Joe Swanberg keeps this journal in an effort to document the LOL making process and figure out where all his time and money went.


  • May 2005
  • June 2005
  • July 2005
  • August 2005
  • September 2005
  • October 2005
  • November 2005
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • Wednesday, September 21, 2005

    Why you will never see LOL anywhere other than Film Festivals, if it even gets that far.

    Quotes are lifted from this IndieWIRE story.

    "There is no question that films that we would have considered viable just a few seasons ago are too risky to undertake these days," explained ThinkFilm head of distribution Mark Urman. "Small films are smaller than ever and titles that would have done decently a few years back would almost certainly be doomed to abject failure these days."

    >> How would you know? Does the current box office chart match up with your predictions? The key is "ALMOST certainly doomed to failure," not "certainly." People used to take risks on films they believed in.

    "And people will always make films that for whatever reason aren't viable in our extremely competitive marketplace. (With) 18 films reviewed in the New York Times the second Friday of the festival, what does your film have that's going to beat out the others?" Eamonn Bowles posed, adding "A good little film is a good dead film in the current landscape, unfortunately."

    >> Great attitude. With that attitude, you don't even have to try do you? You can just sit back and coast along with sure things. Oh, wait, sure things don't work anymore either do they? Well, guess you'll just have to start blaming the current marketplace, not the poor job everyone is doing.

    "We often found ourselves at this year's Toronto fest passing on good films with good initial reviews if they didn't have the elements to carve out some space in the increasingly Darwinian specialized arena." He (Roadside Attractions' Howard Cohen) added, "I must have turned to my partner Eric (d'Arbeloff) after ten different films and said, 'Good film but is anyone going to see it?'"

    >> I guess not, since you and every other distributor all turned to your partners and asked the same stupid question, then passed on the films.

    "Very few titles felt like they could break beyond a couple of million of dollars at the box office," the (anonymous) Indiewood veteran said. "So all in all, lots of well-made interesting movies that are going to attract people to the directors, writers, actors, etc. -- but not necessarily ones that feel like they can make an impact in the marketplace. With that said, I don't think that means the marketplace (although it is tough) is the defining factor -- it was more about the perceived commerciality of the films this year."

    >> Hmm, so maybe this is why I don't see any exciting movies anymore. Cowards are behind the wheel. How many more of their aquisitions have to fall flat before they figure out it's because they don't know what they're doing anymore? They have no clue what a new generation of cinephiles is looking for. This whole article is depressing. I advise not reading it.

    "A good little film is a good dead film in the current landscape, unfortunately." - EAMONN BOWLES

    Thanks for that little nugget of wisdom, fucker.


    jmj said...

    Word up Joe! Why don't these jerks just go work for a studio if they're going to think that way.

    3:01 PM  
    eamonn bowles said...

    you're welcome, joe. sorry about the truth.

    2:48 PM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home