October 7, 2003

Georgie Porgie, indie-arm chief, whined and bitched beyond belief…

Instead of ranting on about what is so irritating about the now endless whining and conspiracy spinning of the last week, I’m just going to lay out a 10 things that people need to consider before they drink the Kool-Aid and start belting out numbers from the Indie version of Les Miserables.

1. The MPAA Is The Studios. – Somehow, this foggy concept has developed, even in the minds of those who are employed by the studios, that the MPAA is somehow an independent industry watchdog or something. The MPAA is - quite literally - an arm of the seven “major” studios that make up its membership. (DreamWorks is the one major non-signatory.)

2. Jack Valenti Does, Ultimately, What His Bosses Want Him To Do. – Jack Valenti is there to push along the agenda that is in the interests of the seven “major” studios. Of course, he has his own style and a certain amount of political power inside the industry. But make mo mistake, Valenti is the industry front man, there to take credit and blame for the issues that divide the industry and to create a screen of smoke when the real powers take particularly poorly received actions, like the screener ban.

The primary reason why the job of head of the MPAA is not a purely figurehead position – outside of the day-to-day hard work involved – is that Valenti’s relationships in Washington and his skills as a lobbyist have been absolutely critical to the way this business continues to operate. When people talk about Bill Clinton taking over the job, it isn’t frivolous. The industry would not be well served by replacing Valenti with “just” a smart guy. They need someone who knows how to play the Washington game and the Hollywood game. That’s no small order.

However, the notion that Jack Valenti is on some ego-driven rampage against independents and no one else matters is ridiculous. Jack and Barry Meyer hatched this idea, still probably more an image play than a real piracy play, and the other studios agreed to sign on. These men are not easily intimidated or intimidated at all. There was a choice made. Don’t kill the messenger.

3. The Academy Is NOT Involved. – There is the odd sense out there that the screener ban is somehow related to the Academy crackdown on awards rules violations. The Academy had nothing to do with the screener ban. The only rules they have about screeners are ones limiting the bells and whistles above and beyond the presentation of the actual movie in a home-accessible format.

4. The Academy CANNOT Get Involved. – There have been those who have called for the Academy to, somehow, put its foot down and to raise the flag for independent film. This is impossible. The Academy cannot set rules requiring any marketing effort in the chase for an Oscar. It is not the Academy’s place to take a position on movie marketing, other than to say in some cases, that some things are simply inappropriate in the pursuit of their awards and if a company or individual chooses to go beyond the rules, they risk not being a part of the awards game. Outside of that, it is not the place of the Academy or any other group to tell a studio how to go about its business.

It is great that In The Bedroom ended up getting nominations even though Miramax had not prioritized it. But as soon as the Academy starts making statements, much less rules, about prioritizing such small films, they are creating a whole new bias, whether it is fair in the scheme of the universe or not.

5. The Academy Awards Is Not A Fair & Balanced Contest. – Every one of these people screaming at the top of their lungs already knows that the Oscars are not a true reflection of the best of American cinema - with rare exceptions- and that the game is always a bit cooked. It can be as overt as Holocaust-related documentaries or as subtle as great performances that happen to be by “Friends of the Academy.” There is no doubt that the Oscars reflect the tastes of a certain age group and of a certain taste, generally a little safe and a little more upbeat than the films some other groups embrace. That is the nature of this beast. The “conspiracy” against indies starts with the Academy members. And while the lack of screeners may have a detrimental effect, it does not turn black into white or vice versa.

6. The Academy Awards Cannot Be Compared To Any Event Associated With Real Human Suffering. – The next time you get the urge to compare the screener ban to The Blacklist or Nazi Germany, please take a deep breath and proceed to bang your head against the wall until you either find a more sensible analogy or pass out trying. Awards screeners are not a form of free speech.

They are a result of commerce with the intention of creating additional commerce, whether directly or by good will. The worst possible result of an awards screener not being sent out to awards voters is… the lack of an award or a nomination. And what is the worst possible result of the lack of an award or nomination? A lack of additional income and/or prestige that leads to more income.

