Weekend Estimates by Holdover Klady
Not much to say about the weekend, except that the today’s estimates vs the friday estimates are oddly robust. It’s not surprising with the kids films, but 3 of the next few titles that are not kids films are estimating over 3x Friday for the weekend. Hmmm… should make tomorrow’s “finals” interesting.
The story of the weekend is – for a change, reasonably – an “exclusive” launch. I am not a believer in getting too excited about 2-4 screens in LA or NY as representative of anything much, aside from NY and LA’s hardcore art house crowd being served. But 18 screens… that’s beginning to be a real toe in the water. Black Swan‘s opening is clearly the strongest not-wide opening of the year.
Here is a list, via Mojo, of the best per-screen weekends in domestic history for 10-20 non-IMAX screens. 10 of these 15 titles were Oscar nominees and 2 won Best Picture. You might also notice that except for the films that did half or less of what Black Swan is estimated to have done this weekend, the box office low is Precious, with $47.6m domestic and 7 of the 9 films in this elite group have grossed over $80m. (Note: Dances With Wolves is listed twice because this is all weekends, not just opening weekends, because I didn’t want to limit this list to any more of the vagaries of release plans than need be.)
I don’t understand why they even bothered releasing “All Good Things” in theaters, when the film was being shown on VOD. I’m completely against this VOD/Theatrical procedure.
If it works for Magnolia and IFC, then why not? The theaters that took in $18,500 each over the weekend surely aren’t complaining.
Yeah, 18k is a pretty stellar opening, even moreso given that it was available in another format.
Seeing films in theaters is simply different and many prefer it. If audiences demonstrate that they want it, then why not?
Because feature films are intended for theaters, and not VOD, which is a glorified version of straight-to-video. To my knowledge, not one film which went through this procedure made money in theaters, or was given a decent theatrical release. Not to mention any chance of an academy award nomination.
VOD, to me, is still not widely publicized to the point where it takes serious money from BO. Of course, VOD figures are not readily obtainable, but Gosling has a decent indie following in line with “Lars” or “Half nelson,” despite weaker reviews. Hopefully those fans will see “Blue Valentine” and excuse him for his worst misfire since “Stay” 5 years ago…
BTW….caught “Carlos” on VOD along with “Enter the Void.” Loved both…..VOD is a GREAT tool for fans of great film to seek out movies they want to see but are unable to. Even living in northern VA, it is a chore to drive 40 miles round trip to DC, pay for parking…and travel back….for the sake of a film that could possibly be sold out. And yet I’m lucky compared to the majority of Americans re: access to many films.
Considering the struggle it took to make it into theaters, “All Good Things” turned out to be a (surprisingly) strong film…for me anyway.
Does anybody know why Weinstein cut and run?
At its best moments, I was reminded of “Reversal of Fortune”–high praise indeed. Dunst is particularly good here. If this had been given a proper release, she might have been a potential Best Supporting Actress nominee.
I’m not against VOD as the support system. But why release it before the theatrical release, or at the same time? If the film fails at the box-office, it can reap profit through VOD in the future.
I don’t know about you, but I give a lot of importance to the fact that a film has to be originally released in theaters. Because that’s what separates itself from the TV movie and the direct-to-video movie.
The vast majority of the VOD/theatrical day-and-date releases are VOD releases first and foremost that need to open theatrically in New York and to a lesser extent Los Angeles so they will be covered by the press that is stationed in those two cities. The direct-to-VODness often has nothing to do with quality. In fact, many of them happen to be among the best in world cinema, but there unfortunately doesn’t seem to be the market for those films in the United States to support a true (and expensive) theatrical run any more. What little money there is to market these films needs to be concentrated around an opening that allows for the biggest possible audience to see them. I wish that there were a vibrant arthouse circuit for these films to play theatrically around the country, but it no longer exists. (Take a look that the films playing at most of the theaters in the Landmark “arthouse” chain, for example.)
VOD didn’t exist in the early 90s and we still saw many independent films make money. A small film doesn’t need to make 10 million dollars to be a hit. The problem lies in promotion and word of mouth. VOD is a easy response. In the end, it dooms a film’s theatrical run and besmirchs the cinematic innocence. It may be best to release it strictly on video, then give the film a theatrical run that will go nowhere.
Is there anything that can account for the top 3 psa’s occurring in the past year or so?… And the fact there’s a $20k+ difference between #3 and #4?…
“Monsters,” one of the best movies of 2010, was available as VOD before its US theatrical release.
