Stefan Ruzowitzky won the Best Foreign Film Oscar for his movie The Counterfeiters, a WWII narrative based on true events around an enormous Nazi counterfeiting scheme. It’s been quite common to see movies based on the holocaust taking home Oscars (Nazis are a modern archetype making for great good versus evil showdowns). But what you don’t often see is an Austrian filmmaker making a movie for an apparently large audience that still refuses to believe Nazis were the BAD GUYS.

I revived an interview I did in Telluride with Ruzowitzky an hour before he premiered The Counterfeiters. He talks about why he made the movie and his desire to beat up old people after the jump…

…Read more

Despite having the best Wednesday ever, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix earned a relatively small sum of money for a five day release. Here’s how a handful of scribblers spun the numbers:

To Box Office Mojo, the big-Wednesday, small-weekend phenomenon is a sign of “burning off demand”–that is, the huge fans showed up at midnight on Wednesday, and there’s little to no potential for the sequel to build on word-of-mouth.

But don’t tell that to Paul Dergarabedian, the industry blurb whore recently targeted by New York Magazine who hints that the release of the final Harry Potter book next Saturday could
actually reinvigorate ticket sales. “They’ll be walking book in hand into the movie theater,” he promises. Gag.

So many blockbusters in the marketplace leave little room in the writeups for attention to indies, but there’s always space to gloat over the failure of torture porn. The New York Times devoted two paragraphs to Captivity’s sub-top-ten debut; Nikki Finke’s sole sentence on the matter can be reduced to two words: “how nice.” Meanwhile, HecklerSpray asks the rhetorical question that’s surely on everyone’s mind: “[License to Wed] is still in the weekend box office top five and a film where Elisha Cuthbert has to drink a milkshake made out of mashed-up eyeballs isn’t?”

It seems pretty clear that the current movie theater model doesn’t quite work for anyone. Well, maybe it’s nearly perfect for a 15-year-old in Normal, Illinois, but that’s precisely why I hardly ever see a movie in a multiplex.

A long time ago (at least on the Spout calendar), Paul wrote a post essentially brainstorming about his dream movie theater. In his post, Paul actually wrote “I secretly hope Landmark Theaters will consider this a quick and dirty business plan to elaborate on.”

Well, it looks like Mark Cuban is actually jumping on Paul’s bandwagon, or at least something close. An article today on Cinematical, “Mark Cuban Wants To Make Us Scoop Our Own Popcorn,” says Cuban and Todd Wagner are unveiling their new movie theater concepts in three of their Landmark theaters–in Baltimore, Denver, and Los Angeles.

“Landmark’s goal is to be the ultimate night out for grownups. Today’s customer has different expectations than the customer of 10 and 20 years ago, and we need to recognize that and respond to it,” says Cuban in the article.

But what does that actually mean? Amenities, retail sales, and a “lounge-like atmosphere” for food and drinks before and after the movie. Next to Paul’s dream theater, Cuban’s model sounds a bit like it’s trying too hard, although of course I’d have to see and experience it before I could say anything conclusive. Paul’s plan includes ideas like converting old neighborhood theaters back into theaters, starting clubs and other opportunities for like-minded people to come together around films they love, and offering opening acts as a way to expose people to shorts and other emerging cinema. The plan is practical in many ways (brief intermission, anyone?) yet also focuses on actually enriching the movie-going experience, not just lengthening it and providing more opportunities for spending too much.

I guess what I’m thinking is that Cuban’s plan sounds perfect for a first-date, or for any date meant to be somewhat novel–but minus the work. Paul’s plan sounds sustainable for real people who love movies and want better movie-watching experiences on a regular basis. Of course, Cuban has the money, not Paul, so in many ways I have to agree with Patrick Walsh on Cinematical: “Going to the theater is far too expensive to be as unpleasant as it so often is–why not experiment with the formula?”

An article in yesterday’s indieWIRE biz section made me feel a twinge of sadness and more than a twinge of concern. The story began with this:

Foreign-language cinema got another vote of no confidence yesterday, with the announcement of Dreamachine, a new film company formed out of the merger of international sales outfit Celluloid Dreams with U.K.-based HanWay Films.

Yikes. Votes of no confidence are harsh. And machines (even of the dream sort) are a bit frightening. OK, I know I’m not business-minded enough to appreciate decisions like this and understand the possible necessity behind them, but I can’t help feeling like this is a sell-out for foreign films. All in the name of profit.

The article goes on to say that Dreamachine will “continue to take on foreign talents and maintain relationships with its proven staple of auteurs,” but fewer films will be made, and most of them in English. I don’t quite get how those are foreign language films at all, any more. (Celluloid Dream’s Hengameh Panahi estimates only one-third of the titles they take will be foreign language.) Apparently, it all comes down to being able to focus on bigger projects. This surely translates to bigger profits, but better films? It’s hard to imagine.

