Film Distribution in the Digital Age

Pirates and Professionals

Virginia Crisp

• Editorial: Palgrave Macmillan
• Año: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137406613
• Categoría: Sciences sociales
• Categoría: Étude des média

Film Distribution in the Digital Age critically examines the evolution of the landscape of film distribution in recent years. In doing so, it argues that the interlocking ecosystem(s) of media dissemination must be considered holistically and culturally if we are to truly understand the transnational flows of cultural texts.

1

Formal Film Distribution

Introduction

Film distribution has recently migrated to the forefront of academic enquiry as the traditional modes and mechanisms of movie dissemination are allegedly being ‘disrupted’ by technological developments from the VCR to video on demand. The challenges and possibilities brought about by new forms of formal online distribution are considered in detail in Chapter 3, and the growth of new forms of informal online distribution are examined in depth in chapters 4 and 5. However, in order to understand these new developments and their possible implications, it is first necessary to explore the nature of the pre-existing models of distribution that these new modes and methods are said to be ‘disrupting’. Therefore, this chapter will examine what this ‘traditional’ Hollywood structure of distribution is, how it functions and, significantly, how it has hitherto maintained Hollywood’s dominance over the global film industry.

Use of the term ‘distributor’ when referring to the film industry has the potential to be quite misleading. Such intermediaries might better be understood as publishers, but even that term does not go far enough to encapsulate the dominant role that distributors play within the film industry or indeed the varied nature of their activities.

As Alisa Perren notes:

Intellectual property attorneys, acquisitions executives, festival programmers, television schedulers, web technicians, and marketing assistants all could be identified as part of the distribution business. Importantly, distribution can be seen as taking place when ‘fan subbers’ (i.e., amateur translators of movies and television series who operate outside sanctioned industrial channels) upload content to torrents, when truck drivers transport comic books from warehouses to retail stores, and when tablet devices are shipped from online retailers to individual residences. Determining the full range of intermediaries involved in distributive processes, and the types of influence they exercise over content individually or collectively, thus becomes a central research challenge.

(Perren, 2013, p. 170)

However, while acknowledging the wealth of people and activities that might come under this mantle, this particular chapter is concerned with the ‘traditional’ film distributor. That is, the company or ‘arm’ of a larger conglomerate that acquires the distribution rights to films (either before production or after production as a ‘negative pick-up’) and brings them to exhibitors. In doing so, such distributors do not just ‘distribute’ or ‘publish’ films: they also control the marketing of the film, they often have the power to dictate the final cut, and they normally retain the intellectual property rights to each film they distribute.

From their job title, one might be forgiven for believing that film distributors are essentially middlemen or wholesalers, but while ‘most industries have wholesalers, … their role is almost always more narrowly defined than in the film industry’ (Wasko, 2003, p. 84). Film distributors are certainly in charge of the practicalities of organising exhibition arrangements with venues and of managing the logistics of getting films (as prints or in digital form) to film exhibitors. In basic terms, the theatrical distribution of a film involves such mundane tasks as ‘licensing and booking in movie theatres, marketing through advertising and publicity, manufacturing release prints and delivering these prints to those theatres licensed to play the movie’ (Blume, 2006, p. 336). However, the role of the distributor can also be much more extensive than this depending on the point during film production at which the distribution deal is arranged.

One thing that distributors certainly do control is the marketing of the films that they distribute, and thus, they have the power to shape how potential audiences perceive a film even before it is released. Furthermore, if the film is financed by one of the major Hollywood studios, then the way a film will be marketed is considered as soon as the project is given the ‘green light’ (Friedman, 2006, p. 284). At this point, executives in charge of marketing, distribution and consumer products all consider the script that is about to go into the pre-production stage to discover how the film might be positioned and what other revenue streams related to merchandising might be possible (Fellman, 2006, p. 364). Thus, as marketing is a consideration from the outset, it is not just about working out how best to promote this particular film, but about the marketing strategy reflexively shaping the product during production. As such, distributors do not simply control the ways a film is marketed, but often they can dictate the final form of any given film whose rights have been acquired. As Janet Wasko suggests, the influence that film distributors can have on film production is extensive, as ‘often they are totally in control of a film, but even for other projects, they can influence script and title changes, casting decisions, final edits, marketing strategies, and financing of the film’ (Wasko, 2003, p. 84). In this respect, within the Hollywood system at least, the distributor might have much more creative control over a film than audiences may imagine.