Actually, it’s still available as VOD.
The reason that many of these films are VOD films is that no one will buy them for theatrical release because there is no longer money in it. The New York theatrical engagement for these films is, in the vast majority of cases, simply a promotional tool for the concurrent VOD release, not the beginning of a true theatrical run. It is a way to concentrate the PR around the time that the most possible people have the opportunity. Don’t even bother thinking of it as a theatrical run. Think of it as a series of special theatrical presentations promoting a direct to VOD release.
Perhaps in many cases, Djk813, but not always. “Monsters” has already opened in a few markets outside of NYC — and I expect “Tiny Furniture,” also available on VOD right now, will do the same. On the other hand, you may be right — these could be the exceptions that prove the rule.
This is what I don’t understand about “Monsters”. Why would a film like this need a VOD release? It would seem the film had good commercial prospects. I was very annoyed by this.
Overlooked in the oohing-and-ahhhing over “Black Swan” grosses is the more than respectable debut of two-years-in-the-can “I Love You Phillip Morris.”
While I still think that a more established distributer than Roadside Attractions could probably do a better job marketing the film (and insuring that it makes it into as many theaters as it deserves), I hope it does well because it’s a terrific movie (kind of like if Gregg Araki had directed “Catch Me if You Can”).
How come the NYC theatrical release is more important than an LA release? This is the umpteenth VOD movie that’s out for a week or two before it gets to LA, if it gets to LA at all. I thought LA was the bigger deal re: awards, buzz, etc?
“Monsters” did well at the British Independent Film Awards tonight.
http://www.indiewire.com/article/the_kings_speech_monsters_lead_british_independent_film_awards#
It wouldn’t matter, since VOD movies can’t compete for academy awards. They aren’t films, in the cinematic sense, but straight-to-video pictures.
I remember when the British Independent Film Awards nominated Samantha Morton’s TV movie.
“since VOD movies can’t compete for academy awards. They aren’t films, in the cinematic sense, but straight-to-video pictures.”
that’s not really accurate, sarina, ‘monsters’ had a wide theatrical release here, i just saw it recently at the cinema and enjoyed it tremendously. it was not made as a ‘straight-to-video’ picture, i’m not sure why you think that (if that’s what you mean, i’m slightly confused as to your meaning)
(i’m really keen to see ‘i love you PM’, a friend who saw it recently raved about it, claiming it’s a return to form for jim carrey, so i hope it gets into cinemas here at some point)
My meaning is this. A film needs to receive an original theatrical release in its country of origin. “Monsters” doesn’t qualify, because the first release it got was on VOD.
Sure, it got a theatrical release, but only after its release on VOD. To me, that is the same as a TV movie being given a promotional theatrical release after being screened on HBO.
I give a lot of importance to cinema. To the separation of film, video and television. Which is why I’m completely against VOD, because it blurs the lines. You can’t call orange juice whisky, just because you poured it into a whisky bottle.
Sarina, the lines you talk about don’t actually exist. There is no difference between an HBO film and a theatrical release, except for the medium of release. This purity of the cinematic experience that you keep on about is nothing but your personal preference.
Most of us prefer watching movies in theatres, but sometimes its better to have the option to watch it at home if we’re not bothered enough to leave the house. It’s called good business. A film doesn’t become a worse just because it premieres on TV.
i.e. quit whining
sarina, i get what you’re saying but a film can be made fully intended for and hopeful of a cinema release, and for whatever reasons it just doesn’t work out that way, then other patterns come into play. it’s not necessarily an issue of quality, and it doesn’t necessarily mean the film in question such as ‘monsters’ isn’t a film made for the cinema, it could just mean that ‘monsters’, for whatever reason, couldn’t get a wide cinema release in the US so it went the VOD route. ‘monsters’ is a UK production, and has a cinema release there.
‘monsters’ obviously wasn’t released in the cinemas here to advertise its availability on VOD, because our VOD is quite limited and different from the US, we don’t get VOD content before or directly after cinema releases, it takes ages. so if that’s the theory, it would appear to apply mainly to the US, and the US is no longer the only way for a film to make bank, clearly.
No, it doesn’t. But when I watch good TV, I don’t regard it as cinema. I’m not saying it is wrong to watch a film on TV, but I do care to know if the film in question is a theatrical film or a TV movie or a Direct-to-Video film.
i.e. I’m not whining. I’m stating my opinion.
