![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Here's an *excellent* bit of film news, reproduced in whole because the site disappears it in 16 hours.clark
More big-name feature films get small-screen
premieresBy John Koch, Globe Staff, 10/17/2001
Want to see Kenneth Branagh in top movie form as a witty, dyspeptic
playwright at war with his creative demons - cigarette in one hand, glass of
wine in the other - slashing the air with profanity and masochistic sarcasm? OK,
then, pencil the upcoming ''How to Kill Your Neighbor's Dog'' on your must-see
list. But note that this clever and funny feature film is not coming to your
neighborhood multiplex or art house.Although it's better and brighter than 80 percent of the fare on local movie screens,
''Dog'' is opening, if you will, on television. It premieres on the premium cable
channel Starz! on Saturday, Oct. 27, at 8 p.m.
This is not what director Michael Kalesniko had in mind when he was filming the
comedy, which also stars Lynn Redgrave, Robin Wright Penn, and Peter Riegert.
Or when he and the film were celebrated in the prime closing-night slot of last
year's prestigious Toronto International Film Festival.But, increasingly, this is the fate of many films with name stars and first-rate
off-screen talent. Perhaps the best movie ever made by director Paul Schrader, a
hypnotic thriller called ''Forever Mine,'' with Joseph Fiennes and Ray Liotta, also
ended up on Starz! last year, instead of the big screen.Scores of movies like these get deflected from their goal of theatrical openings to
premieres on TV - so many, in fact, that a term was coined a few years ago to
describe them: busted theatricals. They are almost always independent films that
break down on the way to the theater because of financial woes.Exactly what happens? The long answer is very complicated. The short one is that
producers manage to put together most or all the money needed to make them, and
then they shoot the films, but without securing a theatrical distribution deal, which
never materializes.Says Schrader, ''There was a time when it was prudent to finance without a
distribution deal. No longer.''Now, he says, ''you're jumping without a 'chute.'' Schrader, whose previous film
was the critically acclaimed ''Affliction,'' was not happy about what happened to
''Forever Mine.'' Indeed, few feature film directors are content to give up
big-screen dreams for movies aimed from their inception at theatrical release.But more and more, like it or not, they are forced to adjust their expectations.
Far more movies don't get theatrical distribution deals than do, says Robert
Leighton. The president of Starz Encore Entertainment, Leighton is instrumental in
dealing for the half-dozen or so busted theatricals that Starz! airs every year. It's a
relatively inexpensive way for pay TV to aquire movies, costing far less than the $3
million to $10 million that cable networks spend to produce their own movies from
scratch.Starz! and Showtime are more invested in acquiring quality busted theatricals than
other pay TV outlets now, although various networks, including HBO and
Cinemax, also air movies originally produced for theatrical release.A buyer's market
No one buys the rights to more busted theatricals than Starz!, according to
Leighton. And, he says, it's a buyer's market. Intelligent, adult films continue to get
made, he explained, but they can't compete for distribution with today's
monster-budget Hollywood movies that target young, male audiences and typically
get released in as many as 3,000 theaters at once.Movies ''with a lot of redeeming qualities that appeal to our audience don't match
what theatrical distributors are looking for,'' Leighton says. What Starz! is looking
for, he says, are movies that are ''more literate and upmarket'' than the average
multiplex movie, but a little less edgy or dark than the usual art-house film.For all its stylish writing and occasionally strong language, ''How to Kill Your
Neighbor's Dog'' neatly fits this niche between mass market and uncompromising
art. Yes, the Branagh character is ''America's favorite bastard,'' as one character
calls him. He's a misanthrope, nastier now that he's had a few flops, and perenially
sour on the idea of fatherhood despite wife Robin Wright Penn's desire for kids.
The humor ranges from cleverly verbal to wonderfully, sometimes painfully,
physical.But the shadows ultimately part, giving way to a lighter mood as Branagh warms up
to a little neighborhood girl who limps with cerebral palsy. Does she cure his own
moral limp, undam his writer's block, and reverse his objections to parenthood?
