Desperately Seeking Indie
Michael Pitt and Steve Buscemi in Tom DiCillo’s Delirious (2007)
I didn’t see Tom DiCillo’s new film Delirious, and the odds are neither did you. Starring Steve Buscemi as a paparazzo who takes Michael Pitt under his wing, it came out last August to good reviews from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, the New York Times, the New Yorker and Salon. It got a solid 84% Cream of the Crop rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Despite all this and despite DiCillo’s solid reputation from highly regarded films like Living in Oblivion, Delirious went on to a limited release and made a dismal $200,000.
Michael Bay just farted and it made $200,000. And that doesn’t count the inevitable DVD release or the sequel.
Delirious got a tiny mention from me in the Weekend Forecast and that was the end of it. It played in L.A. for about 5 minutes and then disappeared.
I’m only reminded of all this because my friend Joel sent me a link to a sad and interesting column from Roger Ebert. You should check it out.
Ebert liked Delirious. He gave it 3 1/2 stars. DiCillo wrote him a letter wondering where it all went wrong and Ebert tried to answer. He didn’t quite succeed, but it raises a lot of questions about the state of the movie going universe in general and indie film specifically. It’s a useful reminder in a season where the big studios are duking it out for Oscar favor, that there are dozens of little films out there waiting to be discovered. They need our help, however. You have to look for them.
It’s a reminder to me that I should be doing a better job looking out for the little guys. That’s really why I started doing this after all.
Filed under: Movies
Well I had it on my list and it did make a short one-week stint here in Portland at our best indie theater, but it also appeared during a week I was busy and I think I saw something else that I was more interested in. Sadly I’d like to see this movie and I’m waiting for it to arrive on DVD via Netflix but that may be a long wait considering it did so poorly in theaters.
For me, a big part of the problem is simply the overwhelming number of films coming out these days.
Another issue is that many of these smaller, truly independent movies have very odd and uncertain release patterns. Unless I’m paying really close attention and I can devote my free time at the last minute to it, I can easily miss them when they swing through town. We only have a few movie theaters here in Portland, OR that feature true indies (I’m making a distinction with the studio-distributed indie fare) and they do their best to keep films scheduled in advance, but even that is somewhat fluid.
And finally, I find a lot of movies are just easier to watch on DVD. I love seeing films in a theater but it’s very difficult and expensive to see all the movies I’m really interested in on the big screen. While this DiCillo film got good reviews, had a funny trailer, and featured some actors I really like, I still managed to miss it. I guess I just figured I’d get to it on DVD at a more convenient time for myself.
My concern is that I go out of my way to support indie films but I’m finding it more and more difficult to do so, especially in an age where the studios seem to be constantly blurring the line between what is and what isn’t an a true independent production.
It’s a sad state of affairs when people who give a shit and who make an effort still let things slip through the cracks because of screwy release patterns or marketing or whatever.
We won’t even talk about the people who don’t give a shit and don’t make an effort.
In my defense, it’s hard for me to really get behind some of these indie films even when I see them and love them. Once they come and go from Los Angeles, I have no idea if or where they’ll play next. It could be months down the road. The only way people will find the review by then, they have to be looking for it.
I don’t know though. I feel in the coming year I should make a better effort. More advocacy for the little guy a la Syndromes and a Century. Less sucking studio crack a la Enchanted.
Thanks for the heads up on this article by the way.
Another thing, and I always wanted to say this during the Jesse James fandango over at H-E, everyone blames the fat head common man (ESPECIALLY H-E) but how is the common man supposed to see some of these movies when they only get a few theatres and no press? Not everyone spends hours reading about films like we do. There’s no reason why the studio couldn’t have tricked the public into giivng James at least 40 million based on PItt’s name. Not entirely on topic, but related.
More related, I was also really interested in Buscemi’s Interview, more so than Delirious actually. Truthfully, I can take or leave Dicillo, but Buscemi is a fantastic director (excluding Lonesome Jim). Trees Lounge is one of the best movies of the 1990s, imho.
Buscemi is also the perfect director to take on Charles Bukowski’s writing.
“We won’t even talk about the people who don’t give a shit and don’t make an effort.”
Let’s keep it that way. I hate those assholes.
Anyway, I’m completely guilty of being more open to seeing some crap studio fare with cool effects or a star I like over a little-known indie with critical acclaim. Sometimes it’s just easier to disengage my brain a bit and not have to get into the mood/find the energy for a film that is more challenging. I still have 5-6 movies in my Netflix queue that have been languishing there for almost a year now, smaller unknown films I saw on multiple 10 best lists from 2006 that I missed and was curious about. Now THAT is kind of embarrassing.
I’m saying I think Delirious is going to be My Dinner with Andre or anything, far from it, and like I said earlier I am actually looking forward to this movie…I just petered out when the opportunity briefly arose.
