Charlie Rose and Joe Roth at 2011 Tribeca Film FestivalBrian Grazer once called Joe Roth‘the last mogul’. I would assume that was before Harvey Weinstein was firmly planted in the sandbox.
Roth discussed a bit of his work history such as how he would hire good people and how he set up a system where he could make 5 films a year to sell to Sony - films like Blackhawk Down. This process went on. He increased his numbers and eventually got so big that Sony resented his presence.
Roth owns his films - 47 of them.
If you are an independent filmmaker it is very important to note that both Joe Roth and Harvey Weinstein saw fit to keep ownership of their work. Both of these filmmakers are very well established and powerful. They own their libraries of films. They own their films. How about you? What are you doing with your library. Your films. Your future. Your legacy. Are you giving it away for free or protecting it, holding onto it until the day you can profit from it? Keep your rights. It is not the number of hits on YouTube that will make you wealthy. It is creating an income for yourself from the ownership of your library. You worked to create it. Keep it! It is valuable.
Over the course of time, Roth has slowed down a bit making far fewer films than in previous years. He prefers his lifestyle now. He even took a little hiatus to coach soccer. Who knew? He attributes some of his success to his street smarts and sensibilities. He is a ‘content person, not a traditional business person’. Unlike when Roth started out, now there is an ability to make films inexpensively.
When reading a script, he looks for ‘absolutely nothing’. He has ‘no expectations’ and ‘does not judge’ the work until after he finishes it... just like watching a movie. He reads scripts in about the same amount of time that it takes a person to watch a film. This was something he taught himself early on. He reads about 300 scripts per year and only critiques it after he has finished reading it. He looks for something that hits a ‘primal nerve’.
Roth states that ‘People in power need people like you more than (we) need him’. Studios are desperate for you to be good or the system fails!(Note: That is why you never need to worry about the competition.)
Rose inquires, “What does a producer do?” Roth says that in the best of worlds a producer is the first man in and the last man out. The producer gets the money, talent, marketing plan and hopefully the film he wanted.
Roth has directed six films. He wanted to be a better director but had to look in the mirror and admit that he is a better producer. He’s better at business than the creative part. He wasn’t bursting at the seams with ideas unlike many of the directors he works with. He decided to stick with what he is good at.
Roth notes that a lot of the middle has dropped out. He believes that cutting out the middleman is good allowing for more control.
Roth believes that studios should buy theatres. He admits he is alone on this but feels it would allow the film creators more control over distribution and the process of bringing a film to an audience. He feels that a film lives or dies in the first 30 days but that some films need time to develop and leaving the run of a film in the hands of people who care about popcorn sales isn’t the best for a film. He elaborates that putting billions of dollars into films and having no control over distribution equates to bad business.
Currently, it is illegal for studios to own theaters. I believe the reason was so that studios could not control (and perhaps manipulate and promote propaganda) what audiences see, think and feel. It used to be the case that media could not be owned by corporations on the scale they are now. We used to have many independent radio stations and freer TV. With fewer companies ruling the media world Americans have less opinions and hear fewer viewpoints and the industry becomes narrowed and more controlled in almost a heavy handed manner by corporations... and at this point, political parties (or, again, the corporations behind them).
Roth feels that Premium VOD is a positive transition and that people want to see what they want, where they want and when they want to see it. 95% of a movie’s gross is achieved in the first 30 days in a theatre. VOD increases flexibility. Currently there is a hold time of about 8 weeks before films are released on DVD. This creates a 4 week window when the film is not available at all except through piracy. Premium VOD could close that gap.
Roth observes that the ‘history of movies is additive’ and therefore VOD is just another addition to history. The industry has always reacted with ‘We’re dead’ when change comes - such was the case with TV, VCR, DVD and such is the case now with the internet.
Moving onto what Roth is doing now he says, “The movies I’m doing now are in the public domain so they’re all free. To develop material doesn’t cost me anything.” This allows him strong leverage and no loss.
Charlie Rose asks, “It’s hard to create anything, so why are there so many bad movies?”
