So: Sidetrack Films, the producers of Aaron Rose and Joshua Leonard’s doc Beautiful Losers (see our SXSW coverage here), have signed a deal with Nike to sponsor the film’s release in five cities, starting with its New York premiere this Friday.

Like Mark Rabinowitz, who wrote a post on indieWIRE’s new Docsider blog pondering What This All Means in relation to the state of documentary film distribution, I have mixed feelings about this.

…Read more

On the surface, Mardi Gras looks like good, cheap (if not always clean) fun. On the internet, $17 will buy ten dozen Mardi Gras beads––roughly what a group of revelers might be expected to toss as bait for tossed-off tops on Bourbon Street in a single hour. This ritual––one part libido, one part alcohol, one part peer pressure, one part historical precedent––leaves no room for practical realities, harsh or otherwise. So maybe it’s not much of a surprise that when sociologist-turned-filmmaker David Redmon went to New Orleans in 2004 and asked the question, “Where do you think the beads come from?” none of the young party people he encountered knew that $17 American dollars is enough to pay the salary of the average underage worker who makes Mardi Gras beads in sweatshop conditions in China for weeks

Yes, there’s a secret, hidden cost to this tradition-steeped debauchery: a complete divorce between the economics, the social realities, and the moral ambiguities that make production of a commodity possible, and the relative wealth, privilege and, well, moral ambiguities that transform that product, once transported across oceans and continents, into something virtually worthless.

With his 2005 documentary Mardi Gras: Made in China (a Sundance Grand Jury Prize nominee which just came out on DVD), Redmon manages to bridge these disparate worlds by spending time in both New Orleans and Fuzhou, China, and smuggling information from one locus to another, using his own curiosity to enlighten the hand on one end of the global marketplace as to what the other hand is doing.

…Read more

The headline to this Hollywood Reporter story is pure provocation: “Has ThinkFilm Lost Its Mind?” The three pages that follow offer little in the way of analysis of the sanity of the studio’s recent moves; instead, Alex Ben Block contrasts angry accusations from filmmakers who claim to have been wronged by the distributor, with defensive statements from Think/Capitol Films head David Bergstein.

The big takeaway (beyond Betstain’s annoying insistence that “he has image problems because nobody in Hollywood really knows him”) is his repeated claim that he’s not really concerned with the short term  profits and losses associated with theatrical releases (which probably won’t sound like news to certain filmmakers he’s worked with over the past year). Instead, he’s got his eyes on building a digital rights library that can be leveraged when the current modes of distribution and consumption become extinct. “Our business plan is not so much about the movie business,” he told Block. “It’s really to build a global digital distribution business. It’s based on the expectation that in the not too distant future most content will be delivered digitally and on-demand.”

And apparently, he’s perfectly content enraging filmmakers and creditors today in order to come out ahead of the flop on a longer timeline. More details––including details on Bergstein’s future acquisitions plans, the status of David O. Russell’s beleaguered Think production, and testimony from apparently the only Think-associated filmmaker willing to come out and defend the company’s leader––after the jump.

…Read more

Nikki Finke made an interesting Freudian gaffe in this story on Midnight Meat Train’s dismal opening weekend. She quoted Lionsgate’s recent credit infusion as amounting to $340, about $339 million less than the actual number, but just $27 more than what Meat Train averaged on each of its 100 screens. As Finke notes, one of the reasons for the embarrassing take (besides, you know, a complete lack of advertising or reviews) is the fact that Lionsgate booked the film in dollar theaters and second-run houses. They also skirted major markets––in fact, the film opened nowhere near New York City. So not only was this film with a built-in audience (thanks to Clive Barker’s genre credibility) made nearly impossible for fans to find, but stuffing the deck with cut-rate houses Lionsgate made sure that even if the movie filled houses (which it didn’t). it would be a statistic impossibility for it to make any real money.

In her headline, FInke asks the question, “Why Did Lionsgate Dump Clive Barker Pic Into Dollar And Second Run Theaters?” She ultimately drops the vague suggestion that “the answer may well be studio politics,” but declines to offer new insight or information, beyond citing Joe Drake’s much-reported desire to migrate “away from this genre of films in favor of more mainstream fare like Tyler Perry.”

What’s implied in Finke’s write-up and others, but never spelled out, is that in order to complete Lionsgate’s transformation from a profitable house of ill-repute into a well-funded maker of wholly inoffensive middlebrow entertainments, the total failure of vestiges of the previous regime like Meat Train is so necessary that the studio couldn’t take chances on the whims of the ticket-buying public––this is a bombing that had to be engineered.

Consider this WIRED story more than loosely related to yesterday’s back-and-forth on theatrical distribution, and maybe sort of possibly related to today’s rampant speculation on Che. At the Television Critics Association conference yesterday, vertically integrated movie mogul Mark Cuban announced that he’s going to start selling Magnolia’s theatrical releases on HDNET’s On Demand cable service––BEFORE they debut in theaters.