Is a result of indie films winning awards that more of the public shows an interest in indie (read: better) films? Yes, to some degree. But as the indie movement has learned, indie films have to be marketed just the same as major studio releases. The Oscar chase is a very specific piece of marketing for indies. And that tool has been compromised by the ban. Absolutely. But it’s not a great moment in the culture of the world. Hell, it’s not a great moment in the culture of Los Angeles. If you’re not one of the 20,000 people who get screeners – or a friend or family member of someone who is one of those people – this means nothing to you.

7. Miramax Is Not Really An Independent Anymore. – They started and propagated the movement, but Miramax’s big “indie” movie, Cold Mountain, is budgeted at $80 million. That’s not an indie. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a $12 million movie that had to fight to find funding. I was thrilled for In The Bedroom and congratulations to Frida for surviving last year’s focus on Gangs and Chicago. Of course, Miramax spent more selling those films for Oscar than the cost of three or four Fridas.

Even the hard edge of 21 Grams was softened by a $30 million budget from Focus Features. I’m thrilled that Inarritu was funded, as he deserves to be funded. But we’re not in Kansas any more.

8. The Independent Studios Under Discussion Are Not Really Independent... Nor Are They Virgins. – The only “independents” restrained by this ban are the ones that are bought and paid for by major studios who are MPAA signatories. Someone cleverly coined the term “The Dependants” for them… because that’s what they are. This doesn’t demean the quality of their work. But it hardly qualifies the heads of these studios to throw on the sandals and scream, “I’m Spartacus!”

Just because independent films are generally of a more mature and compelling nature than wide release studio films dopes not mean that the indie film business is not still about money… and in the perspective of real people, big money. Cash bonuses are tied to awards success in all kinds of ways, whether as a studio head, as a producer or as an Oscar consultant. Do you really think that the people in charge of these studios are such denizens of high moral standing that they care only about the films they release? or do you think that perhaps one big reason they are seeing red is that this ban may well cause them money right out of their pockets? And, beyond that, with corporations always looking to cut fat, a soft quarter caused by having the awards rug pulled out from under these divisions could mean lost jobs. Is that fair? No. Should the big bosses understand that they created the shortfall themselves? Yes. Should “dependent” execs be comfortable that their “big bosses” will see it the right way and do the right thing?

What? Are you fucking kidding?

9. Conspiracies Are Rarely Created To Hurt One’s Own Cash Flow. – Why would Disney do something to hurt Miramax? Why would Sony have an interest in hurting Sony Classics? What benefit is there to MGM in keeping Bingham Ray’s UA from bringing in every dime possible?

The “us against them” schtick doesn’t fly when you realize that the attack in these “indies” is, if it is an attack at all, in reality an attack by the majors against their own interests.

The piracy argument may not hold water. I personally think it does for just a handful of films. (I do not support the ban.) But let’s say it's all a load. What seems more real to you, that the “major” studios are trying to hurt their art house divisions or that they really believe that this will send a signal about piracy and are short-sighted enough (or so rabid about their fear of piracy) that they really don’t care about how it effects their smaller divisions?

Ironically, the biggest indie of them all, DreamWorks, agreed to the self-imposed ban, even though the studio’s only real Oscar hopeful is a small, intimate film, very much in the mode of those films said to be most helped by screeners. But DreamWorks didn’t have to join in, any more than Lions Gate, Artisan, Newmarket, Palm, etc. do. So why did they do it? Have they pledged to Hollywood’s version of Skull & Bones? Or could it be that they actually believe that this piracy argument holds some water for them?

The truth is that this ban hurts many studios films’ Oscar hopes far more than it hurts the indies. Warner Bros. has as much at stake with the screener ban on Matchstick Men and Mystic River as Focus does on Lost In Translation, if not more.

