New, improved AFM mixed biz, booze & buzz. (Film Mart).

To some of the exhibitors, buyers were definitely buzzing around the American Film Market, but where.., exactly, was harder for them to determine. Officially, 6,827 people were in attendance, of which 19 percent were said to be buyers, which, considering these belligerent times for traveling, could be seen as quite a success. (Besides talk of war with Iraq, heavy snow on the east coast of the United States was a problem, with some AFM participants stranded on their way from New York to California.) It is also possible that the corridors of the Loews Hotel, the film market headquarters, were not overflowing with people because many were out viewing some of the 391 films on the program, including 235 market premieres, or films not screened previously. The set-up at AFM is different from MIFED in Milan, where one can simply walk up to the screening rooms and see who is around; at the AFM, the 23 screens -- and the buyers watching them -- were scattered all around the Santa Monica area.

New at this 23rd annual AFM was the large number of seminars and conferences, which peppered four days of the eight-day event, which ended February 26. There were a total of 10 roundtables, touching subjects from film financing to film and television music. Each conference was priced at $30 (or $85 if continental breakfast was included). Some 2,000 seminar tickets were sold.

New also at this AFM was the large number of never-before-heard-of exhibiting companies. This last development was given different interpretations by the buyers. To some of them the fact that new companies have been able to develop is a sign of renewed market vitality, to others it indicates that some older companies are gone or have simply merged, and finally to others it illustrates that many producers are attempting to sell their movies on their own. In total there were 268 sellers of films, of which 26 were exhibiting for the first time. Among the exhibitors were many Italian companies and buyers that had deserted, en-masse, the January NATPE market in New Orleans, which could indicate that film product is becoming easier to sell than TV programs. Another reason attributed to the exodus is the fact that there are three markets for cinema -- AFM, Cannes and MIFED -- and four for TV -- NATPE, MIP-TV, the L.A. Screenings and MIPCOM, all of which are too close to each other in the calendar for comfort.

On the relaxation front at the AFM, a good number of parties were held around the beach town of Santa Monica.

According to Isabelle Drouart of France's M6 DA, "The market was good. We had quite a good schedule. There was a good number of buyers, if only a little less than last year."

At Screen Media Ventures, Almira Malyshev said: "It was really very light floor traffic. We'd gotten a few walk-ins here and there, but -- and I heard a lot of people saying this -- there were just gaps of free time. Between the domestic and international markets, we were still [somewhat] busy. It might be the economic situation. You certainly didn't see as many German companies or Western European companies as you have in the past. However, there did seem to be many new TV stations at the market."

To Melissa Wohl of Harmony Gold, "It seemed slower than last year. With everything going on in the world, it's indicative of what the market was like. There seemed to be fewer buyers than last year, but we had [many days] fully booked."

This last statement is indicative of the show in general. Somewhat different from other markets, the AFM tends to generate appointments while the market is happening, as opposed to in advance.

Due to the large number of exhibiting companies that are part of giant conglomerates (e.g., Miramax, FremantleMedia, HBO, New Line, etc.), AFM had to redefine what an "independent" really is, since the AFMA (formerly known as the American Film Marketing Association), which organizes the AFM, is called the "trade organization for the independent film and television industry worldwide."

Acknowledging that "what's good for the studios -- large, vertically and horizontally integrated multinational corporations -- isn't necessarily so for the independents, who embody the entrepreneurial spirit of Hollywood's original film pioneers," AFMA defines an "independent film" simply as a "motion picture that has been produced and financed (at least 51 percent) by a nonstudio production company."

According to AFMA, the confusion has been raised because many of the current crop of award-winning films were "released" or "distributed" in the U.S. by a studio for a fee. In that vein, the association, which includes 160 members, issued a press release touting that "independents continue to dominate awards season," citing movies such as Chicago, Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Pianist and The Lord of the Ring.