Studio ‘Independence’ Is Often a State of Mind

The acquisition of October Films by Universal Pictures is a savvy business step, continuing a trend that finds the most active independent distributors being absorbed by larger, wealthier studios (“Universal Says It Will Acquire October Films,” Company Town, May 1). A few days earlier, MGM acquired John Kluge’s Metromedia motion picture properties--Orion, Goldwyn and MCEG, a balanced library combining high-quality, specialized and lower-cost movies.

This one-two punch underscores how difficult it is for a stand-alone distributor to survive in today’s cash-intensive, unpredictable movie marketplace, and rekindles the debate about what defines an “independent.” The question has become more earnest in recent years because now Miramax is owned by Disney and New Line is part of Time Warner. These two independents are now very dependent.

What is it about movies that makes independence so difficult?

Simply put, movies are among the riskiest products ever conceived. Each movie is a prototype. Each one calls for making a full investment before anyone knows if the product is marketable. And with all the research and testing, no one can guarantee a return on investment.

Now, that’s not exactly a product profile that attracts conservative investors. But it is a profile that attracts risk-taking entrepreneurs drawn to the exciting, uncertain, socially relevant and artistically valuable nature of the movies--those who enjoy applying intuition to a changing marketplace, and who mirror the sensibilities of adventurous moviegoers. And it is this mind-set that has triggered independent behavior as a response to the status quo.

The independent movie-making sensibility can be traced in the modern movie era to John Cassavetes’ distribution company in the 1960s and back further to the original “United Artists”--Chaplin, Fairbanks, Pickford and Griffith in 1919--with stops along the way for other pioneers including Joseph E. Levine, Samuel Goldwyn and Walt Disney.

But what’s an “independent” today? Is it a distributor with no ties to a parent company? With no deep pockets to fall back on? Or is it one whose management follows an independent spirit (the name of the annual award given by the Independent Feature Project), exploring the world of new or untried filmmakers for their talent pool, but secure in the knowledge that a wealthy parent is there to solve a cash-flow problem?

The answer lies somewhere in between. The term “independent” is being used as often as ever but now with new qualifiers. And while independent distributors are being absorbed for their own safety into larger corporations, there are other, new ones coming along. Just as October Films began in a garage, other business plans are being hatched around a table somewhere by young entrepreneurs who are drawn to the uncertainty and potential of distribution. In theaters? On the Internet? Who knows? And these executives, attracted to the risk, the talent and the impact inherent in movies, will try to compete as part of the next generation of “independents.”