It’s lovely to pray that some tiny indie would break out because of screeners. But the indies that might be effected by the lack of screeners are the ones with a huge push behind them already. Why is Pieces of April an awards movie? Because they can push the famous Katie Holmes and the indie queen Patricia Clarkson. It couldn’t be more “indie,” but it still has a sales hook. And in the end, what was the most important UA title to parent company MGM this year? Jeepers Creepers 2… the potential cash machine.

As for Elephant, people really need to see that one in a theater… screeners would kill it. And who at New Line doesn’t want Fine Line’s American Splendor to be a huge success? No one. When they want to kill a title they own, they ship it to IFC! (That was a joke… Ripley’s Game recently made that sad journey, with due love to IFC Cable.)

Does anyone really believe that this is all a conspiracy to keep Whale Rider from a Best Picture nomination? Really?

10. The Only People Who Believe That There Is A Cheap Solution To Digital Piracy Are Those Who Are Trying To Sell Their Cheap Solution To Digital Piracy. – It’s all well and good to say, “We have the answer,” but logic dictates otherwise. The DVD business now accounts for more than 25 percent of the total revenue for the average movie title. If studios could effectively protect this cash cow at the cost of even 5% - 10% of the wholesale price of a DVD, wouldn’t they be doing it already? If there were a real way to close the digital loophole, wouldn’t they be doing it?

READER OF THE DAY: SC-REAMS writes: “In response to One Glad Man: Bullshit!

There is something about sitting in a darkened theater, with a bunch of people, watching a series of lights on a screen, that is magical. While some people advance the theory that only action movies need the theater experience, the truth is that EVERY movie is improved by seeing it in a theater.

Some examples: Grease isn't a very good movie, but it comes alive with a crowd. When a comedy really works, like with There's Something About Mary, the laughter of the audience becomes contagious. But it can be true with bad movies, too. I affectionately remember my experience of seeing The Crush with a sizable audience which turned against the film and began to heckle it. Made the film almost bearable, which wouldn't be true at home.

And anyone who says seeing Lawrence of Arabia on a 58 inch screen instead of a 58 foot screen would be better is a moron.

I've seen many movies in the past 10 years in a theater due to different reissues and bookings here in Ohio. I treasure them all. A quite abbreviated list includes Ben Hur, RoboCop, Nosferatu, House of Wax, How The West Was Won, Dr. Zhivago, The Abyss (director's cut), Jaws, The Ten Commandments, Rosemary's Baby, The Evil Dead, Singin' In The Rain, Superman, Tootsie, The Maltese Falcon, Stop Making Sense and Sunset Boulevard.

I've heard these arguments that somehow seeing films in a theater will die out in a generation due to home technology. That same argument could be used for radio. After all, you can't see it like TV. Last time I checked, there are still plenty of radio stations going strong. (You can make a similar argument about the legitimate theatre.)”

And THE ANAHEIMER writes: “Whoa Dave. What the heck is going on with you? It seems that ever since you saw Kill Bill you've gone nuts! What's the deal my friend?

Being a complete Tarantino freak, reading your incessant bitching is forcing me to put in my two cents worth. You seem to be desperate to hate this movie, and it obviously has stuck in your craw. I have not seen Bill yet, but am looking forward to it. I'm not surprised in the least by the incredible reviews the movie has received so far by the few groups that apparently disobeyed the embargo (Empire, Ebert&Roeper, Hollywood Reporter, etc.). But I do know this:

Critics are supporting the film because they fear appearing unhip? What a laugh. I'm sure Roger Ebert, who called the movie "brilliant" in his review this past weekend, speaks his mind. I notice you focusing on the comments that Roeper made in his review, picking on his semantics or turn of phrase. What about Roger? He obviously loved it big time. You really think that Ebert is desperate? What are you going to say when a majority of the other big print critics come with their big thumbs up? Desperation? Come on Dave...

Putting the biggest budgeted movies of the year (all of them stinking piles of crap BTW) in a lump and classifying them as "genre" filmmaking...for you to put Kill Bill in the same genre as any of those films is cottonheaded. Knowing the tone that emanates from QT's work, I know that there's no way that any of the movies you mentioned are anything like Quentin's work. You're reaching Dave, and it's not pretty....

