Just like everyone else these days, the New York Times is onto the notion that distribution is a-changing. Manola Dargis profiles Peter Broderick tomorrow and positions him in the New World and all those turnkey distributors as the Old. No matter, I suppose, that Broderick has been saying the same thing (and possibly delivering the same Power Point- no offense, Peter) for many years at various festivals and seminars.

I’m guilty of being one of these people who are offering to help filmmakers develop a strategy if they choose to hoist the mast of their own Niña or Pinta. There are options that filmmakers now have to reach an audience that not only don’t require a middleman but makes direct connections advantageous. But the old options just don’t exist as a point of comparison. It’s not “make your film and manage it yourself” vs. “make your film and have someone else do a great job managing it,” which was the old paradigm when a distributor was the essential and sought after route. A distributor can still be a huge contributor to the success of a film, especially a fiction film, but it can almost never come without any involvement of the filmmaker.

We as filmmakers are simply looking to connect with an audience who will be compelled by the work. The means of communicating have changed but the experiences of discovery and community are still fundamental. Rather than trying to see all the new things and new ways to “get the word out” or “market,” the New World is just your world, where you make connections and where your audience is, just organized a little bit.

• DISCUSS THIS Post in discussion

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « 2010: Odyssey Two (Or, it’s my year)
• » Disadvantaged? Or alternatively abled? Panel to decide.

• BROWSE / IN independent filmmakers
• « 2010: Odyssey Two (Or, it’s my year)
• » Disadvantaged? Or alternatively abled? Panel to decide.