Global film distribution

The distribution of film has long been an area of academic interest for those researching the film industry. However, work on distribution has often been hidden within larger studies of the film industry more generally. Furthermore, such industry studies have tended to focus almost exclusively on Hollywood and have been predominantly concerned within two particular aspects of film distribution: the distribution deal and film marketing.

For instance, Janet Wasko’s How Hollywood Works (2003) provides a detailed discussion of the process of film distribution and the types of distribution deals that are arranged in Hollywood. In the process, Wasko illustrates how ‘Hollywood is dominated by a handful of companies that draw much of their power from film distribution’ (2003, p. 59). Here Wasko is primarily concerned with explaining the distribution process and illustrating how creative accounting ensures that some profit participants never get paid. In doing so, it is made clear that ‘the distribution process is designed to benefit the distributors, but not necessarily production companies’ (Wasko, 2003, p. 60). Wasko’s work is invaluable for the latter part of this chapter in which Hollywood’s dominance through distribution is illuminated. However, her work does not examine why distribution deals are made for some films and not for others. Similarly, Allen J. Scott (2004) provides an interesting investigation into the functioning of Hollywood’s distribution arm. However, he does not go any further than mapping the structure of theatrical distribution, a limitation he himself acknowledges when he points out that theatrical distribution is not where profits are to be made and that, as far back as 2000, domestic sales and rentals of VHS brought in three times the revenue of domestic box office returns (Scott, 2004, p. 143). Thus, any consideration of theatrical distribution alone inevitably provides only a partial understanding of how formal film distribution functions.

Other work that considers distribution in detail makes an understandable pairing between distribution and marketing. For instance, in Global Hollywood 2 (2004), Miller et al. suggest that, before the 1948 Paramount Decree, the whole of the film business was vertically integrated and thus single organisations could own companies dealing with all aspects of production, distribution and exhibition. However, after this ruling, ‘distribution became the locus of industry power, and film marketing began its inexorable move to the centre of industry activities’ (Miller et al., 2001, p. 147). The authors go on to suggest that, while distribution personnel are largely invisible, their activities are nonetheless extremely significant. Similarly, Tino Balio’s section on film distribution within his book Hollywood in the New Millennium (2013) also focuses primarily on film marketing and, like the aforementioned publications, his work highlights the importance of distribution within the Hollywood film industry, pointing out that it is distribution (and not production) that actually forms ‘the principal business of the Hollywood majors’ (Balio, 2013, p. 66). Significantly, Balio notes that, within the Hollywood system, marketing is a consideration throughout the production process and so, as has already been suggested, marketing is not something that is applied to the final film product but is ultimately something that shapes the film during the production process (Balio, 2013, p. 70).

Again, while Balio’s work gives interesting insights into how distribution works and the central place it holds within the film industry, such work sheds little light on the process of acquisition itself. It does not enlighten us regarding why certain films manage to get distribution deals and others do not. There are some non-academic publications that make inroads to this effect, but these tend to be written by single individuals within the film industry; so, while being useful and informative, there is still a lack of extensive academic research into this issue. One such non-academic publication that contains particularly detailed information on film distribution is Jason E. Squire’s edited collection The Movie Business Book (2006) that contains chapters on both theatrical distribution by Daniel R. Fellman, the President of Warner Bros. Pictures Domestic Distribution, and Bob Berney, the President of Newmarket Films, the distribution arm of Newmarket Capital Group. These chapters, in a similar manner to the aforementioned industry studies, tend to explain the detail of the distribution process and never examine why certain films are selected for release while others are overlooked. As such, I would contest that the matter of how films are selected for distribution has not been put under the scrutiny that other gatekeeping activities have been.¹