Panahi, who is widely respected for her taste and commitment to movies she loves, does admit the change isn’t easy for her.

“But the only problem for me is I have to give up on my smaller films, which is hard because I love them,” Panahi continued. “At the same time, I realize there is no economy for those movies anymore.” By taking on films with less commercial potential, she said, “We’re helping the market to become more crowded and we’re helping the small distributor to be more fragile.”

“Everybody is drowning in volume,” Panahi continued.

The volume part is no surprise, with the Long Tail almost a household term these days. But drowning? Do we have to drown? Or can we find a nice little boat to navigate around in? It’s hard for me to imagine that the Long Tail is already shrinking. It’s hard to imagine that VOD and other technology advancements aren’t creating more opportunities for smaller films to find audiences. And it’s hard for me to accept the thought that Dreamachine might become just an old-school Hollywood approach to something that will barely resemble what we used to know of as foreign language cinema. Isn’t this the time of possibility and opportunity? The time to move toward something new, rather than toward old models?

At least people seem to have faith that Panahi won’t sell out entirely, in terms of making only films that are increasingly mainstream. We can only hope.

Who Loves the Sun has been showing at festivals around the globe the past year, including two screenings at SXSW earlier this week. Corey Marr, the film’s producer, joins director Matthew Bissonnette to talk about budgets, being Canadian, and filming on an island. For more on Matt and the ideas behind the film, read this recent SpoutBlog post. You can also visit the official movie site and the film’s MySpace page.

K: What have been the primary ups and downs in making and distributing Who Loves the Sun (WLTS), from a producer’s point of view?

C: It certainly has been an adventure. I think the two highest highs were getting the phone call from telefilm that they were investing in the film, and arriving on the first day of principal photography and seeing all those people and trucks. Plus, no one drowned that I know of. The biggest down was having to make a huge insurance claim because one of our cans of film got fogged. And using the porta-potties was never pleasant. On the distribution side, the film comes out in Canada on April 6th, and we are currently working on US and foreign sales, so ask me again in a few months.

K: How much did the movie cost to make?

M: about a million and change canadian, which is like about five hundred american dollars.

K: How did you keep costs low?

M: we tried to keep costs low by being mean and cheap. however, in my limited experience, once you start working with people who aren’t in your immediate family, stuff just gets expensive: folks gotta eat! in some ways, it seemed we had more time on Looking For Leonard[Bissonnette's first film], and that was a really, really inexpensive movie. i mean, we made that one out of spit and scotch-tape.

K: What ended up adding expense to WLTS?

M: greedy price gouging by oil companies, who were cynically using the cover of their iraq war, nearly sunk us. canada is a big place, so we did a lot of driving. oh yeah, setting the film on an island and shooting on water didn’t help. so cost overruns were half dick cheney’s fault, and half mine.

C: Matt is being a bit hard on himself. the way our financing worked out, we actually had mandated days that we had to shoot across two different provinces. So a story that is ideally suited to one main location turned into about six or seven different unit moves. I\’d lay 10% blame on funding bureaucracy, half on cheney, and the rest on matt. It’s funny, though, because now that it’s done, it’s strange to think of it being done in any other way.

K: Tell me more about the funding, and in particular how it helped to be Canadian.

M: telefilm canada, manitoba film and sound, and christal films (our cdn distributor) kindly paid for the film (helped along by cdn tv sales at tmn and movie central) …i love all those people. i mean, i really really love them.

C: and we can’t forget the Canadian Television Fund, a television pre-sale to showcase, and our awesome Canadian tax credits.

K: What has the marketing/distribution process been like?

M: well, since the film comes out in canada april 6th, and the us theatrical is still up in the air, we haven’t really gotten too far into that mess yet. In general, i always want people to spend more money, and to market the thing for what it is, if that’s possible.

on the festival level, the getting it out there level, reaching out to the people via the internet level, corey has been doing a real good job. these days, with a bit of hard work, it seems you can put your thing into the world, even if you don’t have much cash, or insider status, or what have you.

K: What has been your experience at film festivals?

M: i really like most fests. i enjoy the audiences, and seeing where people are at regarding film in particular and the whole ball of wax in general. i don’t have super faves, don’t care if it’s big or small, but sxsw, los angeles and london will always have a very special place in my heart, as they gave us our first breaks [with Looking for Leonard and WLTS].

K: Corey, what is your background? How did you get into film production?

C: My background is in advertising, having worked at a number of ad agencies, both on the creative end and on the strategy side, but never really being satisfied with either one exclusively. Probably something to do with my megalomaniac complex, and probably one of the reasons I got into producing. Plus, I have always been fascinated by the permanence of film, and art in general. WLTS is my first feature length film.

