Setting the Stage
One of the things Harvey asked the audience was ‘at what budget is a film no longer an indie?’. One audience member belted out ‘$20 million’ while another shouted out ‘$10 million’ and another said something like ‘five thousand’. I guess everyone has a different interpretation and definition of independent film. Do you think indie film’s definition is based on the budget? Is Harvey a mogul or an independent? Can a mogul make independent movies when so enwrapped in high-end financing deals? Why would we only give this credo to studios? Studios are no longer the only film producing entities with deep pockets. $5,000 for a film sounds pretty independent. $20 million does not. Astute of Weinstein to question it.
First up was Sharon Waxman. Sharon started a blog called The Wrap which is now a full blown entertainment news site... I think. The Wrap’s website does say “Covering Hollywood”. Covering it with a blanket? Covering the news objectively? Exactly how is The Wrap covering Hollywood? I ask this because news sources are supposed to be impartial but - like many others out there these days - The Wrap seems anything but impartial toward how their news (information?) is portrayed. In fact, the website seems to have a vested interest in the outcome.
The Wrap does not stand alone in this presentation of biased coverage. IndieWire is owned by SnagFilms. This very morning Rick Allen, CEO of SnagFilms, touted using IndieWire to promote the films in SnagFilms roster. This does not sound very objective for a news source. Wait. Is IndieWire a news source or a propaganda tool to market and promote SnagFilms’ agenda? Hmmm. Let’s see what IndieWire says about themselves. Their tagline is “Filmmakers. Biz. Fans.” IndieWire’s ‘About’ page claims ‘The leading news, information, and networking site for independent-minded filmmakers, the industry and moviegoers alike...’ Okay, so IndieWire is claiming to be a legitimate news source while having a very specific agenda. Doesn’t that create bias, a conflict of interest, and preferential treatment? Do you want a tobacco company telling you how good or bad tobacco is for you or do you want an independent, unbaised review of the product?
A Waxman Introduction
So Sharon welcomed everyone to the event. By the way, the event was $500 per head. Only a couple filmmakers were present who were not invited to sit on the panel. This was not an event designed for filmmakers. Perhaps to prove the point the entrance bar was so high that it kept most interested, non-industry types away by simply setting an exorbitant ticket price.
Sharon suggested that independent films have ‘a challenged business model’ and encouraged debate, questions and conversation... apparently not from filmmakers since they couldn’t afford to sit with the elite who are preparing to financially thrive off their films.
Maybe it’s better to simply instruct filmmakers on what they need rather than to allow them to have a say in the process? Perhaps that would allow industry types to keep more of the profit and more easily control the direction of the future for independent filmmakers.
Studios, moguls and independent filmmakers fall into different categories and when we choose to lump them all together those at the bottom of the food chain tend not to have a voice and get whatever is left... if anything is left.
So if I understand correctly, independent film has a ‘challenged business model’ and this conference orchestrated by The Wrap decided to limit access and participation to the event by indie filmmakers. By the way, several independent filmmakers arrived at the event trying to get in but were not allowed access because they could not afford the price of the ticket and no exceptions were permitted. Another noteworthy point is that TheWrap had ultimate say in which media were allowed into the event. The Wrap’s website states in part, “In order to curate and balance the audience, media attendance will be by invitation-only.” ‘Curate and balance’ could be replaced with ‘Control and limit’ or... you fill in the blanks.
Jane and Geoff
First up were Jane Rosenthal and Geoff Gilmore. I’d like to say that Jane is lovely. She wore a cute, simple black pseudo 60’s mini, black stockings and thigh high black suede boots. Lovely!
Sharon introduced Jane as someone who had worked on many successful indies including ‘About a Boy’. Jane was quick to differentiate between studio and indie films clarifying that most of the films she had worked on were not indies but rather studio projects, including ‘About a Boy’.
Jane was honest and humble and ‘highly optimistic about where we’re (online distribution) going’. Gilmore questioned how to find visibility for independent films claiming the problems today were in many ways the same as 20 years ago, and wondering how to find audiences for the independent film market. Gilmore acknowledged ‘new emerging companies’ and stated that traditional ways no longer work - such as critics, traditional advertising, etc. Some people were surprised by Gilmore’s assertion based on the sighs of exasperation that were heard throughout the room.
Sharon went on to address the catastrophic box office for this year thus far. (Note: Largely, studios and theaters have agreed that last year was a very good year and the films this far simply haven’t been as good blowing the differential somewhat out of skew.) Waxman asked what the biggest issue was facing indie film. Gilmore suggested an ‘importance of driving visibility’ while Rosenthal noted that people ‘under 45-years-old are platform agnostic’.
