…a movie experience is a passive experience.  The storytelling narrative is something that I think is still a unique and interesting, and valued experience by people around the world.  And whether it’s done in a movie theater or in your home, or on your laptop, or iPad, or whatever the device is, people love that passive experience.  And we see it, again, there’s more and more consumption of it. What all of these devices and social networking things do is they’re going to actually force Hollywood to make better products, because today the thing that is probably most askew in Hollywood is the issue of marketability versus playability.

Katzenberg’s contention is of course, that the stories Hollywood is shilling lately are simply bad art–and that’s why consumption of passive entertainment is declining. Meaning, of course that the root cause of our widespread cultural preference to play around on social networks as opposed to watching movies is simply a content issue, and not a changing habits issue.

For those of you who read my blog, you know I’m a huge proponent of raising the quality of film, and innovating within the medium, so I should be the biggest proponent of the Katzenberg theory on this…but I’m not. Why?  Because I think the ship has sailed. By the time (if ever) the movies come around to being better again, audiences will have developed different habits, and the coming generation of digital natives will not understand the meaning of “passive entertainment”.

Among many arguments for the evolution of consumption behavior changing rapidly is the neurological one posited by writers such as Nicholas Carr, whose book Shallows suggests we are rewiring our neural pathways through digital age behavior. A recent article in the Scientific American concurs, quoting studies that suggest the inevitability of this change.

There’s also the very simple fact of cultural tastes changing with the times, and the introduction of more highly interactive forms of entertainment simply draws people away from the more passive forms. When guys like Katzenberg and his generation who came of age in a kind of golden age of cinema talk about the possibilities of film making a comeback, some part of me feels like I’m hearing my grandfather talk about the days before everyone had a telephone, and people actually talked to each other, face to face. I’m sure it was an awesome experience, and had its merits, but we can’t stop the change from happening. Along with massively world changing inventions like vaccines and and moon travel come these other cultural changes, many of which we are less in control of than we’d like to believe.

So while I applaud Katzenberg for having the balls to say that the emperor has no clothes on (I concur that the sequel nonsense is a dead-end game), I’m not so sure he should be as sanguine about our future willingness to rediscover this elusive LOVE of passive entertainment.

Boy, I sound like such a bummer today! But  really, I have faith in our ability to guide cultural/creative change in a meaningful way into the purely digital era. It’s just that I don’t think it’s ever going to be like the good old days.

Personally, I think anyone who hasn’t seen the handwriting on the wall that says CHANGE is patently in need of some ocular examination. Crumley presents it as a crisis of distribution, which it is to an extent. But one can argue that the recent proliferation of useful distribution and marketing technologies and online communities to support our film work has presented massive benefits to the DIY filmmaker and as such, the crisis has been halfway resolved. So why are so many still mad as hell? Crumley’s is a call to action for a somewhat demoralized community to rally around alternative (non-studio) solutions like OpenIndie.

But on the other side of the spectrum it seems some people are angry at precisely this trend towards the social media driven creation and marketing of indie films. Mike S. Ryan for instance, is an established indie producer associated with well-known films Junebug, Palindromes and Choke, to name a few. In his Filmmaker Magazine article, he expresses a fair amount of panic about the swell of “Audience-driven content posing as truly independent film” which he believes “has numbed the audience that is hungry for innovative work.” From my vantage point, Ryan’s fear that the internet will chase away originality or the margins is entirely misguided and unduly panic-inducing. And I look forward to a face-to-face debate with the guy (stay tuned).

But hey, he’s got a right to be mad as hell just like Arin Crumley and all of us who yelled and shook our fists in solidarity at DIY DAYS. So many things to be mad about, and not enough time.

So, in the spirit of the “mad” conversation, please feel free share your indie film gripes: what are you mad as hell about?

As suspicious as I naturally am of these Hollywood suits and their flawed business models and bad personal style, I’ve still kept one eye on Disney for as a possible game-changer. When High School Musical and Hannah Montana came out of what seemed like nowhere, blew up to become a couple of the most recognizable brands in kids/tween entertainment, who didn’t wonder how the hell that happened? I remember seeing images of tween girl throngs at a Miley Cyrus concert and being stupefied that such a phenomenon could grow out of an original Disney TV character and Disney Radio star.

