The Future of "Film" By Philip Wood After studying film at University, Philip worked at a few film production companies for a couple of years, before setting up his own digital production company 2nd Century Cinema. Their first feature "Goldfish Memoirs" is nearing the end of post-production. Philip is currently producing a gallery film installation and seeking finance for a range of innovative feature projects with 2CC.

At the turn of the millennium we were hearing that the digital revolution was well and truly under way. As we enter 2002 what exactly has happened? How has film changed and will it change in the future?

As was clear last year, digital filmmaking is providing new opportunities for filmmaking. This was apparent from its cost effectiveness in production; allowing 'non-commercial' filmmakers to continue making films and new, emerging filmmakers to be able to make films that would have otherwise been too expensive a risk to fund. Also, this opportunity was allowing all types of filmmakers to experiment with the actual process of filmmaking, such as the Dogme 95 brothers and Mike Figgis' recent work. Which is all looking bright and positive for the independent and culturally driven productions. But is this the tip of an iceberg that is to continue to emerge, or the result of the novelty of the new technology that will fade in the same way as IMAX or 3D?

The aim of this article is to look beyond the immediate impact of digital technology and to examine how it will affect all areas of the film industry from film-makers to film-viewers.

Firstly, lets consider the current debate as to whether the Digital Video format will replace the traditional 35mm format. Currently DV has not quite reached the relative quality of 35mm film but arguably, with the advances being made (led largely by George Lucas and the Star Wars films) it will soon reach the key point at which the general public are unable to tell the difference between a film originated on DV or 35mm. From this moment, Digital Video will start to take over film production and exhibition much in the same way digital post-production has overtaken traditional film methods in recent years. The reason we can be sure of this is one thing: money. Quite simply it is far cheaper to shoot on digital, to post digitally, to distribute a digital format and to exhibit digitally. During production, savings can be made in stock, in being able to setup shots more quickly and save time, in not having to print rushes and in not having to pay film laboratory costs to develop and print the film. The movie can then be edited digitally without transfers and distributed electronically by satellite, cable or similar methods before stored easily and projected digitally when the time comes, creating multiple savings when the distributor no longer has to pay upwards of two thousand pounds each for the number of prints of the film needed to play at different cinemas and no longer do has to pay for the shipping of the prints to each cinema. Which all means that once quality reaches a high enough standard and the initial costs of installing the necessary equipment have been met (an issue I don't want to explore here), it will be far more cost-effective for everyone from the low-budget filmmakers to the Hollywood studios to take the digital route.

But the reduction in production costs across the board is unlikely to produce many changes in the balance of power at the cinemas. Theatrical exhibition is still a tight business and is dominated by the large exhibition chains and distributors who control which films play. Big budget films shot on the top digital technology with full crew and comprehensive post-production will undoubtedly look far better than the average low-budget digital feature and the film star, special fx qualities of the major films with large marketing campaigns behind them will surely continue to dominate theatrical distribution and box office. So although it will cost less for Independent producers and smaller companies to get the films out there, they won't actually be jumping the queue of blockbusters in front of them.

So if the status quo of theatrical system is to remain, what other benefits does the digital revolution bring for the professional film industry? Films are and will continue to be financed predominantly on the risk that the films will make their money back for the investors. If a film doesn't have enough money to pay the people involved and repay investors, how will similar films continue to be made? (Similarly, if the UK's Film Council with its partial cultural remit doesn't make enough money, it too will bow to public (mass) opinion and change policy).

The answer possibly lies in the new alternative routes of distribution and exhibition that are opening up. Until recently, films would show at the cinemas then be released on video before being shown on television. Now in addition, there is Pay-per-view and Video On Demand, specialist cable, satellite and digital channels, and the Internet, which can be used to buy a massive range of DVDs from all over the world and soon, with the pickup of Broadband and other high speed connection rates, will be used to stream films straight to your computer and eventually your television. Granted, a lot of the above routes can be and are being used to further exploit the mainstream movies, but the key here is greater access and choice for the viewer / consumer. Twenty years ago, if you liked a Chinese martial-arts film by a particular director, it would be extremely difficult to see any of his other work. Nowadays, you might find his films playing on a specialist satellite channel, surf the Web for further information and order the DVD from a specialist company the other side of the world.