Waxman stated that the future of online distribution was problematic because it was hard to monetize and exclaimed that NATO (National Association of Theater Owners) complains about the quality of films. Rosenthal addressed the underlying problems creating the lack of quality on screens today being that over-bloated budgets and salaries are limited to a certain type of director creating a watered down final version. Waxman said, “that’s on the filmmaking community to fix”. (Note: Actually, if the films are made by the studios then it is the studio that is held responsible for the final product, not the overall community of filmmakers.)
Gilmore questioned if watching a film on a device creates a lack of immersion thereby, by effect or design, creating the need for a different type of film. Rosenthal feels that while there is a sense of intimacy created by watching films on a computer in the privacy of one’s own space she also enjoys the interaction and laughter from the communal experience of a theater.
The conversation with Jane and Geoff should have been longer. Both were quite interesting and it would have been advantageous if audience had received more in depth insight from the leaders of the Tribeca Film Festival.
Then came Harvey Weinstein...
I wasn’t sure what I was going to think of this man. He gets a lot of bad press. Ends up that he is just passionate about film and a good business man who thinks long-term. He screened a trailer of ‘The Submarine’ which is a little English indie film he bought at the Toronto International Film Festival. He was interested in seeing the audience reaction. This man gets excited about film.
When asked what his assessment is of indie films, Weinstein said that lots of independent films did well last year. For example, he brought a King’s Speech to audiences in 2010.
Weinstein hears rumblings that he’s ‘all about the Oscar’. His assertion is that the Oscar is a good catalyst which gets people in seats siting the example when Travolta said the he wasn’t interested in seeing the Australian made independent film ‘The Piano’ until after its Oscar nod. While Travolta still did not like the film, the Oscar attention did convince him to buy a theater ticket.
Weinstein believes that people want to go to the movies but the film community ‘needs to find a model that fits’. He also reminded doubters that independent films have been making money and finding audiences for a long time - films such as Scary Movie, Inglorious Bastards, King’s Speech, etc.
Weinstein feels that fewer distributors, for now, is a good thing and will remain so until the US has a better appetite for avant-garde films, like France. He mentioned the NEA (?). Perhaps he was referring to France’s National Endowment for the Arts equivalent? Not sure. Note: CNC (National Cinema Center in France) directly and indirectly controls everything that has to do with film, in France, from funding both low and high budget films to distribution in theaters. The problem with a socialized system for films is that the system determines which films are made and seen. This heavily impacts who can bring what into theaters. Such a system creates a door too heavy to be opened by many, if not most, filmmakers who don’t have an ‘in’ or cannot efficiently work within the system or do not have a story the system wants told. For example, Arte (France’s main creator of documentary films) is funded by the government which brings into question the freedom of documentaries to tell unbiased stories. Independent films created outside of a government or studio system have greater opportunity to express views that are not watered down, controversial, or might be potentially in conflict with a government’s own views.
Weinstein feels it is better to keep independent films out of the theaters to make room for the big films. (Question: Would he feel that way if he didn’t have ‘big films’ that needed distribution?) That being said, he spoke of a film that was doing quite well at the box office, a while back, and another film that was small and not very marketable, Weinstein refused to allow theaters to take his larger more profitable film if they did not also agree to screen his smaller film.
It is clear that Weinstein loves theaters and feels there is a place for theater in today’s movie world as well as that of tomorrow. But, he does not feel bad for theater chains because their parent owners are often - ‘not to name any names... AMC’ - very wealthy with market caps of $10-20 billion. Waxman proclaimed that Weinstein was no pauper which Weinstein responded to with saying that he ‘lives well, works hard and is proud of both’. He explained that the initial success he experienced he did not appreciate but that after he lost it and regained it he learned to appreciate what he had.
Waxman addressed a recent lawsuit where Weinstein is being sued by a filmmaker because they would like to, perhaps, distribute their film through another distribution company although the filmmaker has an existing contract with Weinstein. (Note to filmmakers: Make sure you are ready to give up your distribution rights before you do it. Often, there is no backtracking once the deal is signed. What is no longer yours, is no longer yours.)
Weinstein explained that at age 19 he worked for Paul McCartney who had a large library and from that experience he learned to value, and the value of, a large library. He explained that from the beginning he and his brother had the intention of creating a large film library to later sell for a huge profit. The mogul shared with the audience that ‘libraries are big business’ and to ‘think library’. (Note to filmmakers: Libraries are big business for those who control the library. Jim Jarmucsh has a tendency to hold on the the rights of his films which allows him to create and profit from his work. Oprah has retained ownership of her work. Weinstein believes in keeping ownership, as well. If you sell your film, you will not be the one who profits from it. This is not a statement made for ‘Directors for Hire’. This statement is for those who actually own the rights of their work and then need to decide whether or not to keep those rights. It is wise to consider long-term benefits and gains. If your work is worth the investment of another, perhaps it is also worth holding onto the rights for future profits? Only the owner of the film can make that decision. The important thing is to remember that more than one option exists and you control your own destiny by way of your own actions.) Weinstein’s former company, Miramax, sold for $660 million. He feels that Miramax is currently in good hands and likes the direction in which the new management is taking the company stating that he works well with them. Weinstein says that he’ll have his library back with the debt paid off within 2-3 years.
