Vancouver, BC-based filmmaker Cameron Labine premiered his first feature, CONTROL ALT DELETE at Toronto this year.  A black comedy concerning the onanistic joy of the computer age (and stuff), CAD has been described as “so completely originally that it defies comparison” (Slashdot) and “fun, strange, and a whole new road for geek-themed cinema” (Collider).

Infinicine [I]: Your film is about tech addiction, the internet, and the relationship between people and their computers, among other things. What do you think the relationship between people, their computers, and film is at this point– and where do you see that heading?

Cameron Labine [CL]: My main character, Lewis, is definitely addicted to technology, especially internet porn, but it was important to me not to demonize computers, or the internet, or even porn. Maybe that’s why I decided to make his fetish so absurd. These things are just tools, and they can be used constructively as well as destructively. Lewis uses his computer to avoid the challenges of human intimacy. But computers can just as easily be portals of communication and closeness. I think people will continue to use these machines to achieve their goals, whether they are to escape the world or participate in it.

[I}: In considering the way you would make the film, and how the film would get out once it was finished, how did digital strategies (digital screenings, DVDs, online distribution, VOD, etc) play a part? Were such considerations a major part of how you approached the project?

[CL]: Well, the film is currently being screened on HDCAM, which is, of course, waaay more affordable than 35mm. And when it comes through a high quality projector, I think it looks better than a film print would. In terms of other digital strategies, we’ve found social networking platforms very effective in building awareness, especially our facebook group and my filmmaker blog. I am very interested in the future of VOD and on-line distribution, as I think the film would do well in those streams.

[I]: Do you feel that your opportunities as a Canadian filmmaker are equal to an American in terms of distribution in general? Specifically in terms of digital distribution, do you think you have greater access to funding and markets or do you think you are limited in any way?

[CL]: I think Canadian filmmakers are somewhat more limited in our access to distribution. Although, I know it’s no picnic for Americans either. The viable streams of digital distribution are controlled by the establishment, but I see that changing as costs come down and technology improves. In terms of funding, Canadians have it pretty good with our public system. If you have a good script that can be produced relatively cheaply, you can get it made here. The trick is getting seen.

[I]: How does being in a festival like Toronto benefit your film? Is there any downside?

[CL]: For a Canadian filmmaker TIFF is a dream opportunity. You rub elbows with the big boys but within the safety of a supportive community. Torontonians are committed cinephiles, so you’re assured packed houses and great Q & A’s. Not to mention the amount of business that gets done here, which is quite impressive for a Vancouverite. We came into this festival with no distribution and were quickly picked up by Maximum Films for world-wide rights. That kind of thing doesn’t happen anywhere else in Canada.

[I}: Any tips for filmmakers who want to meet people online?

[CL]: There’s no shortage of online communities for filmmakers. We used our local filmmaker co-op board to crew up (Cineworks). And craigslist is a surprisingly effective way to find collaborators. Other than that, myspace and youtube seem to be where it’s at for finding like-minded filmmakers. Put your stuff online and start sharing.

Snag Films has been out for a bit now, and I’m not sure how they are doing, though I have noticed Snag-related stories and promotion around the internets.  When they launched, I wrote to them to suggest using the technology for trailers as well as full-length films.  For me, the chance of making money in a scheme where revenues are tied to people watching the whole film (Snag monetizes the films with a series of interstitial ads, and the filmmaker gets something like $.10 if the viewer watches the whole film) and this is a streaming situation, even if it looks nice, it’s hard to know if it will actually make money for most films- when selling a DVD or download could yield a higher take when viewers don’t think the films is available anytime for free. (Though they might feel so excited by watching it on Snag that they go buy the DVD that very second- it’s hard to know what to expect).

On the other hand, sending a high-quality trailer around with a widget is a great idea, especially on Facebook or other social networking sites. Especially if that trailer includes a link to buy the film, either as a download or a DVD.  This is so simple, people definitely like a bite-sized video item like a trailer for sharing, and it’s much better for the film’s revenues.  And you could still monetize the widget! Use adwords or some simple graphic advertizing on the widget. Make it work for mobile in the best-case scenario.

So Caachi has just announced their Vidget, which essentially hews to this bare bones of this plan.  It isn’t the most attractive thing you’ve ever seen, but it does seem to connect to Facebook as well as create posts for Blogger, WordPress, and a few other blog and networking sites. The trailer itself is really small and it is text-heavy (unlike the slick-looking Snag widget). At the moment it only seems to be set up for GORDO (this may just be a bug I am having on my Mac), but it will be interesting to see if they have success.

