Great film, but no market for it: Sorry...

[downix]

How about this, rather than complaining or arguing about things, why don't we discuss methods of getting films such as iraq in Fragments out there? I have ideas, but I want to see what others are thinking. If you don't like the system, then buck it!

I'm always interested in hearing ideas for "bucking the system", but I tend to focus my energies on understanding how and why the system works the way it does. I have always figured you have to know how and why something is broken before it can be fixed. What is your idea?

Steve

Well, I have ideas, but I need a movie to test them out with. I was pondering asking the Sleep Always guys if I could give it a shot, but it is a long shot.

[npcoombs]

Bucking the System:

Take your film on tour to cinemas across the country. Hit the phones, universities, online forums, organizations - find your audience.

Buddy up to the managers and programmers of all the art house cinemas and screens.

Get to know critics and other influential people.

[downix]

Bucking the System:

Take your film on tour to cinemas across the country. Hit the phones, universities, online forums, organizations - find your audience.

Buddy up to the managers and programmers of all the art house cinemas and screens.

Get to know critics and other influential people.

That's not dissimilar to my own idea, but take it one step further:

Any indepdently owned theatre has issues with mid-week shows turning a profit. Talking to them, I've found that they are more than willing to rent out the whole theatre for a reasonable price. Then, flood the town with advertising the week before, and it is not much of a challenge to 4-wall a theatre.

But, if you really want to make money on it, set up a kiosk while the movie is showing to sell DVD's, soundtrack CD's, t-shirts, books, any kind of material you can think of!

It's the old medical exploitation model, but now applied to real movies.

[steve hyde]

I think an interesting and unexplored angle in this debate is the extent to which postmodern, liberal-democracies have increasingly tended towards infantalisation of the individual and the invocation of fear.

absolutely. I like the verb: "infantalisation". It conjures up the image of independent democratic citizens devolving from critically engaged self-empowered actants to dependent *child like* passive consumers whose every day lives serve Power. The invocation of fear is employed through all sorts of rhetoric devised by the mass media. Fear certainly plays a role in keeping American's from leaving the boundaries of the country. There is a prevailing mythology that the United States is the safest place and that the rest of the world is dangerous. I am not suggesting that the United States is not without certain securities. It does have, but the point is that *fear* still does its work on the landscape. The invocation of fear is still an important thread in the fabric of cultural hegemony.

This could have something to do with as the intensity of capitalism increases, so too does the division of labour and hyper specialisation. Add to this the third-way interventionist government (who protects us from the rough edges of the market) and we increasingly have a population unable to look after themselves, always look for safety, protection, voices of authority to protect them, but not challenge them.

I think your point about "hyper specialization" is an important one and fits into the critique of both the mass media apparatus and also institutions of formal education. The tendency to specialize serves Power. Take cinematography as an example.

A formally trained cinematographer becomes a specialist. An expert in all aspects of the vocation. However few it seems, rise up through the ranks to become truly independent filmmakers. Instead they go to work for Power serving to produce all the crass commercial materials that serve the wants of mass consumerism. They become artists without a voice. Their passions for the craft and wisdom are usurped by Power. If art is a domain of democratic citizenship and freedom of speech, which It is, then the tendency to conform to the demands of specialization work, in some ways, to subvert democratic citizenship and singularity of voice in the media arts.

This is why I think the era of the grand-modernist works is over. Films like those by Kubrick, Bergman, Antonioni, Tarkovsky appealed to a generation looking to make sense of the world and bring meaning to it. The big questions were not frightening but exhilarating. There were social movements, the Marxist-political project/narrative; all that is over now.

Yes, let's not forget Paris 1968.

Chilling that Bergman and Antonioni died on the same day this week.
EDIT: see article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00482.html

Technology has synergised with these trends too. Quick, instant gratification is what people want. Where we do tend to still see a curiosity on the viewer's part it is usually into other cultures and lifestyles. Thus Zizek put it: multiculturalism as the ideology of late capitalism.

I'm not familiar with Zizek. I will look into it. How does multiculturalism fit into the ideology of late capitalism?

None of this answers Steve's fundamental question of why Iraq in Fragments has received no distribution in the States.

