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.

The powerful web-based platform that has emerged as the model to watch is Kickstarter, describes itself as “a new way to fund creative ideas and ambitious endeavors” hosts projects by “artists, filmmakers, musicians, designers, writers, athletes, adventurers, illustrators, explorers, curators, promoters, performers”

I love the idea, and the fact that as an artist, you have to justify why you should be funded, and exactly what the money will be used for. AND, your patrons only get charged if your project is fully funded within the set time frame. It’s brilliant. And I think it works for everything from those really crazy estoteric ideas to those creative social change ideas – because communities gather enthusiastically around the entire range. Here are two projects that are fully funded and worth taking a look at:

Stories for Changemakers, a documentary series showing organizations and individuals doing remarkable work all over the world. It is even more remarkable that the footage is also handed over to these “Changemakers” to use for their organizations’ media outreach.

A truly out-of-the-box story based board game called The Gentlemen of the South Sandwiche Islands

There was MySpace, then YouTube, then Facebook, Twitter followed by every other niched and slightly varied social network. I love the idea of social media for a number of reasons, aesthetic, personal and political. Nothing warms my heart more than the idea that someone behind a firewall in Iran could connect with me sitting in my apartment in Los Angeles during the controversial political situation that arose from the 2009 Iranian election. I also enjoy the casual exchange of interesting ideas and happenings that is the stuff of Facebook friendships.

So here we are, in 2010 with so many ways to connect, form communities and find kindred spirits online. Yet for all the fun we have watching viral videos, getting recommendations from friends on what movies to watch, or playing Mafia Wars with them on Facebook, are we really accessing the best and brightest of what’s in that enormous web-o-sphere?

Let’s imagine for a second that the web is like a frontier, say, how most of America was before the 19th century. And suddenly, from literally a few hundred thousand settlers, 100 million people showed up and populated the land. You’d have something akin to the chaos that happens when people are displaced after massive disasters or wars. Nobody would what the rules were, how to find anything and the one guy who had the map of the entire land might be the most valuable person around.

I’m going to call the Mr. Wise Sage Google. So Google comes in and says: ask me a question, any question. You need to know where the nearest river is so you can access water? I can tell you? You need to know where you can find lumber to build your houses? Here, I’ll show you. Then slowly but surely, this massive number of people settle down, with the help of Mr. W.S. Google. A few years goes by, Mr. Google teaches a few classes, and people learn more about their world, how to find things and they come up with their own maps and books and ideas.

Then, another few years go by, and as people get when they are well fed and comfortable, they get bored, restless. They have a few books and games and songs they brought from the old country which they’ve read over and over again. The kids want something new, different so soon you get some young whippersnapper called Mr. Hot Stuff Youtube who invents a new, novel idea: anyone can come up with a brand new game, or story and share it with the rest of their community. Wow! The kids go wild. They love it. They tell stories of birds falling from trees; babies laughing, dancing, talking in funny ways. And everyone laughs heartily. A few of these kids become really well known all over the land and everyone agrees: the new age is upon us.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the adults are thinking: hmm, these babies dancing, are they really that interesting? They’ve seen babies do all kinds of extraordinary things in their lives and so this just doesn’t seem that exciting. But every once in a while, they see something beautiful, a performance that makes them think and look a little harder. But in between working, eating and sleeping, it’s hard to find those beautiful interesting ideas. So they just give up because mostly it looks like rubbish to them.

Then suddenly, riding on a gorgeous, shiny black horse, a familiar face from the old world appears, but he looks very different from what they remember, and his name is Mr. Slick Interface Hulu. He brings fantastic entertainment and beautiful packaging and everyone is happy, young and old because it gives the old folks what they want and does it just how the kids like it. For a while, everyone is happy. But as humans are inclined, they get bored with Mr. S.I. Hulu’s offerings and the rumblings for more entertainment begin.

At this point, the kids, who are still playing with Mr. H.S. Youtube’s ideas have grown up a little. They’re talking about politics, and music and art, and real stories, not just babies and animals and farting. Even the old folks notice that they are drawn to the new wave of inventions. But now, there’s a problem: there’s so much of this stuff that no one can find what they like. Even the kids are starting to get frustrated because there’s so much out there.

Enter a new-old character: Ms. Smart Thinking Curator. Ms. Curator was once a kid who played with H.S. Youtube ideas. Now she has traveled, been educated by curators of from the old country and developed some tastes of her own. The old folks love her because she understands their language, and the kids like her because she’s one of them. Ms. S.T. Curator suggests a simple new idea: How about if I figure out what everyone’s into: so the people who love puppies and babies can have as much as their hearts desire and the best of the Shiba Inus in the universe. Then those political rabble-rousers, who want to hear and participate in arguments all day long can have their own little corner. And same with the people who love food, clothes, horses and so on. And because Ms. S.T. Curator knows that people want to taste the product before they sign up, she spends a little time explaining why those puppies she selected are the best puppies in the entire world. And Voila! The curation of entertainment is born.

