'Is There An Independent Film Industry Anymore?'
Bingham Ray, Independent Film Executive, IFC Entertainment

Peter Biskind’s book Easy Riders, Raging Bull, features Bingham Ray extensively, and although the chair of the session Lindsay Shelton (ex-New Zealand Film Commission Marketing Manager) hadn’t wanted to read it – he did - and was therefore able to kick off the session with a quote from the author describing Bingham Ray: “Bingham is short, profane and voluable a man who trusts his gut - and also a real charmer”.

This session questioned the nature of independent films in the 21st century, and posed the question, “Is there an independent film industry anymore?”.   

As far as independent films are concerned Bingham Ray is more than qualified to comment.  He began his career as a programmer/manager of the renowned Bleecker Street Cinema in Greenwich Village (famous for its avant-garde/foreign film programming), he later programmed The Lincoln Plaza Cinemas, New York City’s premiere art-house cinema (as Lindsay pointed out, Bingham was around in the days when you could open a film in New York City for $15,000).  Bingham worked at Samuel Goldwyn, Avenue Pictures and Columbia Pictures before co-founding Oktober in 1991: a company to which Lindsay had always aspired to sell NZ movies.  October Films was one of the foremost independent film companies of the 1990’s, winning two Oscars, 13 nominations and top prizes at the Cannes Film Festival on three occasions.  Credits include Secrets and Lies, The Apostle, The Celebration, Lost Highway , The Last Seduction, Cookie’s Fortune and Breaking the Waves.

During this period buyers and sellers had a much closer relationship; sharing information, helpful hints, as well as socialising together.  However, at some stage during the 90’s this era ended – and things became more secretive.  Perhaps commented Lindsay this was the beginning of the end of the independent ( US ) industry. 

After spending three years running United Artists, Bingham again introduced a number of distinguished films and filmmakers to North America and then to world audiences (Bowling for Columbine, Personal Velocity, Igby Goes Down, Nicholas Nickleby, Pieces of April).  Bingham’s current involvement with a real independent, IFC Entertainment, makes Lindsay (for one) believe that perhaps the independent film industry has survived after all.

Lindsay: When I met Bingham earlier today, the first time for many years – he’d already got hold of my book and accused me of the fact that he’s not in my book – which gave me the chance to get right back at him in the friendliest way and retort “But you never bought a NZ movie from me”

Bingham:  “And my retort to that was “because you always hated me…and thought I was crap”. 

I met Lindsay a while ago – we had a number of friends in common; and a more elegant gentleman you’ve never met.   I chased some… unsuccessfully – it was not because I didn’t try I had more jobs than there are seats in this room - and I wasn’t always in the position to make the decisions about which films to go after, but once I was…I’m sorry about that Lindsay. 

Lindsay: I tried, I tried.

Lindsay: Can you tell us from the US perspective how NZ films are seen by an American audience?

It’s a good question.  I think even though English is spoken here as well as the Maori language, Because of the dialects – even in the UK, Scotland, Ireland, Wales anywhere where English is spoken but its not North American English the dialects are tricky.  Mike Leigh doesn’t like to hear this, and Ken Loach doesn’t like to hear this; dialects really do limit people’s understanding and they give up.  American audiences don’t work quite as hard as we’d like them to – and a lot of films by Mike Leigh and Ken Loach, so a lot of these films end up with sub-titles, you marginalise a difficult film or a challenging film – and I’ve never done that.  I remember Riff Raff which is a greta Ken Loach film, distributed in the States by Fine Line, they decided they were going to subtitle it – nobody came.  My Name is Joe – distributor then was Artisan they decided to subtitle it – nobody came.  I think films from here and Australia that English is difficult and prevents, or hinders a film’s ability to break through into a multiplex world in North America .

