Movie City Indie Archive for March, 2019
Oscars-Netflix: Sean Baker
2/3 This would help keep theater owners and audience members who appreciate the theatrical experience satisfied.
— sean baker (@Lilfilm) March 3, 2019
3/3 Just an idea with no details ironed out. But we need to find solutions like this in which everybody bends a bit in order to keep the film community (which includes theater owners, film festivals and competitive distributors) alive and kicking.
— sean baker (@Lilfilm) March 3, 2019
“i program an art house cinema in a small, midwestern town…”
my issue w/@netflix as a distro is that as a matter of biz philosophy, it doesn’t allow most of its original movies to be booked by theaters who reach out & specifically request to screen them. we essentially had to beg to screen MUDBOUND and ROMA in our cinema. 2/17 pic.twitter.com/MBJj5pSDeW
— brit freeze (@midwesttisbest) March 2, 2019
but plz also allow theaters, esp. non-profit art houses, to share these works w/our communities. we've cultivated audiences who look to us to present interesting/transformative cinematic experiences. we want @netflix originals to be a part of this mix. why doesn’t netflix? 4/17 pic.twitter.com/CGVQjQF7WO
— brit freeze (@midwesttisbest) March 2, 2019
as a cinema located on a college campus, even tho we are the only bricks-and-mortar art house in our town & regularly sell out screenings of new & rep releases, many distros consider us "non-theatrical," putting us in same category of venues as churches, prisons & libraries. 6/17 pic.twitter.com/zASRX4jdtU
— brit freeze (@midwesttisbest) March 2, 2019
film distributors who consider us non-theatrical won’t let us book their films at all or will make us wait 3 mos. after initial release in “real” theaters to book b/c we're "not a part of their release strategy." i thought the "strategy" was to get ppl to see your film? 8/17 pic.twitter.com/JwcsJdt4Rk
— brit freeze (@midwesttisbest) March 2, 2019
there is a good deal broken about the U.S. theatrical distribution system. but, i see/live it every day & i know the theatrical experience is not dying. and to be certain, some film distributors get it so right! they understand it's about SHARING STORIES NOT WINNING AWARDS. 10/17 pic.twitter.com/8kwW1uvsr1
— brit freeze (@midwesttisbest) March 2, 2019
and we happily co-exist w/VOD, steaming services & home video releases. we don’t want to prevent or slow down any of the sea change in theatrical distribution that’s allowing more access to so many to produce & enjoy more films. 12/17 pic.twitter.com/jLbprdHinA
— brit freeze (@midwesttisbest) March 2, 2019
our cinema’s vision statement is: TRANSFORMATIVE CINEMATIC EXPERIENCES ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL. to that end, we're committed to offering half (or more) of our programs for free. the majority of the other half is <$7. we want everyone to have access to great film from everywhere. 14/17 pic.twitter.com/ETt2vkuWjH
— brit freeze (@midwesttisbest) March 2, 2019
Oscars-Netflix: Paul Schrader
Via Facebook: “THE NETFLIX DEBATE. I have no animus against Netflix. Ted Sarandos is as smart about film as any studio exec I’ve ever met. Distribution models evolve. The notion of squeezing 200+ people into a dark unventilated space to see a flickering image was created by exhibition economics not any notion of the “theatrical experience.” Netflix allows many financially marginal films to have a platform and that’s a good thing. But here’s my query: it involves FIRST REFORMED. First Reformed was sold at a bargain price to A24 out of the Toronto FF. Netflix, which could have snapped it up as easily as it swats a fly on its ass, passed. As did Amazon. As did Sony Classics and Focus. But A24 saw a commercial path for this austere aesthetic film. As a result First Reformed found a life. A24 rolled it out through festivals and screenings from 2017 to 2018. And it survived. Not a big money maker but profitable for A24 and a jewel in their crown. Would First Reformed have found this public acceptance if Netflix and scooped it up (at say twice the price A24 payed) and dumped it into its larder? Perhaps Bird Box and Kissing Booth can fight their way through the vast sea of Netflix product to find popular acceptance, but First Reformed? Unlikely. Relegated to film esoterica. A different path? My proposal: For club cinemas (Alamo Draft House, Metrograph, Burns Center, Film Forum) to form an alliance with a two tiered streaming system (first tier: Criterion/Mubi, second tier: Netflix/Amazon).Distribution models are in flux. It’s not as simple as theatrical versus streaming.”
