Hit & Miss: How the Recession is Affecting Hollywood Even as Ticket Sales Rise

With the unveiling of the new School of Cinematic Arts building that I discussed last week and the continuous on campus construction projects it would appear that USC is recession proof. Unfortunately despite an increase in ticket sales, Hollywood is not. In the last few days the economic crisis and its long term effects have been the hot topic among entertainment bloggers so it is with much consternation that I turn my focus back to the industry. As with most Americans, I am worried about the situation and the impact it is having on my career choice and my ability to make a living after graduation. Even though there have been several hit films released since January, including this week’s The Fast and The Furious 4 which far surpassed expectations, companies continue to lay off employees and scale back production schedules. However during my search of the blogosphere I came across one writer who was less concerned about the viability of the film and television business than what certain hit movies are currently representing to studio executives in this time of strife. In a post entitled “Down Economy = Dumbed Down Movies/TV? Stop the Inanity!” Mark Harris, the author of The Final Cut blog on Entertainmentweekly.com, dissects the industry’s definition of escapism, the dangers lurking behind the box office boom and why producers are underestimating their audiences. Elsewhere in the blogosphere, Kim Masters, a contributor for The Daily Beast delved into how the recession is affecting actors' salaries and perks in a post entitled “Haggling With the Stars.” Both articles analyze the recession as it applies to a particular facet of Hollywood rather than trying to broadly cover its affect on the whole industry. I responded to both blogs on their individual sites (linked above) but for convenience I will include my comments below.

“Down Economy = Dumbed Down Movies/TV? Stop the Inanity!”
Comment

Thank you for your comprehensive post regarding the general effects the recession is having on the entertainment business and specifically its impact on the quality of films that are being produced now and in the future. I agree with your assessment that the industry is using the success of recent undeserving “comfort food” movies, just to further the “Hollywood agenda — a desire to shun challenging material in favor of easily replicable formula product — disguis[ing it], offensively, as a capitulation to popular demand”. I also concur that contrary to what insiders think and have deduced from recent box office returns “pop culture has more of a responsibility to be stimulating, exciting, engaging, and even challenging, not just anesthetizing” during these times of economic hardship. People desire a break from the stress of their daily lives but this does not mean they want to see bad entertainment. All films are a form of escapism but does that justify low rent humor and gag jokes? How is simplicity or stupidity a means of coping with our problems? Today in the age of technology, with the internet enabling communication at lightning speed and the expansion of the public vs. private sphere via a myriad of social networking sites I believe people have a greater capacity for knowledge, it takes more to shock them and they are better able to understand complicated plots and multiple story arcs. In order to really engage viewers you need to keep current and reflect this greater breath of information and technology. As you so aptly point out the depression era boom in ticket sales was partly a result of the addition of sound. This new ambitious technology attracted viewers because it added a new dimension to film, enhancing the subject matter and enriching the storyline. As I mentioned in a previous post, 3-D has been this recession’s new addition but its high price tag has impeded its success as exemplified by Twentieth Century Fox, who is refusing to contribute to the cost of 3-D glasses for its upcoming releases.

However if it is true that audiences want more out of their pop culture offerings, how does one explain the recent success of Paul Blart: Mall Cop(pictured above) and Knowing? You say that there will always be audiences for the “mindless crap” but the large turnout for the above mentioned movies seems to indicate there may be another phenomenon in play. Do you think it was the lack of options at the box office that boosted these numbers or is there more to this story? If audiences are indeed becoming fonder of the mindless, where does that leave the more sophisticated viewers? Is there no longer pop culture content that can satisfy them? I contend that there are still talented directors like the Coen Brothers, Sam Mendes and Quentin Tarantino who continue to explore exotic stories, breach the mainstream, and push boundaries. However in the face of high costs and R ratings and the seeming success of inexpensive to produce slapstick will there be continued demand for and funding of the type of innovative and insightful films they make?