K: What are you focusing on these days?

C: Getting ready for the Canadian theatrical release (April 6th), working with our sales team in the US, and building an online community for the film. you too can be our virtual friend. just visit us on myspace, iklipz and imeem, as well as the facebook group who loves the sun-the movie. and, of course, on spout.com. I’ve also been developing some new projects, including two features with Matt. And none of them takes place on an island.

Anne Thompson of the Hoolywood Reporter’s Risky Business column wrote a great piece about how an Indy production costing less than $1 million was able to position itself for a prominent Oscar nomination. It was no accident that Half Nelson star Ryan Gosling is a Best Actor nominee, Thompson says in her column “How ThinkFilm goosed Gosling’s Oscar drive.”

ThinkFilm’s distribution and marketing president Mark Urman “made the decision to pursue a Best Actor Oscar nomination” when ThinkFilm acquired Half Nelson more than a year ago at Sundance 2006. The strategies were put into play. Among them were the film’s August opening (squeezing in ahead of the pack), sending out thousands of DVDs to the Academy and SAG nominating committee, and taking out ads in the LA Times that focused on Gosling as a brilliant new talent. Urman and Gosling also had luck on their side, because the best actor competition was lighter than usual. And, as Thompson quotes Urman in her column, from time to time the Academy likes to take part in the “discovery” of new talent:

Urman, a veteran Oscar marketer who’d played a role in winning campaigns for Lionsgate’s “Gods and Monsters” and “Affliction,” knew that acting nominations for breakthrough newcomer performances are doable. “We all generalize that the Academy is one giant brain,” he says. “But there are trends. There is a steady affection for the discovery, like Julie Christie in ‘Darling.’ The Academy has always enjoyed making an investment in a career.”

Apparently so. Urman’s strategies worked. I’m happy for Gosling and Half Nelson, that an Indy film and emerging actor can play with the big boys. But even while it gives me more faith in the Academy, it simultaneously gives me less. Gosling made it to the short list not as much for his stunning acting talent as for ThinkFilm’s marketing talent and the money they were willing to throw into promotions. It’s still all a big game, which is made even more apparent when you see all the two-columned prediction lists out there–one column for who various critics think will win the top honors, and another column for who they think deserves to win.

This year, Park City, among other things, is abuzz with what the Internet will do to make films accessible that weren’t accessible before. For instance, in the Queer Lounge at Sundance, withoutabox.com announced some basic community tools on their website (blogs, ratings, calendar building) and said they’ll be distributing Arin Crumley and Susan Buice’s film, Four Eyed Monsters, and Jacques Thelemaque’s film, The Dogwalker. Although any details as to how that distribution will work have been inconclusive and murky, it’s enough to generate some attention from people desperate for audiences to have access to more films.

Karina Longworth over at Cinematical interviewed Geoffrey Gilmore, Director of the Sundance Film Festival, earlier this week. His hopes for the Internet and distribution are tempered.

"What are the gates people have to go through? Everyone embraces the fact that there are no gates. Well, that’s terrific on one level, theoretically, but what does it mean? It means there’s a lot of junk out there."

Gilmore says regardless of accessibility, films still have a marketing problem. People need to be able to find out what’s special about the film. So how does the audience find out about its distinctive quality? At Spout we’ve often used the phrase, "Infinite accessibility creates the problem of infinite choice." When confronted by the problem of making a choice from infinite options, we either fall back on what we know is safe or we make no choice at all. Which is why we need gatekeepers.

Geoffrey Gilmore is a gatekeeper. He’s the ultimate decision-maker for what’s programmed at Sundance. In the interview earlier this week, he came across as a benevolent gatekeeper: He judges films on what they set out to do and whether or not they did it well. If a film is shot on digital video he asks, "Is the film better because it’s shot on DV?" Other gatekeepers are not so benevolent. Hollywood studios are gatekeepers allowing through only movies that stand to put money in their pockets, regardless of quality. Withoutabox.com is another kind of gatekeeper. Somebody over there is deciding what will be distributed and what won’t. The 35 year-old film geek who runs the local video shop is a gatekeeper. All of these people decide somewhere along the way whether or not a certain film will reach you.

Gatekeepers are people who put the film on your radar. Whether through a national advertising campaign, a film festival, or a simple recommendation, they are the connecting point. The beautiful thing about a gatekeeper, like Geoffrey Gilmore or the video shop guy, is they don’t just grant the films they love permission to pass through their gates. They become champions for those films. At Spout, we’re not opening the floodgates for infinite accessibility. We’re providing a platform for gatekeepers of all walks to come and champion the films they love to their widest possible audience. When audiences have an infinite number of films to choose from, we think they’ll want access to gatekeepers more than they’ll want access to films.