Video-on-Demand and the Changing Cinema Landscape

            The climate of distribution by studios is evolving and continues to go through interesting changes.   The new low budget horror film, It Follows was originally going to receive a VOD release on March 27^th through its distributor Radius-TWC, a brand of The Weinstein Company.  Radius TWC is a huge supporter of video-on-demand films, but is choosing a slightly different approach for It Follows.  TWC will be delaying its VOD release and the film will receive a wider release with 40 theatres on March 20 and then around 1,000 theatres in two weeks (Cunningham, 2015). This delay has sparked some compelling debates about the future of video-on-demand and how streaming is changing the general distribution model of the film industry.   

             The direction in which video-on-demand has been headed in the last few years is one worthy of discussion.  While it has been around for a number of years, it gained more notoriety with 2010’s All Good Things.  It was a model used by companies such as Magnolia and IFC Entertainment and is still not a huge trend in many theatre chains.   This is something innate to the specialty film, which differs from mainstream films.  Soon enough, it was seen that VOD was not as harmful and now nearly 500 theatres are open to showing films that are also available on VOD platforms.  The release of All Good Things is a little unusual in that it was available in homes for a month, and then was released in theatres on December 3, 2010.  Interestingly enough, the film achieved some major success with this particular release model.  From VOD rentals alone, it made about $4 million, each priced at $10.99, according to Magnolia.   It then played in theatres, in particular, very established art houses like the Angelika Film Center in New York and grossed about $19,000 a theatre, which is quite impressive for a specialty film (Barnes, 2010). 

            In the case of It Follows, the theatre release is very crucial.  It became so after the film performed spectacularly by having the year’s best debut at the specialty box office during the March 13^th weekend.  The film grossed $160,000 in three days from four art houses theatres – two in L.A. and two in New York.  The issue here is that “major theatres typically insist on exclusive runs, so to get the major circuits meant Radius would have to delay the streaming date, which was never set in stone” (Cunningham, 2015, p.2).  This decision has been well received by National Association of Theaters Owners spokesman Patrick Corcoran, who felt that The Weinstein Company made a “smart decision” (Cunningham, 2015, p.2).   Exclusive runs are a major interest for theatre owners because they believe that simultaneously releasing a film in theatres and on VOD will affect their profits.  However, this also provides some conflict for TWC as they have to create a more comprehensive marketing plan for a costly theatrical release and also have to work with online platforms and cable companies that were originally going to distribute It Follows on the March 27^th date (Cunningham, 2015). 

            In regards to All Good Things, this particular model seemed to work.   What video-on-demand is trying to achieve is becoming almost a “word-of-mouth campaign – early adopters and people interested in the subject matter will find the film and hopefully tell their friends it is worth seeing in a theater” (Barnes, 2010, p.2).  It is also tough gamble for directors who feel the big screen is where a film should be seen.  For All Good Things director, Andrew Jarecki, his opinion evolved on the issue of online streaming.  For him, it was about maximizing the amount of people who could see the movie.  As he explains, “It would be nice if there was an art house accessible to everyone in the country, but there isn’t.  So I got a bit past the stigma of V.O.D. because the power of having your movie seen so widely on it is extraordinary” (Barnes, 2010, p. 2).  This raises some unique questions about what the future holds for VOD, however, no one is arguing for something of this sort in regards to major wide-release commercial films.  But there is no question that new ideas are on the rise and need to be experimented with. 

            The film industry is certainly in an unpredictable position.  Filmmakers are learning to adapt and try out new things.  James Schamus, the CEO of Focus Features has some thoughts on what is happening with the industry today.  He explains, “The pay TV window, however you call it, is going to remain valuable in whatever form it takes in the near future and the medium future.  That’s very good news, and it resonates for all of us” (Weinstein, 2010, p. 3).  He also referred to how the deal with Epix and Netflix is a promising sign.  The comparisons to the music industry are certainly obvious, as the film industry seems to be going through similar changes.  Jennifer Dana, a producer explained how “the movie business is in the same place that the music business was pre-iTunes, post-Napster” (Weinstein, 2010, p. 3).   She also notes how the film industry is still learning of ways to adjust to the streaming craze that is working remarkably well for the music industry and how to make it as profitable for the film industry.

