I am still unsure of whether to marker my film as an independent film vs that of a mainstream film. Typically, independent films have reputations of being too low-budget and too disadvantaged to be considered worthy. The newly released independent films have had to combat this criticism; for example, social media accounts (including Youtube comments) are reflecting both a rejection and acceptance of the independent film trend.
Yet, even with the subject matter I have, I can still transform into a "mainstream" film. A lot of the subject matter and artistic vision that is usually characterized by independent films has moved into the mainstream field, with recent movies like La La Land, Moonlight, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and Blue is the Warmest Color. This new trend is also accompanied by "mainstream" actors that have popularized the movie, with the case of Dev Patel and Nicole Kidman in Lion. To "mainstream" my film, there needs to be a component that is appealing to the public itself. The controversial subject matter is bound to attract individuals with any belief system; however, I am still looking for that one component. Maybe the actor? Or the location of Miami? Or the artistic content it spans?
It would be much easier to market this as an independent film, yes. The film would have already found a niche and been upraised by the younger, more socially aware groups; yet, the message of this film is broader than a mere niche. I can target this to a younger, Generation Z audience, yet I am hesitant about the independent film niche. It would not get as much reception or it wouldn't be taken as seriously: it would just be that "Arab movie" as opposed to that "Arab movie that everyone is talking about".
No comments:
Post a Comment