Why a monster hit did not make giant profits
Film buffs who have crammed into Berlin for this year's International Film Festival will have been shown some 288 productions by the time the 10-day event ends thisSunday.
The festival is the latest in a series of annual worldwide celebrations of so-called “indie” films, produced outside the machinery of the big Hollywood studios and with relatively low budgets. But amid the champagne and canapés, there is a sobering story to be told about one of last year's big successes and how higher distribution and promotion costs can make life even harder for indies.
Monster, which portrayed the life of American female serial killer Aileen Wuornos, earned Charlize Theron the festival's coveted Silberner B?r (Silver Bear) for best actress. She went on to win an Oscar in the same category and, last weekend, was among those nominated for a similar award at the Bafta ceremony in the UK.
That critical acclaim helped boost the film's success at the global box office. It is estimated to have generated nearly 20 times in revenues the $8m (￡4.2m) it originally cost to produce. Yet more than a year on from its release in US cinemas and more than six months since the first video and DVD copies were shipped to countries around the world, Monster has so far failed to yield a profit for its producers.
One of those producers is VIP Medien, the German film fund that provided the majority of Monster's budget. Last autumn, it sent out a jubilant release to its investors, proudly stating that the film had already brought “revenues of $92m” with a “production budget of only $8m”.
By the end of January, Donald Kushner, president of Beverly Hills-based Junction Films and co-producer of the film, estimated that Monster had grossed “over $150m worldwide”.
The main reasons why the producers' profits still amount to zero lie in areas of the film industry that are rarely discussed. Most film pundits and other observers tend to compare box office revenues with a film's production budget, neglecting to account for the distribution and promotion costs.
Monster generated a respectable $34.5m at the US box office, according to Nielsen EDI, the cinema research body. However, because it is riskier for cinemas to show small, niche films instead of mainstream blockbusters, cinema chains tend to keep a larger proportion of the ticket price.
Although the figures have yet to be audited, according to Mark Damon, another co-producer on the film, this amounted to about 62 per cent for Monster compared to the typical 45 per cent to 55 per cent. As a result, more than $20m of the box-office revenues stayed with cinema operators. Some 18 per cent was kept by Newmarket, the film's distributor, leaving behind about $10m.
Then there was the cost of the release campaign, which included posters and television commercials as well as the cost of making celluloid copies and transporting them to different venues.
The film industry categorises these costs as “print and advertising”, or P&A.
Usually, the P&A cost is advanced by distributors. But, in the case of Monster, the producers struggled to find a partner willing to distribute the film. “We were discouraged after showing it to all the studios,” recalls Mr Damon.
Newmarket finally agreed to release the film, but only under the condition that the producers funded the campaign and logistics themselves. The first instalment for the P&A was advanced by VIP, the German film fund, and Media 8 Entertainment, the listed Canadian production house with a strong presence in Los Angeles. Mr Damon was running Media 8 Entertainment at the time of the production and release of Monster. A second instalment was made by DEJ Entertainment, a DVD and video rights business that hoped a strong cinema campaign would benefit home video sales. In total, the P&A cost came to about $12m, pushing Monster into a loss of $1.26m at the US box office.
These days, most films do not recoup their costs at cinemas. Instead, they rely on video and TV sales. Monster made it to the top position of the US video ranking, according to Rentrak, a US market research company. Andreas Schmid, managing director of VIP, says 2.7m units of DVDs and videos had been delivered to the US market by the end of the year.
But, before seeing any profit from DVD and video sales, the producers first have to pay back DEJ for its contribution to the cinema campaign. There are also fees involved in video and TV exploitation deals. For example, the agent dealing with the sale of territorial or medium-specific rights charged a commission of 14 per cent for the sale in any regions outside the US and English-speaking Canada.
Mr Schmid remains convinced that Monster “will definitely bring a profit”. But he concedes that it might take “until June” for the first allocation.