Yes, yes, and yes. But the gathering sentimentality is laced with lemony wit, and the
whole, very well acted enterprise makes for engrossing, satisfying entertainment if
not a film for the ages.If Starz! searches for smart movies with soft edges, Showtime looks for more
prickly busted theatricals to fit a niche defined by its ''No limits'' battle cry.
Showtime sifts through approximately a thousand busted theatricals a year for the
two or three it eventually buys to supplement its own feature film productions.Earlier this year, it aired the premiere of ''Things Behind the Sun,'' Allison Anders's
autobiographical drama of her childhood rape and its reverberations. The film was
well received at this year's Sundance Film Festival, where many films essentially
audition for distributors.Also drawing buzz at Sundance was ''The Believer,'' which took home the prize for
best feature.Interest from distributors cooled off after the festival, and the film ended up landing
at Showtime. Its scheduled debut last month was postponed after the terrorist
attacks on Sept. 11. ''The Believer,'' based on a true story about a dangerous and
violent religious fanatic, will be broadcast sometime early in 2002.It's a fiercely intense, disturbing, and timely study of religious distortion and excess,
but it doesn't involve Islam or the Arab world. In fact, it's about a young American
Jew at war with his own past who becomes an incendiary neo-Nazi and gives new
horrific meaning to the notion of the self-hating Jew. As raw as so many of us still
are from the tragic events of Sept. 11, it may not be precisely what we're longing to
see, but it's a relevant and very good movie - surely, one of the better feature films
that won't debut at your local multiplex or art house.One of the roadblocks to theatrical release was a screening that first-time director
Henry Bean arranged for Rabbi Abraham Cooper at the Simon Wiesenthal Center
in Los Angeles. Directors of films with Jewish themes occasionally ask Cooper to
evaluate their projects. Cooper raised objections to scenes in the ''The Believer,''
which he communicated to Paramount, where Bean had a distribution deal
percolating. Some of the entertainment press reported in the spring that Bean
blamed Cooper's misguided criticism for killing the deal.Bean, a successful 56-year-old Hollywood screenwriter (''Internal Affairs''), now
says that although he ''did a stupid thing'' by showing the film to Cooper, he isn't
certain that Cooper dealt the death blow. But he's clear about the fact that,
''economics pushed us to cable.'' In a telephone interview from New York, he says
that Showtime ''paid us the way theatrical [distributors] wouldn't.''Matthew Duda, who acquires films like ''The Believer'' for Showtime, says cable
deals for busted theatricals averaged $500,000 and rarely reached $1 million.
(There are exceptions, like the $4 million Showtime paid for the controversial
Adrian Lyne remake of ''Lolita'' in 1998.) Although Bean readily admits that a
televison debut ''was not the dream,'' he says as many as 4 million viewers will see
''The Believer'' on cable, a far bigger audience than almost any movie in limited
theatrical distribution can muster.According to Duda, such audience numbers, based on three or four broadcasts of
a movie on his cable network, are the equivalent of a Hollywood movie that
grosses $20 million. Echoing Starz's Leighton, Duda points out that many if not
most independent films actually fail at the box office, very often grossing well under
$100,000.`Worthless commodities'
These, he says, are the true busted theatricals. By insisting on a theatrical release,
producers of such films risk making their movies into ''worthless commodities'' that
have no significant value as TV or video vehicles, Duda adds.By contrast, he says, ''we pay several hundred thousand dollars for a premiere.''
Among other things, cable networks are paying for the right to call a movie
broadcast a ''world premiere'' and for the potential to earn coveted Emmy awards
to burnish their reputations. No matter how packed with star power or production
values, movies that ''open'' on television are not eligible for Academy Awards.