Leahnz.
I thought about that, and I even tried to work through this, but then, how would it work for films intended for TV, but instead, got released in theaters? Not to mention trying to know which films were originally intended for theaters, but were shown on cable, like “Prozac Nation” and “I Love You, Phillip Morris” (TV premiere on Argentina, before its US release).
So, quite a few Ingmar Bergman masterpieces are not really cinema, just something inferior because they were made for TV… Doesn’t make sense.
so does it make you feel better to know ‘monsters’ is not a tv/direct-to-video movie, but rather a cinema film that ended up on VOD in the US for whatever reason? or worse?
I adore Ingmar Bergman, and his TV work is masterful, but I don’t regard it as film. Only as great TV.
When it comes to “Monsters”, it’s hard. I think the film got a lousy distribution and that it should have never been given a VOD release in the first place.
“A film needs to receive an original theatrical release in its country of origin.”
Actually, “Monsters” is a UK production, not a US-produced film.
Sarina – These are theatrical releases that go day and date. They are eligible for awards IFC’s In The Loop was nominated and criminally overlooked last year. Some of the other titles that were released by that strategy this year were Magnolia’s Mother and I am Love. Two of the best I’ve seen this year and in no way to be lumped in with straight to video Seagal import or Cable premiere.
These companies have found a profitable way to release the smallest and often the best of films. If this is the only way to turn a buck with their release would you rather they be placed in the dustbin rather than sully their theatrical reputation?
Monsters is a UK production, but its first commercial release was in VOD. Remember “Croupier”, which was disqualified for oscar consideration, because it was shown on dutch TV prior to its american release?
I Am Love and Mother were foreign production, and they had healthy theatrical releases in their countries of origin. I don’t know if “In the Loop” was released on VOD. If it did, it must have happened after its original release in theaters.
I don’t understand why the need to release the films on VOD before its theatrical release. These movies are going to be released on DVD and shown on television in the end. It is meant to be the support system. Not every film will make a profit in theaters. That’s how the business is.
So because a film – a tiny one with a budget of $500,000 such as “Monsters” – can’t get a theatrical release straight out of the gate and must instead find some alternate means of making money in some countries (like Leah says, VOD services around the world are vastly different to America’s, it’s screening exclusively in cinemas here in Australia and doing nicely) then it is instantly voided of any cinematic aspirations it once had? It was made to be seen in cinemas, but due to its budget and its boutique nature, it was not granted a good cinematic release in some countries. It’s still cinema.
There’s a vast difference between “Monsters” or “Two Lovers” or “Mother” and, say, “Santa Paws 2”, ya know. What daft logic.
The biggest probelm with VOD? Really lousy promotion. I doubt most people — even people who are long-time cable TV subscribers — know anything about what indie movies are available as VOD. Seriously. Sure, they may know that recent maintstream Hollywood releases can be ordered as VOD day-and-date with homevideo release. But I would be willing to bet that anywhere between 80 and 90 percent of the people who actually could watch “Monsters” or “Tiny Furniture” or “Night Catches Us” or “Heartless” on VOD right now — tonight — have no idea that these films exist, much less know that they can watch them.
Fanny and Alexander, DAS BOOT, and god knows what else all started off as TV mini-series, but they are awesome cinematic experiences. IT DOES NOT COMPUTE! IT DOES NOT COMPUTER!
That aside; Joe, they advertise VOD releases are advertised quite heavily… on Comcast Ch. 1 and similar channels on other cable systems, so yeah, they really do need to hype VOD releases for smaller films a lot better in the future.
IOv3: I wonder if there’s still some hesitation to call much attention to VOD releases, for fear that they’ll be reviewed by TV critics — and that, if and when the films do get theatrical release, film critics for the same outlets won’t review them.
I feel the same way about VOD/TV as Sarina. When I was a child, a VOD film raped me. Then it killed by family.
And then it name-checked you, right?
IT RAPED YOUR DEAD FAMILY? MY GOD… THAT SON OF A BITCHIN VOD FILM! DAMN THAT FILM! DAMN THAT FILM TO THE BARGAIN BIN OF HELL!
