Every year good films show at the Toronto Film festival that never open anywhere near you. This year some good films played that may never open anywhere, even if you live in Toronto--or New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Austin or upstairs over a Landmark Theater multiplex. Toronto is traditionally a lively marketplace for the purchase of film rights for new non-studio product: Indies, docs, foreign films. This year Harvey Weinstein paid $1 million for "A Single Man," and that was that. One sale, one movie, one million -- probably as little as Harvey has paid for a movie in some time.
Stands at yellow, rising toward orange
The makers of independent films don't have to send to learn for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for them. The bottom fell out of the market. That doesn't mean there were no other offers, but it means there were none that the sellers felt able to accept. It shows a collapse of confidence in the prospects of independent film distribution.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to Anne Thompson, who always knows what she's talking about. In her blog Thompson on Hollywood, she leads: "The old independent market is over." She quotes the producer Jonathan Dana: "It's a massacre. It's the end of funny money."
Thompson names a few of the films going home without deals, and it's depressing:
"Creation," the opening-night biopic about Charles Darwin. "Get Low," Robert Duvall's first lead role in awhile. Bruce Beresford's "Mao's Last Dancer," about a dancer hand-picked by Madame Mao who defected to Texas after falling in love with an American woman. Tilda Swinton in "I am Love." Rodrigo Garcia's "Mother and Child," which left some viewers weeping and stars Naomi Watts, Annette Bening and Samuel L. Jackson. Todd Solondz's "Life During Wartime." All big films with box office names (at indie box offices, certainly). And what about my own favorite from Toronto 2009, Tim Blake Nelson's "Leaves of Grass," with its remarkable dual performance by Edward Norton as twins? And Atom Egoyan's mesmerizer "Chloe?" And many others?
Robert Duvall in "Get Low"
And what, for that matter, about "Julia" with Tilda Swinton, the most remarkable thriller I've seen all year, which played festivals including Berlin and Chicago in 2008, was picked up by Magnolia, and never played on more than four screens? In my review last month I fell over myself in praise, but it played here at Facets Cinematheque, and many ticket-buyers possibly don't think of that as a "real theater." (If you were to choose only one Chicago theater to see first-runs for a whole year, you might not be able to do better than Facets, but never mind).The big winner at Toronto was "Precious," which claimed the Audience Award. It had long since been picked up by Lionsgate. It generated the kind of buzz heard last year for "Slumdog Millionaire," and has Oscar written all over it. Werner Herzog's "Bad Lieutenant" ("His best film in years" -- Manohla Dargis") is going out with First Look. But films that went to Toronto looking for a sale are still looking.
The feeling is that it's too expensive in this economy to successfully open an unknown film. Most indies feel they must open in New York, the most costly media market in the country, and of course that means an ad big enough to be visible in The New York Times, buys in the other major daily and weeklies, maybe some public transportation posters, maybe some radio, maybe some television, maybe some internet, and pretty soon you're talking maybe more money than the movie maybe cost.
Ally Sheedy, Paul Reubens and Shirley Henderson in Todd Solondz's "Life During Wartime"
The chilling effect of this down the line will mean the disappearance of investment funds for indie filmmakers. They depend on investors who can be persuaded to take a risk but not prepared to act as charities. All investors need to use is Google and they'll be asking an indie filmmaker, "hasn't the market dried up?"This crisis can't be blamed entirely on the economy. Box office traffic is strong across the board, with Landmark, the largest indie exhibitor, reporting booming admissions. People will go to movies. But they have to (1) hear about them, and (2) be able to find them. And that leads me to the real subject of this entry, which begins with their problem and leads to ours. We can't solve the distribution crisis. But we can take control of our own movie going.
I continue to believe the best way to see a film is in a theater, projected by light through celluloid. I might as well be howling at the moon. In the last few years I've come to accept that digital projection has improved enormously. I acknowledge it. I accept it. If it results in a substantial reduction in the costs of prints and distribution for smaller films, it is a healthy development.
Digital is said to increase the risk of piracy. I set aside those concerns. Cineplexes can deploy platoons of guards with night-vision goggles, and it won't make a difference. The deed is already done. When a movie is on DVD in Hong Kong before it opens in America, you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to know that the theft was an inside job. Somehow, movies are obviously leaking through the Hollywood post-production system. There isn't a big market on the $5 street-sale scene for "You, the Living" or the Dardenne brothers, however, so in the indie market piracy isn't as much of a problem.
Flavio Parenti and Tilda Swinton in "I Am Love"
Okay. So, digital projection. I wrote earlier suggesting that a digitally-delivered encrypted signal could inspire storefront indie theaters in smaller markets, and have heard of some theaters and film societies experimenting with that route.But what about you, sitting at home in what Juno's mother describes as "East Jesus, Nowhere?" What are you supposed to do? I get comments from readers who describe round-trips of two hours or longer to the nearest art theater. I suspect that no matter how far you are from an art theater, you're likely to have cable TV -- and I'm intrigued by the developing fist-run market via Video on Demand.
Call it "Cable on Demand" and you'd get COD, which is what it amounts to. I've made an effort lately to review some new VOD titles on the site, and I've set aside a section for them on the "Two Thumbs Up®" section of my home page. There are four good ones currently listed: Spike Lee's musical "Passing Strange;" Juliette Binoche in "Paris," a love poem to a city and some characters who live there, and "Still Walking," a new film by the Japanese master Hirokazu Kore-eda; and "Medicine for Melancholy" by Barry Jenkins, about two young African-Americans wake up hung over in a friend's home and spend the next 24 hours very slowly getting to know one another.
Although my job description requires me to review almost all the new theatrical releases, I'm going to try to review some of these titles every month. Some of the most interesting, typically costing around $3.95, are via IFC Festival Direct, which also offers day-and-date premieres from such festivals as South by Southwest. I'd like to hear from readers who've had good or bad experiences viewing movies this way.
Ed Norton and Ed Norton in "Leaves of Grass"
There's also the market for internet-delivered films, both streaming and for download.These distribution avenues offer filmmakers a chance of seeing some revenue quickly. I'm uncertain how much they make through a popular outlet like Netflix; the company buys a DVD and then rents it, so the money must not be the same. From the user point of view, of course, Netflix is ideal. Some readers complain they experience long waits for some titles. Others tell me they have 500 titles on their waiting list. Common sense tells me if you keep your list very short, Netflix is forced to respond more quickly. Renting from a local store is convenient, but the dominant Blockbuster is weak in indie and foreign titles and just closed 1,000 stores. Creative independent local video stores continue to thrive.
A persistent problem is getting the word out on these under-the-theatrical-radar films. How many critics have time to see a lot of them? How many of their employers are more interested in "Still Walking" than "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs?" A new Spike Lee is always an event, and "Passing Strange" has 21 reviews on "Rotten Tomatoes" (scoring 100%). His previous film, "Miracle at St. Anna" (33%) has 112 reviews. See what I mean? Lots is claimed about the power of the internet, but if a movie conquers the blogosphere so what?
Movie lovers can also, if they have the time and money, attend film festivals; I know people who take a vacation week at Toronto, where you can find reasonable lodging and live on coffee and survival rations. A reader named Jason Marcel tells me he saw 50 movies at TIFF this year, and had finally consumed his first square meal since he got there, "since it seemed like all I was consuming for 10 days was bird seed, fruits, nuts and twigs, Advil, and bottled water."
And people think I'm kidding about the Trail Mix Brigade. But the fact remains that the economic model for indie films is troubling. Small low-budget films will continue to be made, because their directors need to make them. But will they be seen? One answer, I think, is to treat every non-studio film that opens in your town as a seven-day run. It won't be held over until you get there.
[ Much improved top artwork thanks to Marie Haws. ]
¶
Now playing at IFC Festival Direct.
¶
A well-chosen Film of the Month from Film Movement (in Canada too, unlike Netflix)
¶
Trailer for "A Single Man"
¶
Trailer for "Mao's Last Dancer"
¶
"Mother and Child" doesn't have a distributor? How is that possible with Jackson, Watts, and Benning starring on top of such a compelling story? It's one of my personal favorite of TIFF.
And "Mao's Last Dancer"? I wanted to take my mom to that in theater. Will she have to settle to watch it on TV now? That is utterly unfair - that kind of movie is not meant to be seen on a TV screen.
And what about "Mr. Nobody"? It's simply the best science fiction film I've ever seen. Van Dormael wrote it 7 years in the making - it's stunning. I can't imagine that being denied theater access.
Art has always been deemed the first to suffer in harsh times. But that's also when it's needed the most - escapism is never more compelling than when the going gets tough. The fact that requires money is ironic.
Look on the bright side, at least a week in Toronto is in the range of more folks than say, Cannes.
Ebert: I just looked up "Mr. Nobody" and it seems fascinating. Your blog entry on it is poetic. You write so well.
http://etheriel.wordpress.com/
Yes, very troubling indeed. The closest art house theater to me is in Dallas, two and a half hours one way. If I make that trip just to go to the theater, I go to several movies. Ticket prices about ten dollars; say I see three films, so thirty dollars, plus gas. Needless to say I can't afford to do that every week, or even once a month (what with my college student budget). Consequently I miss a lot of stuff. I'll rent the dvd's eventually, but I'd much rather see them in theaters, on the big screen and all. Unfortonately I don't see the situation improving anytime soon.
2009 seems to be a big year for fashion in movies. "Coco Avant Chanel", "Valentino: The Last Emperor", "The September Issue"...and now, "A Single Man" directed by Tom Ford.
And "East Jesus Nowhere" is also an excellent song by Green Day.
Not to deny or downplay anything you say above, but with Sundance, TIFF, IFC, Netflix, and video-on-demand, there is more access and more interest in independent films than any time in my life. That trend is only going to improve as it continues to become cheaper to make and then distribute movies.
I grew up in a small midwest town with four t.v. channels, and three movie screens (one of which was a drive-in). I watched the Siskel and Ebert show on public television every week, even though there was no chance most of the movies would ever play in my town. Then VHS rentals came to town and there were now hundreds of movies available. Finally Netlfix came to be and there are over a hundred thousand titles. Man, I love those red envelopes. Sure it would be better to see great films in a theater, but it's just not a realistic option most of the time.
Indie films may be taking a step backward this year, but they have been striding forward for a decade. I don't see that changing into the future.
The studio system was once meant to increase private distribution. Sure, they definately need to blockbusters to stay in business, but why keep fighting to survive if you're not going to do any thing with your time?(I fear a potential film investor may reject me on account of this comment!)
Video onDemand, while always a second choice, has been a godsend. For the price of one student ticket, friends and I can see movies that we want to that haven't been given the gift of a theatrical distrubtion. I should note that I live near Chicago. If there's a film I want to see playing at Facets or the Gene Siskel or the Music Box or Landmark, I make sure to see it that way, usually within the first week it's released, mostly during the opening weekend. That I live near one of the greatest cities in the country, and I STILL can't see big indie movies in a theater is depressing. What VOD has allowed me to do though is see films like Medicine for Melancholy, the films of Christophe Honore (of the three I've seen, only the first, Dans Paris has recieved a Chicago run, the other two have run at festivals in the city), and my first VOD movie, and Three Times. Seeing that onDemand got me to take a friend to it when it finally came to the Music Box a month later, two full price tickets. I've also been indebted to the Chicago International Film Festival, where I've discovered Thai-born, Chicago educated filmmaker Apitchatpong Weerasethakul, Honore, Kim Ki-Duk, Amos Gitai, saw my second Hou Hsiao Hsien film, and winners from Cannes that aren't even on DVD in the US. This year I attended the wonderful European Union Film Festival at the Gene Siskel Film Center for the first time got to see wonderful films ON film in a movie theater with a rapt audience that didn't even play in New York for more than a week.
The most pointed illustrations of the problems these movies face that I've seen have been the nearly empty screenings of Reel Paradise and Ballast that the directors themselves attended. If people had been deflected from whatever blockbusters were playing nearby and saw these films instead I can't imagine any one of them being dissappointed, and afterall those blockbusters would be there for them for weeks, but the other films may not have a life after the projector gets swtiched off.
Ebert: "Ballast" was so good:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081029/REVIEWS/810309995
And "Reel Paradise," a film lover's dream and/or nightmare:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050922/REVIEWS/50826005/1023
Right now I am dying to see "Passing Strange". I also, if I get the chance would want to see the 3 other movies. But it looks like my DVR does not have IFC On Demand so I don't have access to any of these movies. Do you know when they at least come out on DVD so I can at the very least Netflix them?
Ebert: In the case of VOD, usually no more than 2-3 months. Sometimes day-and-date.
Ebert: IFC on Demand is carried by several cable systems, including Comcast.
Reply to: The economic model for indie films is troubling. Small low-budget films will continue to be made, because their directors need to make them.
Maybe the solution is... make better movies.
When the big summer movies like "GI Joe" and "Transformers 2" tank, there's not enough corporate profit to buy indie movies. This summer was hurt badly by the writer's strike.
There were a lot of terrible movies this last year. "Australia"? Or "Golden Compass"? (Actually, "Golden Compass" came from Ted Turner begging Bob Shaye to produce a big-budget blockbuster for his studio's film library. Turner wanted another "Gone With The Wind" and it's amazing that he never found it.)
Even on the list you posted,
Mother and Child," which left some viewers weeping and stars Naomi Watts, Annette Bening and Samuel L. Jackson...
I didn't see a lot of movies that would belong on the list I just saw on the Emmy broadcast:
In the category of Outstanding Made for Television Movie, the nominees are all cable network productions. All paid for by subsciption, rather than a charge for an individual movie.
(1) Coco Chanel on Lifetime,
(2) Grey Gardens on HBO, Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore as the eccentric mother and daughter who refused to leave their Hamptons mansion even through they were broke.
(3) Into the Storm on HBO, a drama about Winston Churchill
(4) Prayers for Bobby on Lifetime, Bobby (Ryan Kelley) struggles with his sexual identity and eventually commits suicide when his mother (Sigourney Weaver) refuses to accept that he is gay.
(5) Taking Chance on HBO
Kevin Bacon in the true story of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Strobl, USMC, who accompanied the body of 19 year old Lance Corporal Chance Phelps home from Iraq
In the Writing for a Drama Series category, four of the nominees were from "Mad Men". The winner: ''Mad Men: Meditations in an Emergency,'' Kater Gordon and Matthew Weiner, AMC.
Reply to: There's also the market for internet-delivered films. These distribution avenues offer filmmakers a chance of seeing some revenue quickly.
I can offer suggestions, for instance,
(1) NBC might discover that 5 nights of Jay Leno is too much. Maybe the viewers will be loyal to Jay, but the ratings will go down for the block of Leno, O'Brian and Jimmie Fallon. On Fridays, NBC could replace Leno with "Roger Ebert's Movie Night."
(2) Make happy movies that scream "Entertainment!" like "The Sound of Music" and "Titanic." Disney bought "John Carter of Mars" for the Pixar team's first live-action effort, and paid $4 billion for Marvel. (Makes you wonder if some characters from Marvel comics will show up on Mars.)
If you want a studio to pay $4 million for a great indie film, you've got to hand them a script for an Event Movie that will sell more tickets than "The Sound of Music" did. And, unfortunately, the deal has to allow the studio to keep the profits rather than going to the director (ie, Michael Bay's $75 million for the first Transformers.)
I am surprised by the popularity of Mao's Last Dancer. Perhaps the popularity of the bestselling memoir it is based on, and the undeniably emotional ending, factor in to that, but when I saw it here in Sydney a couple of weeks ago, I thought I had just seen a good but not great film, which is probably what you could say about most of director Bruce Beresford's films, outside of Tender Mercies and Driving Miss Daisy.
But good on the Toronto audience for going with their hearts and not just their heads.
But I would hope that it finds an overseas audiences (via sales); it is one in a good many Australian films released this year. There were several at Toronto this year, Balibo, about the murder of 5 Australian journalists in East Timor in 1975, just one of them and one of my fave films all year - Oz or not.
Enjoyed your reports from TIFF. I look forward to reading your review of the New Zealand film The Vintner's Luck, should it ever get a US distributor (Variety was not too kind).
Ebert: Not to forget Rolf de Heer.
Roger,
As a filmmaker whose film premiered at a well-known festival and couldn't find a home anywhere but On Demand, I appreciate you trying to shine a spotlight on these types of films. No doubt there are hundreds of hidden gems waiting to be discovered.
Ebert: Not asking for your tax return or anything, but does Video on Demand generate significant revenue?
I agree with random reader. To anyone that wants it the knowledge of little known films and what they are about is easier to get than ever. Also because of video rental sites like netflix once these titles hit dvd they are cheaper and somewhat more available than they ever were in the days of the corner video store. I think curiosity is here to stay. Curiosity + information ends up equaling independent film fans.
I wish that the lapse between when I hear about a film and when I get to see that film was shorter. If only Moon or You the Living would play my on demand service before they were released on dvd. I would pay a premium just to be able to see these sooner than the dvd release dates since they did not play in my area at a time I could go see them (I found out Moon was playing downtown one day too late.)
I'll join the chorus and say that VOD has really saved me. As a college student, I basically lived in two cities over the last four years, which ended up creating a situation where I'd be in one city while a movie's playing in the other. VOD eliminated that problem, and made it cheaper to see a few films as well.
I agree that Netflix and VOD have made more movies monumentally easier to see, but with the gap between theatrical runs and DVD release (especially for independents and foreign films) and not every studio being OnDemand (I'd do anything for Sony Classics to get that going), a lot gets missed, and it can be especially tough when the blogosphere is lighting up with a new film that it may take a year to see. It would be nice to be part of the discussion.
What troubles me most about this article is that virtually no sales went on at a major film festival. DVD and VOD may make things easier, but if no one's going to distribute them that far, then what do we have?
What an ironic entry.
I just watched Preston Sturges' "Sullivan's Travels" last night for the first time, and as I'm sure you know, it opens with the following speech by Joel McCrea: "With a little sex in it"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teTQF04jxRc
Times are hard and people are looking to escape their miseries - not to be reminded of them; that's the lesson learned by Sullivan. However to the extent times are hard again now, it could be argued that it's because went and did just that - and spent so MUCH time escaping their lives that they've would-up making them worse now and in part for avoiding the very sort of fair Sullivan wanted to do; movies with a social message, stories actually about something. You know, stuff that gets you to think.
The way "Precious" is about something. Along with so many of the Indie films at the TIFF this year.
I guess the big studios don't think Americans want to see these type of stories and why they're reluctant to pick them up. But everything goes into the social pot; movies too. We don't live in a vacuum. Everything has an impact. And maybe, just maybe, not selecting smaller yet better films for distribution, is the very worst thing Hollywood could do.
After all, isn't television and film raising the next generation of Americans? Don't you want them to be smarter than the last one? For how'd that work out for ya last time, eh?
I'm not worried myself (the internet an oyster from which the bold can pluck pearls) but I also know that not everyone is able to navigate it as well as I.
NOTE: "Great News! Film Movement is creating a special area of filmmovement.com so our Canadian friends will be able to purchase select titles online. If you would like to be notified when this feature is available, enter your email address below and we will notify you."
So it's not actually available up here "yet". But they are working on it. And until they finish, I shall continue to plunder the coastline and swim with naughty pirates in distant seas. :)
Especially if their select titles excludes what "I" want to watch. For I've looked through the catalogue and I can get a lot of that stuff already from libraries in my area - like this 2003 Canadian film "The Republic of Love" by female Director Deepa Mehta, based on the novel by Pulitzer Prize winning Canadian author Carol Shields; it stars Bruce Greenwood, Emilia Fox, Edward Fox...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-AcIKK6BaY
I don't think Roger's seen it?
Ebert: You write: "I shall continue to plunder the coastline and swim with naughty pirates in distant seas."
I hope this doesn't mean you'll be offline!
I wonder how you feel about web series as way of indie filmmakers to get their stuff seen? They're pretty much like a television series, except they're usually 5-10 minute episodes. Have you ever watched one?
There was one called "We Need Girlfriends" that got so popular, the creators of the show signed a contract with CBS to turn it into a television show (although I have yet to see anything about it...)
It inspired me to write and create my own. Who knows, hopefully a network will like it one day too and will want to turn it into a TV show! Check out the URL I provided with my name if you care to see it!
What a deeply troubling post... While I enjoy a lot of mainstream films (I just saw Funny People and loved it) I feel that the heart and soul of cinema lies in the experimentation and freedom afforded to the artists involved in indie films. As a New Zealander with fixed means it is often difficult to see films like the ones described above at Toronto anyway, and the thought that the output of such films is likely to decrease is a fairly sobering one. Two of my favourite films recently are the great indies 'In Search of a Midnight Kiss' and 'Somersault', the latter a brilliant Aussie film which I don't believe you've reviewed and would be curious to hear your thoughts.
Trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2up1hG6bAc
I live right next to East Jesus, but also about 20 minutes from a real metropolitan area. So, finding a movie is not usually a problem. Paying for them, on the other hand, can sometimes be frustrating. The money adds up. Which is why I LOVE Netflix. And in the last year, I have really been enjoying Netflix Watch Instantly as well. I was extremely surprised the other day when Tilda Swinton's "Julia" popped up as a recommendation to Watch Instantly. I had been waiting patiently for it to come out on DVD to rent through Netflix, based on your stellar review, and then Boom, its right there at my finger-tips. Its not at all difficult to hook my lap-top up to my 42" flat-screen, and the sound to my 110W speakers, so I get a full theatrical treatment just as with a DVD. Loved the film, BTW, a real forearm bruiser if ever there were one!
"Precious" director Lee Daniels' "Shadowboxer" is next.
Hail Netflix. Hail Netflix Watch Instantly!!
Miles Blanton
I live in Seville, Spain - a country that routinely dubs all films from foreign markets. I abhor dubbing and luckily for me there is one 5-screen cinema in Seville that plays only films in V.O. (subtitled instead of dubbing).
Thankfully, again, it is also an art cinema which means I get to see some of the best art cinema from all over the world. My Spanish is good enough to see a non-English language film with Spanish subs, but I still struggle understanding a Spanish language film. I had to see the new Almodovar twice. The great advantage apart from getting the chance to see lots of the world's indie films is that quite often they are films that often won't ever find distribution in the US (such as Empties by Jan Sverak which played Toronto 2007)
Additionally I have a membership at a local indie video shop (named The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari - how could they go wrong?) which stocks an unbelievable amount of classic and indie American films, an Italian section, a German section featuring Herzog, Fassbinder and Wenders, an Asian section.
I've spent the last year and a half catching up on all the great European cinema I've missed out on. And my wife has the advantage of being fluent in German, Spanish, Italian, English (although we usually watch with Eng. subs) and a bit of French, so it hardly matters what I bring home.
This is, indeed, very sad. I live about 2 hours from NYC which, while not impossible by any means, can be a challenging trip especially with trying to park that GD minivan of mine. Mostly, my daughter, who lives in Brooklyn and is one to always seek out an interesting film, puts what she finds and likes on my Netflix queue. I will often return the favor by placing favorites of mine on her streaming queue - how she can watch films on a computer is beyond me but, clearly, I am not a digital native. She is just a sprout from my perspective so I like to show her some of the "older" beauties which is how she was introduced to Aguirre: The Wrath of God, The Third Man, and Midnight Cowboy, for instance. I thank my lucky stars for Netflix. We have one house here which will show independent films (and a ton of multiplexes which will show us Transformers, etc., by the truckload) and has for years. But it shares time with the local stage theater so, while it tries valiantly, it's too little, too late with releases. So, Netflix was able to deliver Goodbye Solo to my door before it hit that local screen. Just an FYI: Netflix does have some of the films you have mentioned from Toronto in its list. They just get relegated to the SAVED queue and mine is getting longer by the day. Haven't a clue how long they will stay there but You, The Living has been gathering dust for what seems like an eternity. Now, what?
Keep fighting the good fight, Roger...and thanks for keeping those of us from East Jesus, Nowhere informed.
This reminds me of the story of last year's Best Picture winner, "Slumdog Millionaire". There was a point of time when Warner Bros. doubted the commercial prospects of Slumdog Millionaire and suggested that it would go straight to DVD without a U.S. theatrical release! Would the movie have won the eight Oscars like it did? Doubtful.
And in this article, you speak of piracy being an inside job... yes, it is. See, here in the United Arab Emirates, SDM was to release very late. After reading your enthusiastic review of it, I was desperate to see it... besides, I am Indian, and I love A R Rahman.
My friend said he had a DVD of the movie. On borrowing it, I realised it was a fake DVD. It had not just SDM in it, but some ten other films as well. All in one DVD! And pretty good quality, except that most of the films had messages coming on and off at the bottom. Messages like: "Property of Fox Searchlight"... "Property of--"... "For Your Consideration".
Being a film critic, you'd know what "For Your Consideration" implies.
I watched the movie anyways.
When it released in theatres here, I went for it twice just to cover up...
I hope that covering up is enough.
_______
I read somewhere, Wikipedia.org I think, that you said "Me and Orson Welles" is the "one of the best movies about the theater I've ever seen". Where, or when, did you say this? I don't recall ever seeing a review or blog entry saying so.
Thanks for your time,
Krishna
Ebert: I wrote that from Toronto 2008. The movie may be opening in November.
Video on Demand is also leaving cable behind. A certain rental company known for its red envelopes offers instant viewing and with one of a number of inexpensive hardware devices the viewing can be done on a quality television.
Several months ago the Russian silent, Man with a Camera was mentioned in your writings and I was watching it five minutes later.
The Tilda Swinton movie Julia that you mention in this article became available last week and I will now add it to my queue on your recommendation.
Not to overpraise this one company's offerings but they have a great collection of silent and foreign titles.
I believe this type of over the internet video delivery is the future even of cable channels themselves. I would rather pay Sundance. IFC, or HBO a few bucks a month and cut out the cable company altogether.
Ebert: Is there any problem with interruptions of the stream, or do you download first?
Projects like Up in the air and of course; award grabbers rarely face any distribution problems. It's the Indie ventures that are left in the lurch, some even with a conspicuous amount of star power.
I live in India and it puts me in utter dismay that movies like Leaves in Grass (praised by a number of critics) and Life during wartime (another reliable black comedy by Solondz, I hear) have no potential buyers even in North America. I'm quite eager to view both, any suggestions? By the way, Netflix ain't a convenient option here.
Ebert: How does online streaming video work for you?
It occurs to me that a $19.95 charge like Amazon's to download a video would translate into more like $100 in India.
It is a shame that most of us will never see these terrific movies, and the talent of people who worked on them won't be fully recognized. I was looking forward to some of these movies that didn't make it past the film festival, including Creation.
Ebert: Many will be picked up eventually, I hope.
Living in north central Indiana, in a "nowheresville" town, I know all too well of movies never coming any where near me. Every year I see film after film debut at a festival and get rave reviews only to never be able to see it in theaters. Sometimes I even have a hard time tracking it down on video once its released. Case in point this year was the film 'Away We Go'. It had good advertisment on TV, a cast of not so much no-names but stars nonetheless, and rave reviews. It literally never came within 100 miles of me. A friend of mine, who lives in Detroit, got to see it the day it came out. Another example is (500) Days of Summer. I waited weeks and weeks for it to possibly come here, when finally it did come to my podunk town. Only, it was at our 100+ year old theater that has spotty sound, broken seats, a torn screen and bats, literally bats, in its theater. I chose personal comfort over the desire to see it and didn't go. We have a multiplex here with 5 screens, and a drive-in owned by the same owner as the multiplex, that has 4 screens and shows 8 different movies on a weekly basis. Problem is, he shows the same 5 movies the multiplex does, and the 3 others are all mainstream ones as well. It is extremely frustrating.
Is the title "You, the Living" consciously derived from the song "Monster Mash" ("...and for you, the living, my mash was meant too")?
Ebert: I don't know, but I somehow doubt it. Some say it's a spin on We, the Living, Ayn Rand's first novel, but I doubt that, too.
I am a satisfied Netflix user (they went a long way in helping me see all but 3 of your Great Movies, Roger), and while I've read and heard complaints about the streaming software Netflix uses, I've never had a problem with it myself. Just last night I watched Anthony Mann's "The Man From Laramie" with Jimmy Stewart (excellent), and stream on average once a week. I will say that black and white films tend to look better than color, but I honestly believe that's more on my computer than on Netflix.
And I have Julia at home waiting for me. (I looked back over that sentence and realized it didn't come out the way I wanted it to, but decided to keep it anyway.)
Ebert: I'm so pleased "Julia" is available hat way!
I very much agree with all that have been said about the indie distribution - it sucks. What I don't really like is that any indie filmaker feels like he/she has the right to complain, whereas there are only a handfull of really good indie films that would deserve a theatrical distribution and don't get it. Most of the good/great indie films, are going to be shown, even if on only 4 screens. The rest , well, they will have a life on DVD. Now, one could argue that compared with Transformes and G.I.Joe, almost any indie film is better , and one would be right. It's just that Transformes makes money and an idie doesn't. Simple.
So instead of crying, let's just make better films, and I am 100% sure they will be shown somewhere. Quality always wins.
As far as venues for art films go, I really have to take my hat off to AMC, who has a policy that at least one screen at all of their large multiplexes has to be playing an art film. When I lived in Oklahoma City, where art film is a four letter word, this was the saving grace for me and my brother, who dutifully rushed off as often as we could to catch the latest indie release there, even if it was one we weren't too terribly interested in seeing. I think we were constantly in fear that AMC would cease to see it as a wise business venture and give that space over to more tickets for the latest blockbuster, and if we went we knew there'd be at least two people buying tickets. My brother and I would joke on the way over there about how many other people would be in the theater, but in the two and a half years I lived there they continued to give space to films like Synecdoche, New York and Paris, Je T'aime, space they easily could have given over to Transformers 2, which probably would have brought in more money. I am grateful now to be living in a city with a proper art house (Tampa and its magnificent Tampa Theater, a work of art in itself) but the 24 screen AMC out here still keeps a steady run of art films and I hope they don't plan on stopping anytime soon.
Ebert: How many of the AMC theaters do that?
Indie Piracy is more of a boon for the filmakers as it is to film buffs coz it prevents the movie from fading into obscurity.