When there is sufficient access to a wide choice of films, we are no longer talking about a mass audience. Minority and specialist groups now have a presence, a voice and most importantly, purchasing power. So when previously a film would only have a limited number of places to sell rights to, some of whom might find its appeal too-limited, now the same film has a number of different and specialist places to sell to. Which is good news for the niche filmmaker who has up till now had to concern himself / herself with appealing to a mainstream audience in order to get into the mainstream distribution system. If sufficient numbers of people watch a 'minority' film then this film, which incidentally cost less to make in the first place, stands a chance of breaking even and showing the way for similar films. What this produces is a minority and niche market industry that is able to thrive and survive away from the commercial mainstream and the mass-appeal distribution systems.

The evidence for this kind of fragmented market and developing underground can be seen in the music industry. Thirty years ago, the scene was very chart led and dominated by the big global music companies. But the advent of samplers, synthesisers and computers began to take some of the power away from the mainstream and the large production companies and into the hands of people able to create new forms of music with a few pieces of relatively cheap kit. This technology has led to an explosion of new forms of electronic / dance based music; some of which has influenced and been accepted into the mainstream systems of production and distribution, but the majority of which has remained largely outside of the mainstream, produced independently and for small production companies, sold in independent record stores, heard in independent clubs and radio stations, and bought by a small niche market audience. The large companies and the pop charts still hold the majority of power, in terms of production, distribution and sales, but there are now many alternative genres of music and places to find them for the modern listener.

The music industry model is also helpful in demonstrating the marketing and exhibition routes of digital film. 'Niche' music is heard and promoted in independent clubs, written about in specialist magazines, talked about and advertised in independent record shops and played on specialist radio stations, or late at night on mainstream stations. If we see the film market following a similar direction to the music market, then the key is target marketing.

At some point in the future, anyone will be able to show his or her film on the Internet. But will anyone know it's there? The answer lies in the gradual growth of niche and minority groups. In aligning oneself to such groups through the reading and subscription of specialist magazines / channels / film websites, the viewer is able to learn more about that specific genre of films. From the opposite side, the producer / distributor / exhibitor is also able to target this particular market in a much more specific and efficient way than at present. This is a gradual 'chicken and egg' process, inasmuch as each group needs the other before they can develop and grow, but if we look at the Internet as a more recent example than the music industry, then we can see that already the Internet is highly fragmented into particular groups. We may 'belong' to more than one group, either through newsgroups or just the pages we regularly visit, but there is already a huge amount of information and marketing targeted at specific groups.

So will the mainstream's dominance of the market share continue? Perhaps not, with the increase of choice for the viewer, but perhaps so when the cinema viewer can be persuaded to download the trailer, buy the DVD and get the must-have mobile ring tone. People were talking about the decline in the appeal of terrestrial television against the competition of all the new channels, until we saw the unprecedented success of Big Brother, which attracted record viewing figures. But was this success due to Big Brother on cable, tv, web, text, newspaper, magazine etc. or despite of it? Merchandising, sponsorship and endorsements are now vital parts of major film marketing strategies.

Another factor to be taken into consideration is that the new wide variety of films will appeal to a whole new audience who traditionally don't go to the cinema or watch films because there's nothing they want to see. It is often said that the really huge box office successes are achieved when a film such as Titanic or recently Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, appeal to these non-regular viewers as well as all the regular cinema-goers, demonstrating the potential audience out there. If a section of this audience who might only go once a year to the cinema start to find films that appeal to them more directly, this could make a big impact. Similarly, some of the big exhibitors are already looking into the potentially lucrative revenues over and above the regular cinema-goers to be found in attracting people to screenings of sport, theatre, events and similar 'alternative content'. As such, there are still a number of ways in which the distribution and exhibition scene could move and it is often difficult to predict what is going to happen until it has already happened. However, one such recent development that may be an indication of future trends was the exhibition of Ken Loach's The Navigators.

