I have come to feel that "indie" & docs don't want to live on streamers -- or at least shouldn't. Sure, people seem to value convenience over the quality of experience, but until we bring context and community to the streaming environment, I feel the platform and the product are at odds with each other. Sure, I share the dream of the perfect streamer for my taste -- the very thing Keri & Roy write about -- but as you point out, the math doesn't add up. Instead of the experiment you recommend, I encourage film lovers to just get out of the house and support their community theater. I believe they will be much happier doing it, regardless of what they see.
I know in my gut that we can't ignore what the streaming distribution future will be for indie and docs, AND I feel strongly right now it's the time for these films to focus on building the audience and community and ecosystem for the in person experience. I feel that creating the practice of going to see films (in a theater all the way to a community center type gathering space) and building the appetite for non-dependent cinema that is based around connecting with people, creating dialogue and connection, that's really needed. With this in place then it makes the online version more possible.
Another part of the in person experience is it fosters the public's value of film. I feel the streamer culture is making this artform more disposable. Switch it on whenever you want to, binge it or not, everything is at your fingertips. If we can build more value to the film experience then it has something unique.
100%! I was a MUBI subscriber for some time and I love their mission, but something always felt off when I watched an indie or classic film on a specialized streaming service. It‘s like eating steak at McDonalds. The surroundings don‘t feel right for the experience. Of course I watch the occasional indie or doc on Netflix, Prime or even Pluto TV etc., but in most cases I want the conscious decision of going to a film festival, to the cinema, or even just watching a DVD… but in either case, the act of choosing is important to me with these kinds of specialized films, compared to the TV/superstore nature of streaming “content.”
100% this ^ A healthy arthouse ecosystem is essential for keeping cinema and independent feature-length filmmaking alive when streamers work to reduce everything to “content.”
MUBI is great - though it’s much stronger on the art house/foreign language front than on docs in my experience. But still glad it exists. I’d love to see some sort of joined up offering from all the small players - but it does seem pretty hard to envisage realistically happening sadly…
I wasn't even aware of the return of The Documentary Channel (which I had worked for), so thank you for mentioning that. They already seem to have a slightly better library than the original version.
I tend to support Ovid because of their docs through Icarus but I rarely think about the subscription rate since I don't personally subscribe to many (the big ones I mostly get for free as a critic). And my library doesn't offer Kanopy access. I also would love more curation and purpose. For example, I'd love one of these services to make an effort to find all the old/classic docs, especially Oscar nominees and winners, that are otherwise completely unavailable in any form and get them online. Like what Kanopy did with Zipporah/Wiseman.
BFI Player doesn't cover all of these bases, but it is pretty amazing in its range of new and old global cinema. Classics, underappreciated gems, the experimental, the bizarre, the topical, the eternal...
It's only available in the UK, but for any filmheads here I'd highly recommend it. Cheaper than your Netflixes, your Primes, your Disneys Plus as well.
Mubi? Criterion Channel? Arte (I guess that's maybe only Europe and UK?) We also have BFI Player in UK home to the British Film Institute Archive which is an indie/docs streamer.
There's definitely an appetite. But one could also ask, why isolate them? Indie movies could massively benefit from reaching a wider audience - which, if it happened on streaming through better promotion and being accessible to more mainstream viewers through good discovery-based marketing might in turn drive more people to see them in theatres.
Imagine you watch a big mainstream film then get suggested three lesser known indies in your "if you loved that, try these' algorithm?
If some marketing was developed to try and reach wider audiences.
The whole exclusivity thing just perpetuates the idea that indie and docs are somehow superior/better/more elite/"not for you" - that sense of inaccessibility that is a huge reason many don't try to watch them in the first place, and are put off by arthouse and that world.
What about a Netflix sub-brand - "Netflix Indie" which then shows Netflix getting behind the smaller independent producers and filmmakers. Think of it as a CSR for film - no-one really wants to do corporate Social Responsibility but now they have to be seen to do it. What are Netflix currently doing on that front I wonder?
This is an interesting idea. And while you liken it to CSR, I think you could also make an analogy to the studio's "specialty" divisions, which have been great for talent cultivation and the occasional breakout sleeper hit. I think one could be suspicious about putting more of our eggs in Netflix's basket, but it's true that the major streamers might be able to create a brand that is the streaming equivalent of a Searchlight or Focus Features.
