All these wonderful things

Learning to Walk: The Blog Turns One

One year ago today, I posted for the first time and All these wonderful things was born.  As most enterprises like this go, I had no idea if I'd be still doing it a year later, nor that it would be such a wonderful outlet for random thoughts, quixotic campaigns and good old rah-rah-ing for the cause.  Much of all the above reflected my work as a filmmaker, specifically someone making documentaries, and I'm glad that we've occasionally raised the nonfiction banner here. 

I'm glad that I've been able to write about my own filmmaking, although I'm still conducting an internal debate on what to reveal and what to keep personal in that arena.

I'm glad that I've occasionally been able to spout off on politics or my latest notion of what Democrats could be doing better.  This ability to send my ideas into the electronic void (which has lead to me talking less about these notions with my friends) has undoubtedly made my friends very happy.

I really enjoy when something happens on a topic, whether it's Mark Cuban or Al Gore or film criticism or our campaign to get the Academy to recognize documentaries or whatever that leads to a discussion here and elsewhere.  I love when I get the opportunity to read a lot of what others have written on a subject and then can write some longer piece in which I somehow pull together all my varied thoughts.  I'm thrilled when something I'm doing here crosses paths with something that another writer, filmmaker or blogger is writing about, and suddenly I am connected to someone in Philadelphia or New York or Santa Monica that I didn't know a year ago.

Looking back on the year, I decided to highlight, in chronological order, some of my favorite posts.  Some are short, some very long, most about filmmaking (and the business that surrounds), although a couple are part of my amateur political naval gazing.  In total, they provide a nice look at where we've been and where we might be headed.

Audiences will love/hate  - June 18, 2005.  The first time I wrote about filmmakers and film critics working out their issues with one another - this time Scott Foundas and Sally Potter - and it was the first time that I would dissect my own experiences on Gigantic.

BREAKING: Indiewood Responsible for Hollywood Slump - June 28, 2005.  The first investigative piece in which we pinned the blame for the studios woes snugly on the shoulders on Todd Solontz.  (Strangely enough, the sole commenter took it seriously.)

Contempt! - July 2, 2005.  The first big politics piece was actually a reflection of my journalism school background.  Poor Judith Miller gets the brunt of my fury.

This Week at the NYT: Cover-Ups Yes, Bisexuals No - July 11, 2005.  More Judy Miller fallout, plus fun with google search.  Would you like to take a guess how many people came to this post after searching for "bisexual porn".  Sorry to disappoint.

You Mean I Have to Pay For That? - July 18, 2005.  The first posting on the issues of rights clearances and fair use, specifically music clearances for the filmmakers of Tarnation and Mad Hot Ballroom.

Murderball By Numbers - August 1, 2005.  If you think I'm all into following the box office of An Inconvenient Truth, last year it was Murderball, which I was fascinated with, in part because people felt it was somewhat of a disappointment.  I guess that everyone was thinking it was going to be another Mad Hot Ballroom or something, but I thought that it performed pretty on target for a sports-related documentary.

Blue Chip and Coveted - September 13, 2005.  I take offense at a few of the interviews that Mike Mills is doing for Thumbsucker and I break my solemn rule of not bitching out another filmmaker - on the three month anniversary of the blog! I suck!

Fauxhawks: The Dems' National Security Problem - September 19, 2005.  More fun with google search.  People look up fauxhawks, hoping to discover how they too can have the thrilling new rooster hairstyle that was all the rage three years ago, and are lead to me instructing Democratic candidates for president in 2008 on how to own up to their failures.

Truly Indie - October 19, 2005.  A harmless little post praising Mark Cuban for thinking outside the independent film box leads to a series of posts: More on Mark Cuban and Truly Indie, Gigantic. Truly Indie? (And Save the Brattle), Landmark vs. The Brattle, Mark Cuban Responds, Some Truly Indie Answers and Truly Indie: What Have We Learned? .  Accusations are made, honors defended, questions answered.

