REGISTER|LOGIN

Welcome, filler

MY PROFILE
LOGOUT

Is Indie TV the New Indie Film?

November 30, 2011 10:00AM EST By Josh Bernhard
Share | |

Everyone seems to agree that the Internet is the way forward for independent film. But one producer asks: might independent “TV” show the way?


Crew+on+Set

 

I’ve heard this a lot over the past couple of years, and it came up in conversation again the other day: “TV is better than movies these days.”

 

In contrast to the film industry at large, the TV industry seems to be taking more risks, delivering more quality content, doing more exciting things. It’s also attracting top level talent, from actors to directors.

 

In short, the gulf that has long separated film and television has narrowed. And something similar may be happening in the independent world.

 

Until recently, serialized content really only had one place to go: television. Now that that’s changed with online venues, there may be a new wave of quality independent series on the way. A “TV show” may become a term divorced from its original medium, like films and records.

 

I bring this up because I think there is an opportunity here for independent filmmakers.

 

With many indie filmmakers bypassing theatrical distribution entirely, more and more emphasis is placed on building your audience and your brand online.

 

This is easier said than done. But I think there are lessons to be learned from our experience with Pioneer One, a drama series with full-length episodes.

 

Conventional wisdom says for video content to work on the web, it must be two things: short and funny. Our show was neither.

 

We attempted to make a serious show that followed a traditional hour-long format as closely as possible, complete with commercial breaks. Most people I know watch their TV online anyway, so what would it matter if our TV show wasn’t actually on TV?

 

It seems to have paid off: we’ve had nearly 8,000,000 combined downloads and streams for our first 5 episodes and raised over $80,000 in donations from viewers.

 

But most important, we’ve been able to build a passionate and engaged audience. You might even call it a “fan base.” (We even have a fansite, complete with a spoiler section!)

 

Finding a passionate audience is never a given. I know, having previously released my film The Lionshare online, where we failed to inspire the same. So what’s the difference?

 

Certainly, content is king. But perhaps the form of that content is just as important.

 

One of television’s strengths is its potential for long-form storytelling, a potential that’s been used to great effect in this new  “golden age” of TV.

 

An audience builds a relationship to the characters and story over time, and as a result, the bond created is something more substantial than what you’d get in a 120-minute one-off.

 

There’s more for a viewer to become invested in, and thus more opportunities for engagement such as speculation about what’s going to happen next, and anticipation for the next installment. You give them a reason to come back and make yourself “sticky,” to borrow a popular marketing term. The same can (and should) be applied to content on the web.

 

Now, I’m not suggesting that every filmmaker should stop making films and start making web series instead. But maybe it shouldn’t be thought of in such a binary way. Maybe there are ways to apply elements of long-form engagement to a film.

 

The Trip is a recent example of a TV series that was then combined and released as a film. Perhaps more films can be made in installments, released that way, and then crafted into a feature with an audience already behind it.

 

Or the filmmaker adds web content that continues (or pre-dates) the story of the film: anything to keep an audience engaged after the credits roll. But the key is not to make it an after-thought or a marketing gimmick, but just as rich and interesting as the film itself.

 

Not every film lends itself to serialization, of course, but kick the idea around for a moment.

 

Would it bring out something new in the material? Is there an opportunity to elaborate or go deeper with something when there’s no room in the film?

 

These aren’t thoughts for the marketing department. These should be thoughts during the creative conception of the film itself.


 
Josh Bernhard

Josh Bernhard is a filmmaker and is currently the head writer and co-producer of Pioneer One. He can be seen next at the premiere of the first season finale on December 5 at the Anthology Film Archives in NYC. Follow @joshbernhard on Twitter.

The Future of Film blog is a place where leading filmmakers and experts within the film industry share their thoughts on film, technology and the future of media.

 

Join the Conversation

 
Andrew Montalenti
Nov 30, 2011
09:54 AM
This reminds me of similarities in the online news space. If you think about it, reporting a story in long form means either a #longread ( e.g. http://longreads.com/ ), a documentary ( e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film) ), or a book ( e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griftopia ).

It turns out the initial audience for these content forms is very limited, and the content forms aren't very sticky -- there is nothing to actually *come back for*. The only (small) exception to this is to come back to the creator's next installment, e.g. Charles Ferguson's next documentary or Matt Taibbi's next piece of investigative journalism.

Meanwhile, if you think about a news organization like The Economist, what keeps people coming back is their unique perspective (international, business-oriented) as they cover daily events. They give their readers a perspective they are looking for, but do so with frequency. People return to the site wondering, "what have they decided to cover today?" and "how can I interpret today's events?"

Or, in the audio world, you have NPR with their series like Radio Lab, This American Life, or Planet Money. It's about being informed via a unique perspective, on a regular basis, and feeling as though through continuing the series, one is gaining more and more of a connection to this perspective along the way.

I think you're onto something recognizing that the focus of independent filmmakers on feature-length films may be misguided. In the news space, this is akin to producing only feature-length documentaries, long-form stories, or books. These are necessary content forms -- especially for some of the world's most complex issues -- but not the forms that lead to high levels of audience engagement.

Building an audience for creative works is a hard problem. You're right: why make your life harder by picking a content form where the odds are stacked against you?
Anonymous
Nov 30, 2011
01:47 PM
That's a very good comparison. One potential difference between the two may be a filmmaker's desire to express his/her creative self versus a journalist's intent to inform. The 'vessel' of that creativity is part of the creativity itself, whereas a journalist's work is (arguably) secondary to communicating the message as effectively as possible.
Ann Rose
Nov 30, 2011
10:25 AM
I'm with you all the way Josh. As one who is caught between documentary film and (gasp) reality tv, I spend a lot of time considering the merits of taking doc stories into the TV space. Non-fiction tv has unfortunately not (YET) seen the merits of creative, inspired, authored storytelling that fiction tv has, but I am hopeful that the tide is turning. There are so many things to take into account in the non-fiction space, like ethical questions, manipulation for the sake of drama, balanced representation, the list goes on. I've been working with some of the companies who have won some of the youtube channels recently announced, and I do see doors opening to independents here, where they are closing elsewhere.

Great piece! Let's continue the conversation!
Josh Bernhard
Nov 30, 2011
01:52 PM
While they have the same influx of reality TV as we do in the States, the British have had a lot of success with the kind of non-fiction television you're talking about. They have a breed of docu-TV "auteurs" that I don't think we have an equivalent for in the US. People like Adam Curtis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis) and The Power of Nightmares, or David Attenborough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough). Work like theirs is usually relegated to public broadcasting here.
Neil Dvorak
Nov 30, 2011
01:04 PM
Josh,

Really really nicely written. I love your last lines: "These aren't thoughts for the marketing dept. These should be..."

It makes me think of fine art, the way a painter decides to make A Painting: ie paints-on-a-canvas, as opposed to deciding to make "a work of art". IE the mode/format/vehicle of what you're creating is inherent in the concept, and a good artist is aware of this. yes?
Josh Bernhard
Nov 30, 2011
02:39 PM
Most definitely. In this specific case, TV and film have historically been separated by their respective mediums. Now with web distribution and digital video, those distinctions are institutional and cultural holdovers. Not every film should be serialized, but not every film *has* to be a film. Filmmakers as artists should be asking those questions and also take into account the commercial prospects for one versus the other.