The media is definitely highly responsible, but so too is the passivity of those who uncritically receive it and found their ideology on it.

It has received limited distribution. This limits its reach. People privy with documentaries will rent it. That is better than nothing. The director will be lucky if he recovers his investment.

No grand conclusions about how and why it did not get picked up for a major distribution. I have unpacked here a lot of theoretical speculation about how and why it did not.

To be clear: It is certainly a case of supply and demand. I never argued that supply and demand economics is unfounded. It certainly is. I am insisting however that supply and demand theory only scratches the surface of what is really going on out on the landscape. The great Power of supply and demand theory is that it is easy to understand. In turn that makes it an oversimplification that doesn't capture anything cultural.

Cultural hegemony, Power/knowldege, Governmentality are all important ways of understanding how the economy works and at the end of the day,
how and why some very good films win prestigious awards and die on the vine. The reason I keep referencing these ideas is because I think they are some of the most important ideas of our time and I wanted to say something about that.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmentality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism








Steve

[Nigel]

The movie is out there...

netflix.com If that isn't out there then I don't know what is.

Rent your copy today.

Good Luck

[npcoombs]

absolutely. I like the verb: "infantalisation". It conjures up the image of independent democratic citizens devolving from critically engaged self-empowered actants to dependent *child like* passive consumers whose every day lives serve Power.

Yes, but I also mean it in a quite literal way. Harry Potter, Hello Kitty, people don't want to grow up nowadays. Maybe they see no purpose in being independent. Maybe the real world is too fearsome.

I'm not familiar with Zizek. I will look into it. How does multiculturalism fit into the ideology of late capitalism?

The greatest critical theorist at work today. Watch his lectures on YouTube very insightful and very entertaining.

[steve hyde]

The movie is out there...

netflix.com If that isn't out there then I don't know what is.

Rent your copy today.

Good Luck

an advertising and theatrical release is *out there*. Netflix is of course a conciliation prize for a feature that is nominated for an Academy Award. The differences are significant: The theatrical means that you recover production costs. The Netflix release *without a theatrical* means that you likely will not. That is a big difference. That is the kind of difference that makes or breaks filmmaker careers. At the end of the day, a product either delivers on the bottom line for investors or it does not. That is how success is measured in the film *business*. How and why it does or does not deliver on the bottom line is a story that is often too complex for oversimplified quantitative models. "Iraq in Fragments" is a good case in point because it is a remarkable film that was well received by the film industry, but then cultural market "realities" obviously spooked would-be distributors. Perhaps fearing some kind of backlash? Consumer boycott? Lack of interest? (it's all speculation)

Yet the fact that it won at Sundance and went on for an Academy Award are to me, indicators that there is something extraordinary about it. Then when you see it you discover that indeed, it is an extraordinary film.

So why didn't it get picked up? What explains it?.... a shoulder shrug? a "I dunno." "supply and demand?".. "Netflix is good enough?"


Steve

[steve hyde]

absolutely. I like the verb: "infantalisation". It conjures up the image of independent democratic citizens devolving from critically engaged self-empowered actants to dependent *child like* passive consumers whose every day lives serve Power.

Yes, but I also mean it in a quite literal way. Harry Potter, Hello Kitty, people don't want to grow up nowadays. Maybe they see no purpose in being independent. Maybe the real world is too fearsome.

I'm not familiar with Zizek. I will look into it. How does multiculturalism fit into the ideology of late capitalism?

The greatest critical theorist at work today. Watch his lectures on YouTube very insightful and very entertaining.

Thanks. I ordered library copy of the book:
Žižek, Slavoj. (2001). The Fright of Real Tears: Krzysztof Kieślowski Between Theory and Post-Theory. London: BFI Publishing. ISBN 0-85170-755-6 (hbk) ISBN 0-85170-754-8 (pbk)

and looked at some of the Youtube stuff. I like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kXQzJD8JCU




















Steve

[Nigel]

Steve...

Not really.

The cost of making prints is drastically higher than making some DVDs--Along with making deals with theaters/distribution chians. If you look at the numbers a straight to DVD release is a very good way to make money. It isn't like "Iraq in fragments" is some film that isn't getting press or people are blind to.