Letter to the Academy - November 3, 2005.  The official kickoff of our asking the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences to announce the documentary feature nominees during their official announcement ceremony.  The official rejection, written about in Just In: Academy Says No to Doc Announcement, comes two months later.

Aberdeen's Memorial Project - December 3, 2005.  My shooting my Kurt Cobain documentary in Aberdeen, Washington, and my subsequent blog postings about it (and the local newspaper's printing some of my blog posings as an op-ed piece) cause me to get in the middle of Aberdeen's ongoing debate on how best (if at all) to recognize their most famous son.

Eats the You Are: First in a Series - January 11, 2006.  More from the Cobain film and more fun with different google tools.  Here, the "translator" tool that makes information about you and your film sound very very silly.  Or, as I am "quoted" in this article - "the colloquies between the Kurt Can hear and the Michael, with the Kurt to count the history of its life for the such book".  Exactly.

Beating a Dead Doc Horse - January 31, 2006.  As Oscar Nominations are announced, I reflect on the fact that one of the documentary nominees - March of the Penguins - made more money than any of the nominees in almost all the other top categories.  And again I hammer the point that the doc feature nominees should be announced.  This leads to my first pangs of blogger envy as the box office point is later raised by other writers, without mentioning the subtext of our campaign.

Joe Swanberg, DIY Distribution and the Wave of the Future - February 13, 2006.  This post on DIY filmmaking and distribution led to some amazing conversations online and off and connected me with a bunch of other great writers and filmmakers.  It's also clearly a conversation that is ongoing...

The True/False Is Out There - February 28, 2006.  A long recap of a great weekend at a great documentary film festival in Columbia, Missouri.

The David E. Kelley Oscars: Crash, Penguins Take Top Prizes - March 6, 2006.  Taking a gander around some of my favorite sites and trying to capture the shock and awfulness of Oscar night.

Caveh, Cuban & Day and Date: "The Worst Thing to Happen to Indie Film..." - April 11, 2006.  Mark Cuban again, this time tangling with filmmaker Caveh Zahedi, with the winner somewhat unclear.  This is one of my longer posts as I try to understand some of Zahedi's blog posts.  Caveh would later comment on my (what some would later call) "healthy skepticism" in Caveh Zahedi Responds.

Caveh Zahedi Takes On His Critics - April 25, 2006.  Still ruminating on Caveh and still not sure how I feel about his open battles with film critics that review his film.  But my reconsidering of his position would be later reflected in a very long piece I wrote a few weeks later called Dog Days for Film Critics?

Is Gore's "Truth" the Next Doc Hit? - May 23, 2006.  Another long piece, this time surveying others on their expectations for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.  As noted here, I thoroughly expected Truth to join the small club of docs that had grossed $10 million, but everyone else's skepticism around me caused me to rethink.  Who's smiling now losers?  Later, I wondered why the liberal blogs were only reporting a small part of the story in Why Are Liberal Blogs Underplaying the Success of An Inconvenient Truth?

All's Fair Use in Love and Documentary and More on Fair Use: The Michael Moore Lawsuit - June 2, 2006.  Two recent posts that explored the topic of fair use, getting permissions, legal ramifications and the rights of documentary filmmakers.  Another subject likely to come up here again and again.

Throughout this year, I have relied on a number of websites for information, perspectives and entertainment.  Most of these are listed as links to the right of this screen, but I want to particularly make note of those in the film world that I look to each day:  Eugene Hernandez and everyone at Indiewire, David Hudson at GreenCine, Alison Willmore at the IFC Blog, David Poland at Movie City News, Matt Zoller Seitz, Anne Thompson, Agnes Varnum, Paul Harrill, Jeffrey Wells, Scott Macauley at Filmmaker, Sarah Jo Marks, David Lowery and all my compatriots on the Indiewire blogs/links page.  There are many others that have been instrumental to my doing this, who have linked or sent comments or in some way been supportive and encouraging and I am quite grateful to you for that.

