February 20, 2003

Finally, some news…

The news about the Canadian government continuing to raise the stakes in order to keep their portion of “runaway production” is actually quite significant inside the industry.  The move is the antithesis of classic American business thinking, which is that you build a business by discounting, then start raising prices as your customer base gets used to having and liking your product. 

Guild leaderships have cited this move, increasing the reimbursement to American productions on the Canadian talent (in front of and behind the camera) they use while shooting in Canada from 11% to 16%, as proof that the production business is incredibly attractive to “everyone.”  But it’s a bit more complicated than that. 

It is clear that Canada has aggressively tried to bring the film & television production business to their country.  But the stated purpose, from early on, was to help build a viable domestic production business over time.  And that still is not happening.  In fact, the budget in which this uptick in refunds was included also included a 25 percent cut in the Canadian Television Fund, which supports homegrown TV projects. 

It’s amazing that Canadians in the arts aren’t the angriest group because of this move.  Or maybe they are.  But they have become so marginalized over time that their voices are barely heard.  It’s great to be a Canadian who is working on American projects.  But getting a project made in Canada by Canadians is still pretty brutal. 

That said, the questions about the value of the physical production business continue.  The mere fact that the Canadians are now chasing what they got with tax breaks by adding to the breaks as some tax shelter opportunities wane does not mean that they are “right.”  Seems to me that it means that they don’t want to lose what they have, much like Los Angeles.  For the first time, they have enough film production crews that some of them who are actually of quality can find themselves unemployed for stretches as film production numbers fall off a bit.  (Of course, most of the drop in the last year’s numbers is probably attributable to the SAG strike scare of 2001.)  Just like here at home.

The reality continues to be, in my opinion, that film & television production is simply not a big enough industry for the U.S., or even California, to fight for with real financial incentives to stay home.  The MPAA, the strongest industry lobbyer, is not really interested in stopping runaway production.  People tend to forget that the MPAA is not an oversight organization, magnanimously looking for the best solutions for America and the industry and lazy parents.  The MPAA is the studios.  The studios like having the opportunity to save money.  And remember this – a producer like Elie Samaha lives on the Canadian cuff, selling foreign rights (often in long-established deals) and pushing production budgets as close as possible to the cash he has on hand.  He then uses Warner Bros. to get his crappy movies into distribution.  Outside of the degradation to the WB name, this is a good way for a studio to fill their pipeline with high profile films while spending almost nothing.

But then again, the entire industry is splintering in every direction.

Production is often in other countries.  Expect England to be the next country to start a big push to bring American production (back) there as the film business at home continues to slide into the toilet.  Neil Jordan and Colin Farrell and others have become more and more vocal about bringing production home, while the Scott Bros., who led the way for production in England for a while, are well ensconced here in Southern California.  (Isn’t it ironic that Ridley Scott’s Tripoli is being threatened by war, Wolfgang Petersen is being sent to Mexico to shoot Troy and Fox’s summer epic, Master & Commander was shot by Australian Peter Weir in the big tank in Mexico while Fox’s Australian studios were occupied by Americans making the Matrixes?) 

New Zealand is a new production hot spot thanks to Lord of The Rings and should continue as a major player in post-production CG FX as Weta gets past the Rings and starts accepting other large products.  That would make San Rafael and Wellington the two FX hot spots in the world.

Financing continues to move from country to country to country, as Hollywood keeps seeking out people desperate to be port of the most glamorous, least fiscally sane business in the world.  (Fox is this year’s Sony, heading into the summer with three $100 million-plus films.  One disaster could eat a lot of the profits from the other two likely hits, as with Stuart Little 2 last year.  The only thing Fox is missing is a Bad Boys 2-like high profile, limited-chance-of-return film like MiBII.  But if they are “lucky,” ID4 II will someday come to life and they too can spend in a grotesque act of futility.) 

