At one extreme, the arguments for supporting dark arthouse films are notions of “quality”, “culture”, “values/worthiness” and “art.”
Opposing the cultural elite, arguments for greater emphasis on commercial success include “financial sustainability”, “making films that people want to watch”, and being “less pretentious.”
I’m a bit of a fence sitter, and I refuse to believe that filmmaking must sit at either extreme of the “art” versus “popcorn” continuum. However, the peculiar inverse nature of the Australian film industry – where arthouse films of a particularly dark and ‘worthy’ nature receive the majority of funding and critic support – sways me to side for becoming more commercial in line with the greater public.
Think of it this way: being indie is greatly important for giving minorities a voice when commercial production is servicing the masses. But what if the masses aren’t being serviced at all? What if the ‘masses’ aren’t having their voice heard? This is the problem we have in Australia.
So dominant is the power of the cultural elite in Australian filmmaking, that even people like myself – who love international arthouse films – find the local variant frequently too dark, dreary, and worthy. My desire as a viewer for something with more heart, more laughter, more light, suddenly sees me lumped in with the masses who would rather watch a blockbuster.
Forgive the rant - that’s just background to the point I’m getting to! It’s so easy to get caught up in arguments about the quality, values, and content of our films, who is right and who is wrong, and that argument is repeated year in year out. It never changes.
But the world is a big place, and I believe that there is an audience for every film, regardless of art or genre. The trick is knowing who that audience is, getting your content in front of them, and doing it in a way that is financially sustainable. This is what we should put way more of our time, energy, money and resources into - more so than the arguments, more so than script development, more so than production.
It’s natural for us to get sidetracked by the “content”, because we indie filmmakers do what we do out of a creative need rather than financial motivation – it is the story, the characters, the ideas that invade our every waking moment, and we can’t help but be emotionally obsessed about our projects.
However – what if no one ever watches your film? That might be okay if you’re a self absorbed narcissist who is happy talking to yourself...
Indie filmmakers repeat certain mantras to themselves to feel better about commercial failure. But if your film is so good, why won’t an audience back it?
Let’s be honest. Wouldn’t we all rather our work reaches the intended audience, regardless of niche or mainstream? Why do we stuff up when we get to that bit? Why, when a film fails to reach an audience, rather than learning from the experience, we get defensive and argue that the audience isn’t sophisticated enough, or blame lack of a marketing budget, or too much competition... anything but take ownership ourselves.
Here’s a word to the wise: marketing doesn’t begin as an advertising campaign four weeks prior to your premiere. Marketing begins at day one - the day you decide you want to make something. I don’t care what topic or genre the film is: on day one, you start by doing your market research.
Yes, that’s before you’ve written the script, or lined up the actors, or begun shooting.
You find out who your audience is, how to reach them online and in the real world, the key bloggers, influencers, ambassadors, you begin building a relationship with them, and you make sure that the film you are making matches up to what that audience wants in a film.
If you get this one thing right, it more than anything else will ensure your film reaches its audience successfully. And I won’t even care if it is another dark dreary ‘worthy’ Australian arthouse film. Just so long as it reaches its audience... whoever the hell they are.
Further reading:
Eight Steps to Building a Fanbase
Australian Film Industry Debate:
- The Year In Pictures, by Gary Maddox
- Screening the Same Old Dreary Story, by Michael Coulter
- Cut! Time for a free kick for niche Australian movies and their makers, by Rachel Ward
- Ward Off Criticism, by Lynden Barber
- Bar Still Too Low For Australian Films, by Jim Schembri & Richard Wolstencroft
- Australian cinema-goers? Ah, ‘stuff ‘em!’ They only buy tickets, by Phyllis Foundis
"What if the ‘masses’ aren’t having their voice heard?"
ReplyDeleteThis is a really fascinating question-- and 'fascinating' would describe this whole post. You've got me thinking. Thank you!
Now-- was this blog post an arthouse article or a mainstream one? :)
Absolutely spot-on assessment.
ReplyDeleteThe American system, with "dumbed down, commercialised products" is the only sustainable one. They have a strong primary focus on maintaining cashflow, and so the "arthouse" films can be funded without leaving everyone in the red.
In any case, its ironic how often you hear arthouse film makers complain about the unsophistication of audiences. If they really cared about raising the floor of public sophistication, they wouldn't be making films no-one wants to see. They'd be studying what Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Peter Jackson are doing. Avatar will do far more environmental conservation, cultural awareness and scepticism of militarism than any number of arthouse films we've seen these last few years on those same subjects.