The House of Cinema, an organization over 20 years old which stood as the tallest pillar of support for independent film in Iran, represented much more than the embracing of independent film. To filmmakers everywhere in Iran it was a symbol of their art and a home for their passion. Asghar Farhadi, director of the critically acclaimed A Separation, had this to say in reference to the closing of the House and the possible Ministry summation of the opinions of a majority of filmmakers:

“If the decision to dissolve the House of Cinema is based on the idea that the majority of the film community and members of the guild are in agreement with your method, then I suggest that you take a vote on this decision among the few thousand members of the House of Cinema.”

Whatsoever is the outcome of this legislation, the outstanding support against the closure can at least ensure that there will be a support system for Iranian filmmakers who wish to continue pursuing making films. Farhadi’s success is not uncommon: the talent teeming from Iran is bountiful and we can only hope that indie filmmakers of the country can find a new and even more substantial pillar to stand tall for them.

In Israel, the threat of the endangered documentary in its reliance on certain forces of marketing is looming heavily as the satellite television provider company Yes faces sanctions which are forcing it to sell its Documentary Broadcasting channel. According to Hareetz.com, “Yes could be facing up to NIS 40 million in sanctions imposed by the Communications Ministry’s Council for Cable TV and Satellite Broadcasting, which says the satellite provider has not met its obligation to spend half the money allotted to original programming on stations operated by outside companies.”

The consequences of this sanctions, if they pass, would be astronomical for the documentaries made in Israel reaching any type of monetary gain given that they would be in competition with cheap, in house knock offs from the third party company that obtains Yes’s documentary channel. The Israeli Documentary Filmmakers Forum presented all persons of interest with persuasive arguments against the move, as it would severely threaten the business of documentary films.

Yes awaits a hearing on December 22 which could assess the sanctions or charge a fine, a decision that carries as much weight as the fines in question.

The British Independent Film Award winner Weekend expressed how significant a role Creative England played in its creation, which showcases just the beginning of what this company has set out to accomplish. Here is a mission statement from the temporary website of Creative England:

Creative England opened for business on 1 October 2011, with the core purpose of supporting the sustainable growth of independent creative businesses, and the talent that feeds them, in every part of England outside London.

This new organization builds on the work of the Regional Screen Agencies that, for the past ten years, have assisted the development of the film, TV, interactive, games and digital media industries, and the growth of film culture in England.

One of our first objectives is to establish a new infrastructure for film in the English regions, to ensure continuity and lay the foundations for the development and sustainability of a vibrant film and moving image culture outside London.

The company also plans to support the creation of games and television as well, making it the first company to provide all inclusive support of indie endeavors. With film specifically, the company offers allowances to individual screenwriters as well as screenwriter/director and director/producer. They have expressed their interest in supporting any and all organization that work toward the advancement of creative initiatives.

Check out their website here (again, a temporary website) to stay updated on their progress.

Last week we published an article in reference to a bill facing our own government which could potentially add an additional threshold of funds to the film industry (see http://blog.indiepixfilms.com/featured/entrepreneur-access-to-capital-act/). While the EACA doesn’t necessarily focus on the independent film industry specifically when referencing access to capital by the film industry, the arguments made by director Brillante Mendoza bring more to light the global vice that the independent film industry is facing.

Ideas like Mendoz’ as well as others show that there will always be a fighting voice for this industry that prides itself in the power of true expression of the arts. You can read the full article from the Sun Star here, and find your voice in this fight to help the indie industry thrive in what is otherwise a sputtering economic climate.

A panel held by IndieWIRE Editor in Chief Dana Harris at Elinor Bunin Munroe Film Center discusses the past fifteen years of film, as told by an array of interested parties across all forms of independent film. The panel includes Richard Abramowitz, Amy Heller, Bingham Ray, Bob Berney, Ira Deutchman, Mark Urman, Arianna Bocco and Jeanne Berney.

Having such a wide spread of experience, this panel covers the past 15 years with great detail and cover topics from the change in technology (with platforms like Netflix) and the availability of films to audiences who may or may not want to see them.

Check out the video on YouTube and enter the conversation on how indies have changed and will continue to change.

With some films taking the high-budget high-yield approach and others sticking to lower budgets perhaps in the hopes of swinging a profit or not losing much more than they spent, the prospect of creating new systems to perfect the balancing act is at the forefront of the industry.

The Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act is a structured balance to the crowd funding approach to funding films which allows for a higher yield of revenue to come strictly from that end (in the form of unregistered securities). You can access the official document here which outlines exactly what language passed through to be further voted on. The significance of this proposal is obvious: the independent film industry needs money, in any way it can get it. With festivals either dying out or cutting corners to find a way to stay afloat, we are slowly losing real estate on this great industry that allows for filmmakers to tell their story without the bells and whistles that “sell” through fifteen second overly stimulated commercial ads.