“Haggling With the Stars”
Comment

Thank you for your interesting article about the effects of the recession on actors, their salaries and their celebrity perks. For years it seemed outrageous the amount of money, and additional benefits i.e. private planes, massages, personal chefs etc. that were being demanded by stars and “after years of impotent promises to choke off rich deals with talent, the studios are finally making it happen.” As you correctly assess “the global financial crisis has given them the lever to do it” and it also gave them the urgency. Even so, I am actually surprised at how swiftly and thoroughly this transformation has occurred. This time last year Scarlet Johansson refused to attend the Cannes Film festival to premiere her project Vicky Christina Barcelona because the studio was not willing to meet her demands to stay in a separate hotel, have a private chauffeur and pay for her private makeup artist. Perhaps it was because no one missed Scarlet at this particular event that she herself got a wakeup call to tone down her own antics. However, I am still aghast that both she and Mickey Rourke are making far less money for their roles in Iron Man 2 than one would expect for actors of their stature. Even with price cuts being made throughout the industry, Scarlet Johansson(pictured alongside and image of the Black Widow which she will be playing in Iron Man 2) is a very famous actress and Mickey Rourke was the it-boy of Hollywood this year, nominated for best actor at almost every awards ceremony for his role in The Wrestler. Even if their parts in Iron Man 2 “buff up their images” and secure “possible future roles in films featuring their characters” it is hard to imagine them taking these roles for so little money when they have the Hollywood clout to be fielding bigger offers every day. But perhaps that is the problem. While the movie business is still doing well in this down economy, the corporations that own the studios are suffering tremendously. Given these financial woes, less films are going into production, which means fewer roles are available for actors. Do you have any information on whether Johansson or Rourke have been receiving offers to do other movies or is the competition too fierce and their prices too high that most producers are turning elsewhere? Do you believe that more parts are being offered to unknown actors to save on expenses? Although newcomers do not have the same box office draw as well established celebrities, they can be hired at a much cheaper cost. Lastly, do you think these substantial cost cutting measures will affect the various genres of film or do you think it will be limited to this type of comic-book movie, where studio heads “feel like whoever they put in a part is fine?” In the case of the latter the Studio has a stronger advantage in negotiations versus in smaller movies where the actors, rather than long beloved characters, are the audience draw and therefore will be better positioned to demand a higher salary.

The New Cinema School: Wave of the Future or Death of an Art?

For previous posts I have looked to the entertainment industry for material on the latest developments but this week, with the official unveiling of the new School of Cinematic Arts (SCA) building and the accompanying fundraiser for the four facilities still under construction, it appears that Hollywood's eyes are focused on USC. I will take this opportunity to follow suit. This weekend the new SCA complex was shut down to students and vamped up for its official coming out party. Celebrities, studio heads, and potential donors were on hand to celebrate with faculty, board members and of course our benefactor George Lucas (pictured). On March 26th and 29th Variety featured articles about the event. This past February, the New York Times also wrote about the new building, emphasizing that an "institution long known for close ties to Hollywood's movie and television business is demanding its place in the academic tradition." Founded in 1929 as a collaboration between the University and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the USC film school was the first program in the country to offer a bachelor of arts degree in film and has since remained on the cutting edge of the industry while continuously being ranked as one of the top institution in the nation. Nevertheless there is currently a growing concern that USC has become a sort of vocational school, training its students to become technicians in order to fill certain crew positions rather than fostering innovative filmmakers and encouraging the true auteur with an original point of view and a unique vision. The new edifice, an over the top monstrosity of technology reflects this growing issue and raises the question of whether USC will continue to produce the successful future filmmakers of America or if its emphasis on technology will stifle individual creativity and artistry.

Over the years USC has kept pace with advancements in editing and sound manipulation and will continue to do so in the new state of the art facilities. However, success has come at the expense of more traditional curricular offerings. Such a trend became alarmingly apparent this semester when a core course of the graduate program, CTPR 508, a class in which students are paired up to shoot two short movies on 16mm film stock, was changed to a digital HD format. There is no longer a requirement for graduate students to capture their own projects on the medium of film and it appears that the undergraduate program's comparable class CTPR 310 will suffer the same fate. Having personally taken this course and learned much from it I feel its absence will diminish the SCA student's experience. The cameras used in these classes do not record noise so it is the responsibility of the filmmaker to separately record, edit and mix all the sounds—footsteps, clothes rustling, breathing, special effects, et cetera—in order to create the world on screen. This course teaches students the power of the soundtrack, the importance of good visual and audio communication versus reliance on dialogue alone to communicate the storyline. By shooting on HD, the students record conversation and ambiance on set and are allowed up to forty percent of their film to be comprised of on-camera speech. In 2001, when writing about the Robert Zemeckis Center, the first SCA digital film building, journalist Rick Lyman contended that “digital data is much more elastic than film images, frozen on celluloid. A director can shift the perspective of a scene, add a fresh camera movement, alter an actor's performance, transfer the location from Red Square to Times Square, speed up time, [and] slow it down.” As a result of these capabilities the “we will fix it in post” mantra is heard far too often in film school rather than preparing students to effectively plan their shooting schedules or intelligently address problems that pop up on set. Lyman also spoke to Myrl Schreibman, an academic administrator at UCLA’s film school who believes “that creativity flourishes with limitations and restrictions, and if you give schools all the bells and whistles, they stop focusing on content and instead focus on what the bells and whistles can do.” Ability to shoot HD may be a valuable skill to master but SCA is a cinema school and film is still an art form, not just the medium around which an industry was created. Learning to shoot 16mm is essential in teaching students lighting, experimental filmmaking and good storytelling.