If you think that the film deserves some sort of "prestige" that comes along with a print...Well. I'm sure they have one. Put it under your arm and make it your personal quest to throw it on screens around the world. Otherwise, when you look at the numbers they have a really great thing going on.

I'm sure that if you sniffed around you would find out that they made their money back. My guess and opinion is that they probably are even in the black.

If that isn't a win-win then I don't know what is. If that isn't good enough then its political ends that you are after. And, we all know that will lead to nothing.

Good Luck

[steve hyde]

Steve...

Not really.

The cost of making prints is drastically higher than making some DVDs--Along with making deals with theaters/distribution chians. If you look at the numbers a straight to DVD release is a very good way to make money. It isn't like "Iraq in fragments" is some film that isn't getting press or people are blind to.

Sure. I hear you. While I have to say that I'm not an expert on the film business, I do have a general understanding of how it works. The fact that most people that I talk to have not seen it or heard about it speaks volumes about how much it circulates. Maybe you are right - maybe the DVD release will earn it a return, but I maintain my doubts about that.

Do you know about any straight to DVD releases that earned a remarkable return? I don't. Like I said before, I am still under the impression that straight to DVD releases are mostly a last ditch effort to recover the costs of production. Maybe you know some stories that suggest otherwise. I'd like to hear them.

If you think that the film deserves some sort of "prestige" that comes along with a print...Well. I'm sure they have one. Put it under your arm and make it your personal quest to throw it on screens around the world. Otherwise, when you look at the numbers they have a really great thing going on.

They already have prints. The question at hand is why they aren't being shown in cinemas across the country? I think it is being blocked by a new fangled form of *block-booking.*

What numbers are you talking about?

I'm sure that if you sniffed around you would find out that they made their money back. My guess and opinion is that they probably are even in the black.

If that isn't a win-win then I don't know what is. If that isn't good enough then its political ends that you are after. And, we all know that will lead to nothing.

Good Luck

Alright. Let's speculate that the film does recover the investment. That is fine. Why should the conversation end at that? Why does having a political discussion about filmmaking and cultural aspects of film markets add up to nothing?

I really don't know if this kind of critical discussion is valued on this forum. My assumption is that it is. (not by all of course) I do realize that political discussions unrelated to film are discouraged and often become unproductive. This one is about film and I think the discussion has been productive.

Do I have a political agenda? Of course I do. My agenda is to encourage critical dialog among filmmakers - to learn from others views through argumentation and to share some ideas.

"Iraq in Fragments" is subversive art. Subversive art almost always gets silenced by Power one way or another. My argument here has been that it gets silenced by the *invisible hand.* If we look closely enough I think we can begin to see the body attached to the invisible hand. (e.g. cultural hegemony, power/knowledge, neoliberal governmentality) All this stuff percolates up on the cultural consumerscape, but if we don't have a language for talking about it we will become cows in the pasture.





Steve

[Nigel]

I do have some numbers for you regarding this film:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0479874/

I'm off to a shoot right now for the four days. When I get some time I will post the details.

Good Luck

[steve hyde]

I do have some numbers for you regarding this film:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0479874/

I'm off to a shoot right now for the four days. When I get some time I will post the details.

Good Luck

If I was a cow I would say: moo.

[MovieStuff]

[The fact that most people that I talk to have not seen it or heard about it speaks volumes about how much it circulates.

Or perhaps it just means that the people that you talk to haven't seen or heard anything about it. Six months after the first Star Wars came out back in the late 70s, I commonly ran into people that had never seen it or heard anything about it. I think you'd need a larger sampling to draw any valid conclusions.

Roger

[steve hyde]

[The fact that most people that I talk to have not seen it or heard about it speaks volumes about how much it circulates.

Or perhaps it just means that the people that you talk to haven't seen or heard anything about it. Six months after the first Star Wars came out back in the late 70s, I commonly ran into people that had never seen it or heard anything about it. I think you'd need a larger sampling to draw any valid conclusions.

