan and Graydon Carter also nominated for Outstanding Achievement in Production.

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.

The IDA Celebrates the Oscar Nominees, Michael Moore Calls for "Doc Night in America"

The IDA held it's annual reception celebrating the 2008 Oscar nominees for Best Documentary Feature and Best Documentary Short Wednesday night at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Beverly Hills.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the self-described "almost" 800 lb. gorilla in the room was Oscar winner (for BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE) and nominee this year (for SICKO), Michael Moore.

Moore, who was MIA at last year's IDA Awards gala (where he was to receive a career achievement honor) took to the stage last, after the year's other nominees had taken their turn at the podium, and built on themes that he had proposed in the speech read by his sister at the awards in December, namely that he had made it his new year's resolution to do something about the poor distribution situation for nonfiction films in the US. 

Stating that he was tired of reading gloom and doom forecasts of the death of documentaries at the box office, Moore stated 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.

Moore's call to arms came at the end of a lengthy speech - by far the longest of the night (not that it seemed that anyone in the crowd minded) - that began with detailed and effusive praise for the work of his co-nominees Charles Ferguson (NO END IN SIGHT), Alex Gibney (TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE), Richard E. Robbins (OPERATION HOMECOMING) and Sean Fine & Andrea Nix-Fine (WAR/DANCE), the only absentees amongst the quintet.

Prior to Moore's speech, both Ferguson and Gibney issued strong statements on the Iraq war and torture, respectively, but it was the speech by Robbins, which may have been the most emotional of the evening.

Robbins (seen above with fellow nominee Eva Orner, producer of TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE), whose film is based on the writings of Iraq war soldiers, has in the past attempted to steer clear of the debate over the war itself, proposing that "talking about the politics of was avoids having to talk about the human implications".  This stance has been applauded by some and derided by others, note particularly a fiery discussion with Women Make Movies' Debra Zimmerman at IDFA last November.

But tonight, Robbins said that the fact that these soldiers were willing to fight and die for their country meant that the rest of us had better be vigilant and must pay attention to the actions of our country, particularly in deciding when and under what circumstances to deploy troops.   Michael Moore later reiterated the point, imploring the audience to see Robbins film (which he noted was the only one of the five not to get larger distribution) and saying that it was crucial to hear what the soldiers are saying about their experiences in Iraq.

Robbins also took time to recognize not just his fellow nominees but all the great work that he had seen at festivals during the year and thanked the community at large for making him fee