But getting back to my point, many indie movies appear more superficially challenging, like I’m somehow going to have work harder for them, and I really have to go out of my way to even find out about them since much of the mainstream media is always focused on the movies that have a more obvious hook, whether that be star power, well-known source material, a big budget, or just plain old hype. Heck, even the venerable New York Times puts most of their efforts towards the mainstream fare and New York is the premiere city for small indies and foreign films. You don’t open New York, you didn’t open, so if Mahnola or A.O. don’t review it then what does THAT say about the industry?
I often find that the little indies I like can be the most memorable movies I’ll see all year because they often take more chances, bring little or no baggage to my viewing, and challenge me on more levels. I guess I need to challenge myself to go out of my way for more of these films in 2008 and not just save them for my Netflix Saved queue.
I’m wondering, since you live in LA, what do you think about the state of the media there and the opportunities for seeing indie movies there? Seattle has a wide range of smaller indie theaters and honestly, you can’t make a lot of excuses for NOT seeing indie movies there. In fact, it’s gotten even better since the folks behind the Seattle Int Film Festival opened their own theater in town and start showing films and revivals year round.
Here in Portland, we have two true indie theaters that feature exclusively indie fare and a couple other oddball theaters that specialize in more subversive fare, like grindhouse-style exploitation and oddball retrospectives.
So anyway, what say you about LA? Good city for indies or is it mostly mainstream most of the time? And what about the local media…good for indie or mostly just focused on Hollywood?
Chuck,
You’re right about the common man I suppose, but I also think the common man is often completely utterly uninterested in anything beyond the big budget fare. I’m not trying to say that my fellow common men (and women) are inferior or anything–heck, you won’t see me reading War and Peace anytime soon–but I just don’t think most people see movies as anything other than entertainment. If it smells pretentious or weighty or arty or thought provoking, well they just don’t want to bother.
I think Ebert cast his net a little too wide with his commentary, but he does pose an interesting question in that Delirious is NOT My Dinner with Andre.
And from the comments I’ve read from you, myself, and others on this blog sometimes it’s just a pain in the ass to even get the damn movie into a theater anywhere NEAR you. Is the common man going to drive into the city to see a movie that only plays at one theater for one week? What if he doesn’t live near the city in which said movie is playing? Will he even hear about it to know to throw it into his Netflix queue?
One wonders….is the theatrical release even meaningful for indie films in this day and age beyond the limited media exposure a movie MAY get in the mainstream leading press?
First of all, regarding Jesse James, I agree with you Chuck that was complete studio error. First order douchebaggery on the part of Warner Bros. and they should be ashamed. They’ve got one of the 5 best movies of the year on their hands and they fucking buried it.
This wasn’t a movie that needed to be a $200 milion hit, it wasn’t that expensive, but it had a career best from a huge star, a breakout performance by an interessting up and comer and a veritable salad bar (with sneeze guard) of supporting turns. Not to mention Deakins or Nick Cave.
Warners should be fucking embarrassed. Heads should roll.
As for LA, the film scene is one of a handful of things that make LA a place I’m happy to call home despite the obstacles. Being able to go out at night without a jacket in November is another good one.
Indie films aren’t crammed up your ass with billboards or bus-side advertising, but they’re there if you want them. All you really have to do to find them is to keep an eye on two chains: Laemmle and Landmark. There are a couple of other independently run theaters that offer a good mix as well.
As in all things (except weather) NY trumps LA in the release department. It frequently gets the limited releases first and there are always a smattering that are never released anywhere else.
The point is, I really have no excuse not to see any film except my own laziness.
I haven’t seen Interview yet either, for the record.
One of the points I took from the Delirious article and this applies to Jesse James as well, is that it didn’t NEED to make a lot of money. It didn’t need every Regular Joe to show up.
There are some folks who’ll never see something that isn’t advertised during The Office, but those people are dead to me. They’re the same people who hate No Country for Old Men because of the ending or There Will Be Blood because Daniel Day Lewis is a meanie. But there are also more adventurous types who will give something new a chance if they know where to look for them. You only need a fraction of these people for a viable, healthy indie scene.
I like your hard hitting Olbermann-like special comments!
Heh heh. The comments section is the Wild Wild West. The gloves come off. Perhaps I should cut and paste a regular blog post.
But you know….I’m looking at the low per-screen averages of its opening weeks when it was only on 5 screens and I’m wondering now if Warner Bros was to blame after all.
With only modest success in big cities, was there any hope for it if they went wider than the dismal 301 screens they eventually gave it?
Now I’m looking at the critical reception in NY and LA. Many of the biggies panned it. Manohla, Turan, Sarris, Zacharek all rated it rotten. 59% cream of the crop.
I didn’t realize how poorly it was received.
Interesting.
Great comments everyone. Joel, I think I may tend to let my movie tunnel vision filter my thinking on how other people see movies. Really good points. Definitely understand you on the pain in the ass factor. I had to drive an hour to see No Country last week. Driving an hour to see it again today. Drove ninety minutes to see Jesse James. I live in the sticks, but luckily I live in sticks somewhat near DC, and while its no NY or LA, its a decent place to catch most flicks. Driving an hour next week to see Lust, Caution.
