Reflections on the revolutionary distribution of 'Purple Violet'

by Eric Kohn

In the fall of 2007, filmmaker and Hollywood actor Edward Burns made history by choosing to premiere his romantic comedy Purple Violets on iTunes. “I don’t know that this is the model for the indie filmmaker who makes a movie with a cast of unknowns,” Burns told the New York Times at the time, referring to the fact that his cast includes Patrick Wilson and Selma Blair. Nevertheless, the release marked a historical moment in the progress of digital distribution, and its results are revealing. On the eve of the movie's DVD release through the Weinstein Company, Purple Violets producer Aaron Lubin got on the phone to talk about their experience with Apple and the fallout of the deal. The film hits shelves on August 26, and remains available at Apple's iTunes store.

Purple Violets hit iTunes in November 2007.

Was it worth it to take this alternative distribution approach?

Absolutely. It was on the high end of expectations of what we were hoping for when we first decided to do it. It was a great experience. Our investor and producing partner has already seen a considerable amount of money, and he got it pretty quickly after it was exhibited. In this day and age, it's difficult to see money. With Apple and iTunes, it's a fairly transparent process. When you see how many times the movie has been downloaded, very quickly you know how people have been participating.

Can you elaborate on how much money it made?

I can't, because iTunes is very concerned with not releasing that information, but a pretty sizable number of people have purchased it. I can tell you that in the first three or four weeks, it was the second-most downloaded title after Pirates of the Caribbean, out of 600 titles at that point. This was in November, so for several weeks, we were right up there with huge, mainstream studio movies. Five or six weeks later, we fell out of the top ten, but it's still being downloaded.

Do you think it made more money than it would have if it premiered in theaters?

It did make more money for us than it would have had in theaters. It probably made as much income as a decent art house release. If you do the math, I would say that we made more money than the average art house release from a studio. More people saw it than they would have in theaters if Fox Searchlight or Focus Features had released it.

Are you recommending this method to other filmmakers as a viable form of distribution?

Yes. Mark Gill laid out everything we've been seeing for awhile [in a recent speech]. The marketplace is very limited and dwindling. It's extremely challenging for these smaller movies to get any release, much less a successful one. The only film of the last four months branded a success is The Visitor, and that's grossed eight million dollars. That means filmmakers need to find other ways to get their films to audiences and not think of theatrical as the only option. You're competing with cable television, videogames, and the internet. Those forms of competition didn't exist twenty years ago, when independent film was a much more viable alternative. It's only going to become a more familiar way for people to consume movies.

Were you originally interested in this distribution venue exclusively as an experiment, or did you expect it to succeed from the outset?

I think our instinct was that, in order for the film to be successful, we would have to do something different with the release. We had a couple different ideas. We loved the brand of iTunes and Apple, and they were very excited about this idea. We thought that passion and excitement could go a long way, and they were terrific to work with. It really wasn't much of a gamble, because just by doing it, we created attention for ourselves. Creating attention for a small independent film gets a lot more people seeing it than if you just slip into a couple art house cinemas in New York and L.A. That was self-validating, and the results were only affirming it. It's not so much the buying of the film, it's the spending of the money to get people aware of it. That's what's difficult for a lot of these companies. They can't spend millions of dollars to market stuff.

Did you run into any rights issues when figuring out the deal with Apple?

There were some rights issues. We solved them all, but it took a little longer than I would have liked. Ideally, we would have released the DVD last year. Because we were dealing with a new business model, the definition of how prices were set became very important. When you're dealing with new models, people are very hesitant to do something wrong. Our legal team at Cinetic was very careful to make sure it was constructed in a way that worked for them and worked for Apple.

Is it possible that could have influenced their new media division, Cinetic Rights Management?

They certainly learned on the job. I don't know if it was helpful to them, but I'm assuming it was. I'm sure it was helpful for their lawyers. They were learning it as they went. A lot of it had to do with how the price changes, and how that impacts both formats: If iTunes lowers the price to a dollar, does that completely ruin the Weinstein Company's interest, the DVD rights? Ideally, these things could all be done through one company, so there's some synergy. We had to work all that out. There was a system of checks and balances in place where everybody felt safe.

Were precedents set at Apple after figuring out the terms of this deal?

They don't really change their business model, so other people have to adapt to them. We went back and forth. I should mention that New Video was the aggregator and liaison between us and Apple. They have an interest so they don't get exposed. Between lawyers and legal terminology it can get complicated, and slow things down. Fortunately, we were able to settle it all.

Are you aware now of other good venues for digital distribution?

I think the best thing, which people are doing, is day-and-date releasing. In this day and age, it would be great if it were all compressed into one window where you get one shot at that customer, and you can present their options in multiple formats: DVD, theatrical, on-demand, cable. You're going to get the most bang for your buck. It may not make a lot of money, but it might [affect] the person who doesn't go to the theater. To me, that's the ideal scenario for an independent film. I still think there's a different issue if you're talking about a huge summer blockbuster. I hope that never goes away.