October 22, 2004

So with all the topsy turviness of the indie world right now, especially among the Dependents, three of which are either going away or will be drastically reconfigured in the next six months, I thought to myself, "What would I do if some studio handed me the keys to their wanna-be-old-Miramax tomorrow?".

Six Dependents have had six distinct business models in recent years. They are contain reflections of the others, but you can barely tell that they are in the same business most of the time. Everyone always said that they were going to try to be the next Miramax, but no one in this game has exhibited the schmata salesman relentlessness and passion of the Weinsteins. That is no insult to the Weinsteins. They also have taste and are marketing geniuses. There is a reason why these guys are the only Dependent studio heads who are known outside of industry circles. They are, indeed, the Louis B Mayers and Darryl Zanucks of their generation. But the genius of the old moguls was that they built a system that worked for them. The Weinsteins are working inside of someone else's system and have chafed all the way. Of course, if left to their own devices, they might bankrupt themselves, risking too much, pushing too hard. But they have built the biggest mountain because they have by far the biggest balls.

The guys at Sony Classics, Tom Bernard & Michael Barker, have - unlike the Weinsteins - created their own system and it has worked like a charm for them. They have the Sony machine working for them, but they also have a very high level of autonomy. Not only are they left alone to do as they wish most of the time, but they can make demands within the Sony family and often get what they want. And what they want is a mixture of prestige, a few branded directors and the occasional cash cow. Being the home of Almodovar and Zhang Yimou would be enough for a lot of people… more than enough for some. Part of keeping their power base strong is not risking too much and bringing negative scrutiny to bear on their fiefdom.

Somewhere in between these two worlds is Fox Searchlight, a company that's had a great run of overachievement under Peter Rice in recent years. What strikes me, when considering the history of the company, more so than the feeling of it, is that Rice and his key partners, Nancy Utley and Steve Gilula, have had their great success on one-offs. When they find a marketable property that generally trends against the marketplace in that moment, they can sell the hell out of it. Yet they seem to get their hand slapped any time they go back to the well or, oddly, when they go too mainstream. What do Antwone Fisher and In America have in common? They were both really good, emotional, mainstream movies that seemed to be a zombie, geek or murderous freak short of fitting what Searchlight has done so brilliantly. I really, really don't mean to be insulting anyone there… but I am observing an interesting history. Kinsey could be the movie that breaks the streak. And Sideways, although a comedy, is not out of harms way in this regard. Rice's Searchlight has not had a The Full Monty of its own… and certainly not a Finding Neverland. That said, Rice has rarely lost money on his films because the budgets are kept in check and they have pulled hits out of thin air every year he's been there.

Focus has the most complex business structure. International distribution is a significant part of their business. Stacey Snider and her "Big U" movie team are more hands-on with the division than are Disney, Sony or Fox. At the same time, Focus is taking more financial risks than any Dependant other than Miramax, producing and releasing two films that cost more than $20 million in the last year. The won big by picking up The Pianist, getting in early on Lost in Translation and, for a while, being in what seemed to be a Sony Classics-esque partnership with Francois Ozon. How will their new Rogue genre arm do? Well, near $15 million for Shaun of the Dead is a win… but not the win they were hoping for. As people point out, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is the highest grossing Charlie Kaufman film ever. But in the last decade of Jim Carrey's career, only The Majestic and Man on the Moon have done numbers as weak.

What is a win and what is a WIN is an ongoing issue in the indie world, especially among the Dependents, where Tom Freston infamously called for changes at Paramount Classics based on the freak show wins like Fahrenheit 9/11 and not on the $30 million from Open Water or $10 million for Swimming Pool.

And I still haven't stuck my neck out and said what I would do if I had the keys to the princedom.

Hmmmm... maybe I should think about this over the weekend....

READER OF THE DAY: SEE BIRD writes: "I was completely taken by Laura Linney in the first Tales of the City, and certain- at the time- that she would be overlooked and underused in the future. I'm so glad I was wrong. The shrewd simplicity of her acting runs counter to her peers, and elevates everything she does.

I remember seeing Helen Hunt in a series of successful and not so successful movies a year or two ago. With each one, I kept thinking how much more Linney would have brought to the roles. And I like Hunt. But Linney has the rare ability to care about the big and small moments with equal intensity.

There are actors who have a "style" appropriate to a specific time. Sally Field from Norma Raye to Punchline, Faye Dunnaway from Bonnie and Clyde to Chinatown, Natalie Wood from Splendor in the Grass to This Property is Condemned, and on and on.

While they're all great, and the movies they made are still valuable, there is the air of an acting "style" for their time that is apparent and indelible. To think about the - for lack of a better word - transparent performances over the years, only a tiny list of names come to mind. One I often think about is Julie Christie. A completely different kind of persona than Linney, yet her work holds up as contemporary and honest.

Petulia and Aftergolw were made thirty years apart, and their production design, direction and editing place them in completely different eras stylistically. But Christie's performances spanning decades of changing styles possess the same honesty and transparency.

It's a rare quality and gift, and one which Laura Linney has mastered. It's so great that she's getting the opportunity do the work that she's doing, and so great that you wrote about a such a special career."

This came from LAY JOEY LAY: "How great is Laura Linney? Let’s put it like this: I saw her a few years ago in a New York revival of Phillip Barr’s “Holiday.” Ten minutes into the show, I forgot about Katharine Hepburn. Yes, she’s that great."

And this from JW NOT MARRIOT writes: "Where would I rank Laura Linney? Somewhere in goddess territory.

It's good to see women of our age group like Linney, Julianne Moore and Patricia Clarkson get some meaty roles that allow them to have some sensuality. It's hard to imagine Julia Roberts aging as gracefully. I'd take any of the other ladies over her any day!"

E-ME: Are you going ot the movies this weekend? And how would you run your indie?