I *think* the news nugget here is that this reverse day-and-date roll out wil now apply to ALL Magnolia releases, because otherwise, it’s not really news at all––Cuban’s companies have experimented with this tactic before, and box office grosses would suggest that it didn’t work so well for Redacted. Unless it’s the Cuban-as-cowboy quotes––such as “Landmark is the only national theater chain that will support HDNet’s Ultra Sneak Previews” and “I don’t care what the MPAA does.” But then, that’s not really news, either.

Since the conversation about internet and day-and-date distribution really started to heat up in 2005, the alternatives to theatrical distribution have seemed to only multiply and evolve, while the general perception of public exhibition has remained about the same: filmmakers like it, but in terms of bottom line, it’s only useful as an extended commercial for ancillaries such as DVD. But is that perception changing? Two related quotes of note popped up in the feeds this morning.

…Read more

• “If this is confusing, let’s make the comparison to the airlines — the cost of travel is up and the cost of providing travel is way up. So the business is down. Only the best routes work. And only the best films work. Economics explains it all.” In a post on the IndiePix blog, Bob Alexander re-frames Mark Gil’s by-now-legendary LAFF “the indie film sky is falling” speech––not to mention the vigorous head-nodding that followed––as, essentially, don’t look-behind-the-curtain propaganda designed to buy time for a failing business model whilst attracting attention away from viable alternatives.
• When Netflix announced it was going to take away the ability for subscribers to keep profiles on their website, writes Lia LoBello at Radar, “Calamity followed. Petitioners petitioned. Conspiracy theories took hold. Blogs were set ablaze with the fire of DVD rental righteousness. Today, the company announced that the plans to keep, yes, keep, the feature. You did it, people!”
• Finally, a way to celebrate Bastille Day that doesn’t involve tempting the food poisoning gods with discount moules frites: Vinyl is Heavy is hosting a blogathon. Quoth Ryland Walker Knight: “if any of our beloved, if mostly silent, readers want to offer any Francophilic thoughts on July 14th, let me know, either via links in the comments or via emails. Until then, go see Wall-E on a big screen when you aren’t out and about, eating cheese or throwing cake or dancing in the woods or driving into the Mediterranean.”

• Earlier this week, Jonathan Marlow published a rant on GreenCine Daily, titled They didn’t build their sales model for you. Much of the piece is given over to a description of the dire state of distribution affairs for truly independent filmmakers. Marlow, who acquires films for GreenCine’s DVD-by-mail main site, essentially argues that filmmakers should put less weight on dreams of theatrical distribution and concentrate on the many new media options. I didn’t comment on this story earlier because, well, my reaction was pretty much the same as Agnes Varnum’s: “It reads to me as a good summary of where things have been for last couple of years in film sales, so my question is what’s the news? Do people really not know this information?”
• Tom Hall also weighs in on the Marlow piece, from a festival programmer’s perspective: “Let me begin by taking exception to Marlow’s straw man, one that I have seen being built over and over again on panels and in discussions among filmmakers and programmers over the past few years; Film festivals are not, in fact, an ersatz distribution system for films.”
• If you live in New York and/or read the blogs of people who do, chances are you’re aware of The Emily Gould Fiasco. Funnily enough, Juan and Victor Piñeiro, brothers as well as director and producer of Second Skin, have bared witness to several smaller-scale Emily Gould fiascos over the past decade and a half.
• Finally, Paul Scheer explains why, although no one will admit to wanting it, Beverly Hills Cop 4 will make back twice its budget in its first weekend: “I’m like an abused sequel wife, I keep going back to theaters time and time again to get mercilessly kicked in the cinematic balls for having faith that a sequel can actually be good as it’s predecessors.”

Married Life, Paranoid Park, and Snow Angels: three independently produced American films, all being released this weekend by indie arms of major corporations, and three films that, according to Anthony Kaufman, are surprisingly serious about the “notion that we must come to terms with our complicity in other people’s pain, as well as our own.”

In this piece at Filmcatcher, Kaufman wonders what prompted filmmakers Ira Sachs, Gus Van Sant and David Gordon Green to tackle similar themes in very different ways. “Could it be some long-gestating post-9/11 reflection, or a reaction to the Iraq war and its horrendous collateral damages, from Abu Ghraib and Haditha? Or is it a newfound understanding of globalization, that we are all interconnected and responsible for each other?”

I haven’t seen Snow Angels. I saw Married Life months ago, but I really didn’t care for it and don’t think I could consider it seriously. But Paranoid Park is a really interesting film, one I wish I had time to write more about, but unfortunately haven’t been able to really cover in the madness of True/False and SXSW. It’s definitely a film about the psychology of Getting Away With It, and I can see how it would be tempting to graft political parallels on to that, in that it essentially mines horror from a criminal’s self-interested refusal to take personal responsibility. Still, even if the filmmakers were somehow taping into a zeitgeist, these films are all festival holdovers from 2007, and I’m not sure their simultaneous says anything other than that they’re neither likely Oscar contenders nor summer blockbusters. I’m personally skeptical that three corporate entities would suddenly come to a “newfound understanding” of their complicity in globalization and try to ameliorate their guilt by releasing three adult dramas on the same day.