Sean Berens, a contributor to USC’s AngeBlongo writes that “the front gates of the new building[pictured] are deliberately meant to look like a studio. What those gates will soon be producing are people equipped to work in studios.” I agree that it seems that SCA, and according to the New York Times writer Sharon Waxman, most film programs, "rather than a breeding ground for auteurs, ha[ve] become a path to a professional career in Hollywood, a foot in the door and a place to make connections."The training we receive places greater emphasis on a given technical expertise rather than storytelling as a whole. I came here to learn how to fully express myself artistically, but over the years I have felt the growing pressure to focus on a specific skill set rather than learning as much as possible about the entire process. Currently on the “producing track,” I have found myself considering doing sound editing on an advanced project to ensure that I graduate with a marketable skill in a less competitive field than directing or producing. While I understand that the mastery of technical skills is beneficial for many film students who always hoped to, or after having taking certain classes decided to, pursue careers in editing or sound design, I feel it is premature for me to give up my dreams and already resign myself to being completely practical as I have been trained to do. While Dean Daley told the New York Times in February that the program and the new building is “very holistic,” and that “we’re not here just to train a cameraman” she was previously quoted in 2006 in the same publication as saying that "we would like to see every student who leaves here have an employable skill." So which is it? Is USC providing us with vocational skills or training the next Spike Lee, Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola? Ideally we would like the education to teach both but with the new program changes in effect, finding a proper balance has not yet been achieved.

This is especially challenging on the undergraduate level, where students do not make thesis films that showcase their talents as writer/directors. Currently the most advanced course in the program is CTPR-480 (or its television based equivalent CTPR-486). Comprised of forty-eight students who work in crews of twelve to complete four twelve-minute films, each member has a specific position much like on a real film production, and the goal is learn to perform one’s function professionally. Each semester only four are chosen to direct and it is a highly competitive process, especially since most students come to school with the goal of becoming a director. Many who do not get this opportunity feel at a disadvantage when they are seeking industry employment. While USC requires that students wait until their second year to begin production classes, in other film programs like NYU/Tisch and CalArts students begin making films in their freshman year. As a result they are able to complete more projects and benefit from those additional learning experiences. Furthermore, according to Film School Confidential UCLA students begin crewing on upper division projects as first years as well as work directly in the industry when they are in their final semesters therefore they “come out with quite a few films under their belt and often some professional credits to their names.” UCLA seems to have reached a balance between content, technical skills and creating relationships with the industry. Lastly, Film School Confidential makes the assessment that USC is “heavily geared toward Hollywood-style filmmaking and focuses far more on getting jobs- on technical training and on pitching ideas to agents and studio executives-than it does on actually writing and directing compelling films.” While other film schools concentrate on story development and nurturing autuers, USC is about teaching the business and technical aspects, all of which are meaningless if you don’t have an engaging story to tell or the creative skills to flesh it out.

What is most interesting is how Lucas himself views this complex. At the unveiling he told the crowd "[w]e're now officially a legitimate school--at least, we look like one," and in February he was quoted in the New York Times as saying “[t]he only way you are going to get respect on a college campus, or a university campus, is to build something that is important. Schools and universities mainly understand money.” He felt this building would bring legitimacy to SCA and to film as a major but as I have argued above, it seems to be promoting more of a vocational rather than a creative agenda. Furthermore the students find the building impersonal and confusing. They cannot park their bikes inside, bring coffee into class, or smoke on the balconies. Until preparation for the unveiling went into full swing the walls were white and totally bare, making the hallways appear labyrinth like. The facilities are not working properly—the high tech projectors are not correctly calibrated and they warp the image one has worked so hard to capture. A trip to the editing lab generally involves changing computers at least once due to technical difficulties. The new building is glitzy but glitchy. These latter problems can all be remedied with additional work on the complex but the bigger issue of fostering vocationalism and promoting creativity simultaneously, and not one at the expense of the other, remains the greater challenge. Whereas at present the scale is tipped in favor of occupational skills over artistry, only time will tell what the new edifice will ultimately succeed in building for the future of the USC film program and its student body.

Fan Me!: A Look at Entertainment Advertising on the Web

As a film production major at the University of Southern California I have learned that a producer's work doesn't begin or end with the making of a film. A producer must also oversee the advertising, marketing, distribution, and promotion of a film. For that reason I decided this week to return to the blogosphere to research details on the process of marketing television shows and movies. Since I am working, with this blog, within the confines of the world wide web, I have chosen to seek out and comment on blogs that address how entertainment is being advertised on the web. I looked at both the broad subject, with a post from Variety entitled "Entertainment Brands Get Equal Footing with People on Facebook" that analyzed how television shows and films will now use Facebook user profiles as advertising, as well as the specific, with the post "Who Will Watch The Watchmen?" that dissects Watchmen's viral campaign. "Entertainment Brands Get Equal Footing with People on Facebook" was written by Ben Fritz for his "Technotainment" blog on Variety.com where he writes about digital media, technology and gadgets from the Hollywood perspective. Fritz is the videogame reviews editor for Variety, the editor of the satirical website Dateline Hollywood and co-author of the New York Times best seller "All the President's Spin". "Who Will Watch The Watchmen?" was written by Gillian Reagan, a writer for the New York Observer, a weekly printed newspaper in New York that is updated daily on the web. Both writers contribute to respectable publications that are both in print and on-line. Although Variety is the more popular of the two in the entertainment industry, both posts address the subject intellectually, make comparisons to the past, and incorporate links to models and outside sources. Reagan specifically includes many hyperlinks to the Watchmen campaign. I have posted my comments directly on these blogs but for convenience I am also including them and links to where they can be found, below.

