As noted in this Hollywood Reporter article, "there is not a single studio-backed movie among the more than 200 films screening at this year’s Berlinale (Feb. 12-22). And its not just Berlin," with the exception of the latest Mission Impossible premieringat Cannes, which is not a festival but a market. Why? This brief article really only notes the issue, without much speculation, aside from studios being nervous "about having reviews come out very long before the launch of a film, [and not] being able to control the way those films are launched."
If you follow my posts, I very explicitly tell you that major studios have historically never done festivals where they don't have some in with programmers for their particular film. The point being to ensure an advantageous time slot and venue, and at least some assurance of good word of mouth by the festival itself. This is part of the business calculus of doing festivals, and smart independents have followed suit. Only a rank amateur leaves the initial marketing of a multi-million dollar product to chance, or thinks anyone else does. So for studios, this is not new.
Tellingly, the HR writer observes that "...for many a studio-backed auteur... the festival route remains the go-to." This is important for one's understanding of what might actually be happening. "Studio-backed" in my books actually means studio film - I think that's an obvious truth. And the studios have historically co-opted "independent" producers during the periods where audiences prefer independent films. This is one of those periods.
IMO, the studios are removing their product from a less predictable marketing environment to the more controlled P&A world for simple control of message. It's a smart move. And of course they have a lock on theatrical distribution, so that ensures word of mouth in an environment they have more control over. By leaving the so-called "independent" films that they themselves are backing to the risky festival environment, they get the best of both worlds. As studio-backed films, these "independents" get preferential festival placement over actual independent films, and the marketing buzz that comes with that. Where one of them tanks at the festivals, the studios can say that it wasn't their film, but an independent film - they did this in the 70s, the 80s, and 90's cycles to argue that people should prefer studios titles because, well, they're just better.
What are your thoughts?
Article:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/why-are-studios-ghos...
2 people like this
I think it's a smart move for studios too, Shadow Dragu-Mihai, and I hope indie films without studio backing get more exposure at the festivals.