Granted, we’ve always known that children’s entertainment is the monster of the box office, the DVD and of franchise merchandising because, as we’ve come to understand, children’s tastes are often quite bizarre, obsessive and well, lucrative. This has always been Disney’s “vein of gold”. And when Iger acquired Pixar, he took that idea to an even broader level by acquiring a wholly independent, well-run animation house that again, was in the business of original characters, stories and thus, more franchises. So, despite their public differences, Pixar and Disney have managed to create some of the most memorable, adult-friendly animation in recent history.

Fast forward five years, and Iger again makes a move for Marvel, whose trove hadn’t been completely pillaged and remains filled with lesser known action heros but come with built in fan bases, the possibility of both animated and live-action fantasy content with serious transmedia potential. These moves seemed practical, if expensive, and Iger pulled Disney out of the quaint Mickey-Mouse world into the Pirates’ of the Carribean era. Then as if that wasn’t enough to show Disney’s shareholders that he meant (profitable) business, he goes and fired a whole layer of senior executives (read: old-school) that had been running the company for years and replaces them with a variety of new people, some of whom have little experience in the business of film and TV.

And just as the articles were circulating about his madness, Iger goes and pulls the Alice in Wonderland move: telling theatrical exhibitors in the US and UK that he would shorten the window between the theatrical release of the upcoming film and the DVD release–a move which terrified theater-owners and diminished the grand status 0f the theatrical window. This of course led to some strong words from the UK distributors, threat of boycott and all such manner of protest. Oh, then there was his refusal to make a sequel of the $315 million grossing Sandra Bullock movie, The Proposal which many including LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein viewed as bizarre, since Hollywood is after all, the sure-bet-sequel town.

This of course begged the question: Is Iger a fool or a maniac? To which I reply: Neither.

The most cynical view of this strategy would be the one taken by critics like Culture Vulture’s Claude Brodesser-Akner, who sees this direction as an aggressive move towards merchandising driven entertainment. But I’m not sure that analysis in entirely correct. While I could never argue that Disney’s responsibility to it’s shareholders to be increasingly more profitable isn’t a driving force in these radical changes, I see the strategy as a real response to the way social media, branding and convergent media are changing consumer/viewer behavior.

Sure, Pirates of the Carribean can have a theme-park ride whereas Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds are pure passive entertainment–but is Iger’s decision to stick with properties that have cross-media opportunities really THAT crazy sounding to anyone who hasn’t been asleep through the advent of social media, interactive entertainment and yes, Miley Cyrus? All this hand-wringing really shows a lack of understanding that Iger’s sharp assessment about the future of entertainment includes the stark reality that for any property to be profitable in age of bit torrent and audience involvement, there have to be multiple streams of revenue that take engagement into serious consideration.

So, no, he is NOT mad. And perhaps somewhere in the wings his largest individual shareholder, Steve Jobs is whispering in Iger’s ear to check out the looking glass of the future.

So how about, by way of tribute to the greenback and our indie taste for it, I make a list of films that got the cash in the suitcase? And then…well, maybe how some big ones turned out. Don’t forget that everyone lies about their budget, their marketing and their purchase price but Box Office numbers maybe the closest figures we have to any truth in recorded information.

#5 HAMLET 2

Reported Budget: $9M

Rumored Sundance 2008 Sale Price: $10M

Box Office: $4.8M

My 2 Cents: I actually liked it…but it wasn’t no HSM or Glee – who’s the audience again?

#4 NEXT STOP WONDERLAND

Reported Budget: $1M

Rumored Sundance 1998 Sale Price: $6M

Box Office: $3.4M

My 2 Cents: Rom-Com Indie ? A little more plot and it should’ve/would’ve been a studio pic with a bigger marketing budget.

#3 HAPPY TEXAS

Reported Budget: $1.7M

Rumored Sundance 1999 Sale Price: $10M

Box Office: $1.9M

My 2 Cents: Comedy about two cons impersonating a gay couple in Texas. Can’t remember – was that before or after gay rights stopped being a joke?

#3 CHOKE

Reported Budget: $3M

Rumored Sundance 2008 Sale Price: $5M

Box Office: $2.9M

My 2 Cents: I couldn’t get through it so someone please fill me in.

#2 BLACK DYNAMITE

Reported Budget: $2.9M

Rumored Sundance 2009 Sale Price: $2M

Box Office: $229,000

My 2 Cents: Let’s see: if you’re under 35, don’t know what blaxploitation is, you might as well be watching a foreign film.