"Entertainment Brands Get Equal Footing with People on Facebook"
Comment

As a college age student I have had experience with Facebook and have joined and participated in some of these old "fan" pages in anticipation of a film release or a television series debut. I found it very interesting to learn that these entertainment brands switched their Facebook interface. While I agree that the older fan pages limited the amount of information consumers received about the product I believe that these pages were beneficial because they were interactive and spearheaded by a community of fans. Even before fan pages were officially added to Facebook, users formed groups that honored their favorite films like Garden State(fan group pictured above) or Igby Goes Down (group names include Igby Goes Down=God and Igby Goes Down > Garden State). Not all of the information on these pages was official nor was it even comprehensive but they were user driven, fan created and therefore conveyed the attitudes of and feedback from those praising or critiquing the films and shows. Taking these fan pages out of the hands of users and putting them into the hands of big companies as you cited with the South Park example, is expressly counter to the idea of user driven social networking. I think you are right to lament that "letting brands own their pages is, of course one step further away from Facebook's original mission to let Harvard students post individual profiles". I wish you had included in your post information regarding whether these companies pay for these pages. However either way I disagree with Facebook allowing these fan sites to be taken over by the brands at the expense of user control. I think the monetary issue is an important one that should have been addressed in this post. Do you think they are paying for these pages? If they are, do you think this is appropriate for a social networking site?

Additionally, you claim that "for entertainment brands like movies, TV shows, and bands, engaging with fans on one of the two biggest social networks just got a lot more powerful." Do you think that fans really want to join a fan site that is monitored by the brand when they could speak more freely and openly on their own site or form their own group? Additionally, how many users are actually using a site like facebook to look up information on a film when they can access more accurate and detailed information from Imdb.com, or any other movie specific site? What is the benefit of having a page like this on a social networking site which most people use to keep in touch with friends and meet new people? Even if they join a fan page, do most of these users actually interact on a regular basis or contribute to these pages? If not what's the point? It is very easy to click, add and forget.

"Who Will Watch the Watchmen?"
Comment

I am glad someone else in the blogosphere was perplexed and disappointed by Watchmen's viral campaign. As a film student and an avid comic book movie fan I was excited and enthralled by the initial Watchmen trailer. Even though I am not a huge fan of viral marketing nor am I an expert on the subject, I was curious about what Warner Brothers would roll out for the Watchmen campaign after the hugely successful "Why So Serious?" campaign accompanied The Dark Night's release last year. Having never read the Watchmen graphic novel I expected to get introduced to the comic book from the online campaign anticipating that it would reveal even more about the movie. However, like you, I felt the campaign fell short. I found I had to seek out and search for the campaign which had failed to become part of mainstream "must watch" pop-culture. Additionally, I agree with your assessment that "most of the material is too complicated, self-referential and obscure to attract a mainstream audience-and that may also be what is wrong with the Watchmen movie itself." Like you, I found that the campaign preached to the choir in that it did more to appeal to existing devotees rather than attract new fans, a complaint that I have read elsewhere about the film itself. Having since seen the film, I do agree.

As you touch on in your article, the online community was more excited by the casting and production news about the film than the actual viral campaign(one web site is pictured above) advertising its content. Do you think this says something about the effectiveness of viral campaigns in general or do you think it is specific to the shortcomings and mistakes of this particular campaign? If you do think it is specific to this campaign, as you seem to indicate in your article, what would you have done differently to improve the campaign? Do you think the timing of the campaign impeded its success? The Dark Knight campaign, which you praise in your article, was implemented at least eight months prior to the film's release whereas the Watchmen campaign began in mid-January approximately seven weeks before the film's debut, thereby limiting its promotional value to entice future movie goers. Despite this possible misstep the question remains, given the complicated nature of the film's content could Watchmen have ever really succeeded in becoming part of mainstream culture?

Project Presents: For the New Pilot Season, AFTRA Is In and SAG Is Out!

Last year’s crippling writers’ strike is still fresh in the minds of both Hollywood power players and the American public who witnessed all new and original television content disappear practically overnight. True, each show had a few episodes in store that were shot prior to the strike, which the producers were able to economically debut at varying intervals to maximize the number of weeks remaining before the shows went into indefinite repeats, but overall the strike’s effects were devastating to both the industry and the media-consuming public alike. No one wants a repeat of what transpired, especially in the present economic downturn, but with SAG, the Screen Actor’s Guild, and the AMPTP, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, currently unable to reach an agreement in their negotiations of SAG’s new contract, this remains a real possibility. Even more troubling than their failure to reach an agreement is the success of AFTRA (The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) in signing a separate agreement last summer with the AMPTP in lieu of teaming up with SAG to negotiate jointly as it has previously done. As a result of AFTRA’s success and SAG’s unresolved negotiations, those in charge of the approaching 2009 pilot season are increasingly choosing AFTRA contracts over those of SAG. Fifty of the seventy pilots that have been greenlit for filming and network presentation are doing so under AFTRA—sending a message to SAG that they better settle negotiations quickly, or lose out on the season altogether. The more AFTRA shows are made the less power SAG has to negotiate with now and—if AFTRA becomes the increasingly popular choice beyond this season—in the future. Indeed, there are already indications of a more permanent utilization of AFTRA contracts in primetime television