Craig, Anthony Lane didn’t like James either, nor did he like No Country for Old Men. These reviews weren’t just pans, they were short, clipped, fussy, not even worth mentioning the film type reviews if I recall. His biggest beef with Country seemed to be his understanding that so many other people would like it.
When we look at everything we’re probably lucky most these films are made at all. Hopefully the tide will never turn ALL the way to fat head Mcdonald’s movies.
I think Jesse James might be a special case in that the studio had high expectations and yet could see from early on during dailies that there might be problems with how it would be received, then (through all their standard and fairly meaningless forms of testing) got very mixed results. The marketing dept struggled to figure out how to sell the movie, the test audiences struggled with it, early festival reception was extremely mixed, and then when they finally got around to releasing it the critics were more interested with discussing it’s painful reception than the film itself (and before I get ahead of myself, test audiences and marketing depts should not be the determining factor here but for the studios they are).
Lest we not forgot, another great and somewhat imperfect film this year, Zodiac, fared a tad better but has a similarly tortured history with the studio (Paramount I believe?).
Anyway, my point is that Jesse James has fared poorly with critics and audiences and that even though I think the studio failed miserably in supporting the picture, I can see why the bean counters shrugged and threw up their hands: today’s theatrical release marketplace has no time or energy for a movie that needs to build an audience, which brings us back around (wait for it) to Delirious. Both of these movies aren’t simple concepts for the one-sentence review/poster/30 second ad. They would find an audience via word of mouth, which interestingly enough is what appears to have happened with Jesse James…even if the word of mouth is still extremely limited and critics haven’t come around to it.
Again, I’m brought back to the notion that the My Dinner with Andres and the Chariots of Fires of Ebert’s whistful nostalgia won’t happen in theaters anymore…maybe they will only find life via the internets and Netflix. There are movies for which buzz is still a factor, little-movies-that-could so to speak. But the Onces and Little Miss Sunshines out there are few and far between and often have very strong, very vocal critical support behind them. Plus, these films tend to be more audience-friendly, lighter fare. So let’s not get side-tracked on those.
It’s incredibly regretable but I think maybe the paradigm is changing. The truly sad part is that if “challenging” or “difficult” movies are only going to find a broader audiences on disc (and maybe I’m overstating my case here or at the very least assuming far too much), then the entire awards system as it exists is even more flawed than I previously complained of. And since the awards system both great and small seems to be the only avenue left for memorializing the great films of today…then that’s just really fucked up.
I guess the point is…I might have missed Jesse James completely were it not for the interwebs. We need to keep spreading these words on these films whenever possible, which is yet another reason why Craig’s wonderful AFI coverage is such a nice gift to all of us. Gots to keep our eyes out for the gems that will likely slip through the cracks, as hard as that may be.
You’re right Chuck, we are lucky that these films are made at all. But as Craig said, an audience can be found for them with the right combination of canny marketing, release schedule, and favorable reviews. It’s this last point that particularly grates me when it comes to the reviewers that cineastes and more adventurous mainstream movie goers look to for guidance.
Jesse James got plenty of raves. But its contemplative pace, literary density, and ambition was not ever going to be the right recipe for all elite critics. As an influential group they can get so far up their own assholes that they lose sight of the fact that it’s not in their and our interests to pan an artful film to the extent it damages box office returns. Every time this happens the next artful and ambitious film is that less likely to be made.
I’m not saying they should claim to like something they don’t. But they can acknowledge what it does well and still encourage their readership to see the film and judge for themselves. Sometimes a quality film is dismissed with the same force that a reviewer brings to dismissing the most routine and formulaic Hollywood fare. How does this failure to discriminate make sense?
I think the intoxicating power of having one’s judgments placed on a pedestal encourages many to form the misguided opinion that they in fact are the true arbiters of quality.
I admire Manohla, but her review of Jesse James had little to do with the actual film and more to do with how she thinks American films in general should depict lawless folk heroes.
Word, sartre. You are so right.
Chuck. There’s a review of No Country I didn’t finish and blocked from my memory banks. It might’ve been Lane’s. Someone so missed the boat on it, that it just depressed me. I’ve been slow to read other reviews of this movie. I feel like it’s mine and mine alone and the only opinions I care about are mine, my friends and like-minded readers. It’s almost personal. Same thing is going to happen with There Will Be Blood.
Joel I’m agreeing with you and I’m sort of backing off my original anti-Warner Bros. stance. This is a film that needed critical hand holding. It needed champions. It opened in NY and LA to very modest reviews and frankly it didn’t burn down the box office. I hate to say it but Warners was almost justified in pulling the plug. This wasn’t the kind of movie that was likely to play big in the sticks all by itself.
Sartre what killed me about so many of the elite critics was that I felt like they were watching a different movie. As you said, Manohla brought her own personal grudges to it. Several others misunderstood what it was, then criticized it for failing to be what they thought.
It’s just now opening in more parts of the world so there’s still a chance it will make back its relatively modest budget.