So now I ask, is it not time to trust some new voices and tastes to curate entertainment for us? I don’t discount the voices of the masses, nor am I unaware of the significant challenges in aggregating and distributing video/film in a meaningful way online. BUT, with the advent of interfaces like Boxee and to some extent Roku (and other such devices) which make it possible to combine many entertainment sources this is imminently possible. I see that Clicker is attempting some such organization although my argument about them is that they are still quite neutral in their aggregation and not aggressively curatorial.

I believe we are entering the age of the Curator. There is plenty of entertainment being created that is difficult to access or find. What we need are assured voices who understand contemporary tastes and can do a better and more effective job than the crusty and outmoded TV and film studio executives of bringing relevant content to the attention of interested audiences.

So while technology inventions and killer apps are amazing, can somebody please invent the Human Curator – that would be killer.

Sometimes, marketing and advertising can be brilliant. This is one such occasion.

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.

I think the answer is yes. And I did some research to challenge my own assumptions.

Of course, now with the heavily rumored and anticipated i-something (maybe iTablet or iSlate) device from the happy people at Apple, it seems the transformation of reading is perhaps closer than we might have imagined. As is often the case, technology will drive the charge and likely change user behavior and only then will creative ideas for the product follow suit. Looking beyond the cool gadgetry of the new Apple toy, let’s just consider it another gateway into the world that Amazon’s Kindle has already established with e-reading. We can be sure of one thing though: it will likely be a user-friendly, very portable device that makes the crossover between text and image very appealing.

So there we are, sucked into the magical interface, switching between a Youtube video,  the latest issue of Vogue magazine and pages of Anna Karenina, making leaps of imagination and information that may have been a little more difficult when those materials were tactile. And I describe a scenario in a sequence that has actually happened for me. I have the Kindle for iPhone app, and I confess, I am currently reading Anna Karenina on that tiny, tiny screen on the subway and sometimes, I switch tasks and watch a randomly unconnected  video, then quickly flip through a fashion magazine all in the time it takes to get from Soho to Grand Central Station. So, essentially I contradict myself.

So I’m a media zombie, a self-proclaimed future filmmaker. But a book purist, right? Yes and no. I wonder how I would feel if there was an option to watch a dramatization of Tolstoy’s novel within my app. Would I do it? I’m not sure. But I think most people would if it made an old Russian novel accessible. And for that reason, companies like Vook and Fourth Story Media are emerging in the hybrid book space with titles ranging from how-to’s to teen novels and popular adult fiction. I downloaded and sampled the Sherlock Holmes double Vook and gave it a whirl. Frankly, launching a documentary about opium use during late 19th century London was really distracting to me when I wanted to follow the characters. But I found that I liked the interface when not actually engaged in the narrative. My conclusion is not that the Vook concept itself is flawed, it’s just that turning a classically structured narrative into a multimedia experience is a complex creative challenge. And I can’t say this particular title succeeded.

However, if a title was written by the author with the intention of creating a multimedia narrative in which the text and video where simultaneously conceived, the same way we do when writing screenplays intended for filming, then I think it would be an entirely different proposition. And I actually look forward to the birth of a new form with as much creative and intellectual rigor as good literature has traditionally had. As Bob Stein, whose Institute for the Future of Books says in an LA Times piece, “We’re going to see an explosion of experimentation before we see a dominant new format. We’re at the very beginning stages” of figuring out what narrative might look like in the future– “…the very, very beginning.”

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.

By way of history, the Spanish Republican government commissioned cubist painter Pablo Picasso to create a large mural for the Spanish display at the Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) Paris International Exposition in the 1937 World’s Fair in Paris. As you can see, the painting depicts the bombing of the Spanish city of Guernica by the Germans and Italians during the Spanish Civil War.

Guernica, Pablo Picasso 1937

Imagine my surprise when I came upon this 3D rendering of Guernica by a Spanish autoCAD design company  GaliciaCAD. With my limited Spanish, I browsed their website and discovered that they’re actually not in the business of entertainment at all. It seems this piece was some sort of a demo for their design work. Interesting idea, I think. Of course, there is no better candidate for 3D than Picasso, given the dimensionality of his later work.

Now, to imagine the possibilities of 3D that is truly original!

Guernica 3D from GaliciaCAD on Vimeo.