Here's to a second year.

Caveh Zahedi Responds

Last week, I wrote about the ongoing battle between filmmaker Caveh Zahedi and Mark Cuban, which began on Caveh's blog and was picked up by numerous outlets writing about film. You can read the entire post here.

The gist of my post was a growing skepticism on my part, mostly in relationship to how Zahedi was portraying the conflict. In the beginning I was sympathetic, but as time went on and additional posts were written, I became less so. As I wrote over on Paul Harrill's blog, the controversy was starting to lessen my enthusiasm for seeing the film (but Paul's interview with Caveh, which I found very interesting had made me excited to see it again).

Perhaps not surprisingly, Caveh posted a response on my blog earlier tonight. You can read it in context of other comments here, but the full text of the comments are printed below:

     Dear AJ,

     First of all, I really liked your Gigantic film.

     Second of all, you make some oddly hypothetical
     assumptions about what I did and did not know which
     you could have easily determined for yourself by
     contacting me. I'm not that hard to find. You write:

     "Was he told that his decision to sign on for this
     program (his film had already been self-distributed to
     indie houses around the country) would prevent his
     film from being booked at nearly all the national film
     chains (all of whom refuse to screen IFC or HDNet's
     day-and-date releases)?

     If Zahedi knew this and agreed to proceed with the
     program anyway, he was necessarily signing onto an
     extremely limited theatrical distribution scenario,
     perhaps because he felt his best venue was pay-per-
     view. In other words, he knew that most theaters in
     the country would refuse to show his film. From what
     I can tell, there is no evidence that he was unaware
     of this situation."

     Well, that's simply not true. No one told me that "most
     theaters in the country would refuse to show" the film.
     I have no idea why you would assume that I would
     have known that. The fact that there was no evidence
     to the contrary? But there was no evidence either way,
     and you never bothered to ask me.

     You also write the following:

     "Perhaps it was a more recent post, a fairly dubious
     claim that MySpace had censored the film by refusing
     to run a banner ad for it, that made me start to question
      the line between standing up for yourself and milking it
     for all it's worth. The notion that MySpace, with its
     audience of teenagers, is an appropriate home for the
     film's advertising - Filmmaker Magazine rave or no -
     strikes as an absurd argument."

     What is dubious about my claim? MySpace posts all of
     Filmmakers picks of the week. The only one they have
     ever censored is my film. I, personally, find it absurd
     that my film would be banned as a Filmmaker Magazine
     pick of the week simply because of its title.

     And MySpace isn't only for teenagers. It's for anyone.
     There are plenty of people in their twenties and, yes,
     even their thirties who frequent myspace.

     Like I said, I liked your Gigantic film, and you're obviously
     a very thoughtful person, but it's rather distressing to see
     oneself erroneously criticized based on false assumptions
     and no attempt whatsoever to ascertain the facts.

Caveh, first off I want to say that I'm sorry that I haven't had a chance to see your film yet. It's clearly enjoyed by many people, including many that I respect. I'm sure that I will enjoy it when I get to see it, hopefully at a theater. And thanks for the kind words about Gigantic.

But on these two points, I feel like we will have to agree to disagree. First, I made the assumption, perhaps in error, that you, because of your own work distributing your film would have had an extremely in-depth conversation with IFC about which theaters they were thinking of putting your movie in. I know I had that discussion with Cowboy about Gigantic. Often times if they mentioned a theater and I knew of a theater that I liked better or thought had a better reputation, I'd grill them on it. They'd then offer up why it was unlikely - the place wouldn't show docs, they only worked with folks like Miramax, our film wasn't high profile enough.

So I assume that you have this same ongoing conversation with IFC and I assume that at some point the fact comes out that most major chains won't play day-and-date movies. I mean, I knew that just from reading Indiewire articles - and you have far more experience distributing your own work than I do. So I just thought it probably came up at some point - that IFC must have told you, "we're somewhat limited because this is a day-and-date release".

