It wasn’t enough that Mark Gill, The Film Department, got so much of the story mixed up in his high strung remarks at the Los Angeles Film Festival recently. We can let that go. But now the New York Times wants to echo those comments and grant them its sober imprimatur. That calls for some comment.

The lack of thoughtful analysis is equally striking in both reports and that’s really a disservice to artists who work in film and video as well as their audiences. We understand that perspectives can get influenced by experience and social settings, but one would expect thoughtful perspectives to rise above that. Personally, I am left with the sense that they really don’t have a very profound understanding of either filmed entertainment or the film business. But whatever happens, let’s not let what they are talking about be confused with the strength and vitality of independent film.

First, however, let’s note that this flurry of excitement in the press was preceeded by our first blog post “Fiddling While Rome Burns” (2008-05-14) and our second “What Theatrical Exhibition Tries To Do” (2008-05-26), both of which address the economics that these two articles studiously avoid. So let’s go back over the arguments …

1. Their Point: “Too many films are made.” This is really a plaintive remark, and sounds like those who have ruled the roost are uncomfortable about all the noise around them. Do they think that the artistic expression of creative people around the world will somehow be throttled by their complaint?

But let’s leave that aside. What the Times suggests is that the quantity of films forces the “good” films out of the theater. Absolutely not a chance. If the films were “good” then wouldn’t they draw good audiences? And if they did, wouldn’t theater owners would be happy to keep those films on the screen. Bad product drives out good? Not in this industry!

2. Our Point: Theatrical exhibition doesn’t work like it used to. The audience is more visually savvy and can get acceptable presentations elsewhere. The consumer costs of going to the theater are up and the exhibitors costs of going to the theater are way up. If this is confusing, let’s make the comparison to the airlines — the cost of travel is up and the cost of providing travel is way up. So the business is down. Only the best routes work. And only the best films work. Economics explains it all.

3. Their Point: “Anyone can put their precious thoughts on a large screen for all to see.” Actually, Carr of the NYT said that. Tacky superciliousness on his part, but let’s remember that of the several thousand films made each year, 3 to 5,000 are invited to screen by multiple festivals having been reviewed by their panels, and more than a thousand win more than one award apiece. I’m not sure that Carr’s point of view is echoed by those who know and watch independent film.

4. Our Point: IndiePix was the presenting sponsor of the Cinema Eye Honors in March of this year. A nominating committee of 12 (distinguished, actually) festival program directors identified about 70 films as candidates and chose 22 as nominees. Over 150 participants in the independent film industry (include several Academy Award winning directors and filmmakers) chose winners in 9 categories. These were good non-fiction films that probably deserved more recognition than they received in the marketplace. But artistically, there were top productions. We are not worried about the quality of independent film today, not one bit.

5. Their Point: “There is actually a growing audience for quality.” Gill said that. He pointed out that the largest numbers of people in his 20 years of “studying the data” are telling consumer survey firms that they prefer “independent films”. But the kinds of films these growing audiences prefer are not the kinds of films Mr. Gill’s firm makes or Mr. Carr writes about. (I suggest that Mr. Carr read Ms. Darghis and Mr. Scott who reveiw these films for his newspaper a bit more carefully.)

6. Our Point: Mr. Gill’s firms make small Hollywood movies, not independent films. (He is he head of The Film Department and was formerly with Warner Independent [sic] and Miramax.) Sometimes that works great, like the example Mr. Gill is associated with (”March of the Penguins”). Then the hedge fund guys like that. But because of the rapidly inflating costs of both production and distribution — and the usual uncertainties of audience demand — the model used by the big bucks independent distributors (to wit: make and distribute a film just like Hollywood does, only do it for less) is a very flawed concept. Those companies based on that model are failing. The hedge fund guys do not like that. We have a list. He has a list. His is fine. It proves the point as well as ours. It’s not the creative. It’s the economics.

So in conclusion, the independent film community today appears to be blessed with a growing audience of increasing sophistication that is eager to search out non-homogenized works. Moreover, the independent film community is benefitting from plummeting costs of production that result in unprecedented product and exhibition quality. And, in addition, the costs of marketing and distributing independent films are declining as fast as internet techniques innovate and faster than new technologies can mature.

The conclusion then has to be that it’s not the independent film community that is in trouble. It’s really Mr. Gill’s business model that is shrivelling up and Mr. Carr’s references to “digital equipment and gullible friends” that are off the mark. The independent film community is on the cusp of a truly golden era. We are proud to be part of it.