The Gay Movie Revolution

Meanwhile, consumer expectations in general have changed. The classic movie The Sound of Music was released in 1965, but because of a limited number of film prints, it didn’t reach theaters in some cities until 1967.

That release strategy would never fly in 2008, in an era of Blackberries and 24-hour news cycles. “People want it now,” Colichman says. “So we have to give it to them now.”

In 2005, director Steven Soderbergh released a non-gay movie, Bubble, simultaneously in theaters, on TV, and on DVD. “Name any big-title movie that's come out in the last four years,” Soderbergh told Wired at the time. “It has been available in all formats on the day of release. It's called piracy. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings(2001), Ocean's Eleven (2001), and Ocean's Twelve(2004) — I saw them on [New York’s] Canal Street on opening day. Simultaneous release is already here. We're just trying to gain control over it.”

Bubble was not a success, but it’s unclear what, if anything, the simultaneous release had to do with that. “It will be a while before bigger movies go out in all formats,” Soderbergh said in 2005. “In five years, everything will.”

Some gay movies are skipping the theatrical release altogether. Filmmakers originally tried to get Bernard and Doris (2007), about Doris Duke’s relationship with her gay butler, into theaters, but it ended up premiering on HBO. “I did hope that it would be released theatrically because that’s my conditioning, that’s my snobbery or whatever,” star Susan Sarandon told AfterElton.com in a recent interview. “They convinced me that they would be able to get it to more people this way.”

“I think that you are dealing with banks, and bankers are all of a banker mentality, and that isn’t always the best person to pitch something that’s a little outside the box,” Sarandon says.

Sarandon & Ralph Fiennes in a scene from Bernard & Doris

The Golden Age of Gay Cinema at Last?

But even if immediate access to gay film is clearly something that consumers want, does a simultaneous theater, DVD, and TV release make financial sense? Does it cannibalize income from the theatrical release? The nation’s theater chains think it does, which is why they all refused to show Bubble; Soderbergh’s experiment was only possible because the film’s producers, 2929 Productions, also own the 215-screen Landmark Theater chain.

The economics are very different for a gay independent film. “Here’s the reality of gay independent cinema,“ Colichman says. “They play in only a handful of markets. They leave so many people out. A typical [mainstream] movie plays on 3500 screens, but gay films don’t get nearly that many theaters.”

In fact, a popular gay indie film will often play on less than 40 screens. Shelter is playing in only 12 markets.

Colichman also produced Gods and Monsters (1998), an independent film with gay content that won rave reviews and ended up landing Oscar nominations for its screenwriter and several of its stars. “Gods and Monsters was about as successful as an independent movie gets,” Colichman says of the film, which grossed just over $6 million in theaters. Shelter may not reach that level of critical success, but Colichman says it may very well reach Gods and Monster‘s total viewership.

Brendan Fraser & Sir Ian McKellen in Gods & Monsters

According to Hernandez, more people are seeing gay movies than ever before, even if profitability is still proving elusive. “Gay movies are more accessible,” he said. “Netflix has a great selection. Or here! or Logo.”

“Today, too many media executives regard their businesses as zero-sum games,” Daniel Gross wrote in a 2006 Slate article. “And in their worldview, every person who watches a new movie on television for free is one less person who [will] pay $9.50 to see it in a theater. But that's clearly not the case. As with many other products — airline flights, clothes, hotels — different consumers seeking different experiences will come in at different price points. Just because content is available for free doesn't mean somebody won't pay for it.”

And according to Guthman, “Distributors are starting to realize they’re not cannibalizing their proceeds.”

In addition, new technology is promising to make the release of films cheaper and far more efficient. A single feature film print costs about $1200; a 3000-theater movie release, therefore, can cost $3.6 million just for the prints alone. Releasing a film on DVD, meanwhile, means printing up DVDs and plastic boxes, and shrink-wrapping them all, then physically shipping the product to stores and warehouses. But the market for any individual film may be vastly greater than original estimates projected, or vastly smaller, which means waste and inefficiency.

By contrast, with new digital technology, content is stored electronically on computers, and the movie can be copied and distributed to the more than 5000 American movie screens already equipped with a digital projection system. When the film is released to individual consumers, it can be delivered directly to computers or iPods — to exactly as many, or as few, people who want the product.

It can all be done practically instantaneously, for a fraction of the former distribution costs.

“Traditionally, whoever owned the ability to duplicate the product, the master rights holder, had the money and the power,” says George Bamber. “This new technology and the accessibility of these new forms of distribution will bring money more to the creator and not the master rights holder. In 100 years, this moment in time will be seen as defining as the invention of the Guttenberg printing press.”

All in all, he says, it’s a very good thing not just for gay filmmakers, but for gay film in general.

Next Page! A "gay" Juno? And the future is now!