Nonetheless, they can and sometimes do go into theatrical release after their initial
showings on television.A case in point: ''Maze,'' a quirky film directed by, and starring, actor Rob
Morrow.The story of a respected contemporary artist (Morrow) afflicted with Tourette's
syndrome had its world premiere on Starz! in April. Morrow is convincing as the
tortured painter, whose body-wracking twitches and involuntary honks and
wheezes drive him to lonely introversion. And Laura Linney (''You Can Count on
Me'') gives a beautifully modulated and sympathetic performance as his confidante,
model, and, finally, emotional salvation. Leighton says Morrow adjusted
comfortably to the idea of releasing the movie - his debut as a director - on Starz!,
which reaches 13 million households. Next month, the movie is scheduled to open
theatrically on screens in 10 US cities.Another Starz! premiere, a movie called ''Tic Code,'' which is also about Tourette's
syndrome and was first broadcast in 1999, had a limited theatrical release in the
summer of 2000.Bean still hopes for the same for ''The Believer,'' which is tentatively slated to reach
theaters after its cable run next year.When he contemplated closing a pay-TV deal, the director felt disappointment, ''no
doubt about it,'' he says. ''I was upset for a brief period.''Now he's more philosophical. ''After years of working in Hollywood, I did
something utterly without commercial considerations,'' he explains. ''The experience
of making `The Believer' affirmed that I should do what I want to do. I want to
make films that are in my heart and my head, and wherever the market for them is,
including pay TV, I'll take that. I just want people to see them - and to pay back
my investors.''This story ran on page C3 of the Boston Globe on 10/17/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
Follow Ups:
just wanted to post that the film mentioned in the opening of this article, "Neighbor's Dog," was not a busted theatrical (and Starz knows it). Too bad the paper didn't bother interviewing the filmmaker. The last I heard, Lions Gate, Paramount, Miramax and Sony Pictures Classics all made theatrical offers on the film. Apparently the people who financed it pulled some kind of scam. it's been written about in several newspapers and the hollywood trades.i also hear the film will be getting a theatrical release - january or february 2002
Hi,
Hollywood ties up empty theaters trying to get their picture gross
up; which shuts out dozens of small movies. I got to the theater less and less; and I invest mightily in my home theater. A friend has already sworn off going to the theaters. I am not all that far behind him.
Theatres are where the creators of a movie intend you to see it. Movies are made for *audiences*, not for someone sitting on the sofa. They are socio-artistic events best appreciated when the screen dominates your vision. Go to theatres whenever you want to see *anything*. DO NOT WAIT FOR THE DVD!clark
nt
I only have a Sony TV, so maybe the HDTV crowd will disagree- but there is a huge qualitative difference between the resolution of movie film and any video source I've ever seen. This is not at all subtle or arguable. There are a multitude of visual details on a movie screen that are gone on the video screen. I consider video to be an impoverished experience compared to film, one where most of the information is gone.
I only go to theaters for movies that have a visual emphasis like sci-fi, action, horror etc... like Star Wars, Private Ryan, Aliens, etc..Some verbaly oriented films can be seen on home theatre without much loss of impact like Panic, Nurse Betty, Death of a Salesman, Remains of the Day, many others etc...
No doubt about that.HDTV is better, but the pros in the industry say they can always tell the difference between something (like a TV show episode) that's been shot on film vs. been shot on even the best commercial grade video.
And you have raised a good point about the theater vs. HT debate. The sound may be better at home; but the picture definitely isn't -- even if you have a $10,000 projector system.
There is no hard and fast number for pixel resolution of film. For 35 mm film, I have read effective pixel resolution is as high as 5000 by 3760, although I have also read that a projector may put out around 3500 by 2000. Roughly, then the range is about 7 million to 19 million pixels required to capture a 35 mm image.Now HDTV has around 2000 by 1000 pixels. And NTSC video is 720 by 480 pixels. In NTSC, a big chunk of the image is chopped off due to the different aspect angle, but in any case, optimistically, you are left with somewhere under 5% of the information. And HDTV, while quite a bit better, is still missing 3/4 of the visual resolution.
Not to mention that you can see hundreds of movies, maybe thousands, for the price of an HDTV.
Thanks for the info.The difference is bigger than I thought. BTW, when I wrote "HDTV is better" I meant that it was better than NTSC, not better than film. When I re-read the post, I could see how it might be interpreted as saying that HDTV is better than film. Not what I meant to say.