I was at a NYWIFT event the other night talking with some filmmakers about the necessity of distribution today- as in, is it time to toss the whole concept out with VHS and Pluto being a planet. It seems to me that distribution is responsible for my knowing about most of the cool films that I do- that without it people in the US might have remained blissfully unaware of the French New Wave, of Takeshi Kitano, or Down By Law.  Now perhaps the magical internet has made everything different, but I wonder if some of the basic functions of distribution are still necessary- and not possible to satisfy simply by having some open downloading pool.

Brian Shirey, Head of DVD Production at Kino International says,

I may be old-fashioned, but I think distribution’s primary purpose is to wade through the mountain of films screened at festivals every year to find the few that are truly good enough to be seen on a wider scale. This should be done to the mutual financial benefit of all, although that should not be the central goal…  If a filmmaker rejects distribution on the grounds that the technology allows him or her to just do it themselves — through digital streaming, or other online applications — then there is no mediation in the process and the market will potentially suffer a glut of home-made, low-quality, self-satisfying films.

For me, the point of distribution has nothing to do with technology, which is really just a means to the end.  It’s about finding the quality and getting it out there, and hoping, but not guaranteeing, that audiences will come.  Filmmakers should have to earn that opportunity.

What IS the point of distribution and is it still relevant today? Some basic ideas:

• + to make money by selling films
• + to select the films people will want to see– for arthouse cinema, usually the best, best reviewed and highest festival-honoured
• + marketing films once they are made and have received accolades- there is a tiny percentage of people who might just go see any well-reviewed movie.  But most people need to know more, need to see a trailer, some image, etc.

One might think that without distribution fest honors and reviewing would be enough to tell people about good films.  So far that hasn’t been the case.  There has also been a lot of buzz lately about how professional reviewing is going by the wayside. There are many more festivals than ever- maybe even too many. Top festivals currently rely on distributors for revenue and the markets are what attract top films.  Would top festivals even be “top” if it weren’t for the markets? Festivals are expensive for filmmakers, though at present a lot of that expense is industry-directed.

Some have posited that festivals could be a distribution strategy unto themselves (though I believe that is called semi-theatrical, and there are many distributors and some filmmakers who have done alright on that circuit). Scott Kirsner suuggested at CinemaTech that a possible avenue of revenue for filmmakers could be digital sales or DVD sales during their festival runs.  Though eventually this may yield cash for films that don’t have a more traditional path to sales, I see a couple of hurdles at the moment- one being the impact on TV sales, the more obvious being the unlikelihood of a filmmaker with a feature in one of the major festivals having anywhere the kind of time and resources it would take to make DVDs or proper downloads happen.

Scott also wrote a great piece on getting films onto iTunes, and in the comments I noticed the idea emerging that online markets should be democratic- a kind of anti-distribution model in which anyone can put things up and somehow consumers will sort it out– and yet people will get paid for content.  (There was also an interesting follow-up article on distributing short films at the blog Deep Structure.)

Right now to administrate and deliver content has costs.  Content providers are there to earn money.  A free-for-all system is not the most effective way to earn money.  EVEN if the issue of legal and digitizing standards and bandwidth were all irrelevant.

Customers will use the system that is most to their taste and meets their technical demands most effectively.  The customer demand for a site with every thing that is out there, especially films without marketing and festival exposure, is small.  And I would think the only way to monetize such a site would be ad revenue, because consumers are unlikely to buy these films online without any marketing- it is sort of the digital equivalent of the guy who tries to sell you a DVR of his awesome movie on the subway.

Distributors are not as important in the online sphere IF a filmmaker is proactive and has marketing savvy (and has budgeted for marketing).  A filmmaker today can go through Amazon’s CreateSpace program to place their film on Amazon (and even sell to Amazon VOD), they can do their own limited theatrical and semi-theatrical runs, they can create a website, Facebook, myspace, and hook up with communities who would be into the film and other filmmakers, they can work with a number of online markets to get the film out there streaming/download-to-rent or –own.

That said, to take a film to the ‘next level’ or for filmmakers who don’t want a full-time unpaid job after they are done making the movie, distributors are still important.  Distributors find the most commercial and most quality films and then have a team of people to take them to established theatres, big retail, and even online markets like iTunes that don’t deal with filmmakers one –on-one.  Customers and buyers know the distributors, know they can be trusted to deliver quality product with certain standards.

