Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world

TOP STORY:

10 Worst Sundance Sensations

10 Worst Sundance Sensations

Christopher Campbell
By Christopher Campbell posted 9 months ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

Getting ready for the Sundance Film Festival can be very exciting. As we await the event’s Thursday opening, we can’t stop wondering what will be the next big thing. Will this year’s hit be the highly-anticipated Michael Cera project Paper Hearts, or will it be something that we as of yet know nothing about?

It’s easy to forget, however, that oftentimes the next big thing is also the next lamest thing. Sundance sensations, those films that are much-buzzed-about, that sell for a lot of money, that go on to be marketed like crazy and ultimately receive Oscar recognition, tend to lend themselves most easily to backlashes. Usually such derision is deserved, as in the case of the following ten films, each of which made a big splash at Sundance despite being bad.
…Read more

IFC FirstTake Reactions

Karina Longworth
By Karina Longworth posted 2 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

picture-72.pngI think it’s time to revisit this morning’s news on IFC’s future as a distributor, for as the day has progressed, there’s been some interesting discussion. Here’s a sampling of what the kids are saying on the webz.

Both the indieWIRE and the Variety pieces took IFC’s version of the story at pretty much face value. A common refrain in today’s reaction pieces has been, “Just because they’ve got the movies on the cable boxes, doesn’t mean anyone’s buying them. Have you seen download data? I haven’t. Someone should really get some.” Or, as Brian Newman puts it,

Excuse me, but “available” to 40 million subscribers is a worthless figure. IFC keeps spinning, as if their life depended on it (hint hint) … All this means is that four cable systems wanted to offer VOD, and IFC needed to suck up to them all in order to remain being carried on these services. IFC needs the cable operators more than they need IFC, and while a kid renting a film in Des Moines via VOD is great for Des Moines, its not ground breaking news. If Frankel was so happy with the numbers, perhaps he would have shared a few of them with us!

In response to that, Sujewa Ekanayake dug up this article, which contains a breakdown of box office grosses for a number of 2006/2007 IFC FirstTake releases. The article displays the figures to demonstrate that VOD is hurting theater business, and they’re certainly low enough to impress — of 15 films, only four grossed over $100,000, and most made less than $50,000.

But Newman says he’s “still not buying it” as evidence that FirstTake is making money, either in homes or in theaters. And even if IFC is breaking even, chances are filmmakers aren’t. “Net to producer - I don’t know, but rumor has it that IFC pays 50/50 after expenses. And after expenses can mean a lot of things.”

I maintain that IFC’s VOD distribution (of which, unlike Newman, I am a regular paying customer) is extremely good for the audience, and I think it must help films that would otherwise maybe play on two screens in New York and LA (if that) finder a wider audience. But to me the question is, what’s the end product? Already, I think most indie filmmakers on this level think of theatrical exhibition as an advertisement for a future DVD release. If we can safely say that no one’s getting rich off of VOD, is it at least functioning as a decent commercial for DVD sales? Or is it just eating into those potential profits, as this story suggests?

Jem Cohen Wants You To Fight The Man

Karina Longworth
By Karina Longworth posted 2 years ago
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Ma.gnolia
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon

cohen.jpgWe love it when two previously-blogged topics collide. According to Anthony Kaufman, filmmaker Jem Cohen (whose collaboration with Patti Smith I posted about here) sent out an email today asking friends and colleagues to join him in protesting proposed changes to New York City permit regulations for amateur photographers (which I wrote about previously here). As Cohen explains, the proposed changes (which would make permits necessary for any shoot involving more than two people and a hand-held camera that lasted over thirty minutes) would severely limit DIY photography and film/video making in the city:

The fact is that we simply CANNOT predict where, when, and how long we are going to film or photograph; we CANNOT afford expensive liability insurance policies; we occasionally NEED to work with other people or to use tripods to support our gear. (The regulations would, for example, effectively rule out a great deal of time-lapse photography which depends on tripods and cannot possibly be done with time limitations of 10 to 30 minutes, as well as the use of large format still cameras and long lenses).

One of Michael Bloomberg’s greatest successes as mayor has been his promotion of local film and television production. By offering some amazing tax incentives, the Bloomberg administration has re-established NYC as a feasible shooting location for indies. Kaufman says the proposed regulations would tarnish the city’s reputation as a haven for filmmakers pretty significantly. “If the New York Mayor’s Office of Film and TV really cares about New York as a vital indie filmmaking center,” he writes, “They need to stop putting in effect procedures that help Hollywood productions and cripple the low-budget mavens that once made this city the artistic capital of the world.”

If you want to join the protest, click through for the contact info on Anthony’s blog. The Mayor’s office is allegedly accepting feedback on this issue until August 3.