October 17, 2003

So the MPAA gathered and discussed possible exceptions to the screener ban. And still, according to the absolutely intentional leaks, there doesn’t seem to be a good answer.

It is still certainly possible that the MPAA will agree to sent out “watermarked” tapes only. The idea that the members do not already know exactly how much this will cost is inaccurate. Part of the illusion that this was some sort of hot-headed move by Valenti on his own is that there is not an MPAA anti-piracy group that meets on a regular basis and has for years. The effort will, if agreed to, increase the cost of every tape by a minimum of four times the cost of production, perhaps as high as eight times.

You can forget about any idea about limiting screeners to Academy members or any other limited number of groups. There is no precedent for screeners making a big difference in the Oscar race without making a theoretical impact on either critics groups or the HFPA beforehand. Although the Golden Globes have pushed until after nominations close, their nominations remain a pre-Christmas event. So, you are still talking about between 10,000 and 20,000 units of every film being distributed. And now, there is the issue of the actual physical production of these tapes. Expectations were that in this year of the first shorter Oscar season, tapes and DVDs would be out for many films in October. Now the question is, how many studios can get their films mass-produced in time to make the Thanksgiving break?

The idea of separating out smaller releases from the larger ones seems to have been dumped. Why? There is simply too much room for fudging. It’s cute to call the idea of an 800-screen barrier “The Sofia Coppola Rule” based on the theory that the studios are cowering at the Oscar firepower of Lost In Translation, currently on 882 screens. This whole debate has been loaded with this kind of jingoism. But consider some other movies. In 31 weeks in release, Bend It Like Beckham spent 2 on more than 800 screens, widening the release in early August in an effort to capitalize on Keira Knightly’s rising star. Is eliminating that film with a rule change this late in the game fair? Don’t you think that Searchlight would have held their re-launch to 799 screens if they knew? After all, the widest release of the film outside of those weeks was 555 screens.

And what about the future? Does Focus Features hold fire and keep 21 Grams under 800 screens since its financial upside as a wider release is limited anyway and a few Oscar nods would probably make up for the possible loss by boosting home entertainment dollars? And then, of course, there is the real question. There are no Academy rules on this. If a 21 Grams gets nominated in January and catches fire, should Focus really be expected not to put it out there on more than 800 screens? How about DreamWorks’ House of Sand & Fog? Limited at Christmas… what date do they hold until? Is the agreement that the studio will never go on more than 800 screens if they send screeners? A. What kind of decision is that to have to make? B. That would actually qualify as grounds for a lawsuit by filmmakers, since it would actual be restraint of trade, unlike the false argument that not sending screeners could be held up in court as restraint of trade.

The Hollywood Reporter piece concludes that an across-the-board answer is the only one likely to occur. And while I agree with that, the troubles with taking the step back remain. The difference between DVD and videotape, for people who know what they are doing, is real but pretty insignificant. Remember, unlike the Hulk or Spider-Man tapes that got out, with markings all over them and blurry images, these screeners are meant to impress the viewer. They will be of the highest quality. And they can be converted to DVD in a flash. Also remember, the MPAA was already perfectly capable of getting online auction companies like E-Bay and Yahoo! to pull any illegal product off the market. So the publicity issue of awards screeners coming up on E-Bay was already under control when this ban was put in place.

The question remains, will Warner Bros. put 20,000 high quality copies of The Last Samurai on the street two weeks before release? Will Fox let Master & Commander be dessert in thousands of homes on Thanksgiving night? How early will Disney be willing to let us remember The Alamo? When will Sony put a Big Fish on our tables?

The fight against the screener ban has been about small films. The fight against rescinding the screener ban will be about the big films… big films that have both real Oscar prospects and real box office prospects. The companies behind these movies will only agree to move forward if they are comfortable moving ahead with screeners, since not sending screeners will be seen as a way of writing off some percentage of the vote on politics alone. One company I spoke to talked about not sending screeners even if the ban is rescinded, if only to say, “See our movie on a screen, like it was meant to be seen.” I’m not so sure that the position would hold though.

Most importantly, Jack Valenti now faces, if he wants this “adjustment” to happen, the very same series of debates that he so cleverly avoided by getting all nine companies that have signed on to come aboard before anyone even knew it was coming. Everyone has to be in agreement on this choice or it will become another public embarrassment. Barry Meyer and Tom Rothman may have led the way the last time around, but now, they essentially have veto power.

Ironically, Warner Bros. is the major studio that would likely benefit most from the end of the ban. And while Universal doesn’t have a lot to gain from the ban being dumped, their Focus Features division is probably the company with the most to gain.