Movie buffs all over get to watch it even though compromising on the quality of experince. But, due to the lack of release and distribution, we'll have to make do with it. But the experience is quite improving, All thanks to digitisation.
Piracy is better than nothing I guess.
P.S. Would love to read your views about Piracy.
while i love movies and you do too,
is it surprising, with the financial crisis
that independant movies would suffer?
aren't we all lucky to even have jobs and roofs over our head?
it's rough out there, the arts always suffer in times like these.
Ebert: If only "Transformers: Revenge of the fallen" suffered as desperate moviegoers turned to indie films.
I've said it before and I'll say it over and over again. The movie going experience is on its last legs. Overpriced tickets, rude theater goers, expensive snacks (even the iced coffee at the indie houses is unrealistic), poor screen qualities and unkept sound systems make me not even consider stepping foot outside. With Netflix I'm watching more indie and foreign films both on my laptop on the go and on my Xbox at home. Heck, aren't HDTV's and home stereos moving toward a technical recreation of the theater experience these days anyway? All you need to add are a few friends as an audience. God willing in my lifetime I'll see the industry cut the umbilical cord and release straight to the home.
Ebert: How does online streaming video work for you?
It occurs to me that a $19.95 charge like Amazon's to download a video would translate into more like $100 in India.
Thanks for the tip. I happen to be in my teens, therefore can't splurge much on online video streaming. Anyway, online piracy it is I guess..
Ebert: I'll pretend I didn't read that.
Roger,
What you speak of here is a rather serious issue. I believe that there are solutions from the distribution standpoint. I am okay with the digital projection, but I think that netflix requires a long wait and still leaves you wanting the theatre experience. So I think the main thing to do is for a more grassroots approach. It's not just about blogs supporting independent movies they got to see, but also finding means of getting movies shown locally. I have discovered that this is not out of reach. There are lots of things to consider, but i've discovered that there are options of getting independent movies with small distributors to a location where they are not playing, even in a big screen format if you're creative. But we also need to find out a way to convince the culture at large that quality counts. Healthy food has become a phenomenon where it may not have been forseeable ten years ago. Convincing people that watching a good movie over a poor one is just as important as diet is not easy, but I believe this message eventually can come across. But in the meantime, if the distribution and screening and promotion has to be grassroots, that's not all that bad either.
Mr. Ebert, you might be unaware of the big leaps forward that are happening with computer and digital technology that are actually making it possible for budding filmmakers to make their movies, edit them, put together online marketing campaigns, and so on far easier and at lower costs than ever possible before. Right now, most of this is being taken advantage of by the growing online creation of "webisodes" for independent TV program makers (a concept almost immediately recognized for its potential and seized upon by TV professionals, hence the plethora of "webisodes" for so many TV shows over the last few years).
Once the hardware catches up with the software available for independent filmmakers (akin to what finally happened with software and hardware for musicians -- it's now possible to produce an entire studio-quality album from home through programs like "Garageband" for Macs, for example), a new era in independent filmmaking will come. This will be further advanced by the increasingly closed nature of the traditional studio outlet for budding filmmakers, so that breaking into the business becomes so much harder with every passing year.
The combination of the need for another creative outlet and the rise of technology that allows someone to create independent films quickly, cheaply, and easily entirely on their own, will in my opinion lead into a revival of independent films. Add to this the arrival in the next five to ten years of new platforms for marketing and distributing films through portable electronic mediums and the home market, and I think the film industry is on the verge of a major change akin to what the music industry is experiencing and what's happening to news and entertainment through cable and TV.
Ebert: So maybe this is just a temporary slump?
But with the web so fragmented, how will a great project reach critical mass in terms of visibility?
I strongly suspect that, years from now, when pop-culture historians are writing about the early-21st-century indie film crisis, many will note a direct correlation between the decline in audiences for indie films and the decline of film critics on newspapers in major and secondary markets. Seriously. Yes, I know: Newspapers still run wire-service reviews. But that’s hardly the same thing as having someone on staff who’s an active advocate for indie movies, who’s eager to interview indie filmmakers – and who urges editors to occasionally make a review of an indie film the lead review in a Friday paper. Also: I think readers are more likely to heed the advice of a critic they have come to know, if not always agree with. That is, a critic who is a visible member of the community – someone who’s interviewed on local TV from time to time, who lectures and/or introduces films at museums and other venues, and whose reviews may get debated on radio talk shows.
Of course, there’s another factor to consider: The decline of newspapers, period. Yes, there are many, many websites where people can read astute and/or entertaining reviews of films. But those sites are frequented by people already inclined to see movies. With newspapers, you have what I call The Happenstance Factor: Someone leafing through the paper might stumble across a review of an indie movie – a movie he or she might not otherwise know about – and become sufficiently interested to actually go see the film in a first-run theater. I can’t tell you how many times I had people (even editors and fellow staffers) tell me back when I reviewed films for the now-defunct Houston Post that they never would have heard about (much less gone to see) certain movies if they hadn’t serendipitously come across my review while looking for the comics page or the horoscope column. Unfortunately, that sort of thing rarely happens on the Internet.
Ebert: Joe, you are so right. Sometimes it seems as if the whole world we knew is evaporating.
Readers, Joe Leydon is an old friend of mine, and an excellent critic who these days often reviews for Variety. Check out his blog by clicking on his name.
Every artist in every field struggles for attention and money; more of our greatest artists in any field died poor than rich or even well off. I was surprised to learn lately that Jack Kerouac's estate is worth about $20 million. He sure wasn't worth that when he died. People he immortalized in his stories died dead broke, and one of them found herself destitute at age 83 not too long ago.
I shouldn't have been surprised at Kerouac's post-mortem affluence, as I'd see kids reading ON THE ROAD every day, now 52 years and counting. (I understand Coppola's film of it has been struggling in production for 8 or 9 years now, while he bought the rights to it about 20 years ago.)
I've never forgotten the words I read from a local critic when I was 9 or so, "90% of anything is junk." But that remaining 10% has come to amount to an enormous body of work in any of the arts.
My movie watching earned a "good gravy!" from Roger awhile ago -- an average and minimum of 2 a night, somewhere around 20,000 films from 1986 to now (achieved by not watching TV); I won't live long enough to crack even the Netflix catalogue. The thing is, all of them were good. Not "eh"; all worth thinking about one way or another or I'd shut them off. They're in every genre, from Babylonian prole to rawther sophisticated.
As popular as the main thrust of the films Roger reviews are, I'm very surprised at how many I haven't yet seen. I'm also surprised at how few of the "obscure" films he recommends I've seen.
I pick films from brief descriptions from browsing, word of mouth from friends and Roger's recommendations -- his reviews are closer to word of mouth than any critic's I read (I did bookmark Armond White for his deep-jazz perspective); it's a matter of personality, either in the prose or in person. One can play off the tastes of another, so long as the other is articulate enough to show whether his meat would be your poison and vice versa.
There can't be any one-size-fits-all answer to the problem Roger has outlined, but as a Customer of Babylon faced with an enormity of choices, I can speak for myself how I can best be reached about a film worth watching -- that's it, above.
Electronic transmitting has amplified the problem of getting enormous amounts of art to enormous numbers of people -- and fair pay for fair product. There are undoubtedly philosophical and moral issues to face along with it. They're probably as basic as word-of-mouth is to a recommendation for anything.
Here's a related thought-problem: did tachistiscopes really sell Coca Cola? Ye who have wisdom, give it some consideration.
Ebert: You write: "I've never forgotten the words I read from a local critic when I was 9 or so, "90% of anything is junk."
You, who knows everything, doesn't recognize Syurgeon's Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law
"Make happy movies that scream 'Entertainment!'"
"Quality always wins."
"Make better movies."
How about, DEVELOP BETTER TASTES, YOU? Yeah, you - the audience. Not you, the dude who drove two-and-a-half hours to Texas to see an art film. All the other yous.
Any of you who saw TRANSFORMERS, G.I. JOE, DISTRICT 9, JENNIFER'S BODY in the theater. I'll say it, any of you who saw SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, JUNO and THE HANGOVER. You, too. All of you drooling over any press release regarding AVATAR. YOU, especially.
I'm tired of this debate. You win. Money triumphs over art. It's obvious.
The good movies will find their way to my house. Yeah, it's not the same as a theater, but, that's the world I live in. You all voted. My ballot's chad was dimpled, so it was ignored. When they stop making good movies, I'll have the chance to go back and watch all the good ones I missed while I was wasting my time on Spielberg.
I am a Netflix Watch Now junkie. This weekend, saw A Japanese Story and Exiled. And what just popped in there? Julia, with Tilda Swinton. There's always something out there, you just have to go to it. I remember you commenting once that you were not going to bemoan the fact that you hadn't read this book or that book when you still had so many of Faulkners yet to read. So while Duplicity gets skipped on my queue, I can always replay Croupier or I'll Sleep When I'm Dead, and if it gets really bad I can always watch the first few minutes of The Pelican Brief of I Love Trouble...though I'd rather live, or not live, in the world of 9 before that happens.
Mr Ebert wrote: "Ebert: So maybe this is just a temporary slump?"
Oh, I definitely think so. Even within the industry in Hollywood, consider the increasing reluctance to invest large amounts of money in big films, when smaller films can provide a larger return for far less risk. I know this doesn't SEEM to be the case when we look at films like "Transformers" and such, but the jittery nerves in Hollywood are very real and that fear is becoming a big influence.
Another factor that will impact this is the aging of film viewers -- there's a reason that counter-programming at the movies is starting to show up more often, with films appealing to women and older audiences becoming more frequent. Notice that even action films are reaching out to include older actors -- Robert Downy Jr, Harrison Ford, and other older stars that the aging movie viewers can better relate to. There will still be a place for younger 25-30 year old action heroes, but the Boomers are a big demographic and an aging one, and their tastes and preference to see older guys showin' the younguns how it's done will become increasingly noticeable in films of this sort. Even animated films are moving that way, increasingly reaching out to more mature audiences within the context of family entertainment (look at "Up" for example).
The more studios look to smaller, cheaper films with appeal to more mature audiences, the better smaller independent films are going to look -- especially when a studio can just step in and purchase a film that's already been made, so the heavy lifting's already been done for them.
Mr Ebert wrote: "But with the web so fragmented, how will a great project reach critical mass in terms of visibility?"
Well, consider Youtube for example. Look at the number of viewers on the most popular videos, and you'll see hundreds of thousands or even millions of people watch things like "Taylor Swift Revenge Rap" (which has almost 1.3 million views). Look at viewership for webisodes of popular TV programs, which obviously appeal to just existing viewers of a given show. Then consider the relatively small level of viewership for such TV programs, and yet the advertising revenue from such webisodes or from Youtube are very high.
If you look at popular sites online, even those in very narrow fields with a relatively small audience interested in their content will still achieve millions of viewers. Just as a strange and really narrow example, a group like the Marijuana Policy Project can get millions of viewers weekly or monthly on their in-house short videos on their site.
Now imagine a new Web site hosting independent films available for streaming video or download for the relatively small price of $2.00, after a short preview of the film (like a trailer). Put up the trailers on Youtube, on Facebook, send out "tweets" on Twitter, and you'll get attention and viewers. Sell advertising space on the site. And so on. If a few such sites are generated to host independent films, it provides an entirely new platform in which to promote and sell them.
If the films are only up for a few months and then viewers can order a DVD (created on-demand, per order) of the films, you get additional revenue. Use this to host a film WHILE shopping it around to studios, and you increase the odds of selling it. And the studios will quickly see that this could be a new outlet to provide smaller, cheaper films that might not do as well in theaters but which can garner a respectable audience in other places. Some films, though, could be popular enough that a studio will pick it up for limited theatrical release, and some could get wider release.
What the iTunes Store has become for music, such a site could become for independent films. iTunes, by the way, can and does host and sell independently produced music as well, including from bands who just record and produce their albums on their own and then generate fans online through MySpace and Facebook and Youtube. The opportunity to do the same for films exits, and the rise of technology allowing independent film production in much cheaper, easier ways is growing. The question is whether anyone will grab this bull by the horns, and my feeling is that -- like with music and other entertainment -- if the potential exists then someone WILL do it.
The key will be the quality of what's produced, of course. As the technology makes it increasingly possible for anyone to make a film, there will be a lot more being produced that's of sub-par quality, to be honest. When anyone with a guitar and Garageband software can make an album, you have a lot more amateurs making music that is amateurish, so sorting through that chafe takes time and effort. That's why I think the key will be creation of larger Web sites that host such material, and that separate things into categories of "best" and so on -- user input is always great, so if the site moderators do their own ranking at first, but also allow viewers to rate films (one star through five, just to use the Netflix example), it helps arrange things better.
The problem being that some films of higher quality just won't find an audience that appreciates them at times, which is why the site would also need to do its own ratings and recommendations, but that's entirely possible and easy to set up so that there is one set of rankings based on user ratings and reviews, and another set of rankings from the site itself (maybe they could even enlist some film critics like yourself to do occasional viewings and reviews of some of the films? who knows!).
I hope this happens, and I think it will eventually. Sooner than people might think, even. The templates already exist, in Youtube and Netflix and iTunes etc. Applying it to another type of user-generated content -- independent films -- is just another natural progression that's already happening in TV. I think it'll help save independent filmmaking. Just my own opinion and best-guess, of course.
My blu-ray player is able to stream titles from my Netflix instant queue. The picture quality on my big-screen television is surprisingly good - almost as clear as a DVD of the same film. With a good internet connection, I usually only have to wait a minute or two for the film to begin playing. I love being able to catch up on classic, foreign, and independent films through Netflix's instant streaming service.
It is the one downside to festivaling in the last few years. It can leave you disheartened. Riding on the busses that leave the theaters after a brilliant premier of a competition film in Park City is one of the most exhilarating experiences in the world. The buzz and caffeine-induced chatter of freezing people who are there for film and just experienced movie magic is worth treasuring. But all too soon it gives way to the sad reality that not many people will see the film.
This year, "the Cove" received standings ovations at each of its Sundance screenings. The buzz for the movie was extraordinary, and people were using insanely hyperbolic terms to talk about the experience. It struggled for distribution, finally found it, is playing on screens here and there, but its domestic gross has barely touched 500k. Just one of many examples.
I'm not sure whether the theater-going experience really is dwindling. There must be statistics that can answer the question how many bodies are in theaters each year. It seems as though people are buying tickets, but just not for indie films. I don't know.
There were a few fascinating panels at Sundance last year about new distribution methods, which included people from the video game community. The filmmaker representatives were all talking about the "cultural war" between films and video games. The video guys were just smirking, and finally one of them said (not cruelly, but matter of factly), "sorry guys, but that war has been over since 2004." Maybe capacity for both is not ulimited. Maybe movies going forward will be of two types: those that can be converted into video games and those that will struggle for distribution.
Roger, you can delete this comment if you like, but I don't wear glasses. Thank God my near and far sightedness is the same as before as I get on in my middle age. But that image of the warning levels almost had me wishing I was wearing them to see better with. Isn't there a clearer one to post? It's rather squint inducing.
I am curious to make out the text beneath each word, unless it's irrelevant to your post, then nevermind.
John
Ebert: I blurred it because (1) the text isn't relevant, and (2) I thought it looked more severe.
I had watched Medicine for Melancholy during the SXSW Festival as I saw the option on my COD to see the trailers for each of the films and the look of the music and Daily Show star Wyatt Cenac caught my interest. I couldn't have been happier and have been recommending it to friends ever since, it's not the ideal theater experience I'd prefer on a first viewing but if it's not playing here I'm definitely fine with it.
Being you, I imagine you've already heard of The Auteurs, but I pass it along in case you or others readers haven't. While I have yet to exhaust the vast resources of Netflix (Tokyo Story is at home awaiting viewing as we speak) this site definitely encourages appreciation for a number of movies that might not be easily available elsewhere, both in recent indie cinema from around the world as well as catalog films that might otherwise fall through the cracks.
Roger, my heart just sank after reading your latest blog entry (and Ms. Thompson's blog from your link). The prospect of having to watch stuff of the ilk of "Transformers" or G.I. Joe" at the suburban multiplex without more satisfying (usually independently-made) films available (for those who prefer the "movie theatre experience") is absolutely horrifying.
I commented on an earlier blog entry (I believe it was your TIFF blog #7), in which you praised Rodrigo Garcia's 'Mother and Child', about the value about enjoying a film insided a (preferably full) darkened movie theatre, an opinion shared by many. At least in the Gala screening for Mr. Garcia's film that I attended on September 14th at TIFF, the audience was definitely engaged; this was in no small part due to the strong performances of the cast (Ms. Benning, Ms. Washington, Ms. Watts, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Smits). No distribution deal? With that cast of great actors? You've gotta be kidding!
I also saw 'Road, Movie' by Dev Benegal at its screening at TIFF on the 18th. This Indian/American film was an entertaining romp, with elements of whimsy and wonder (and, thankfully, no song-and-dance numbers!), but, then again, I'm a sucker for the road movie genre. I'd love to share this film with friends (of course, in a darkened movie theatre), but when a film like 'Mother and Child', an American, English-language, independently-made film with well-known actors cannot find a North American theatrical distributor, what chance does a film made in Hindi with English subtitles (like 'Road, Movie') have?
I wonder about the criteria upon which the recent crop of indie distributors base their decisions to buy a film. Ah, naive question; they're waiting for the filmmakers/producers to become more desperate so they can buy product at fire-sale prices... maybe.
With regard to the 'alternate' distribution avenues for indies, both of the above films were filmed in anamorphic widescreen; I'll bet that that'll look real dandy on a two-inch iPod screen.
A big problem for many art houses is the limited number of prints. The audience may hear about the film on NPR or read your reviews, but they aren't available for weeks or months after that. Movies aren't like books (or DVD's), you can't just order them from the local store. By the time the movie gets to the theatre, most of the people who were looking for it have forgotten, or are looking for the latest thing they've forgotten
This leads to the next problem, most of the indie arthouses only have one screen. That limits us to 52 or fewer films a year. There is a season for art film releases, so many get squeezed out in the seasonal glut, and are on DVD by the time a slot opens up. Most of the time that slot will go to the newer films.
Then there's just the economics. Different types of films do well in different places. Here, for instance, brit-lit-twit-shit pulls them in, but docs are death. I know places where it's the exact opposite.
Finally, I don't care how great a setup you have, watching films at home is not the same as seeing them properly done in the theatre, though I will concede many theatres project so horribly as to make home viewing preferable. Nonetheless, support your local art theatre. If Montgomery, Alabama can have one for 26 years, you can too!
Luckily, I live in New York City, which gets most independent films that are released. But I'm with you Roger, I simply cannot imagine not seeing in theatres. I am a college student, so I don't have the money for many of the cable packages that play ondemand movies. Still, I think, well I know, I would prefer to see the film in theatres. I know The Burning Plain has been ondemand since late August, but I will be seeing it this week sometime. It really is quite disturbing though that the indie market is dwindling. I can't fathom a world where Sorority Row is released in 2,000 theatres across the country, while movies like Mother and Child (one of the top entries in Toronto that I'm dying to see), cannot even garner distribution. Yes, releasing it on VOD or internet is better than nothing, but I believe every film deserves to be seen in the confinements of a dark movie theatre, where everyone can share the experience of seeing it together. That's the joy of going to the movies.
Ebert: Not asking for your tax return or anything, but does Video on Demand generate significant revenue?
No it does not.
So often I hear that filmmakers care more about their films getting seen than breaking even. I wonder if maybe some director’s will end up posting their films on their websites just so they get seen at all. And maybe in the end it is not as bad as we think. Realistically when a person sets out to make an independent movie they must go in knowing their audience will be tiny compared to the latest CGI orgy. Even if it finds distribution it will probably be small. So maybe these films in reality are being seen but there is no logical or easy way to sure up the numbers.
On another topic I love Netflix. Aside from the fact I have three movies at home at one time allowing for my change in moods, Netflix actually has films I want to see, unlike Blockbuster or my local Landmark cinemas. My list is maxed out. At the moment I am going through French cinema, Le Samurai, 400 blows etc. It has not only allowed independent films into my life but older films with dead actors, (e.g. ‘Faust’, ‘The Spy Who Came In From The Cold’, ‘M’).
The complaints about the slow shipping time as I understand it is relegated to all those blockbuster films that get newly released on DVD and everyone wants to rent them at the same time. It is the same with Blockbuster. They are always out of the new releases. This is perplexing to some extent seeing as how most of those movie sucked, so who would want to watch them again. And as for the cost of Netflix: well you certainly save on gas.
And with home theaters becoming louder and more technically savvy I think it will be a viable option in place of the advertising ridden, teenage cell phone populated, overpriced cineplex. So “movie going” will live on, though not in its optimal format to be sure. I can’t stand screen glare, kitchen lights, the gardeners mowing my lawn when I’m watching a film so this means I’m up at 3 AM watching Catherine Deneuve in ‘Belle Du Jour’, not a bad time to watch her I might add.
On the other side of it though, Blockbuster aside, I am a fervent supporter of independent movie rental stores. I have one fantastic one near me in Berkeley called “Reel Cinema”. This place is populated by workers from distant lands and forgotten times, cinema slaves who know Hong Kong and Bollywood cinema like I know the English alphabet. Workers who will defend even the worst of Woody Allen as better than any comedy with Adam Sandler. And one person so quirky she recommends films based on the film score’s composer (she won’t touch anything with James Horner’s notes in it). That dialogue is something Netflix or On-demand cannot provide me with. And that dialogue is a very large part of the art experience for me. It is why I read yours and others film reviews, for the dialogue.
But finding “good” dialogue is challenging. Who do trust? There is so much of it now with the internet allowing for “Everybody’s a critic,” to be a true statement that many do not know where to turn for advice. Certainly the boards at IMDB are very sketchy with fanboys and trolls waiting under every ‘Bridge Over The River Kwai’ to eat your post alive. Rating systems and meters are pointless when an unreleased film already has 100% and thirteen reviews by thirteen year old girls who think "(insert heartthrob here) is so hot!" And that is why newspapers were so good because they couldn’t just print the words of any yahoo the drifted into town on the back of a celluloid horse. They had to apply for the job as town critic of film, art, dance etc. There had to be some knowledge and skill present so that over time an audience grew to know this person and to trust them, kind of like the audience that grew up with Walter Cronkite. He was the news for so many people. Just as you are film for some many others.
Ebert: "This place is populated by workers from distant lands and forgotten times, cinema slaves who know Hong Kong and Bollywood cinema like I know the English alphabet."
I suspect Berkeley even has Starbucks people who speak six languages. Jimmy's near the U of Chicago allegedly employed only PhDs as bartenders.
I would like to share my own Netflix streaming experience.
I pay Netflix $9 a month for unlimited streaming (of the available Watch Instantly titles). This also allows me to have one disc checked out at a time by mail, which I don't find to be limiting since I don't have all that much time to watch movies. Anyway from my small-town post office I usually get 3-day turnaround: mail back old disc on Monday, get next one on Wednesday.
For Watch Instantly I have a $99 Roku box connected to an HDMI port on my HDTV set. There are no wires to a computer, and in fact it will work even if all the computers in the house are turned off. That's because the Roku connects directly to Netflix streaming servers through my Wi-Fi network and the broadband modem. Of course you need some kind of internet access to set up the service and fill your WI queue, but that's done separately.
I get 1.5Mbps from my phone co. DSL service, which is not that big a deal these days, but it gives me a DVD-quality picture and CD-quality 2-channel sound. I know there are video purists that would turn up their nose at this, but to me good enough is enough. Obviously poor quality video would distract from the film experience, but that isn't the case here. Anyone who can't live without 1080P and 5.1 channel audio is probably more interested in hardware than movies anyway.
Streaming experience: it takes about a minute for the box to fill its buffer, but once the film starts there is very seldom any delay or interruption and picture quality stays constant (no pixellation or frame freezing). On very rare occasions, if there is a DSL line problem, the show will stop while it re-buffers. People with faster broadband should never even see this.
The usual disclaimers: I am not affiliated with Netflix or Roku. And I realize that others may not have such a positive experience due to whatever technical reasons. But it can be done, without great expense or technical knowledge or cables all over the living room.
Ebert: The Netflix site plugs more expensive boxes and doesn't mention the $99 Roku.
I don't really understand why studios are so reluctant to pick up indie films now. Sure, times may be tough, and I can see why they'd be less likely to make a gamble. But isn't it actually more of a gamble to produce bigger budgeted studio fare with big names attached? There's way more money at stake, and the studio stands to take a much bigger loss if their film doesn't perform well. Is it just a lack of faith on part of the studios?
I've had much better luck with Video on Demand via cable than internet streaming (Netflix to xBox360). I've only seen color widescreen films (I bet Man With A Movie Camera looks fine), and obviously seeing a film with bad video quality is better than not seeing it at all, but to my eye it looked worse than a non-anamorphic DVD. Not so much because of the resolution, which was all right, but because there are crazy video artifacts on any solid color. I'm not sure if that's a bandwidth issue or a function of the video compression methods they're using; I'm on Road Runner super duper mega ultra turbo, so if it's bandwidth, most consumers will have similar problems. I'd much prefer to have the video stream delayed, even for an hour, and then be able to watch a better looking version of the film (so I guess I should get something like Apple TV)—but somehow cable HD-on-demand manages to look fine and stream instantly.
That said, Netflix's selection is much much better than any cable provider's, and the interface on a cable-company DVR makes it so difficult to find anything that if Netflix solves the video compression issues, they'll clean the cable companies' clocks. One reason to be very glad that the FCC is coming down in favor of net neutrality is that it is in Time Warner Cable's fiscal interest to make Netflix video on demand look as crappy as possible, to push customers to buy VOD from them instead. Cable companies would have you believe they're only interested in stopping twelve-year-olds using BitTorrent, but the real money for them would be in degrading and interrupting traffic from legitimate VOD sites, since they compete directly.
One thing's for sure: I don't envy an indie film producer trying to negotiate 15 different digital distribution agreements.
Roger,
What a terrible song you sing and one that depresses me to no end. I am one of the lucky ones that got to see "Julia" when it was released in theaters because I live in Los Angeles. I share in your enthusiasm for this film and it's shocking to me that such a performance would go largely unnoticed. I will bet that come awards season, Tilda will not even be mentioned even though her performance is one of the best I've seen in the past twenty years.
For people who live in LA (or NY), we are privelaged enough to see a lot of these indie films you speak of. The problem of course is that even when they do get released, it's usually only for a short run ("Julia" was only out for one week; "Taxidermia", another favorite of mine from this year, also was only out for one week) and if you're not paying attention, you'll surely miss these films.
Thankfully there are outlets like IFC On Demand where people can see these fantastic indies no matter where they live. I hope this cable alternative continues to grow and while it's not as ideal as seeing a film in a theater, it sure beats missing it completely (or waiting for the DVD, which can a long time for some of these obscure independent films).
Speaking of which, when is "Ballast" going to get a DVD release!? That was one of my favorite films from 2008.
Ebert: "Julia" can be streamed from Amazon On Demand--but not for Macs, the bastards.
I hope the situation you describe is only temporary, tied in with the current economic crisis. Here in Winston-Salem, NC, independent films seem more available than ever. 10 years ago, home video was your only choice. Lately, however, the rise of the multi-multiplex has opened a door for smaller films. Some of them have 15+ screens with one or two often reserved for these films. Plus, we have a new dedicated art-house cinema with 2 screens under construction downtown. Here’s hoping they have plenty of good choices to show when they open in January.
So glad you turned your attention to this topic. As I kinda expected, many of the comments have been particularly interesting and thought provoking, from Grace Wang to (as I write) Joe Leyton.
And I have discovered the " Mumblecorps." Started with a cursory IMDb check of contributor Chad Harigan. His "Luke and Brie on a First Date" was given a glowing review by a fellow who mentions finding the film through the mumble core film movement. O.K...that's interesting.
So I Wiki'd 'mumblecore,' discovering the term was coined at an Austin bar during the 2005 "South by Southwest" film festival. It represents the collaboration of some talented 20 something, 21st Century, independent filmmakers looking for new ways to get their films made and seen. I Found this most heartening. Also many like to be referred to as, "Slackevetes"- a reference(homage) to John Cassevetes. Particularly liked that touch- a little respect for their elders.
Ah times they are a changing, as they always have and will. Sure hope young Mr. Hartigan responds to your good question, and hope I can view his film/films someday.
And the all best to the "mumblecorps"(as in press corps).
Hey Roger,
I am a long time reader, first time poster, and I have to say that I really admire your journal entries. I always stop by to read, and I definitely look forward to seeing Leaves of Green and Tilda Swinton's new film. She is very remarkable, and I have always felt very strongly about her films and her performances.
I am just starting my freshman year at Virginia Commonwealth University, and I am interested in journalism and film criticism. I would like to ask for some of your input on one of my recent reviews. This is a new passion for me, not movies but rather taking the time to sit and write out reviews of them. It would be great to hear what you think!
Thanks so much!
FUNNY PEOPLE ( Judd Apatow, USA 2009)
I am tired of hearing that Judd Apatow's movies are too long. The 40-Year-Old Virgin was too long, Knocked up was too long, and now it is almost a unanimous decision among viewers: "Funny People is TOO LONG!"
That is absolute nonsense. I think that Apatow makes his movies long because he wants to tell a story that is complete and full, and because he wants to fully involve the audience with his characters, who tend to be deep and thoughtful, multi-dimensional people with lives and feelings. That is what sets his films and is writing apart from most comedies. Attention spans are required.
The film centers upon famous comedian George Simmons, played by Adam Sandler, who is told that he is dying of a rare blood disease. He lives alone in an enormous Los Angeles mansion, and has made several hit movies outside of his stand up career. Unable to cope with his illness, he reaches out to an ambitious up-and-comer named Ira Wright, played by Seth Rogan, and hires him to write new material for his routine.
Simmons also has a lost love, Laura, played by Leslie Mann, whom he attempts to win back, despite the fact that she is married and has two children, once again played by Apatow's real life daughters, Iris and Maude.
To me, this all plays out so well, and some of the movie's richest, most moving scenes come in the third act. I cannot understand why these scenes have upset so many people. Throughout the film, Judd Apatow's writing flows beautifully, and his characters are unique and memorable.