Yeah think Apple:Indie or Amazon:Indie, I think the problem is if you bundle in the indies into the same platform as the big tent pole movies there’s an immediate disconnect in terms of production value that will turn people off - certainly a younger generation who want to know why a $200K doc doesn’t look like Avengers:Endgame. By separating them out it might be a better way to ‘introduce’ a new audience to the idea of indies. It’s the new, younger audiences they need to get fired up to the idea. We’re all onboard it’s just a younger generation I think needs enlightening - Also if you can think of a way to get my kids to watch anything made in black and white please let me know.
Coming from a doc perspective...CSR? Is there evidence it matters to any corporate media entity? Global streamers spread funds around to learn local markets via proxy producers, then pulled back on finance levels and terms of trade to optimize their ROI and control, weakening indies. (Reminiscent of some of the major cable players back in the day.) "Radical collaboration" in the indie sector is sorely needed, not consolidating more power and influence among the few behemoths. But how to herd the cats? And the necessary prelude to decent licensing terms - production finance. Hard to see where that will come from as conservative politicians worldwide are taking aim at public media and funding. Philanthropy? There will be increasing need to feed, house, and care for people as public funding is cutback. And of course the equity investors want a return. Deeply worrying.
To draw a historical analogy, Boudicca lost to The Roman Empire, which is usually how it works out. You want to be the Empire, not the scrappy underdog group on the other side (no matter how charming their hardscrabble existence may seem).
So, yes. Realistically, it would cost a lot. But it would also pay off.
I have come to feel that "indie" & docs don't want to live on streamers -- or at least shouldn't. Sure, people seem to value convenience over the quality of experience, but until we bring context and community to the streaming environment, I feel the platform and the product are at odds with each other. Sure, I share the dream of the perfect streamer for my taste -- the very thing Keri & Roy write about -- but as you point out, the math doesn't add up. Instead of the experiment you recommend, I encourage film lovers to just get out of the house and support their community theater. I believe they will be much happier doing it, regardless of what they see.
Of course, get thee to an art-house, too. I've certainly written that one, too... https://anthonykaufman.substack.com/p/get-thee-to-an-art-house
I know in my gut that we can't ignore what the streaming distribution future will be for indie and docs, AND I feel strongly right now it's the time for these films to focus on building the audience and community and ecosystem for the in person experience. I feel that creating the practice of going to see films (in a theater all the way to a community center type gathering space) and building the appetite for non-dependent cinema that is based around connecting with people, creating dialogue and connection, that's really needed. With this in place then it makes the online version more possible.
Another part of the in person experience is it fosters the public's value of film. I feel the streamer culture is making this artform more disposable. Switch it on whenever you want to, binge it or not, everything is at your fingertips. If we can build more value to the film experience then it has something unique.
100%! I was a MUBI subscriber for some time and I love their mission, but something always felt off when I watched an indie or classic film on a specialized streaming service. It‘s like eating steak at McDonalds. The surroundings don‘t feel right for the experience. Of course I watch the occasional indie or doc on Netflix, Prime or even Pluto TV etc., but in most cases I want the conscious decision of going to a film festival, to the cinema, or even just watching a DVD… but in either case, the act of choosing is important to me with these kinds of specialized films, compared to the TV/superstore nature of streaming “content.”
100% this ^ A healthy arthouse ecosystem is essential for keeping cinema and independent feature-length filmmaking alive when streamers work to reduce everything to “content.”
Completely agree about encouraging people
To come out and and support local scenes
MUBI is great - though it’s much stronger on the art house/foreign language front than on docs in my experience. But still glad it exists. I’d love to see some sort of joined up offering from all the small players - but it does seem pretty hard to envisage realistically happening sadly…
I wasn't even aware of the return of The Documentary Channel (which I had worked for), so thank you for mentioning that. They already seem to have a slightly better library than the original version.
I tend to support Ovid because of their docs through Icarus but I rarely think about the subscription rate since I don't personally subscribe to many (the big ones I mostly get for free as a critic). And my library doesn't offer Kanopy access. I also would love more curation and purpose. For example, I'd love one of these services to make an effort to find all the old/classic docs, especially Oscar nominees and winners, that are otherwise completely unavailable in any form and get them online. Like what Kanopy did with Zipporah/Wiseman.
