June 10, 2003

Ain't It Conscious News, Part 2
OR
Dumberer & Dumbererer: When Harry Flanked Drew

What made Drew's screed yesterday so fascinating is that it was evolutionary. And what makes Harry's response today so Harry is that it doesn't move the bar an inch. These two positions are not compatible. As a result, we have to wonder whether these two, who have been critical in balancing one another over the years, will continue to coexist. And if they do, what effect it will have on the future viability of AICN?

The good news is that Harry now admits that his self-created role is that of "Film Reporter and Commentator." For years, we have been told that they are not journalists or critics, just "advocates for film." Perhaps the status comes with some responsibilities. Or maybe not.

In Harry's mind, being a "Film Commentator and Reporter" makes it "your 'Job' to get an advance look at film." I disagree, strongly. It's not that we all don't like to see stuff early and to contribute to the conversation while there is still the possibility of ideas being embraced. But reporting is about writing what is, not what may be. And AICN has never been terribly concerned about creating a context for the difference, in no small part because they have no way of creating that context. The review of process that they run is not meant for dissection. Yet, there it is.

There is some validity to prognostication. But the decision about how and why people see movies early is a marketing and publicity decision. Does that sound "sold out?" Well, it's reality.

Movies are a business. A very, very expensive business. Even low budget movies are an expensive business. As reporters, we have an absolute right to question the process. But we do not have a right to do a qualitative analysis on incomplete work. No right at all. It doesn't help the film. It doesn't help the filmmaker. And it doesn't help the audiences for we claim to be flying the flag.

And the specifics do not matter. The mess begins when we convince ourselves that this film or that filmmaker or studio has it coming because of this or that reason. Morality does not work that way.

But it does for Harry.

The theft and distribution of someone else's private property is not an "absolute evil" according to him. And while the use of the word "evil" makes it seem more dramatic, isn't he really saying, "It's not always bad"?

After all, worldwide Day & Date releases are, according to Harry, a positive outgrowth of piracy. On the other hand, Harry doesn't seem to recognize the real value of worldwide release dates to the studios… speed of return and more leverage. It's about making more money, not servicing film fans the way they want to be serviced.

Piracy is an infinitesimal portion of the money issue right now. As exhibition continues to grow in the far east, shutting down piracy will be far more critical and box office dollars will grow by as much as 10 percent. Right now, it's about Fox being able to using its marketing might and its brief availability of its talent to its greatest benefit when releasing X2. And might I add that Day & Date for these films is a function of these studios, on these few films, actually owning worldwide distribution rights.

Harry's second pro-piracy argument is just plain dumb… that digital projection is being forced into theaters more quickly because of these worldwide release dates. First, the second biggest argument against the progress of digital projection in America is fear of increased piracy because the format is so much more susceptible than celluloid. Second, quality overseas is not a major impetus for digital cinema… it's that studios own a lot more screens overseas and digital projection savings are studio savings. A theater owned and programmed by a studio entity is far more likely to invest in the new money saving technology, as opposed to a theater in Wisconsin that gets no benefit, except the alleged (Here's to you, Roger… even if I like digital projection.) improvement in image. The studios will thank you for that push there, fanboy.

Harry's third pro-piracy argument is that stolen product is turning up in underscreened (or unscreened) places and "that's pretty cool." Yes… unless they are stealing money out of your pocket. Many people in China have learned English by watching pirated VCDs of English-language films. That's cool too. But it is still theft. I don't blame the people for wanting or enjoying the films. In China, they are a balance to government suppression. So are we supposed to stay out of China and just let it continue? Is that an argument for the future?

Harry's fourth argument seems to start being about the negative of piracy… that small films are somehow not getting theatrical releases because studios fear that they will lose DVD revenue, where they make their real money, because it will be pirated. Geez… who sold him that turd? The reason small movies have a hard time getting a release is that it is incredibly difficult to cover the costs of theatrical distribution if you don't risk some real money. What is the real upside of a May and is it worth a theatrical release? It's a better movie than Cabin Fever. But that's not really the issue, is it? What can they sell? Piracy is not the real issue. Not yet. The distribution of films that are sure never to generate as much as $5 million in the domestic marketplace is a tough business. But piracy is not the big issue right now. It's an excuse.

Harry does argue, reasonably, that online piracy does not effect opening weekends. I agree. And I agree that it is a shame that the theatrical experience might be downgraded by security issues.

But "people like you deserve to hear about the best version of the film that people have seen currently, not a inferior version." No. No one "deserves" any such thing. Of course, it is better to discuss a closer-to-final version of a film instead of an earlier "draft." But just because the online audience WANTS to know NOW, does not mean they DESERVE anything.

This is always what it comes down to with AICN… if you can get it, cool… you deserve it.

In reality, we know that Harry doesn't really believe that. He makes deals all the time. According to his story, he was shown The Hulk on screen last week. This is his first peep about it. Didn't you deserve to know that and to hear all about it? I guess not.

There are all kinds of flavors of hypocrisy out there. I guess we all get to choose the ones we like.

Will Harry & Drew continue to balance theirs out? We'll see. But something has been different since Drew sold a script. It started to show up during the Superman fiasco. And now, it has become a little sharper. I guess I shouldn't be writing about it until there is some conclusion. But you really deserve to know what I think now. Right?

E ME