Why day/date isn't ready to save the day: Laws and Sausages
Filed under: Independent, Deals, Disney, IFC, Magnolia, Distribution, Exhibition, Home Entertainment, Movie Marketing, Mark Cuban, Cinematical Indie

The most shocking moment of Sunday night's Oscar ceremony came early in the evening, long before Three 6 Mafia or Crash scored their twin victories for mediocrity. An hour or so after losing the night's first award to George Clooney, Jake Gyllenhaal trotted out on stage to ostensibly announce one of the night's many disposable montages. "They're called epics," he near-monotoned. "Extravaganzas. Spectacles." With that last one, Jake's voice took an unexpected up-turn. He went on to list a few (oddly amalgamated for mass cross-generational appeal) examples of the genre in question – "West Side Story. Star Wars. Ben-Hur." – before delivering the kicker: "You can't properly watch these on a television set, and good luck trying to enjoy them on a portable DVD." Gyllenhaal punctuated that embarrassingly over-scripted slice of Academy propaganda with a desperate, self-referential giggle – a composure break that lasted long enough for an insert shot of Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams, Gyllenhaal's Brokeback Mountain co-stars, just two members of what sounded like a large chunk of the audience laughing along with him. It was rather amazing, a pure, bumbling moment of transparency that neatly struck down whatever was left of Sid Gannis' sad house of cards. The new takeaway for the evening: If Hollywood can't take its own last-ditch propaganda seriously, how can we?
In fact, AMPAS built Sunday's broadcast around their own desperation, in a way that explicitly drew attention to the industry's complicity in their own failure. By containing the program in that god-awful theater-marquee set, the producers sent out the sadly unironic message: "All of the excitement before you can be had for the price of a movie ticket." Gyllenhaal's fumble made it painfully clear that even those charged with delivering that message don't personally subscribe to it. As Scott Kirsner wrote the next day on his blog, "My guess is that most people in the audience at the Kodak Theater last night don't see their movies in mediocre, poorly-maintained multiplexes." In fact, Crash's very victory is a testament that the most successful content is not that which is most compelling, but that which is made easiest for the consumer to see. As distasteful as many of us find Crash's victory over Brokeback Mountain, it was the easily predictable result of, amongst other things, the fact that oldish straight males (a demographic of which the Academy houses many) seemed unlikely to head out and see the gay cowboy movie when they could stay in and watch Paul Haggis' hack work on DVD.
The numbers, it seems, can't, won't and don't lie: even the people who make movies are more inclined to watch them at home. And it's because of this irrefutable truth that the number one issue currently facing the film industry is simultaneous distribution. Despite the bitter proclamations of a few auteurs and aesthetes, it seems clear that we're moving towards a new era, in which theatrical release functions as little more than a commercial for a variety of home options. I don't like it, myself – I personally find it next to impossible to really watch anything on my computer screen, and I only cringe when my friends tell me they're downloading films like Brokeback Mountain or The New World – but this is how the market works. Voices both within (Disney's Robert Iger) and without (Slate's Edward J. Epstein) Hollywood have spent the better part of the last year calling for the theatrical-to-DVD distribution window, currently at a record-tight average of 90 days from opening night to Netflix queue, to fully close. The question is, which company is going to break out with the distribution model that truly makes the most of the closed window?
Until recently, the only real players in the game were Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban (the latter, as you well know, invested in and blogs for the network of which Cinematical is a part). Through their 2929 Entertainment, a mini-empire that includes in its embrace production/distribution through Magnolia Pictures, a theatrical exhibition wing in Landmark Theaters, and count-'em two cable networks (HD Net and HD Movies), Cuban and Wagner pioneered what I guess we're now calling the day/date model: simultaneous distribution of a previously un-released film on or around the same date, in theaters and through at least one channel meant for at-home consumption. After experiencing some success with the model last spring with the Sundance-launched, Oscar nominated Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Cuban and Wagner signed a deal with the ever-quixotic Steven Soderbergh. The pact stipulated that Soderbergh would make six films, each shot on HD and budgeted at about $250,000, with the goal of feeding the maw of simultaneous release. So far, it has produced only Bubble, which has underperformed theatrically, despite the fact that it roused Roger Ebert out of his Crash coma long enough for the venerable critic to brand it a masterpiece. With five films left to go, it's unclear how or even if Soderbergh and friends plan to alter the game plan as they proceed. Not long before Bubble opened, Wagner told the New York Times that he wasn't sure if the day/date plan in place was going to work – an admission that gave fuel to the fallacy that there's a big gamble in play here. At a total cost of $1.5 million for the series, Soderbergh could release six volumes of dead tape, redirect the 2929 stipends towards the The Good German's liquor budget, and Cuban and Wagner still wouldn't find themselves running a remarkable loss.