Neal Block, Director of Theatrical Distribution at Magnolia Pictures says,

Sure, online distribution would absolutely “democratize” the process of getting movies in front of viewers, but the most important thing moving forward with that would be to make sure there are qualified people making the acquisition choices. It’s a lot like film and music bloggers – everyone thinks they can write fantastic criticism, but they can’t. There’s a reason people are hired as critics, and why people trust those critics’ opinions. Strict quality control is the only way that online distribution is going to be a long-term success.

The catch is the cut that the distributor takes- which will be in addition to all the other little cuts along the way from theatres, wholesalers, and even iTunes.  Talk to some filmmakers who have made films similar to yours and get a sense of the numbers you should be looking at and what will make sense for your project.

The concern I think a lot of people at smaller companies see now is what will happen to the indie companies during this transition.  Of the arthouse and indie distributors, a lot of the ones you’d actually want to trust your film to are small- but smaller companies are less likely to have Electronic Distribution (ED) rights for their catalogue films (and less able to acquire them), less likely to be in Blu-Ray, less likely to be capitalized in a way to survive the transition into digital if it means a few years when revenues are scanty.  As Jonathan Howell, Director of Theatrical Booking at New Yorker Films put it:

Everyone’s wondering what the distribution model of the future (which is pretty much next week, if not last week) will look like. The traditional model, which has been relatively stable for the past hundred years (with television and then home video both making rather significant waves), is in the process of being broken, but it’s not yet clear precisely what will replace it. We all know it’s going to go digital, and film will be relegated to the position of the much-loved/much-maligned LP record–probably not abolished, but pushed into a niche. We all suspect it’ll be largely a question of transmitting this digital data into people’s homes, probably at least as much as transmitting it into cinemas, but that shift hasn’t yet taken place. So we’re all left in the position of a person knows they’re going to be moving homes for a long, long time before it actually happens–even though we’re not sure yet precisely where we’re going to move to. But, in short, we all realize that the lease is up, so to speak–it’s just that no one wants to take that step until there’s a consensus about “where we’re going to live” once we move. There’s the anxiety of having to choose between VHS and Beta, or Blu-ray and that other technology that I’ve already forgotten the name of because it lost just a few months ago. We’re behind the 8-ball.

It’s a good time to be careful- and if there is one certainty in the film world of today, it’s that filmmakers need to be educated. Go to panels, do internet research, and above all, talk to other filmmakers and to people in the industry. Since no one really knows what is next, try to do short deals!

UPDATE: TuneCore can now put indie films up on iTunes for a fee. It looks like a good deal for indie filmmakers- we’ll see if it’s a good deal for iTunes… (Though apparently “The movies placed in the iTunes store are editorially approved by the iTunes staff.”)

I’ll be moderating a panel at the IFP “Independent Film Week” next week and I hope you’ll come out and and join us.

Know Your Digital Rights
How much are digital rights worth to producers and filmmakers?  And which rights should filmmakers consider retaining or exploiting in this proliferation of new distribution outlets? Learn the deal structures and benefits for independent filmmakers from the experts.

Wednesday, September 17^th, 10-11 AM

FIT, 7th Ave between 27/28th, NYC

Panelists:

Steven Beer, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

Janet Brown, COO, Cinetic Rights Management

Charles Choi, Founder, Caachi

Karol Martesko-Fenster, Head of Film, Cinelan

Joe Swanberg, Director, Hannah Takes the Stairs

The main issue affecting the online video markets that has been addressed by both campaigns for President is Net Neutrality.  The question is whether regulation in necessary to protect consumers from providers who want to limit access based on usage, spending, and other factors at their discretion.

It’s clear that at least some freedom must exist for online film markets to thrive- as Dave Zatz points out, even a non-P2P user easily surpasses the basic plans Time Warner offers in his market (40GB/month).  The question is, won’t other providers emerge that offer more reasonable plans and thus be more successful in the marketplace (i.e. simple free market economics?)

One problem with this approach may be that the challenge of entering the marketplace may be very high, so it would not be a simple matter of offering broadband itself at a better price- when Time Warner offers also cable services which are not available to other companies, or when the infrastructure of offering broadband is still limited to pipes owned by TW (or to DSL).

Obama has pledged to support Net Neutrality legislation.  McCain opposes regulations.  As far as I can tell, neither candidate has really addressed the pitfalls of their positions- nor is this enough of a hot-button issue to get Campbell Brown to take on their lackeys and find out.