Whereas in the past there was a clear distinction between the two unions—AFTRA represented television and radio artists and SAG solely covered feature film contracts—recently both unions have begun taking on projects in all three categories, blurring the distinctions between each while simultaneously expanding the competition for jobs. What makes AFTRA so appealing to Hollywood executives right now is the security it offers. For almost a year SAG has been plagued by infighting due to dissenting opinions within its own bureaucracy. Richard Verrier points to the strides SAG is making to address and ameliorate their internal problems, specifically by ousting Doug Allen, the former chief negotiator and a strong advocate of striking, in the hopes that his removal would bring a resolution of the negotiations, but as of yet no progress has been made. However, with the television world securing alternatives and moving forward without SAG, even if the organization were to strike, they have lost much of their bargaining power. The best strategic tactic any union has is the ability to picket, but as the general population felt with the writers, television is where the audience first experiences the impact. While the industry recognizes the immediate ramifications of a motion picture actor’s walkout, because it means shutting down production on all films, the American public and international audiences do not see any tangible effects for one or two years, when new movie debuts cease. The film content slated for 2009 and 2010 has already been shot, and studios will have to release them on schedule in order to keep revenue flowing. Absent the backlash from the general population that affected the writers’ negotiations, SAG would have difficulty gaining an upper hand by imposing a boycott. Furthermore, during the writer’s walkout last year, Dave McNary wrote in Variety that the support of SAG and the Director’s Guild was key in solidifying a WGA (Writers Guild of America) win; yet according to Patrick Goldstein, SAG would not get much support right now because of the recession, but more importantly he argues that “when the WGA went on strike, there was a true sense of solidarity with other guilds, notably SAG, based on the feeling that the studios had pushed things too far…the WGA had the high moral ground. SAG today doesn't have similar support.” If the perception of intransigence on the part of SAG members persists and if the union’s reputation as being difficult to deal with continues there might very well be a repeat of AFTRA dominance even after SAG has worked out its issues.

What may in the end cement AFTRA’s return to primetime dominance is its positive impact on the bottom line. All AFTRA projects are required to be shot on non-film mediums, which led to its success in the 1960s and 1970s when recording multi-camera comedies on video was the norm. When the cost of film processing declined shortly thereafter the industry shifted back to celluloid. However with the current boom in HD technology and the new RED camera, a digital tool that looks like thirty-five mm, going back to alternative formats for television seems like a smart and convenient way to cut one to two percent of production budgets without cutting production value or jobs. Cheaper costs mean more profit for the networks and studios, which is important right now especially with online downloading and video streaming stealing television viewers and advertisers. The most important thing is to keep the industry working and delivering to its audiences, who have been faithful. Since the beginning of 2009, movie ticket sales have been up17.5% and theater attendance has risen 16%, indicating that while the rest of the country is experiencing the hard hits of the recession Hollywood is booming. Accordingly, studios should be investing in new projects, but the possibility of a SAG walkout is keeping them at bay, worried that a strike could push Hollywood into financial crisis. If this were to happen, a backlash would most certainly ensue, leaving SAG even more alienated than it already is. In the end, money talks, and it will continue speaking long after SAG has a new contract. The best suggestion to SAG would be to keep negotiating, settle quickly, and avoid any disruptive strikes, because in this town, when you’re out, you’re out.

Oscar Gold? How This Year’s Academy Awards Measured Up

As a film student, I can wholeheartedly admit that I have hoped and dreamed that some day I will walk down the red carpet dressed in a designer gown reveling in my Academy Award nomination. Of course actually winning the coveted statue would be the icing on the cake — but I would settle for the nomination! I will even admit that I spent twelve hours on set on Oscar Sunday, wrapped filming at 10:00pm and then proceeded with my crew to watch the TiVoed Award Ceremony late into the night. That is how big a deal the Oscars are to industry insiders and prospective filmmakers despite the fact that for years there have been rumblings that the Academy Awards are outdated; no longer reflecting popular culture, mainstream sensibilities and box office returns. In no previous year has the rumbling been as loud as this year. A thunderstorm of controversy surrounded this year’s picks. Criticism and disappointment were the sentiments expressed around town when The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan’s artful and epic comic book-but more than a comic book- film, was NOT nominated for Best Picture nor was Nolan recognized in the Best Director category. Admittedly, the film nabbed eight nominations, mostly in technical categories and one in the best supporting category for the late, great Heath Ledger. However because the film was adapted from a comic book and featured action and explosions it wasn’t deemed serious or artful or thought-provoking enough?

