Auteurs: if you believe in your film, produce it

Randee Dawn, reports in the LA Times: For auteurs, the question sometimes becomes: How much do you believe in your film?

Her thesis is that to guarantee getting your film made, more often now, you have to produce it yourself:

“Being inspired by film actors, directors and writers is easy. It’s all there on the big screen, in the finished project. But fewer aspirational filmmakers first think, “What I really wanna do is produce.” That particular job, which can cover an enormous range of organizational, financial and generally unsexy duties, is frequently invisible and thankless. But without producers, films wouldn’t get made. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons we’re seeing so many writer-directors also putting on producer hats this season. Films including “Marriage Story,” “The Report,” “Knives Out” and “Parasite” have all been made by filmmakers wearing three hats, while “Jojo Rabbit” and “Motherless Brooklyn” feature writer-director-actors who took on a producing role.”

She interviews Edward NortonRian JohnsonScott Z. BurnsBong Joon HoTaika Waititi and Noah Baumbach for their perspectives.

On producing, Norton evokes the legend of Sisyphus:

“Writing is lonely; directing and acting, if you’re overlapping them, is challenging but fun. But producing is just pushing a rock up a hill. And sometimes it rolls over you on the way back down.”

He goes on to explain why he produced his own indie:

“It’s the film business equivalent of if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. It’s a necessary grind to get to the fun part. And if you believe in your story, it’s what you have to do to put it all together.”

My take: I love DIY filmmaking! More often than not, no-budget filmmakers like me wear many, many hats, including the producer’s. But finding someone who only wants to produce is a challenge. Everyone wants to direct, or shoot. If you want to produce, let’s talk. I’ve often said, “If you can balance your chequebook AND throw a fantastic party, you can produce.”

Cineplex Board: a present for all Canadians?

As 2019 turns into 2020, the Cineplex Board of Directors has given Canada a present, one that has the potential to change the mediascape into something never seen before: the option to have control over our country’s movie screens.

Recall that Cineplex accepted an offer from the United Kingdom’s Cineworld to buy it for $2.8-billion on December 16, 2019.

It then entered a 7-week “go shop” period in which it can accept better offers until February 2, 2020.

In a nod to nationalism, the Cineplex Board made the terms more advantageous for a Canadian offer by halving the deal termination fee of $56-million.

My modest proposal: let’s add a movie theatre chain to the pipeline the people of Canada already own!

Why control the movie screens in our country? To enforce screen quotas, of course. The reason Canadians don’t see Canadian movies at the local mutiplex is because those theatres would rather show American movies. Embarrassingly, we had to give up our national policy target of a measly 5% of the box office because we missed the mark so badly year after year.

With almost 1,700 screens in 165 locations and approximately 75% of the audience, we could finally see our own stories on the big screen. It’s about time, eh?

It worked for Canadian music on Canadian radio, and it’s called CanCon.

My take: as much as I would love to see this happen, I’m afraid it won’t, if only because the remaining movie theatre operators in Canada will complain that Cineplex CanCon would have the unfair advantage of unlimited (taxpayer) funding. Fine, I say, we’ll buy you out too! Imagine if the people of Canada owned every movie screen in Canada!

Macao: it’s all arthouse now

Rebecca Davis reports for Variety at the recent Macao International Film Festival on the future of indies and theatrical distribution.

She says:

“New viewing habits brought on by the rise of streaming have hastened the demise of the mid-budget American indie, changed the very definition of arthouse cinema, and shaken the indie distribution business. But theatrical is still here to stay, attendees of the Macao International Film Festival’s closed-door industry panels concluded Saturday.”

Some takeaways:

  • “Prestige” films by streamers are more about awards and PR than a threat to theatrical.
  • Mid-budget indie films have all but disappeared and the theatrical box office is blockbuster movies on one hand and local fare on the other (in the massive India and China markets at least.)
  • Audiences are more inclined to search out indie films at home on their streaming services than at the multiplex.

Panel moderator Andy Whittaker, founder of distributor Dogwoof, says:

“Arthouse used to mean a Korean film that was award-winning. Now, an arthouse film is not a comedy, not ‘Star Wars,’ and everything else. Even mid-budget, $10 million movies are all arthouse.”