电影票房成功不等于赚钱
大批涌向柏林参加为期10天的国际电影节影迷们到本周日闭幕时，将有机会欣赏288部影片。
这次电影节是全球各地每年举办的“独立”电影庆祝活动中最近的一次盛会。所谓“独立”电影，是指好莱坞大型制片厂以外、通常以较低成本摄制的影片。但是，在尽享香槟酒和开胃薄饼的同时，得让人们了解一个发人深省的故事，从去年大获全胜的一部影片的经历可以看到，高涨的发行费和宣传费如何使独立电影困难重重。
这部电影名为《女魔头》(Monster)，讲述的是美国女连环杀手艾莲?乌尔诺斯(Aileen Wuornos)的生平，查理兹?塞隆(Charlize Theron)凭该片获得柏林电影节最佳女主角银熊奖。她后来更赢得了奥斯卡最佳女主角奖；上周末，她又获英国电影电视艺术学院奖(Bafta)提名。
来自影评界的赞誉推动该片取得了全球票房成功。据估计，该片的收益相当于最初制作成本800万美元（420万英镑）的将近20倍。不过，虽然影片在美国电影院已上映一年多，而且在全世界各国发行录像和光碟版也已超过半年，但它迄今为止尚未为影片制作人带来利润。
作为制作人之一的VIP Medien是德国的电影基金会，它为《女魔头》提供了大部分制作费用。去年秋天，该基金会曾向投资者报喜，并自豪地宣布这部“制作成本仅为800万美元”的影片已带来“9200万美元的收入。”
据位于洛杉矶贝弗利山(Beverly Hills)的电影公司Junction Films总裁兼共同制片人唐纳德?库什纳(Donald Kushner)估计，截止今年1月底，《女魔头》的“全球总收入超过1.5亿美元。”
制片商收益仍然为零的主要原因可从于电影业鲜有提及的方面找到。大部分电影界专家及其他观察家往往将票房收入与制作预算作比较，而没有考虑发行和宣传推广成本。
根据票房研究机构尼尔森EDI公司(Nielsen EDI)提供的数据，《女魔头》在美国的票房收入非常可观，达到3450万美元。然而，由于上映小制作的特殊题材影片比主流大片风险更大，因此连锁影院常常要拿走票价的大部分收入。
虽然上述数据未经审计，但根据另一制片人马克?戴蒙(Mark Damon)的估计，就《女魔头》而言，电影院拿走部分占62%左右，而通常情况为45%至55%。因此，超过2000万美元的票房收入留在了电影院经营者手中。影片发行商Newmarket拿走大约18%，剩下的仅占1000万美元左右。
此外，还有发行活动的费用，这包括海报、电视广告以及制作胶片并运往不同地点等成本。
电影界将这些费用归为“印刷及广告”成本，简称P&A。
通常，P&A成本由发行商预先垫付。但是，在宣传《女魔头》过程中，制片人很难找到愿意发行影片的合作伙伴。戴蒙回忆道：“我们到所有的片商那里推介，但结果都令人沮丧。”
最后，Newmarket公司同意发行影片，但条件是制片人自行负担宣传及后勤支持的费用。首笔P&A费用由德国电影基金会VIP和加拿大上市制片公司媒体与娱乐(Media 8 Entertainment)预付，后者在洛杉矶颇有影响力。戴蒙在《女魔头》制作和发行时担任媒体与娱乐公司负责人。第二笔费用由经营光碟和录像版权业务的DEJ娱乐公司(DEJ Entertainment)垫付，该公司希望借助电影宣传攻势带动家庭录像带的销售。由于P&A总成本达到约1200万美元，导致《女魔头》的美国票房亏损达126万美元。
如今，大多数电影借以回本的已不再是电影院票房收入，而是录像和电视销售。根据美国市场调研公司Rentrak的资料，《女魔头》在美国录像排名中名列前茅。VIP董事总经理安德烈亚斯?施密德(Andreas Schmid)表示，截止去年底为止，投入美国市场的光碟和录像带高达270万张。
但是，从光碟和录像带的销售获利之前，制片商首先得偿还DEJ公司为电影宣传所垫付的费用。另外还有利用录像和电视渠道播放电影的提成费。例如，在美国和加拿大英语区之外的地区，负责特定地区或媒体版权销售的代理商就提取14%的佣金。
但施密德仍然坚信《女魔头》“肯定会赢利。”不过他承认，第一笔进项可能要等到“6月份”才到手。
