District 9 by Neill Blomkamp is arguably one of the most exciting
new films to come along in some time. A film that feels fresh, original
and unique - traits that are all too often lacking in mainstream
cinema. The Los Angeles Times described it as a "thoughtful sci-fi standout in a season characterized by big, dumb studio tent-pole movies"
Now certainly with a budget of $30 million District 9 can hardly
be called 'low-budget' but in comparison to Hollywood standards for
what they problematically term a 'High Concept' sci-fi special-fx
film, its extraordinarily efficient.
What is most significant
is that whilst the film cost $30m to make, it has thus far made back
$163m - more than 5 times it's budget (and thats before it hit's DVD
where it's reasonable to assume it's going to do very well). 5x return
on investment is good by any standards and it's this 'return' that is
the only thing major Hollywood studios are really concerned with.
So
let us then compare that to the hideous abomination that Michael bay
inflicted on the world with Transformers 2: Revenge of the fallen. Cost
$200m to make and has thus far taken in about $800m. Sounds impressive
- but thats only 4x it's investment in return. The key factor is not
that Transformers 2 made more money but that the proportional 'return'
is comparable. Importantly however the Risk is not. Massive budget
Hollywood monstrosities demand monstrous risk of failure. A $30m film
demands not nearly as much risk.
Now, one might argue that an
un-tested director making a 'low' budget alien film, in South Africa,
with a cast of unknowns was a risk and that Transformers 2 was no risk
at all because it was a known commodity franchise, regardless of budget.
Yet
that doesnt really hold up. take for example Speed Racer; it cost $120m
to make and made back just $44m. huge flop, lost heaps of money and yet
investors could have been forgiven for thinking Speed Racer was
risk-free. Speed Racer is a hugely popular brand, with the right
demographic, had comic-book hipness and was being made by the Matrix
guys...!
Likewise Speed2, big budget sequel to hugely popular
film with same star lead as original - Cost $110m and returned just
$150m. Didnt loose money but $110m is a lot to risk up front to make
less than 50% return.
Batman and Robin should have been a
slam-dunk with that cast and the uber Batman Brand but it cost $125m
and made back just $140m.
Meet Joe Black had 2 huge stars
in Pitt and Hopkins, should have been a safe bet but it cost $90m and
made back just $180m. Doubled its money but not even close to the
percentage return of District 9.
What does this tell us?
Well perhaps a few things....
First
is that first-rate visual effects and 'high-concept' filmmaking is not
the sole domain of huge-budget filmmaking. You simply dont need
mega-bucks to do mega effects. The $30m District 9 is one example, the
inspiring Moon by Duncan Jones - made for just $5m and before
its even gone into main release and DVD its made back more than $7m
is another.
The
second is that low to mid-range budget films can and SHOULD be arguing
their value NOT only on artistic integrity but on pure economics. It
strikes me that for too long indie filmmakers have defined their value
purely in self-indulgent artistic parameters instead of exerting their
viability as products of strong economic credentials.
Low-budget
filmmakers should Not be knocking on investors doors with pleas for
artistic patronage and good-will but rather banging down their doors
with a powerful argument for moderate risk, high return investment.
Blockbuster Hollywood studio films are simply not good investment
massive outlay with massive risk. Mid and low budget films are a much
better investment. They can take advantage of multi-platform delivery
and should be able to compete head on financially on a
dollar-for-dollar basis.
What Directors have to do to prove this
and make it a reality is get Pragmatically Smart. Not self indulgent
with artistic whimsy but proactively savvy in making films that are
dynamic, viable, adventurous but also with a strong eye for the
audience and being, heaven forbid, popular.
If theres one
director who intrinsically understands this its Peter Jackson. Lord Of
The Rings may have been mega budget cinema (though it was
proportionally far less than it would have cost had it been made in the
US by and American) but all the films Jackson had made to that point
where low-budget but profitable and viable films that always gave good
return to investors. In this regard I was quite taken with Peter
Jacksons funny but astute comments to Niell Blomkamp in regard to
District 9:
I told him that was what he could do that
Transformers and GI Joe couldnt. We could be grungy and dirty and rude
and violent. Thats how he could compete with movies like that. Once
you have 100 million dollars, you naturally get more conservative and
you think about the demographic and such. We were able to have total
freedom.
---
Below is the original short film that was the basis for District 9