Roger

Time will certainly tell. You are right - I do need a larger sample to draw statistical conclusions, but maybe we don't need to arrive at a conclusion. I'm glad you brought up the idea of "valid conclusions" because I think we have a tendency to over emphasize the importance of conclusions in discussions like this one. In fact I think the entire history of science and knowledge production has placed too much emphasis on both *origins* and *conclusions* or *outcomes* and not enough emphasis on *process*. We have been preoccupied with cause and effect type arguments that have relied on a logic which is based on the idea that facts speak for themselves and overlooks bias that is introduced by the people who produced the facts. The problem is that we have to be selective about the facts we use for our logical arguments. This was my point about supply and demand models not capturing *cultural facts.*

It is a problem of statistical logic in general. For statistical models we have roughly four types of information - stated differently four levels of measurement. We can produce nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio data. We cannot add nominal figures to ratio ones and so on. So the problem with statistics is that while statistics are a powerful language, they produce an incredibly limited and partial perspective on things. A lot can be said with statistical models, but we must be careful not to fetishize mathematical modes of understanding social processes. We need to keep our minds open to alternative explanations too , ones that cannot easily be quantified...

I mean where is the quantitative theory on how to have a successful marriage?....you know what I mean? A lot of the important stuff just doesn't fit the rigid frameworks of mathematics.

So the ideas I'm tossing around in this thread are grounded in an understanding of the limitations of statistics. I think we can all agree that statistics only offer a partial perspective. If we agree on that then we can agree that we need to try to understand the other *part* of the story. Think of it as triangulation. Not only do we need a larger sample we also need other empirical frameworks: other ways of gathering evidence for explanation. We can use the speculative theories I suggested. They are *process-based* theories based on cultural observations made by philosophers that were not satisfied with statistical explanations alone. Furthermore, they recognized the multiple ways that such statistical explanations alone are dangerous and easily manipulated.

Think Enron inc. (it was all about the numbers, right?)

So it is this kind of thinking that leads me to reject "free market" ideology. The deregulation of markets is a full-on Power grab. The "invisible hand" is a dangerous myth. The mass media is used to deploy a web of neoliberal governmentality that percolates up into consumer consciousness via a vast myriad of audio-visual instruments. This mass media process generates, produces and reproduces *common sense* rather than *good sense*. When common sense becomes the sense in common which serves Power, we have what we can call Cultural Hegemony. Cultural Hegemony powerfully influences what people believe is good and right......

I hope I'm making sense.. (I have to use theoretical terminology) Keep in mind that theory is all about resisting the status quo. If you think about it, the use of *critical theory* ties into my argument. We are annoyed by critical theory because we are not used to it. It is interesting how we are resistant to it and resistant to use it. The best explanation I have heard about the resistance to critical theory is this:

we cannot escape the resistance to critical theory because critical theory is resistance. In other words I'm not just being a "pompous ass". I have very good reasons for being a "pompous ass."


respectfully,

Steve

[MovieStuff]

I'm glad you brought up the idea of "valid conclusions" because I think we have a tendency to over emphasize the importance of conclusions in discussions like this one. ..........

Agreed. That is why I previously noted that "power" comes in a variety of forms. To presume a product has a lack of success because of one influence over another is presumptuous without data to back it up. For all any of us knows, "Irag in Fragments" is on the verge of a huge success but who gets to qualify the term "huge success"? I would think only the film maker gets to make that call. He might be happiest if it ended up being nothing more than required viewing in history classes with all proceeds going to the Iraqi people that appeared in the film. In that sense, if a theatrical distributor wanted to release it nationally but the director said no because he would rather see it used in an educational context as described, then the film maker has the power. On the other hand, maybe the film maker would like nothing more than to make a buttload of money to spend on hookers and blow. Success is relative.

In other words I'm not just being a "pompous ass". I have very good reasons for being a "pompous ass."

I don't see you offering a baseless and self-serving insult against a large group of people in an effort to make a distinction where there is none so, no, you aren't being a "pompous ass". On the other hand, that the people you talk to haven't heard or seen anything about "Iraq in Fragments" doesn't speak volumes about its circulation any more than my limited exchange with Nathan speaks "volumes" about my character. I'm not offended but you admit to a limited knowledge about distribution and you know even less about me, personally. A lack of data doesn't create a conclusion by default. It just means you don't know.

Roger