Dori Begley, executive VP of Magnolia Pictures, concludes:

“Producers are happier and distributors are miserable. There’s more production work for hire and less of an opportunity to nurture talent as there once was.”

My take: as the decade closes, streaming has truly conquered both TV and theatrical to become the undisputed source for the majority of viewing. The technology has matured so that bandwidth and resolution are no longer issues. However, access and discoverability, as well as curation and choice are increasingly becoming problematic for indie filmmakers and their supporters.

‘Digital Fur Technology’ can sing and dance

Cats‘ has released a second trailer:

This one aims to do better than the first one:

Does it?

Well, it is shorter, at 99 seconds, versus 142 seconds.

It outlines more of a story for the audience to expect. And the cats spend almost all of their time on two feet, rather than on all fours. It’s brighter.

But the biggest change was suppose to be with regards to the “digital fur technology.”

Director Tom Hooper, quoted in Empire Magazine in his first interview anywhere about the movie, claims that the explosive response caught him off guard:

“I was just so fascinated because I didn’t think it was controversial at all. So it was quite entertaining. Cats was apparently the number-one trending topic in the world, for a good few hours at least. We’d only finished shooting in March, so all the visual effects were at quite an early stage. Possibly there were, in the extremity in some of the responses, some clues in how to keep evolving it. When you watch the finished film, you’ll see that some of the designs of the cats have moved on since then, and certainly our understanding of how to use the technology to make them work has gone up, too.”

O-kay.

Me, I hardly see a difference. Maybe, when you compare Jennifer Hudson in #2 at 1:08 with her slightly furrier self in #1 at 2:04. But the others seem virtually the same. See 1:50 (#1) and 0:40 (#2.)

My take: what I think is fascinating about this is that the audience has had an impact on the final film. An early trailer caused the blog-o-shpere to gag. And the filmmakers listened and subsequently modified the film. This is a purr-fect (sorry) example of the filmmakers giving their audience what they want. Should more films do that?

More celebrities are about to rise from the dead

Alex Lee, writing in WIRED UK, reveals that the messy legal scrap to bring celebrities back from the dead is only going to get weirder.

Recall that earlier this month Twitter convulsed when it was announced that 55-year dead James Dean had been “cast” in a new Vietnam war movie called Finding Jack.

(Never mind that numerous actors in franchise films have already been resurrected with CGI to continue playing roles into which they once breathed life: Peter CushingCarrie Fisher and Paul Walker.)

Here’s where the weird comes in.

As reported by Alex, the estates of dead celebrities hold “rights of publicity” that are typically licensed to companies for exploitation.

But, as soon as 70 years pass after a celebrity’s death, that right expires. Sometimes, it’s just 50 years.

Jennifer Rothman, professor of law at Loyola Marymount University and author of The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World says when the term expires:

“That would make them fair game.”

Of note, a new company has emerged to represent dead celebrities: Worldwide XR.

My take: This was bound to happen in our digital age. It’s just too easy to juggle the bits to create new audio and visuals. I think the backlash speaks to an unspoken feeling that this violates basic privacy and the passage of time. On the other hand — it also has the power to raise the dead and allow us to go on living forever. Or conquer space:

Michael Bay is back — but not on the big screen

Netflix continues to attract high-profile filmmakers to its streaming platform.

December 13th’s 6 Underground stars Ryan Reynolds, was written by Deadpool duo Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese, and is directed by none other than Michael “Mr. Bayhem” Bay.

I know what you’re thinking. Michael Bay? That 1990’s hack?

Well, did you also know that, as a director, his films have grossed over $6 billion?

Then there’s this:

My take: this film looks like a lot of fun! We’ll certainly watch it over the holidays. (btw, that is a really long trailer clocking in at a solid three minutes!)

Theatrical dreams, quantified

Stephen Follows and Bruce Nash in a post for the American Film Market answer the question How Many Independent Films Get A Theatrical Release?

For 2017 films, as of mid-August 2019, the answer is, “Not many.”

Fully three out of four films did not report any box office earnings. And only one in six reported theatrical earnings of over $100,000.