Speaking of Snow Angels, indieWIRE is sponsoring an Apple Store event tonight in New York, with Angels director Green and co-star Olivia Thirlby (yes, the girl who said “honest to blog” in Juno). More info here.

• Universal has declined to renew their production deal with Tom Shadyac, who directed a number of massive comedy hits for the studio, including The Nutty Professor and Liar, Liar. Shadyac clashed with the studio over his latest directorial effort, last summer’s Evan Almighty, which grossed almost $200 million worldwide but cost at least that much to make.
• The AMPTP wants to negotiate with SAG. George Clooney wants the AMPTP to negotiate with SAG. So what’s the problem? SAG national exec director Doug Allen is in no hurry to start formal talks. He says the guild needs to complete internal meetings on wages and working conditions, and he won’t have anything to bring to the AMPTP until those meetings conclude in March.
• In a column on the growth of online film distribution, Anne Thompson says there’s still not enough money to be made in the market to interest major the brick-and-mortar distribution stalwarts, “Which means that this movement will continue to build from the bottom up with micro-indies, not from the top down with real studio investment.”

Here’s our running tally of each of the distribution deals announced throughout the course of the Sundance Film Festival. We will update this post whenever new information comes in, so bookmark it and keep checking back for the newest latest.

indieWIRE has released the results of their annual critic’s poll for the best undistributed films of 2007, and Ronnie Bronstein’s Frownland has made the top ten. The Gotham award winner received seven votes, the same number as Abel Ferrara’s Go Go Tales, which is interesting for a number of reasons. For one thing, Ferrara and Bronstein were two of just three American directors to make the Top Ten. For another, in the case of both films, whether or not they’re actually undistributed is basically a question of semantics.

I first heard that IFC had acquired Go Go Tales back at the New York Film Festival in September, and have heard a number of confirmations of that rumor since. Anthony Kaufmann even references those whispers in his indieWIRE write-up of the poll, noting that “for now, [Go Go Tales is] still technically available.” It basically gets to keep its place on the list because IFC hasn’t yet issued a press release.

Meanwhile, Silent Light earned 20 votes in the poll, which would have been good enough to tie for second place…had the film not been disqualified because Tartan quietly acquired U.S. distribution rights last month. I certainly didn’t get a press release about that––I’ve got to be one of the film’s most vocal supporters, and I didn’t find out about the deal until a month after the fact. Frownland, meanwhile, has distribution in France, and due to the number of North American film festivals where it’s played, it’s probably been seen by more non-critics on this continent than the film ranked right below it on the list, Nick Broomfield’s Battle for Haditha.

This is not about me fronting like Silent Light deserves recognition and Go Go Tales (which I’m on the record as having loved) does not, nor am I trying to argue with the rules of this particular poll. But it does seem like proof positive that not only is the line between “distributed” and “undistributed” getting a lot murkier, but the idea of distribution-as-victory is maybe not all it’s cracked up to be.

…Read more

Time Out London’s interview with Silent Light director Carlos Reygadas is full of good stuff, but like Ray Pride, I’m most interested in what he has to say about the formulation of the film’s almost incomprehensibly beautiful opening shot. It turns out that its inspiration was surprisingly mundane–just take one part OS X, add one part Icelandic art band, and stir:

I was listening to Sigur Rós before going to bed, the computer was in front of me, and the screensaver came on. I have this cosmic screensaver, a picture of stars moving out of the frame very, very slowly. I looked at that magnificent space landscape with the music of Sigur Rós playing and I thought the movie had to open like that.

After all the breathless sploogery over this scene (my own included), its actual ingredients are kind of a letdown, no?

In any case, as my romance with this movie continues unabated, I was happy to see Anne Thompson name it as a “strong contender” for an Oscar nom. Also, how did I miss the news (now a month old!) that Tartan is distributing the film in the US? (Maybe I was derelict in my feed reading duties that week; maybe one of you should have told me. But let’s not play the blame game, okay?) This should be good news, but with no US release date yet set (it opens in England on Friday), I have to guess they’re waiting for the Oscar nominations to decide how and when to push it out.

In the time it took me to go to the kitchen and microwave my lunch, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences just made it a lot easier to qualify for a Best Documentary Feature Oscar nomination. Wasn’t that easy?

The current, much-discussed rules require features to screen at least once in at 14 cities in at least 10 states; these new rules, which will govern films released between now and August 31, 2008 for consideration at the Oscars in 2009, simply state that features “must run for a minimum of seven days in both Los Angeles County and the Borough of Manhattan.” This alone should be much more do-able for the average documentary filmmaker––and it’ll eliminate the need for a off-the-beaten-path, self-financed qualifying run like the one for Billy the Kid––but the Academy has also decided to allow digital submissions of short listed films, eliminating the once-mandatory (and costly) production of celluloid prints for semi-finalists.

You can read the full press release here. In other documentary news, AJ Schnack has a rundown of the year so far in documentary box office, and for all of the complaints that No End in Sight either failed to break through Iraq fatigue or was prevented from doing so, it’s interesting to see that it’s in second place for the year, behind Sicko.