All three of Apatow's films have been excellent comedies. I enjoyed Knocked Up more than Virgin, and I enjoyed Funny People more than Knocked Up. Judd Apatow has stated that his "goal was to make a film that was just as funny as my other two films, but which also dug a lot deeper and was not afraid to be more emotional." He has greatly succeeded here in bringing out what I believe to be Adam Sandler's best performance, alongside his performance in Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch Drunk Love, and his finest writing thus far in his career.
The supporting work in the film is equally brilliant, with Leslie Mann and Seth Rogan at their best, and Eric Bana, who I have never seen behave in such a way, but I loved it. Jason Schwartzman and Jonah Hill are also very good as Ira's roommates.
The film also looks incredible, largely due to the hiring of Janusz Kaminski, who has previously worked with Steven Spielberg on Schindler's List and Minority Report. Wow! What is interesting about this is that in Knocked Up, Seth Rogan's character discusses the notion that if he and his friends are able to effectively pick up women, that it is because of Eric Bana in Munich. And here he is in Funny People. Kaminski worked on Munich as well.
I look forward to Judd Apatow's next projects. This is only his third movie, and hopefully there will be many more. He is a genius, and I hope he keeps digging deeper and funnier.
Ebert: Apatow may fall a tad shirt of the genius level, but you have a nice conversational writing style and allow the reader to feel you are confiding.
Ebert: Is there any problem with interruptions of the stream, or do you download first?
It is pure streaming. Takes 20 to 40 seconds for a selection to start.
If there is a lack of bandwidth they have encoded multiple streams and it will drop in quality to handle that. This does not happen all that often. If it does, it stops for the 20 to 40 seconds again.
I have watched for hours with no interruptions but it does happen from time to time. A lot depends upon your internet provider more than any issue with the servers themselves.
There have been some complaints that the instant viewing titles are not all the newest and greatest of films. While there is some truth to this they make up for it with older titles.
There is lots of Kubrick, Woody Allen, Buster Keaton,and if that is too cerebral I can watch You Don't Mess with the Zohan on instant view too.
Watched "The Girlfriend Experience" in VOD. Yes, the best way to see a movie is in a theater, but on a 50 inch hi-def tv, I don't think too much was detracted from the experience of watching "The Girlfriend Experience" as opposed to, say, "The Dark Knight".
The fact that so may of these films are made today leads me to believe that the opportunities are better than ever. The cycle of watered-down mainstream films reinforcing a less risky mainstream moviegoer is disconcerting. Seems like most of the people I talk to would rather see "A Simple Man" than "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs", but I work in the film industry in LA.
Arclight Cinemas out here are a godsend and if only they were the norm everywhere, mainstream moviegoers attitudes and tastes might change. TIx are $12-14, reserved seating, no commercials, limited trailers, ushers, greeters, cell phone enforcement, and the picture is NEVER out of focus or dimly lit.
Just a wee correction. The $99 Roku - whatever that is - is heavily advertised by Netflix on the reverse label side of every disc that I've received in September.
Don't know if that adds or detracts from the discussion, but I do know that Roger is a stickler for accuracy. So, I thought I'd let you know.
I share your opinion that the best way to watch a movie is in a theater. I live in a suburb of Rochester, NY and I'm lucky enough to live near(within 10 minutes) 1.5 art house theaters. The Little Theater and Pitsford Cinemas, which also screens the blockbusters like Transformers 2 as well as most of the bigger independent/foreign releases. It is this buisness model that intrigues me the most. Why wouldn't the big theater chains screen the more hyped up independent films? I was in a town this summer that was at least an hour's drive from an art house theater, but still had a 10+ screen multiplex chain.(AMC or Regal, I forgot) But instead of showing the highly acclaimed Hurt Locker, it had multiple screens still showing Transformers 2 and Ice Age 3. I find it hard to believe that the theater can make more money by having twice as many showings of those movies than giving a screen or two to independent films. It's not like Transformers and Ice Age were selling out its screenings.
Why don't the chains believe people won't see independent films. They will.
Ebert: The Netflix site plugs more expensive boxes and doesn't mention the $99 Roku.
http://www.roku.com/netflix-partner
It also works with Amazon pay-per-view accounts but I think their prices are out of line.
It is sad that many independent films aren't getting picked up. Luckly were I live there is an art house, but it's a while away. Also, every June we have a local film festival. There this year I saw a mockumentary titled Nightlife. If it were to be released, I sware it would be a huge cult classic. Unfortanley, it probably never be released just like many amoung many movies out there.
AMC does do a good job of getting these films out. Here in Tulsa, we have an AMC Select with several screens devoted to indie-foreign-arthouse fare. Here are the films currently traveling around the AMC Select circuit.
http://www.amctheatres.com/amctheatres/user-controller/select
I live in a small Hawaiian town now, and Netflix is a lifesaver, although there is a local community theater that shows the occasional indy on a limited schedule - but the sound system is dying, the projectionist occasionally mixes up the reels, and anyway the schedule is not exactly geared to working mothers (no schedule really is).
One great feature of interest here is that Netflix allows additions to your queue way before the movie is available. So, when I see movies being mentioned that sound interesting (say, Mao's Last Dancer) I can add it to my queue immediately. That means I don't have to keep track of DVD/Bluray releases, and it really creates an instant link between a trusted Internet source (like this blog) and the viewer.
As others mentioned, Netflix streaming also can work for the mildly tech-savvy (for example Julia with Tilda Swinton is available right now for viewing), and those of us with front projectors can easily hook up our laptop to them without any additional gear. (I personally still use the disks as I get better bandwidth through USPS that my telephone company :-) ).
There is also a psychological benefit with "All you can eat" systems like Netflix compared to cable Video On Demand. Since I pay a subscription rate to Netflix, the cost doesn't seem to be related to any particular movie in my head. So, even though I effectively may pay $3 on average to be able to watch any movie I want, any particular movie doesn't feel like it costs me $3. This makes me a lot more adventurous; I will get a movie (or a documentary) knowing that if I don't like it I can just give up after the first half hour and it won't "cost" me anything (not that I often do, but it is a psychological cushion). This is quite different from forming the thought "I really want to pay $3 to see this movie".
The real issue here is what the revenue stream is. I would be very interest to know how much a film makes out of Netflix (is it per rental?), and whether that is considered "fair" by its producers.
Hi Roger,
Although distribution was obtained for many countries around the world, no distributor has yet picked up the film in the United States due to the prominence of the Creation-Evolution controversy. ~ excerpt from Wikipedia, on the film Creation.
Sigh, and I was eagerly awaiting your official review of the film. I find that films by the BBC are usually competently-done: from the writing to the careful attention to period details, the latter of which I tend to gravitate to. But hey, movies are immersive experiences, too, right? A. O. Scott can have his kick living in the world of La Dolce Vita, and I can have mine in Howards End. Everyone is happy.
Anyway, your overview of Creation a few blogs back indicates that the film's focus is mostly on Charles Darwin's domestic life, and you were quite unsure if it would even please anyone. Well, maybe that is its saving grace. It's always the dizzying controversy going on over Creation vs Evolution that's in the limelight, but for outsiders such as I, we hardly know Darwin the man at all. I would take this as a welcome, solid respite / pause from the on-going rassling event. I believe that the best things in life are what come naturally, and of free will without agression to others.
Btw, Wikipedia states that the film is an adaptation of Randal Keynes' best-selling biography of Darwin, the title of the book being Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution. I'd be interested to know the actual point of the book, and whether the film is true to its spirit. Anyone?
Ebert: I haven't heard anything about buyers fleeing from controversy.
Ebert: The Netflix site plugs more expensive boxes and doesn't mention the $99 Roku.
Sure it does; go to "Instantly to Your TV," then "Instant Devices"--and there's the Roku box, first on the list. No vested interest on my part; just an old Netflix junkie setting the record straight. (And I'll second Richard Peterson's positive comment about the Roku experience. By and large, it's as good as your internet connection. And there are rewards among the (numerous) instant-play duds: just re-viewed "Chop Shop" over the weekend.)
Ebert: Whoops.
See, the thing for me about services like VOD and even just watching a movie on my tv generally is that I cannot forget that it is not the medium that the film was made for. Its like listening to Beethoven`s 5th through ipod earplugs - you hear the notes but it doesnt resonate. I suppose a 48'' plasma might do the trick but it would still lack considerably from the theatre experience, in a variety of ways.
In fact, I wonder if an increased percentage of films viewed via small screen media will change how films are made. For example, cinematography is hardly essential on the small screen.
Just read that "Get Low" was bought by Sony Classics.
http://www.indiewire.com/article/2009/09/21/toronto_deal_sony_classics_get_low/
As long as I get to see "Life During Wartime" sometime this year, I will be pleased. Solondz is possibly my favorite filmmaker and a quasi sequel to one of my favorite films? I'm pumped.
I think this article is extremely optimistic about the future. I live in Chicago when I'm not in my middle of nowhere college town, and I don't have much of a problem with finding movies anymore with the advent of the Internet, VOD, and Netflix. Just this year I saw Ballast, Medicine for Melancholy, and The Girlfriend Experience through various legal sites, and all three are among the best films I've seen this year. Granted, I'm also pretty lucky to have a good computer that hooks up to an HDTV, but I think that if anyone has the will, they can get up and find these things.
It reminds me of how it must have been back in the 60's and 70's to be a film fan. Now it's not a question of finding theaters that show these films. It's more finding the films themselves. Thanks to this thread, Julia is getting downloaded as we speak and will be watched tonight. Here's hoping that film critics don't die, because how else are we going to know about these films?
Hey Mr. Ebert though I love going to the theater, I really do think that the future of indie movies will be on Demand. Especially with Youtube possibly trying to work on movie rentals (http://www.joblo.com/youtube-movie-rentals), I'd imagine they'd be a great place for indie filmakers to showcase and profit off their work.
Just to let you know I do go to my Philly Landmark theatre(only on the weekends since it's in the city, but I end up catch 2 or 3 films at once usually) which I love, but no other colleagues of mine have ever even been to one. There seems to be a distrust of indie films for some reason, which makes me believe that they think the films aren't "good enough" to be part of the major releases. I don't know, but I really hope to see Solodnz new film, as I love his work so much, did you enjoy it?
It's not even the smallest of cities that can't go to see smaller movies. Toledo, Ohio, has 4 mega-plexes within 20 minutes of each other, yet The Hurt Locker only played on 1 screen for 1 week. I had searched Detroit, Ann Arbor, Columbus, and even Cleveland a few weeks earlier and could not find a screening. It's a wonder I even found it at all. (Toledo is the 4th largest metropolitan area in Ohio, and bigger than any area in Michigan except Detroit.)
I'm glad somebody mentioned that the AMC chain sets aside a few screens in each of its plexes for "art films" because that gives me an opening to ask Roger a question that I've been wondering about for quite a while:
Why did the Sun-Times stop carrying listings for AMC theaters?
It was sudden - one day the block with AMC listings just wasn't there anymore. A day or so later a slug appeared stating that the Times would no longer carry the AMC theater listings, no further explanation given.
Was this AMC'c decision, the Sun-Times's, yours (I doubt that, but I had to ask)?
In the immortal words of Richard Castellano:
"So... What's the story,Roger?"
Ebert: AMC is apparently pulling movie ads in general.
I love independent films. I used to love to drive into LA well mostly I guess Santa Monica to see the movie I wanted to see that would be playing for a week at most before it vanished from sight and memory. I have a huge passion for seeing movies in their natural environment, the movie theater. I grew up in the 70's when my uncle took me every single weekend to see movies. Most the time we drove up to Hollywood to the Chinese, the Cinerama Dome, the Egyptian, all the classic movie theaters in Hollywood is where I cut my teeth watching movies as a kid and then as teenager. Ah the days of double and even triple features!
For in-home COD to see independent movies it is out of the question for me. I despise local television and am nauseated by cable television. I have a television for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to watch my DVD's. I have no cable television, direct tv, and I threw away my antenna long ago. Unfortunately my old reliable big screen died a painful death. I don't have money to go out and buy a new screen, let alone to have a home theater set-up. So that leaves me the old-fashioned seeing movies in the movie theater.
I am lucky though. I live in the Seal Beach/Long Beach area of California. Seal Beach has an old movie theater there called the Bay Theater that will play independent films & classics. MOON just played there a couple weeks ago. If you travel about a minute down PCH the UA at Market Place will usually have at least one or two independent movies playing at a time. The UA surprises me by having independent films play not just the usual one week and gone but two, three weeks, sometimes longer. I think they can afford to do that as an alternative to the AMC at Marina Pacifica which is the next block down that usually gets the HUGE blockbusters.
As to the notion that "Quality always wins", has anyone been to a bookstore lately? That is utter nonsense when it is applied to the arts in America. Quality doesn't always win. When art is made for mass consumption, it no longer becomes art, it becomes a product to distribute, a commodity to be bought and sold, quality at that point is secondary to $$.
Adam wrote: "When I lived in Oklahoma City, where art film is a four letter word, this was the saving grace for me and my brother, who dutifully rushed off as often as we could to catch the latest indie release..."
The AMC in Tulsa also provides a fairly steady diet of indie and foreign releases. They're also showing some classic movies from now until the end of the year: "Twelve Angry Men", "Jaws", "The Birds", and several others.
We're also lucky in Tulsa to have the Circle Cinema and its commitment to indie films and documentaries (I believe that I and a few others writing from the Tulsa area have mentioned it on your blog before). "Tetro" was shown here recently.
Ebert: That is a better AMC than some!
First "The Coming Dark Age" and now this. Mr. Ebert, do you ever worry that the Apocalypse may be upon us?
You, who knows everything, doesn't recognize Sturgeon's Law?
Ah! You must mean Theodore Sturgeon, the ne'er-do-well science fiction writer on whom Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., based his character "Kilgore Trout?" Aka Edward Hamilton Waldo? Why, er... yes... I know all about him.
One day in 1950 Eddy, as he was called, happened into the Akron Beacon Journal office in Akron, Ohio. He was carrying a dog-eared, smudged manuscript written scrawled in pencil. He was hoping the paper would serialize this story in a Sunday section.
The editor looked it over for a moment and replied "this is ninety percent JUNK. Now get out."
How Sturgeon wound up calling everything "90% crap" a year later probably had to do with a certain amount of bitterness. He didn't know that the phrase was common lingo at the old Beacon-Journal. He might've felt better if he knew they always said that.
But the critic who got it right, which I read as a little kid, had a butch haircut in his photo. That's all I remember.
I also know about that great indie movie rental place in Berkeley -- if it's the one at Shattuck and University. And the place to go for coffee is Cafe Meditteraneum (spelled like that) unless they've shut it down. If not, bring a notebook and dress like a writer.
Ebert: Does Tarantino name the coffee shops there?
Roger, what say you write some specific reviews (for syndication) for these films that are in danger of not being released (though it is somewhat against your policy until they actually are distributed and shown)? Perhaps it would give them a better chance of being noticed or picked up?
John August wrote a pretty interesting post-mortem about his film The Nines, which sold at Sundance in 2007:
http://johnaugust.com/archives/2008/nines-post-mortem
Basically, he's in favor of near-day and date distribution across as many platforms as possible (perhaps including a leaked bittorent), since for a film like his (small movie but with name actors), you can get national publicity but you can only get it once, and worrying about cannibalizing theatrical revenues is silly when there are only a few prints of the film to begin with.
Barring a movie that really is likely to platform its way up to a wide release, I think he's right; the more time that passes between reading or hearing about a film and having the opportunity to see it, the less likely it becomes that people will see it at all. On that note, I'm going to add Julia to my Netflix on demand queue.
Actually the biggest problem with video on demand is download times and quality of video. Those have been the biggest sticking points, and they are issues on the verge of finally being corrected. Once they are, most analysis I've read is in agreement that it will overtake DVD and Blu-ray sales as the next "thing" in home entertainment, the way music downloads have become the norm for that medium.
The most generous predictions I tend to hear for Blu-ray's remaining "shelf life" as a medium is five to eight years, tops. DVD will stick around for the same reasons it hasn't been pushed out by Blu-ray -- the overall quality in relation to price and cost of players makes it too good an option for the average consumer to pass up. That'll likely remain the case for some time even after downloads and other on-demand options become the standard.
Netflix "Watch Instantly" actually doesn't even require ANY adapters etc, you can watch them right over your computer at a high rate of speed and high quality picture for no extra costs whatsoever. If your computer screen isn't large enough to provide a good experience, screen enhancers that clip right onto your screen and turn it into 37-inch, 42-inch, etc screens are cheap and readily available in stores and online. Or you can spend three hundred bucks for a large flat-screen display with a good size. With a library of 12,000+ "Watch Instantly" films that's ever-growing, it's the best option around, honestly, and that's with your two or three films at a time, unlimited per month, DVD option. $18 for that breaks down to 60-cents per day. Remove the DVDs from the option in a few years, bring the price down to $12 per month, and that's what you'll see for on-demand streaming and downloads after the final kinks get worked out.
When that happens, on-demand, downloads, streaming, whatever will become the standard. It's inevitable as home entertainment becomes increasingly dominated by viewer options and platforms that cater to choice and instant access like this.
As for how crappy films look on iPods and other smaller devices, that's true for all video/TV/etc content, but people still use it. But the main point about that is that you don't have to watch it on the small screen of the device -- they make wraparound style glasses that plug right into your iPod, and when worn the film is projected right in front of you (some newer models will project the image into your eyes rather than on a screen built into the glasses themselves). I've use them, and while there are still improvements to be made, it's even better than watching a DVD on your laptop during a plane ride. You'll sit with your "sunglasses" on, use instant streaming of a movie on your iPod, and be in a private movie theater wherever and whenever you want. That's an option that won't take long to take off and dominate the home entertainment industry. Save the film and pick up where you left off at home, by plugging that iPod into your computer or straight into your TV (yes, that's an option).
This is the emerging technology now, today. What will it look like in five to ten more years? Who knows, but it's to great an option and far too easy for viewers and the industry for it not to take over. The industry has long been trying to figure out a way to make on-demand viewing the standard (since they want to get money every time you see something, obviously, which is one reason you'll hear studios complain in private about DVDs and other mediums that allow someone to watch a film as much as they want or loan it to a friend etc).
This sort of thing will be a boon for independent filmmakers, IF the independent film community prepares and is aggressive in taking advantage of it. With so much potential, it would be crazy not to do so.
Here's an example of some of the movie glasses I talked about:
http://www.zetronix.com/product_info.php?cPath=26&products_id=136
It's the same effect as watching an 80-inch flat-screen TV. I don't believe they are cordless yet, but they will be shortly, of course.
Impressive, yes?
Ebert: Would be great on a plane. I guess you could show yourself a DVD through your laptop, right?
Mike wrote: How about, DEVELOP BETTER TASTES, YOU? Yeah, you - the audience. Not you, the dude who drove two-and-a-half hours to Texas to see an art film. All the other yous. Any of you who saw TRANSFORMERS, G.I. JOE, DISTRICT 9, JENNIFER'S BODY in the theater. I'll say it, any of you who saw SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, JUNO and THE HANGOVER. You, too. All of you drooling over any press release regarding AVATAR. YOU, especially.
That's right, all you YOUS. You can't enjoy both the popular mainstream entertainments AND the smaller, arty films! You must choose! Either you are a slack-jawed numbskull watching "Transformers" or you are like me with my refined tastes and pretentious indignancy at anyone who dares waste a moment on hacks like Spielberg! There's no in between! Take a side!
Not to schill for Netflix, but they must have changed it since you last looked, but Netflix, when showing on their website how to hook up your TV to Watch Instantly has the $99 Roku as the first, top of the page, device to do that. Xbox 360 is next. More expensize, but does a whole lot more stuff as well.
Just to clarify.
Miles Blanton
Ebert: My mistake.
Tom, the coffee shop is definitely still open. But it's Cafe Mediteraneum -- you gave them an extra "t". Maybe for Tarantino, as Ebert suggested. Sadly, you can not only bring a notebook, but a laptop -- free wi-fi nowadays, too, it seems.
I all for computers and the internet, but shouldn't there be at least one place in any city where if you want to read or write, it has to involve paper and ink?
Well, that was a depressing read. You did, however, pinpoint the central issue which is that the vast majority of moviegoers, regardless of class, race, age, or gender, simply do not want to see anything that's not showing at their local multiplex. I live in Portland, Oregon, a supposedly culturally vibrant city, and I saw Seraphine in a theater with only two other people. Even here, independent and foreign films are being overlooked. On a separate note, I did see Still Walking (an absolutely wonderful film) on VOD. While my 32 inch television does not compare well to the big screen, it was the only way in which I would be able to see it for at least a couple of months. I will always much prefer watching a masterpiece on an inferior screen to watching mediocrity on a superior one.
Hi Ebert, here with a selfish request: could you weigh in on "Get Low"? I was interested in it specifically for Bill Murray. Is it worth looking forward to?
Ebert: It was just picked up by Sony Classics.
What I don't understand is why movie theaters now have 36 screens, but they are only showing 6, maybe 8, movies at a time. I suspect that studios are putting their films on multiple screens not to meet seating demad, but rather, to muscle out competition. It's easier to be the big fish when your the only fish in the pond.
On the other hand, lets face it, there are now far more movie options than ever before. It wasn't that long ago when all movie theaters only had one screen.
As it just so happens Mr. Ebert, I added Julia to my Neflix queue immediately after I read your review and I just watched it last weekend. It is a remarkable thriller (like you said) and Tilda Swinton turns in one of the best performances I've seen all year.
It is truly a shame to look at all of the films that do not get distributed near me or near many major cities. I try to pride myself on seeing as many good new releases as possible, but the list is just so heavy that it's almost impossible to accomplish without either being a major critic or going to dozens of movie festivals.
Mark: Tom, the coffee shop is definitely still open. But it's Cafe Mediteraneum -- you gave them an extra "t". Maybe for Tarantino, as Ebert suggested. Sadly, you can not only bring a notebook, but a laptop -- free wi-fi nowadays, too, it seems.
---looks like you removed one of the "r"s for "Roger" (I just looked it up). Don't tell me you've been there too! I knew a guy who started a treatise on Jeffersonian liberalism there -- I met him in Arizona 45 years later while he was still writing it. He died last year, in his 70s. Have a look at what came out of the Cafe Mediterraneum when they were all wearing pea-jackets and merchant marine caps:
http://www.truthing.net/
I'm all for computers and the internet, but shouldn't there be at least one place in any city where if you want to read or write, it has to involve paper and ink?
---Exactly. There's a little coffee joint down the road from here, stuck in time, no laptops. I go do that when I have things to complain about myself.
Ah. Much better. Danke Schoen.
"Ebert: I blurred it because (1) the text isn't relevant, and (2) I thought it looked more severe."
LOL! Blurred text = a higher level of severity? I'm sorry Roger, but that's hysterical. I guess it would be at its most severe if I wasn't able to read it at all?! ROFL!!
Ebert: You can thank Marie Haws for that new graphic!
I have no sympathy for anyone in the film industry at the moment. They had a record year and out of all industries they should be the last to complain in this economy. While dairy farmers lose money for every gallon of milk they produce the film industry still chugs along in the black.
What they don't tell you about ondemand is that it's marked up by the cable provider. If I want to see an IFC festival direct movie on comcast, it's seven dollars in fuzzy standard definition. I seriously considered checking out World's Greatest Dad and The Girlfriend Experience, but I just couldn't justify the seven or sometimes eight dollar price tag attached to HD content. The ondemand preview window is already plugging the Girlfriend Experience for regular ondemand, same day as DVD, which means it will be on one of the pay networks like HBO or Showtime in a matter of months.
In other words, the people who have the equipment to see the movies and pay for them have little motivation to shell out the bucks when they already have pay channels that will get them the movies under the subscription they already have.
I go to the film festival every year, and it's inevitable that there will be movies I want to watch that I missed in the festival. In the past, I know I could catch a lot of these titles, as someone would end up distributing it. I am not sure that will happen this year. I always believe that a movie should be seen in a theater, so this is not good news.
As a film aficionado living in a small creative market where cows outnumber homo sapiens (in quantity and IQ) I decided to build my own home theatre. Indie and foreign films never make it to my area and NYC, Philly, or Baltimore is at least a two-hour drive one way…so I anxiously await BLU-RAY (BD) or DVD releases. I import most titles with a region-free/code-free player so for example, I own the Italian import of THE HURT LOCKER in high-definition so I don’t need to search for a cinema…though it has yet to open in my area (hint: it never will).
Roger, my love for cinema as Art is probably as deep as yours and others on your excellent and informative forum, but with little access to films like THE WHITE RIBBON or THIRST I will purchase import titles before they’re released in the US. Watching at home on a reference quality system can be a better experience than any theatre, where we are at the mercy of out-of-focus projectors, dirty screens, off-center projections, ringing cell phones...ad naseum. Just check out Murnau’s SUNRISE on BLU-RAY next week and you will see that the market for home theatre is the next logical step in the evolution of cinema. With the correct setup and calibration, BD arguably surpasses any theatrical release especially of classic films. Of course, the consumer is at the mercy of studios that must release these films without Digital Noise Reduction or other tampering, and offer the original soundtrack and aspect ratio.
I suppose my point is that my selfish intention (wanting to actually see these great films!) is part of the distribution problem because I will watch them at home. I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen a film on BD projected through a reference quality setup before so the invitation is open to both you and your wife!! We’ll watch Kino’s new BD release of THE GENERAL.
NOTE: if you click on the link to my website, you can see the technical aspects of my system.
Take care, Roger. And thanks for all the recommendations through the years; you’ve really opened my mind to important and provoking cinema.
An avid reader of Ebert forums, I've never contributed before, perhaps because I never learned the very valuable journalistic skill of brevity. I'll try to impose some discipline on myself here. I see 50 to 75 movies a year, mainstream and indie both, in art houses and multiplexes.
First, I'm fully in agreement with Roger regarding the movie experience. I continue to much prefer a real theater, the bigger the screen the better, and I still prefer celluloid to digital. It's going to be years, if ever, before I can afford the giant HDTV my son has at his house, and my puny 25" analog set simply cannot recreate either the image or the ambience of a theater. That said, the ambience, at least, is deteriorating. Unfortunately, people talking throughout the movie happens more and more frequently, and usually among the same patrons who ignore the seven (7!!) pleas on the screen to turn off their cell phones before the movie starts.
Second, I also endorse whoever is was (Chuck Peterson?) who wrote a basically positive review of the Netflix experience. My son streams movies via Netflix through his DSL connection (he also gets them in the mail) to his HDTV without a hitch. Pixelization and signal interruption have never been an issue, picture quality is usually excellent, and the number of titles available is astounding. I've seen movies at his place that I'd never have seen otherwise, in ANY theater, since I live far, far away from New York, L.A., and Chicago.
Third, I sympathize with the movie-goer who drives 2-1/2 hours to Dallas. For several years, I lived an hour away from the nearest Landmark screen in Denver, and the drive time added to the movie time added to the gasoline made keeping up with indie films considerably more difficult, at best. At least partly for that reason, after 5 years I moved back to metro Denver, where the drive to the Mayan was 10 minutes instead of an hour. Now I live in a different city and state, and the drive is 20 minutes to 30 minutes, depending upon which indie house I want to patronize. That's not ideal, but it's manageable.
Like a couple of others, I've also occasionally found - to my surprise - indie films on mainstream screens. The local AMC outlet sometimes shows a "small" movie along with the usual CGI spectacular.
Much as I love the big screen, big sound, darkened room of a big auditorium, it DOES seem that the trend may well be in the other direction, toward what my son and several other writers here have embraced via Netflix, and eventually other sources as well. I have no idea what this might do to whatever financial model makes movies possible in the first place.
Mr. Ebert wrote: " Ebert: Would be great on a plane. I guess you could show yourself a DVD through your laptop, right?"
Definitely. I have a horrible fear of flying (a problem for someone who flies a dozen or more times per year, but I was in TWO -- count 'em, TWO -- near-crashes in a single day, so I earned my phobia honestly), so I always bring my MacBook (laptop) and a collection of DVDs and a set of headphones. The minute they let me turn on my computer, I pry my fingernails from the armrests and start watching a movie.
Once I get a pair of these movie glasses, I won't even have to worry about accidentally noticing the wing out the window and having visions that would make Shatner and Lithgow ashamed.
Since most of my flights involve at least one connecting flight and a short layover, I can usually get in at least two movies in each direction I'm flying. Which is why I have Netflix, a Hollywood Video account, and tend to buy several used DVDs every week, haha!
VideoOnDemand is a lifesaver for me! I live where we don't have an artsy filmhouse (the one that we had was shut down about three years ago) and the mainstream theaters rarely show these high quality films.
Plus, with kids, it's hard for me to get out to the theater to actually see a film!
So, I will catch some of these through VideoOnDemand. There is a category just for Indie Films, of which 21 are now available. I can curl up with a movie in my jammies on my couch while everyone is asleep!
Having access to these movies through OnDemand is great and expands the viewing experience. We got to see a great Japanese film called The Great Yokai War, which we would have never knew exisited much less seen without the availablity of these channels. They also offer some of the shorts that are Oscar nominated/winners. My kids loved the West Bank Story short film.
I've also done Netflix's OnDemand service and did not have any issues with it. I only wish I had a device I could hook up to my TV for the full experience. Got to see some anime and Hello, Dolly! Netflix is a lifesaver if you love movies and don't have access to many of the indies...
Now, if we can get them to release the new movies on OnDemand the same day they release them on DVD, that would cut out a run to the local video store! No more traffic!
For older movies, I find the library to be a great source of DVDs!
Ebert: My readers educate me. I now find that the $99 Roku device sits between you and Netflix or Amazon and works fine. Wired mag says cable is over:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-10/ff_netflix
Ebert: You write: "I shall continue to plunder the coastline and swim with naughty pirates in distant seas."
I hope this doesn't mean you'll be offline!
Gosh no; I meant that when it comes to Film and Television projects, until the Suits change how they buy, market and distribute various titles, I'll continue to circumnavigate past various corporate-based obstacles via the Internet. And thank-you for changing that low-res alert sign. :)
We sail the seas, Vikings we be,
plundering and pillagin' away,
For we want to see, a good movie,
And they won't let us payyyyy.....
Grin.