For all the reasons you mention, my "home theater" is a 12 year old 27" NEC TV set (pretty good, actually) and a VCR of approximately the same vintage.
When the TV dies (which will be a while since it doesn't get that much use) I'll have to figure out what to replace it with. Same with the VCR -- or if video rentals move to DVD.
Oh definitely, it is a huge difference. Video and film is too different experiences and to me projected film has far better resolution than any video source.Doug Schneider
Cell phones.Tom §.
Pagers.
.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
Let me list a "few" distractions which can make the theater going experience less than pleasant (no particular order):*cell phones
*babies crying (anywhere in the theater)
*people talking (inconsiderately, over dialogue)
*obnoxious teens (intentionally disrupting audience concentration, usually to impress their friends or dates)
*bad prints (occasionally, even on new releases)
*improper volume setting for type of film (too high or low)
*failure to turn down seating lights until movie is well under way
*gum, popcorn & cokes spilled on theater floors
*unexpected projector problems (rare, but it has happened)
*a) weak bladders (occasionally guilty of this myself; especially if I have the jumbo collosal size drink during the first quarter of the movie, but unlike the home-theater experience you can't pause the theatrical release film for a brief personal intermission)
*b) weak bladders (even if you like center seating as my wife and I do, you often have people stepping over your feet during the last 1/3 of the film in a rush to get out of the theater)
*general mischief & mayhem (this can be any of a plethora of occurances which can make the movie going experience a truly unique event, such as nauseating bad odors, belatedly finding gum in your seat or someone accidentally spilling their beverage on you)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not lobbying against theaters (i.e., although there are times when the lobby is the safest place to be!), but I think you're taking too hard a position against the home-theater experience, and it's just as relevent, IMHO!
Cheers,
AuPh
*
Now if stove pipe hats come back and Marge Simpson's style becomes the vogue, we're all in trouble! :o)AuPh
TOO DAMN LOUD.That may just be to compensate for
*cell phones
*babies crying (anywhere in the theater)
*people talking (inconsiderately, over dialogue)
*obnoxious teens (intentionally disrupting audience concentration, usually to impress their friends or dates)
For years now, the loudness of the soundtrack has been so irritating that I have to wear ear protection.
I respectfully suggest that it's not the loudness, but the digitalness.clark
"I respectfully suggest that it's not the loudness, but the digitalness."
--clarkClark,
I partially agree. Partially because sound levels at movie theaters have unquestionably increased. The decibel levels are absurd these days (and I say this as someone who edits film sound fx for a living).
However, when the jump was made to digital playback in movie theaters (circa Jurassic Park), I'll never forget how taken aback I was by the harshness of the sound. The sound became colder, harder, more mechanical, and the top end took on a razor blade edge. It just plain hurt (or at least offended) my ears as no movie sound had ever before.
It was so bad that for quite a while I could barely relate the steely sounding, "hissing" voices coming from the sound system with the human looking people on screen (I'm not kidding, it sometimes to effort to integrate the sound with picture for me).
I've since experienced fine sounding, smooth, rich digital playback in some movie theaters. But it sure was a sickening switch to begin with.
Rich H.
Ushers are almost obsolete these days. Understaffed multiplex theaters can't oversee audience behavior in umpteen small cinemas as in days when a theater was just one BIG venue. IMHO, volume has been raised to "overshout" noisey talkers, rowdy kids and crying babies whose parents are too inconsiderate to remove them to the lobby; this reduces the need for overworked theater employees to deal with customer complaints about other customers.Otherwise, why would volume also be raised on intimate dramas and comedies as is so frequently done with FX-heavy action films?
Food for thought.
AuPh
Hi,
loud is LOUD, and too many times when i got to theater it is LOOUUDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, after they turned it down, it is still not good sound; but digitalwhatsis is not what was causing my pain.
Now, if I really wanted to "yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre" I would say, "not the 'digitalness' but the 'horniness'!"Someday, I'm going to take my SPL meter into the movies and settle this.
Undoubtedly, the digitalness has something to do with it.