2 Comments »Oscars-Netflix: Alfonso Cuarón
Variety’s morning-after-Oscar director exit interview of Alfonso Cuarón includes this sentence: “’I wanted to explore some family wounds,’ Cuarón says as he slices into a wedge of avocado toast.”
Of greater moment, to the Netflix-Oscar conversation: “The conversation about theatrical is super-important. I’m a filmmaker. I believe in the theatrical experience. But there has to be diversity. The multiplex theatrical experience is a very gentrified experience. You have one kind of product with few variations. It’s hard to see arthouse films. It’s hard to see foreign films. Most theaters play big Hollywood movies.
“There needs to be greater diversity in how we release our films. Distribution models need to be more flexible, depending on the film,” Cuarón continues. “You cannot impose the release strategy of a tentpole film on a smaller film. You may need fewer theaters and longer runs or models in which the so-called window is shorter. We’re thinking in one single paradigm. It’s a moment to start opening up paradigms. Right now it’s a confrontation between economic models. It’s not like one model benefits cinema, and the other does not.”
Oscars-Netflix: Spielberg
[hides behind fence graphic]
Spielberg is totally right about the theatrical thing ≠ Spielberg is awesome in general— Joshua Rothkopf (@joshrothkopf) March 2, 2019
One of the ironies in the Spielberg/GREEN BOOK/ROMA situation, which I raised in this week’s Screen Talk, is that many of us got an early taste of cinema by watching…Spielberg movies…on VHS. https://t.co/DyLNt1OtXu
— erickohn (@erickohn) March 2, 2019
It’s possible that Steven Spielberg doesn’t know how difficult it is to get movies made in the legacy system as a woman or a person of color.
In his extraordinary career, he hasn’t exactly produced or executive produced many films directed by them. https://t.co/i88BrApzR8
— Franklin Leonard (@franklinleonard) March 2, 2019
How many independent filmmakers rented out a theater for a week out of pocket to get their films qualified for this idiotic, devalued award that still means a lot for careers? This whole thing stinks of elitist exclusion and bad faith. https://t.co/vHJUyz30AP
— Walter Chaw (@mangiotto) March 3, 2019
One award-season rule change a source told me Spielberg wants is director-related: he wants the DGA's feature prize to only allow movies that have a four-week exclusive theatrical window. That would have disqualified Cuaron (and most other Netflix films).
— Steven Zeitchik (@ZeitchikWaPo) March 3, 2019
Where were you the day the Netflix Wars erupted? pic.twitter.com/GjxstIMmfT
— Monica Castillo (@mcastimovies) March 3, 2019
I have read every single Netflix vs Spielberg take on here and I think the only reasonable response is that we do away with the Oscars PROBLEM SOLVED
— Alison Willmore (@alisonwillmore) March 3, 2019
Oscars-Netflix: Aleš Kot
The VHS player would make rounds and so would the tapes, and they’d gradually become worn out. Most American movies (unless they were censored/blocked) only ran in cinemas in the few (3) big cities, and only for a short window. Nobody knew anything.
— Aleš Kot (@ales_kot) March 2, 2019
We just wanted to see the movies, whatever the distribution, legal or not, cinema or not. We just wanted to see other worlds were possible.
I don't have any solutions for the whole Academy/Netflix debate. But the above is what it made me come back to.
— Aleš Kot (@ales_kot) March 2, 2019