However, some genres performed better than others:

“Large releases are the realm of the drama, with 23% of independent dramas earning over $100,000 at the domestic box office. Comedies (16%) and thrillers (15%) are also more likely to get into this top tier.”

In addition, provenance matters:

“Adaptations are three times as likely to secure a large theatrical release compared to independent films with original screenplays. That’s a significant jump, and shows how hard it is for an independent film based on original material to get a substantial theatrical release.”

They conclude:

“Seeing a film played in a theater is still regarded as the best way to experience the art form. It’s also, understandably, the goal of many film producers…. However, the numbers say that an independent film will, five times out of six, not go on to make much money in theaters. Knowing how to maximize revenue from the home market remains an essential skill for an independent producer.”

My take: these are sobering statistics! But then I think of how many films I’ve seen in a theatre versus the number I’ve seen at home. The one bright light in exhibition is Theatrical-On-Demand. See TuggGathr or Demand.Film

Curation coming to Netflix?

Sarah Perez of TechCrunch reports that Netflix tests human-driven curation with launch of ‘Collections’:

“Netflix is testing a new way to help users find TV shows and movies they’ll want to watch with the launch of a “Collections” feature, currently in testing on iOS devices…. According to Netflix, the titles are curated by experts on the company’s creative teams, and are organized into these collections based on factors like genre, tone, story line and character traits.”

A Netflix spokesperson confirmed the test, saying:

“We’re always looking for new ways to connect our fans with titles we think they’ll love, so we’re testing out a new way to curate Netflix titles into collections on the Netflix iOS app.”

My take: This is fascinating because it’s a bit of deja vu all over again. Years ago Netflix bragged that its algorithm would learn from our viewing habits and only recommend movies to us that it calculated we would want to watch. It worked to some extent; my home screen is quite different from my wife’s. However, we both still have to do a lot of scrolling to find something we want to watch. I think brining back curation is an acknowledgement that we all yearn for some degree of commonality. Remember that, before the internet changed everything, the media was a de facto curator, only showing us what they had already selected. I would like to see a blending of curation and algorithmic selection so that I can see what the masses are consuming in Collections, and personalized offbeat suggestions in Recommended for Me.

2019 Internet Trends Report released

In June at the Code Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, Mary Meeker delivered the 2019 instalment of her Internet Trends Report:

There are lots of insights here. Some to note, courtesy of CMF Trends:

The Internet’s penetration rate is now 51% of the world’s population. The two countries with the largest untapped markets are India followed by China. Nevertheless, one third of users live in those two countries.

Use is growing. Average daily online use has passed 6 hours for the first time. Moreover, mobile use has surpassed TV viewing this year.

Here’s the full slide deck or PDF.

My take: one takeaway for me is that the freemium model is alive and well. Unfortunately, two of my favourite tools did not figure this out (never having had paid levels) and have disappeared: Toonlet and Ujam Studio. 8- I wonder how the freemium model could be adapted to fiction films. Give away the movie and charge for the (DVD) extras (remember those)?

Korean AI can predict your film’s chances

I would have loved to have been at the 2019 Storytelling Workshop in Florence, Italy, when Koreans You Jin Kim, Yun Gyung Cheong and Jung Hoon Lee presented their paper “Prediction of a Movie’s Success From Plot Summaries Using Deep Learning Models”.

Their idea is to train an AI to read summaries of movies and then pass judgement:

“The primary hypothesis that we attempted to answer is to predict a movie’s success in terms of popularity and artistic quality by analyzing only the textual plot summary.”

It’s all very complicated and, I’ll admit, is on the edge of being incomprehensible to me.

One thing I did gather — their AI seems better at determining which films will NOT be good:

“It seems that predicting ‘not popular’ or ‘not successful’ movies performs better than that of predicting ‘popular’ or ‘successful’ movies.”

My take: Another of the takeaways for me in this paper was this chestnut: “The frequency of sentiment changes may signal the success of films.” Even though they’re talking about summaries of films, I believe this could mean the greater the number of reversals, the greater the success of the film. Could this be true? Maybe. Maybe not. But maybe. No, maybe not. Definitely — maybe.