NOTE: and even when they do, if I want to pay to watch season 4 of Showtime's Dexter for example - I need to get a digital box and subscribe to HBO Canada via "Movie Central" on Shaw Cable here in British Columbia. Season 4: 12 episodes - $300.00 a year just to receive and get the channel showing them!
Are you INSANE?! Meanwhile, if you're American - iTunes: $1.99 per episode the day after it airs. Video not available outside the US.
And thus I wear a black patch over one eye and how I can boast to have seen "Shaun the Sheep: seasons 1 and 2" :)
And most recently the following has dropped from the sky - "The Take" (2009) is now available on DVD but only in the UK. It's the SKY1 TV adaptation of Martina Cole's novel THE TAKE, which spans 10 years of British socio-political change. It stars Tom Hardy, Brian Cox, Shaun Evans, Kierston Wareing and Charlotte Riley.
"The backdrop of the Thatcher era and its transition into the birth of New Labour, is particularly relevant to the drama's theme of idealised new beginnings; stemming from and resulting in a sense of disillusion."
And my pals have been raving about it! A woman wrote this, dudes - a woman!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS67eyh8yuM
And it's like...like... if Scorsese were British. Whoa.
"Martina Cole (born in 1958, Essex, England) is an British crime writer. She was brought up in Aveley and as of 2006, has released fifteen novels about London's gangster underworld. Three of her novels, Dangerous Lady, The Jump, and The Take, have been adapted into television dramas. She has achieved worldwide sales of over 3 million, and her tenth novel, The Know, spent seven weeks on The Sunday Times's hardback bestsellers list. Most of her novels feature a female protagonist or antihero, and many take place within the Irish community in and around London." - wiki
But do we hear about Martina Cole and her stuff being adapted? NO. We hear about Guy freakin' Richie remaking Sherlock Holmes.
And so I say it again, I wear a black patch over one eye. :)
Oh, before I forget! "Jane Austen" ALERT!
To whom it may also concern of equally as discerning taste: a brand new four-part BBC adaptation of Jane Austen's novel Emma, is set to air Oct. 4th 2009 in the UK and then later on PBS - trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPgCRzIWQZ8
Yup; it's all about the writing. Sharp, sharp, sharp; I like those razors. And like a crack habit, once you've had some really GOOD movies and TV shows, it's hard to settle for the weaker stuff, eh? Seriously, it's like being a crack head - only one scouring the underbelly of the internet for the dealer who has the movie you want. That's what I've been reduced to by main-streamers in the US. They've convinced the "SUITS" that they won't buy the better grade stuff, and so they're not getting it for you!
Jeeesh! And Jane Austen, dudes - that's like the purest stuff out there. :)
Ebert: I feel like having me some primo Jane right now.
I added a little footnote thanking you for supplying that beautiful graphic. Obviously no one agreed with me that making it fuzzy made a funny point. No one.
I am in a constant ethical dilemma with small indie films.
They are generally much better than the multiplex dirge that I have easy access to. But I can't even afford to go to the multiplex. I can barely afford my groceries some months. I don't have a TV. I buy DVDs when I can manage (I got the Kubrick collection from eBay for $30).
but I have unlimited broadband access.
so, I download. And I contribute to the starving out of indie films.
how can you love a movie without being willing to help fund it? But I really need to eat. And I hope that a good filmmaker won't mind so much, if I love their movies, but cannot afford them.
And your belief that the internet isn't big on little films is wrong - there are currently six different version of You, the Living on my favourite torrent site right now. There are 9 versions of My Winnipeg (the one I'm looking at has been downloaded 2,433 times). A good movie will always find an audience, and the only widely available access to these movies is the internet.
It probably helps that it's free.
Ebert: It 's a moral dilemma. (1) You are seeing the film without paying for it. (2) You will never see it any other way. (3) You can argue you aren't depriving the filmmaker of income but providing him with a viewer, who may help spread the word of his film. (4) You would pay for it if you could.
I hope other readers, including any filmmakers on board, will make a ruling on your case.
Increasingly, it is not mainstream sources that film fans and individuals in general are following. During my time as a teaching assistant in the film department of a university, individual film bloggers and web critics were becoming the key voices and advocates of smaller releases. As much as web criticism is often portrayed as being the domain of intellectually vapid "fanboys," there is a large and growing body of web critics and critical analysis that is often more supportive of indie filmmaking than its newsprint predecessors.
While the projection of film will always be best, with the increasing levels of image and sound quality being made available on the internet, and particularly with the growing dominance of devices such as the PS3, direct distribution online without major studios seems to be the best solution.
Criterion's online rental service, for example, is already making quality films available in markets for non-traditional audiences. Watching SOLARIS projected would always be the best option, but if a group of people can be allowed to see the film with a solid presentation made available to their television through the web, it is a step in the right direction, and one indie filmmakers need to take advantage of to survive.
Ebert: I agree with you, and especially about online. Fanboys who have blogs usually know what they're talking about. It's the fanboys who infest open threads who tire me.
We're lucky in Canada. We have an organization called the Film Circuit which is part of TIFF. www.filmcircuit.ca We are a conglomerate of 200 individual sites across Canada that play indy films booked through the Film Circuit head office. Any city/town/village is allowed one site. Most sites play 35 mm films in a theatre but a large number also play DVDs. I run one such site that can be accessed through the link in the comment header. We currently have 12 screening dates a year showing 14 or so films a year that would never play in our city. Not a lot but better than nothing.
The concept is excellent providing many communities with films that would normally never play anywhere nearby. The downside is that for many sites there is only one or two screenings of each film. We have two screenings and currently average almost 600 people at the two screenings. Not only we and the other sites show great cinema but many of us are also not-for-profit organizations. We donate all our proceeds back to the community through charities and service organizations. In our 6 years we have donated about $55000 to our community (approximately 25% from our ticket prices which range from $7 - $10).
Is there a demand for these films? Well, we sold out our memberships for this year (576) in just over 2 hours on the first day of our membership drive last October. We screen out of a 10 plex Silver City owned by Cineplex. Though they grant us one screen for 2 screenings on each of our 12 screen dates they are hesitant to give us any more. We screen on a Monday where we attract about 600 movie lovers in our two screenings. On each Monday there are about 26 other screenings in our complex and the total attendance in these other 26 screenings is about 300 - 400. I've requested additional screenings and even the possibility of running a mini film festival. So far these have been refused. Nevertheless I am happy to have this small opportunity to show great cinema in an otherwise void of blockbuster and teen-oriented programming.
Another great thing that our film circuit provides is support for a struggling Canadian film industry. Canadian content is not supported in our theatres as the major film distributors have procurred a lock on their mainstream films leaving little room for indies and Canadian films. The national average of Canadian films in our normal cinemas is about 2 - 3% whereas in the film circuit sites it is up in to 25% region. The average Canadian film is made for about $2 million and very rarely makes its money back in Canada.
There are many solutions to providing access to great films - as mentioned in previous comments - but a program like ours certainly can do its share. Can you imagine almost 2000 sites in the U.S. (with 10 times the population of Canada)?
I've proposed to our multiplex the following: You can see that people want to see these films? Why don't you dedicate one of your 10 screens to showing great indy films for one and two week periods? Pick the slowest night of the week and see what happens. So far no interest. I think it's because there deals with the major distributors prevents this from happening.
Regarding downloading a movie without the permission of the filmmaker:
The answer is right there. Someone who has the technical know-how to find and download a movie also has the technical know-how to find the director, writer, producer, distributor, etc.. of the film. Thus, find the appropriate person and state your case for downloading and see how the filmmakers respond. I'm assuming that the filmmakers of indie movies are far more accessible than the big dudes.
When Fahrenheit 9/11 was released, apparently some people asked Michael Moore if they can download it, and he accepted, so long as they don't sell it. But, I think the distributors were very much against it.
On a lighter note:
1- Is it a crime to copy just the FBI warning that appears at the beginning of the movie?
2- In a stand-up bit, Mindy Kaling (the Indian character from "The Office") responded to the anti-pirating ad "would you steal a car? why would you steal a movie?" She said, "if it was that easy to steal a car, then yes I'd steal a car."
I hope all is well.
Omer M
Your right on the money about treating indie films like a seven day release. I read your review of "XXY" and was dying to see it. But I think it only ran a week where I live, IN NEW YORK! Same thing with Gohmorah. I'm still waiting for it to come out on netflix (I saw "XXY", and LOVED it).
This made me bring up two points.
One, I read your review on line every week. I also check out other reviews. But most people don't read reviews. As I'm sure your aware Roger, a lot more people know you from your TV show, which you can't host anymore. I thought that Michael Phillips and Richard Roper had a great chemistry together. But the powers that be at Buena Vista replaced them with a couple of frat boys. it didn't work. Now Phillips is back with A.O. Scott. I think it works better. The show no doubt works better when actual newspaper men review the films, but I don't know if it will ever have the influence that you and Siskel had together. For many people, it was their only exposure to Werner Herzog and Atom Egoyan.
The other point is something I've wanted to bring up for a while. Your always talking about how people need to change their movie going habits. I think one problem is that film apreciation is not taught in schools the way that music, literature, and art history is at least supposed to be taught. With the average school system getting about half the money that a military contractor gets to build the speedometer on a fighter jet, I know that art curriculums in school are more likely to shrink then expand. But I think that it's time we treat film like the art form and cultural touchstone that it is. Kids would still rather listen to Jay-Z then Mozart or Miles Davis, but at least they're EXPOSED to Mozart and Miles Davis.
-Nathan
Ebert wrote: I feel like having me some primo Jane right now.
Yeah, she's like literary heroin, eh? :)
Note: Michael Gambon is playing Emma's father Mr. Woodhouse in that new BBC adaption of Emma. That's the caliber of this stuff and why I often praise not just movies on your blog, but television too. In some cases, because they can take the time to tell a story in "parts" as opposed to trying to cram it all into 2 hrs, you end up with a more complete adaptation of a book. Like Elizabeth Gaskell's "Cranford" (2007) on the BBC, which starred Dame Judi Dench. 5 parts. Dench was nominated for an Emmy and a Golden Globe. PBS aired it earlier this year.
"I added a little footnote thanking you for supplying that beautiful graphic. Obviously no one agreed with me that making it fuzzy made a funny point. No one." - Ebert
I saw that, thanks! And it's because it looked like you'd grabbed a "tiny" photo and enlarged it to the point where you'd pixelated the crap out of it; chuckle!
Ebert wrote: "It's a moral dilemma. (1) You are seeing the film without paying for it. (2) You will never see it any other way. (3) You can argue you aren't depriving the filmmaker of income but providing him with a viewer, who may help spread the word of his film. (4) You would pay for it if you could."
I used to wrestle with that dilemma too, until I realized the solution was the work around the problem "honestly".
Did I see the "Hurt Locker" before it hit theaters in Vancouver? Yup. Was it perfect DVD quality? Yup! Did I pay Bigelow & Co. back and buy a ticket once it hit town; done!
Person motto: if you can't wait, okay, but then buy a ticket or rent it later.
It's not available? Out of print? You found it online? Grab it.
It's available but you genuinely can't afford it and still eat? Grab it, and give it as much free publicity as you can. Find out who you need to praise, and tell your friends. Send e-mails to Network programming directors championing whatever series or films you've seen. Request that your local library buy a copy once it's on DVD.
Joe Leydon spoke of how he'd helped people back in the day, to surreptitiously discover films they'd otherwise never have heard of, and for stumbling upon one of his Newspaper reviews. The power of the internet is that you can do that too.
You can be a Joe Leyton - just on a much smaller scale. Find the articles, find the clips and trailers and official sites and pass the info along to others. Help start a buzz - drop a pebble in the pond.
I once heard back from someone (via my website) that they'd been inside the blog and read one of my posts and caught mention of a brilliant 2006 Indie thriller from Australia called "Last Train To Freo" - which I'd praised and included a trailer to, and they were so intrigued that they ordered the DVD, even though it meant PAL format (they can play it on their PC.)
And how did I see the movie? I'd downloaded it. :)
In this way, you can still make a contribution and help filmmakers wherever they're from - while seeing films you genuinely enjoy in the process. Art feeds the soul and should be available to everyone, not only the rich. Remember that, Aimee.
Imo what's wrong, what's immoral, is when people grab stuff for free simply because they're cheap basterds who can't even be bothered to help promote it, afterward.
I said, 'I read somewhere, Wikipedia.org I think, that you said "Me and Orson Welles" is the "one of the best movies about the theater I've ever seen". Where, or when, did you say this? I don't recall ever seeing a review or blog entry saying so.'
And you replied "I wrote that from Toronto 2008. The movie may be opening in November."
You serious? The film was ready in 2008 and it finds itself a release at the end of 2009? This is just sad!
What is the world coming to? A film like "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" plays to full houses for days together... and much better films are left in the dark?
This is why I love initiatives like your Overlooked Film Festival (I know you changed the name now...). They give these films a chance to walk into the light. At least for some time, anyways.
Okay, completely unrelated to the topic at hand:
(I know you are an extremely busy guy, but I'd appreciate it if you could find the time to read, or atleast glance at, two reviews that I wrote: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/note.php?note_id=166825307714 (Bridge to Terabithia) and http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/note.php?note_id=162009317714 (Hindi film, Swades. I recommended it to you a few months ago. You replied: Recommendation noted.)
I'm a long time fan, Mr Ebert.
I'd even dare to say you've changed my life.
Reply to Aimee mostly:
I find myself in the same boat a lot. Do you know how anime got to be so mainstream as it is now in America? At first, it used to be difficult to find any series you wish to follow as, often, it was only released in Japan. Viewers who still wanted to see something often resorted to less-than-legal means, often buying copied videos that were subtitled by fans for fans (or what came to be known as "fansubs"). A lot of people knew it was illegal, and suspected that many companies simply looked the other way while they let their shows grow in popularity before cracking down on bootlegs when it came time to sell distribution rights. I bring this up because I do think it was a "method" of spreading the word about a series. I'm going to admit I am guilty of this as much as other old fans. But 2 years ago, a company finally bought the distribution rights to a series I've been following, and the first thing I did was go out and buy the DVD box set they released. Unfortunately, it's an expensive hobby, so it is no longer a hobby of mine. I simply follow this one series now as it gets released.
Personally, I think we're just going to have to accept some hobbies are going to be more expensive than others. At my low paying job right now, until I can get a better one that is more tied to a mental health career that I want to get into, I really can't watch films as a hobby at the moment. What's more, films I do want to watch may not always be accessible.
There is one movie right now from Thailand, a romantic comedy, that I really enjoy. But unless a movie from an Asian country is a Martial Arts, Action, or Horror movie, they usually do not get a Region 1 release in America. What's more, they are almost never initially released with English subtitles. And even if they did, there is still that pesky Region Coding and PAL vs NTSC thing. In many cases, I do luck out that a film was released in Hong Kong or Taiwan Region Free with English subtitles (I'm a Chinese American that can't read Chinese, it's actually a bit embarassing). So, the only way I really was able to watch this Thai film was to download a decidedly illegal copy of it. If I had the choice, yes, I would support the filmakers however I can. I'm a big fan of movie soundtracks (which reminds me, Roger Ebert, is music used within a film a non-issue to you? I almost never see any reference to soundscores of a movie in your reviews) so I will at least buy the soundtrack.
In the end, I did manage to find a DVD online of the movie that is with subtitles and am waiting for it to be delivered to me. But it's from Malaysia. And Region Free Malaysian DVD with English and Chinese subtitles almost always means bootleg. I did send an e-mail to the company that produced the movie, GMM Tai Hub, and distribution rights were sold to a Malaysian company, so hopefully it's not. It might not be the same as your situation, because maybe the movies you like are accessible to you. But, for now, I at least try to look at it as:
"Ebert: (2) You will never see it any other way. (3) You can argue you aren't depriving the filmmaker of income but providing him with a viewer, who may help spread the word of his film. (4) You would pay for it if you could."
I suppose I'm obligated to spread the word if I that's the justification for my viewing of it. The movie is called "Pid Term Yai Hua Jai Wah Woon". Don't judge it based on a Google Image search of it. It's a much smarter movie than it looks. Think teenage, Asian Love, Actually.
I have to agree with the majority of other commenters here. The internet really has opened up a lot of opportunities to find out about movies we would like. I can find trailers and music videos for foreign movies I would have never heard about. Some directors had movies released on Region 1, and I can do some online research on the director to find out about how movies he or she has made that did not get a Region 1 release. And, of course, being actually able to buy movies I want to see that I just wouldn't be able to find in DVD stores that held even the most obscure titles (I don't know how I would've gone on living if I didn't have YesAsia.com). What's more, for those of us who are not film enthusiasts, rather than watching a bunch of movies and seeing what sticks and what doesn't, it's nice to be able to just find out about movies we would like. I haven't made any purchasing decisions I've regretted for the past few months, and I have 2 films lined up for when I have more spending power soon.
Ebert: I like your interesting blog. Good luck on the job hunt. Anime seems to have grown up in this country as a genuine grass-roots movement. Long before the word was generally known, I found myself in a couple of small towns in Michigan where the video stores had a limited range overall, but big sections of anime. I asked a clerk, "Does anybody rent that?" She said, "We can't keep it on the shelf."
Longtime reader and fan of your work, but alas, I have this irrepressible urge to edit as well. I think you meant to say the dancer in "Madame Mao's Dancer" defected to the US, not deflected.
I hope these movies find backers, I would like to see each and every one.
Ebert: I activated automatic spellcheck on TextEdit and it's wreaking mischief.
Graphic is much better, thank you Marie. Roger, you have such a broad group commenting on here. Not just concern for distribution and how to see what is happening, but also love for the creations and desire to share. I am reminded of Thornton Wilder's By the Skin of Our Teeth. How does humanity continue, along with creativity and shared culture, by the skin of our teeth of course.
It may be time for me to reread Billy Budd for reassurance that art continues in whatever form because it feeds a human need.
BTW saw The Informant on Sunday. There is no storyline reason that required Matt Damon to gain thirty pounds. I believe it was more like a practical joke so that he would have to lose them afterwards. I see a Clooney hand in it. Some kind of collusion of course.
Love the posts and the comments. And I hope hope hope someone picks up Leaves of Grass so that I may see it. I am not techie enough to find it and peek. Although, I may have a contact now that I think about it.
Ebert: I think it made him look more like a Downstater, with those all-you-can-eat buffets. Know how you know you're Downstate? The salad bars have butterscotch pudding.
The market for everything is horrible right now.
I don't think the success of Transformers 2 is germaine to a discussion on indie cinema, as Trans2 barely qualifies as a "movie" for the sake of this discussion. It's not a movie for people who love movies or even like movies. It's for teens who go to see crap three times to say they were there, and for adults who only go to a couple movies a year so they want to make sure it's the one that everyone's seen so they're not left out.
Thank you for the comment about my blog. I started it as a stand in for the gaps in my time that I have to fill now that I don't return home to playing a certain MMO game I'm taking some time away from while I concentrate on job hunting and grad school admission. I don't remember what interview you said it in, but I recently read one where you praised blogging as a way to help people think critically about movies. I'm finding that writing my thoughts on some of my experiences, including movies I see, does put into perspective what I find to be enjoyable.
I'm getting a lot of my information of what kind of Thai films I might enjoy from this film journal that you and some readers might enjoy.
http://thaifilmjournal.blogspot.com/
The next film I've got lined up for when I intend to buy something again is Citizen Dog (Mah Nakorn), which I find out about from this site. Amelie is not an obscure film, but somehow I did not hear about it when it was in theaters. I actually found out about Amelie because I was reading about Citizen Dog and found out that it may have been influenced by Amelie and, reading about the two, I thought I would like Amelie more. And, indeed, I did like it. Just as I found out about Pid Term Yai Hua Jai Wah Woon because it was directed by the same person who directed other movies I liked: Fan Chan and Dorm. Funny how the ball gets rolling from just a little bit of online research.
While I do not doubt for an instant your ascertion, and that of others, that the indie market is drying up at the moment, isn't this cyclical? If there is one thing I know about Hollywood it's that they chase success and not quality. If one indie film gets picked up this year, and it strikes a cord and makes a ton of money, then it's a sure bet the ignorant heads of Hollywood will be sending folks out to Indie markets trying to pick up everything in sight next year. Hell, they'll even chase perceived hits, remember the three Lambada movies released in the early 90's?
My point is only that while it is unfortunate that several movies that seem to be very worthwhile will not be given an opportunity this year, the tide will most certainly turn again, and perhaps to the extent where all we get is independant films one year and we'll wonder why no picked up Terminator 7: This Time They Try Harder.
Netflix is maybe the greatest thing ever. Over the summer, I watched around a movie a night on my laptop, right before going to sleep, and I wound up getting around 2-3 more movies via the ol' red envelope. I get the two-at-a-time plan, which isn't that expensive, but I'm considering downgrading to one with unlimited online viewing due to college starting up.
As far as it's streaming capabilities go, it loads more of the movie while you watch. As long as you have a decent connection, the movie should be crystal clear and pause free. If you have a less than decent connection, they'll alter the video quality to compensate.
Illegally downloading movies: It's no good, obviously, and I say this as somebody who used to do it. I stopped for a few reasons: I got a job, after three solid years of unemployment during my first three years of college. I decided that my time was better spent reading my book collection than watching an illegal copy of The Love Guru. I kept buying the movies I had on my hard drive, which, for the most part, went unwatched. Some notable exceptions were indie flicks like Slumdog Millionaire, The Hurt Locker and Grand Torino, but I wound up seeing Slumdog in theatres three times, Grand Torino twice (and on opening night in Michigan), and I've since taken four people to see The Hurt Locker with me. The Hurt Locker, I realize, is incredibly recent, but I had no idea what it's prospects of opening in Cincinnati were. Our indie theatre is usually pretty good, but they did play Angels and Demons for four months. And Netflix basically erased any other reason for pirating, it seems. I can honestly say that the only movie I've seen illegally that I didn't make up for was the previously mentioned Love Guru. The movie was punishement enough.
I realize that not everybody has the means to ween themselves from p2p, but it's worth it.
Ebert: How much does unlimited online viewing cost?
Tom, I checked out that site you linked to. He hitchhiked to Alaska? Holy cow. I'm wondering how someone decides to get to Alaska by thumb. My father-in-law flew to Alaska, and that was hard enough. At least his pea-jacket must've kept him warm.
I will actually be out in Berkeley in a few weeks, and now I am morally required to stop by for some truthing about writing on paper to the lost souls typing away.
Where I live, the entire area is free wi-fi, every coffee shop and bar and even just sitting on a bench. I'm wondering when they'll stop selling pens at the stores.
FYI, for those looking to hook up Netflix to their TV, don't bother with those boxes and such. You can get a simple cable to connect your computer to the TV, stream the films over your computer, and watch them on the TV. For Macs, the cords are $10 to $15, tops.
For the really innovative, you can find instructions online to connect your computer to a device using overhead-projector lamps and make a do-it-yourself projector that turns any wall into a big movie screen while retaining full image quality. Here's one example that costs under $500:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-xga-projector-ii,934.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_4712919_build-own-movie-projector.html
I'm putting on my grumpy-old-dude hat now...
For those who want to see films but can't afford it and thus rely on illicit downloads, I'll get on a high-horse that I'm sure someone will knock me off of shortly. BUT -- consider that this is entertainment, not food. If you can't afford to eat but have to eat to stay alive, I don't mind stealing bread as Temple of the Dog would say. Wanting to see a film you can't afford to see, though, is not the same thing. Independent film makers are like the guy selling homemade Guatemalan shirts from his little booth on the corner -- if you really want the clothes he makes because it's better and such than the stuff they sell at Sears, do you shoplift from him? Would it be a little worse to steal from that guy than from a chain department store? Legally, it's the same, but what about the moral question involved regarding who you are ripping off?
The fact that illicit downloads are so easy and so far removed from the people involved -- unlike actually seeing the Guatemalan dude's sad expression when he realizes another Gringo stole his shirts -- doesn't make it less of a moral problem, but I think a lot of folks treat it as if the distance and ease (not to mention the "everybody does it" aspect) make it more acceptable (or easier on the conscience, at least).
It sucks to not be able to get copies of great indie films or see them at your local theater -- but if that film WAS available for sale, or WAS in your local theater, would you shoplift the DVD or sneak into the theater? If it's just a question of access, you can send a check to the indie filmmaker directly, just look them up online and write out a $10 or $20 check, tell them it's in appreciation for their work, and mail that sucker.
If you can't afford it and THAT'S why you are taking it illicitly, then it comes back to the difference between stealing bread and stealing something you just want to see. You can defend it any way you want, but it's still "I don't NEED this, I WANT it for personal enjoyment, so I'll just take it." Who does it hurt? The indie filmmakers you so appreciate in the first place. I just think that if someone's going to do it, at least don't feel that it's morally justified by the simple fact of wanting to see a film but not being able to afford it, is what I'm saying.
Omer offers a great alternative option, too -- contact the filmmaker. Ask them if you can download their film, or if there's some other more legit way to get the film, and if you can't afford to pay for it then ask them what you COULD do in trade.
I don't agree with those saying it's only wrong if you're just too cheap to pay for it even though you can afford it -- even if you can't afford it, you are deciding that you want to enjoy something that's not "necessary" in the big scheme of staying alive, and that if you can't afford it but want it then it's okay to just take it. Where exactly does that lead? I don't buy the notion that it doesn't have broader implications, because for an entire younger generation who have grown up with free illicit downloads it DOES become a matter of principle that spills into other areas. It's easy to apply it to music, and then to other things.
Just because you want something doesn't mean you have a right to have it. Not being able to afford what you want doesn't mean it's okay to just take it, either -- the exceptions being things like food, shelter, and things you can justifiably say you do need to live. Being able to distinguish between what you want and what you need, and when wanting something or needing it gives you a "right" to have it, is important and is part of maturity. We don't do ourselves or society any favors by blurring those distinctions -- they are sadly increasingly blurred all around us, and the Internet (don’t get me wrong, I love me some Internet) is a vehicle that's helping perpetuate and ingrain bad habits and attitudes into far too many people. It's become easier to live out the motto of "I want it, so I need it, so I have a RIGHT to have it."
P.S. -- I liked the image better when it was blurry. So now when I look at it, I'll put on my wife's eyeglasses to get the same effect.
Ebert: Apparently AMC is pulling movie ads in general.
Is that what the management told you?
Because the Tribune is running that AMC block every day.
Big as life and twice as hard to read.
Seems to me as though there's a bit of office politics going on, either here or there.
Didn't you used to be a reporter?
Ebert: It's an enigma, because the Sun-Times has many more moviegoers than the Tribune, and in fact ranks ahead in city circulation.
I produced a short film for the Amazon/Tribeca contest a few years ago, and only recently decided to share in online at YouTube.
There's nothing I would find more rewarding or validating as a writer than to know my short has been seen, and to know what people thought of it. If it was good, or lousy, or if I was lousy, etc.
But then, I have no financial investment in it, and I'm a romantic.
For any interested readers, here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HEBHK-jyPE
Like most things, it's a time-travel drama. (I only hope this all doesn't seem too self-promotional).
Ebert: Um, it may be a tad self-promotional, but I appreciated it.
Ebert: How much does unlimited online viewing cost?
On Netflix, nothing beyond your Netflix subscription (8.99/month and up). Another instant-play plug: Certain titles--such as the French silent serial, "Les vampires"--that are unavailable on disk via Netflix are on the instant play list.
Prediction: Some day, all of Netflix will be streamed. (DVDs have to be the most fragile of transmittal systems. Wax 78s were more durable.)
Unlimited online viewing, at it's absolute cheapest, comes with the $8.99 a month plan. Of course, you are beholden to certain things - few movies remain online and available forever - but I've yet to come to the point where there's absolutely nothing to watch. There've even been some Film Movement things that look very interesting, full seasons of Shotime TV shows, Star Trek, and anything else you could want.
Richard Corliss wrote an article complaining that Netflix didn't recomend good enough Bollywood flicks to him, especially when compared to what a loving staff at an indie rental place, but for people who live too far from such places, $9 a month is a godsend.
Oh, and you get unlimited DVDs a month, too. They just come one at a time. I think the most DVDs I've ever burned through in a month was around 10 or so, because I'm slow and sometimes get caught listening to audio commentaries or messing around with special features or just plain forgetting I have DVDs.
It's certainly cheaper than what you'll pay if you get caught downloading.
Ebert: How much does unlimited online viewing cost?
Just jumping in here: if you mean Netflix, the answer is $8.99 a month. This allows you to have one disc "checked out" meaning they have mailed it to you and not received it back yet. When they do, the next title in your queue goes out that same day.
There are incrementally more expensive plans that work the same way, except that 2, 3, 4, or 5 discs can be out at one time. If they get 2 back, your next 2 choices are mailed.
All of these plans allow unlimited viewing of Watch Instantly titles. You can play these on your computer (or tv-attached device) all day, every day, as many as you can absorb and have time for. There have been rumors that economic factors may force Netflix into some kind of play-per-day limit, or maybe a streaming surcharge vs mail only accounts, but so far this hasn't happened.
Ebert: Wow. Does it still work if you don't have any discs checked out? I'm up to here in discs...
And, lest I sound too high on Netflix, their selection is pretty stellar. Things I've recently watched include Bottle Rocket, Eraser, Frenzy, Grosse Pointe Blank, Silver Streak, The Muppets Take Manhattan, Bananas, and some of Zach Galifanakis' stand-up comedy.
I'll probably check out Julia tonight. Big Man Japan, Wendy and Lucy, Rachel Getting Married, Chop Shop, Man on Wire, Let the Right One In, Happy-Go-Lucky, and a few other recently released indies that I missed for one reason for another are currently in my queue, many of which transfered right over to the watch instantly queue the minute they hit the service.
Blessed convenience. My only complaint is that my new laptop is a 10 inch netbook, and that there is no Netflix chanel on the Nintendo Wii.
What Indies need is a clearinghouse, of sorts; one that can vouch for quality. A "Goodhousekeeping" symbol, so to speak. I suggest the "Roger Ebert Indie Film Series," in which films that you feel are of quality are permitted to fly your banner.