Speaking of Polanski, I hear he did alright at the European Film Awards last night…
I thought part of the purpose of airing films like MONSTERS and TINY FURNITURE on VOD was to service the rather large potential audience that has no hope of seeing them in a theater. Even with a theatrical run, many of these films will not be coming to “a theater near you” unless you’re in a decent-sized city. This way, interested parties can pony up a few bucks now if they don’t want to wait for DVD to see a film they’re interested in. But I think Joe’s right — many who might take advantage of VOD don’t realize what’s available.
IOv3,
You are forgetting about one thing with the films you’ve mentioned. Das Boot and Fanny and Alexander wereb first released in their theatrical versions. The tv (extended) version of “Fanny and Alexander” was released one year after the film had a commercial release in theaters.
Again, the question isn’t about quality. It is about the proper release. These films are going to be shown on DVD and VOD anyway, so I don’t understand this need to release it in the video medium, before its theatrical run.
This needs to go on a little longer.
THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID.
The more I think about it, the more open I am to the idea of VOD. Leahnz is right. What is more important is the original purpose. After all, there’s a world of difference between a made for TV movie and and a straight-to-TV movie.
I see the argument as rather pointless. Having lived on both sides of the equation (NYC and Idaho), it pretty much boils down to this. 70-75% of the audience for these smaller films live in urban areas that have access to theatrical runs. Considering the fact that most of these people are film buffs, nearly all of them will choose to see the film theatrically rather than through illegal download or VOD. They pay a premium to see the film on the big screen and everybody wins.
However, those other 25-30 percenters find themselves in a bit of a conundrum. They have access to the hype, but not the film. In many cases, people would rather illegally download the film and catch it on a proper DVD release later just so that they can see it when it’s still relevant (and winning awards).
A well implemented VOD system helps eliminate that problem by giving those not in the urban loop an easy and high quality way of watching films during their theatrical release. Personally, I’ve never used cable VOD, but I have used VUDU on my blu ray player a few times, and the ease and quality really blew me away. I can’t imagine it costing films like “Monsters” that much to bring their films into the VOD realm, so why wouldn’t they do it? It’s not a replacement for a theatrical release (which creates all of the hype in the first place), but rather, just gravy on the top.
Shit, I forgot to include my actual point.
VOD doesn’t indicate quality, it indicates reach.
My concern with VOD was about preserving the cinematic purity. It might not be for most, but it is confusing for me to know what film is. I always made a separation between TV, Film and Video. Because if not, how would that stop me from considering a commercial or a recorded concert as cinema?
Now, what I try to do is know the intention. Was a film made for TV or video, or, was it bought by TV and video companies to be screened in their mediums? If it is the latter, I include it on my vision of what a film is.
Seems daft to leave it up to suits to declare what is or is not cinematic, or a real film. To me, a film made to be a “film”, which then cannot get distribution and thus goes STV or VOD or some other acronym, is still a film. The format I happen to see it one does not change what it is anymore than showing a TV show on a big screen changes what it is.
I saw In The Loop on VOD. Enjoyed it very much. It was still in theaters at the time but I’m not sure if it was an actual day & date release. Maybe it was.
One thing that goes as far as promotion, I think the cablers are just trying to push their service and hope people find whatever once they’re over there. My guess would be once one person knows there are first run films available, the consumer will continue to come back and hunt through the titles. I think this would really be ideal. You just want to keep traffic up so then maybe while searching for Hot Tube Time Machine they see All Good Things is available that they never knew or vice versa. (Just pulled random titles, not suggesting that specific spillover but you get the picture)
Props to poster SC, that cracked me up and started a nice little rally.
You know what, it comes to one’s perception. Magnolia and IFC will continue to release films on VOD, and moaning about it will not solve anything. I just think that it’s sad so many films aren’t given a chance to expand, because of this VOD nonsense.
But the VOD nonsense is not the reason they don’t expand, they don’t expand because these are tiny companies that cannot manage even semi wide releases. If you look at the Box Office for IFC and Magnolia (discounting Greek Wedding) the films they put out before the VOD format did not make anything more than the ones opened since (both studios have been able to put movies into their top ten even releasing day and date). So the theatrical box office stays the same but they are able to reach a larger audience and get more cash because of VOD. All the DVD revenue is still there because you can only rent VOD and any sales would still be there if you saw the film in theaters or at home.
I get what you mean about wanting a clear distinction between a movie and television, but you certainly don’t see every movie in theaters and you can make the distinction between renting television and renting a film.