Lindsay: The independent distribution industry, as we both knew it from the ‘80s didn’t necessarily aspire to do the “breakthrough thing” - that came later.  You I think were initially a distributor who was happy to have it in the art house…

Bingham: In the 80s - when I started, late 70s early 80s - it [art house] was respectable it was something where discerning sophisticated film going audiences dedicated loyal they came - and they took chances.  The audience took chances on films that didn’t have a lot of publicity – that sounded good - grass roots marketing, grass roots advertising was hugely important, by hook or by crook we’d try to get people to see those films.  And some of the box office numbers for those films were outrageously high.  Film critics and film festivals played a vital role in a film’s success. We identified the movie-going audience that really liked really good films, that were outside of the norm, who liked non-formula kind of films, and we worked those carefully in the marketplace.  

As for now – that root is still there – but it’s marginalised and now an art house film is a dirty word - it’s been ghettoised – it’s been put in a box; and that box is very small; meaning that it can’t possibly climb out of that world.  It’s a marginal world.  The audience is very small.  It’s minimal we’re not going to make a lot of money.  And a lot of acquisitions executives like myself will refer to a film, it could be a giant epic scaled film, and still say it’s small –- not because the film itself is small – just shot in four walls and two people –that could be very big: those films are small.  It’s hard.

Lindsay: An Angel At My Table and Once Were Warriors got to about US$3m box office and that was their level…that seemed to be the level of success…

Bingham: And Lindsay today that number on a number of films is still a really good number; and this is nearly 20 years later.  That reminds me of a story about An Angel at My Table.  I was at Avenue Pictures at the late 80s and we had distributed Sweetie, and had got on well with Jane – so when Angel at My Table was ready, a friend of Jane’s who worked at Avenue got the first opportunity to got to Sydney for a screening – to see it ahead of time.  Anyway, because she was concerned about pleasing Jane and agreeing with Jane, who at that time wasn’t sure she wanted it shown in theatres.  Jane thought Angel  it was a TV film - she called and said “it’s fantastic, Kerry Fox is amazing… but its TV”, and I said oh too bad, then I look around a few months later – and pheeeew, its gone.  We all know how well it did.  So it’s not because we didn’t try.

Lindsay: $3m stayed the level of US box office for NZ films really until Whalerider can you define what made Whalerider was different about that film?

Bingham: 2003 – there is an exotic story - of and by itself.  I think that’s an important factor – films specifically, whether its from New Zealand or Texas, if they are singular of and by themselves – completely new and fresh – even recycling some old story or plot - whatever it might come to be – if, when you see it, it speaks to you -and you’ve really never seen it before that’s Whalerider.  That young girl, and that whole world I think just jumped into everybody’s heart - worldwide.  And of course in English language North America is the big, big market – and $20m later, that’s a significant break through picture.  You won’t find a studio executive sniffing at $20m box office.  And Niki goes off to make a very smart Hollywood film with big stars after that.  So it’s a really good story, exotic, fresh – we’ve never seen that.

Lindsay: Going back to An Angel At My Table, I was angry that Jane and Brigid invited you to see the film ahead of anybody else.  I think without telling me. What advice do you have to producers working alongside sales agents in the situation where there seem to be two strategies which are irreconcilable – do you show it to everybody at the same time or do a favour and show it to the distributor of your choice.

Bingham: I think you should show it to me every time and I’ll screw it up and say ‘no’ and then you’ll sell it to someone else and it will be a big hit.

That’s a really interesting question.  And I’ve been asked by other people what my feelings are.  And I always say show it to me don’t show it to them – because I’m selfish.  You know the network – you referred to a world where we all hung out – where we all traded information, but we really did even during that time know where to draw the line and not divulge too much.  This isn’t WWIII, but there are battle plans, there are tactics involved, and you’re not going to spill your guts after a couple of glasses of wine – or maybe you will which would be a good thing.  You have to be careful. 