He says that indie films are doing fine and that 2011 will be his best year ever financially, even outgrossing the Miramax years. He said that last year was okay, he was able to live off Inglorious Basterds. Weinstein believes that VOD is catching up claiming that King’s Speech will probably do $12-15 million.
When asked where he was going, Weinstein resoundly stated that ‘We’re going to stay the same.’ that he is good at what he does and runs into trouble when stepping outside his box. He consults with others when need be but stays within his comfort zone. He said that he is learning to appreciate success and that that losing it made him humble which made him grateful for the success when he got it back.
Before screening the trailer of ‘Submarine’ he explained Ben Stiller’s Executive Producer credit like this ‘Ben did it because it was a good thing to do not because there was anything in it for him’ which Weinstein felt showed Stiller’s love and commitment for the medium.
For filmmakers, Weinstein’s advice is to ‘own the material’ and says ‘you’ll jump to the front of the line.’
Waxman asked how hard it is to raise capital. Weinstein said that it depends on the script. A script about a stuttering king is a hard sell where as a film starring Brad Pitt where Johnny Depp runs off with the girl might not be.
What I walked away with from this Keynote Speaker (Note: I thought Keynote Speakers were not Q&As but rather the speaker directly addressing the audience... No?) was that, as an industry, we are lucky to have this man among us because he genuinely likes film - large and small. He gets excited about it. He’s passionate about it and he’s a good enough business man to have brought an awful lot of worthwhile films to you and me.
When asked what his assessment is of indie films, Weinstein said that lots of independent films did well last year. For example, he brought a King’s Speech to audiences in 2010.
Weinstein hears rumblings that he’s ‘all about the Oscar’. His assertion is that the Oscar is a good catalyst which gets people in seats siting the example when Travolta said the he wasn’t interested in seeing the Australian made independent film ‘The Piano’ until after its Oscar nod. While Travolta still did not like the film, the Oscar attention did convince him to buy a theater ticket.
Weinstein believes that people want to go to the movies but the film community ‘needs to find a model that fits’. He also reminded doubters that independent films have been making money and finding audiences for a long time - films such as Scary Movie, Inglorious Bastards, King’s Speech, etc.
Weinstein feels that fewer distributors, for now, is a good thing and will remain so until the US has a better appetite for avant-garde films, like France. He mentioned the NEA (?). Perhaps he was referring to France’s National Endowment for the Arts equivalent? Not sure. Note: CNC (National Cinema Center in France) directly and indirectly controls everything that has to do with film, in France, from funding both low and high budget films to distribution in theaters. The problem with a socialized system for films is that the system determines which films are made and seen. This heavily impacts who can bring what into theaters. Such a system creates a door too heavy to be opened by many, if not most, filmmakers who don’t have an ‘in’ or cannot efficiently work within the system or do not have a story the system wants told. For example, Arte (France’s main creator of documentary films) is funded by the government which brings into question the freedom of documentaries to tell unbiased stories. Independent films created outside of a government or studio system have greater opportunity to express views that are not watered down, controversial, or might be potentially in conflict with a government’s own views.
Weinstein feels it is better to keep independent films out of the theaters to make room for the big films. (Question: Would he feel that way if he didn’t have ‘big films’ that needed distribution?) That being said, he spoke of a film that was doing quite well at the box office, a while back, and another film that was small and not very marketable, Weinstein refused to allow theaters to take his larger more profitable film if they did not also agree to screen his smaller film.
It is clear that Weinstein loves theaters and feels there is a place for theater in today’s movie world as well as that of tomorrow. But, he does not feel bad for theater chains because their parent owners are often - ‘not to name any names... AMC’ - very wealthy with market caps of $10-20 billion. Waxman proclaimed that Weinstein was no pauper which Weinstein responded to with saying that he ‘lives well, works hard and is proud of both’. He explained that the initial success he experienced he did not appreciate but that after he lost it and regained it he learned to appreciate what he had.
Waxman addressed a recent lawsuit where Weinstein is being sued by a filmmaker because they would like to, perhaps, distribute their film through another distribution company although the filmmaker has an existing contract with Weinstein. (Note to filmmakers: Make sure you are ready to give up your distribution rights before you do it. Often, there is no backtracking once the deal is signed. What is no longer yours, is no longer yours.)