Some links of interest:

Obama on MTV talking Net Neutrality

Discussion of Net Neutrality from Radio 4

Article from Wired about Net Neutrality and internet TV

Over at The Progress and Freedom Foundation, Adam Thierer has a few posts up related to the politics of the current regulations around new media dissemination- specifically with cable and DSL which remain the primary means of most people’s access.  The most relevant is a summary of a list made by Ted Hearn of Multichannel News of the travesties of FCC Chair Kevin Martin’s regime and his “war on cable.”  The list is pretty long, but some of the main problems with/for cable are less political (at least of a red-blue variety) than they are typical unwilling corporate adoption of technologies that are not obviously in short-term best interests.

One of the main issues on the list is Martin’s crusade to make cable a la carte. But he is just a little ahead of the market curve- with the increase in internet and VOD viewing, a la carte is going to be a consumer demand no matter what (why do you want to keep paying for those 50 channels you never watch if someone will provide you the option- on any platform- to just buy the channels you want)? That said, that such a thing would suggest a need for regulation speaks to the odd backwards-leaning mentality of cable.

In another example, non-proprietary technology such as true2way or the CableCARD might in the long run improve service in general (the premise being that open source technology has the potential to move more quickly and be more responsive than the mysterious voodoo stuff cable companies traditionally put in their boxes).  But it is understandable that cable companies like to maintain control- so people can’t “steal” cable and so they can charge fees for things and monitor what you watch, etc.  When revenue models are becoming increasingly polarized, cable/DSL/salelite companies want more control, not less.

‘What candidate would be better’ for the new world of online video seems like an almost fruitless question in its complexity- though I’d be curious about people’s responses. (It seems only Obama went to the Googleplex).  It somewhat depends on your perspective- as a rights holder, as a viewer, as a company trying to disseminate video online.  It isn’t straightforward.  Ideally things will get faster and cheaper and yet not filled with so much spam and poor-quality piracy that it’s not really worth wading through.  Ideally it will get cheaper and yet be a great place to make money.  Is that a red or a blue idea?

Going to Toronto and think you might not be entertained enough simply by watching movies (or gawking at celebrities?) Though TIFF may be the last monument of big theatrical distribution strategies, there are a couple events dedicated to the encroaching digital form.

At Meet With… at Match Club, on September 6, 11AM-12PM, Janet Brown AND Matt Dentler of Cinetic Rights Management talk to Shane Smith, Director of In-Flight Entertainment for Air Canada (it appears clear that CRM:digital distribution as Peter Broderick:self-distribution, appearing on every panel a film festival offers on the subject).

At Doc Roundtable, on September 7, 2-3 PM, Matt Dentler from CRM and Skye Sitney of Silverdocs sit down to chat. On September 8, 3-4 PM, Ira Deutchman of Emerging Pictures and Liesl Copland (formerly of Red Envelope and Cinetic) are available to meet.

From Spout‘s Telluride coverage (and brand new web look), Karina Longworth reports on a panel called “Snip Snip: Are Cutbacks in Film Distribution and Criticism Affecting Quality Filmmaking?“- the predetermined answer reiterated repeatedly as Karina describes the various doomy takes on the internet’s evil influence and some unmitigating weak sauce “positive sides” such as Paul Schrader‘s pithy “ ‘There’s [currently] no money in it, but it’s much better to gore the ox than to hold the ox that’s being gored.’ ”

The only person who seemed rather blithe, from Karina’s description, was Michael Barker.  As I previously noted, Sony Pictures Classics is in a rather smug position as far as “indie” distributors go- being in bed with Sony, who own the Blu-Ray patent and are working with a host of downloading folks with their Bravia TVs.  Perhaps Mr. Barker is just a natural optimist, but it does seem likely that as seasons change, SPC has some very good opportunities to grow.

As far as blogging goes- and this is really off topic- film criticism serves two purposes: 1- to tell people about the film so they can decide whether to see it, or in the case of ‘advanced’ criticism, so they can understand it more; and 2- for marketing purposes.

The second purpose is really only served by certain kinds of critics- either famous well-regarded ones, in the case of quality films, or at least national ones, in the case of popular fare.  All the other ones really aren’t that important and can be replaced with bloggers.

The main problem for independent film and bloggers is that everything gets very spread out, so that it’s hard for a small film to get much of a push from a good review.  It also means film is less in the public eye in general, since the local papers and weeklies all tend to have syndicated reviews of the same films.

Rather than a quality film site like GreenCine or Spout, what could be more effective in increasing audience is a great syndicated feed, with lots of variety and independent & arthouse cinema, that could feed to popular sites and portals.

HT: Chris Thilk