BFI Player doesn't cover all of these bases, but it is pretty amazing in its range of new and old global cinema. Classics, underappreciated gems, the experimental, the bizarre, the topical, the eternal...
It's only available in the UK, but for any filmheads here I'd highly recommend it. Cheaper than your Netflixes, your Primes, your Disneys Plus as well.
isn’t that just Netflix?
This is precisely the kind of progress we need to be making. Not just creative but opportunity. You might find this interesting.
https://biggiantwords.substack.com/p/what-if-asimovs-three-laws-werent
Mubi? Criterion Channel? Arte (I guess that's maybe only Europe and UK?) We also have BFI Player in UK home to the British Film Institute Archive which is an indie/docs streamer.
There's definitely an appetite. But one could also ask, why isolate them? Indie movies could massively benefit from reaching a wider audience - which, if it happened on streaming through better promotion and being accessible to more mainstream viewers through good discovery-based marketing might in turn drive more people to see them in theatres.
Imagine you watch a big mainstream film then get suggested three lesser known indies in your "if you loved that, try these' algorithm?
If some marketing was developed to try and reach wider audiences.
The whole exclusivity thing just perpetuates the idea that indie and docs are somehow superior/better/more elite/"not for you" - that sense of inaccessibility that is a huge reason many don't try to watch them in the first place, and are put off by arthouse and that world.
I subscribe to mubi now. It’s just ok.
Essentially MUBI.
Is this not what Criterion, Metrograph and Mubi…are for?
Support these platforms that already exist instead.
😍yes please
What about a Netflix sub-brand - "Netflix Indie" which then shows Netflix getting behind the smaller independent producers and filmmakers. Think of it as a CSR for film - no-one really wants to do corporate Social Responsibility but now they have to be seen to do it. What are Netflix currently doing on that front I wonder?
This is an interesting idea. And while you liken it to CSR, I think you could also make an analogy to the studio's "specialty" divisions, which have been great for talent cultivation and the occasional breakout sleeper hit. I think one could be suspicious about putting more of our eggs in Netflix's basket, but it's true that the major streamers might be able to create a brand that is the streaming equivalent of a Searchlight or Focus Features.
Yeah think Apple:Indie or Amazon:Indie, I think the problem is if you bundle in the indies into the same platform as the big tent pole movies there’s an immediate disconnect in terms of production value that will turn people off - certainly a younger generation who want to know why a $200K doc doesn’t look like Avengers:Endgame. By separating them out it might be a better way to ‘introduce’ a new audience to the idea of indies. It’s the new, younger audiences they need to get fired up to the idea. We’re all onboard it’s just a younger generation I think needs enlightening - Also if you can think of a way to get my kids to watch anything made in black and white please let me know.
Coming from a doc perspective...CSR? Is there evidence it matters to any corporate media entity? Global streamers spread funds around to learn local markets via proxy producers, then pulled back on finance levels and terms of trade to optimize their ROI and control, weakening indies. (Reminiscent of some of the major cable players back in the day.) "Radical collaboration" in the indie sector is sorely needed, not consolidating more power and influence among the few behemoths. But how to herd the cats? And the necessary prelude to decent licensing terms - production finance. Hard to see where that will come from as conservative politicians worldwide are taking aim at public media and funding. Philanthropy? There will be increasing need to feed, house, and care for people as public funding is cutback. And of course the equity investors want a return. Deeply worrying.
Not sure why it’s “pie in the sky” when it requires ~3 or 4 licensors.
Distribution ventures that are cheap and small tend not to become anything.
This will only work if one approaches it as I described.
Did I get my math wrong, or does the plan you propose cost $1B+ to pull off?
In this area, modest efforts do not succeed.
To draw a historical analogy, Boudicca lost to The Roman Empire, which is usually how it works out. You want to be the Empire, not the scrappy underdog group on the other side (no matter how charming their hardscrabble existence may seem).
So, yes. Realistically, it would cost a lot. But it would also pay off.
It is not a better way. It is the only way.