If they didn't tell you that, then I think you have a bone to pick with them. Even more so than with Mark Cuban and Landmark.

On the MySpace point, you are certainly right that there are people in their 20s, even 30s on MySpace (I plead guilty to that myself). But I don't think that MySpace censored you by not allowing the Filmmaker Magazine rave to run. Was it hypocritical of them, when they are also running come hither hottie ads on every other page? Sure. Is it reactionary because they are feeling the long lens of scrutiny over underage sex charges? Maybe so.

But it's not like you are completely banished from MySpace. You have your own MySpace page and your film is featured prominently on the Filmmaker Magazine page and in their blog, which is easily available to all of Filmmaker Mag's 15,000+ friends.

To me, censorship is a heady charge and not something to be thrown around lightly. If a theater wanted to play your film and a city government came in and said, you can't show that film, cause it's about sex - that, to me, is censorship. But when a commercial online service says your movie can't be prominently featured on their site, whether it has a large underage audience or not - that, to me, is not censorship. It's what my mom used to call, "the breaks" - sometimes they fall your way, sometimes they don't. I'm sorry that in this case they didn't fall your way.

Anyway, I am looking forward to seeing your film and will write more about it when I do.

Your pal,
AJ

Caveh, Cuban & Day and Date: "The Worst Thing to Happen to Indie Film..."

For much of the past week, the indie film world and many of my favorite sites and blogs have been talking about the decision by Mark Cuban and his Landmark Theaters to pull Caveh Zahedi's new IFC Films release I Am a Sex Addict from one of its theaters in Berkeley. The reason? IFC is owned by Comcast, which is refusing to add Cuban's HDNet channels to their cable system. Therefore, Landmark will not show any of IFC's day and date films (films that are in theaters at the same time as appearing on TV pay-per-view channels) in cities where Comcast operates (however, they will show the films in markets where Comcast does not operate and they will show IFC's other films - those not appearing on TV - in all markets).

Seems pretty straightforward.

The kerfuffle began when Landmark and IFC booked the film in one of Landmark's theaters in Berkeley, California. Apparently, the booking was something that slipped through the cracks of Landmark's no-IFC-day-and-date-in-Comcast-markets policy. When Cuban or someone at Landmark realized that Zahedi's film had been booked, they pulled it. I Am a Sex Addict ended up premiering at another theater in Berkeley.

Somehow, this has become either the biggest cause celebre in indie film or one of the biggest cases of misplaced outrage in recent years, and much of it has been launched by Zahedi, who has chronicled the dispute on his Indiewire blog and who is making something of a career out of stoking the fires of independent David vs. heartless corporate Goliaths.

I'd been wanting to write about this for the past week but I've been so immersed in my own post-production that I haven't been able to get my thoughts together. It really wasn't until I read Anne Thompson's insightful article in yesterday's Hollywood Reporter, that I began to crystalize the narrative that was playing out in my brain.

To backtrack, I first wrote about Zahedi during ongoing discussions here and on David Lowery's blog about DIY and self-distribution. Lowery interviewed Zahedi and questioned him on a minor skirmish that had erupted when Zahedi, who had previously printed a self-distribution manifesto, decided to team up with IFC Films.

As I wrote in February:

     For some, this was a great development - Zahedi had
     proved his route was successful and only took the deal
     that he wanted. Or was it the ultimate sell-out, someone
     promoting the thrills of DIY when (he was), at the same
     time, negotiating with one of the largest indie
     distributors.

Recently, Zahedi was invited by Indiewire to blog on their site. It was here that news of the Landmark decision was first announced by Zahedi.. The subsequent week-long blog campaign by Zahedi is a fascinating look at how the internet has made the personal public, and he could not have picked a better sparring partner than Cuban, known for publicly responding to criticism and questions in ways unheard of for the typical corporate head/multi-millionaire.