In my gut, I still believe that Valenti will drag this thing out for another week or two, until changing course becomes a problem of function even more than form. I don’t see how any further changes can really be implemented any later than next week. We shall see.

SPEAKING OF PIRACY: There is a small drama going on over at FilmStew.com over an illegal screener of The Passion of Christ (formerly known as “The Passion”) that came into the possession of a Film Stew source. As reported by Richard Horgan on October 8, some guy they call “Bill Broadband” has a DVD quality copy of Mel Gibson’s film, which has never screened in anything other than private screenings. The quality of the DVD indicates that, as is so often the case, it came not from someone in a screening with a camera, but from a source with access to a digital version of the film, whether an editor or someone in a lab or wherever.

The trouble came for Film Stew when it decided to stream a few minutes of the DVD to prove its existence. One suspects that they also felt that it was kind of cute and was certain to get a whole lot of new readers floating onto the Film Stew website. Much as I like Sperling Reich and Richard Horgan, I can’t say that I would have made the move myself. In the good old days of roughcut.com, making the move without corporate approval – that would never come – might have cost me my job. But more to the point, the clip was the product of a theft. And while I think that the story they did was terribly important, I don’t think I would put the stolen property on display.

But I don’t think I would behave as Icon Productions is now behaving either.

On October 9, a day after the story went up, George Hedges of the Quinn Emmanuel law firm sent a cease & desist letter to Film Stew, at which point, the clip was pulled. (Read the cease & desist here.

But since then, there has been further communication that has had Icon pushing Film Stew for the real name of their source, with the threat of an infringement lawsuit as the cyanide-loaded carrot. They have, I am told, literally told Film Stew that they would not pursue any legal action if Film Stew gave up their source. Of course, there are no real damages to be had from this clip being up on Film Stew for 24 hours. But the costs of fighting a lawsuit could be crippling for this small business. No doubt, Icon hopes that the threat will be enough to get what they want, regardless of a little thing called the First Amendment.

I hope that Icon will back off and respect the fact that Film Stew’s story was an important piece of journalism about piracy and that their behavior here is very much like the strong-arming by the ADL that they have been chafing under in recent months. Icon should not get sideways with Film Stew. And if they don’t, fewer of us will look cross-eyed at them.

READER OF THE DAY: NOT THE ROMANO’S SUPER writes: “I can't help but think about how this might parallel what happened to Pauline Kael. My source of reference is EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS, which I don't happen to have in front of me, so it's possible I'm remembering this not so well...But wasn't she put in charge of a development department at a company some point at the height of her power? I believe it went horribly awry and afterwards some people wondered if this is wasn't an incredible Makavelian move by Warren Beatty to cut her down to size.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Having said that, I think this is a dumb move by Revolution. If Harry gets a movie made - and why wouldn't people want to work with him, it'd undoubtedly be good publicity on the site, and aintitcool is perceived to be important - the type of culture he represents is more like a cult of geeks. We're not talking hip and underground. This isn't like rap music in the 80's before Run DMC - the voice of Harry is not going to blast into the mainstream.

That said, I can also see Harry making flicks in the vein of JEEPERS CREEPERS - movies that never amount to anything, except for making money for their studio by way of not costing much and selling on DVD. Which is kind of sad, because if one thing's obvious and admirable about Knowles it's that he loves movies. And I can't see him being happy with that type of legacy.”

BOMBAST was not quite as friendly about it: “AICN, especially after this latest revelation, has become even more muddled and dirtier than before Harry decided to make a movie surely to be flamed before it wraps.

How on earth can a site like AICN continue to exist under such shadowy circumstances? It makes no sense to me, how a studio could justify giving this man and his site any sort of assistance. Knowles is the Jimmy Hoffa of entertainment internet sites. Much like Hoffa's love of the working man. Knowles has a love of cinema unmatched my most, but like Hoffa he seems to let his love lead him astray.

His morals being the first to go in these situations, because Knowles honesty seems like a kid who does not know what he has stumbled upon. He seems completely and utterly, at least through reading his ramblings online, unaware at how shady he comes across. How on earth can he think a bad review of Radio or Peter Pan justifies his continued reviewing of Sony's film when they are paying him?

It just makes no sense how Harry Knowles, simply seems to be, online or even in real life. He seems to completely ignore how things are or need to be or should be. He now has a studio job, but he wants to act like nothing has changed. Something very rotten has happened in Austin, Texas. Let's hope the smell wakes Knowles up from his stupor.”

E ME: If you don’t know what they are talking about, yesterday’s late column is here.

I am comfortable recommending all three of this weekend’s wide releases (Mystic River expands) to people who like their retrospective genres. Runaway Jury is a good Grisham movie, Mystic River is a very good drama, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre is an excellent chiller thriller. What will you see?