At film festivals like Sundance, Toronto, and Telluride, a small movie is shown in a packed theater at 9 a.m., and by noon, bidding wars start. A few years ago, those wars were between traditional distributors like A24 and Neon. Most of the time, though, the loudest voice these days comes from a company that sells AirPods.
A change that’s been happening behind the scenes at Apple TV+ in the world of independent films is easy to miss if you’re only paying attention to the big deals. When it first came out in 2019, the streaming service had a small but pricey library of high-end TV shows with famous actors and clear goals. It didn’t have a plan for movies that could compete with the studios, though. It looks like that has changed.
When it comes to movies, the platform has never quite followed Netflix’s lead. Netflix floods the zone by buying a lot of content, putting it out all the time, and then moving on. Apple, on the other hand, tends to be slower, more deliberate, and almost curatorial. “Killers of the Flower Moon” was probably the clearest sign of intent: it was a Scorsese movie that opened in a lot of theaters and later came to Apple TV+. It wasn’t a mistake. It was a sentence.
Getting prestige items isn’t the only thing that’s interesting, though. The less loud moves. Apple has been getting involved with projects earlier in the development process, before they have a following or a buzz around them. Apple’s checkbook is a real change for independent filmmakers who have long relied on a fragile ecosystem of grants, festival circuits, and distribution deals that rarely pay what they should. Not everyone is sure what to make of it.
In some parts of the world of independent film, people think that the relationship is complicated. Filmmakers can get resources that they wouldn’t be able to get otherwise. The Apple logo, marketing budgets, and distribution around the world. But movies that come out on a paid service can get lost in the feed, even if they are good. The theatrical window, which used to show if a movie “mattered” culturally, gets shorter or goes away completely. It’s still not clear if that trade-off is good for the art form or hurts it over time.
It’s true that Apple’s track record with TV has made it harder to dismiss the platform. “Severance,” “Slow Horses,” “The Studio,” and “Silo” are just a few of the excellent shows that the streamer has made a name for himself. Its good name gives it credibility when it talks to a filmmaker about a tough, non-commercial project. The pitch is already done; your movie will be in good company.
Apple seems to know, maybe better than its rivals, that building a good name takes time. Volume made Netflix a name for itself. Disney made a one based on IP. Apple is making one that tastes good. The question is whether that can be maintained over time and whether taste alone can keep subscribers and shareholders happy. The movie plan works for that bet. When it’s at its best, independent film shows what taste looks like before it becomes popular.
Of course, there is a chance that Apple’s involvement will change what it wants to keep. Lack of resources and a sense of urgency have always been important to independent film. It was made by filmmakers who felt they had to, not because a tech company offered them a deal. The math changes when you have money. It’s hard not to wonder if the next generation of truly independent voices will feel Apple’s pull and steer clear of their peers because of it.
For now, the acquisitions keep coming in, and they are announced quietly and without a lot of fuss. No news releases announcing the start of a new era. One company, with more money than most countries, is slowly becoming one of the most important forces in a type of film that it used to have nothing to do with.