It all began last Monday when Zahedi posted the news that he had reportedly just received from IFC:

     The film was set to open this Friday at a Landmark
     Theater in Berkeley. Postcards have been made and
     sent out. Posters have been put up. Articles have been
     written. But he has decided to nix our screening (on a
     whim?). People are going to show up to the theater,
     and will be told: "Sorry, Mr. Mark Cuban decided he
     didn't want this particular film playing at his movie
     theater, because IFC Films is distributing it, and they
     have a video-on-demand deal with Comcast, which
     hasn't been very nice to him."

Further, Zahedi addressed Cuban directly:

     Well, dear Mr. Mark Cuban, I know nothing about your
     beef with the folks at Comcast (I've never met the
     gentlemen) but I made a film which your theater has
     advertised as opening this Friday, and I would argue
     that it's not exactly considerate to just cancel the
     screening (without warning) only a few days before
     it's set to open.

To no one's surprised, Cuban showed up not long after with a direct response:

     Lets set the record straight here. The folks at IFC
     knew last month where i stood on this and why.

Cuban said that the problem came about because IFC tried to book the films in Landmark's theaters even though they knew Landmark had the no-IFC-day-and-date-in-Comcast-markets policy. An uniformed Landmark staffer ended up booking Sex Addict by mistake.

Cuban's decision, Zahedi's public pleas and Cuban's subsequent responses were soon the headline in the indie film world. Indiewire alerted with a short buzz piece that appeared last Tuesday. Eugene Hernandez had a longer piece running later that day:

     Likening the situation to being held hostage and
     caught in a turf war, Zahedi told indieWIRE today
     that he is quite disappointed by the situation,
     particularly given the amount of work that had
     already been put into the opening at a Landmark
     theater in Berkeley. The indie film, an
     autobiographical comedy about the life of a man
     who becomes addicted to prostitutes and sex, will
     still debut at the Balboa Theater in San Francisco
     tomorrow (Wednesday, April 4th) and a replacement
     booking at the Elmwood Theater in Berkeley will
     replace the Landmark showing starting Friday.
     Zahedi has been documenting the ups and downs
     leading up to the theatrical release on his
     increasingly popular weblog.

     "It is too bad that Mark Cuban is taking such a narrow
     view of it," Caveh Zahedi told indieWIRE in a
     conversation today. "It is misguided...but I understand
     it. It seems like he is trying to make public his fight with
     Comcast. I am sympathetic to his attempt, it seems like
     there must be some solution."

     (....)

     Reached by email today, Mark Cuban told indieWIRE that
     he realizes such a request might be difficult and added
     that neither Landmark nor IFC stand to make much
     money from the theatrical release but, "Comcast gets to
     promote that they have movies in their VOD program that
     are currently in theaters. While I don't think it takes away
     from attendance, I do think it creates financial value for
     both IFC and Comcast."

     "I'm not going to allow Landmark to subsidize that
     relationship," Cuban told indieWIRE in the email. "If
     Comcast was a partner, I would because it would be
     a win win for everyone. But they aren't, so we won't."
     Cuban also explained that Landmark will continue to book
     IFC's day-and-date releases in Landmark Theaters that
     are not in Comcast markets.

As his initial post continued to gain attention and traction in various media, Zahedi began a series of posts (including a plea to filmmaker Steven Soderbergh to act as a mediator) on the IFC v. Landmark situation. Most of his posts, which doubled as open letters to Cuban, were variations on the following theme: Thanks for your response, I understand your position more, but in reality what you are saying doesn't make any sense, please respond.

Despite the week-long back-and-forth, little news was made that differed from the initial storyline.

My gut reaction to the first reports of this story were sympathy for Zahedi. It seemed to me then (and frankly I still think) that Landmark and Cuban should have honored their booking (it was, after all, at least half their error) at the single Landmark Theater that was supposed to play the film. Landmark and Cuban could have then reiterated their position to IFC and Comcast, namely, "we made an error, we're going to honor the booking, but just so you are perfectly clear, never again". It would have been little skin off Landmark's nose and would have prevented this turf war becoming public.

