Independent filmmaking
At the reconstituted Libertas, Jason Apuzzo makes the argument that independent, conservative filmmakers should eschew the Hollywood system and distribute films on their own with the aid of the Internet. He writes
If you’re the sort of person who doesn’t need the validation of the Hollywood system, can generate a little publicity on your own, and can keep your costs low (this last factor is key), then we’re actually in a Golden Age of independent filmmaking. Why? Because with sites like this you can literally upload your movie to Amazon and be selling it almost immediately – without any need for the usual Hollywood gatekeepers.
This is the sort of thing that, unfortunately, Mark Gill isn’t telling you. He won’t tell you these things for two reasons: 1) companies like his (he’s currently CEO of The Film Department) would go out of business, and; 2) he and others are still entranced by the residual glamor of theatrical distribution, in an age when consumers are embracing a multitude of other delivery options.
Gill is the author of this speech, a warning to young indie filmmakers about the difficulty of breaking into a system dominated by tentpole releases and the unlikelihood of their films ever turning a profit. Apuzzo’s point is fair–that you don’t need Hollywood to distribute a film–but he’s missing the forest for the trees. The ultimate goal for conservatives working in film shouldn’t be merely to distribute films, but to impact the culture. And the only way to impact culture is through getting your vision on the big screen.* Apuzzo’s recommendation for indie filmmakers to eschew the Hollywood system is the equivalent of someone saying “Screw Random House…why would I want my book in Borders or Barnes and Noble or Politics and Prose? I’d much rather use this little vanity press to ensure the purity of my vision. People can download the book right off the Internet and read it on their computers! It’s just as good as holding the hardcover version, right?”
No. It isn’t. Apuzzo runs the Liberty Film Festival, an organization that (to my understanding) is dedicated to screening very, very conservative/libertarian movies that have no real shot at theatrical distribution. So I appreciate the fact that he has a vested interest in these indie-type flicks that aren’t terribly good but make conservatives feel like they’re making a difference in the industry and in the culture more broadly.
But they aren’t. You won’t be making a difference until you break into the industry and reach millions in one fell swoop. Making an independent film is all well and good, but honestly: BFD. Anyone with $2,000 and some spare time can make an independent film. 99.9% of them are awful. Instead of wasting time whinging on and on about how difficult it is to break into Hollywood, make something that impresses Hollywood. Do what these guys did, maybe. Or consider that the reason Hollywood doesn’t want your work might be an obvious one: it’s not very good.
*Or the small screen, if you can secure a broadcast deal with one of the major networks or bigger cable stations.