The Five-Year Checkmate: The IFC's Myopic Deal with Blockbuster

The Independent Film Channel has made a name for itself as a premiere source of independent and foreign films for more than a decade. Its film wing, IFC Films, has distributed movies as diverse and critically acclaimed as Transamerica and The Wind that Shakes the Barley. As such, when indie film enthusiasts learn that IFC Films has decided to release a movie under its label, there is usually quite a bit of support. After all, the movies in question are actively looking for any distribution, be it from IFC or from the independent wings of major companies such as Fox Searchlight or Sony Pictures Classics. However, due to a deal made this weekend, support for IFC film may become drastically muted.

IFC signed a two-year deal with Blockbuster, allowing Blockbuster a surprising amount of exclusivity on IFC titles. Upon a film's release, Blockbuster will have exclusive distribution for 60 days, in every possible format -- digital distribution, rentals, purchase, etc. After these sixty days, the movie can be purchased outside of a blockbuster store, but remains exclusive for the purpose of rentals for three years. Considering the time frame of the agreement, this means that some films distributed by IFC Films will not be available for rent outside of Blockbuster until the year 2013. This, of course, is an incredible deal for Blockbuster, since the company has now secured sole rental rights from a highly respected film distributor. This simultaneously strikes a blow to online competitors such as Netflix and brick-and-mortar rental chains such as Hollywood Video. Unfortunately, the deal is exceedingly short-sighted for IFC Films.

For the filmmaker, wide audience accessibility is a must. While Blockbuster may tout the fact that it has 6,000 retail stores and a vast online distribution service, these numbers do not paint the whole story. Blockbuster only plans to open an "indie films" section in 1,000 of their 6,000 stores, and it is unknown if the other 5,000 will have any IFC films at all. And though they are an incredibly large and recognizable name, they are not the only rental source in the United States, and are certainly not the majority. Audiences that subscribe to Netflix or prefer to go to small business movie rental stores (both staples of independent film enthusiasts) now have no access to the rental of these films, unless they go out of their way to go to a local Blockbuster, subscribe to their online service, or wait for an entire three years. In film terms, that time frame is an eternity. Crash, for instance, is three years old. Had that film not been widely available on video, it's unlikely that audiences would start to watch the film now, had it been suddenly unleashed on the indifferent public. Simply put, this decision will likely result in a large reduction in the potential audience for a film.

In addition, Blockbuster follows a philosophy of "family-friendly" that can amount to purchasing "edited" versions of films or refusing to stock the films outright. For independent filmmakers, this amounts to little more than an absolute betrayal. Many times, objectionable content is instrumental in the proving of a film's point. (Ang Lee's Lust, Caution is a prime

example) It can also be the used as a method of censoring a film. This Film is Not Yet Rated, a documentary distributed by IFC, is a strong critique of the MPAA, the association that gives films their ratings. The very same MPAA rated the film NC-17, citing "objectionable content," and since Blockbuster does not carry films above an R rating, this means that the film is unavailable at any Blockbuster. Unfortunately, with this agreement between IFC and Blockbuster, if this film were to be released today, it would not see rental distribution for an entire three years.

What does this deal mean, then, for parties other than Blockbuster? For IFC Films, it can only mean a loss of respect. The film company will most likely be seen as a way to reach a drastically limited audience, and one that may force the filmmaker to limit what Blockbuster would deem "objectionable content." Through most other outlets, filmmakers will have access to powerhouse rental sites like Netflix and GreenCine, whose audiences easily comprise a large part of the rental population. What's more, both Netflix and GreenCine stock NC-17 films, which is a great bonus to the independent filmmaker. Given the alternatives, IFC films will look, at best, like a losing option.

For consumers, this deal is equally unfortunate. Moviegoers may have to wait years to rent films they want to see. And while it is true that they can buy the films and see them, that is of limited comfort. This is effectively limits the consumer to a single rental company or a $20 purchase. In the end, chances are that the consumers will end up pirating the films they want to see, rather than going through the far more inconvenient route of changing from the rental service they are comfortable with. This, of course, would be a setback for all parties, Blockbuster, IFC Films and filmmakers alike, though, when faced with a three-year wait or a $20 'rental,' piracy may, ironically, be the most convenient option for the consumer.