So that community is very close knit, and its a lot of fun, the work is enormously enjoyable, it’s very, very difficult, but dealing with very talented filmmakers for me it’s the best thing – I’ve been enormously lucky to do it.   But that question: it’s entirely what the director feels like - what the producer feels like - if they have a great relationship with the sales agent and the sales agent says to them based on that person’s expertise and relationships I think we should hand pick Bingham Ray at IFC to see this film or Michelle Krumm or whoever they’re really close with – who does really, really good work let’s screen it for them first – and they will not betray us, they won’t blab that they’ve seen it in the community and then hurt us with that community.  I’ll be very honest I have screwed up, I’ve seen a film, an agent in the States, a couple of years ago, screened a film for me ahead of time, I didn’t like it, and in an off-handed way, I mentioned it to someone and it got around, and I was never more embarrassed or ashamed that I compromised that, and it was awful.  And I brought down a world of shit down on that sales agent from the community from the competitors.  It all has to do with fit and relationship and how it will impact the film.  Is it a positive move – if these people like it and we screen it ahead of time for them, and they buy it will is that good for the film.

Lindsay: Going back to language, you weren’t implying that we should shoot with American accents?

Bingham: No absolutely not.  You have to make a film in NZ the NZ way with NZ actors.  The best films from any country are local and specific to that country – not a NZ version of a Hollywood film.  Relationships that exist entail living here – they can be genre films – horror movies like Black Sheep but it’s set here - it’s about NZ

Accents didn’t seem to worry anybody with regard to Whalerider.  There wasn’t anyone saying if we remake it, and instead of a whale maybe a horse - and then it will be national velvet.  There’s always somebody around who’d say if it hadn’t been NZ it could have been $120m – that back seat driving stuff will drive you crazy.

Lindsay: How much contact would you recommend between the dist and the filmmaker be it the producer or director.

Bingham: I think the more the better.  Filmmaking is a collaborative – you hear it all the time – it’s a cliché, clichés are clichés for a reason.  Really open dialogue sometimes it can be difficult.  As involved as the filmmaker wants to be.  Mike [Leigh] is very hands off.  David [Lynch] is all over everything.  Lars [von Trier] was extremely keen to learn – he didn’t pretend to know he was learning.  I love that the exchange of ideas with the filmmaker.  Every film is different.  Best theatres, best dates, a lot of it depends – you want to get the films in front of people.  This is an auteur oriented business – writer/director same person.  Tomas [Eskilsson] talked about that yesterday, that’s how I’ve always worked.  I think the more conversation and disagreement and the end of trying to justify decisions; it can get messy.  A lot of people just shut the door on the filmmaker and I don’t think you can afford to do that.

Lindsay: Can we talk briefly the rise and collapse of independent industry, independent distribution and whether New Zealand films would be in the art house category – but these days you wouldn’t really expect to see NZ films at the Lincoln Plaza .

Bingham: Most definitely.  I think that’s where Out of the Blue will play.  Lincoln Plaza is playing The Queen right now.  Lincoln Plaza is a theatre in the west side of Manhatten and it is a gold mine.  If you wanted to be cold about it you could say oh its an art house cinema - it’s got six screens the size of postage stamps, it’s small, it’s down underground – but everyone goes.  Right now The Queen is huge, Pedro Almodovar’s Revolver is huge there.  People go.  I don’t care if its art house and people go.  It would be great for Out of the Blue to play there.  I see the ability for Out of The Blue - which IFC with whom I consult and The Weinsteins are involved in - I think it fits.  I think potential for it to get set up in a smart select way – hand picking theatres across the country - not exclusive to each city, more than one screen at one time like it’s playing here.  Have an audience find it and read about it and meet brand new filmmakers and actors.  It will be a challenge to get it into the marketplace, as audiences are resisting darker stories, they want to be entertained - but it doesn’t stop you from doing the best work with really good films.  I’m optimistic about that film in particular, and maybe it could find its way into multiplexes, who knows.

Lindsay: And your company’s going to have a second NZ film – has that been announced yet, or is that a secret?

Bingham: The cats out of the bag now – there hasn’t been a formal announcement for Out of the Blue, but there has been for Black Sheep; and both films in partnership with The Weinstein Company.

