I’ve got an idea for how to change independent film and kick-start the kind of serious attention that video-on-demand seems to require.

And it all stems from the fact that Tom Hanks has been on my mind of late, though I’m not sure why.

Maybe it was the reports that Hanks was – then wasn’t – going to play Elwood P. Dowd in a Steven Spielberg remake of “Harvey.” (Personally, I think Woody Harrelson would be ideal casting. Or perhaps Bill Murray.) Or maybe it was the fact that I saw Hanks presenting an award on the Golden Globes.

In either case, it struck me: Tom Hanks doesn’t really need to act to make a living anymore. So why not use his clout to give someone else a leg up?

He’s won two Oscars and has been a star for 20 years. Now in his mid-50s, he’s at an age where it’s hard to find roles worthy of his talent in an industry that seems myopically focused on the scary talents of Taylor Lautner and Megan Fox. Plus he’s got a solid producing career in gear, whether it’s a series like “Big Love” or miniseries like “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific” or films such as “Where the Wild Things Are” and “Charlie Wilson’s War.”

Hanks is always a welcome screen presence: sly, knowing, funny, thoughtful, heartfelt. But does he really need the money Hollywood would offer him for yet another Dan Brown adaptation or some other big-budget extravaganza that’s long on effects and short on brains? (Though I’ll admit I’m interested in seeing him in Barry Levinson’s rumored adaptation of Larry McMurtry’s “Boone’s Lick”).

But seriously: I mean, I know those Dan Brown movies make a lot of money but how many $20-million paydays does anyone need after that first one (unless you’re a fruitcake spendthrift like Nicolas Cage)? Particularly when the films you’re making only serve to pad out the resume without really enhancing it? Or when the movies themselves gross less domestically than your salary?

I had the same thought when I saw “Edge of Darkness,” Mel Gibson’s first starring role in several years; not a bad movie, but while it did solid business, it didn’t kill at the box office like “Dear John” (not being judgmental there; “Edge of Darkness” was a far superior film). And while I didn’t see “Extraordinary Measures,” I obviously was aware of it and the fact that it stars Harrison Ford. And that it bombed, big time.

Again, these are actors who have cashed their share of multimillion-dollar paychecks. But they’re all, in a sense, past their prime or their peak – at least as defined by the salad days when they were young enough, new enough and box-office-hot enough to lure an audience on the strength of their names alone.

All of them obviously still have an urge or need to work as actors. So here’s my suggestion:

Why don’t these stars of the 1980s and 1990s announce that, henceforth, they are retiring from the blockbuster game? They’ll only do small independent films that interest them and will willingly be paid scale and a small piece of the back end, rather than their seven or eight-figure quote. They will make themselves available to first-time and rising directors who have a vision but lack the funds to make their low-budget films.

While I’m getting all pie-in-the-sky here, why not take it a step farther? These will all be films made specifically for video-on-demand, but will play the festival circuit to generate buzz and will be offered to critics for review. These stars will then do publicity for the films – say, via a satellite press day – with whoever is interested. They’ll also hit the late-night talk show circuit to promote the films, thus lending legitimacy and creating a want-to-see factor for video-on-demand.

As a result, the term “straight to video” will lose its onus and become synonymous with quality, inexpensive films. The ripple effect will include an increase in the homes equipped to receive/purchase these films, which are significantly cheaper than the cost of visiting a multiplex or even an arthouse.

This ignores, of course, the usual trend: that the unknown and rising directors will have a hit with their personal vision – and then gladly sell their souls to collect a major payday to make a comic-book movie. (Hello? “(500) Days of Summer” guy?)

Well, so be it – the Sundance slush pile is full of unseen films by talented filmmakers dying for a chance to make a movie that actually reaches an audience.

The odds of any of this happening, of course, are miniscule. Until now, independent film has been seen as a little like slumming for major stars. Bruce Willis might pop up in something small like “Fast Food Nation” or “Lucky Number Slevin” for giggles. Hanks might appear briefly in something like “The Great Buck White” – but his production company was also behind the film (which starred his son, Colin).

More often, it’s only stars who have reached a certain level of desperation, who will grasp at a role in a small, low-paying independent film as a possible way out of the doldrums – a way to get some indy cred, but only to relaunch as a studio commodity. And the idea is that, with luck, the film will get noticed and vault them back to the big-time.

Consider Burt Reynolds and “Boogie Nights” as a cautionary tale of a squandered opportunity of this model. The jury’s still out on what Mickey Rourke will make of the second chance he got with ”The Wrestler.”

While it feels like the kind of idea that, say, Sundance should embrace, it’s doubtful that the corporate structure surrounding  Gibson or Willis or Hanks would actually buy into the notion of stars turning their careers into pro bono support for the art of cinema. It’s about as likely as James Cameron announcing he’s going to make a movie using a Flip camera and the Dogma rules. Or a studio saying, Gee, instead of plunking down $150 million to make another mindless Michael Bay film, we’ll donate it to the National Endowment for the Arts (thus doubling its annual budget for the entire country.)

It’s apparent that the whole VOD model is changing rapidly and that it will be the savior (and wave of the future) for independent film. Yet it needs something to change public perception – and it requires willingness on the part of critics to give it the kind of attention that will attract audiences.

Injecting a little star power – using stars who, having done everything else, just want to give something back to the art form – might be the ticket.

Yeah, that’ll happen.

 Print This Post