            How this specific distribution model will function in the future and in what capacity is a key question right now.  There is little doubt that it will be abandoned completely and it is a model here to stay and one that will continue to evolve.  With films like The Interview and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 as major releases opting for the VOD model, what does this say about major release films?  It Follows will continue expansion (about 40 theaters), but major theatre chains are notably absent from the list including Regal, Cinemark, AMC and Carmike.   For Radius-TWC, there were VOD successes to be had with Snowpiercer, but wide releases and major box office numbers have yet to see the surface.   They certainly have seen successes with Twenty Feet From Stardom, which grossed $4.9 million domestically and Snowpiercer with $4.5 million and $8 million on VOD.  They also handled distribution for Citizenfour, the 2014 Best Documentary Academy Award winner (Cunningham, 2014). 

            While It Follows is a low-budget horror film (it cost under $2 million), this could mean something massive for the film industry.  The motion picture is getting rave reviews and has been praised for its performances and original storyline, not to mention it’s genuinely frightening.  Having seen it myself, I can attest to this (despite some reservations I had).  Its reception recalls last year’s The Babadook, another gem of a horror film that also received a VOD release and received stellar reviews.  These are low budget horror films which don’t have much inherent risk, so it’s an unlikely model for movies such as The Avengers: Age of Ultron or Stars Wars: The Force Awakens obviously.  However, this does raise questions about box-office receipts and budgets, which are in a troubling position.  With overblown $200 million plus budgets and not so substantial domestic box office numbers, major studios will have to make some readjustments.  Also, with a major summer blockbuster every week, you need to keep feeding the beast, after all this is what huge 24 plus corporate theatre chains exist for.  This is not sustainable and so, new avenues will have to be explored.  For me, seeing a film on the big screen is an experience like no other, it is one that has an indelible impact and power, so hopefully studios will find ways to keep that alive by embracing fresh ideas.  With digital, we have shown that innovation is a fundamental component of the industry and there is no doubt that more innovations are on the rise.  Video-on-demand is its own signature breakthrough and as stated before, it’s definitely not jumping ship anytime soon.  I would like to be optimistic and think that VOD and movie theatres can co-exist peacefully, so hopefully that will continue to live on as more steps are taken to advance other kinds of distribution formats.  The last few years have shown us promise, so one can expect that the next few will only bring about more.

Works Cited:

Barnes, Brooks.  (2010, December 10).  A Hollywood Brawl: How Soon Is Too Soon for Video on Demand?  The New York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

Cunningham, Todd.  (2015, March 19). ‘It Follows’ Expands as Radius-TWC Bets on Box Office Over VOD.  The Wrap.  Retrieved from http://www.thewrap.com/it-follows-expands-as-radius-twc-bets-on-box-office-over-vod/

Weinstein, J. L. (2010, November 5).  Blueprint for Change: Flexibility is key for indie filmmakers in these new times.  Variety.  Retreived from http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118026438?refcatid=3284

     The Forsaken History of Film: Hollywood’s Love of Revisionism

          

When I go the movies, I hope to be entertained, which I think is true for everyone.  As a massive film buff, I have a tendency to want to consume without taking the time to reflect.  This flaw sometimes allows me to miss out on many details within a movie, particularly those based on historical record.  History has always fascinated me and so whenever a movie based on some riveting and honest to God impossible story approaches, I am more than ready to embark upon it.

Now there in lies a predicament.  Film is a work of art, and so what rules does art need to adhere to (if any) when making a film based on historical record?  That is a great question and unfortunately it’s difficult to provide a clear-cut answer or definition.  There have been many films that have altered, omitted and/or revised history for dramatic purposes.  But where does one cross the line when simply following the for “dramatic purposes” excuse?

In 2012, there were a number of films based on historical events.  The prominent ones were Zero Dark Thirty, Argo and Lincoln, which were all nominated for Best Picture Academy Awards.   I saw them all at the cinema and enjoyed them thoroughly.  Now typically, a historical film is Oscar bait, so there’s no surprise there.  However, these films were quite notable in how they dealt with the so-called facts of the events they depicted.  In the case of Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, they seemed to convey an agenda, one of a partisan and political nature.   Argo, which won Best Picture, was about the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979 and how the CIA led to the rescue of six diplomats.   The film is quite overbearing and complimentary in its praise of the CIA and America’s role in the crisis, yet it dilutes the Canadian government’s role in the proceedings.  Even Jimmy Carter in a CNN interview went on record saying, “90% of the contributions to the ideas and consummation of the plan was Canadian.  And the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA.”  Who would’ve known that Canada would come to the rescue? 

