|
| |
|||||
From the "People" Archives:
by Eugene Hernandez and Mark Rabinowitz/indieWIRE [Part two of this interview is linked at the bottom of the page.] John Pierson's 1996 book, "Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dykes: A Guided Tour Across a Decade of Independent Cinema," capped a major chapter in his life as a producer and rep for some of the most important films among more than a decade of indies: Bill Sherwood's "Parting Glances," Lizzie Borden's "Working Girls," Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It," Yurek Bogayevicz's "Anna," Errol Morris' "The Thin Blue Line," Richard Linklater's "Slacker," Rose Troche's "Go Fish," Kevin Smith's "Clerks," Terry Zwigoff's "Crumb," and more.
In 1997, Pierson launched "Split Screen," the Independent Film Channel magazine-format program that showcases stories by and about independent filmmakers. The show's impact was felt in theaters this year, as "The Blair Witch Project," which first received notoriety as a show segment, struck a major chord with moviegoers. Also, Chris Smith's "American Movie," which was a part of the show's first season, won the Grand Jury Documentary Prize at Sundance and hit theaters this fall. Pierson joined us the conference room at the AIVF to consider the decade in independent film.
John Pierson: Let me immediately pipe up and say that I hope he pointed out, or I will point out, that there are probably more companies that have filled in the ranks, of every size from living room or garage size to mid-level companies that are not studio affiliated than there have ever been before. iW: Well, this is the interesting point, because when we interviewed John Sloss, he really felt that while yes, there's another consolidation going on -- he felt that it's just another part of the cycle continuing what happened in the early 80's. And he feels there haven't been enough companies that have come up and filled the gaps. Pierson: He's wrong. There have been. But whether you are talking about movie theater screens or distribution companies or space in the papers, or for that matter the consumers' attention, the number one problem that we have at the end of the decade is the surfeit of product. And even though the system has vastly expanded to accommodate way more, because again, get ready for this, I went and counted what I would call "independent" releases in New York City in 1999, and I was up around 175 through last week. This is counting foreign language which I didn't count in the book ["Spike, Mike, Slackers, and Dykes"]. I was doing an American indie count in the book, and there is a point where you reach about 30 theatrical releases a year for a span of four or five years and then you begin to leap forward right around the time that the book was concluding, you start to go to about 50 and beyond. But again, because of all these middling to smaller size companies, there's way more activity in New York at least. It doesn't necessarily mean nationwide in every town and city, but in New York, there's way more foreign language films being released this year than there have been probably throughout the decade. The releases would be described with a word like "very marginal," but it's happening. It was a very high number, it was astonishing to me. So again, you do the math and you find out once again that you've got 3 - 4 films competing on average every Friday. Which from an audience standpoint is basically an impossibility. Forget about the other 1,000+ unreleased films. Even the ones that are getting some kind of release in New York City and are reviewed in the New York Times -- at the very least, they've got that they can put in the bank. But there's just no way theatrically that they're going to be able to grab the public's attention. iW: Where does that really leave us as we prepare for another Sundance? Is it going to be another 175? Is it going to be 200 next year? Pierson: Well, it could be, because whenever you're talking about systems, you really have to break it down into the individual elements. I'm old fashioned that way, and if you look at theatrical releasing in a city like New York, which has always been a pacesetter -- and you look at a theater like the Quad making itself so available for some direct-with-filmmaker openings or willingness to work with all the small companies (which maybe the Angelika won't do anymore) and when you look at what happens with the Cinema Village now with the three screens, and when you look at how the Village East is willing to do more overruns -- you suddenly have eight or nine screens right in a two block radius in the Village and there will be that many more screens on a weekly basis that are available to non-studio product. So in the course of a year, that makes a big difference. Now is that a viable business for the Quad to be in? Only the Quad knows that answer. Is it a viable business for Cinema Village to have added the screens? Well, obviously you have to talk to that guy over there. But it's really enhanced the ability to open New York, even though that may not do you that much good when it comes to opening Minneapolis. Again, to be very site specific, the Landmark's got a theater [in Minneapolis] with five screens and then they have one other free-standing screen, so they have six in town. And then there was Al Milgrom at the Film Society who could handle as much of the spillover as possible. Now the University has finally closed Al down after 35 years. We profiled him on the ["Split Screen"] show last year, and he's a cranky, crotchety, impossible to work for old guy, but his contribution to the film community there was pretty much impossible to overpraise, and now he's gone, so what happens? [EDITORS NOTE: After publishing this article, indieWIRE was informed that Al Milgrom's film society was not shut down. John Pierson apologized for this and the correction was published here on indieWIRE.com.] Well, they've got the Walker Arts Center and they've got other institutions that can pick up more of the slack, and maybe Sundance comes in and builds a theater there like they say they're going to, and that may make a difference. But that's the only way that you can perhaps take what's kind of a scattershot ability for a bunch of films, like [Tessa Blake's] "Five Wives, Three Secretaries and Me" that opens at the Quad in New York. Will that play 50 other cities? No. Will it play 20 other cities? Probably in some form they'll manage to play 20 other cities. Is that good enough to make the film's investment back? Hell no. And is the licensing deal from Sundance Channel or IFC or some home video deal with some smaller company, whether it's a bigger smaller company like Winstar or smaller smaller company like well, pick one out of a hat, you're not going to make any kind of investment back unless it's a low-cost digital thing.