So yes, first reaction was sympathy, primarily for the difficulty of reprinting the postcards, posters, stickers, etc.

But let's be real. The uproar over the refusal of a Utah theater to screen Brokeback Mountain notwithstanding, indie theatrical bookings are hardly the "set-in-stone" thing they are portrayed as. On Gigantic we were moved from one theater in a chain to a different theater, we were pushed back a week when another film continued to draw crowds, we were forced to share a screen when we had been told/promised that we'd have the theater to ourselves. These things do happen.

Beyond typical theatrical snags, the more I've thought about the Caveh v. Cuban issues, the less they have become cut-and-dried.

When Zahedi signed with IFC, he clearly knew that the film would be a part of IFC's burgeoning day-and-date program (IFC and Comcast have their own pay-per-view channel and IFC Films is acquiring a number of films to provide programming for it). Was he told that his decision to sign on for this program (his film had already been self-distributed to indie houses around the country) would prevent his film from being booked at nearly all the national film chains (all of whom refuse to screen IFC or HDNet's day-and-date releases)?

If Zahedi knew this and agreed to proceed with the program anyway, he was necessarily signing onto an extremely limited theatrical distribution scenario, perhaps because he felt his best venue was pay-per-view. In other words, he knew that most theaters in the country would refuse to show his film. From what I can tell, there is no evidence that he was unaware of this situation.

Did IFC Films tell Zahedi that they would still be able to book the film in Landmark Theaters (as Landmark will book day-and-date releases from IFC in non-Comcast markets) and at some independent art houses? If so, was leaving out the not-in-Comcast-market-ban an honest mistake by IFC, had they not been clearly informed by Cuban or Landmark, or was it an attempt to keep booking films at the affected Landmark theaters until someone said "stop".

It seems strange to me that someone who had already agreed to an extremely limited theatrical run would express such (public) surprise and shock over this situation. One could decide that Zahedi has tried to take a bad situation and turn it into something good for the film - free publicity, a call to arms - and as a fellow filmmaker I can't say I blame his desire to do so.

Perhaps it was a more recent post, a fairly dubious claim that MySpace had censored the film by refusing to run a banner ad for it, that made me start to question the line between standing up for yourself and milking it for all it's worth. The notion that MySpace, with its audience of teenagers, is an appropriate home for the film's advertising - Filmmaker Magazine rave or no - strikes as an absurd argument.

David v. Goliath part deux.

But again, it was Anne Thompson's piece, that crystalized things for me, particularly the comments of Sony Classics' Tom Bernard:

     "It's curious that the two people who are pushing the
     closed-window policy are the two people who own
     (channels) that need to get on cable systems," said
     Sony Pictures Classics co-president Tom Bernard, an
     ardent believer in the traditional release model,
     regarding the policies of Cuban and IFC Entertainment
     president Jonathan Sehring.

     (....)

     Traditionalists like Bernard argue, "The traditional
     windows are the best way to maximize revenues for
     films because movies can be sold in theaters, on DVD,
     on pay-per-view, free TV and super-deluxe DVDs," he
     said. For example, SPC's "Capote" earned more than
     $30 million in DVD retail sales after its theatrical run.

     "Indie movies live in a very sensitive ecosystem,"
     Bernard said. "We're Mark Cuban's No. 1 customer at
     Landmark. Day-and-date, which gives you one shot,
     is the worst thing to happen to the indie movement
     since the screener ban."

What the Caveh v. Cuban v. IFC v. Comcast scuffle comes down to, it seems to me, is a fight over a theory, an idea of what distribution will look like, should look like, five years from now. Zahedi, who has (rightfully) won praise from many for his innovative approach to self-distribution, clearly felt the time was right (or he had wrung enough from his DIY model) to latch on to the day-and-date model. Cuban and Comcast are imagining a vertically integrated world of content control and ownership. Whether they can integrate their individual plans for conquest with one another remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether the future, as they imagine it, ends up being a positive or a negative for independent filmmakers.

