Indie Filmmakers Zing NYT Critic: We Promise to Stop Making Movies

Kentucker Audley

Debate heats up as indie filmmakers make satirical promise to “stop making films”

In early January, as she and the rest of the film world prepared to descend upon Park City for the annual rites of Sundance, the New York Times critic Manohla Dargis issued a plea to the powers that be in the industry: Stop making — and buying — so many new films.

“It’s hard to see how American independent cinema can sustain itself if it continues to focus on consumption rather than curation,” Dargis wrote. “There are, bluntly, too many lackluster, forgettable and just plain bad movies pouring into theaters, distracting the entertainment media and, more important, overwhelming the audience.”

The remarks sparked a debate in the film community — especially amongst independent filmmakers — and, ultimately, set the stage for a piece that appeared on, by Beanie Barnes. In the article, Barnes argued that the glut of cheaply made movies was a drag on the economy. By increasing the supply without growing the demand, the article suggested, the filmmakers were stealing tax credits from the state and labor from crew members, creating a sort of cinematic Wal-Mart.

A solution, the author suggests, is providing more training for filmmakers and “updated vertical integration models inspired by the old studio system.”

Also readSan Francisco Film Society Head Noah Cowan Wants to Bring Silicon Valley, Indie Film Together

The question begged by these proposals and pleas, of course, is just who would have to sacrifice their creative ambitions for the abstract “good” of an amorphous, impersonal industry? On Monday, Kentucker Audley, an actor and filmmaker (“Sun Don’t Shine,” “Ain’t Them Bodies Saints”) who runs NoBudge Films, started a campaign to make that very point.

In a “petition” at, Audley satirically urges fellow filmmakers to stop making movies altogether, so that there are far fewer choices for viewers and critics. Those that should agree to silence themselves include anyone making “anything small scale, anything personal, of course all mumblecore, and most other work with developing visions,” the petition says, adding, “In other words, if you don’t already have your artistry perfected, please sign up.”

So far, 163 filmmakers have “promised” to stop making movies, with sarcastic signing statements such as, “Giving up my hopes and dreams was the easy part. The hard part is deciding whether I should watch ‘The Lego Movie’ or ‘Pompeii’ first.”

Also readFocus Features Shake-Up Means Another Arthouse Indie Bites the Dust

TheWrap traded e-mails with Audley about the petition and his take on the shifting landscape of film and distribution.

Have those “glut of indie movies” op-eds been a big topic of conversation amongst your filmmaker friends? What have people been saying about it?

There’s been a fair amount of discussion, particularly the Times piece. Of course, they both get at a fundamental issue with the state of indie film. And on one hand it’s a pretty dire situation so I appreciate their thoughts to identify the problem. But I think they both miss the other hand, which is the freedom indie filmmakers now operate from, and how this ultimately makes for a healthier, more fertile indie scene. I suspect the “out of focus,” “just plain bad” films Dargis is referring to, are the ones made for $100,000 or less, perhaps the ones who raised their budgets through crowdfunding which operate completely independently and, for better or worse, provide an actual alternative to market based film formulas.

Beside the fact, these filmmakers most often aren’t in the industry to begin, but exist below it and are making films as a hobby. Is her point that hobbyist filmmakers are diluting the pool for professionals, in her case study, using Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a bright spot? If so, it’s a condescending and elitist point of view, and as indie film was built as a raw alternative to smooth studio fare, inconsistent with the spirit of indie filmmaking. Beside the fact, I would rather see an out of focus, undeveloped feature film with unknown actors than watch Joseph Gordon-Levitt for the 20th time.

Also readWhy VOD’s Popularity Is a Mixed Blessing for Indie Film

Do you find, as a filmmaker, that a glut of indies makes it difficult to break through at all (despite your petition)? Or do you think technology has only made it easier?

Of course, there is some level of truth behind the satire. It is prohibitively difficult to make a living as an indie filmmaker. But it’s not something to begrudge, it’s just something you have to work around.

Movies aren’t really competing with movies anymore. Movies are competing with YouTube channels or Vine videos or games on our smartphones. (Are we supposed to advocate for less Vine videos or smartphone games?) We watch films to be entertained and when we have more entertainment options, movies take up a smaller piece of the pie. Entertainment is all around us, trekking to a theater seems like a wasted step.

A night of YouTube videos is just as entertaining, probably more so, and you don’t have to go anywhere. This doesn’t seem to bode well for the future of indie cinema, but I think indie filmmakers can produce their films within this new paradigm of how and when people find entertainment. An interactive web series on YouTube made by an indie filmmaker could be more interesting than a indie film with a big movie star that hits theaters.

When did you decide to launch the petition?

I’ve been thinking about where the Times piece left me, and then the Salon article took it to the next level. Taken together, they seem to call for less indie films, and as an indie filmmaker, that’s a direct challenge to me. But the way I make indie films is personal and I think they fail to give that approach its fair due. That’s still the main reason people make indie films. Not for the money or the fame, but to express an idea or tell a story or document personalities. That’s the roots of indie filmmaking so it becomes a little insulting when the pursuit which you’ve devoted your life is put on trial.

Also readIndependent Spirit Awards 2014: The Nominees (Photos)

But the petition is meant to be funny, not confrontational. I respect both authors and they both bring up valid points. I think the Salon piece is constructive if viewed in terms of the economic picture. I’m not an economist and I still think of indie film as an art, so we just have a different starting point.

