Peter Broderick assesses the state of independent film
by Eric Kohn
In just the last few years, consultant Peter Broderick has helped hundreds of filmmakers figure out the right strategies for their films. As a result, his impact on the industry at large is far-reaching: Last year's big Sundance buy, My Kid Could Paint That, came from documentarian Amir Bar-Lev, one of Broderick's discoveries; he also played a key role in helping out a young Christopher Nolan, whose latest accomplishment is a little movie called The Dark Knight. An early pioneer of the role new media can play in the lifespan of a film, Broderick invented the concept of hybrid distribution, in which a filmmaker divides up rights among several outlets, rather than signing a single, exclusive deal. He took a break from working on his upcoming book to speak with Stream about various issues relevant to the independent film community.
In a recent speech, former Miramax executive Mark Gill declared that the sky is falling for the independent film industry. He was mainly addressing distributors. What are your thoughts on how this relates to filmmakers?
I think there's a sense, for a lot of people, that he's right. It's a misperception. Mark is really talking about the old world of distribution, but there's a whole other world where the possibilities and successes are different. I don't really disagree with what he said, but it's important to be clear about what it applies to.
How do you distinguish between the specialty film distribution business and the other options for independent filmmakers?
I don't think it's a question of the specialty business. His perspective is one of somebody who has been an executive with the traditional model of distribution. He details a lot of companies that are going out of business, or that are financially challenged. The possibilities for a filmmaker are broader and more diverse than the state of some companies operating in a traditional way. The spectrum of possibilities has broadened over the last six years, and there have been a number of filmmakers out there trying a lot of different things, creating new models. They've had a lot of successes. The fact is that independent features and documentaries are having a really difficult time right now, and I think that these tentpole movies are going to continue to dominate movie theaters. There will be aberrations, like when The Visitor came along and made headway theatrically, but mostly it'll be about movies that have big marketing budgets and big stars.
The place that independent films will have, whether foreign or domestic, documentary or nonfiction, it's more of an opportunity for them to get some major awareness. It isn't a question of whether you can make money theatrically; it's a question of how low is it going to cost you. If you can break even, people are taking it as a way to build awareness that will help with video and television [releases]. You have to have a pragmatic approach. More and more filmmakers are getting into theaters by working with bookers, but they're hanging onto all their other rights, so they can take another distribution approach where, eventually, they're working with several partners. Maybe they're making a TV deal, an educational deal, a digital rights deal. But they're also doing things directly from their websites, like selling DVDs or digital downloads.
King Corn is a perfect example. They did, through their own devices, 150 community screenings around the country. They did about forty or fifty cities theatrically, then moved into semi-theatrical when they were in 200 cities. The difference between semi-theatrical and regular theatrical is that with regular theatrical, you're losing money. With semi-theatrical, maybe the numbers aren't big, but you're making money at every screening. Let's say your rental fee is $300, then your percentage of ticket sales brings in another $200. So you get $500, and you may get another $750 as a speaking fee, and if you sell DVDs at the event -- let's say you sell 50 DVDs -- maybe you make $1000. That adds up.
Some filmmakers are now treating the festival circuit as a replacement for a theatrical run. Do you think this is a valid outlook?
Theatrical has become more difficult. In terms of the nuts and bolts, building awareness is crucial. If the press is going to see your movie at festivals and start writing about your film, that's what you're hoping for when you're in theaters. Some people say you don't want to get too much attention at festivals because that could affect the theatrical. Filmmakers have to treat festivals seriously, but in the old days, they thought of festivals as a way to find distribution. That's less true than it used to be, because if they split up the rights -- making separate TV and video deals -- that's not going to be happening at a festival. The priorities have changed. Festivals can help attract the attention of distributors, but the reality is, in most cases, people are not making deals at festivals. For festivals now, the priority is public awareness.
Speaking of public awareness, just this week The Dark Knight passed the $400 million mark at the box office. You played a central role in kickstarting the career of director Christopher Nolan with his first feature, Following. What are your feelings about independent filmmakers using their films to break into Hollywood?
I don't think that's way Chris ever looked at it. When I first met Chris, one of the things that struck me about him was how clear an idea he had of what he wanted to do. Whether it was making Following for thousands of dollars or the studio films he made later, he had a very clear perspective of how he wanted to do films. Some filmmakers, you think once they get into the studio system, they will be at the mercy of executives and pressures. Chris has had such a clarity of vision, I knew people would have to say, "Do we want to make a Chris movie?"
If you watch Following again, there's a point where they go into an apartment and there's a Batman sticker on the door. That was a little foreshadowing. In this weird way, whatever Dark Knight cost, I think Chris made it with the same creative control he used for Following. I'm not saying this is possible for everyone. I think of Chris making the movies he wants to make, and not being a director for hire.
Take another filmmaker I've been involved with, [Terrence] Malick. Terry is going to make Terry's movies. He has a singular vision. That's what he's going to do.
It's important for filmmakers to be clear about what their intentions are. Whether it's working for a studio or signing up with an agency, are they doing it to accomplish the goals they already have, or are they going to end up accomplishing other people's goals? That's the greater question. Filmmakers have said they'll make personal movies again after the blockbusters, but sometimes it's too late.