Zero Dark Thirty was released in December 2012 and was based on events that took place only 20 months prior, the raid and assassination of Osama Bin Laden’s compound.  This film was shrouded in controversy even before it was released, as politicians thought it would be released prior to the 2012 election to help Obama be reelected.   A lot of the controversy stems from the government’s aid in helping the filmmakers and from its depiction of torture.  The film documents many instances of waterboarding, which I don’t have a problem with as after all that was something the U.S. government took part in, repulsive and illegal as it was.  The problem arises because the film implied that torture was a means in apprehending Bin Laden.  In the movie, one particular suspect, Ammar al-Baluchi is tortured and then given food.  Throughout the film, he is threatened with more torture and then immediately gives names of terrorist suspects.  You could argue the movie links Bin Laden to torture and is reinforcing the notion that torture works, when plenty of studies and evidence show the contrary, yet the film never presents this viewpoint.  What’s quite maddening is that the film even opens with a caption saying that it is “based on first-hand accounts.”  This is certainly misleading to say the least and a trend we have seen around for ages.

Lincoln was arguably the least big offender when it came to historical record fabrications. Certainly, the film recreated the time period impeccably, but it seems to oversimplify the role that African Americans had in abolition.  The film, as do many films that try to convey the black experience seems to fall prey to the infamous white savior complex (see The Blind Side, The Help, Amistad, among others for reference).  While the film opens with African Americans speaking to the President explaining their experiences in combat, that’s pretty much all we hear of that perspective for the remainder of the film. According to Hollywood, African Americans had little or nothing to do with their own liberation, and thanks to white people, they were able to become free and achieve equality.  This has been an ever-growing problem for these types of movies and it leads to a very popular and misguided belief.

So, what is the point to all of this?  Why does it matter?  After all, no one expects a history lesson from a movie.  Well, while there’s some truth to that, there’s also truth that films are incredibly influential and omnipresent in our society.  Films have a greater power than people may realize and more than enough are used in history classrooms.  While it may not be these films, plenty of other films that have fabricated history, i.e. Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, Lincoln, and Glory, among others have been shown in class and how do I know this?  Well, because I was in those classes and I have talked to friends who have seen those grossly inaccurate historical films in their classes.  Obviously, a film is a film and there are certain cinematic flourishes a filmmaker must engage in to make a movie.  But if you’re going to make a film based on history, shouldn’t you adhere to some set of standards?  If you’re going to engage in such historical revisionism, why even bother depicting the event to begin with?  Art for the sake of art is not a good enough excuse.  I think history is important and obviously a number of such films make that case, but they lose a great deal of respectability, authenticity and integrity when choosing to ignore substantial details simply to accommodate dramatic purposes.  Now here’s a trend that needs some serious rethinking and revising, if you don’t mind me saying so.

Movies and Music: The Power of Sound

I was bored and a massive film and music fan as you know, so I compliled a list of 50 films with, in my opinion, extremely underrated soundtracks. I included scores and compilations, so just deal with it.

1) Ocean’s Twelve (2004)
2) The Beach (2000)
3) Midnight Express (1978)
4) Vanilla Sky (2001)
5) Twilight Saga: New Moon (though Eclipse is good too) (2009/2010) YES, I am serious.  These movies sure as hell don't deserve em, but what the hell can ya do?
6) Marie Antoinette (2006)
7) Broken Flowers (2005)
8) Alexander (2004)
9) Match Point (2005)
10) He Got Game (1998)
11) The Ninth Gate (1999)
12) Solaris (2002)
13) 24 Hour Party People (2002)
14) Miami Vice (2006)
15) Wild at Heart (1990)
16) Poetic Justice (1993)
17) Boogie Nights (1997)
18) Road to Perdition (2002)
19) The Mummy (1999)
20) In the Mood for Love (2000)
21) High Fidelity (2000)
22) Lords of Dogtown (2005)
23) Batman Forever (1995)
24) Carnival of Souls (1962)
25) Amateur (1994)
26) I Shot Andy Warhol (1996)
27) Until the End of the World (1991)
28) Velvet Goalmine (1998)
29) Amores Perros (2000)
30) Kids In the Hall: Brain Candy (1996)
31) One From the Heart (1982)
32) Morvern Callar (2002)
33) Walker (1987)
34) Cool World (1992)
35) Pump Up the Volume (1990)
36) Splendor (1999)
37) Basquiat (1996)
38) PI (1998)
39) Diner (1982)
40) Repo Man (1984)
41) Demonlover (2002)
42) The Acid House (1998)
43) The Squid and the Whale (2005)
44) To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)
45) Zero Effect (1998)
46) Stealing Beauty (1996)
47) Betty Blue (1986)
48) The Big Lebowski (1998)
49) Jesus’ Son (1999)
50) Beautiful Girls (1996)