What Should be Considered Indie Film? Part 2

We have a great discussion going on Brothers: A Review and What Should Be Considered Indie Film? Noah Harlan brought up another point I'd like to address.

"Ryan [Kavanagh of Relativity Media] has a couple billion in assets that he uses to finance and he has that money in massive tranches from hedge funds. He's not doing the hustle like we are...

In fact, he is the guy who controls the money in Hollywood.

http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/ryan-kavanaugh-1209"

You make a good point Noah. But I'm pretty sure Ryan K is still hustling every day. He's just hustling on a much bigger stage. Sure he has assets to play with and he provides funds for studio films, but he has to be pretty smart in how he uses those assets in order to keep the money flowing and quality films being made. I don't think Ryan K has it easy. He just has a different set of stressers. 

Personally, as a producer, I would love to be a fly on Ryan K's wall to see how he makes it all work. I'm sure I could learn a great deal from him that would make me a better indie producer. To be honest, it feels a bit odd to be defending Ryan K as indie when I'm sure he could care a less about what he is considered, but I do think it's a valid discussion to be having as I think it's an identity issue that indie film struggles with. And it's an issue that breeds more often a negative response than a positive one.

Ryan K is a dealmaker producer instead of a filmmaker producer, but that shouldn't stop him from being considered indie. I think it's appropriate to consider the films he funds outside of the studio system as indie as he is taking the risk of being independent just like we are -- even though the risks can be perceived as much less since he can afford to pay for the big name screenwriters, filmmakers and actors. On the other hand, he has much farther to fall monetarily should one of his indie films flop.

This is a great debate and I think much of it stems from indie angst (which of course I experience myself) of often being squeezed out of the Hollywood system (i.e. limited access to talent repped by the big agencies, etc.) and not being recognized for the extremely hard work we do in making our low-budget indie films as we try to personally survive financially, etc. It's also frustrating for indie filmmakers who approach their films from the creative perspective to compete with the Ryan Ks who approach moviemaking as a business. Two different motivations for filmmaking but the same end results: a film.

It's true that our existence is very different from the worlds of the Ryan Ks and Michael Ds, who seem to have it much easier. Who doesn't want Ron Howard waiting in his/her waiting room? But if you strip away the monetary and asset differences, the efforts of making films outside of the studio system are the same.

The main reason I want to keep the Ryan Ks and Michael Ds part of our world is that filmmaker producers need a dialogue with dealmaker producers. We need to learn from them just as they need to learn from us. And we do need to play in their playground if we are ever going to compete properly with them. Look at Paranormal Activity's performance this year. It's another indication that we do have the power to compete with the big boys and girls and we should be striving to do just that.

I do have to give props to Ryan K's philosophy of wanting to only fund projects he will actually make. This is an indie philosophy for sure. And he seems to be true to his word on that and he does back a lot of wonderful films -- amongst some crap too I'm sure. But then, there's a lot of truly crappy indie films being made as well so I'm not sure we can fault Ryan K for having a few flops too. We all need to learn how to stop making flops. How do we do that?