Pierson: I think the number of films is far outpacing the number of high quality ones. You just changed a word mid-sentence and I would be careful about that. "Decent" is a very difficult word, like "Hey, that was pretty good." A friend of mine made an early soft-core porn film in 1967 and [a character] says, "Hey, those photographs are OK" and the photographer character says, "Hey, OK is not art." And you know what, stupid line, but OK is not art, and decent is not good enough. Of course you can have decent, with some kind of extreme content, that attracts people and that's always been the case and it always will be the case -- we'll see how "Annabel Chong" does when it opens. You can have decent bad movies that have some other lure or allure. But in terms of quality, I always use the IFFM in 1985, the year "Parting Glances" was in. I think there were 43 features, and if you go back and look at them, I would say that 35 of those films were really good. [laughs] That's remarkable. I walked in with Lory Smith's Sundance book, "Party in a Box," and the one thing I'll enjoy as I read through this thing is just remembering what years there was a real incredibly high percentage of really notable, powerful, terrific, original films at Sundance. And even if you can pluck films out from the last few years, the overall context I think is a lot weaker. Now this year, since we're eventually going to lead to this, you have all these veterans who are returning on an annual or a two-year basis with a new film at the festival or in the marketplace. This clearly clogs up the pipes as well. It makes it harder for some new first-time voice to get out of the box. And every time it works out OK for Neil LaBute or Darren Aronofsky, you can say, oh, the system still works, but it is kind of like Arteriosclerosis, because it is jamming up the arteries and eventually there will have to be some kind of radical surgery or the artery will completely shut. iW: One thing that we asked John Sloss about is the filtering processes that are happening in the film business now, whether it's festivals doing some of the weeding out... Pierson: Doing almost all of the weeding out at this point. I don't know of any company that's combing through unsolicited material on their own and making their own minds up. iW: Festivals are definitely the first wave of weeding, and then Sloss or other producer's reps may do additional weeding, and he's on the phone trying to get representation on one of the Sundance films, so he's weeding out what's been weeded. By the time Sundance starts, you have a handful of films that have been pre-determined to be the ones that are of interest. Pierson: Yeah, but that gets diverted all the time. Last year was the fourth out of five years that the New York Times declared to be the year of the documentary. But going in, they were talking about "American Pimp," and by mid-week they were talking about "American Movie." So that's subject to correction based on the quality of the films themselves. That's the good thing, you know. It's true, the hype machine causes some nightmares like, again the whole farce this year with "Happy, Texas." But there are generally still enough people who care enough about what they think is the real deal, that there's still this chance for correction. But if "The House of Yes" is sold on the first day of the festival, that correction unfortunately only takes place when the film comes out and bombs six months later instead of taking place during the course of the week at Sundance. And that's because every one feels like they have to move so fast. iW: Well it's the issue of whether, because some of the filtering that takes place by Sloss or someone else representing a movie, and bringing it into the market at Sundance and getting a certain amount of attention for that film or filmmaker, it makes it harder for someone who comes in with a quality film, but maybe one that isn't as mainstream or doesn't have stars to get that awareness. You have to have a publicist to go to Sundance now. I hate having to say it that way, but it's essentially the case. Pierson: I have a standard question I turn back on people when they worry about the tree falling in the forest but nobody hears -- the great film that's going undiscovered. I still see a lot of films, I don't know how much you watch. Give me a list of five films, terrific, great films, that you think have not gotten out there. And normally people are stymied when I ask this in audience situations, or to individuals. It's easy for people to answer, name five films that you think are shit that did get released. But that's not the issue. And it can be a slow burn. Chris Smith will be the first to tell you that there is no way that "American Job" could have been a key acquisition and big-time theatrical release. Because he saw on the Fuel Tour, he saw in Chicago a four-star review in the Chicago Tribune, and still nobody goes. So with the experience of this piecemeal release, there wasn't a way for that to be a normal, ordinary let's say Sony Classics release. And in fact, "American Movie," which has a huge ton of goodwill and press support going for it, is still going to be a struggle. Sony is a cautious company but they probably overpaid for that film -- but God bless them for doing it. I hope it all works out five months from now and it's just really gotten this word of mouth thing going. But it didn't open like "Crumb;" it didn't even open like [Brett Morgen & Nanette Burstein's] "On the Ropes." iW: Actually, I think we can name a handful of quality films, whether it's "American Job," [Arthur Borman's] "Shooting Lily," or [Julian Goldberger's] "Trans," or [Benson Lee's] "Miss Monday," or [Derek Cianfrance's] "Brother Tied." Pierson: See, I think "Trans" is an impossible movie. I think that "Shooting Lily," I know you guys like it, I'm mixed about it. And "Miss Monday" I didn't go for. See, they're not on my list, and [Scott Ziehl's] "Broken Vessels" isn't either. Even though I like the movie to a point, it's got the world's worst last 15 minutes. What about Rob Nilsson winning the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance in '88 -- sorry last decade -- for "Heat and Sunlight" and then having to self-release. If that year, 30 films were released, he happened to be somewhere beyond the 30. And this year, "Trans" winds up being beyond 175. Although I guarantee you, at some point, won't "Trans" open the Quad like everything else? iW: Actually, it is opening at the new Screening Room space. Pierson: There you go. And I even forgot that screen. You've got to count them one by one. This is just an arithmetic game. More screens, more openings in New York. Something catches on in New York, it'll spread. The conversation continues on page 2... | |