Lindsay: And Black Sheep will open at the Lincoln Plaza ?

Bingham: I don’t think so – I think that’s going to have to be more commercially minded.  Not that the Lincoln Plaza isn’t commercially minded, but I think it will have to be more mainstream.

****

Lindsay: We were talking about the concept of films being available through the Video On Demand system - simultaneously with theatrical?

Bingham: Yeah that’s a Day and Date Process.  That’s an IFC model – the label is called First Take.  It’s a growing, evolving ancillary market a component of DVD, of theatrical of pay cable, it’s another ancillary area to generate revenue and to access an audience.

It’s Video On Demand (VOD) based.  IFC’s partnership is with the cable broadcaster Comcast – and so the policy at IFC so far now, started just in January, is to do two films a month that open, have a modest theatrical release, doesn’t prevent those theatrical releases from growing and building, at the same time day and date available on VOD – and behind VOD is a traditional window for DVD, which would be months after the theatrical release, unless is underperforms significantly and the window gets pushed out. 

Lindsay: So what happens to the conventional idea that theatrical had to be sancrosanc before anything.

Bingham: Well there’s been much discussion and exploration and experimentation now about collapsing windows.  I am a believer that the theatrical experience is something that we’re all born with: we need to get out of where we are, whatever cave we’re in and commune with strangers and hear a storyteller around a fire, or got to a play, or see art on a wall with people, or see a film on a screen in a roomful of people.  It’s a much different process if you’re downloading it onto your computer or iPOD.  It’s an extremely valuable and exciting new component VOD, and the collapsing window debate there will be certain films that it will be really appropriate for it and I think it’s to check it out try things with it trial and error and learn through making mistakes.  First Take model through IFC is growing I’ve seen the numbers.  At the beginning of the year as it was taking year as it was taking hold, a lot of the films are good foreign language films v. art house films – and a lot of the films have had difficulty means to distribution so they’ve been acquired for modest– numbers are growing.

Advertising through cable broadcaster, some traditional newspaper advertising.  You can subscribe SVOD to the service and a lot of people are doing that.  You have Comcast in your house and you can pay for it on a one-off basis.

Lindsay:  Pay-per-view is the same thing or different

Bingham: Similar – it’s a different model; it’s not too different from a hotel pay per view system.

Lindsay: In terms of films such as OOTB, BS - where do they stand in terms of the growing industry yardstick of DVD revenue exceeding theatrical potential?

Bingham: There hasn’t been any kind of research done, or enough number to put together, to know whether VOD will help enhance the DVD – convention has been the theatrical creates the market for DVD.  But there are people experimenting on the day and date, and therefore saving the P&A spend. Their approach is spend it once, that so far hasn’t yet yielded great results. 

Honestly, I think the theatrical model is sound.  People go to movie theatres, last year ’04 there was a huge cry that led into ’05 - that films sucked, numbers were down.  We work in an industry where we always have to have record profits that always have to surpass the year before – if you have a down year because the films aren’t as good, people don’t go for whatever reason; it’s not the films it’s something to do with people with staying at home.  And they don’t think why they’re staying at home.  Nothing is drawing them out to take them to theatres because everything is crap.  For most of ’04, when there was a 8-9% drop in box office – there was panic.  Everybody said it’s the day and date model, it’s the DVD world it’s killing the theatrical – its over.  Anything that’s new triggers this response.  Remember with TV, the Hollywood at the time, they said oh no, “no one will come out of the home”.  It’s always the home v the theatrical experience – it’s always the same.  TV’s going to ruin the film business, we’re going to have to create 3D, or we need to invent much bigger images bigger than your TV, we’ll make technicolour even brighter.  Then when video came in in the late 70s, 80s - people panicked over that.

New platforms for delivery should be welcomed (see Brian Seth Hurst’s session).  They should be seen as another way to access an audience; instead they [ Hollywood ] were afraid, they want to protect what they thought was under siege – which is always theatrical.