Instead of a distributor having to advertise a specific movie, movie-goers could be "taught" to look for your symbol of approval. A no-name movie has no chance without substantial advertising, as you note above. But a no-name movie in the "Roger Ebert Indie Film Series" would have instant marketability. The Ebert mark of quality would send serious movie-goers to your web site to find a review. Perhaps you could link to a movie site-specific web page, where movie-goers could see where the movie was playing.
And, of course, when searching for local movies online, your symbol of approval would provide instant recognition (except, of course, for those who are waiting for "Transformers 3").
For compensation, perhaps you could have a set fee (a few percentage points of the take AFTER the production costs are recovered).
Mark: Tom, I checked out that site you linked to. He hitchhiked to Alaska? Holy cow. I'm wondering how someone decides to get to Alaska by thumb. My father-in-law flew to Alaska, and that was hard enough. At least his pea-jacket must've kept him warm.
---And I started re-reading his life's treatise, "Truthing," written for "1 in 10,000 people," as he used to tell me. Didja see the pic of him at the war protest, stopping the troop trains? I believe that got into Life Magazine. They don't make people like John Read any more, and we need 'em.
---And as he's one of many who labor in deep obscurity all their lives then die, it's a good segue to Roger's questions to Aimee, who can't afford to pay for the movies she watches.
(1) You are seeing the film without paying for it.
---Which television conditioned us all to do from childhood, albeit those films are sponsored by advertisers. That aside, uncounted millions pass street performers, watch them awhile and pay them nothing. Same with hearing music, viewing sculpture, painting and very very often, reading books. The "make better movies" argument posted here is naive. Free enjoyment of an artwork or intellectual property will never be stopped, no matter what music industry sharks have been trying to do.
(2) You will never see it any other way.
---Ain't so, unless Aimee died yesterday. Every film I've bought was something I first watched for free, usually more than once. Take perennials like "The Wizard of Oz," or "Harvey." Have loved them since childhood when they'd show up annually on network TV. Am delighted to have them at hand, not at the mercy of commercials, editing or any other time schedule but my own.
(3) You can argue you aren't depriving the filmmaker of income but providing him with a viewer, who may help spread the word of his film.
---While a generous argument, it's legitimate for the potential consumer, but not necessarily for businesspeople who can be thieves. See below.
(4) You would pay for it if you could.
---If one thought the film was worth owning. There is a very wide variety of consumers, from those who'll buy only what's precious to them, to parents who'll buy for their kids, to collectors who like having a great big collection -- endless variations in between.
Okay, some personal experience: you won't hear my novelty stuff on Dr. Demento's show any more, if it's still going. Years ago I learned inadvertently through a fan that Barry was selling my songs and pocketing the money without my knowledge. He then argued that the "free publicity" would make me money. I made far more from local stations than from his syndicated show, which was really a labor to get through anyhow. There are hungry, hungry artists who fall for the "free publicity" scam. Don't.
I haven't done that in years and the technology has since changed. I sold cassettes, not vinyl or CD. My overhead was something like $1.25 per copy for a $10 cassette. Pretty handsome profit.
A far cry from what an indie filmmaker needs for his work, but the principle is the same: you have to believe, believe, believe in what you're doing and love the hell out of it to the point it doesn't matter if you make any money or not... and work with the limitations. You can't fake it. The only things you can blame is people who lie and steal and your own gullibility.
Another mini-example happened to me a little while ago. Doooon't go looking for it, but some dude put up one of my old novelty tunes on... a certain... website, let us say. As it was a copy of a cassette copy from 15 years ago, the sound quality was bad enough. Worse, it sounded like he'd added his own instrument and it was out of tune... unless it was some technical glitch.
Still, it made me smile. A liker of my stuff!
Now let's use this to illustrate one of the many emotive facets behind the issue of non-payment for art enjoyed: should I bitch that that damnable Al Yankovic got all the breaks and I got NOTHING? NOTHING. I WANTED EVERYTHING. AL YANKOVIC GOT IT ALL AND I GOT NOTHING. NOTHING. Comparatively speaking.
Such must enter any artist's mind who doesn't believe, believe, believe in what he does (it didn't enter mine, I heard it from my compatriots all the time... as though bitterness is a proud badge to wear).
It is as though we're in a zero-sum game where one artist's success removes another's. Here is a better tasting soda than Coke, but Coke has hogged up all the market space! People don't even realize how they're suffering inferior pop!
100 years from now someone will stumble across my formula on a greasy piece of paper under a bench in a garage. My formula, on which I spent my life's blood, will then become the Soda Pop of the World, and I will have got nothing. I'll be dirt, like Van Gogh has so far been.
Such as us must die content that a neighbor kid came by one day, took a sip and said it was the best soda he'd ever tasted. A little hope for mankind (this is how Jon Read died, Mark).
That has already happened to me, tho' I haven't died yet. In 1987 a 12 year old said one of my funnies was "the best song I ever heard." She didn't even pay for it. I'd have spent that pittance long ago, but the pleasure of the compliment has psychic coinage 22 years later, as do many others. If that's not part of an artist's reality, you're no artist. Whatever the degree of one's talent, there's something godlike about creating something from nothing -- a piece of stone, a blank canvas, a stringed up thing or a horn, all inanimate until you make it come alive. That can't be bought or paid for. It can be drowned in material concerns; something invaluable is lost, invisible to all but oneself.
So that's one artist's point of view on his work going out for free, though it's translatable into any field or genre. I know this about films because I correspond heart-to-heart with a filmmaker in Iceland now and then.
And as I've met hit artists and performers who are broke, mizzuble, and desperate, whose work is still making lots of money but not for them, I'd say it's the businesspeople involved who need to do the soul-searching before they come down on Aimee for any reason. I'd stand guard in front of her with a shotgun. What say, Film Critic?
I've always enjoyed reading your blogs, and now that I have moved to Chicago many of them have become much more personally relevant. Facets can count on a new member in me.
Ebert: There's a nice spirit among the audience members.
Hey! How come the image isnt blurry anymore?? Ebert flip-flopped again.
What??
Ebert: You put your glasses on.
Mr. Ebert wrote: "Wow. Does it still work if you don't have any discs checked out? I'm up to here in discs..."
Yep, you don't have to ever check out a disc to use the "Watch Instantly" option. It's a free part of Netflix membership.
And if you get the two-disc option that I have -- it costs $13.99 to have two discs out at a time, no limit to how many total discs you can get per month (I mail a disc back, and they get it the next day and send another one right out, so I get two new films every other day if I can watch them that fast, in theory) -- then the "Watch Instantly" library is more than 12,000 films. Only certain films drop out of "Watch Instantly", the vast majority remain a permanent part of always-available instant viewing.
If you are watching a film and have to stop at some point, no problem -- the next time you log back in to watch it, it picks up right where you left off last time, even if it's weeks later. And you can just scroll back through the film to any previous part if you want.
I don't work for Netflix and don't want to sound like their pitch-person, but it's a great service and the best option out there, in my opinion. I agree with those who said they believe that eventually it will revert solely to streaming the films and stop using discs at all -- when downloads and streaming technology work out the final kinks, there's no real logical reason not to resort to streaming-only. The costs will drop substantially at that point, since there's no more hard copies to obtain and no shipping costs or replacement DVD costs etc. When the film industry starts to store all films in digital archives, so that Netflix and other such sites can just pay to access a copy for online streaming, consider how much more the costs will plummet, too.
You'll be able to be anywhere at all -- the bus, an airplane, at home, etc -- and with an iPod and some glasses, you can instantly access and watch pretty much any film. I strongly suspect that eventually -- many years down the road, no doubt -- things will change so that rather than going to a movie theater to see a new release, the studios will provide the option of paying a fee (slightly under a theater ticket price, just enough cheaper to encourage people to use the option) to stream a new release for personal viewing through iPods etc.
Studios are always looking for ways to reduce costs and to cut out any middleman who gets a share of profits. Since studios can't run the theaters on their own anymore (by law, for those who don't realize that fact), this option would get around that limitation and put this electronic "ticket" price directly into the studio's hands (or maybe different studios will make exclusive deals with this or that computer company, so that Warner Bros. has a deal with only iPod for exclusive rights to stream new-release WB films, etc). Removing the cost of prints of films, the profit sharing percentages, the global distribution costs, and so on would be a MAJOR incentive for studios to move toward new-release streaming over these types of devices. Just go to WB's online site for new-release viewing, pick the film, charge it to your credit card or Paypal or whatever, and watch the newest flick right there instantly.
I bet when this happens, Netflix and other sites with perfected streaming capabilities will end up eventually included in being able to offer new-release films for such viewing. And when that happens, independent filmmakers might be encouraged by such sites to provide their films to add to the streaming film library -- Netflix could offer the film and just take a cut of the profits, and if a film doesn't get enough viewership to warrant the bandwidth necessary to host the film or stream it etc, then it can move the film to "DVD only" availability or something. OR, what if independent filmmakers had a site like one I mentioned before that's strictly for indie filmmakers, host their films on those servers, and make a deal with Netflix to have the film available through Netflix but streaming the film links over to the indie film site, and Netflix is just a "rerouting service" to help get more exposure etc for the film? That'd be a very mutually beneficial situation, I think.
Ebert: Intriguing. BTW, I did some rescue work for you at Spam.
"Ebert: Wow. Does it still work if you don't have any discs checked out? I'm up to here in discs..."
Oh you'll have discs whether you like it or not, because they're unlimited too, but you get to keep them as long as you like. (Though you should keep your fellow renters in mind when holding discs, especially if it's something you KNOW Netflix carries few of).
I can't sing enough praises for Netflix Instant Viewing; it's really amazing and the selection has gotten to be very, very good. Among the films I've streamed are so many of your Great Movies:
Strangers On A Train, Chop Shop, Tender Mercies, Marriage Of Maria Braun, The Band Wagon, The Bank Dick, Aguirre The Wrath Of God, Battleship Potemkin, Man With A Movie Camera, Written On The Wind, West Side Story, Stroszek, Moonstruck, The Last Picture Show, In Cold Blood, The Enigma Of Kasar Hauser (most of Herzog's films are available), Crumb and most of the Up Documentaries.
...Not to mention every episode of The Munsters AND The Addams Family. It's really an amazing feature.
Hi Roger,
We have a "Film Co-op" thats been around since 76. We used to show a movie every month. We'd find a new Indy or Foreign film because a critic like yourself would post a review... We could get the film in sometime in the next 6 to 12 months and get a crowd big enough to pay costs. Most people don't seem to realize how much it costs to show even a small indy film. Rent for theater, equipment (we'd try to save enough to buy the projector, DVD player, sound system), then the distributor's fee for showing the film. Some folks, Magnolia being one, would bend over backwards to help us out on costs. Many times people let us pay a percent of ticket sales after expenses. Some insisted on a set fee of up to $500 per showing. Advertising can cost more than the cost of showing the film, so we'd make our own flyers and put free announcements on public radio. Needing to sale 50 to 100 tickets to pay expenses, we would squeak by from month to month.
But with the rise of netflix and other resources, and with an on-again/off-again commercial theaters showing an occassional Indy film, we got to where we could count on attendance of only a handfull of diehards - not nearly enough to pay expenses. We now show films only on rare occassions and concentrate instead on conducting workshops, hosting a short film festival each October for locally made films and co-hosting a traveling show from the Black Maria Film Festival each spring.
I prefer seeing a film in the theater with a crowd of people and a bucket of popcorn. My vacation every year is sitting in the reserved section of the Virginia Theater. And between films talking to David Bordwell, Kristin Thompson, Mary Susan, Jim Emerson and other friends I've made there.
To Mark Hughes:
I did not bring up the anime example because I believe it is right to download movies online. Merely to respond to the point about whether or not seeing unofficial copies of a movie can help spread awareness. And in the case of the anime industry, it helped on a large scale when it showed that there is in fact a huge demand for it. Years ago, there was barely a shelf for it in some video stores. Today, any respectable FYE or BestBuy dedicates a whole section to it. It used to be a major moral debate within the fandom. The old general consensus was: "Yes, it's wrong. And when a company in the US licenses the series, you really should buy it." That is precisely what I'm doing (on more of a "Buy-it-watch-it-and-sell-it-back-for-money-to-watch-something-else basis)
I agree with Paul Arrand Rodgers. I find it satisfying to be able to support a filmmaker with my money if they produce a product that I like. There is a film that I like called Love of Siam. I saw it online with fan subtitles. Two years later, when an official, English subtitled release was released in Taiwan, I bought it. And still yet a year later, it looks like a Region 1 release will now be released in America in a month from now. I do in fact credit that to word-of-mouth spreading over the internet. I only hope that it's a sign that, years down the line, films from Asia will be recognized for more than just martial arts and vengeful long-haired ghosts.
I wonder if this is a problem faced by Independent films in America, due to lack of exposure. I'm not sure if it's lack of availability because a lot can be found on sites such as Amazon.com where they have everything from mainstream movies to Caribbean gem polishing kits. There is talk around that the only people that really spread the awareness of Indie films though are film critics, though.
But you would be right that illegal downloading is prevalant and a problem. The Thai film I mentioned earlier, the one that I only had the opportunity to watch because it was available to download subtitled online, it is posted on YouTube, the full movie. A quick check of the Statistics of people who view the video (I love this feature of YouTube by the way) shows that a majority of viewers are in fact from Thailand who, in all likelihood, speak the language. Most of the people seeing the video are not foreigners who do not understand the language. (viewers from America and Australia rank a distant 2nd). I get satisfaction from supporting movies I enjoy (hence, for this movie, I own that soundtrack, and hopefully what is not a bootleg DVD when I get it). But it's clear that, for some reason, other people do not get that same satisfaction.
Side Note: What do people generally considered as an Independent Film for the purpose of this thread? I've only been bringing up foreign films which have no connection to the major film industry in America, but nonetheless people put a distinction between foreign and indie films.
Thank you for this post. As a long-time reader (first time commenting), I just wanted to say that your devotion to the art and experience of cinema is inspiring; a kind of genuine enthusiasm that is rarely found at at time when earnestness seems to be out of fashion. I really laughed at your comment about the street market for "You, the Living." I often find myself wishing for a Roger Ebert to review music, books, or produce at the farmer's market.
Specifically regarding the post:
I have the lucky problem of having both exposure to and opportunity to see many great independent films, but there are always just more films I want to see than I have time to see -- much like your experience at the film festival. Even going weekly, I miss films I want to see, and then the following week there is something new to take its place. While new distribution avenues will create some additional demand, if the new economic reality of independent films reigns in the supply, maybe this will be a benefit to both the filmmakers and the audience?
Ebert: Wow. Does [Netflix streaming] still work if you don't have any discs checked out? I'm up to here in discs...
If you pay the minimum $9/month and never request any mailed disks, you still get the streaming and Netflix saves saves money. I'm sure they won't complain...
I was just at their site and noticed "The Man From Earth" is on streaming. Have you seen that one? I searched once and couldn't find it in your reviews. I don't know if it qualifies as "indie" but it is a great example of what can be done with one camera in a single room; a tribute to the "all talk and no action" formula.
There's no option to just watch instantly. One disc isn't that bad though, even if you're up to your neck in 'em.
Since no one has mentioned screener copies...
When there's a film festival (Cannes, Toronto) and a film maker is trying to generate some buzz for his personal career,
and critics try to describe the movie on their website, but no one in the blogging audience has seen it...
... obviously, the conversation turns to an entirely different topic.
Some indie filmmaker is going to figure out that sending screener copies of his new film to the people who post regularly on Roger Ebert's blog would generate a lot of discussion...
... and when the next festival comes along, maybe Harvey will pay $2 mil instead of $1 mil for a filmmaker with a lot of Internet buzz going for him.
And, by the same thought process, look at all the film makers who have said "I don't really care if you talk about my new movie or not." Pretty much every single one of the movies you named in this blog entry, for example.
This blog has several defining features. One of them is admiration for Charles Darwin and the modern Theory of Evolution. What are the producers of "Creation" doing about that? Well, nuthin'.
Maybe someone else with more moxie will make a better movie about Darwin. (fingers crossed)
Enigma?
Please.
The only reasons a major advertiser would pull its wares from one of only two major papers in a city like Chicago:
1) Money - as in a sudden escalation of ad rates;
2) Some sort of personal dispute with the paper.
This all happened either late last year or early this year. I'm fairly sure that Lord Deadbeat was long out of the picture by then, but the ownership of the Sun-Times has been pretty much in flux ever since.
I know this is way off-topic, but the issue at hand is availability of art films to the public, and knowing where and when they're playing would seem to matter more than a little.
(And I'd remind you that more than a few of us don't have ready access to the Internet - except at the office, which is the case with me.)
Ebert: I read online that AMC is pulling out of print altogether.
I saw Julia a couple of months ago while staying at a hotel and it was one of the pay movie choices. I knew of it from you and watched it and LOVED it. I can't tell you how many awesome movies I've seen because of your recommendations over the years. I really think if it weren't for you I would be one of the mindless masses picking movies based on their trailers. Shudder.
My father one time commented on my relentless need to watch movies at an actual movie theater. I told him I didn’t have any relentless need, and that I was dishing out far less money than they on seeing films “projected by light through celluloid” than the average twenty-year-old. But although television with all its “On Demand” selections curbs my slight addiction to “going to the movies,” I can never fully enjoy a movie via the tube (or via youtube for that matter). Maybe it’s the preference networks seem to have for modifying “from the original version to fit your screen,” maybe it’s because I’m unable to compare my reaction with those of my fellow audience members, or maybe it’s simply because I do not own a High Definition television. But I do understand that I walked out of an “Inglorious Basterds” screening filled with wonder, awe, and satisfaction.
But I’ve digressed from this post’s intended point. My father recalled when he was the same age as mine, remembering a visit to the theaters as a luxury or a treat that would only come around once or twice a year. Now I’m sure a lot of this has to do with the relative difficulty it took to make and produce a movie back in the day, but I wonder whether more directors “have to make” their movies today because there are more directors because there are more ways to make a film because there’s a higher frequency of movie-watchers because… Well that’s where I’m stumped. Is this a bad trend, all this movie-watching? Of course, you are a movie critic who makes a living off doing just that, but I see you more as a scholar of a modern art form than simply a cinephile. I, on the other hand, have grown up watching and appreciating good movies, but am only beginning to appreciate good books and good paintings and even good music. Has the movie replaced these other modes of art? I certainly know that a film is more readily discussed among my friends than when we all have read the same book.
I love movies, but I’m a little frightened that if I go down that path of loving a good novel or a Mozart symphony it’ll be a lonely one.
Ebert: You won't be lonely. You'll simply be deprived of the companionship of the dull.
I am a Todd Solonz fan and Happiness is one of my favorite movies. Have you seen "Life During Wartimne"? If so what did you think of it?
God, I love these blogs. I've been reading them for years, but I've started to take them for granted. I just want to thank you for them. I took a shot at making a blog of my own recently, and used your style as my template because you're such a great writer. I'll post the link... not because I'm trying to spam anyone, but because I would be delighted if you read any of it.
http://conor-woody.blogspot.com/
(P.S. Leaves of Grass looks great!)
Ebert: It's some very good writing. Introspective, soul-searching, open minded.
Three of your favorite books: Huck Finn, Lolita, No Country for Old Men. Yes! Did you see this?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/perform_a_concert_in_words.html
Tom Dark wrote on September 22, 2009 1:46 PM -
"I've met hit artists and performers who are broke, mizzuble, and desperate, whose work is still making lots of money but not for them, I'd say it's the businesspeople involved who need to do the soul-searching before they come down on Aimee for any reason. I'd stand guard in front of her with a shotgun."
Here, here! (Marie bangs her fist in agreement!)
I know I can't speak for all Artists, but as a general rule, we tend to collectively cut brethren some slack - as we know what it means to live hand to mouth. We know what it is to chase the rent.
And we all take from one another. We all tap into the creative stream.
I grab a song, get inspired, I paint a picture and put it up online. You see it, grab it, use it, it turns into another idea - an endless cycle. Painters, poets, musicians, writers, filmmakers: the brethren do this.
What's in the film? Where did you get that idea? What went into the forming of it? Did Tarantino rent or buy every single film he's ever seen? Or did he watch many of them for free because he happened to work inside a Video store?
You use what you can, however you come by it. Everything feeds into everything else. You pay when you can. You don't screw over your fellow brethren. That's the unspoken rule.
Ie: artists don't expect other artists to help them pay the rent; although it is nice when it happens.
Note: I wasn't charged a dime to look at some photos of Urbana, Illinois taken by a photographer named GaleChicago. And because I was able to see them for free, I was (eventually, stupid spam filter) able to give Roger the link to where I'd found them - and he wound-up buying some. He used them in his blog and gave her credit.
Roger had scoured the internet looking for photos of Urbana, but with little success. I found them thanks to sheer pathological curiosity "unimpeded" by the corporate man.
It's not other artists that artists have to worry about.
It's the greedy middleman.
P.S. what's achieved of any value if someone like Aimee is prevented from seeing a film? How does that put money into anyone's pocket? You can't get blood from a stone, squeeze it all you like. And so it's a moot point if she sees something for free, as it makes no difference.
As an Artist, I don't resent the Aimee's of this world. I resent the guy who just spent $50 at the bar - like he does every week, instead of buying more movie tickets. He doesn't have to download stuff, but he does. I resent the girl who bought another "whatever" even though her closets are bursting - and then download a new CD. It's the people who can afford it, if they cut back on other stuff, who personally bug me. It's the guy filling up his truck for the weekend, when he doesn't have to work and could take public transit. There are ways to work around one's finances.
There's also a limit and when you reach it, again: blood from a stone.
Ebert: You are hands down the most successful web searcher I've ever encountered.
hey Roger, remember when you told us about that time when your turkey sandwhich got searched at the gate? (I forget which festival and which year)
Is the security in Toronto this year as bad as that?
Ebert: There was no security at all at the press screenings. You had to walk through a detector at Roy Thomson.
On Demand video is unavailable in Turkey, also. Even though we have two very good film festivals in Turkey, they both tend to gravitate towards "hit indie films" from yesteryear's festivals. Basically, more popular fare from this year's TIFF will show in Istanbul next April.
What's worse is that many independent films fail to get a cinematic release here. I spend a fortune on Amazon, and I am thinking of getting an Apple TV soon (though I would also have to get a flat screen TV since Apple TV doesn't support CRT's, apparently). No matter where you are, it's not easy being a fan of indie movies, it seems...
Marie wrote: Imo what's wrong, what's immoral, is when people grab stuff for free simply because they're cheap basterds who can't even be bothered to help promote it, afterward.
Dear Marie, you forgot the word 'inglourious.' :) Now here's another side to the moral dilemma, since we're on the topic. What about those people who upload movies, catering to those who download them for free? And what then when these people who download movies in turn become uploaders themselves?
I admire you for coming out clean with that downloading stuff. Not so long ago, I myself have seen The Apu Trilogy and Jalsaghar: The Music Room, very clear copies, through free online streaming; not to mention Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis, a French film that I doubt a Hollywood remake could capture the charm of. The afore-mentioned films of Satyajit Ray I have long desired to see but couldn't, couldn't, just couldn't find anywhere here. I could have opted to import them from abroad, but right now, accumulating more material things is not really high on my agenda. I have a number of reasons for this, one being that somehow it got into my head that going green also means conserving my lot. It's a very fuzzy idea that I have but one that I can't shake off because, well, I just can't shake it off. Another is that not all people have friends who share the same taste when it comes to films. You are lucky to have friends with whom you can share these great and incredible DVDs. Somehow, these great movies simply do not deserve to sit on shelves for years on end without being shared to, at least by loved ones and friends.
P.S. I was gripped all throughout Jalsaghar. It's a great parable and a towering landmark in cinema. Maybe they should quickly put these old great movies into Public Domain so that people could freely see them without apprehension. Okay, I'll see myself out for now. Roger must be wanting to kill me.
Ebert: When I reviewed "The Music Room" (Jalsaghar) for the Great Movies Collection, it was from an old VHS tape. There is one (1) such old tape now available through Amazon, used, for $24.95.
eBay lists one DVD (region unknown) for $267. The movie was released 40 years ago. Satyajit Ray died in 1992. If you can view very clear copies online but that is a crime, who is the plaintiff? I am opposed to piracy. But to be a pirate you have to find someone who owns a ship.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990117/REVIEWS08/401010342/1023
I work at the oldest independently owned movie theatre in Ottawa (The Mayfair) and we show indie films (even locally made films) and we are the only theatre in town that has 16, 35mm and digital projection.
Sometimes it feels like a grassroots operation since we aren't as successful as the other art house in town (The Bytowne, which is the most successful art house theatre in Canada) and we experiment alot by mixing it up and showing second run Hollywood features, old exploitation movies, art house and first run indie films.
Recently we showed a documentary that I think you should see (as well as anyone wanting to be an indie filmmaker) entitled "Zombie Girl: The Movie" which is about a 12 year old girl living in Austin, Texas who made her first feature film (a zombie movie entitled "Pathogen"). We sold DVDs of the film at the candy bar and the proceeds go to her next film project.
Ebert: I asked them for a screener.
You would have me as a regular if I lived in Ottawa.
I worked for a while as a projectionist at a dollar cinema here in North Texas--it was the best minimum wage job I'll ever have. We had only film projectors--no digital yet--and I am an opponent of the digital change as well. There are a couple of big problems I have. First, motion is not as clear--the refresh rates on most of this stuff leaves any moving shot blurry. I went to see Jennifer's Body in digital this weekend (I have a less favorable impression than you do, Mr. Ebert) and it really struck me.
Another, more serious problem I have with the technology is that you don't get reel markers any more. Fight Club demonstrates this phenomenon to the uninitiated, but movies come in 5-7 reels typically. Most cinemas nowadays have horizontal platters you splice the film together on and then break down when the run is over. If you watch on the screen, however, you can still see the cues for the old-style projection where you had to switch machines. Knowing where these reel changes occur helps you to keep track of plot development, as the reels are roughly like acts in plays. Digital has no need for such markers, so reel changes are less noticeable.
Another thing to seriously consider is infocide. Think of the burning of the Library of Alexandria--in one fell swoop parts of our history became Ancient, as the balance of their wisdom and art perished forever. A digital disk is just a piece of plastic to any civilizations after ours who has lost or forgotten our computers. A celluloid film, however, is a collection of little pictures, and by holding them up to the light you can see what's there. It'd take them awhile to figure out the soundtracks maybe, but they'd get a taste for sure. Watch it be Transformers II that survives World Wars III-IX.
Finally, I think the work of projection is a beautiful thing, a quiet job fit for studious and ascetic types. There will be no projectionists in a few years, and this is sad to me. There will be nobody haunting those hallways above the magic, standing at the last rung of the entertainment business ladder to make your movie happen. It is sentimental, I suppose, but it makes me mourn a little.
Ebert: Your closing paragraph is winsome poetry.
Your blog is astonishing. All three writers. I love the wickedly-chosen photo of Aleister Crowley illustrating your essay "Reason and its Discontents."
Ebert wrote: You are hands down the most successful web searcher I've ever encountered.
That's because I shall not be thwarted.
"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." - Winston Churchill
(Marie's hand snaps up to salute!)
A dogged determination I apply to finding movies and stuff, too. :)
Patrick F. wrote on September 22, 2009 9:36 PM -
"...although television with all its “On Demand” selections curbs my slight addiction to “going to the movies,” I can never fully enjoy a movie via the tube (or via youtube for that matter). Maybe it’s the preference networks seem to have for modifying “from the original version to fit your screen”.."
OMG.
The dreaded "formatted to fit your screen" message!
Shoot me now and let me DIE.
I can't watch full screen. Can't do it. Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Once I saw the beauty of 16:9 widescreen - that was it; watching anything less is like turning to the dark side, Luke.
Now, I must admit, I can force myself to "occasionally" lower my standards and watch full screen if that's how a film was released (Hitchcock's Stage Fright) - but only because I know when to pull back from the edge and not go over; ie: willingly purchase a DVD in full screen.
Oh God...just the thought, I... I.. stand back, I'm gonna hurl...!
Chuckle; okay, okay, maybe I exaggerate a little. But I feel your pain, Patrick. I feel the same way about "formatted to fit your screen."
But ya know what's even worse, dude? Cell phones. Text messages. A foot kicking the back of my seat. Popcorn eaters. Teenagers. Shudder! I used to enjoy watching a movie with other people, now I dread it. I've had so many ruined for me. You buy a ticket, $12.50, then pay for transit, $7.50 - only to end up wanting to shoot total strangers in the back of the head with semi-automatic. That's not good.
What is however, is "Leaves of Grass" - for I finally found a sneak-peak trailer for it! And now I've seen some of what Roger was talking about:
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/leaves-of-grass/interview-edward-norton
Holy cow! That's totally surreal! Once you get past the fact you know it's the same guy playing both characters, you're struck by how absorbing each guy is. They're so completely different. You forget to remember it's Edward Norton! Dude, that's genius. Oscar nod! Oscar!
Meanwhile...
The Vancouver International Film Festival 2009
http://www.viff.org/tixSYS/2009/filmguide/
"Postalolio"
(Canada, 2008, 6 mins, 35mm)
Directed By: Marv Newland
"Set to a tune by the late jazz guitarist Joe Venuti, Newland's latest has to be seen to be believed."
Clip: http://www.vimeo.com/5296544
"Postalolio" is a 2D animated film in which all of the drawings have been hand painted onto postcards (watercolor on Arches stock) and sent through the mail prior to becoming part of POSTALOLIO. Every frame of animation has traveled through the international post prior to becoming part of this film.
It's now making the rounds of various Film Festivals both here and overseas; but I believe the VIFF will be its Vancouver Premier. I've been waiting to see this, for ages! HAND PAINTED ANIMATION! Woo-hoo!
Marv Newland was my boss at International Rocketship, back in the day. And as you can see, he has not been seduced by the siren song of computers - he has drawn his line in the sand and they shall never take him alive. :)
There is an increasing attempt in India to sell original CDs and DVDs at dirt-cheap prices (far less than an average ticket price). But these are of films that do get a theatrical release here. Serious films that throng the festival circuits (especially those in regional languages) never get a commercial release, nor is there a demand for their CDs and DVDs: so they don't get made or sold locally (which, hence, beats the pirates :)).