Is it a coincidence that IFC timed news of their own day/date plan to hit the streets mere hours before Bubble's debut? Well, probably, yes, but the fact that the notion of simultaneous release was very much in the air that morning certainly didn't hurt their case. Jonathan Sehring and friends officially announced First Take just a little over a month ago, and they've already released two films: CSA: Confederate States of America, and the still-in-the-running candidate for Best Titled Film Ever, Sorry, Haters. Neither, it should be noted, has exactly set box offices aflame, but it also must be noted that neither was ostensibly trying all that hard. The whole point of the IFC plan is to use cable video on demand to give foreign gems and microindies – films that might have otherwise opened and closed in a couple of weeks on a handful of screens – a proper, nationwide release.
It certainly sounds like a worthy endeavor, but evidence is mounting that the IFC program is far from a perfect work. IFC has teamed up with Comcast, to offer each title in homes nationwide. This brings us back to Mark Cuban: rumors are going around that Cuban is banning the First Take films from his Landmark Theaters, in retaliation at Comcast for refusing to carry the two HD Nets. (I’ve heard all kinds of confirmations and denials on this – if Mark is reading this, I'm sure he'll step in and say what's what). That squabble aside, we don’t have to look far ahead to see trouble on First Take’s horizon. The next major release on their schedule is I Am a Sex Addict, Caveh Zahedi’s autobiographical essay about how he quenched his previously unquenchable thirst for prostitutes. The film has been bouncing around the festival circuit for a year and, as you might have guessed from the title alone, it was not the most commercial property up for grabs in 2005. That IFC would snatch up the experimental, video-shot sort-of doc anyway, and pair it up with a distribution model for which it appears to be ideally suited, would seem to indicate some faith in there being an audience for its content.
So it would seem, but the filmmaker is starting to tell a slightly different story. As of about six days ago, Caveh has a blog, and on it he’s been sharing the unflinching details of his fight to protect his film from IFC’s commercial instincts. Here is the first entry, in its entirety:
When I negotiated the deal with IFC, I tried to include in the contract that I would have final say on all art work, but they wouldn't give it to me, arguing that, if they gave it to me, I could veto everything they did and prevent them from marketing the film in a timely and profit-maximizing manner. Moreover, they assured me that they prided themselves on being filmmaker-friendly and that they would do everything in their power to accommodate my preferences, short of committing marketing suicide. It sounded reasonable, so I agreed. But now, the nipples on the poster are going to be airbrushed so that media publications will print it. The nipples are the whole point of the poster. So much for transgression.
As Caveh proceeds to detail his daily struggles with IFC marketing VP Ryan Werner, over everything from the trailer to the budget for the local premiere (those nipples return a few more times, too), the question is begged: why is IFC bothering to build a trailblazing release strategy around edgy, idiosyncratic work, if they're not going to use the sharp edges inherent in the films to sell themselves? If they wanted something easier to market, why bother with a program like First Take at all?
The bottom line: Day-date isn't going to matter until someone comes along and raises the stakes. A major studio needs to step up and develop a pilot program that will close the window on something that a built-in audience is already committed to seeing. It's not as crazy an idea as it seems – in fact, I think it's going to happen this year, and the smart money has it happening at Disney. Robert Iger (who faces a board of shareholders tomorrow morning) is tapped into the zeitgeist in a way that we no longer think of studio executives being capable of. He's had the Wall Street Journal on speed dial ever since he took over for Michael Eisner last year, and the kind of language he uses to talk about the future is astounding. He knows a good chunk of the audience wants media on demand – he proved it by conquering the iTunes TV store – and he's simply not going to put up with artificial hurdles for much longer. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but watch for a major Disney/iTunes announcement in the weeks and months ahead.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-10-2006 @ 12:42AM
Peter said...
I'd expect a Disney/iTunes announcement in the weeks/months ahead (a cover-all-bases claim if there ever was one, heh - who isn't going to be making that announcement in the coming months), but only as a way for Disney to capitalize on iTunes success in collusion with their previous plans for alternative distribution channels.
Disney already patented the tech (or the concept, not sure which) for a drip-download type method of acquiring content at McDonalds to a pre-approved media player. The closest I come to being an industry insider is reading Mark's blog (which is how I came across Cinematical back in the day), but it seems obvious to me that Apple is running the show, so to speak, in regards to the downloadable content channels. They're tried and true, so it only makes sense that in addition to Disney trying out their own new channels, they piggyback on iTunes to maximize their chances.
A Disney/iTunes announcement would just be Disney's way of hedging their bets.