Furthermore, previous studies of film distribution have had a perhaps understandable, but nonetheless limited, tendency to focus on how Hollywood distributes its own products. Indeed, Dina Iordanova suggests:

It is about time to acknowledge the new realities. A quarter of the world’s most commercially successful films come from sources other than Hollywood; many are more profitable and bring higher per screen averages than the studio blockbusters. Not only are many more peripheral films being produced, many more of them are also seen and appreciated, due to the vitality of growing alternative channels of distribution.

(Iordanova, 2010, p. 24)

Thus, we must cease looking at the channels of distribution as discrete entities if we want to get a complete picture of how film circulates transnationally. Iordanova suggests that ‘in most cases the focus has been on a single distribution channel that, for the purpose of convenience, is taken out of its complex context’ (Iordanova, 2010, p. 25). One notable exception to this tendency is Janet Harbord’s Film Cultures (2002). Here Harbord provides a detailed examination of the sites of distribution, exhibition, official competition and marketing across which, she argues, the value of a film is created. However, although Harbord avoids the pitfalls that concern Iordanova, her work does not consider those methods of dissemination that exist outside the formal and sanctioned sites of the film industry (in other words, piracy) (2002, p. 2). Work that does attempt to bridge such a boundary is the 2002 book chapter by Janet Wasko that discusses traditional distribution, piracy and new forms of digital distribution. Here Wasko makes the point that, even though the technology is changing rapidly, it is still unclear what the future of digital exhibition and distribution will be (2002, p. 195). As Chapter 3 of this very volume will attest, it would seem that the situation is still somewhat uncertain well over a decade later.

The work of Ramon Lobato on ‘subcinema’ might be seen to be the most apt response to Iordanova’s request thus far. According to Lobato:

Subcinema is a loose way of conceptualizing certain forms of film culture, which are incompatible with more familiar paradigms (Hollywood cinema, art cinema, national cinema, independent cinema, etc.). It is not a bullet-proof taxonomic category, but rather an attempt to think seriously about kinds of film production and consumption, which don’t show up on other maps.

(2007, p. 117)

Lobato’s discussion is intriguing but, as the author admits, it only breaks the surface of the area and anticipates further lines of enquiry into those channels of distribution that are critically ignored (2007, p. 119). As such, Lobato’s more recent work Shadow Economies of Cinema (2012) pushes this project further by providing a more detailed study of film dissemination. Perhaps the most valuable contribution that this publication has made to the study of distribution is in terms of the lexicon of this particular area of interest. Lobato proposes the terms ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ when referring to a range of different dissemination practices, thus avoiding the celebratory or pejorative connotations of binary opposites like legal/illegal. Therefore, by providing new terminology and examining the range and scope of informal film distribution practices, in what Perren describes as a ‘distribution-from-below’ approach (Perren, 2013, p. 169), Lobato has moved this area of study away from examining discrete channels of (primarily formal) distribution and towards an exploration of the ‘complete context’ of distribution that Iordanova called for earlier.

Indeed, Lobato is not alone is expanding the remit of this growing area of interest. The work of Julia Knight and Peter Thomas (2012) and Erika Balsom (2014) has done much to counter the dominance of discussions of Hollywood within the academic study of film distribution by considering the distribution and exhibition of artists’ cinema. However, their work, while immensely valuable and rich, primarily focuses on the distribution of relatively specialist filmmakers. As such, there is still space for further work that explores the kinds of independent distribution that take place in the space between Hollywood blockbusters and artists’ films.