#1 GRACE IS GONE

Reported Budget: $3M

Rumored Sundance 2007 Sale Price: $4M

Box Office: $50,000

My 2 Cents: Wow. That’s all I can say. We were depressed as a nation. And thought others might like to be as well.

The truth is, right now, in January 2010 most of the visual storytelling–series, one-off videos and even features you’ll find on content sites (outside of the Netflix and Hulus of the world) ARE independent. That is to say, they were created by individuals who independently decided to create and in most cases finance their own projects. Whether it cost $5 on a borrowed Flipcam to make that cat fall of the piano, or it cost $50K to make that VFX masterpiece that got 1 million views on Youtube, the bottom line is that the idea of the “independent” has gone totally mainstream.

Film and video festivals are proliferating like never before, and the amount of content at online aggregation sites is staggering. Let me put it in perspective: Back in May 2009,  YouTube’s blog said 20 hours of video were being uploaded to YouTube every minute and they point out that it would be the equivalent of over 86,000 new full-length movies into theaters each week. Every filmmaker I know rolls their eyes about YouTube stats. So let me be clear: my point is certainly NOT that a video like Chris Crocker “Leave Britney Alone” a filmic masterpiece because it had close to 12 million hits.

Rather, my question is: What happens to “American Indie Film,” largely defined by the self-financed, autonomous creation of filmed stories by a person or group of people- either documentary or fictional, and to be possibly sold and exhibited to the public. Film schools all over the US are filled with filmmaker hopefuls wanting to do just that, and spending a lot of time and money working towards that end. (I know because I went to one of them.) One could argue that the distinction is obvious, and that my argument is at best, semantic. But I don’t think it is.

I know there are a lot of rah-rah traditional American indie filmmakers out there trying to figure out how to bring the whole kit-and-kaboodle of indie filmmaking from the analog/old/Sundance world into the digital age. And there are some wonderful resources for crowdsourcing funding, marketing and distribution evolving from these efforts. BUT, I am going to argue that the idea of American Independent filmmaking as a cultural movement defined by films all the way from the 70s through the early days of  Sundance, is over.

So while I applaud the spirit of indie creators, I’m going to call a spade a spade: most indie filmmakers (and I know this because I’ve worked on MANY indie films) bootstrap their “passion projects” so they can have a shot at the big time: Hollywood. And I’m not knocking this as a strategy. I mean who doesn’t want to get on a movie where you have a Honeywagon instead of your mom’s station wagon? However, let’s not confuse a financial/career approach with a cultural idea called “independent.” There are fewer and fewer filmmakers working outside of the cultural and even political constraints of the mainstream (as defined by Hollywood). In fact, I would venture to say, there may be more true “independent” thinking buried in the vast depths of the billon-deep YouTube video vault right now.

So maybe the moment has come to re-define “Independent Film”. Perhaps what we are really talking about is filmmaking for niche audiences, the same way cable television changed the way we see television. More rarified, maybe, but by no means does any vague set of “indie rules” apply to any work being created  in the “feature” category by a non-studio entity. I think once we get real about what it “means” to be an independent content creator, we can get down to the business of learning one or two things from folks who are having success in the vast world of online media.

But, I still issue this disclaimer: feel free to break the rules – so long as you have passion, vision and the drive to create.

1. SUCK IT UP AND LEARN SOCIAL MEDIA

If I hear one more of my film school colleagues who emerged from the last decade of digital trauma (!) say “social media is about popularity not art”, I will personally show up with a baseball bat and knock the sense out of them (for a small fee, I can do that for you as well). Social media is here to stay, and it is your friend, not your foe. Master it, and it will make you relevant. And if you have to ask me why, then you are in more dire need of this advice than I thought.

2. YOUR BRILLIANT IDEA MAY NOT BE A FILM

Deal with the fact that with the vast possibilities in media, the grand vision of your idea of a film MAY NOT be the smartest. And I’m not denying that certain ideas are far more brilliant on the big screen. However, as we move to the era of ubiquitous smaller screens, consider seriously if/how your idea might play on an iphone (yes) or a computer screen, or if an interactive element might serve your film better. Just sayin’. Let go of the visions of grandeur and worry about how to get your vision to the public. Film is cool but don’t get hung up on it.

