So many successful people in this industry, it seems, support themselves with studio work and studio content while they pursue passion projects - this tends to be especially true of actors, but also seems to be true for directors like Steven Soderbergh.  What is it about this model that seems so appealing?

Almost all of these creative talents began their careers in Hollywood working to get some kind of break onto the screen.  For most of them, these breaks come in the form of a modestly budgeted independent film.  For Soderbergh, it was Sex, Lies, and Videotape.  For most actors today, that same experience comes through films like Juno or No Country for Old Men, and all of a sudden the studios are interested.

That part's as it should be - a studio works for shareholders.  Their job is to make stock prices go up, and they do it by making investments that show the likelihood of returns with minimal risk.  Someone with a track record of making much ado with little dinero shows the stockholders the value they need to buy more stock.  Someone with no creative or financial history of success can rattle the stockholders when too much is invested in them.  It's true, those stock holders don't know squat about making movies, but they bought studio stock to take advantage of an industry they like, but don't feel qualified to gauge, at a minimum of risk.  Those who want more risk and better rewards finance individual independent films.

So it's no mystery why the studios are only interested in already established up-and-comers.  Buy low, sell high.  On the other hand, the devotion of creative talent to this system is perplexing.  So many folks are looking for that indie break so they can get into the game, right?  Basically, they already know they'll be working in the independent fringe, at least at first.  They also know it's likely to take a lot of time and effort to make that happen.

To me, what makes the most sense is to create those independent opportunities in a way that's self-sustaining, rather than try and use it as a launchpad.  Believe me, the effect is the same.  If Josh Brolin had produced his No Country, owned equity in it, and was making money hand over fist right now, the studios would still be courting him for his next roll, because he's still "buy low, sell high" material.  In fact, the only difference would be that Josh Brolin would have the money and the creative clout to launch another project instead - if it struck his fancy - which means the studios need to offer him better material and better money if they want his help.  If that's not what he winds up wanting, he can invest the money in a house or soemthing.  Either way, he gets the studio offers.  It's not greedy to be successful in competition with the studios, guys.

Don't get me wrong.  I love the idea of accepting studio money.  I've written several screenplays - I'm writing one now - that I am firmly convicted will make them money, meet their demands, and give them the kind of quality films both studio producers and studio shareholders can take pride and comfort in.  What I will not do is make my model for success dependant on studio participation.

Our notion that people need permission to make or distribute films, even on a grand scale, is part of our industry's deepest self-misconceptions.  Our industry's recent history is replete with huge independent films and indie distribution successes, from Star Wars and T2 to Passion of the Christ.   

Shareholders invest in studios because they want movie money, and they want someone to point the finger at if they don't get it.  Bureaucracy is about sharing responsibility in theory, but it tends to work more as a network for passing responsibility around.

If a studio gives a new guy a break and it doesn't work out, who's likely to take the blame for those shareholders?  Those people already part of the responsibility network, plugged in and working it, or the new guy with the big idea?

At the same time, that filmmaker's "break in" is likely to be independent anyhow.  The so-called "gatekeepers" of the industry are likely to tell the hard-working up and comer to go out and make something on his or her own, first.  "Show me what you can do," they'll say.  That gatekeeper's right, but he's not being frank with himself.  What he means is "Show the shareholders what you can do.  Reduce their risk with proof of performance, and we'll talk."  Probably, that executive sees themselves as more creative and cooler than all that, but accounability to the shareholders is the basic truth of corporate responsibility.

The filmmaker will take the risk, one way or another. 

Why not do the legwork that allows that filmmaker to stand and build on that film (and that risk) financially, and let the studios come to them?  Is it the health coverage?

Come on guys, it's time for change.  Work hard, and work smart too.