The disconnect between the Oscars and mainstream audiences both widened (as shown above) and narrowed (nominated animated movies made for children grossed hundreds of millions) this year but still the Oscars seem to remain detached from the public, boring to watch and increasingly political. The Oscars are no longer just about the films or about the art form. I scoured the web before and after the awards and found that many people both agree and disagree with me. I decided to examine their posts on the subject and respond with my own thoughts, which I felt would be beneficial to share below. Sean Penn’s “surprise upset” (which wasn’t really an upset) in the Best Actor Category intrigued me because of its political undertones. I chose to examine a post by Ron and Anna Winship, written before the Oscars, entitled “Why Sean Penn Should Win the Oscar!” Then early this morning I found another article that weighed both the pros and cons of the Oscar show on Ken Tucker’s Watching TV page on EntertainmentWeekly.com entitled “The Oscars: Congrats to the winners! The TV show is finally over!” For convenience I have posted links to the blogs below and my own comments.

"Why Sean Penn Should Win the Oscar!"
Comment

While I applaud your efforts to persuade the public to overcome homophobic attitudes and go see Milk, and I concur that Sean Penn’s portrayal of Harvey Milk— the first openly gay official elected to public office in the United States— was powerful, moving and effective I feel that his now Oscar win had little to do with that performance and more to do with current Hollywood Politics. As a political blog you may be ok with that but as a filmmaker that is not the purpose of the Academy Awards. Released in mid-December, Milk came out on the heels of the outrage regarding the passage of California’s Proposition 8 and I believe his win is more a reaction to those events. Sean Penn delivers in this role, perhaps even better than his fellow nominees but this award was not about his acting, or his craft, it was about Hollywood sending a message.

When Prop 8 passed the loudest outcry in California came from the entertainment industry. Penn received a standing ovation for his win but watching the awards, as you looked at the crowd cheering for Mr. Penn, they were really cheering for themselves. This moment was their moment of redemption, not just for Prop 8 but for the Academy snubbing Brokeback Mountain, a superior film, three years ago. Although Brokeback won three out of the eight awards it was nominated for, it is widely believed that Hollywood wasn’t then ready for a homosexual-themed film to sweep the awards(Though I will admit, “Milk” didn’t get to Sweep the awards but it would have had it not been for underdog “Slumdog Millionaire”). Milk, was the academy’s opportunity to make amends, an attitude spurred by Prop 8. Apparently it only took another three years for the Academy to be prepared to take such an action. Even Heath Ledger’s academy award for best supporting actor, which was well deserved and whose worth should not be diminished, was tied to his Brokeback Mountain performance. His immersion into his Brokeback role was just as deep, haunting and mesmerizing as his role as the Joker. Last night was Ledger’s last opportunity for an Oscar and the Academy made sure he got one in appreciation of his trade craft as reflected in his entire repertoire of work. Both Sean Penn and Heath Ledger are amazing actors worthy of their accolades, awards and recognition but by politicizing the Oscars you are diminishing the art and honestly modern films are already achieving that on their own(Fire Up anyone?). Politics need not assist them in that endeavor.

Lastly I would like to say that contrary to everyone exalting Sean Penn’s acceptance speech I found it crude. Harvey Milk believed in showing homophobes that homosexuals were the every man, and thus they were equal, not in “shaming” his opponents. Penn’s tone suggested to me his own personal hate crusade. Ron and Anna, I wonder what you think about Penn now that he has won. You praised the film for its portrayal of effective community activism. Is this what you had in mind, “shaming” the opponent? I am sure you didn’t. Make no mistake; I am strictly opposed to Proposition 8 and any other existing legislation of its type anywhere in our nation however I felt Penn’s remarks were not appropriate for the time and place. On the other hand, Milk screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black, gave one of the most heartfelt and touching speeches of the night proving you can be insightful, thought provoking, and effectively promote a cause in a more graceful and gracious manner.

“The Oscars: Congrats to the winners! The TV show is finally over!”
Comment- (For this one I was unfortunately not able to fit my comments in just one post and had to post three times. You should read the first(as in the third down), second, and third in that order if you link to the page)

Where has all the sparkle of the Oscars gone? I enjoyed your quips, observations and occasional compliment on the show but I do wonder why you didn’t further lament over the fact that there were no surprises at this year’s Oscars. Japan’s Departures wining out over early favorites France’s The Class and Israel’s Waltz with Bashir was the only upset of the evening. The rest of the awards went to the expected choices, leaving Oscar betters satisfied but not excited about the winner who snuck in. When did the Oscars and thus the industry get so predictable?

More importantly when did the Academy get so bad at producing its own show? There were awkward montages, brief and lackluster performances, long winded introductions, and a rambling off of categories. Yes, there were moments, as you pointed out of hilarity, brilliance, and beauty, but overall the supposedly revamped and abbreviated (?) Oscars were a fumble. Why Ken, in your professional opinion, do you think the show came up so short? I would like to hear a more specific analysis from you.