An amazing pattern you find in film festivals is people rushing to see such Indian films because they know they might not have a second chance. Unless you pay an unrealistic amount to buy from overseas, where inexplicably, DVDs have a market and are sold, there is no way you can watch these here.
At last count, 2 out of 23 Adoor Gopalakrishnan films were available. Shaji Karun's Piravi was being sold only on an international website and even the Sri Lankan movie, Forsaken Land, was absent from Colombo's video shelves.
Ebert: "Little India" on Devon Avenue in Chicago has video stores that do a booming business and have rows and rows of DVDs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devon_Avenue_%28Chicago%29
Roger, it was from your Great Movies that I learned of The Apu Trilogy and The Music Room. That was years ago, and it was only until recently that I got to see all four films. In Pather Panchali, I shed a tear upon the father's homecoming when he realised that his daughter was dead. Jalsaghar gripped me all throughout. I was entranced by the music as it wickedly weaved the man's fate in his own folly. These movies were very far from my perception of Indian films.
I was stranded at sea, and by either misfortune or luck boarded a pirate ship. But you'd be surprised at some of the pirates. One of them held a discussion with me about Indian film Neo-Realism. Ahoy there!!
Rat on, Marie, rat on rat on rat on about Aimee and those who simply can't afford to pay. And about the beerbellied snipe who doesn't pay what he can afford. I think I've met him, but generally my inner autopilot steers me away. When they die, Satan will force them to watch Veggie Tales for all eternity. With popcorn.
Say, I didn't realize until just now that names here in blue led to a website when you click on them. Beautiful website. Beautiful artwork.
Seems bleak. Well, in the midst of the economic crisis, I recently blew my small financial safety net on a costly camera and low-rent editing software. Time to go down swingin'.
I think "Sita Sings the Blues" counts as an indie... I've downloaded the film (completely legal, in this movie's case anyways) and watched it many many times. It's one of those films that never seems to get old. I feel so sorry for Nina Paley... after all that hard work, practically making the whole film herself, she eventually lets the film get downloaded free just because of some copyright problems.
I'd go for the film again if it released in theatres here, but as it appears, it's not releasing in theatres anywhere, is it?
Question for you, Ebert... do you think "Sita Sings the Blues stands a chance at the Oscars? At least a nomination? Or is it going to be ignored because of its "unorthodox distribution"?
You totally need to get Netflix, I know you're up to your elbows in discs, but the WI is worth it.
Miles Blanton
One thing the theatre owners are forgetting here is they have a lot of screens to fill. Most "Hollywood" films have the shelf life of an open can of tuna. Case in point - "Jennifer's Body", well that's a bad pick, the tuna can didn't even open.
My point is you have a 20 screen complex, your rent is 50 to 100K a month and you're fighting to fill screens with, well, "Jennifer's Body". Why not take just one of those screens and devote it to an independent or foreign film and let it sit there and find it's audience. It's not like every Hollywood film is going to put "butts in the seats" anyway.
Jordan W., just wanted to let you know I liked your review a lot. I'll admit I'm partially biased (I'm a huge Apatow fan also), but I thought your review was pretty spot on. I did find there to be a couple minor problems with the third act, but my only real gripe was with the ending.
***SPOILER ALERT***
I think in reality, Adam Sandler's character wouldn't have gone out of his way to apologize to Seth Rogen's character. If he did apologize, I felt like it would've been in some off-hand, half-assed way when they ran into each other at a comedy club or something. I do think George felt quite a bit of guilt over what he did to Ira, but I think he was still too stubborn and selfish of a person to make a sincere attempt at making amends.
Anyway, loved the movie and good job with the review.
Thanks, and that's good to hear, but I was more concerned about whether "Get Low" was a quality movie. I guess I can wait for the review, grumble grumble.
Thank you so much for your input, I really appreciate it!
It is amazing how writing can enhance this passion so much. I have written four reviews so far, and only for movies that I feel strongly about, namely Funny People, Synecdoche, New York, and Inglourious Basterds. I look forward to also reviewing films that I dislike or even detest...Do you find it more difficult when it comes to writing about films that don't really offer much?
I live in Newfoundland, an island province in Canada where any sort of art-house or independant theatre simply doesn't exist. The two screen Empire Theatre here can only show a absolute maximum of 3 films at a time with showings no earlier than 7pm. With an obvious emphasis on Hollywood blockbusters there is never a chance of seeing anything independant or rare. The most obscure film to have been shown here in recent memory would be Inglorious Basterds and if that's obscure, I'm the Queen of England.
I spent the summer in Kingston, ON which had two multiplexes but also a delightful indie theatre called The Screening Room. Even an independantly run theatre like this is limited to how independant they could go before they ran the risk of losing ticket sales so what I was able to see were films along the lines of Woody Allen's "Whatever Works" or Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" and even this is a vast improvement on what is available at home.
The sad part is, The Screening Room is about 2000km away from me and the closest theatre of this sort that I could imagine might be somewhere in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick which would be a plane or boat-ride or several day drive away and in anycase is several hundred dollars more than anyone could ever pay to see a movie or two.
As an unemployed student with curiosities beyond what Sex and the City: The Movie has to offer, my hands are tied: either I view a pirated version of a film or I don't get the chance to see it and either way someone suffers an injustice. Something along the lines of a video-on-demand service would be ideal to meet the needs of someone in my position. I could see a new film with decrased waiting periods and at a relatively low cost I could satiate my curiosity.
Sadly we all are't lucky enough to have jobs that allow us to go to film festivals and see the films first hand AND in a theatre that might never otherwise be released. It's truly great to see that you recognize the difficulties of the average film enthusiast, if only the folks in charge would see it the way you do.
Thank you
Ebert: Who am I to call you a pirate?
"Ebert: It's some very good writing. Introspective, soul-searching, open minded.
Three of your favorite books: Huck Finn, Lolita, No Country for Old Men. Yes! Did you see this?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/perform_a_concert_in_words.html"
First of all, you've made my day by encouraging my writing. I wouldn't hold anyone else on earth's compliment in higher esteem. Being on the school paper, I rarely get any feedback besides that of a letter grade, so that meant a lot to me. I just read that blog post again, and found it coincidental that you mentioned all three of my favorite authors in it!
On a side note, you've convinced me to go pick up Suttree. It'll be my fourth Cormac McCarthy book to read. It'll be pretty tough for him to top "The Road" in my book!
I don't think anyone has mentioned, that while the Netflix Watch Instantly selection is growing every day and very convenient to use, many of the films are in the wrong aspect ratio. Some are cropped to full screen and some that are meant to be in 2:35 are cropped inexplicably to 1:85 so be careful!
Ebert: Instructed by my readers, I have signed on to Netflix and am currently watching "The Show-Off" with Louise Books and enjoying it.
Funny, I always assumed you were secretly on the Netflix anyway....don't tell me you just happened to have a copy of "In A Lonely Place" lying around for your Great Movie essay!
Ebert: As a matter of fact, I did.
Great article and well put, very sad state of affairs with the Indie world, you have not even mentioned the non-big name movies that will never even make as far as the big name films. Very sad indeed, I saw a small indie film called INK at the Laemmle/Sunset 5 that played for a week and no one has picked it up and unfortunately no one will, the film makers have chosen to self distribute. This is the only way anymore for the smaller film maker. Jamin Winans and his film Ink sold out small theaters everywhere it has played in, and no one would pick it up. So once again sadly no one will see this masterpiece in the theaters they will have to go to Netflix or Amazon or some other means. All I can say is see these great movies and tell everyone about them!!!!
Man, the comments on this entry make me realize that I am an incredibly lucky cat. I live in Toronto with all kinds of amazing films all around. And, even when I return to my Northern Michigan "ancestral home," a town of 500, I am only 25 minutes away from the restored State Theater and Moore's Traverse City Film Festival. It all makes me feel profligate with my riches. Film has always been a third love--Theology, Literature, Film. But, the love is growing. My Husband is my intellectual compatriot and we are too busy to read theology or literature with two young children.... but, a movie is always possible. We are currently watching The Diary of Knud Rasmussen. Which is beyond wonderful.
Do you think that indie films are going to be harder to watch in general or just in obscure places?
Ebert: For the isolated, the future may lie with Netflix.Small comfort to Canadians.
Roger, I am hoping you will read this note. About 8-10 years ago you took a picture of my son (a young Indian kid) with Peter O'Toole at the Telluride Film Festival. I was wondering if you still have that picture on a disc or on your hard drive and if yes -- would you be able to email me the picture at aseemchhabra@aol.com?
I really appreciate it.
Haven't seen you in Telluride in the recent years. BTW, I did voice over as one of the shadow puppets in Nina Paley's "Sita Sings the Blues" -- I know you are a big fan of that film.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Ebert: You've got mail.
Ebert: Wow. Does it still work if you don't have any discs checked out? I'm up to here in discs...
I posted way up above and just stopped by to check on this thread, so sorry if I'm late to the party. But-- Wow, indeed. I am astonished to find out that Ebert is not Netflix savvy.
Of course, it makes total sense; why would a major critic need Netflix? You get special screenings and preview discs sent to you. You have had free uber-Netflix for years, direct from the studios!
But guess what, even Ebert can benefit from Netflix. Those discs you have all over your home and library and office? Throw 'em out or give 'em to charity. You don't need to maintain a large personal library when you have a Netflix subscription. Keep only a special selection of your favorites and rarities and use Netflix when you have an urge to see anything else.
Streaming is fun for certain titles, but the incredible deep library of discs is the real Netflix treasure. We get no tv channels or cable stations on our tv. We have watched nothing but DVD's since subcribing to Netflix years ago. It would be a terrific bargain at 3x the price.
"Ebert: Instructed by my readers, I have signed on to Netflix and am currently watching "The Show-Off" with Louise Books and enjoying it."
Are you watching it on a computer? There are appliances and the Xbox 360 as well which can be connected to your TV or projector more easily.
I've personally found I can't enjoy a movie as much on a computer as I can on a TV of big enough size with a couch. I first noticed this when I watched The Prestige, once on a laptop and then on a TV. I found was much more drawn to the larger screen. Computers have a way of getting in the way as they were never designed for movie watching.
Ebert: I've ordered that $99 gadget.
Where is your blog about the pornos that have been playing in the same downtown theaters since 1976? Nobody has ever picked them up.
Ebert: There are still porno theaters? I thought porn had immigrated to home video.
i think indie film makers just need to pull their socks up and start making films that people actually want to see. Its all well and good making artistic deep and meaningful films but if they look like theyre going to be dull or boring people are just not gonna go watch them and if people are not gonna watch them , the guys with the money are not gonna distribute them. Indie films only became hip and popular in the 90s because of stuff like reservoir dogs and other films that were showing (seemingly) exciting stuff that hollywood films tended to avoid. A lot of these indie pictures at the moment just look like some boring thing to pass the time on a sunday afternoon,when what they need to doing is pushing the envelope more and showing stuff that people would actually want to see. Once they start to do that I think the audiences will go back to them and theyll start getting distributed again. I really do think the ball is in the film makers court and if they made some amazing mindblowing movie it would definetly get attention and get a release. The problem with these films is, quality is they may be - there is far more ways to spend your time nowadays then there ever has been before and you need to really raise your game and make some mindblowing shit to really deserve to get peoples attentions. If youre just making some worthy, well made but essentialy mediocre movie that no one wants to see you cant complain when it dosent get distributed and nobody watches it. The fact that a big hollywood studio can release ansolute drivel to a largely mindless public is just an unfortunate fact of life. I think people will always like going to the cinema and if the film industry survived well enough for the 80 or so years where there was no such thing as home video etc then I dont see why they should be upset now that home video isnt as profitable as it once was. I personnaly find it almost impossible to watch films at home nowadays anyway as there is so many distractions and I feel you dont get the full experice of it . far as im concerned films should really only be watched in the cinema and whether they are indie pictures or some hollywood blockbusters isnt really my concern, all im bothered about is if the film is good or not and many indie pictures are just as bad in their own ways as hollywood ones are. Just because a film is made for supposedly artistic reasons dosent mean its intrinsically better than one made to entertain/make profit. Having said that it does seem to me that the actual quality of all kinds of films indie and commercial is getting worse and worse to the point that they cant even seem to tell a coherant story anymore but Im going off at a tangent here so ill shut up now. Thanks 4 reading + i enjoy reading your reviews mr ebert (even if i dont always agree with you) !!!:)
Hi Roger, I looked into the Netflix option as well. Alas, they don't serve anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen, any more than let the movies stream outside the U.S.. I would gladly pay if given the chance. That would put a stop to my "Jerry Cruncher" nocturnal activities.
in pleasantville, nj, atlantic county, there's a shopping center along route 322 called the shore mall. i thought it was in mays landing, but the website says pleasantville. anyway, there's a theater there called Frank Theatres Towne Stadium with 16 screens. the ancient marquee along the highway says that they show independent films every day. i've never been there, but i'm going to start going in order to at least support the "industry."
http://www.fandango.com/franktheatrestownestadium16_aajiq/theaterpage
Yes, streaming with Netflix works even if you don't have a DVD checked out. The selection is extremely limited compared to the hard library, but there's plenty for me to enjoy, from "Gosford Park" to "Valentino: The Last Emperor." I've been paying $8.99 and have watched something almost every night for months, while checking out maybe three actual DVDs this whole time. I prefer the Netflix application on my Xbox 360 to watching movies two feet from my computer, and I spend more time watching movies than playing games on the Xbox, and I review video games for a living! I saw today that they recently added "Julia" and "Man Push Cart" to the instant library. Which to watch tonight?
Oh, and I second the recommendation of Little India on Devon. Only place (other than dubious Web sites) I could track down a copy of "Kuch Kuch Hota Hai" while at Northwestern.
Robert of Taoyuan City, Taiwan wrote on September 23, 2009 5:26 AM -
“Dear Marie, you forgot the word 'inglourious.' :) Now here's another side to the moral dilemma, since we're on the topic. What about those people who upload movies, catering to those who download them for free? And what then when these people who download movies in turn become up-loaders themselves?”
I have to misspell words like basterd, because the stupid spam filter will otherwise toss my post into Roger’s dungeon, if I don’t. Then I’ll have to bug him to rescue it - and while he’s never complained, I’m sure there’s spiders and stuff down there. So I misspell words for Roger’s sake. :)
Re: the moral quandary…
My Public Library has “Jalsaghar: The Music Room.” I checked after reading your post. So I can watch it for free. So too, “My Winnipeg” and countless othes, both domestic and foreign; along with art classics like “The Gleaners and I” by Agnès Varda.
And not everyone is as fortunate. How should I respond to those who can’t do the same and why they're hunting for treasures online? Sucks to be you? And how do I hope to be treated in return, when the shoe’s on the other foot? And so when I download, I don’t just snatch and run. For starters, it’s bad manners. I hang around for a bit, share some bandwidth, and make sure a few people have managed to complete things at their end too. As I’m not the only one on the planet who wanted “Shaun the Sheep” you know.
Shaun the Sheep - Still Life (by the folks who make Wallace and Gromit.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qas27wHba4w
As I recall (it was some time ago) but someone in Brazil wanted it, also Norway and Saudi Arabia. Yes. Someone in Saudi Arabia wanted to see a stop-motion animated children’s show featuring sheep. Note: DVD region 2 release only; PAL.
Which brings me to another point – what if no one in the US has your taste in sheep? What then? For the assumption here is that if you just wait, everything will eventually cross the pond. But we know that’s not the case – there’s no profit to be made in satisfying what amounts to ala carte tastes. And what if you have them? What if you genuinely truly honestly don’t like what most people do?
Which is why over 80% of what I personally grab, amounts to esoteric or eclectic fare. Ever see Rene Clement's 1961 mystery-drama "Plein Solei" aka Purple Noon, based on Patricia Highsmith's The Talented Mr. Ripley - it stars Alain Delon as the notoriously amoral Ripley?
Trailor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6dOZJP6UT8
It went unseen for decades. Meanwhile, you could find attack of the Killer Tomatoes. I found it floating around years ago. Before someone decided, okay, I guess we'll bring it out on DVD - and it took Martin Scorsese to do it! Note: the library also has: Le Samourai - Criterion Collection (1967).
“I admire you for coming out clean with that downloading stuff…” - Robert
“Rogers Video” (yes, actual name) is a big chain of rental stores here in Canada. And their stores reflect mainstream tastes. They’re also the nearest to me and they send me newsletters. One arrived earlier today. Here’s what new for rental this week:
OBSERVE AND REPORT
GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST
X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE
Months ago, I downloaded the screener for X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The first three X-Men films were shot here in B.C. so I was curious to see it. I found it boring. I could barely watch it. Moreover, it was shot in Zealand pretending to Canada. Jeeesh! Anyhoo, because I got to see it - now it’s time to pay for it. So it was off to the store, rent a copy, drop it into the return box on the way out the door; DONE.
I just wanted to pay for it. Ironically if I had waited, I never would have wound-up renting it; no longer curious enough. By indulging my curiosity at the time however, they made money off me now. Just because I download a movie, doesn’t mean I won’t pay for it later. And I’m open about what I do, for that reason.
Artists are ahead of the curve because they don’t ask permission before crossing the street. I follow my curiosity wherever it takes me, as that’s where inspiration lies. But I don’t cheat anyone in the process.
1990: the first movie I ever bought was an import: Jean Cocteau’s “Beauty and the Beast” on VHS from the world renowned “Videomatica” in Vancouver. I paid $60.00. Almost a weeks salary at the time; I was animation cel painting. Next, I bought “Wuthering Heights”.
THE best eclectic video store on the planet…
http://videomatica.bc.ca/
Tom Dark wrote on September 23, 2009 11:17 AM -
"Rat on, Marie, rat on rat on rat on about Aimee and those who simply can't afford to pay. And about the beer-bellied snipe who doesn't pay what he can afford. I think I've met him, but generally my inner autopilot steers me away. When they die, Satan will force them to watch Veggie Tales for all eternity. With popcorn. Say, I didn't realize until just now that names here in blue led to a website when you click on them. Beautiful website. Beautiful artwork."
Thanks! And did it cost you anything to look at it, Tom? Nope.
If you're honestly not in a position to pay for what you watch, you're a stone. But stones have feelings, even if you can't squeeze blood from them. I don't want to live in a world where the only people who get to see Art are those dealt a luckier hand by fate.
How does that make the world a better place? I don't want people to stay in their places, noses pressed up against the glass, watching everyone else eat, you know? And if art isn't food on level, why do we yearn for it so much?
Your soul's gotta eat too, dude.
Now I'm off to O'Rourke's for a Kilkenny... :)
Mr. Ebert,
I'm a Chicagoan who recently moved to Antioch, a north Suburb. Since my move I've been going through some MAJOR indie film withdrawals. And now, after reading your entry I'm seriously considering signing up for the Facets membership. Not only did I not know they existed, but now I'm downright disappointed I never had the chance to check them out while still living in the city.
I did have a Netflix membership for quite a while and became pretty bored with their "recommendations". You know, the "movies you'll love" section. They never got it right. I would rate the movies I watched and 9 times out of 10 the recommendations would be off. Their rental selection is so HUGE that there was absolutely no way I'd be able to browse for hours until I found a tittle that peaked my interest. So I tired of it and canceled.
I wish there was a service that gave me better recommendations or I guess just had a smaller critic's picks section to help me with my rental decisions. (I almost ALWAYS agree with the ratings on Rotten Tomatoes) Sometimes it is hard to find the time to keep up with all the indie releases on my own, but like to stay informed.
Facets seems a lot more intimate, and since I still live about an hour from Chicago, the idea of being able to visit it from time to time makes me really happy. Are they a movie theater as well? I think I'll give them a try.
I'm so glad I stumbled onto this journal entry. :)
Ebert: Facets has a larger theater and a small one. Their catalog specializes in art, foreign, doc, indie, and has many titles not available elsewhere. Their website is frequently updated and always interesting. They rent by mail. There's a nice comraderie among the audience members.
After seeing a movie there, you can rent a DVD and mail it back to them. It's only a few blocks east of the Kennedy, so easy to drive to. Milos Stehlik, who you can hear on WBEZ, is a soldier of the cinema. His program director, Charles Coleman, is another one of those Doc Films alums who has seen every film.
http://www.facets.org/
"Ebert: Instructed by my readers, I have signed on to Netflix and am currently watching "The Show-Off" with Louise Books and enjoying it."
The Show-Off! I noticed that it was available for streaming when I added "Diary Of A Lost Girl" to my DVD queue.
Another great Netflix feature is the Friends option. It's a great, quick way to recommend movies to my friends, and to see what they're watching to get my own ideas. After sending a note about Julia, 4 of my friends now have it in their queue :).
Mr. Ebert,
I'm a proud supporter of WBEZ! They even sent me free Ravinia tickets as a thank you gift. We saw Elvis Costello, but now I'm off topic.
I just looked and Facets has an "experts and employee picks" section. I'm sold. Now I'm going to be stuck all day reading up on Mr. Stehlik's Worldview series segments. ha!
Thanks again.
Roger-
First time poster, but long time fan.
I feel a bit sorry for alot of your readers,here in Portland,we stll have great theatres that play all sorts of alternative fare.In the last month or so,I've seen in theatres,in addition to the usual Hollywood fare,"Dead Snow","Lorna's Silence",the documentary "Forbidden Lies","In the Loop","Thirst" "Big Man Japan"and the original "Inglorious Bastards".Simply put,Portland is a great city to go to the movies.Movie fans, come visit Portland and the Clinton Street, Hollywood,Cinema 21,Living Room,Laurelhurst Theatres and others and you'll know what I'm talking about.There is nothing like the movie theatre experience,and Portland movie fans know what I'm talking about.
Ebert: How many of the AMC theaters do that?
I checked the website, but found no information on how many of their theaters screen art films. Based on my experience from living in Oklahoma City and Tampa, it seems like they limit their art screenings to their largest theaters, as in both cities it is only their 24 screen theaters that show art films. I, however, have not been so lucky as to get an AMC that does revival cinema, but I know those folks in Tulsa have always been luckier than OKC residents in regards to the art scene.
I think Tom N is missing the point. What Ebert is decrying is that people have to go to Portland to see indie films! Instead we need to find new forms of distribution that make artists money so they can continue to produce. Otherwise indie films will devolve first into exclusive cliques, then disappear entirely.
Jesse
If only we lived in a world where style, art, and dare i say, real talent were appreciated by the likes of the majority. Instead people settle for mindless action sequences and half baked sequels. Its the real gems that rarely get any appreciation at all. and studios know this. To make a buck, they'll shuffle out a cliche plot device with big names and an even bigger franchise to rake in the dough. Its safe, its easy, and sadly... it works. People are afraid to be challenged by a motion picture. Or refuse to regard it as more than something to pass the time on a rainy Friday night.
Marie: Thanks! And did it cost you anything to look at it, Tom? Nope.
If you're honestly not in a position to pay for what you watch, you're a stone. But stones have feelings, even if you can't squeeze blood from them. I don't want to live in a world where the only people who get to see Art are those dealt a luckier hand by fate.
Ya know what? It wasn't all that long ago that this was the case. Prints by the masters are so common that we never think about it, but before then this work was all in palaces and mansions and seen by very, very few. Same with great music and theater.
Still, an artist could make a living whether attached to a patron or not. I was surprised to read that in The Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini (divine-required reading, I'm tellin' ya, except for the boring parts). Artists roved around and painted portraits for room and board... which they could stretch out for years, if the family liked 'em.
I knew this woman in Tucson, who'd escaped her job as a midwestern art teacher, who did men's portraits in return for sex. SHE paid THEM that way. She was pretty, too.
Music, just about the same. A musician could make a fair living, back when. Nowadays it's common to have to pay a bar to play there -- it happens in L.A.
Good thing us artists are of naturally low character, huh? Otherwise people might think the game is a tad unfair. "Money for nuthin' and yer chicks fer free." "My kid could paint better than that."
"Duuuuuh, if yuh made a movie somebody wanted to watch, you'd make money." Hmmm, dat sounds lojjykel!
Here's somebody: http://www.kirkmccoy.com/
Blow the pics up good. In person they have the effect of like an organic UFO appearing in front of you, or one of those miniature universes that appear in Roger's living room, as Indian Idiot H.W. suggested.
This guy quit his highly lucrative job in the defense industry -- he invented the FAX -- to do this. He had to do this. He still has to do this. He's as poor as they come, because he has to do this.
Ebert: I love it when you two start slinging links at each other.
I hope some Netflix guy is setting aside a small pile of money for me for every minute of instant movie you watch, Roger.
As for the aspect ratios and what not, some of that can't be avoided. It depends on what Starz (the movie network) has. Films that have been formatted to fit your TV are formatted to fit your TV.
I had to stop watching Star Trek because it flickered back and forth between full and widescreens for no reason.
Curious to a fault (smile) when you mentioned "Facets" I went to read more about it and in the process, discovered something wonderful!
The Happenstance Factor:
The 26th Chicago International Children's Film Festival!
October 22 - November 1, 2009
http://www.cicff.org/
"The CICFF is North America's largest and most celebrated film festival devoted to films for and by kids, and it's the only Academy-qualifying children's film festival in the world! (That means our winners in the short film category can go on to compete for the Oscars!)
In 2008, the Festival featured 250 of the best films and videos for kids from 40 countries. The Festival welcomes over 26,000 Chicago area children, adults, and educators to hundreds of screenings. More than 100 filmmakers, media professionals & celebrities attend the Festival to lead interactive workshops with kids." *Past attendees include film critic Roger Ebert.
Opening Night Gala: Thursday, October 22
Crema Suprema (Canada, 2008) 3 min.
Live Music (USA, 2009) 6 min
Dawn (Italy, 2009) 9 min
Fishing with Sam (Norway, 2009) 6 min
The Mouse that Soared (USA, 2009) 6 min
Iker Stubborn Hair (Mexico, 2009) 7 min
The Happy Duckling (UK, 2008) 9 min
Running Time: 44 minutes
Where?
Thorne Auditorium
375 E. Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL
(corner of Chicago & Lake Shore Drive)
When?
Thursday, October 22
6:00 p.m. Reception
7:15 p.m. Opening Remarks
7:45 p.m. Film Presentation
Tickets:
$60 per adult
$25 per child
Call "Kidsfest" at 773-281-9075 or visit
Roger? Would you go for me? And then write in the blog and tell me all about it?! Pleeeeaseeeeeeeee! :)
Chuckle!
http://www.themousethatsoared.com/home.html
http://www.happyduckling.com/
As I for one, can't imagine how anyone would fail to have a good time at a International Children's Film Festival! You could take your grandkids - think of how much FUN it would be! They might even be handing out FREEBIES! What if toys are involved at some point?!
I think as a world-renowned Film Critic, it's your duty to go again this year. That's right. It's your moral duty to go, and then come back and tell us what happens to the mouse and the duck.
Ebert: Facets has a New French Cinema festival, film classes, a young filmmaker's workshop, lectures, and it's where "Julia" and "Silent Light" played here.
That's Ally Sheedy (not Gaby Hoffmann) in the still from "Life During Wartime."
Ebert: Fixed!
Ebert: Facets has a New French Cinema festival, film classes, a young filmmaker's workshop, lectures, and it's where "Julia" and "Silent Light" played here.
In other words, you know exactly where to find Thorne Auditorium!
And so yes Marie, I'd be delighted to go see these absolutely wonderful children's shorts for you! 'Cause gosh, after watching the two trailers you so thoughtfully provided links for, I want to know what happens now to the mouse and duck, too! :)
Grin.
Creation has found a distributor. The home of The Passion of the Christ, Newmarket Films.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/09/24/newmarket-to-distribute-creation/
Hi Marie,
Funny that you should mention Shaun the Sheep. My grand nephew of six has been at this on me for some months now. I did recently see some samples online, particularly Mountains Out of Molehills, liked what I saw, and promptly "repayed" the filmmakers, the same thing that I did with Howard's End, which is a beautiful film, by the way. Leonard Bast, whose escapades in books opened up worlds for him, reminded me of Roger.
~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~ ~o~
... I have to misspell words like basterd, because the stupid spam filter will otherwise toss my post into Roger's dungeon, if I don't. Then I'll have to bug him to rescue it - and while he's never complained, I'm sure there's spiders and stuff down there. So I misspell words for Roger's sake. :) ~ Marie
Oh no! You must never, never deprive Roger of the joy of the dungeon! :)
About a year ago, I came across an article on how to review films. Can't exactly remember which article, but here's a sample. The list of advice includes techniques/guidelines used in the trade. I won't bore you with the details, but what has not been oft said is that film critics need to have a good understanding of human behavior/nature. Since good movies, such as Disgrace, are almost always about people, therefore the film critic must have a good grasp, and an appreciation if needs be, of the human mentalities and their deep, dank recesses/dungeons. I happen to believe that this is no easy feat, though we may think it is, because there are myriad Ids, Egos and Super-egos out there, it's chaotically crazy. The Film Critic, though not sadistic, delights in dungeons and sewers, and their hidden human dramas. Churches and synagogues bore them; unless, of course, if a dungeon is located beneath said church or synagogue. So you see, Marie, you should let Roger have his fun and not take it away from him. You give the best to whom you love. (^_^)
Oh, btw, thanks for bringing up Emma. Quite a few things I delight at in life, one of them is collecting these BBC productions on DVD. That, admittedly, is my personal "jalsaghar." As for Cranford, look out for its upcoming Christmas Special.
Best regards,
Robert
First "The Coming Dark Age" and now this. Mr. Ebert, do you fear the Apocalypse may be nigh? Now all we need is to identify the AntiChrist...
Ebert: I guess you haven't been reading "The Longest Thread Evolves," where the identity of the antichrist has been settled. It's Prince Charles.
Ebert: I guess you haven't been reading "The Longest Thread Evolves," where the identity of the antichrist has been settled. It's Prince Charles.
Not Bonnie Prince Charlie! Or have I got the wrong time zone? You know how these Armageddons take just forever...
Paul Arrand Rodgers said on September 22, 2009 12:04 PM
"Richard Corliss wrote an article complaining that Netflix didn't recomend good enough Bollywood flicks to him, especially when compared to what a loving staff at an indie rental place, but for people who live too far from such places, $9 a month is a godsend."
