Bombing at the box office

No film intends to fail but some local productions find it tough going at the box office. What are we doing wrong and how can we do better?

The first event of Script to Screen’s 2010 Writer’s Room series (held in association with the NZ Writers’ Guild) hosted a frank discussion about film makers, distributors, exhibitors and viewers – vital ingredients in a recipe for box office success … or failure.

* * *

MC Vanessa Alexander (writer/director Magik and Rose; producer Being Eve) invited Andrew Cornwell (general manager of Sony Pictures NZ), theatrical distributor Michael Eldred and Graeme Mason (CEO of the NZ Film Commission and former Head of Media Projects for Channel Four UK) to help determine why some of our films are ‘bombing at the box office.’

The discussion began by defining distribution and exhibition and how an understanding of these processes can be important for box office success. The distributor is responsible for the ‘P and A’ – creating prints of the film and all advertising associated with release. The exhibitor bears total costs for screening the films in cinemas.

Contrary to popular belief, the ‘take’ a distributor receives from a film is relatively small – and getting less every year. “On a million dollar local film, the government gets one-ninth, 40% goes back to the distributor and the exhibitor takes 60%,” said Graeme.

Every distributor aims to recoup their costs. On a million dollar film, these costs could run as high as $300,000 and it can sometimes be a gamble deciding how many prints of a film to produce. “There’s always another train coming along,” said Graeme. “If your film isn’t screening that well, the number of cinemas showing the film will decrease so you don’t want to make too many prints.”

Michael pointed out that the competition for cinema screen real estate is intense and expensive. “Over 300 films are released in New Zealand every year. That’s a lot of noise in the papers and over the internet for the movies and what’s coming up.” Tighter profit margins have caused a shift in exhibition focus to mainstream and slightly art house films. Others may go straight to Festivals or DVD.

An understanding of distribution is important for writers. “If you have an original idea that you want to make into a feature film, you must think about who will go to see it and whether you have characters that an audience is happy to spend 90 or so minutes with,” said Graeme. “It’s surprising the number of writers who don’t.  It can become very personal – a writer must be able to explain why their story should be shared, why it will interest others, who will pay money to see their story onscreen and what cinema will show it – is it a Bridgeway or a Queen Street film? Films are very expensive. If you can’t think who would want to see it and where they would go to do so, then your idea may not work.”

Even Hollywood can make mistakes. “Sometimes a film comes out of Hollywood and we ask, ‘who the hell would want to see this?’”

The majority of films coming into New Zealand appeal to a market and have a distributor. Graeme said to secure funding from the NZFC, projects must have: a distributor who will guarantee to release the film and provide funds up front and a market validation clearly describing the audience who will pay to see the finished product.

But many films are made before distribution is secured. “When looking at those projects,” said Michael, “the credits of the people involved are important. Also, I want to know who the audience is and have a clear idea of where the film will play. This is how I approach the release.”

Writers should research distributors’ track records, know what they have released before and whether a project will fit their profiles. “I don’t need to release any New Zealand movies because it’s not in my brief,” said Andrew, “but I do because I enjoy it. I don’t look for a particular genre – I look for something a bit different that can earn back its P and A. It’s really about whether the film will work with the audience.”

The ‘P and A’ budget for a film can be determined by how successful a distributor thinks the film could be and the type and extent of advertising needed to reach the target audience. The film maker may have little say in the matter.

“All film makers want lots of money spent on their films,” said Andrew. “Generally speaking art house films are more publicity driven.”  Michael said that the ‘release pattern’ of a film can affect the cost of advertising. “The release pattern is the number of theatres throughout the country you play in. A wide release requires a high level of advertising and this raises all the associated costs.”

Vanessa asked the panel if there were any commonalities for projects that do get the go ahead and again, a key message was, “Give the audience something to relate to.” Graeme used Priscilla Queen of the Desert as an example.

“We knew it had the energy to succeed. Some films come through that are just worth doing – we go with our gut feelings.” However, he admitted that sometimes films are turned down, only to become future successes at the box office. “I turned down Shine three times.”