I know that the Producers tried to condense the show this year to make it more accessible and less boring to viewers. They made it shorter but they didn’t restructure it correctly. I know it was a first attempt but I think many missteps were made. They kept long drawn out montages which featured movies not nominated and which did not cut well together. I can only assume this was their attempt to incorporate more mainstream material into the snooty Oscars but specifically during the Best Picture Montages it did not work. (Raging Bull and Milk intercut?) Additionally, in their effort to shorten the show they threw together all of the technical categories spitting them out one after another. It has been proposed to take these out of the televised show but in my opinion that isn’t right. Yes, I am biased as a film student but the people working in these categories deserve recognition. Their work is integral to the success of the film experience.

My final lament about this year’s Oscars (though I have plenty more) were the performances of Best Song. I know that you Ken said you are not a big spectacle person but this was a section I felt should not be cut down to a mere minute. These performances are a long standing tradition. Go ahead and make some cool remix that slides from one to the other but please let the song play out. My personal highlight of the night? That had to be Kunio Kato’s, the director of Le Maison en Petits Cubes(pictured to the left), acceptance speech which he so artfully ended with “Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto”. Now there’s a guy who knows how to have fun! I nominated him to direct the show next year.

Seeing in 3-D: The Challenges of Creating a Film Renaissance in a Recession

Since its inception, the film industry has used innovative new technologies such as feature length narratives, sound and color to attract movie theater goers. When television drew audiences away from the movies, early 3-D films and cinemascope and widescreen formats were implemented to appeal to the public and lure them back into theaters. Today’s leading film executives are hoping that new 3-D films will once again entice viewers to get off their couches and computers and head back into the multiplexes. Though by no means a new technology, 3-D films— which have been mostly non-existent in mainstream Hollywood for almost twenty years, but have enjoyed prominence in IMAX— are now experiencing a resurgence in popularity and industry focus. In part this development results from the success of the IMAX 3-D release of The Polar Express in 2004 and last year’s smash hit Disney’s Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus, The Best of Both Worlds 3D Concert Event which grossed over seventy million dollars. The Jonas Brothers, also successful Disney protégés, are following in the footsteps of Miley Cyrus by currently promoting their own IMAX 3-D Concert which will be released on Feb. 27th. The 81st annual Oscars -which will take place this Sunday- nominated two 3-D films, This Way Up and Bolt for best animated short and best animated feature length film respectfully. Additionally, Coraline(poster pictured above), an animated short being praised for its unique visuals and integrated use of 3-D debuted at number three at the box office its opening weekend and has remained in the top five, averaging the second highest grossing per screen revenue. In the summer of 2008 at the Intel Developed Forum (IDF) Jeffrey Katzenberg announced that 3-D is the “greatest innovation to occur in the movie business in 70 years,” and the great success of theses films does seem to support his claims but overall box office attendance still remains down and industry reliance on new 3-D films as their economic savior seems doubtful and almost irresponsible. As the economic crisis deepens the costs of creating these films, distributing them, and equipping multiplexes with the technology to screen them continues to grow. These increase costs have contributed to the rise in 3-D ticket prices at a time when the public is being seriously challenged by the current state of the economy. While film has always been a tool of escapism from the hardships of life it is doubtful that the 3-D renaissance will have the same opportunity to succeed as Katzenberg and others envision given the realities of the current recession.

The Polar Express 3-D film was screened at IMAX theaters but now that the film industry is promoting 3-D films as the new norm— with the upcoming releases of Monster vs. Alien, Avatar, G Force, Up, Final Destination 4 and the current releases of My Bloody Valentine and Coraline, all in 3-D,— regular multiplexes must adapt to the new digital 3-D technology or risk loosing substantial business. Even small independent theaters, which operate in specific market niches, are becoming 3-D equipped in order to remain competitive with other movie theaters and elaborate home entertainment systems. While 3-D is being exalted as the new frontier theaters are putting themselves at risk by investing in these expensive technologies before there is proof that 3-D is sustainable and not a passing fad.

In the fall of 2008 as AMC, Cinemark and Regal, the three largest theater chains in the US, were seeking to borrow money for digital 3-D conversion the world economy went into financial meltdown and the multimillion dollars worth of credit they needed disappeared, leaving only 22% of the 5,620 designated screens converted to 3-D digital. This left theaters ill equipped to receive the 3-D films they were meant to exhibit in the coming months and left studios without exhibition spaces for their films. With the release dates of multiple 3-D films quickly approaching the film industry went into panic mode trying to devise a way to still achieve wide releases(and thus profits) when only about 1,200 screens nationwide were 3-D ready. This disaster echoed the words of Knowledge @ Wharton who voiced fear in 2008 that theaters would not be ready in time for the influx of 3-D films. At the end of January, Paramount stepped up and is offering to pay “a specified "virtual" print fee to theater owners that convert at least 50% of screens to digital; the fee is higher for screens converted to 3-D”. Under this plan at least 2,000 screens should be 3-D ready in time for the films’ premieres and although studios planned for a larger screen count per the original conversion plan they are making it work and hoping that their bottom line isn’t too negatively impacted. Paramount itself is taking a huge risk financing these theaters but it is also hopefully leading a trend in Hollywood that others will follow. By financing 3-D and thus digital conversion it is preparing for Hollywood’s eventual shift to (film-print -free) digital exhibitions that will ultimately cost studios less money printing the film.