You don't need an indie rental place for that - you've got this blog. I'm sure there are lots of us Indians around here who can recommend good Bollywood flicks for you. Can I start with the 1959 classic Kaagaz ke Phool ?
For me, personally, there's never been a better time for being able to watch indie films. Growing up in Bombay in the 70s and 80s, access to indie films was almost non-existent. There was one state-owned TV channel which at least showed some Indian indie films (and I will be eternally grateful that it introduced me to the works of directors like Jabbar Patel and Shyam Benegal) but that was it. Even the advent of video didn't make much of a difference - most movies available on video were either the mainstream blockbusters or action/horror B-movies. Very few indie films, if any.
The main advantage of videotapes was that I got to see a lot of old classics - Ford, Wilder, Lean. Occasionally, there were some pleasant surprises - I once rented "The Swimmer", a movie that I had never heard of, solely on the basis that it starred Burt Lancaster. I had no idea what to expect and was just blown away. What a wonderful film and what a performance by Lancaster !
Now I haven't lived in India for quite a few years so I don't know how much things have changed over there. But compared to those days, the access that I have to indie films now is amazing. There's online dvd rental, quite a few channels on TV show indie films and the BFI is a godsend. What more can I ask for ?
Ooh! Ooh! Marie! Here's another site to sling at ya. I almost forgot about this guy. Don't let the blurb fool you. He made no jack for years and years. I used to visit him at his ramshackle studio -- an old 3 story chicken coop and a shanty -- back when, near a little signpost called Mecklenburg, New York. Great painter, always broke. Nothing to eat or drink. I'd look at his latest work, then we'd just sit there. Maybe a water, no ice.
He's also living proof why it's not all that great an idea to befriend artist types. Remember that scene in Touts le Matins du Monde where the Viola da Gamba teacher and his student go visit the artist friend? That's George Rhoads. Prepare for no other sound than the slurping of soup if you ever meet him. I used to out-nervous George by being even quieter. Finally, he'd think of something to say.
Well, he hit on something that started making money. I expect there's one of his Rube Goldberg contraptions somewhere in Chicago, like airport or bus station. So finally, he was doing okay by age 65. Still is at 83, looks like.
http://www.georgerhoads.com/
Ebert: I guess you haven't been reading "The Longest Thread Evolves," where the identity of the antichrist has been settled. It's Prince Charles.
GOD, save the Queen!!
Ebert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2Rvdktho_g
Dear Roger, I am tempted to present you with a joke about the crown jewels. But I shall withdraw out of respect to Prince Charles. Also, my hopes of following up on Alfred Wainwright's trail still stand. It will be troublesome if I get detained and barred at Heathrow Airport. :)
Ebert: For curious readers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wainwright
Tom said: "Good thing us artists are of naturally low character, huh?..or one of those miniature universes that appear in Roger's living room, as Indian Idiot H.W. suggested."
I've missed you Tom and Marie. I'm having trouble thread-hopping, so I'm going to, like I said over at O'Rourke's, try and not get embroiled in any more verbal brawls, that ought to help, besides it's just so tiring (I don't know how you do it Roger). Everyone has flaws, but the flaws of artists and especially good artists seem particularly pronounced, almost by necessity. There's something in the makeup of a tortured soul which draws us to them even though we may have no way of even indirectly experiencing their inner anguish with any measure of justice, in fact, if the world we live in were just, the lives of artists would'nt be justified. Life can be very cruel in so many different ways.
Marie, I've been meaning to ask you this for some time now, have you ever seen "The Wyvern Mystery"? Because your painting "Girl In The Coat" reminded me of one of the images in the opening of that film, I never got to sit through it in it's entirety, it was on TV here and we don't have a concept of "watershed" so there's a lot of censoring in films + the advertising on TV drives me balmy, so I try to avoid films on the telly. Nice painting, I'll have to spend more time on your website when my internet connection gets better, I hear it might improve within the next month or so. Tom's comment on it prompted me to say and ask what I'd forgotten for a while. Thanks Tom.
As regards the internet and copyrighted films Tom and Marie, I readily admit a dubious morality. Sharmila Tagore can go to Cannes and watch, judge and comment on "Antichrist" as another Indian pointed out on another thread, but she won't I think allow it to be played in India - she sits on the Central Board of Film Certification of India (censorious fascists, although I don't think she's as rigid as most of the others) - this is unfair and so what are we to do? Films like this usually also get banned because of moral panic. I hardly ever leave my house, so this makes it quite difficult for me even if they do get released; as it is, to "obtain" a screener in the naughty way takes the better part of two - three days, owing to my abominable ISP. Artists and I mean real artists, have very little respect in India. While this is in one way good, because the artists have to innovate as best they can, it is mostly bad because it places artificial restrictions upon the soul of the artist which is quite harmful.
Tom, I was quoting S.M.Rana on that quote about miniature universes that appear in Roger's living room and he in turn, was quoting Professor Sean Carroll, who was expounding on an expanded notion of time if I remember correctly, in an article at the BBC website under the science section, of a few years ago; here's the link S.M. provided, it's interesting stuff (in case you did'nt read it then) -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm
I've been thinking about short films and how very interesting it could be to isolate sight and sound in the short film format. Think of the screams of the Kabuki dancers in Baraka or, Edvard Munch's "Scream" - these are images that most certainly make a sound, only, we are both seeing and hearing it with our eyes and we are hearing a sound which is otherwise inaccessible to us. It would also be interesting to make as an experiment, a film with no actual images, but such heightened sounds that your auditory system not only hears it but also sees it, sort of like synesthetes are able to, naturally to a lesser degree. To transition between these two would add to the effect I think. I sometimes wish life had taken me down a different road, so I could try my hand at these things..as it stands it seems quite impossible.
Roger, I wish filmmakers would make far more indies than they do and that they would get financed, get adequate distribution etc. I think I read somewhere in your reviews section, in an interview you did with Martin Scorsese or, it might've been on the BBC, I forget which, but I remember what he said - Europeans learn from many different sources and they read a lot more than Americans do, Americans did and do most of their learning after the conventional institutional learning process, initially through films and now also through television, respectively. I think that he was very right when he said this, probably still very right and indies play such a huge role in educating people, in so many different ways that it is a shame (globally) and something of a disgrace (in our case i.e. India's) that more indie films are'nt made and even sadder that those that do, don't get wider distribution and better finance. Oh well, we can hope.
Holding out hope,
Indian Idiot (H.W.)
P.S. Also, Roger, Robert and other curious readers - the BBC did a series on Wainwright, called "Wainwright Walks" which is not to be missed, if you are resourceful this should be easy to find on the internet. I just checked, it's also available on DVD at Amazon and other places.
Most everything I would have wanted to say has already been said, but I do want to add that I think the focus on VOD, streaming, etc. is premature. The quality of my VOD (comcast) and streaming (Netflix WI) is far below current DVD standard. (my comcast VOD is worse than netflix)
I'd be in favor of an independent film resource that focused on the sale of DVDs. Going to a movie now costs $10/person. I'd gladly pay $10 for a film I wanted to watch. I'm not keen on accumulating a ton of DVDs, but I suppose I could turn around and sell them. Or it could be a specialized rental service designed to make money on fewer rentals.
My point is, if we're considering streaming as a source of alternative income, don't give up on DVDs yet. It remains the easiest way to get a quality viewing experience to someone's home.
Ebert: They don't cost much to manufacture. Lower cost, higher sales? Remember when the early VHS tapes were $79.95?
I'd forgotten whether it was you or SM Rana, HW. The poetic image of a universe in a grain of sand is very very old, past Blake's metaphor, and I would imagine, past recorded history and innate in every child's mind -- until booted out of it by the ardors of a literal-minded education.
I looked up Blake's poem, "Auguries of Innocence," to find the exact quote, and in it I found these lines:
A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
Avoiding this, I think, is the key to finding the energy to enjoy a verbal brawl. Some of mine, in person, lasted 14 hours (after a series of down-to-the-penny arguments with a certain highly neurotic writer, I began paying attention to the clock). So, fiddling around with ideas here, particularly in the blessed silence of all but my own occasional chuckling and Catt's "what's so funny now?" is as good as having a triple-chocolate cake to bite into every so often.
Beautifully perceived, Munch's "The Scream" making its own sound. I'm long used to the sound of Roger's voice from television days, so I hear that and his probable inflections automatically when I read his fine essays. They're a much wider sound spectrum than his TV appearances were.
I don't hear your Indian accent relative to my "Middle-Atlantic" accent as an Englishman once called it, but I hear a tone. Imagining an accent or pitch would be a bother. When cursorily scanning these posts I recognize your tone, and that of a few others, instantly, before I focus on the words. Without reading, the shapes of the sentences and paragraphs, which are unique to every writer, seem to emanate their own sound as well.
My 103-year-old-friend was born deaf and gained her hearing from an operation at age 12 (that was 1918). She'd already been taught to read and speak.
One day she told me that because of that, she has always "translated" people's speech into printed words on a page in her mind.
It was surprising to hear that. We'd been sitting reading imaginary pages of each other's conversation all that time. When I was in college, some of the lectures were so excruciatingly boring I began translating them the same way, complete with paragraph and punctuation to keep from daydreaming. It's stayed with me ever since.
Years ago I read that the Egyptian pyramids, Baalbek, the Appian Way and other structures were built with the use of sound -- the inner sound we hear when we look at "The Scream," say, or when reading a thing worth reading.
The ancient chants written on ancient walls and scrolls everywhere must have evoked those invisible sounds. It would be interesting to see someone experiment that way. I do know a mad scientist who said he was willing -- you can look up "Frederick Pingal" on the internet. But so far, I haven't heard a sound from him. I do think he's crazy, but not fun-crazy.
Ebert: I guess you haven't been reading "The Longest Thread Evolves," where the identity of the antichrist has been settled. It's Prince Charles.
I tried looking for it,but couldn't; It was like looking for Marlon Brando in Vietnam! But aaah, it gives one such a feeling of POWER, to know I put a comment and it got responded not just by Mr. Ebert, but by three other fellows! But why Prince Charles? He seems a little crochety for an AntiChrist.
Oh, and for an aspiring filmmaker, what do you suggest is needed to survive in an indie-ignoring world?
Ebert: Cash money, and plenty of it.
Last November, frustrated that no theater in my area (Pensacola, FL) was showing Slumdog Millionaire, I hunted down an email address for the largest chain in my area, Rave. I politely asked if they would consider showing Slumdog on one of the 48 screens they have within 30 minutes of my house.
I got this reply: "We do not get to pick and choose the films we play, it is based on allocation by the studios. This is an extremely limited release, as such Studios alone solely control how many prints they will produce and exactly where those prints will play. We have no control over acquiring a film whatsoever as that is totally in the hands of the studios."
I find this procedure hard to understand. All the Rave theaters in my area use digital projection. What does the number of available prints have to do with it? Can't they just scan one print and play it in as many theaters as they want, as long as the royalties get paid?
In the event, Slumdog did eventually play in my area, at all three of the Rave facilities near me--starting the day after its oscar nominations were announced. I was rather annoyed at the blatant tie-in, and never did see Slumdog in a theater.
I can sympathize with Roger's wish to see films as light projected through celluloid, but it seems to me, digital projection is here to stay. It also seems to me the theater chains using it are being run by morons. They seem to be focused on reducing projection costs but utterly blind to the possibilities of digital distribution. They should let their customers drive their selection, not their distributors.
P.S. Also, Roger, Robert and other curious readers - the BBC did a series on Wainwright, called "Wainwright Walks" which is not to be missed, if you are resourceful this should be easy to find on the internet. I just checked, it's also available on DVD at Amazon and other places.
Hi H.W., that is reserved for after the planned trip, which isn't going to be anytime soon, I'm afraid. There was a whole DVD volume of it at Amazon UK, including walks in Scotland and other parts. I love A. Wainwright's small book A Coast to Coast Walk - A Pictorial Guide. For now, this book, plus a few websites, is what feeds my imagination. It was Roger who finally induced me to obtain a copy, after mulling over it for several months, as there were concerns about the small type. Anyway, I took out a magnifying glass and pored over the drawings. The drawings! It was like deciphering Newton's codes! Sir Isaac Newton, by the way, predicted the world will end in 2060. I need to hurry up with this trip before things start getting crazy! Please don't Plagues on my parade!
Ebert: One of my great treasures is Wainwright's book on Ullswater, which I have walked round.
"The fleeting hour of life of those who love the hills is quickly spent, but the hills are eternal."
Using Wainwright with an iPod: http://www.golakes.co.uk/img/article-images/wainwright-instructions-start.jpg
From the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/uk/alfred-wainwright-grumpy-reclusive-and-eccentric-496975.html
Wainwright's books contain drawings and lettering by him -- all made by hand. Works of art. They are a treasure to own even if you never go near the Lakes. Every page a delight:
http://berglondon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wainwright.jpg
Addendum: Now I can anticipate Roger's review of Creation.
@ Indian Idiot -
"Marie, I've been meaning to ask you this for some time now, have you ever seen "The Wyvern Mystery"? Because your painting "Girl In The Coat" reminded me of one of the images in the opening of that film, I never got to sit through it in it's entirety, it was on TV here and we don't have a concept of "watershed" so there's a lot of censoring in films + the advertising on TV drives me balmy, so I try to avoid films on the telly. Nice painting, I'll have to spend more time on your website when my internet connection gets better, I hear it might improve within the next month or so. Tom's comment on it prompted me to say and ask what I'd forgotten for a while. Thanks Tom."
Praise! Thank-you kindly.
I've been painting recently, so I'm late catching up in this thread etc.
The "Girl in the Coat" is actually taken from a photograph which appeared in an issue of "Victoria Magazine" years ago. There was a photo spread about a cashmere coat and the people in England who made them by hand. I loved one shot in particular so much I painted it. There; now you know my secret. :)
As for the BBC's "The Wyvern Mystery" (2000) - yup! Basically, if the BBC did it - I've seen it. So too, Granada Television projects (now ITV) which means I've seen all the Catherine Cookson adaptations and Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett. Which brings me to the following:
The Holy Grail of lost treasures:
Arnold Bennett's "Anna of the Five Towns".
Written it 1902, it's about the Potteries and Stoke on Trent. Adapted to the small screen in 1985 by Granada Television, it featured a classically trained Shakespearean stage actor by the name of Anton Lesser. He plays the tragic "Willie Price" and to date, no actor has ever made me cry with such aching, heartfelt empathy.
The Knowledge Network here in BC aired the TV movie back in the day, and I taped it on VHS. My tapes are old and crappy now; almost unwatchable. I'd buy it if I could, but it's never been released to video and I dare say, sadly collects dust in a vault somewhere.
Meanwhile, Arnold Bennett:
"He was born above a pawnbrokers in Hope Street in Hanley in 1867. His father wanted him to be a solicitor and enter the family firm. Now if there was one thing Arnold Bennett knew, it was that he didn't want to be a solicitor. He hadn't aimed to be a journalist, although he did enjoy writing - in fact he wrote articles for the Sentinel newspaper on a part time basis.
Another thing he knew for sure, was that he wanted to escape his father's strict Victorian regime, so, at the age of 22 he applied for, and was successful in getting a clerk's job at a firm of London solicitors. While there he was introduced to a circle of writers who encouraged him to pursue that side of his artistic nature. As a result, he quickly rose up the ladder to become a respected London journalist and novelist.
When Anna of the Five Towns was published (his first novel) literary critics were so taken by his descriptive powers of the smoky and industrial scenes of the potteries, they compared him to Charles Dickens." - BBC
Fast forward...
London, 1997. I'm inside Wyndhams Theatre in the West End for a performance of "ART" - a French language play by Yasmina Reza translated to English. I sat near the front row; here's what the inside looks like:
http://www.vividinteriors.com/interface/images/Wyndham-Theatre-30jpg---2.jpg
And the man who made me weep for fiction was onstage playing "Serge" - Anton Lesser, one of three friends in the play, and who was most eager to show of his latest acquisition: for he's just purchased a totally white canvas for 200,000 Francs. Marc regards this as an act of insanity and call it a pretentious piece of "beep". And the play proceeds from there. :)
Note: Mark Williams who plays Ron Weasely's Dad in the Harry Potter movies, was also on stage, playing insecure Yvan, a man burdened by the problems of his impending wedding and his dissatisfaction at his job as a stationery salesman, chuckle! He's got a monologue that runs 2 minutes non-stop like rapid machine gin fire, and amounts to a nervous breakdown over wedding invitations.
I will take it with me to my grave, it was that great! Meanwhile, Anton's "Serge" did indeed buy a piece of "beep" and I did laugh and heartily so, while getting every single artist in-joke and clutching the sheer pleasure of watching that play to my chest like I'd die a sudden death were I to let it go. :)
Some of the best work I've ever seen, has been done by such actors and in small, unknown projects for British television. They pay their rent with it, you see. As theater pays crap and why you do it for other reasons.
"I love acting. It is so much more real than life." - Oscar Wilde
And I love acting too, the craft of it and those who do it well. And if you're famous for getting out of bed in the morning, I'll leave it up to others to celebrate you for it. Nothing's worse than hype passing itself off as skill. And why I tend to gravitate towards stuff on the BBC - as even their TV tends not to suck.
P.S. "Wainwright Walks" - seen it. And Michael Palin too; my library gets all those DVD's. As for acquiring things in a sneaky way - with rare exception my tastes are so non-mainstream, in many cases it's often the only way. I mean, anyone ever hear of a short-lived 6 episode romantic comedy series set in Scotland about a woman trying to save a Newspaper, called "Glasgow Kiss (2000)"? (UK slang for a head butt to the face.) How about "Stewart: A Life Backwards" (2008)?
"Based on the acclaimed book by Alexander Masters, STUART: A LIFE BACKWARDS is the unconventional non-fiction biography of homeless alcoholic Stuart Shorter. Benedict Cumberbatch (ATONEMENT, THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL) plays Masters, a reclusive writer and illustrator who strikes up an unlikely friendship with Shorter - portrayed with a quiet intensity by actor Tom Hardy - during a campaign to release two charity workers from prison. As the pair get to know each other, more and more portentous details of Stuart's traumatic childhood and turbulent adolescence come to light. Fascinated by how these events contributed to Stuart's current situation, Alexander encourages him to tell his life story - in reverse to make it 'more exciting, like a Tom Clancy murder-mystery'. Gradually with plenty of pathos, dry dark humour and without shying away from the more malignant aspects of Stuart's personality or the crimes committed, a very complex and tragic life is unraveled." - Amazon UK (PAL region 2 dvd.)
There are wonderful things you can't watch because of where you live. So too, things I can't see for the same reason. I won't buy a pirate - a bootleg copy, as that's making money off someone's work. After watching Stewart: A life Backwards, I went out and bought the actual novel and supported the writer that way.
I've said it before and it still holds true - once you get a taste of really great storytelling and discover what you've been missing, you can't go back; you need the good stuff. :)
Ebert: Liberated from spam!
Ebert said: They don't cost much to manufacture. Lower cost, higher sales? Remember when the early VHS tapes were $79.95?
As I recall there were 2 tiers of pricing for movies on VHS. If the studio expected a lot of direct consumers sales (animations and Christmas blockbusters), major titles were often discounted to the $15 range.
On the other hand, titles that would mainly bought by rental stores (serious dramas, etc) were boosted to the $80 range on the theory that each store would only buy a few and consumer sales would be negligible anyway.
More thoughts on the costs of DVD distribution:
There are 2 ways to create a DVD. The commercial way is to create a master, then use it to "print" copies using techniques similar to photographic printing, reproducing the entire content instantly. The upfront cost is higher (in the early days it was very high, so only major titles were released on DVD). But once this is done, "printing" copies is a fast and cheap process.
The other is to "burn" each copy on a sensitized dye-layer blank, using hardware built into most laptops these days. This is slower (because content must be duplicated linearly from start to end, although it is possible to do this in multiples of real-time).
Rather plain-looking labels can be created by the same drives that burn the disc, if both drive and blank utilize technology such as LightScribe. This uses the same laser source to "draw" a low-contrast image (typically shiny vs matte silver). But it saves the step of printing labels on the top side with a separate machine.
My point is that low volume production and distributing can be done by anyone, and if the per-unit cost is higher, at least there is no big upfront investment to worry about if sales don't pan out.
I have left out a major subject: DRM or not, and if so what is involved. But that is another discussion entirely.
I think Netflix ought to develop an Ebert tab. It'd be like an easy button for finding awesome films and adding them to my queue. :)
As it is, they do often quote you in the "Critics' Picks" section.
Ebert, It seems that the Indie market has collapsed, but I'm not so sure this is as cataclysmic as you make it out to be. Even Nina Paley's wonderful "Sita Sings the Blues" couldn't find a regular distributor. One of the comments here states that Nina went the route she did because of copyright issues. This is a widely reported misconception. Once she paid the required fees to the copyright holders she was free to make a deal with a distributor, but she chose no to because the advance would have been too little to make it worthwhile. The real reason she chose to release her film for free, is that she decided that she would make *more* money that way. Based upon her statements thus far, it seems she was right ( http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/SitaReport1/SitaReport1.html ). Nina Paley uses 'Sita' as essentially free advertising for goods that are actually scarce, like DVDs from her online store.
It's a shame that the mainstream independent distribution models are failing so spectacularly, but we might be seeing more artists supporting themselves through alternative means. There are plenty of examples at http://techdirt.com/index.php if you're interested in what these alternative business models might be. In today's market, it all comes down to Connecting with Fans and giving them a Reason to Buy. Hopefully these independent films will be able to take advantage of this, since it's one area where they can have a competitive advantage over mainstream films.
Hi Roger,
It was good to see you at the Hollywood Palms in Naperville! The last time I saw you was at Ebertfest a couple of years ago. I always went while I was an undergrad. Are you still planning on attending Ebertfest in Spring 2010?
Ebert: You bet!
Tom, you're right, the universe in a grain of sand is probably an ineradicable universal memory, people just forget about it until they see something that acts as a swift quick to neuronal activity. It's nice to read Blake again, especially those two lines, thanks a lot for that. I remember not so long ago when in my earlier twenties, I was engaged in face to face verbal combat with one of the smartest men on the planet, it lasted for around five years, with long breaks in between and the discussions ended in an impasse, we both silently admitted that each of our points was quite valid and needless to say we remain the best of friends, although seperated by great distance and he engaged with familial duties, we correspond less and less; the discussions and their after effects aged us both, he however is a family man with a beautiful young daughter and I, remain a solitary person, I think that this has more to do with personality than anything else, I am going to remain a lonely person, I have little interest in family, I love the one which bore me, and I love those others which through friendships I become attached to, but, for me, nothingness is now my betrothed and thoughts on existence our children; biologically, I am quite certain I am the end of my line.
The first time I read you I heard a bit of myself in you, although a lot funnier and happier me, Picasso I think said something to the order - ..it takes a long time to grow young. It is comments like yours and Marie's which make life light and more bearable. What you said about your 103 year old friend reminded me of Herzog's "Land of Silence and Darkness" and is an elegant instance of the infinitude of polymorphous transcriptions of internal experience. Munch's Scream, is one of few artworks I am actually scared of, I have this irrational fear that if it could somehow be fully vocalised, existence would come undone, this might explain the various attempts of many artists at desacralizing it.
I presently speak between ten and thirty words a day and some days don't speak at all, voice is a cargo too heavy for me, perhaps this is because of how much I spoke, in how short a period, in how many different ways and places and how inconsequential it all now seems. I am going to hopefully move within the next year into a new house where my basic needs are all met and I am left all to myself, as it is, I am of the mind that the generous folk I now lodge with think me barely human, it would be more bearable to be barely human entirely alone.
I have studied for years the places where light and dark merge into phantasmic penumbrae, lit only by my observation of them, stood in tall grass and washed wild flowers with my tears, heard the many voices of nature harsh and mellifluous and wondered why I must be a creature so low; I have listened to my breathing and my heart beating, until it has made me sick with grief at being alive and so I turn to the din of the world to drown out the abysmal silence of the endless soul contemplating itself, neither a pleasant experience, but each a relief to the other, like aching birth and liberating death; if I could paint, I would paint such a bloodied dagger, it would rend men's hearts to imagine murder and if I could write, I would write such that gods long dead would come alive and say - Sisyphus, you who have become worthy of living, now try and become worthy of dying, writing that aids endless souls to contemplate and marvel at the beauty and repulsiveness of existence which allows brief interludes of conscious life in which it contemplates itself, with such restraint that it does not itself come undone, but it does come undone, it uncoils and knows that it must rush on and that rushing on will be it's undoing. Artistically, anything short of that is for me a betrayal, of course there's a lot more in between, but those two are some of my main principles, so you see I can't really do anything; this has little to do with my art except that it bleeds into other areas of my life, sometimes consciously, at others on padded feet.
In short, I am slowly headed to Ginsberg's Rockland..to laugh at this invisible humour..where we are both great writers on the same dreadful typewriter..where my condition has become serious and is reported on the radio..where the faculties of the skull no longer admit the worms of the senses..where I will scream in a straightjacket that I'm losing the game of the actual ping pong of the abyss..
This Frederick Pingal you speak of, he counts the Dalai Lama, Salvador Dali, Leonardo Da Vinci, Tom Waits, Sergio Mendes and Bob Marley among his many friends..strokes chin pensively..wonder who this could be..ahem.. clears throat nervously..
I'm off to howl silently, in and on, solitude.
Indian Idiot (H.W.)
Ebert: There's a woman who posts here from time to time who is a quite successful student but chooses to limit her social interaction as much as possible, hardly speaking to anyone during summer vacation. A soloist. Do you think two such people could be...alone together? At least you wouldn't always be screaming at the kids.
Roger, I am late to the party and haven't read all of the comments, but I have seen much about Netflix and not much about iTunes. I use both to watch streaming and downloaded movies. I have had mixed results (and mixed feelings) with both. Regarding Netflix, I keep a "Watch Instantly" queue and watch the movies on my television through the Tivo interface. In theory, it is great, but I have experienced many many many instances when a movie will stop and start several times during the streaming. This only seems to happen when it is Friday or Saturday night, and the actual activity we have planned for the evening is watching the movie. It's always a major bummer. If I have something on in the afternoon while folding laundry or something, there's rarely a problem. Perhaps it's because we watch more popular, higher resolutions at night, or perhaps it's because of increased broadband traffic. Either way, it's generally unreliable. The upside, one low monthly fee, and all the movies you can watch.
The better option for me is downloading movies through iTunes. You can "rent" a movie in standard or high definition (deletes itself 24 hours after you start watching it) or "purchase" the film (stays on your system forever). These films can be watched on your computer. iPod, or Apple TV. We have an Apple TV (a little box sort of like Roku), which is hooked up to our television or our projector. Once you start downloading, the film is ready to watch in about 15-30 seconds. The results are excellent and consistent. The user interface is not so great. Searching is easy, but browsing is no fun. This option is far far superior to the Netflix model (though not instant).
We still get DVDs from Netflix, Blockbuster Online, and the Blockbuster store (and now Red Box and a similar Blockbuster vending machine). There are no independent video stores near my house.
I could go on all day about this stuff!!
Hi everyone,
I’ve been reading the surprise people have over indie films commercial demise, especially at TIFF this year. I wrote an article called “In the Footsteps of GM” that might give perspective on why that is. It’s based on what was to be my masters thesis, and it seeks to answer why good movies/stories do not receive much commercial attention, and the consequences of that for the movie industry. Given the love of movies people have here, I figured someone would find it interesting.
I’ve been told it’s pretty good, but it’s also pretty long so I can’t post it here, it’s in pdf format and available at http://sites.google.com/site/footstepsofgm/article
To anyone reading it, I hope you enjoy. If you have any criticisms or corrections, of course please offer them.
Thanks.
Some of these posts about being a soloist are as wonderfully written as they are evocative. I can't say that I identify with them, having come to appreciate the merits of conversation with like-minded people (or at least people with a similar IQ), but I understand the reasoning. I don't think I could ever be a soloist, if that's the technical term. I've had practice--whole weekends where my friends are at home instead of here on campus, my family doesn't call, and random people don't casually plop their cafeteria lunches down at my table with a "What's up, Mr. Rodgers?" but I could scarcely maintain that routine, even if I wanted too. I read things with a voice--I can hear my own voice as I talk, an invented voice for the Tom Darks, H.W.s, and Marie Haws of the world, and the tinny Roger Ebert from the TV we had in the living room in the mid-1990's, the one my mom made me watch At the Movies on before going out and blowing her cash on whatever the new release of the week was.
Still though, what a fascinating way to wander through life.
While I'm on the thread, how's Netflix treating you, Roger? I've been thinking about getting something to stream movies to my TV with, but don't know a damn thing about how well that stuff works.
Ebert: I like it so far. Another post on this thread prefers Amazon. Netflix is cheaper.
I don't believe digital projection will ever approach or improve upon 16mm, 35mm, or 70mm projection—not in five years from now nor a hundred years from now. I live in South Florida, a region where the "art cinema" has all but disappeared. For whatever reason, despite it being a major metro region and one of the top 20 markets, and despite its allegedly burgeoning profile for location shooting, there is no built-in film community. Audiences are not curious or sophisticated, and exhibitors are incompetent in their marketing of the kind of films that won't market themselves.
Two key single-screen alternative venues, as well as a number of new ones that have opened, have virtually ceased 35mm exhibition and are now almost exclusively programmed by Emerging Pictures, a New York-based distributor that operates in about 50 cities across the U.S., providing digital versions of less commercial features that will likely play in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles on 35mm. Emerging Pictures is not the sole distributor of these titles. In most cases, these films already have a distributor, and Emerging Pictures is merely a licensee. Unless a film has been shot digitally, I refuse to attend any Emerging Pictures presentation. If a film is shot on 35mm, I want to see it that way. If I can't, then I'd much rather view it at home, where an HD monitor (particularly CRT) provides far greater fidelity to the native format than an outsize blow-up of digitally compressed content does. Ira Sachs' Forty Shades of Blue is the last movie I attempted to watch in this manner. Compression artifacts and edge-enhancement were visible in the projected image. Having this level of awareness has become a curse; that most moviegoers don't share it enables the quality of film exhibition to deteriorate exponentially every year.