You recently spared no expense in your raving about The Rundown, and what a great piece of work it is. And then you have the juevos to complain that Kill Bill lacks story continuity or character depth? Seriously? I just saw that deeply disappointing Rock dreck this weekend, and that "story" there is so poorly constructed that I'd appreciate it if you'd refer the writer and director to a filmmaking class or a screenwriting workshop, anything that may help me enjoy my movie going time a tad more in the future. It's beyond belief.

Kill Bill is Charlie's Angels? Yeah, I'm sure that's what Quentin was thinking when he came up with the idea 9 years ago.

You hate getting in these pissing matches...with who? There are things you admire in Kill Bill? It sure doesn't sound like it. It does sound like you've got thousands of words to crank out in your hatred of the film. You're really getting me psyched to see it, I'm wondering if it will invoke the same extreme response in me that it did for you...

And perhaps worst of all Dave is your bringing up your beloved Matrix crap yet again. Yeah, Quentin mentioned to some interviewer the comment about the Matrix, he probably mentioned lots of stuff, knowing him, but the media has to create the big story...Let's get this straight once and for all. The Matrix Reloaded screwed the pooch. Big time. And if I hear the excuse one more time that "any film that makes 280 million dollars can't be viewed as a failure" crap I'm gonna throw up. The facts are these: Reloaded had more hype than any film in the past several years; it had an enormous fanbase that was looking forward to it, and the potential was there, if the movie was good, to make an ungodly amount of box office, and I don't mean 280 million. 400 million and more was easily within reach, but then the movie came out, and it was horrible. You're right about there being an inherent problem with the Matrix sequel, which is that it sucked. It typified how dreadful movies with all that computer shit can be. The burly brawl??? LOL.

A muddled mess, Reloaded's story was dreadful, the filmmaking lifeless. It was about the most uninteresting piece of work you could imagine. The CGI was deathly dull, and that preamped audience, as enormous as it was, responded in this way: The movie did 130 million dollars or so in the first 4 days (that's how huge the built in audience was!), and then the TOTAL DOMESTIC TAKE WAS SLIGHTLY MORE THAN TWICE THAT OPENING FRAME. If the movie had been at least good, the hard core fans would have revisited it, but alas, it was a complete and utter failure, and no one went back for more. The word got out fast about how poor it was, and its fate was sealed, and you know what I mean Dave, that Reloaded had the capability of making 400 to 500 million dollars domestic based on the hype and the expectations if it had only been decent. Nemo made more than six times its opening weekend, with far less expectations. But the W brothers had no idea how to follow up on the original, and they floundered about as badly as possible, but who can blame them for at least trying with all that money on the table? I don't.

By the way, I did get a laugh when you implied a relationship between Kill Bill and Kangaroo Jack. Wow, you really are pissed for some reason...

Anyway, I'm not sure why your invective is reaching such heights for this movie, when there are so many, hundreds, of others that are far more worthy of the bile than Tarantino, a natural born filmmaker who makes very interesting works of art.”

E ME: Every film has its own life… it’s own strengths… and its own limitations.

There are some factual errors and some foolish comments in The Anaheimer’s e-mail. C’est la vie. I did explain why I am pissed… because people who know better are giving Kill Bill a pass… just like they did Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle. I have mentioned many of the things that are good about Kill Bill. But the same old question lurks… if you didn’t know there was a Volume II, what would critics make of Volume I? What if it wasn’t Tarantino, but Joe Newcomer? Why aren’t people even questioning the gamesmanship of splitting the one good movie into two movies? Is Kill Bill really worth twice as much as any other film this year? Every time I ask these questions, I seem to run into people who don’t want to answer them. Why? Because all the answers are “against” Kill Bill, Volume One. This film defines the Tyranny of the New. A sucker’s bet that brings neither the tidiness of Reservoir Dogs, the wit and whimsy of Pulp Fiction or the spirit of survival of Jackie Brown.

But that’s just me…