The distribution of films is also becoming more and more an international business.  That’s not to say that it has been neglected before.  But as time moves along, the idea of the $100 million domestic mark as the key to all things is becoming less and less significant.  More and more, you will see worldwide day & date distribution of the major films.  Eventually, studios will start to figure out that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragons are possible, the same way that regular domestic hits are possible.  That is to say that movies that are hits overseas and are already well into profit can find an audience here, if they are handled right.  People have already forgotten the success of that film as chop socky failures have come and gone.  But they missed the point.  Crouching Tiger was not about martial arts, but about quality filmmaking that overcame language… the same as big-budget summer releases are trying to do in export to other countries. 

Titanic and both Harry Potters are films that more than doubled their domestic take overseas.  The first Matrix did not quite reach that split, drawing 67 percent more overseas than at home.  But I expect that disparity to grow this time out, even in light of what should be a much bigger domestic gross.  I expect The Matrix Reloaded to be the first $250 million domestic R-rated film.  And I would be surprised if it didn’t do double that overseas.   (Of course, it has to not suck.)  That should open some eyes, as the first true stand-alone (no book, no history, no sequel) franchise to do that kind of business since 1996’s Independence Day and, I expect, the first ever to stand-alone and do so much better overseas. 

But I digress…

A project can now be originated in London, screenwritten in New York, financed in Germany, shot in Canada, post produced in New Zealand and distributed & marketed by Americans across the globe.  And for each element, there is a fiefdom and a castle that needs defending.  As they say, all politics are local.  

Foreign companies (is AOL included?) control three of the majors.  Is Universal’s backlot business really connected to their studio business?   Is there a reason why the studio tour couldn’t be sold off?  Is WB distribution/marketing, stuck with a lot of pictures that were produced out-of-house by studio partners, really a division of WB, a machine available for independent purchase?  How long before a studio, hungry for Oscar attention, brings Harvey Weinstein aboard for his marketing prowess, which he will always have, and not necessarily his money, which might be a little tight these days. 

The point is, the only thing we can really claim in this world’s film economy is talent.  It’s the only point of control.  And America is still dominant in that arena, in marketable acting talent above all else.  That’s why I keep saying only the unions can stop runaway production.  It may not be popular with the stars that are earning millions above the border by fronting pictures that enforce unfair rules on actors who are not above-the-title.  It certainly won’t be popular with producers.  And there may be a “Mexican stand-off” that will cost millions in actors salaries for six months or so.  But until SAG and AFTRA and the DGA and the WGA say “no more,” this particular castle will be stormed and stormed and stormed again.

By the way, there is an excellent – and remarkably coincidental to the new news - piece on the history of runaway production on MCN by Len Klady.

I’m going to have to wait for tomorrow to beat up on Spacey and The Sad, Insignificant Death of David Gale.

READER OF THE DAY: A NEAR POLAND writes: “Just wanted to drop a line echoing HAM ON, HAM OFF 's comments in ROTD, regarding tight edits on fight scenes.  When I see this kind of close-up, lightning-cut editing, I am reminded of a story (possibly apocryphal) of Fred Astaire.  He watched some early scenes from one of his movies, and noticed that the director had tight shots on his face, his feet, his face, his feet, and he said something along the lines of "The rest of me is dancing, too.  Wouldn't people like to see that?"  He was a proponent of full-frame shots of the dancer's entire body, so the full effect of the dance number could be seen.  The same, I feel, should be true for most fight scenes, particularly those involving the dance-like moves of stylized, Hollywood Martial Arts.

I remember that scene near the beginning of "Gladiator", in with the Russell Crowe character is taken out to the woods to be executed.  He talks the sword-wielding executioner into standing in a certain spot, and then pulls a fancy move which stuns his opponents, and paves the way for his violent and bloody escape.  Except that, if you watch the DVD closely, in a frame-by frame kind of way, it becomes apparent that the fancy move never actually occurs.  The rapid cuts are pieced together from so many takes that the sequence of action is lost.  If you, like me, wondered exactly how Maximus pulled off that stunt, the answer was simple:  he didn't.

So, note to directors:  Pull back, and let the cameras roll.  You've spent time and money on getting your actors trained for these elaborate fight sequences (haven't you?), so let the audience see the work.  How much more fun is it too watch the fully visible action of a Jackie Chan sequence than it is too watch the piecemeal work of a film like "Daredevil"?  How bad can this kind of editing be?  Watch "Get Carter.”

E ME:  Who shall take the front line?