In the 1950s and before, film exhibition was executed conscientiously and moviegoing was an event that genuinely constituted "an evening out." Thousand-seat "movie palaces" were the norm. Ushers patrolled to ensure a disruption-free environment. Projectionists were professionals, many of whom belonged to a union, and had only a single screen to manage, while reel-to-reel projection ensured their constant attention to the presentation. Now, as ticket prices climb to approach the price of seeing a play or concert at a small venue, movies are playing in 90-seat auditoriums, moviegoing decorum is abysmal—with no one on hand to redress the violations—and "projectionists" are really just popcorn-slinging teenagers with perfunctory booth training, and even on the busiest nights, there's no more than one "projectionist" on duty to attend to anywhere from 12 to 26 screens. Showtimes are typically in close proximity to one another, so a "projectionist" has no time, beyond threading and firing up a presentation, to ensure proper focus, framing, and other aspects. Most movies I attend are not perfectly focused. The decline of opening credits (particularly white text against a black background), the growing trend of exhibitors removing the MPAA rating cards from trailer packs, and the standard of rapid-fire editing in both trailers and features makes ensuring proper focus quite challenging, and "projectionists" simply don't have time enough to wait around for an adequately stable and high-contrast image to focus (and even if they did, their definition of "in focus" tends to be a pretty liberal one). While calibration cards are not used anymore, I think exhibition chains should incorporate them into their brand-identification graphics. Therefore, "Welcome to Regal Cinemas," for instance, would be the first image projected, and would be graphically designed for the purpose of focus and framing calibration. Complaining to management is also largely futile, as theater managers are primarily concerned with policing lobby and corridor traffic and overseeing concessions. Most are "managerial" only in the sense that they retain an air of authority, making you, the patron, feel as though you're their subordinate. They don't seem to be at your service.
Aside from the aesthetic displeasures of digital cinema, it also automatizes various processes, which further enables laziness and lack of conscientiousness. And this doesn't merely apply to the exhibition end of things, but to the production end of things, too. My feeling is, no commercial film should be shot on digital video (with the possible exception of very high-end HD equipment such as the RED and Thompson Viper filmstream). The notion that digital video "democratizes" filmmaking is both problematic and bogus. DV cams are more inexpensive than video camcorders were 20 years ago, and they're conceptually no different. Prior to the age of digital filmmaking, the only "commercial" features shot on video were direct-to-video exploiters such as pornos and gore movies with DIY -production and -distribution. The only place for DV, now, should be amateur YouTube videos, early undergrad student films, and medium-specific "video art" (a more conspicuous example of which would be David Lynch's Inland Empire which uses the format to service a particular aesthetic that could not be attained with 35mm). The suggestion that DV dissolves borders and makes filmmaking accessible to everyone doesn't wash either, as those who are making worthwhile films on DV in 2009 would have been making worthwhile films on 16mm in 1989. The only difference is, now, such filmmakers are ignorant to flatbed editing and the mechanics of working with celluloid. They know a lot less. If it's more taxing to shoot a film on celluloid, both technically and financially, then that should serve as a filter, separating out those who aren't driven enough, or who aren't compelled enough to realize their visions. Finally, programs like Project Greenlight and On the Lot neatly encapsulate Hollywood's attitude toward "democratizing cinema," as both are facile gestures which are more condescending toward the notion of non-industry "talent" (that is, Hollywood maintaining hegemony by shaping, judging, awarding, and rejecting) than anything else. If "democracy" of the medium, conversely, refers to bypassing commercial distribution channels altogether, and self-exhibiting online via YouTube, then the widest exposure you can hope to get is either (a) a network news outlet finds your video notable enough to turn it into a story (e.g., the "Chocolate Rain" video), thereby transforming your work into their work (and keeping you in your place with a particular patronizingly "cute" attitude of regarding your work in much the same way one might anthropomorphize a dog with sunglasses), or (b) you do ultimately capture the attention of the right entity and get some industry work, which, in most cases, would amount to hackery. And even that's a long, long shot.
The gulf between watching movies at home and watching them theatrically is narrowing to the point of invisibility. I would suggest that people boycott, rather than subsidize, digital exhibition so that it'll go away.
Those who declare that Cinema is Dead may sound as though they're being dramatic, but I think they're merely pronouncing what they're observing.
I'm surprised to see all that new stuff on Frederick Pingal, H.W. He's apparently coming out of the closet. He is a highly gifted and successful scientific tinker. I see now he's on Facebook dressed in an Anton LaVey costume.
(Anton LaVey was a famous huckster who founded the Church of Satan in San Francisco. I've met a few such. They're far more interesting in the newspapers than in reality. Mostly they're lonely people.)
Some blogs back I mentioned that hard-core scientists are otherwise among the most superstitious individuals I've met, even embarrassingly so. I take back what I said about Pingal being a candidate for exploring "inner" sound.
I s'pose what happens with someone saturated with the minutiae of empiricism all his life is that eventually his imagination becomes divided in a way it wasn't in youth. Natural senses of innerness and otherness become stunted into intellectual fantasy trinkets like astrology and witches and magic shows and hidden dangers around every corner. A shallow penumbra indeed.
I see by your words, H.W., that you are doomed. Doomed, I tell you. You are doomed to be a writer. Therefore, congratulations.
It's not so bad. Do take Roger's suggestion and keep an eye out. The only thing better than a mate who leaves you alone is that you also know how to leave your mate alone.
I spent 10 years alone. It was glorious. Although our Majestically Mischievous Major Critic elf-ized the quote by Einstein that I posted, solitude was indeed painful for me in youth, and is now delicious in maturity.
My 103 year old friend feels very much the same way. Here is a woman who in youth routinely hung around with, let me think of some names... Bo Jangles, Fats Waller, Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, James Thurber and his wife, Robert Benchley, Dorothy Parker of course, Alexander Woolcott, Harold Ross (the God of editing for me) George Kaufman... that may be enough names; each of them will have lots of links on the internet even now.
She knew the entire Toast of Broadway, plus the sycophantic politicians and crooks who fluttered around them like moths to a light bulb. But her favorite stories to tell me were... for instance, about her pet parrot Paul, that said "good night!" and promptly died -- it was somewhere around 80 years old.
At 94 when I met her, she'd loved being largely alone for 40 years. She'd been living in Mexico. Her children shanghai'd her up to Tucson to keep a watch on her in case she had money they hadn't known about. We laughed about that.
My visits with her were usually around 20 minutes, by mutual habit. Solitude is good, but falling into solipcism isn't. The most unusual stories I have of meeting most unusual people have usually been encounters that brief -- unless they were exceptionally fascinating or in trouble.
But now we see that Paul Arrand Rodgers, at the advanced age of 21, has come to enjoy company! A revelation? Yes, measuring one's IQ against others' is novel. In time, it takes only a few seconds to do that. The skill doesn't decrease with age: it was a marvel to watch Merci's piercing old eyes size someone up completely in a split second. Then what are you going to do with that free time, Paul? Don't tell me, let me guess...
Ebert: Don't tell me who this post is from. Let me guess.
Ebert: Don't tell me who this post is from. Let me guess.
Hint: A large horse stepped into the open door at that moment demanding a treat.
I attended the TIFF this year and there's over 200 films showing and it's really quite daunting trying to find something to watch. I make sure that half the films i watch at tiff don't have any recognizable star or director and it's usually a roll of a dice, but i've found some nice gems this way. I don't always do this yearly since TIFF is pricey to attend and some years I volunteer for the festival to be able to see some of these films for free. Recently, i looked at last year's festival and tried to find out what happened to some of the films i saw last year that had no recognizable names, and they're as obscure as ever. it's kinda heartbreaking actually. they had very little press, got lost in the shuffle and probably had an odd review in a toronto weekly during the festival before it disapears.
I'm kinda curious as to how you choose the films you'll watch at TIFF. I read your blog during the festival, and most of the films you talk about have recognizable stars and directors, do you ever watch some of the really obscure films in the Contemporary World Cinema, Vanguard or Discovery Program with no known names? As a volunteer, I can attend some of the press and industry screenings, and some of them are depressing where there's 20 people in the theatre and half of them walk out of the theatre 20 or 40min into the film. If smallish dramas with known actors and directors don't get deals, then there's hardly a chance in hell for these films to get any recognition or attention.
Every year, there seems to be a set group of films that all the journalists talk about, many of them likely to come out. The new Egoyan film will be picked up by someone, if not now, then later. He's got a reputation and there's a certain population that will always want to see what he makes because he's established himself as a director. Or they review films that come out a week later after the festival has ended, like Campion's Bright Star. Is there a kind of herd mentality when Journalists cover these films? If some of them saw it at Cannes, do they really need to see it again here in Toronto? Or is it because there isn't enough time to cover the obscure films that probably won't bring any readership to the blog/newspaper/tv/radio show? are journalists allowed to be as adventurous with their film choices at TIFF as the general TIFF audience can be?
I'm curious as to how you pick your films for TIFF. do you go to the festival with a set list of films in mind to see and stick to that list? or do you veer off from it and watch something unexpected? decide in advance or thumb through that thick program book that many people pay 35 dollars for and pick something from there at the last minute going by description alone? how many films do you see a day at tiff? I know you champion discovering unknown films and encouraging others to be open to them, I wonder how you balance your duties to cover the films you may be expected to cover and satisfy a general curiousity for films you're likely never going to see again after the festival?
Ebert: Hard to do. I to to about 3 films a day, sometimes 4. I "have" to see the ones by big directors (not so much the "big" films). I try to get to others. One thing that helps me in covering small films is that the good ones are very often shown at Facets or the Siskel Film Center.
I just wanted to note there is a difference between self-imposed solitude and actual solitude. It is like the difference between fasting and starving. Intelligent people always have ideas and other people thoughts in their mind to keep them occupied, to give them value, but even then the choice to stay away from others, is always comforted by the ability to still interact with those others. Take away that ability and anyone will find solitude not so comforting. I think the distinction is important because some, who are solitary in our society, don’t choose it, but still have to live in it, and so they should be comforted by those who can interact. Which also might make those who choose solitude realize what they might be missing and the value of companionship. I would say that the growth in facebook and twitter, and the obsession over celebrities is because of the modern loss of community which once gave companionship. We individuals think we can be wholly distinct and unique, but since we lack the community we need, we use the above three examples as an attempt to connect with others while deluding ourselves into thinking we really are self-sufficient individuals. We think we’re fasting, but it’s so long since a strong community influence, that our community is really just a conglomeration of individuals, not in self-imposed solitude, but in actual solitude, and thus we’re really starving from community. “Bowling Alone”, and now “Movie-going Alone”. Which if true asks who in our society really is and isn’t a soloist.
And to Paul H. I apologize, but I really don’t notice much of a difference between digital projectors and 35mm ones. I was one of those “popcorn-slingin teenager” projectionists, or booth ushers as they call them now, and although digital has a different look to it, it shouldn’t interfere with the story in anyway, I find it hard to tell the difference sometimes, usually the absence of cigarette burns is the give away for me. That or my eye is far less trained then yours. But in any event, from reading Boxoffice Magazine, and Film Journal, I’m sorry to say the digital expansion is only going to increase.
As for your criticisms of the modern film industry, I think a new vertical integration would solve much of them.
It’s very hard for the industry to act as a unitary body to better the experience of the patron when it’s divorced. Because the production and the sale of the same product have segmented interests the patrons interests is neglected. Each segment’s first priority is itself, in getting/keeping as much of the legacy, as in loyal or habitual customers, revenue as possible, only after that is the customer is considered. Studios/distributors get the admission dollars, exhibitors the concession dollars. Thus, each segment wants to maximize its revenue, like two parents bickering who forget they exist to benefit the child. Hence, the move towards 3D movies priced at near 20 bucks, and popped corn kernels which priced per weight, cost more than sushi. So both prices go up and up, while attendance goes down. It is a classic prisoner’s dilemma (where two suspects’ sit in different interrogation cells). Since they don’t know what they other will say, they both cut deals. If they were loyal to the other, they’d get off clean. The movie industry shares the same set-up. Because the movie industry is two segmented interests, they act according to their individual interest and not the wholes, a decision which in turn hurts the individual too. Individual concern is a rational decision when presented with the prisoner’s dilemma problem. Thus, the patron is not, and will continue to not be properly serviced by the movie industry. They will be forced fed movies they accept but don’t love, their options will continue to decrease as spectacle movies like Transformers and GI: Joe continue to suck more resources to survive, and most importantly the patron will continue to be discouraged from watching any movie because their price will continue to go up because no single entity has an interest in keeping the accumulative price of going to the movies down, because no one has the responsibility of production, distribution, and exhibition.
I believe they should. For example, how else is the exhibition side of movies suppose to adapt its business to show indie films, unless it can coordinate with the production and distribution of those films, to have a reliable stream of movies that they can based their business around? And vice versa, how can anyone produce indie flicks reliably unless they know it will even be shown in theatres. And since that coordination doesn’t happen, since the producer can’t just put his film in theatres, there’s a haphazard collection of movie productions and releases which all depend on marketing to inform the viewer in a very unhelpful way which movies are out and worth watching, if they even get “pick up”. Which means the patron must do much work, as we all know, to even know which movies are out, worth watching and even available at the local theatre. Why not just go to “Indie Thursday” for example, and see the indie film that the company produced, and they obviously produced it to exhibit it.
Ebert: Every five years or so, I open Walden again.
I finally restarted mt netflix subscription up again, and it has been so wonderful. I have been able to find so many movies, like Sydney and Freaks, that I have searched for for a long time, and the streaming works very well, and has provided me with countless indie movies, and documentaries that I may have otherwise missed. Also I was wondering if you knew if My Son My Son What Have Ye Done was purchased, it was the movie I looked forward to the most out of all the ones at TIFF
Hi Roger,
You write, "The chilling effect of this down the line will mean the disappearance of investment funds for indie filmmakers. They depend on investors who can be persuaded to take a risk but not prepared to act as charities." An important observation.
As you know, I've produced a few investor-funded features in the past couple of years that have had some critical and festival success, projects that I began when there were indie distributors still paying reasonable money for features. That's all changed in the past two years. Those distributors -- theatrical, cable, DVD, VOD, whatever -- that are still in business are offering minimum guarantees that are 10% of what they were offering three years ago. How can I today, in good conscience, ask an investor for $500,000 to make a movie when I know that my fallback position -- cable, DVD, and internet -- is now less than $50,000 when you add in delivery costs? Showtime, HBO, Starz are now offering less than $40,000 for a indie feature. Direct to DVD companies, the same or less.
IFC, Magnolia and Sony Classics can pick up foreign films for little money because many of those films are produced with soft subsidy money and are not looking for recoupment out of the US market. A US release is a form a prestige marketing for those producers and the countries where they were made. But American indie producers, who have only the benefit of maybe 25% net from state tax incentive schemes, cannot come close to recouping production costs with the money now being offered.
And now there is a new crop of so-called quasi-DIY distribs who ask you for $100,000 to advise you on how to self-distribute your film. Add to that the fact that filmmakers now have to spend two unplanned-for years traveling with their films to ensure they get seen, while making little money in the process, and you have a sad situation indeed.
There is currently no economic model that makes sense for an independent equity investor in an individual film, unless there is some distribution involvement upfront. Which is a shame. Film investors need to at least get their money back and young filmmakers need to produce their films and make a living doing it. The idea that a feature film should be made as a loss leader for a filmmaker's career using someone else's -- or even her own -- money is not one I can embrace. But that's another story.
Anne Thompson's observations are part of a larger discussion that took place at the Indie Summit last Friday in New York:
http://www.indiewire.com/article/eugene_hernandez_the_indie_summit/
All agree that the American indie business is in crisis. Getting films seen, and reviewed, once they are made is only the tip of the iceberg.
Ebert: Truly, truly dire.
Maybe Nina Paley's experience with "Sita Sings the Blues" is a form of the future?
Readers: Nate is the director of Ebertfest.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0463405/
If relatively high profile flicks like Life During Wartime do not get a theatrial distribution is there still a chance of a DVD release? They still release some movies straight to DVD don't they?
Ebert: Yes, but see Nate Kohn's comment above.
What makes matters worse for Indies....as the revenue stream drops the possibilites of finnancing do as well. Most raise their financing by showing revenue projections based on films with similar budgets/genre...there will always be a breakout indie such as "Juno"....but what about all the rest still trying get to get financed? It's a symbiotic nightmare. Revenue earning distribution venues for indies are drying up, so how to raise revenue to make the film? What may help is a growing trend of self-distribtuion or four-walling - but that still takes money.
One would hope with the advent of a digital world, which is driving the production costs down, the trend would be for more small films to be made.
There's an interesting piece in today's Variety that ties into this discussion:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118009343.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2563
Alas, Film Movement is not really available in Canada. We can buy SOME of their DVDs at the non-members rates, but cannot buy memberships. I believe this is due to the distribution agreements for the films they represent. They have/had a relationship with Mongrel Media here in Canada who sold the DVDs under a "Festival Collection" label but we cannot get the benefit of a curated monthly DVD programme at a discounted price. Pity.
Roger said: "Do you think two such people could be...alone together?"
That obvious, eh Roger? When I say on solitude, the implications are manifold. There are few things that are impossible, most things are quite difficult, this would seem ideal, however unlikely. I should like to converse with said soloist, she sounds very interesting.
Tom (I'm quite sure): "Therefore, congratulations."
Thank you kindly, both for the praise and for the congratulations, I'm sure I'm not worthy. Thank you, also for cautioning me, I try to watch out for solipsism. I'm going to look up everyone you mention, a few I know of and a few more that I don't know of, I already have looked up.
Marie, ITV's standards have dropped substantially since a big chunk of it got bought up by Sky Networks, some years ago. The Beeb is tops. I wish I could say more, but I've been awake for over 36 hours straight now, thinking about stuff and can't write or type coherently now.
speak soon everyone,
Indian Idiot (H.W.)
Ebert: I won't out the other soloist. She sometimes visits here, and your e-mail is listed, so...
Since the two of you live several thousand miles apart, this would not be real risky.
Response to John Majic's article:
http://sites.google.com/site/footstepsofgm/article
You only mentioned it briefly in your article, but I find it funny you brought up Computer Games as taking attention away from movies. Certainly, the sort of game that even remotely attempts to emulate the experience of a movie is still rather niche, mostly limited to games like RPGs where the emphasis is on one-player gameplay rather than multiplayer gameplay (where the emphasis is usually on cooperative or competitive gameplay against others).
Over the years, there has been an increasing emphasis on using video games as a medium for storytelling. Granted, it's pretty limited since the story must always be able to find a way to fit in action and battles and fighting and such. If you check the reviews for many video games, particularly those that are on sites such as http://rpgfan.com/ which specialize in RPGs, there is always discussion about the quality of a story. In that there isn't much crossover yet shows that yes, it's still in its infancy. But the movie "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children" was a movie created exclusively to be the continuation of the storyline of video game "Final Fantasy VII". It's not a movie adaption. It's a sequel.
Another shift that has occurred has been the sudden emphasis on creating music for video games, which is only beginning to penetrate the concert setting. Here's examples of 2 of my favorites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abUlWFUjt-k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYq5NOj23BQ
Though this particular criticism isn't one widely expressed, some traditional concertgoers feel that video game music is intruding in a space where it isn't wanted. While your article isn't really suggesting such a thing in terms of movies, you did acknowledge that it is at least taking some attention away from movies (and some might say, in the process, are becoming more and more movie-like themselves. I've seen some pretty heavy discussions about the storylines of some games).
Speaking of prices, which your article mentioned (and yes, the prices are more like 10 to 12 dollars where I live), there have been a lot of times where I've had to pick between a game I wanted and a movie I wanted to watch. Too bad we can't have them all, right? This has been very tangential from your original article, but it is something I used to spend a lot of time thinking about, but suggesting that games have directed attention away from movies made me wonder if, like music (a good portion of my music collection is actually made up of soundtracks from games I really enjoyed), games are stepping into the boundaries of what was originally the domain of movies-a medium to tell a story through visuals and audio.
Ebe, you're scaring me. You're scaring me Ebe.
You scared me.
For years my dream has been to stand on stage for a Q&A session after viewing my film on the big screen at my local film festival, the Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival in Birmingham, AL. That first movie will be an 8-10min short I've had in mind for the past five years. Two to three years later I'll debut my feature film on the giant screen of the olde grand, Alabama Theater.
I am a 27yr old pre-destined filmmaker.
And you scared me.
It is every filmmakers dream to throw their bold hearts out for the entire world to see, via Miramax, The Weinsteins or Polygram. But really, that has to be like playing pro ball, one in a million.
I say, imitate the entrepreneurial rappers and sell your movie out of the trunk of your car. Rent out a local movie theater, sell tickets and show YOUR MOVIE, YOURSELF. Promote yourself.
Find your inner Corman. We may not get to 5000 screens but maybe 50 cities by car,might, will and muscle can show the world it's next masterpiece.
Which would then be sold as a "Collector's Edition" dvd by Criterion. SUCCESS!
Thanks for the response Kevin. I'm only casual gamer now, but I was once an avid pc-gamer and I think much the same way as you. I absolutely think games are encroaching on movies to the point where like with movies it’s "read the novel by Random House" it will be "watch the movie by Paramount".
I think the biggest drawback to games is that we 'play' them. And since a user can die or take a wrong turn, or get lost, this breaks up the narrative and hurts the experience. Once that isn't a problem, or is solved in some games, I think the narratives will improve greatly. I don't think we should think of games like super-mario brothers, a exercise in hand eye coordination. That was like a learning process on how to interact with the medium the same way continuity editing was with movies. And as the computer literate youth ages the same understanding that exists with movies (who can't start watching a movie half-way through, be told a few sentences and not understand the rest of the movie?) will exist for games throughout society. This will only allow games to evolve further. And because they're new and the industry is still rather open, the creativity in gaming is much larger than movies. Some games will always be about action, killing, and so on, but in general games will evolve towards story-telling because in large part that is what we humans like from our entertainment.
I really like your final point, that games are stepping on movies territory of story-telling. People like stories, they don't necessarily like movies. I don’t know of any Michael Bay's or McG's in the computer world. The most financially successfully game-makers are also the best gamer makers, Blizzard, Bungie, Valve. And this is the amazing part to me. Sometimes these companies, even though they could make a huge huge huge amount of money from doing so, sometimes they do not release a developed a game because it's not good enough. And almost always they delay their releases, for years, to be sure it is good enough. That is how game companies treat their customers, is that even conceivable with movies today?
Just as a note, I don’t think movies wont go away any more than the novel has. But they will fall, because unless movies are viewed in a theatre, the medium isn't good enough to be watched casually between commercials or phone calls and still maintain their status in society. And without that taken for granted status, I personally don't think the modern movie industry can sustain itself. Is anyone else sick of seeing/hearing celebrities on a daily basis, and not even know which movie you last saw them in? Maybe it'll be a good thing, get rid of the talentless people who hang around for the glitz they don't earn.
And Omar, I love the passion.
I'm very concerned about the faith of a new generation of south american filmmakers that are really trying to trascend the almost non existent distribution channels in that continent. The problem as I see it, is for example, that some of those films are getting some attention in Europe, but never in the United States, a market that is THE platform to launch careers. If you get your film being distributed even by a very small american company, chances are that it will be viewed in many countries around the world. Why am I writing about this? Because in TIFF there were some of those films and the american critic scarcely wrote about them, films like "Gigante", an uruguayan import (yes, from Uruguay, the little country that is making the most interesting films of the last 6 years in South America, being compared to the rumanian new wave of films and filmmakers in europe), that was awarded three statues in the last Berlinale, along with "Hiroshima" the last film from the director of the delightful "Whisky", one of the best films to come out of south america in the las 10 years or so. Nobody talked about films like that, why is it that those movies are not reviewed or not taken into account, unless Miramax or other company buys them and distributes them. There's a complete universe of film that is never reviewed. Sometimes, we have a "City of God" or a "central Station", that trascends the frontiers and then are hailed as masterpieces. There are many many more films like that in south america, and they are also in festivlas like TIFF. I think american critics should try to look out and search those titles, just to think outside the box and maybe discover many worthy talents that are really suffering to make their movies (we don't make money for making movies down here, we do it for love, believe me), just to be overwhelmed by all the offers from the USA or Europe, just give us a chance. We want to be reviewed and criticized, not ostracized.
With all the hype MAO'S LAST DANCER has been getting, I expected to be in for a real treat. Not so. Choppy scenes, melodramatic scenarios, underdeveloped characters and sub-plots left me disappointed.
Elizabeth, Li Cunxin’s wife, for example, was a grossly underdeveloped character (who was after all, the reason for Li Cunxin’s defection} and we hardly heard a word from Mary ( Cunxin’s new prima ballerina and future wife) who featured with him in the most of the supposedly heart tugging scenes.
The bloke with the mustache (I forgot his name) and the old American shelia did not serve the development of the plot at all. The film could have been made without them, and would have been no less for it. As for master Chen. Where did he come from? A few lines and a few tears, and he was gone, until the end.
There were seven people in the session I attended. And at the end of the movie, there was not a tear to be seen…
That the Toronto film festival gave this melodramatic hack of a movie a standing ovation just goes to show what a bunch of cinema illiterates they are!
Roger said: I won't out the other soloist. She sometimes visits here, and your e-mail is listed, so...
Roger, I respect your judgement immensely, so feel free.
Indian Idiot (H.W.)
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate question to ask in this particular post, though it might be since there is a lot of Netflix talk going around, to help people in regards to film availability and accessibility.
Can anybody recommend a DVD player that is capable of playing all Region Coded DVDs as well as convert NTSC and PAL format for most American TVs?
I recently bought a DVD that was described as Region Free and NTSC. But when I tried to play it on my DVD player, I got an error message that the disc was not recognized. When I attempted to play it on my Playstation 2, it gave me an error message that "TV system does not match." When I went to look for possible reasons for this, the most likely reason is that my DVD is not NTSC at all, but PAL format. Happy to finally own a copy of this movie. Not happy that the web site misrepresented the technical information about it...
Right now, the DVD only plays on my computer. And that makes for a terrible viewing experience...
Ebert: Someone here can answer that.
If you google hard enough, you can find out how to program many DVD players to be zone-free.
Tragically, all attempts of mine in the past to find a way to unlock the region coding of my DVD player have failed. Supposedly it's occasionally listed in the instruction manual how to do it (which begs the question that if a manual tells you how to do it, why bother having Region Coding in the first place).
This is a problem I'm going to run into again soon. I want a watch a film you reviewed called "Departures" from Japan on recommendation from, coincidentally enough, a blogger. But all places that have released the movie so far have region coded it. Normally could've counted on Hong Kong or Taiwan to not region code their release, but as bad luck would have it, they did. But at least they do have subtitles...I'm beginning to get very aggravated by this perceived need to even have region codes and TV formats on movies. It has dissuaded me from buying movies I've thought about seeing in the past. But now that I really want to watch them...
As for the PAL DVD I mentioned in the last post, a friend can apparently burn a DVD for me that is NTSC format. But I heard that has some questionable legality that, to be honest, I'd prefer not to feel guilty about. Now that would be a real debate about ethics involved. No stealing. No robbing a poor clothes vendor on the corner. I bought and physically own the disc. Who would I be hurting by making it actually viewable on my TV? I can already view it on the computer. It just kind of sucks that way.
Ebert: Netflix offers it.
Roger, what are your views about Youtube and how before he died, kubrick told Spielberg about how the Internet would change filmmaking by having an outlet for people outside the Hollywood connections system to get noticed and find audiences of their own?
I can't believe that the UK zombie movie, "Colin" could even get screened at Cannes. Mark Kermode hit the nail on the head when he said that for films like that, the story of how much a movie cost to make often overshadows, or brings attention to the film itself for being made so cheaply... not for whether it's actually a "good" movie.
That we are even able to interact with you like this has shown just how much technology is bridging the gap between celebrities and the public, for better or worse.
What say you, Roger Ebert?
Has technology cheapened or killed us in a way? Revolutionized things for the better?
--Jeremy Ahn, still starving writer and filmmaking hopeful
Ebert: Maybe Nina Paley's experience with "Sita Sings the Blues" is a form of the future?
I would bet money on that.
And, in many ways, the internet is what has helped film survive these harsh times. (I can't begin to tell you how many films I've seen in the last few years only because I read about them online. "Sita Sings the Blues" being the tip of the iceberg.)
I read a Jason Reitman interview where he said a short film he shot in his bedroom -- "Consent" -- has been seen more times on YouTube than Juno has in theaters. Wait a minute, maybe I can even find it for you... There it is: http://www.ryersonline.ca/articles/2421/1/Juno-director-talks/Page1.html
Ps. Does anybody here have an idea how a guy in Toronto, Canada can somehow see "You, the Living"? Right now the best strategy I've come up with is waiting until Bay St. Video hopefully gets it (months if not a year from now).
I took out "Songs from the Second Floor" the other week and was, well, floored by its audacity. I've read that "You the Living" is the second in a planned trilogy. Surely this will be the most original trilogy in at least a couple decades...
Ebert: Toronto should do better than that!
Reply to Jeremy Ahn,
My opinion about the internet as finding out about a way to find movies has actually gone up lately. I talked a bit about some foreign films I like in this blog post. Some of these films are films I never would have heard of at all had it not been for the internet.
Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean viewers are going to be more responsive to attempts to reach out to them. I have tried to recommend movies I have enjoyed immensely to others. Some I have done in person, others to friends and family on social networking avenues like Facebook. It mostly fell on deaf ears...or blind eyes I guess. One particular film I can't stop praising is a movie called Fan Chan. I've received replies that no movie with a name like that can possibly be any good...
The internet has probably made it easier for those who really want to find movies to find them. But it isn't going to make those who don't really care begin to listen. Worse, if the Hollywood movies are able to bring viewers in because of constant over-exposure, the internet makes that all the more inescapable. You can be an infrequent shopper at the mall. You might be too busy to see the posters at the bus stop. You can't escape YouTube or the iTunes store front, slapping you in the face with one of their large featured banners of the latest movies. Although, YouTube does noticeably have a new channel called The YouTube Screening Room, where you can watch "award-winning independent films."
http://www.youtube.com/ytscreeningroom