Why TEX MONTANA WILL SURVIVE! Is Important — Whether You Like It or Not
Creating film distribution in which fans support filmmakers and piracy isn’t an issue
That filmmakers can have movies available in stores, on-demand, and on streaming services but still not make a living from them is difficult to parse. This is not necessarily a new problem, but the explosion of independent films and new distribution channels over the last several years has made it more visible.
The release of Jeremy Gardner’s THE BATTERY is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Following a highly successful festival run, the film has since been released on Blu-ray/DVD by Scream Factory and is now available through a number of VOD (video on-demand) services.
However, Gardner and his collaborators at O. Hanna Films have seen very little financial reward for their work.
A New Kind of Film Distribution?
In a piece for Moviemaker, Gardner explains what happened after the release of THE BATTERY: “We went back to work. All of us. Back to our day jobs.” Cinematographer Christian Stella said for Filmmaker Magazine, “We don’t know a single filmmaker who makes their living solely off of their films.”
A note on the front page of THE BATTERY’s official site reads: “Last month, we sold only 1 legitimate copy of the film through this site, while we had a minimum of 500 torrent downloads. We want nothing more than to get out there and make more films.” There’s a Donate button for anyone who would like to help Gardner and O. Hanna Films do just that.
In addition, O. Hanna recently ran a Kickstarter campaign to release their latest film entirely for free through a Creative Commons license and help give them a chance “to step away from our day jobs long enough to get back to doing what we truly love.”
In short, this campaign was an attempt to create a new kind of film distribution in which fans can directly support the filmmakers and piracy is not an issue — because the film is already free to anyone who wants to download it. Fortunately, it was a success.
Whether O. Hanna attempt to replicate this model for the release of their next project may be an indication of whether or not this model of self-distribution is sustainable. But for now, they have at least proven it is possible to rally supporters to release a film for free and distribute it online with no restrictions.
Like THE BATTERY, the film in question is a low-budget feature with a minimal cast. In fact, for the vast majority of its running time, there’s only one character on the screen.
Tex Montana: Just a Guy, Not Very Smart, Dicking Around
TEX MONTANA WILL SURVIVE! is both the name of the film and the fictional reality series the title character (played by THE BATTERY’s Jeremy’s Gardner) has starred in for eight seasons.
As the film opens, Tex learns the reality series has been canceled after it has been revealed it is staged. In response, Tex decides to prove he’s “the real deal” by surviving in a vast forest completely alone for 30 days without any assistance or camera crew.
Tex takes a camera with him to document his ordeal in a last-ditch attempt to clear his name and save the show. The main problem with his plan becomes painfully obvious almost immediately once Tex sets up a camera and starts rolling: he clearly has no idea what he’s doing.
In most of THE BATTERY, Gardner and co-star Adam Cronheim were the only two actors with speaking roles. This time, Gardner is nearly the only person onscreen at all. Shot quickly and for a fraction of his previous film’s (already tiny) budget, TEX MONTANA WILL SURVIVE! is a showcase for Gardner’s comedic and improvisational talents.
The character of Tex is deeply unlikeable, an egomaniacal jackass who takes every opportunity to threaten the livelihood of his editor Amanda by directly addressing her through the camera. The viewer watches Tex fumble around trying to build a shelter, freeze in the terrifying darkness of the forest at night, and run through multiple takes of commentary he usually ruins by peppering them with language not suitable for broadcast.
Throughout, we learn more about Tex and his relationship with Amanda, and what exactly might drive him to take on this ridiculous challenge.
This is very much a case in which how viewers feel about the film’s trailer (embedded above) is a good indication about how they will feel about the movie as a whole: in other words, what you see there is pretty much exactly what you get. At its core, it’s a movie about a guy, who is not very smart, dicking around in the forest for about 90 minutes.
This makes TEX MONTANA the perfect test case for a fan-based crowdfunding campaign. This is a film that will be of interest to fans of Gardner’s work both behind and in front of the camera in THE BATTERY. People who enjoyed that film and wanted to see more of him get their wish and then some here.
But a single-character “found footage” comedy is almost certainly going to be a tough sell to anyone unfamiliar with Gardner and his previous work. Convincing producers to put money up for this concept would have been exceptionally difficult, so O. Hanna shot it on their own dime some time ago.
This meant the Kickstarter campaign was not meant to raise funds to produce the movie, because aside from assembling final credits, it was already completed. What Gardner and O. Hanna really bought with the success of the campaign was twofold: exposure and time.
Using TEX MONTANA as a test case on Kickstarter was, intentionally or not, a good way to get a fair amount of free advertising for the film. Genre fan sites would have covered the film regardless — thanks to the acclaim many of them gave THE BATTERY. But without the campaign and the promise of a new approach to distribution, it seems unlikely Entertainment Weekly would have posted this story about it.
This wider exposure likely brought in at least some new fans curious to check out the previous film and help release the new one. And in the case of a crowdfunding campaign like this, every little bit of support would have a direct impact on its success. And the more eyes on their site, the better the chance that some fans will be willing to hit that “Donate” button on the front page.
More importantly, the money earned from the campaign will help the people behind O. Hanna take time to focus on their next film project. Having a financial buffer will allow Gardner and his team to plan ahead to take some time off work at their day jobs instead of having to finagle exhausting weekend or evening shoots around everyone’s schedules.
A Sign of Things to Come for Micro-Budget Filmmaking?
Independent filmmakers Christopher Mihm and Henrique Couto have also successfully taken this approach to funding feature projects on a smaller scale. But the TEX MONTANA campaign may be a sign of things to come for filmmakers working in the space between low- and micro-budget production.
Of course, it is entirely possible that O. Hanna’s success may have been an anomaly. Proving this is a workable concept will require not only the successful distribution of TEX MONTANA, but also going forward, other filmmakers will need to make the same gamble. That might be a much tougher sell than getting fans to help raise funds to release an already-completed film for free, because it requires a huge risk on the filmmaker’s part.
Again, TEX MONTANA was produced for a comparatively tiny budget, so the financial risk to O. Hanna was relatively small. Other filmmakers hoping to attempt a similar approach will have to either come up with a similarly small-scale project or be very confident in their talents and their fan base.
As of this writing, the only other film crowdfunding project attempting anything like O. Hanna’s is an Indiegogo campaign attempting to raise half a million dollars to produce a porn parody of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, which will be released online for free if it is produced.
Why this project is struggling to raise funds despite its being “the sequel” to a hugely successful film is probably best left to its another discussion, including the question of what exactly “success” looks like for a modern porn feature. But director Axel Braun’s aggressive response to piracy of his work may be a contributing factor.
Regarding piracy, Jeremy Gardner has said O. Hanna engaged with people who pirated THE BATTERY in a unique way: they actively sought out torrent sites and commented on popular torrents of the film to ask anyone who enjoyed it to make a donation on their site. The result was surprising: “We made more money on donations from ‘pirates’ than we did selling the film on our own website.”
It’s no secret the film industry, like the music business before it, has been flailing in its attempts to deal with piracy and figure out what the future of distribution looks like. And it may be that independent filmmakers will need to be the ones to find a way forward.
It is unlikely that O. Hanna has stumbled upon a magic bullet that will best make distribution work for both consumers and filmmakers. But their willingness to find a meaningful way of dealing with the problem of piracy and the resulting engagement with fans — “pirates” and otherwise — will likely be an important reference point in figuring out how independent film distribution will work in the future.