The development of new technologies of dissemination has precipitated a change in the way that film distribution has been examined so that ‘much of the recent discussion has been on the likely impact of new technologies on the circulation of content’ (Perren, 2013, p. 167). In this area it has been Stuart Cunningham, in his work with both Dina Iordanova (2012) and Jon Silver (2013), who has potentially made the most significant contribution to the study of how distribution is being ‘disrupted’ by recent developments. This work will be covered in more detail in Chapter 3, but at this point it is worth noting that, while the traditional distribution landscape discussed within the current chapter has undoubtedly been influenced by recent technological changes, I would urge caution to those who might describe these developments as a ‘revolution’. Indeed, while the media landscape is always shifting to a certain extent, there are many who wish to protect their interests by enabling the continuation of the status quo.

Furthermore, we must not get distracted by the spectacle of the ‘new’ and thus fall back into the trap of considering only discrete entities of media distribution. Focusing on the digital nature of distribution can be limited because it ignores the fact that there is invariably a physical manifestation of distribution. As Perren notes, ‘notwithstanding industry rhetoric about the decline of physical media (e.g., DVDs, CDs), distribution practices have substantive material consequences’ (2013, p. 170), as data must be transmitted via cables or stored within vast server farms.

While the study of distribution is far from underserved, there is nonetheless a lack of communication between studies in this growing area (Crisp and Gonring, 2015; Perren, 2013, p. 165). As the above discussion attests, film distribution is receiving more academic attention in recent years, but work in this area has hitherto focused on examining the structure of the industry rather than scrutinising how individuals negotiate and navigate their position within that structure. As such, the case studies of distribution practices that are presented throughout this book go some way to addressing this imbalance in the field.

However, while the focus on Hollywood within distribution studies has undoubtedly been pervasive, this is potentially an inescapable bias given the power that the major Hollywood studios wield. As such, this sector of the film industry cannot and should not be ignored. Indeed, my suggestion is that, while it has been hitherto afforded an undue emphasis, the practices of Hollywood should rightly still be part of more holistic investigations of how films circulate worldwide. This is in no small part because, arguably, the structure of Hollywood (where all aspects of film production, distribution and exhibition come under the control of a few major transnational corporations) allows them to secure and perpetuate their dominance of the global film industry (Miller et al., 2004, p. 116). The following section will discuss this structure in order to illuminate how it allows the Hollywood studios to maintain their pre-eminence over the film industry more generally.

Hourglasses and windows: How Hollywood dominates the film industry

Distributors are largely invisible to the general film-going public despite the fact that they exert a powerful influence on the films that audiences actually get to see. Harold Vogel observes that ‘unlike in marketing for laundry soaps or sodas or cigarettes, a distributor’s brand name doesn’t matter much (with the possible exception of Disney); no one goes specifically to see a film distributed by Fox instead of, say, Paramount’ (2006, p. 141). That is not to say that audiences have never heard of many of the major distributors like Sony Pictures Releasing and Buena Vista International (UK distributors for Disney) but, if the major Hollywood studios are renowned for anything, it is as producers of motion pictures rather than as their distributors. However, it is actually within the distribution sector of the film industry where money is to be made and where power can be leveraged.

As Vogel has suggested:

Ownership of entertainment distribution capability is like ownership of a toll road or bridge. No matter how good or bad the software product (i.e. movie, record, book, magazine, TV show, or whatever) is, it must pass over or cross through a distribution pipeline in order to reach the consumer. And like at any toll road or bridge that cannot be circumvented, the distributor is a local monopolist who can extract a relatively high fee for the use of his facility.

(Vogel cited in Balio, 2013, p. 11)

Thus, I would suggest that the metaphor of an ‘hourglass effect’ (Deuze, 2007, p. 211), which has been used in relation to employment within the cultural industries,² might also be transposed to the nature of the Hollywood model of film distribution. That is, while a great number of film production companies exist (albeit housed within or contracted by larger conglomerates), a small number of distributors reside at the centre of the hourglass controlling distribution to audience at the bottom of the structure. For instance, within the domestic market, usually considered to be the US a...