This article by Michael R Banard explains the document further and outlines what we must do to ensure that this Act passes and that it keeps independent film in mind.

Independent Films are tailor made, in most cases, to play against the mainstream marketing techniques which overly stimulate audiences into spending their money. The reward in mainstream is that over stimulation is then delivered whereas in indie you receive more substance (such is the case in “Drive”). The issue raised in a compelling article by Anthony Kaufman of IndieWire is where companies draw the line in “misleading” marketing.

On the one hand, you must market what you consider an appealing look at the entirety of a film. Whether with a trailer, a poster or a cast list, you receive little to no real estate to convey all the inspirations of the film that led to the belief that it should be seen. Thus you’re left with the conundrum, when do you play the mainstream game?

You can check out the article here, and weigh in on how you feel about the techniques companies use to market independent films in order that they return on the investments made by the production team.

Since Knee’s month-old accolades, Netflix management announced (1) a 50% reduction in projected third quarter subscriber growth, (2) an apology for prompting a million customers to abandon the service in response to price changes, and (3) a formal division of company’s services into (a) streamed video and (b) postal delivered DVDs.

The company’s abrupt status change from “new media darling” to “old media conspirator” among former Netflix advocates, underscores how the media landscape is shifting under our feet. I am reminded of Frederick Lewis Allen’s Only Yesterday. Although published less than two years after the 1929 stock market crash, Allen skillfully contrasted how the Roaring Twenties evolved into a then-deepening Great Depression.

Impending changes in the media industry will be every bit as profound as the economic and social transformation described in Only Yesterday. Netflix streaming merely pioneered a new way of distributing established media content. So long as that is all they do, they will forever remain at the mercy of “Content is King” dogma. They’ll need to pay Hollywood whatever the studios demand. Significantly, the Netflix price changes imposed earlier this summer and the ensuing customer backlash demonstrate that Hollywood is demanding too much. It’s likely they’ll face much tougher negotiations with Netflix in the future.

In our analysis, Hollywood overvalues its content and underestimates the appeal of the Long Tail. The Long Tail refers to a probability distribution in which a large share of the population resides as illustrated. As applied to video the theory implies that while we share interest in poplar content commonly available on television, we also have more narrowly defined interests shared with viewer-groups too small to justify mass market distribution via conventional conduits such as television or motion picture theaters. But the Internet shatters such limitations enabling video content to be made available for vanishingly small audiences.

As for myself, I enjoy watching author interviews on YouTube and other websites. One of my sons is a devoted ice hockey fan who watches most games over the Internet. A friend who is learning to swim competitively spends hours on YouTube watching Total Immersion videos. Video recordings of cultural programming, such as opera, plays, and symphonic performances, have arguably already moved to YouTube.

In short, Internet video streaming is likely to induce a plethora of new programming. Efforts by conventional video programmers to extract ever higher fees for their content will only intensify a growing trend toward alternate programming. It’s one reason Netflix is attempting to develop its own sources by creating shows that have not appeared on TV or in movie theaters.

The one fly-in-the ointment is that the cable and telco companies could work hand-in-glove with conventional programmers in an attempt to maintain the status quo. Specifically, they can continue to make Internet access economical only to subscribers who take a packaged bundle of services such as a “triple play” of (1) Pay TV, (2) landline telephony, and (3) Internet access. They have a near-duopoly on Internet access and can simply price Internet-only service at unattractive rates, or impose usage-based pricing.

Unfortunately, monopolies and duopolies are seldom regulated in a manner truly beneficial to consumers. Typically, regulatory agencies become industry lapdogs, instead of watchdogs, with the result that innovation is too slow and prices too high. Competition alone is the change agent most effective for consumers.

Nonetheless the cable and telco companies may face intensified competition in the future. A growing number of subscribers want to disconnect Pay TV and landline telephony and instead require only high speed Internet access. Since the cable operators and telco’s are reluctant to discontinue bundled pricing, other Internet service providers have an opening.

Examples include Wireless ISPs as well as the ISP subsidiaries of electric utilities. Wireless ISPs normally provide Internet access from fixed base-stations to antennas mounted on subscriber rooftops. It’s kind-of an echo of a time when most television was received that way. Since the industry uses unlicensed spectrum they can move into any market where they can compete economically. Television Band White Spaces will further enhance their abilities. For more information on the industry see our research report, “The Wireless ISP and Cellular Offloading Industry: Analysis and Forecast.”