Weinstein explained that at age 19 he worked for Paul McCartney who had a large library and from that experience he learned to value, and the value of, a large library. He explained that from the beginning he and his brother had the intention of creating a large film library to later sell for a huge profit. The mogul shared with the audience that ‘libraries are big business’ and to ‘think library’. (Note to filmmakers: Libraries are big business for those who control the library. Jim Jarmucsh has a tendency to hold on the the rights of his films which allows him to create and profit from his work. Oprah has retained ownership of her work. Weinstein believes in keeping ownership, as well. If you sell your film, you will not be the one who profits from it. This is not a statement made for ‘Directors for Hire’. This statement is for those who actually own the rights of their work and then need to decide whether or not to keep those rights. It is wise to consider long-term benefits and gains. If your work is worth the investment of another, perhaps it is also worth holding onto the rights for future profits? Only the owner of the film can make that decision. The important thing is to remember that more than one option exists and you control your own destiny by way of your own actions.) Weinstein’s former company, Miramax, sold for $660 million. He feels that Miramax is currently in good hands and likes the direction in which the new management is taking the company stating that he works well with them. Weinstein says that he’ll have his library back with the debt paid off within 2-3 years.
He says that indie films are doing fine and that 2011 will be his best year ever financially, even outgrossing the Miramax years. He said that last year was okay, he was able to live off Inglorious Basterds. Weinstein believes that VOD is catching up claiming that King’s Speech will probably do $12-15 million.
When asked where he was going, Weinstein resoundly stated that ‘We’re going to stay the same.’ that he is good at what he does and runs into trouble when stepping outside his box. He consults with others when need be but stays within his comfort zone. He said that he is learning to appreciate success and that that losing it made him humble which made him grateful for the success when he got it back.
Before screening the trailer of ‘Submarine’ he explained Ben Stiller’s Executive Producer credit like this ‘Ben did it because it was a good thing to do not because there was anything in it for him’ which Weinstein felt showed Stiller’s love and commitment for the medium.
For filmmakers, Weinstein’s advice is to ‘own the material’ and says ‘you’ll jump to the front of the line.’
Waxman asked how hard it is to raise capital. Weinstein said that it depends on the script. A script about a stuttering king is a hard sell where as a film starring Brad Pitt where Johnny Depp runs off with the girl might not be.
What I walked away with from this Keynote Speaker (Note: I thought Keynote Speakers were not Q&As but rather the speaker directly addressing the audience... No?) was that, as an industry, we are lucky to have this man among us because he genuinely likes film - large and small. He gets excited about it. He’s passionate about it and he’s a good enough business man to have brought an awful lot of worthwhile films to you and me.
In Conclusion
Tribeca Film Festival would like this conference to become an annual event. Perhaps next year, the festival will have the event sponsored by a different entity to ensure balance and objectivity. Having one media source limit the access to an event for other media outlets makes the event appear non-objective with a direct conflict of interest. It is doubtful such an event would intentionally be presented in such a way by the festival.
There were rumblings that the event did not break even as a result of the over-price tickets and that the line-up was somewhat weak. Case in point, a self-proclaimed nerd that Waxman often seemed bored by while questioning was the sole panelist for a half-hour talk on Transmedia which was twice as much time as Waxman allotted to Rosenthal and Gilmore for ‘The Landscape: Indie Film and Its Future - Now” and only 15 minutes less than the allotted time for Weinstein.
Apparently, balls were up in the air over at The Wrap and no one was really taking responsibility for complete and suitable panels. It was not beneficial to the audience that the second half of the event seemed thrown together and not well thought out. This is not a slam against those who participated in the second half of the conference, more an observation of what was not there yet sorely missed.
The Grill is DeNiro's restaurant in Tribeca. Throughout the restaurant are is a permanent collection of DeNiro's father's artwork. It's quite lovely and a beautiful tribute and sign of respect and love for his father.
Tribeca Film Festival would like this conference to become an annual event. Perhaps next year, the festival will have the event sponsored by a different entity to ensure balance and objectivity. Having one media source limit the access to an event for other media outlets makes the event appear non-objective with a direct conflict of interest. It is doubtful such an event would intentionally be presented in such a way by the festival.
There were rumblings that the event did not break even as a result of the over-price tickets and that the line-up was somewhat weak. Case in point, a self-proclaimed nerd that Waxman often seemed bored by while questioning was the sole panelist for a half-hour talk on Transmedia which was twice as much time as Waxman allotted to Rosenthal and Gilmore for ‘The Landscape: Indie Film and Its Future - Now” and only 15 minutes less than the allotted time for Weinstein.
Apparently, balls were up in the air over at The Wrap and no one was really taking responsibility for complete and suitable panels. It was not beneficial to the audience that the second half of the event seemed thrown together and not well thought out. This is not a slam against those who participated in the second half of the conference, more an observation of what was not there yet sorely missed.
The Grill is DeNiro's restaurant in Tribeca. Throughout the restaurant are is a permanent collection of DeNiro's father's artwork. It's quite lovely and a beautiful tribute and sign of respect and love for his father.
No comments:
Post a Comment