Rethinking Video on Demand.
Talks are continuing on how to properly distribute Lilith, and the inevitable discussion of streaming, Video on Demand and iTunes has come up.
I guess I’m a product of my generation. It used to be a joke when a film went “straight to video” or was “made for tv.” It was a slogan of a film’s failure, that it didn’t get the royal treatment of a theatrical release. Straight-to-video was a term used for skin flicks or movies featuring stars of yesteryear trying to rekindle their youth in an ill-fitting film scenario.
The Straight to DVD past…
But the times have changed, and the way we view movies has changed. With the advent of information technology we now have the ability to see films on our personal electronic devices at our own convenience. Video-On-Demand has now become the savior of independent cinema. According to a recent report by The Wrap, films like Lars Von Trier’s excellent Melancholia and Takashi Miike’s even-more-excellent 13 Assassins, both of which had lackluster theatrical performances, have seen an almost doubling and tripling of revenue through Video-On-Demand releases.
…and the Video-On-Demand present.
To mount a theatrical release requires a significant infusion of cash, as there has to be an advertising campaign, prints made, posters, flyers, and radio / television / internet campaigns mounted. It is a generally accepted parameter that a film’s marketing budget equals the production budget, and this is somewhat less for indies doing a limited theatrical run. But for an indie like Bellflower, which was made for $20k, even $5k spent on marketing is a huge investment for its producers and distributor. A lot of true indies simply don’t have the finances and staffing to mount a theatrical release. But say the film is released on four screens in NYC. The final net income, minus the costs of advertising, screen rental and prints, is pretty negligible, and, depending how the film is received and reviewed, will likely go into the minus.
So if the financial incentive is not there for a theatrical release, then why do it? For one, a theatrical release is now serving as marketing for a Video-On-Demand and DVD / Blu-Ray release. It’s simply there to get the word out in the media. If the film makes money in theatrical, then it’s a bonus. Conversely, film festivals serve this same function. They bring press and buzz to a film, and when enough people hear about it, the release on VOD, iTunes, Netflix or DVD has an audience willing to buy / rent without reservation.
VOD / Streaming is also staggering in that anyone with cable can view the film. It’s not limited to NYC and LA. That kind of reach is unprecedented, and makes it a far stronger play than a theatrical release.
But deep in my filmmaker heart, I want to release my film theatrically. Lilith is an anamorphic film that was meant to be seen on a large screen. It’s sound design, score and music are meant to be heard on a kick-ass sound system. It’s meant to be a communal experience. That’s how films are supposed to be watched, and not digitally compressed to within an inch if its life so that it can be viewed on an iPhone. Even David Lynch sees the insanity in this:
But David Lynch, myself, and other filmmakers need to accept that the way the public consumes films and media has changed. Permanently. It’s more important that as many people see our films as possible, because that’s how we will make a living. And if we can’t make a living making feature films, then we will have to stop making feature films. And I can’t afford to do that, because my soul will die.
There are so many options to weigh for Lilith that it’s mind boggling. We’re prepping for our festival run and what we do after that depends a lot on how the film is received. So if Lilith comes to your town, please do come out and support it, write about it, and get the word out. The best advertising for me is word of mouth, and I can’t do that without you.
Speaking of which, if Lilith indeed comes to your neck of the woods, hit me up. I’d love to meet you!