But it seems to me that what's been lost in this discussion is not whether Zahedi is caught in the middle or whether its Cuban or Comcast with the moral right-of-way, it's whether filmmakers should embrace the day-and-date theory itself, with all the attached limitations.

Here on this blog, as well as at Lowery's, Paul's and Sujewa's, we've talked about our own theories, our own ideas for what the future of independent film distribution might hold. None of us have implicitly embraced day-and-date as the future (although we have talked about selling DVDs at festivals, which is a way of collapsing the theatrical window that Tom Bernard would probably not like). And for certain different films require different strategies. What works for Capote would not work for Gigantic would not work for Sex Addict would not work for Bubble.

Proponents of day-and-date keep assuring us of its inevitability, but despite the viability of some political documentaries, there's yet to be a breakout day-and-date success story, particularly on the narrative side. In fact, nearly all signs point to the flaws inherent to the concept. Perhaps the breakthrough is just one film away, perhaps the breakthrough will never come. Perhaps, as Bernard describes, it's the worst thing to happen to indie film since the screener ban.

Maybe Zahedi is an indie-world hero. Maybe he really is a David caught between two Goliaths. Maybe he just knows a good hook when he sees one. Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see if his very public battle translates to some degree of success for a film and a distribution chain that he has already embraced.

Addendum to the above - Scott Macauley blogs at Filmmaker about last night's IFP distribution panel in NYC, which included Zahedi as well as The Puffy Chair's Jay Duplass and Down to the Bone director Debra Granik. An interesting line-up of filmmakers who had some things going for them (big time sales agent, major festival premieres, much acclaim) but still had to work hard for a distribution deal.

Still further - Paul at Self Reliant just posted a great interview he did with Caveh. For one thing, Zahedi disputes the gist of an Indiewire article that claimed he chastised the crowd at the recent Gotham Awards. He also talks about video on demand, saying that he sees no downside to it. It's a fine conversation, check it out here.

Truly Indie: What Have We Learned

When I first posted about Truly Indie last week, I had no idea that it would create such a swarm of interest and/or criticism. On first blush, it seemed a great alternative, a network of four-walling, that seemed of benefit to filmmakers. And because it seemed to me that Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner are consistently proposing new ideas related to the production, distribution and exhibition of independents, I wanted to give them due credit for another interesting idea.

As I noted later, I was surprised by the amount of anmosity towards Cuban and the knee-jerk criticism of Truly Indie. Then I became interested when I received a number of comments, both here and off-line, from folks in Boston who described a battle over the Brattle (the thrilla from Manilla) and numerous problems at Landmark's Kendall Square, which is owned by Cuban and Wagner's 2929 Entertainment. After Mark Cuban himself weighed in on the subject, I tried to do some investigation on both topics, including a at Truly Indie that tried to answer some of the lingering questions.

Some Truly Indie Answers

There was a great deal of speculation here [and here and here and, of course, here] and elsewhere late last week with the announcement that Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner were starting up a new self-distribution model called Truly Indie.

Over the weekend, I traded emails with Truly Indie's Kelly Sanders in an effort to get more specifics on the program. Herewith, 7 questions, 7 answers:

   1. Indiewire reported that 100% of the box office
   take will be returned to the filmmakers, but the
   Variety article quoted Mark Cuban as saying "most
   of a pic's box office profits will usually go to a
   project's producers, though each deal will vary".
   Can you give us a general idea of the breakdown
   of a typical deal?

   KS: 100% of the box office is the standard.

Mark Cuban Responds

Within the last hour, Mark Cuban joined the debate here about Truly Indie and weighed in on allegations that Landmark has targeted the Brattle in Boston, attempting to get it shut down.

His response is printed below. You can also find it in context here. He is responding, in part, to comments made over on Chlotrudis as well as the debate here about his latest film initiative Truly Indie.