Do you think those essays are just a sign of snobby gatekeepers being upset by people banging on the doors, and if so, is there some validity to the statements despite the snobbishness?

I don’t buy the argument that the more movies people make, the lower quality they are. I think the opposite is closer to the truth. With experience comes competence. The glut of movies are often being made by the same people over and over, and if they can find a way to improve their filmmaking, perhaps they can eventually cut through the noise, and if not, there’s no harm in them toiling away in obscurity. If crews or actors want to be involved without getting paid a fair amount, that’s their prerogative. It’s hard to hear journalists argue against this, as if indie film wasn’t supposed to be an alternative to the financial workings of major studios.

Young filmmakers who came of age in the modern age of digital technology learned to make films for no money, and they’ve been learning on the job, and that’s invaluable training. Sitting in a room trying to convince a table of industry experts that your project is viable is not for everybody. That shouldn’t be a pre-requisite for being allowed to make a movie. Of course, that’s often how the larger indie industry functions but there needs to be room outside of that. The health of the indie industry depends on young filmmakers figuring it out on their own, not being molded by industry veterans to fit in with the existing model.

Also readSundance Sales Started With a Bang in ‘Whiplash,’ But Never Scaled Lofty Heights

Would you have suggestions about how to better both opportunity and distribution channels?

People shouldn’t stop making art because there’s no demand for it, and distributors shouldn’t stop buying movies and releasing them in theaters. If the New York Times doesn’t think a film is worthy of being reviewed, they shouldn’t review it, and if they have to – based on the economics of running their business – then so be it. It’s overstepping that Dargis would call for distributors to buy less films. And it’s beside the point for [Beanie Barnes] to view art in terms of supply and demand.

For me, it’s all about trusted curation channels. I think we’re lacking for those in the current climate but I think they will naturally develop and mature.

But I’m not worried about the future of indie film. The development of crowdfunding is one of the best things that’s ever happened to independent films. Gatekeepers with financial motivation are not ideal in artistic pursuits. Being able to raise a budget without giving up creative control is a vital development, one more promising than the financial concerns are discouraging.

  • A.L. Hern

    Samuel Johnson once said that nobody but a blockhead ever writes, except for money. To say that ANYBODY makes films for the sake of “art” is to sail blissfully on a sea of naivete from which there is no safe harbor.

    • colcam

      There are a lot of movies made for the “art” of it– the ones without plot, that stumble, rumble, and bobble through their running time, the ones even the film festivals have issues trying to find a berth for.

      I have seen far, far too many “art and only art” movies.

      Far, far, FAR too many.

      • Out in the Street Films

        Dude, add “mumble” to your rant and you’ve got a cool rap song, yo.

    • Louis Panda

      Samuel Johnson was an asshole.

    • Out in the Street Films

      You just wrote, blockhead.

  • Out in the Street Films

    Similar to most movie critics, indie filmmakers should give up and become critics like they did.

    But I would agree that most indie films “curated” by festivals are indeed cheap, “personal, ….mumblecore [whatever the hell that is], and ….with developing visions….” That is the definition of a niche audience. Ergo, the problem presents itself. Developing indie filmmakers play to the same niche mumblecore tiny audience of film festival goers who masturbatorily celebrate each other [though stated much more eloquently by The Wolf in Pulp Fiction].

    And must we be subject to the distribution of “developing” filmmakers. There is some merit in the argument that there are too many of something that no one wants.

    The solution: branch out dudes. Make something original. Duh.

  • J.D.A.

    Stop indie crap! More gems like Lone Ranger (225m), After Earth (135m), RIPD (130m) — oh yes, and Oldboy remakes – at least those are Moo-vies – and cost only as much as some third world country’s state budgets … spoiled wasp film critics (ps. how about some affirmative action in film criticism? It’s even worse than in hollywood).

  • Scott B

    As a film programmer I am delighted by the uptick in truly independent film production. While it does mean sifting through a lot of poorly crafted and ill-advised attempts at filmmaking, it also results in a lot of discoveries. No one starts out a fully formed filmmaker. Even the greatest have had to go through periods of trial and error. Often you see very mediocre works (from a craft perspective) that have “something” to them and you look forward to what that person may do next if they keep at it. Even the worst films teach me something. Granted that may just be “what not to do”, but it’s still something. I think it’s an exciting time for filmmaking and in most cases, the cream will rise to the top. Curation is definitely key and that’s true of almost any art (or really any thing), especially in the internet age. We have a glut of information/product and people need to be pointed to what’s worth engaging with. That is the major function of a critic’s job and it is a festival programmer’s job, regardless of how many films are in the market. A distributor’s job is less about curation than it is to make money with whatever product they can. So if there is more viable product, they will buy more. It’s not as if we had decades of flawless studio films or studio-purchased “indies” prior to the dam break that put filmmaking in the hands of more people. Studios make bad films too, and they waste millions of dollars and countless other resources doing it and then they spend millions more trying to get us to believe they are worth our dollars to see. I’d much rather see someone spend a few weeks of their life doing something they love with their friends, out of passion and commitment to sharing their vision with the outside world. I’d also much rather give them my $12 even if their focus is a little soft, if their film has true heart.