Although he had achieved commercial as well as critical success with My Name is Joe, Loach's following film Bread and Roses, a film about the strike by exploited cleaners in LA, was seen by many as a return to the less commercial and more political topics that he had founded his critical success on and as such failed to reach large audiences in the UK. Despite the timely nature of a film about railworkers under privatisation, The Navigators was compared in appearance to Bread and Roses and no-one was willing to pick it up for theatrical distribution in the UK. As such it premiered in the UK on Channel4 at 10pm on a Sunday. On the face of it, compared with the commercial success that the film is currently receiving at cinemas in France and Europe, this seems like a disappointment for one of the UK's most prominent and vital filmmakers. However, let us compare this with what might have happened had the film followed the same path as Bread and Roses: The Navigators is released theatrically, a significant amount is spent on prints and advertising (Britain being one of the most expensive places in the world to release a film theatrically), and it comes out to critical acclaim and coverage but is only released in a handful of cinemas and takes around £350k at the box office [Variety]. Perhaps twenty years ago the film would have been given a long run at several cinemas giving it an attempt to build up positive word of mouth and build audiences, but in today's harsh bet-hedging climate, The Navigators would have likely been pulled from cinemas after a very limited period. As a result, not only has the film posted a loss, but very few people have been to see the film and indeed very few people apart from those in London and maybe a few cities around the country will have been able to see the film in its short release period. Now, compare this to the release the film actually received: a prime-time slot on television accompanied with an amount of media advertising comparable to a small theatrical release and a very successful 1.6 million viewers. It is difficult to say exactly which path was more profitable for the investors, and indeed it is a complex situation, for one should include issues such as a longer shelf life and possibility of more foreign rights sales that a theatrical release secures, but at the end of the day, undoubtedly The Navigators was seen by substantially more people than Bread and Roses and for filmmaking of this type and calibre, away from the entertainment spectacles at the other end of the spectrum, surely this should be marked as a resounding achievement.

Agreed, although 1.6 million viewers is a success for Channel4, it is not as transparent in terms of financial gain as 1.6 million rentals or box office tickets. But nevertheless, although a tv premiere is traditionally seen as a failure, in the UK's stifling exhibition climate today, is The Navigators' success in terms of maximising the number of viewers an indication of a radical change and a renewed opportunity for smaller films?

The important point here however, is the way the film was treated. This was undoubtedly treated as a film rather than a 'tv drama' and as such played in festivals around the world and received reviews and coverage in a lot of places, such as BBC's Newsnight Review and many magazines including Sight and Sound and Empire as well as trade weeklies Variety and Screen International. Although it may have received its premiere on the small screen, this was undoubtedly a new film and was advertised as such to its target markets. This recognition of its status as a film is a vital factor in the re-evaluation of film marketing, distribution and exhibition.

At a time when the theatrical exhibition sector in the UK is becoming less and less efficient at appealing to and reaching audiences except on the broadest scale, does the future of exhibition lie in non-theatrical releases?

It is only likely that top filmmakers such as Ken Loach would receive such a well covered television premiere and that for most filmmakers that are working further outside the mainstream, such a route is unlikely. However, as we have seen, the fragmenting of the exhibition sector is meaning that there are many more ways to reach an audience and in turn, much more choice for the viewer. This is something already recognised by the majors and is evident in the marketing campaigns and subsequent revenues for the video and DVD sales releases of films such as Gladiator, which were comparable to that of the theatrical release.

What is important though, is the importance of treating the film as a film and according it the similar advertising, reviews and coverage. In this way, a film no longer needs to gain a theatrical release in order to reach a large audience and be commercially or critically successful. Cinema will never die and the blockbusters will continue to earn most of the money in the film world. But away from the glare of special fx and Hollywood stars, for both filmmakers and audiences; the future looks bright.

                                                                 © FILM JOURNAL 2002