For my part, I think it's great that he's joined the debate. As noted in my initial post on the subject, my instinct is that Cuban is a net positive - I admire his desire to find innovative ways to work with filmmakers, film distribution and exhibition. I'm pleased that he's responded directly to the comments made here and elsewhere regarding the Boston situation. We will continue to cover both topics here.

Landmark vs the Brattle

I want to make note of Michael Colford's recent post on the Chlotrudis blog regarding the debates we've been having here on Truly Indie, Mark Cuban and Landmark. [Yes, I'm linking to a blog that blogs about this blog, and yes, I know how meta that is.]

In his post, Colford notes:

     As many Boston-area Chlotrudis members are
     aware, there's something strange going on with
     Landmark. The recent turnover in the management
     at the Kendall Square Cinema, coupled with the
     unionization of the staff are two clear indicators.
     Add to that the fact that former manager, Nancy
     Campbell, has just joined the Chlotrudis Board,
     and we have some fairly dependable info about
     the goings on in Landmark Theatre operations.

Gigantic. Truly Indie? (And Save the Brattle)

In our ongoing debate on Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner's newly announced Truly Indie, my pal Joe asks "if "Truly Indie" was an option when you were getting ready to release Gigantic, would you have considered it over a traditional distributor, or do you see it as a last resort for films that can't get into theatres any other way?"

I'm not sure I know the answer to this question. From our first screening at South by Southwest, we actively pursued (the dear departed) Cowboy Pictures to release our film. [We also pursued a number of other distributors who had expressed a vague, non-defined interest.] It took us months to get Cowboy guru John Vanco to see the film, at which point we found out he was interested in releasing it.

In the meantime, we received a number of offers from DVD companies who were interested in releasing Gigantic. We could have skipped a theatrical release altogether and gone straight to DVD, but we knew that a theatrical release of some kind was imperative. Our thought was, if you walk into your local video store and you see a DVD about They Might Be Giants that you've never heard of, you're probably going to assume, oh, this must be a concert video or a collection of videos that the band put out.

More on Mark Cuban and Truly Indie

After Joe and I debated the relative merits of Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner’s Truly Indie, I did a bit more research on the proposed venture. Several things that are worth noting come via Monday’s article in Variety. While Indiewire had previously reported that filmmakers would receive 100% of the box office take, Variety quotes Cuban saying “that most of a pic's box office profits will usually go to a project's producers, though each deal will vary.”

This seems to highlight the somewhat undefined nature of Truly Indie and provide a reason for some of the skepticism greeting the announcement. But, beyond this, in reviewing the original Indiewire article and reading more of the posted comments, I was still struck by the response (just as I was by Joe’s comment to my original post). While I knew that Cuban was/is a controversial figure in the NBA, I had no idea he engendered such enmity within the independent film community.

Truly Indie

The announcement Monday that Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner's 2929 Entertainment will launch Truly Indie - a distribution scenario by which filmmakers can fund their own theatrical releases - is just the latest in a long line of innovative and truly creative ideas from Cuban and Wagner, all of which threaten to turn long-established traditions on their ear.

Under the Truly Indie plan, accepted films/filmmakers can pay $40,000 to screen for one week in five cities or as much as $150,000 to screen for a week in 20 cities. Filmmakers will then keep 100% of the box office take AND retain all rights to their film. Because a theatrical release is almost essential to getting a decent DVD release, this is a real opportunity for independent filmmakers. While some have criticized the cost of the program and questioned its originality (as one poster on Indiewire argues - "this is basically four-walling"), Truly Indie puts more control in the filmmakers hands - both in choosing the size of a release and in cutting out the often difficult reality of collecting box office receipts (particularly when you are working with a distributor that has less clout than a major).

But most of all, Cuban and Wagner just seem really into trying new stuff, whether simultaneous theatrical/DVD/pay-TV releases or HD-investments. Their ingenuity and willingness to risk is, in my opinion, terrifically refreshing.