Just for fun, I'm submitting here a text I wrote last year which is a motto I work in this industry by. There are some exceptions (that confirm the rule) about which I'll tell you in my next post. Enjoy:

There’s No Such Thing as a Bad Movie…

…Only Wrong Audiences.

Alberto Llera, Summer 2006

Since very early in my career, and even before I had the rare privilege of working in the film industry, I realized there are tastes for any film ever produced. Even the most distasteful, badly filmed, overacted pieces of crap you’ve ever seen may find their niche audiences. The problem is not aesthetical –any instrument of human expression deserves to have an output–, but economical –is it worth investing time and money to make and distribute it?

If you sit down with a piece of paper, a pail of paint and a brush, and start doodling what you hopefuly wish resembles a seascape but everyone else agrees is just a splatter of paint, hey, no harm done. All you did was waste a piece of paper, some paint and your time in order to satisfy your need to express yourself (and even then maybe your dear old mother will think it’s “kinda nice” and put it on the door of her fridge, after all, she doesn’t see very well without her glasses these days).

However, when dealing with an investment of millions of dollars, then we’re talking about a whole different ball game. In my opinion, you shouldn’t waste precious money in an individual film that no one, or maybe just a very small audience, will “get”. And I’m not suggesting to limit free speech and artistic expression –I’m a huge, fierce advocate of the people’s right to say and do whatever they want… as long as they respect other people’s right of not listening or watching what the first ones dish out–, I’m referring to the strange belief of certain individuals who think “someone” has the obligation of investing money to support their personal flights of fancy.

If you are a multimillionaire and you decide to use your own money to produce something, in this case a film, well, that’s your prerogative (and even then, I find it ethically reprehensive in a world where people die of famine and disease). On the other hand if, as a modern Howard Hughes (please note I’m not even remotely attempting to criticize the late Mr. Hughes cinematic taste), you decide to invest your money for your own enjoyment in movies of dubious artistic value that nevertheless find their audience and make a profit, which in order pays for the salaries of those involved in its production, distribution and exhibition, THEN by all means, your own personal piece of cinematic crap is worth it!

Am I too cynical? Maybe. Am I suggesting that the only films worth making are those capable of turning up a profit because there are people interested in them, even if their apparent artistic value is close to nil? Well… yes. But don’t take me wrong. I think the so called “art” films SHOULD be made (I will not even attempt here to define what these are, as art should be analyzed in a whole different context... you know what I mean), but I also believe that if a film turns out to be a huge commercial success it doesn’t mean it lacks artistic value.

What I’m suggesting is that all producers, in the broadest cinematic sense of the word, have the ethical responsibility to evaluate if their very personal views and skills deserve to be invested in. Does anyone care what they think? If the answer is “maybe not”, then do they have the skills necessary to make what they think relevant to anyone? If the answer again is “maybe not”, then the artistic importance and economic viability of the proposed film should be reevaluated.

Which, after all this somewhat obvious rant, brings me to proposing this simple equation:

Film’s Value = Amount of People Potentially Interested in it.

As distributors, we don’t have much say about what movies get filmed and what films don’t. Our input sometimes is only limited to rejecting a film we predict, based on previous experience, will lose money in our territories (and even then it will still get its chance to be viewed in special venues such as thematic film festivals, home video releases, pay TV or even the so-called “cultural” open TV). For example, a movie such as “Barbershop”, which made excellent business in the United States, had such a localized African-American theme that we knew almost certainly was going to tank in Mexico based on the performance of previous similar films. Again, the people who made that decision at the time were not criticizing the film’s artistic value or in any way censoring its message, but acting upon it’s potential to regain an investment when released in a market with little or no interest in it. Was there an audience for “Barbershop” in Mexico? Maybe. Would that audience represent a sufficient income to justify the investment of time and money required for its theatrical release in our market? Probably not.

We are a not a charity or an experimental artists’ support fund. We are a business, and as such our responsibility to the people who make a living from it, is to analyze the potential value of a film and act upon this analysis.

Summing up:

+ People who think-up and make films are economically and ethically responsible for delivering a product that should appeal to enough people in order to justify its cost, small or large as it may be (or scale the project up or down accordingly).

+ As distributors, we have to evaluate these films and, after accepting to work with them, do whatever is in our hands to reach and generate awareness among audiences who might be interested in them.

Are we pirate-like mercenaries selling whatever falls in our hands if we believe we can make a profit? Arrgh! maybe, matey, but it’s very difficult to misguide an audience and, even if this were possible at first, the fog machine loses effect as soon as the Word of Mouth spills out. Overpromises often result in underperformances (“Snakes on a Plane” is an excellent example of what happens when you over-hype an average film).

A sellable film –commercial, exploitation, art, drama, romance, comedy, horror, etc. – is a film that reflects something about the people who made it and at the same time manages to connect with an audience, large or small, at some level. By doing so, this film automatically gains an inherent value and deserves exposure to that particular audience.

Which takes me back to my basic premise: there is no such thing as a bad film, just wrong audiences. Our job is to evaluate and make it economically viable to make those particular audiences aware of the existence of such a film and give them the chance to be exposed to it.

As distributors, we are not responsible for the artistic value of a film, only of how effectively its existence is communicated. Some moviegoers will be misguided by the spillover  and go see a film which was probably not meant for them, but as they say, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time…

Anyway, I choose to believe so, it helps me sleep better at night.