3. PROFITABILITY WILL HELP YOUR CAREER

Ok, kids: the era of raising silly money from from your Wall Street buddies or the dentist who wants to go to a movie premiere IS officially over. And even if you do, you better know how you’re going to recoup that plus at least 10-15 % . Yeah, Madoff screwed it up for you. Everyone is suspicious of any investment opportunity that promises upwards of 110% return so if you can deliver that, you WILL have a career. Even if you have to sell 40,000 t-shirts to make it back, it will make you a less risky investment for your next project.

4. UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE A BRAND

This is not me selling you out to the world of advertising. This is me telling you that Your Identity, Your Persona, Your Creative Work form the CORE of what makes you appealing to audiences. Think seriously about what makes you unique and that is what will make you stand out in a sea of many other media-makers, some of whom may have similar ideas to yours. We live in an era where you simply cannot afford to hide behind your work or assume that someone else – a publicist, studio or production company will define who you are – step up and figure out how you need to position yourself to get the job done.

5. FIND THREE GREAT COLLABORATORS INSTEAD OF AN AGENT

Let’s just get some facts out of the way: Hollywood is a machine that does certain things well: mass distribution, financing, profiteering. There are other things it doesn’t do so well: nurturing new talent, grass-roots audience building, niche brand-building. If your hope is that you will get “discovered” by Hollywood, don’t worry, they will find you once you have done all the work. They can make you bigger, offer you a better paycheck, fame and a ticket to the Oscars. But not before you’ve worked your tail off. You need to accept the fact that they cannot do for you what 3 great peers (or 1/2 multi-talented ones) can do for you. A dedicated team with the following skills will get you wherever you want to go: A) Creative Supporter/Critic; B) Audience Building Strategist; C) Clever Business Brain/Monetization Strategist.

This Youtube video Ataque de Panico currently has over a million hits, prompting Sam Raimi to sign its Uruguayan director Fede Alvarez to a production deal for a $30 million feature. The LA Times reported this deal as a Cinderella story, courtesy of Youtube popularity, a little help by Kanye West’s blog (!) and special effects mastery.

You have to love how horror sci-fi ideas can be so appealing to Hollywood even without story. Perhaps we are entering the post District 9 era of Third-World Sci-Fi, which I loved, for the record. I won’t really complain about changing the scenery to backgrounds outside of the US but um…that little boy at the beginning – ET, anyone? Lesson #1: Always start your speculative sci-fi with a wide-eyed little boy if you hope to tug at the warm fuzzy hearts of Hollywood execs!

I do think the spectacle of the giant robots is fascinating, especially for a Youtube nugget. It reminds me of that wildly popular viral 405, which back in 2000 seemed like such an enormous feat of fx for early Youtube watchers. I’m not sure what happened to Bruce Branit and Jeremy Hunt after their famed CAA signing. Or for that matter, what happened to the feature based on a plane landing on the 405.

But hey, can someone tell me: what’s a good story worth?

So here’s where I step back and ask: was the success of Paranormal an anomaly in the Blair Witch manner, or is it in fact the beginning of a wave? While I get that this film is probably scarier in a “real” way than say, Saw VI, that paragon of torture porn which it trounced at the box office, I have to wonder if the convergence of all these phenomena at the same moment spells more than just “great content”. There are a lot of “firsts” here: certainly the use of Eventful.com, which until now has been used primarily for live music events; there’s the suddenly powerful force of immediate social media like twitter and of course, there’s the sheer desperation of the studios to make a buck, any buck in the midst of a funding crisis akin to none other in recent Hollywood history.

Assuming that none of these factors are changing anytime soon – ie, access to social media, immediate audience responses (that can make or break opening weekends), and a cashflow issue not likely to be resolved so fast, will models like this soon become ubiquitous? It seems inevitable to me. I’ve always been dubious of Hollywood test screenings and the magic scores that determine whether a movie gets released or not, or if characters or endings should be changed. It seems that at a certain price-point (an din this case rather extremely low), these studio people should be delighted to have ways of gauging audiences interest in their films. It’s such a low-risk strategy that I wonder if Paranormal’s success will send a message to the powers that be.

But of course, the million dollar question remains unanswered: is this a marketing/distribution strategy that will work for a film without this sort of draw – the horror, the midnight screenings, the sheer “viral-ness” of it? And will there emerge other platforms, such as Eventful.com, which can perhaps draw different groups of people to an event they can feel they have participated in bringing to the rest of the public? Certainly, there are some indie film communities springing up around various audience engagement concepts. And I wonder how those will shake out in the months and year to come – since that is really how quickly I believe we will see vast transformation in the world of audience-content relationships.