Just one more point- IFC and Magnolia do day and date, Thinkfilm did not.
“when I watch good TV, I don’t regard it as cinema.”
Well, that’s no one’s problem but yours. Distinguishing between films based on medium of release is idiotic, but you can have your opinion if you want it. As I said, this “cinematic purity” you’re talking about doesn’t exist. There is no fine line that distinguishes the two formats (nor is there between commercials and short films, see BMW’s The Hire series for proof of that).
Speaking of short films, most of them never get a theatrical release, does that mean we shouldn’t refer to them as films?
And while we’re at throwing around titles of great cinema that was made for TV, we probably shouldn’t forget Berlin Alexanderplatz, The Decalogue, or, hell, Steven Spielberg’s Duel.
Not to mention a great deal of HBO’s output over the last ten years.
“Distinguishing between films based on medium of release is idiotic, but you can have your opinion if you want it.”
No, it’s apropos classification (and I’m not talking about a straight-to-dvd or tube release). A TV show is not a film, no matter how much you love it. TWIN PEAKS was one of my favorite series ever but it was not a fully realized feature – and what it did as a series could not be done as one film. You don’t say, “I read a good book – I mean, watched a good TV ad — I mean, watched a good film — I mean, listened to some good music…ah, it’s all the same thing.”
What about a TV film presented in two parts?
I didn’t mean to say that you couldn’t classify them (I wasn’t clear there), I meant there are always pieces of art that blur the line and defy those classifications.
And while we’re at it, I would certainly consider a television series to be cinema, if not a “film”. After all, is there a significant formal difference between a television show and a serial?
There is a distinction between television and film, but that does not mean that television has to be automatically considered inferior. It seems a_loco is arguing that some television is good enough to be considered works of art, no one is arguing against that. Just that film and television are two seperate though similair meduims both attempting to create art (though both mostly create fun diversions and mountains and mountains of crap).
The distinctions Sarina is talking about only matter in terms of awards eligibility, it seems to me. Otherwise, if you enjoy a work, is it really that important to categorize it? “I saw this…I dunno, ‘talking picture’ on VOD, but I don’t know if it’s cinema or TV or home video or what! Which year-end list do I put it on? Help!”
I think Don Siegel’s THE KILLERS is a good movie — a movie that was made for TV, but was considered too violent to air, so the studio released it to theaters. It has that rather over-lit Universal TV look, but either way it’s a movie. I assume it was eligible for the 1964 Oscars, but not the Emmys (moot point, since it wasn’t nominated for either).
It would be impossible to watch every film in theaters, which is why I find it important to know if a film got an original theatrical release. If distinguishing between film and television is idiotic, why do we even use words like TV movie or straight-to-video? Why isn’t “Boardwalk Empire” being considered for Best Picture at the oscars? Why are films being rotinely disqualified for oscar consideration, because they were shown on VOD or TV before its theatrical release?
In terms of award consideration, which is an arbitrary endeavour anyway, the line has to be drawn somewhere. What you were suggesting earlier is that a film’s “cinematic purity” is tainted if it was released on VOD. As if the film somehow is worse in a theatre if you can also watch it at home.
We use words like “TV Movie” and “straight-to-video” because in the past, the words “TV Movie” referred to network movies of the week, which were usually bad, and “straight-to-video” referred to low-budget action movies and comedies, which were also usually bad, and thus easy to generalize. Again, that’s an arbitrary distinction, and in the age of HBO/IFC and arthouse day and date releases, that arbitrary distinction is continually less applicable.
I kinda agree about movies hitting theaters first. I still take it as a sign that someone had enough faith in it to get it out there. How many good VOD movies are there? I tend to still think of them as lesser, like an Edward Burns film no one believed in.
It would be more beneficial to release the films on VOD a week after its theatrical release. Not only because it avoids the stigma of it not being an original theatrical release, but it would help in avoiding the disqualification rules from awards consideration. I mean, let’s be real, is there this great need to watch a film first on TV, before its premiere in theatres?
Actually, I don’t think a week would be enough. I may be wrong about this — and I’m sure someone here will correct me if I am — but I vaguely recall reading somewhere that, in order to qualify for an Academy Award, a feature film has to be in theatrical release for a period of weeks, not days, before popping up on TV.