As for, "the fact that oldish straight males (a demographic of which the Academy houses many) seemed unlikely to head out and see the gay cowboy movie when they could stay in and watch Paul Haggis' hack work on DVD." ... DVD Screeners exist solely for this purpose and with the amount that were being shipped out (for the majority of the nominated films, not just the big guns) I think it is a little unfair to claim this played a contributing factor in Crash's usurpation.
I applaud Mark Cuban (who became a personal idol of mine when he coverd Grokster's legal costs, among other things he has done) for his campaigns for simultaneous and tiered deliveries. It isn't some outlandish, unrealistic vision of some far off future. It is inevitable, Mark and co are just trying to make people realize this. It isn't something we - simple viewers and content creators alike - can avoid.
Solid write-up, Karina.
Reply
3-10-2006 @ 2:04AM
Cyberphin said...
Glad to see a full blown article on what that little propaganda moment at the Oscars was really about, FEAR. Fear that the system is changing in a way that will lessen the take on a film. No not the fear that the film experience will be diminished. Harrisburg, PA opened up a bunch more theaters this year when there are several multiplexes. The teaters must be making money.(though I bet that they would make more if they lowered consession prices and made it up in more voume of consessions and tickets).
Video was the deathnell. DVD was the deathnell. In fact they are the touchstone of a great movie era. Living most of my life in Rural PA, I couldn't get theaters that showed the art classics, that I saw when I lived in Minneapolis. And even though I love my DVD's I want to see the good films in the teater.
This week I just got My Neighbor Totoro. I would have loved to see a theatrical release like I saw for Howl's Moving Castle (actually I was going to make the 5 hr trip to Philly for it, but then saw it at Otakon ) I loved back in College when Star Wars was screened at the local theater (origial un Lucas revision).
But so few films are worth the hassle now days.
Good article.
Reply
3-10-2006 @ 2:13AM
Brian said...
Of course what it's all predicated upon is the widely-held perception that content trumps medium. People have the feeling that when they watch something on their television set they're getting essentially the same thing they'd get if they saw a 35mm print of it projected. And I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm the crazy one for not agreeing. Maybe my television's just too small. But I don't want a screening room in my house; it's just too Sunset Blvd. creepy.
Great piece, though! I'm impressed that you covered everything from the Oscars to Caveh's blog in one entry and it all made perfect sense together.
Reply
3-10-2006 @ 11:07AM
Peter Nellhaus said...
What wasn't mentioned by Gylennhaal (or the writer of his speech) is what a miserable experience being in a movie theater can sometimes be, as well as the fact that most movie theaters are smaller than the "palaces" of the past. In those days before cell phones, when audiences were silent during the showing of a movie as a matter of common courtesy, I loved seeing movies on large theater screens. I know that some of those theaters are still in existence in NYC, like the Ziegfeld. Here in Miami Beach, there is no large screen meant to take advantage of 70mm epics. From my viewpoint, the montages ultimately celebrated films that were easily better than most of the films up for Oscars this past year.
Reply
3-10-2006 @ 8:03PM
The Jeremy said...
Gawd dang. What's with all this sour grapes over *Crash* winning? Is it because the media got egg all over their faces in hyping *Brokeback* these past few weeks and it getting kneecapped IRA style at the Oscars? Perhaps the better film did actually win...
You know why I'm mad? Because despite the fact that movies like *LOTR* and *Gladiator* have won the best picture award in the past few years, where was a nomination for *Batman Begins*? Now there's something to complain about.
Reply
3-12-2006 @ 2:49PM
Phyllis said...
The night of the Oscars, these little useless pieces of propaganda really irritated the crap out of me. I mean when they just threw the ocassional line in here and there, I ignored it . . . but the Jake Gyllenhaal piece, that served no pratical purpose except to preach at us about the evils of simultaneous DVD release, having nothing to do with the Oscar ceremony. . . that was tooooo far. At one point, I actually muttered at the screen, "Shut up. We GET IT already."
The Hollywood studios are being unrealistic.
Technology changes. And business models must change with it. MOST corporations know this. As times change, they adjust their marketing, diversify their product, adapt, and grow with the riding wave of the new.
Not so Hollywood.
The movie industry takes changes in technology and public appetites by kicking, screaming, and trying to slow progress. (Does anyone else remember how much they fought about the VCR? LOL)
They try to intimidate people, propogandize people, bully business owners, go to congress and try to get laws changed in their favor . . .
Yet the one thing they don't seem to understand is basic business.
Times change.
Technology changes.
People's wants change.
Instead of trying to stop it, which is impossible . . .
Why not adapt your business plan accordingly?
Bill Gates understands this.
Donald Trump understands this.
I guess Hollywood is so afraid of taking a business risk and making a change that they feel safer paddling against the tide.
Reply