RealD is the industry leader in both converting 2-D theaters to 3-D and supplying equipment for 3-D filmmaking. Filmmakers are spending an extra $10-15 million dollars using this technology in their films and theaters are spending about $100,000 to upgrade a single screen from a standard 2-D to 3-D theater with an annual licensing and maintenance cost of about $25,000-30,000 per screen. The burden of these costs is being increasingly passed along to individual moviegoers who are expected to pay premium ticket prices for these films. While a normal 2-D movie has an average ticket price of $7.18, 3-D movie tickets had an average price of $15 in 2008 and they are expected to rise.

Back in 2007 Foxnews.com reported that Regal Entertainment Group said “moviegoers made no complaint about paying premium ticket prices [for 3-D] that were $2.50 to $4 higher than regular tickets”. Web Users disagree. Andrew James of rowthree.com was outraged by the $2 rental fee he was unexpectedly charged upon arriving at the theater to see Coraline. Even more troubling was Marina Antunes, who spent $30 for a ticket to My Bloody Valentine. Audiences are already feeling the pinch of raised movie tickets prices, and these additional 3-D charges could be their breaking point. By increasing their output of 3-D films studios expect a larger return, but by releasing so many 3-D movies studios may be driving audiences out of theaters with their premium prices.
Additionally, the draw of 3-D as an experience unique to the theater is quickly disappearing. Next3d.com is advertising HD quality 3-D content available at home through the X-box system. They claim that their technology could be ready as early as this spring and interest in such technology will only increase as moviegoers once again crave cheaper at-home alternatives to movie theaters. More importantly, studios and production companies themselves will need to utilize such technology in order for audiences to screen their 3-D films at home since the majority of movie studios make their revenue from DVDs sales and television licensing deals. It is ironic that studios must have a part in developing and utilizing the very technology that will ultimately draw its audience away from theaters.

Jeffrey Katzenberg honestly believes a new age of cinema is upon us. "The first [was] when movies went from silent films to talkies, and the second is when they went from black and white to color," he says. "And I believe what we are facing as an opportunity today is as great as either of those were.” He predicts that in "less than a handful of years," the great majority of films will be made and shown in 3-D. 3-D movies were always where the medium of film was thought to be headed and they will have their day, whether it is now or after the economic crisis. With a dozen 3-D films being released this year 2009 will be the year of 3-D irrespective of their individual success. However the question remains will 3-D be able to sustain itself after 2009, after its novelty has worn off and its technology has been spread to the masses? Only time and maybe Three Dimensional glasses (pictures above)will tell.

Film Exposure: A Look at Web Based Film and Television Resources

As a cinephile there is nothing more difficult than deciding what film to watch. There are always just too many I want to see. In determining which films to screen I rely heavily on the world wide web which provides sites that offer detailed reviews and production news. At times the abundance of film or entertainment related articles on the web can seem overwhelming and the material presented is often repetitive. As a new member of the blogosphere I scoured the web using search engines like Google, Blog Flux and Technorati, in order to find relevant websites and blogs that I can draw from for my own posts and which I am sharing in the linkroll to the left. I decided to give an introduction to these sites in my first blog post(ever!). In order to maintain a level of accountability and professionalism when choosing the website for my linkroll I used the Webby Awards and IMSA criteria as guidelines. The Webby Awards criteria requires one to review the visual design and interactivity of a site to determine whether it is stimulating to the reader and easy to navigate while maintaining convincing authorship. IMSA criteria is more specific to the Blog world. It stresses the importance of any blog author being experienced in his/her field and requires that he/she use factual and established sources for their articles while honestly admitting their biases and responding to them. The first links that I added to my Linkroll were Variety (pictured above), The Hollywood Reporter, and Entertainment Weekly, all of which are respected trade papers of the entertainment industry. IndieWire is similar to theses sites except that it focuses solely on independent films. SlashFilm is an alternative movie news and review blog that has been cited by major media sources like CNN and BBC while Thompson On Hollywood is the daily blog written by Ann Thompson, the deputy editor of Variety. I also included independent producer Geoffery James Clark’s blog TheGuyBehindtheGuy.com which gives more of a personal view of the industry from someone working within its confines. Business Exchange: Movie Business is an aggregator that links to more business oriented film articles. Aside from having an extensive database of films, Internet Movie Database also has an excellent aggregator that draws from Variety and many other sites already on my linkroll. I hope that my blog will be a valuable resource to its readers and that my individual experience as a film student will enhance this blog’s success in being informative while providing a unique and personal perspective on the subject matter.