In any event: As I understand it, the whole purpose of simultaneous VOD and theatrical release is to take advantage of reviews, interviews and other exposure/publicity as efficiently as possible, in as timely a manner as possible. Look at the reviews in Entertainment Weekly: Quite often, they’ll note that a film is available RIGHT NOW as a VOD.
I guess it is. I don’t even know if “I Am Love” was released on VOD. I guess not, since the film made 5 million dollars at the box-office, a fortune for a foreign film, and they’d be foolish to hurt Tilda Swinton’s chances for a nomination. Hard to believe the film tanked in Italy.
I think VOD does hurt the independent film circuit, because it doesn’t allow a film to grow in theaters. Sure, some films are hopeless, but do people really think “Monsters” needed a VOD release? Or that “Howl” needed one, as well? I miss the time, when small films made money through word of mouth and longevity.
And then there’s stuff like “The Life of Peter Sellars” which is definitely a made-for-TV film yet somehow got a theatrical release in some parts of the world. Same with the recent “The Special Relationship”.
Sarina, “Monsters” or “Howl” were never going to get very far in today’s market, especially being released in such a glut. If the VOD release helps the companies behind them make some extra cash for future releases then what’s the harm? Not everybody can get out and see everything in a cinema, yet might want to participate in discussion such as this.
I am positive that I am Love was available on VOD, and it did not hurt its box office or acclaim. And is unlikely to hurt Swinton’s oscar chances. There is a good chance that the academy rules do not apply to VOD. Playing on television might mean playing on a network, any network VOD is likely considered a different animal.
And it would be great for indies to grow through word of mouth, and they would then expand to more theaters, and that general audiences would give them more of a chance, and I would also like a pony while we’re at it.
There is this to consider: Some theater chains flat-out refuse to run films — any films — that are available as VOD prior to theatrical release. At least, that’s what I have been told by some folks involved in both commercial and nonprofit exhibition here in Houston. Which of course, explains why certain films wind up premiering in H-Town at the Museum of Fine Arts. But, again, I seriously doubt Magnolia or IFC goes the VOD route with any film that company decision-makers view as a potential breakout theatrical smash hit.
It must be hard to create a film guide and trying to know which films to add. “Carlos” is a good example. A french mini-series, and yet, everybody is acting as if it is a feature film, because it got a theatrical release in some countries.
DAS BOOT was a 6-hour miniseries as well. And wasn’t the “Millennium” trilogy made for Swedish TV and then recut into feature films?
“Carlos” had its world premiere as 3-part, 5 1/2-hour film at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival.
The “6-hour miniseries” was an extended version of “Das Boot”, which was shown on TV years after its theatrical release. The “Millennium Trilogy” is a mini-series, which is why I don’t see the “movies” as cinema.
“Carlos” didn’t have a commercial release in theaters. I don’t think a premiere in a festival counts, since festivals screen everything, from films to TV pilots and HBO TV movies. Its first commercial release was on french television, which is where it was intended to be screened.
“And while we’re at throwing around titles of great cinema that was made for TV.”
Von Trier’s THE KINGDOM say no more.
Just out of curiosity, I wanted to see what “Same Day as Theaters” VOD titles I could view on Comcast right now. Among the highlights: ALL GOOD THINGS, CARLOS, CLIENT 9, HEARTLESS, MONSTERS, TINY FURNITURE and WHITE MATERIAL. Not bad.
And if we’re going to talk about great cinema that was made for TV: Take a look at “One More Mile to Go,” the half hour episode of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” that Hitch himself directed in 1957. I often show it to my students because — as I’ve found others have noticed as well — the drama looks in some ways like a warm-up for “Psycho.”
http://www.paleycenter.org/hitchcock-anticipating-psycho
How do you guys order this VOD shit anyway?
My cable box resets and/or crashes like six times a night.
I didn’t know episodes from “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” qualified as made for TV film. Then again, episodes with limited storylines can be perceived as film, and in the case of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents”, short films.
I make the following question: Where, do we, as cinephiles, draw the line between film and television?
Sarina: That’s a valid question. I guess it boils down to intent. I was not being entirely serious about “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” — after all, I doubt even Hitch himself ever intended any episode he directed for that anthology series to be viewed as a “movie.” On the other hand: What about the two shorts — “Bon Voyage” and “Aventure Malgache” — he made during WWII? And if the 30-minutes dramas he directed for TV were indeed warm-ups for “Psycho,’ then…
I must agree with it boiling down to intent. In the end, I like to believe the best films are released in the proper way.