Roth explains that it is a numbers thing. You start off with your first choice director but can end up with your ninth choice. There is often compromise all the way through... with the script, the actors, etc. Things get watered down in the process. Roth says that while driving to a preview undoubtedly the chicken comes to roost. He says he’s usually right in knowing what the audience reaction will be, that out of about 300 films only once was he wrong.
Charlie Rose asked, “Is it art?”
Roth says that ‘there are some artists. Who am I to judge?” and that ‘movies are not linear. You do not have to enjoy all of it.’ You can like a film but not be crazy about the ending, or the supporting actor, etc.
Questions from the Peanut Gallery
PG: Can you talk a little about post ‘08 financing?
JR: There is a gigantic worldwide audience for art films - Black Swan, King’s Speech - King’s Speech cost something like $13-14 million to make and will bring in $200 million worldwide
Note: Listen to the experts. Harvey Weinstein basically says the same thing. In fact, Weinstein claims that 2011 will be his best year, financially, ever.
JR: Discusses how ‘A Boy’s Life’ was shot down by pre-marketing but ended up doing fine. Therefore he doesn’t believe in pre-marketing. Oh, ‘A Boy’s Life’ changed names and became known as ‘ET’.
(Note: Couldn’t hear many of the questions... hence, answers only.)
JR: Studios aren’t interested in docs.
PG: Brand Entertainment
JR: “Anything you have to do makes it a harder sell”
JR: “Romantic comedy is hard - where do you go - everything has been done.”
(Note: Harvey Weinstein just purchased the romantic comedy “The Submarine” at Toronto IFF. I’ve seen a lot of really adorable independent romantic comedies over the past few years. It’s not that it is not being done. It is more that Hollywood just isn’t doing it.)
PG: Are new directors worth taking a risk on?
JR: You can help people who don’t have everything. If he’s bad at post there are people who can help in that area, etc.
JR: Use private investors and studios. Venture capital in Silicone Valley has always stayed away from movies. Digital distribution has brought Silicone Valley into the picture. (Which shows the potential power and force the online industry will be.)
JR: Most important thing for a producer to learn is how to read scripts. Roth worked as a reader in the early years. That is where he learned how to read scripts. He expects them to be formatted properly and the appropriate number of pages.
JR: Video games and movies are different businesses.
JR: Too dumb to quit.
--------------------------------------------------
So the question begs, why did the Hollywood Reporter mainly mention how Roth feels studios should own theaters instead of how important good material is and how people in power need the indie filmmaker.
The reason is probably multi-faceted starting with time-crunched, over-worked under-paid writers who have to grab headlines that their boss will approve of and the need to fit an article into a certain number of words mixed with the complete lack and disrespect we show for artists and culture as a whole and the movement over the past few decades to dumb down films as if it were a gnarly game of limbo.
Why theaters instead of how the people in power need indie filmmakers? Theaters have big budgets that buy ad space. Indie filmmakers don’t have a pot to piss in. Perhaps in part because they are constantly relegated to the sidelines by middlemen like news media and distributors. News media can’t make a living off independent filmmakers while it is simply not in a distributor’s interest to inform and empower a filmmaker when they can just snag the film instead.
It’s the power of persuasion. Here is today’s typical scenerio.
1)Tell a filmmaker his work is worthless.
2)Get a better deal.
3)Run off with the profits.
4)Have the filmmaker grovel back the next time he makes a film.
5)Continue to steal his library while he begs you to do it.
6)Rinse and repeat.
Word to the wise. Once you realize you were a victim you no longer are. At the point of understanding you become a willing participant. So, if you want to slave away on a film putting your heart, money, soul and time into it to give to someone else blindlessly... well, I say, ‘Go for it!’. It’s a choice. A fool and his money will soon be parted. You do not need to be foolish. Understand the game. Show up and start making some serious cash from the film you created!
-------------------------------------------------
Side Note: The Power of Marketing So my daughter and I walk into the theater where she sees a “Bloomberg Presents” sign and she says, “Man, he’s everywhere.” Then, as we enter the cinema a lady smiles and hands her a “Bloomberg Businessweek”. She takes it says, “I didn’t know he had a magazine.” Sits down. Opens it up. Says, “Hey, we should subscribe to this.” My response, “You’re exactly why marketing works and precisely why Bloomberg sponsors such events.”