Andrew said that he has often been involved with projects from the very beginning. “A good collaborative process gives a good end outcome,” he said, “but the film business is not the funeral business. There are a lot of variables and even those who’ve been in the business for a long time can make mistakes.”

And working with untried film makers? Andrew said that has never put him off and Michael said, “Everyone has to make that first film. Some are very successful. I look at the whole package – producer, writer, idea.”

NZ film makers seem to have an enduring love affair with drama even though these films may be ill-fated at the box office.  “If you’re making a very intense drama,” said Graeme, “you’re up against films from all over the world so it has to be very good and resonate with someone here who will choose to see your film rather than one from overseas. Once again it’s down to the audience. We’ll take ‘depressing’ and ‘bleak’ – but you’re raising the stakes for yourself and you’re going to struggle. You have to get it 100% right – otherwise it’s a loss.”

Andrew had this to say about NZ drama: “If it’s going to play well in Blenheim, then you’ve probably got a success. Whale Rider is a great example. Good story, good characters and it played well in all the provinces. Drama will always be limited and the budget will be too but it’s not a deal breaker. It comes down to how much it will cost and what you’ll get out of it.”

Vanessa asked the panel if failure or success of our films at the box office was related more to audience or genre.

“The reality is that we are not making films for the number one cinema going audience – the 16-24 year olds,” said Graeme. Andrew felt our drama tended to work better with older audiences but there are exceptions. “Scarfies was pitched to an older audience but worked its way down the food chain and became popular with younger age groups. Who goes to multiplexes? People under 30. Who goes to see NZ films? People over 30.” Graeme pointed out that bleak drama is being made by young film makers who would not pay to go see such films themselves.

Making films that are culturally relevant to NZ is important to our industry but panelists agreed that such projects cannot be viewed as charity cases. They must measure up well from a commercial point of view. “If I can sell cultural authenticity and engender some kind of feeling in the New Zealand public, I’ll support the project,” said Michael.

Graeme said the NZFC ensures the films it supports have cultural relevance to New Zealand. “If you’re going to tell a story that is culturally relevant and it works, there should be an audience for it. So we support the cultural aspect but it should lead to an audience who will share your interest in it.”

On the subject of genre, our local scriptwriters love horror but New Zealanders do not flock to the box office to watch scary movies.  Many NZ horror movies enjoy success overseas.  “If genre films have the element of a new idea or twist,” said Michael, “they can do well. In District 9, we were cheering for the aliens.”

However, with genre there is some tough competition internationally. “You’re coming up against Hollywood,” said Graeme, “so you have to be smart and you have to have money. That audience is so used to seeing great special effects because that’s what Hollywood can produce.”

But all is not lost with genre films. Rather than trying to compete with overseas blockbusters, Graeme offered this advice: “It’s all about having a unique voice and telling a story that people want to see.”

Vanessa opened up the discussion to the floor and the first question was quick to come: “In the last 18 months, why have so many NZ films bombed at the box office?”

Graeme was challenged to explain why some films just didn’t work. “A variety of reasons. The market place was crowded. Some films may have done better in a different climate. Others worked on paper but didn’t turn out the way people had hoped even though they had real talent behind them. Going forward, I want to ensure there is enough feedback out there so we don’t make the same mistakes. In 2010-11, we will be looking more stringently at the audience. If a film maker cannot tell us who will pay to watch the film, we may not fund the project.”

Andrew pointed out that some of the lower box office films had done very well. “We’re getting some great successes on low budgets and some bombs on big budgets. It’s the film business. It’s a batting average and my focus is to make sure it’s good and that the amount of public money going in returns well at the box office.”

“We don’t set ourselves up to fail,” said Graeme. “It’s easy to have brilliant hindsight. We need to think harder about why these films didn’t work and learn the lessons.”

More information

For more information on Script to Screen or to find out about upcoming events visit: www.script-to-screen.co.nz