Well, I think Dennis's point (it is "Dennis", right "late"?) is that a film that never makes theatrical release is, as the article says, being released to some non-broadcast TV net just drives the whole process in a bad direction. The theatrical audience gets narrower (and ultimately, smaller); the number of outlets continues to shrink. IOW, a "death spiral."Although I can't speak for him, I imagine Dennis would agree with you that theatrical releases are best seen in a big movie theatre, not in a "home theatre" (although I've debated you before about the degree to which being in a movie theatre full of strangers is a social experience. Yes, it's more social than being home alone in front of the toob; but that's not saying much.) The real issue is whether there is a choice.
Having said that, I have the good fortune to have one big, old-time movie theatre 2 blocks from my house and another 5-theatre complex that's a long walk or a 3-minute drive.
My "home theater" is a 13-year old 27 inch TV set and a VCR.
But I do have DirecTV.
Well I did use the phrase "socio-artistic," so I guess I'm guilty. But the truth is, a movie theatre full of strangers is a THEATRICAL experience and that's the very experience the creators of cinematic art want us to have.clark
I wouldn't push that conceit too far -- from the collection of posts here, that "intended experience" includes talking during the film, cell phones going off, your feet stuck to the floor with disgarded chewing gum and a sometimes screechy (and always too loud) sound system.I don't think the auteurs intended all of that.
I have to say that the DC film audiences apparently are pretty well-behaved if other inmates' comments are accurate. I've yet to hear a cell phone or a beeper go off or even talking during the film.
So I guess I should consider myself lucky.
But, you're right -- the scale of the film experience is what the director intended and you don't get that at home, no matter how good your HT system.
So, for some movies, where the scale is important, the theatre is a must, e.g. the Star Wars movies, SPR, Titanic, Out of Africa. OTOH, I don't think "You can count on me" would lose a thing on the small screen even though I saw it in a theater.
And now that I read that another Laura Linney flick is being released straight to "pay cable," I may have to add the Starz! package to my DirecTV subscription.
Hi Bruce,
yes, it's Dennis. Some weeks ago, I read an article in the WSJ. It was about how Hollywood forces theaters to show movies indefintely. They filmmakers desperately want to get the gross high enough to justify notice at the Oscars. This shuts out literally dozens of small movies; a few of which in earlier years would have been quite successful. The result is a nauseating predictability most years.
And most definitely I agree this is the beginning of a death spiral for theaters. No theater in Maine has a better sound system than what I have. The only one I go to actually has a very nice sound; but there is not much I want to go see. A couple years ago, Hollywood was hot; and I went to see movie after movie. But I think theaters must face the facts. I am not just a customer; I am a mortal enemy :)
I am not sure that's true anymore. I have to see the stats but movie companies are having record years and there are more movies released to theaters than ever before. As well, take a look around, there are more theater screens in a given city than ever before.Doug Schneider
Maybe in Canada, Doug. I dunno about the US. Just looking at my local movie page in the paper here in Wash, DC, it seems like there are lots of screens; but they all show the same things. The single-screen theater is having a hard time here; cineplexes are what's hot. In metro Washington a number of movie houses have closed recently; supposedly we're overbuilt.Might make for a good article, though!
there are fine cinemas in between. where i live (cambridge, ma) we're terribly lucky -- a world-class film archive (www.harvardfilmarchive.org) and an astonishingly well-curated repertory house (www.brattlefilm.org) are within walking distance, and a nine-screen landmark indie megaplex is two subway stops away. even in other areas, though, there is growing interest in somewhat offbeat film these days -- look at the commercial successes of a company like landmark.the real treasures, though, are outfits like the brattle -- theatres dedicated to film art, not film business. sure, it's a wacky rear-projection system, and a mono sound system, but the quality of the offerings make them worthy of my business. if you've got similar theatres in your area, it's worth paying them a visit. less annoying teenagers, too :o)
d.
Oh certainly, the single-screen theater is shrinking...but it sort of makes sense. It costs a lot to run a concession, have staff, have a projectionist, etc. Get more movies into the same place and you get economies of scale going. But the point is, there is actually more movies on more screens than ever before.Doug
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: