criterionforum.org

I fail to see how he was joking but OK.
@DarkImbecile that is also true. As I said it's easy to bemoan this at home when I'm not trying to finance my next film. I would take the money and run if Netflix offered to pay for it

swo17 wrote:Apparently it does not go without saying that Saulnier was obviously joking?

Excuse me for being unaware that Jeremy Saulnier is such a renowned comedian.

I know he didn't actually mean it, but that neither makes what he said a "joke" nor does it give him any high ground compared to what Spielberg said.

Those comments sure don’t read like a joke to me - they read like someone who wants to show off that they’re FED UP and SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER.

Does he not at least get points for saying "kindly"?

Saulnier definitely has a chip on his shoulder, but for good reason when the most privileged, carte blanche director in cinema's history deems any film not screened in a cinema a "TV movie".

Throughout this whole dispute, I'm always slightly taken aback by Fremaux's naivety (or front of naivety), which almost matches Sarandos's bluster that the Baumbach and Bong were two of the most popular films of last year in terms of sheer disconnect. From THR article:

"Netflix has its economic model, but Netflix also loves cinema, so why couldn't they decide to bring a few films to Cannes each year — whether out of competition, or else in competition, and then wait 36 months to release it on their platform? They have a lot of movies, and if Cannes decided to program one of them in competition, then why not just go for it?"

The French rule that is being reaffirmed isn't, of course, a Netflix ban; it's just a reaffirmation in response to the screenings of the Baumbach and Bong, screenings that effected the ultimately French film festival. Thirty-six months should be whittled down to six. Netflix's business model, though, is monopolization; cinema only matters insofar as it can be exclusively uploaded.

His curation of this year's festival---which it very much feels like, as opposed to the not necessarily bad copy-and-paste jobs of yesteryear---seems to point toward what future Competitions may look like if streaming services continue to hoover projects from names, who of course wouldn't be names without festivals (Baumbach, Coens, Cuarón, etc.).

In any event, I suspect remaining Comp films to be von Trier and Denis. Reygadas, Ceylan, and Nemes seem like good Venice titles, and I'd place money on Assayas in Fortnight.

I'm not going to read into retweets, but Cuarón seems to want some sort of resolution, with the likely resolution of Netflix not budging.

DarkImbecile wrote:Jeremy Saulnier, whose film was caught up in the Netflix/Cannes spat:

In March, while promoting the release of “Ready Player One,” Steven Spielberg said that movies on streaming services “deserve an Emmy, and not an Oscar.” Saulnier was having none of that. “With new distribution platforms and release strategies on the rise, I hear a lot of volleying back and forth in the trades as to what constitutes a movie,” he said. “I’ll happily stay out of that debate as long as I can keep telling narrative stories with other people’s money. Oscar versus Emmy? Not concerned.” ... “But if anyone tries to tell me any of my modest movies aren’t actually movies they can kindly go stab themselves in the face several times and set themselves on fire.”

I did think that was a tone-deaf remark when Spielberg made it; just because a particular filmmaker doesn’t have the same kind of traditional studio support for their film - whether at the financing or distribution phase - doesn’t mean their work necessarily shouldn’t be considered alongside that of another filmmaker who happens to be lucky enough to be able to have their most minor trifle dropped in 2000+ theaters.

The words "tv movie" do have a stigma attached to them, but is Spielberg wrong though? If Netflix is considered a TV platform (as the Emmys seem to agree), a movie made for Netflix is a made for TV movie. That doesn't mean it's not good, that doesn't mean it loses its artistic merit, it just means it was made for tv. Just like Soderbergh did Behind the Candelabra for HBO it was considered a tv movie, regardless of all the accolades he had for his previous movies.

I agree. Without theatrical distribution, a Netflix film should be up for Emmys, not Oscars

Agreed; I actually think they should raise the standard for what qualifies as a theatrical release to keep Netflix et. al. from basically four-walling a movie in NY/LA for the minimum amount of time to gain Oscar eligibility (just one or two weeks now, I think). Maybe a 100-theater minimum release by the time of nominations, which might also accelerate platforming so more people are able to see award-season movies before February.

All that said, I would still maintain that Spielberg is not the ideal messenger on this topic.

Whenever The Irishman is wrapped in post-production will be a determining factor for Netflix future in theatrical releasing. Some reports have come out saying Marty has been begging the streaming titan to give the film a theatrical wide release, as he's gone on saying movies should still be given life on the big screen. The budget is ludicrously sky-high at $140 million, all because of the CGI de-aging of De Niro character. How is a film of that magnitude going to make a profit just on streaming when the company is quiet about their business dealings. This Martin Scorsese gangster picture where he re-teams with Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci, with Al Pacino in the mix, should have been something that was guaranteed to be wide release if they filmed ten years ago. If a Scorsese picture gets the same treatment as some low-key Indie buyout from Sundance I'm afraid to say it's going to be a tough future for non-tentpole films to compete in the marketplace.


Does Spielberg want to reconsider his words for his longtime friend?

To me it sounds like Neflix is trying to change the structure of the industry on how movies are thought of. The filmmakers need to resist the big bucks Netflix throws their way. But easier said than done. Also, the Academy needs to resist Netflix's efforts as well. A skirmish is brewing that could affect Hollywood long term.

Netflix isn't trying to change thought; it's trying to gut the competition---any discussion of how movies are thought of is just a byproduct. Their investment in The Other Side of the Wind is obviously to be welcomed, but it's also blatantly as big an attempt into another market---much beyond their regular stream of prolefeed---as imaginable.

I don't know how much the Academy will resist because it seems their members actually utilize its convenience instead of seeking out a screening or their screeners.

Cannes, though, does seem a legitimate bulwark.

I do understand Netflix's frustration at French streaming laws, which seem absurdly restrictive, but otherwise I'm pretty unimpressed by their behaviour here and in general - one gets the impression that they're (no exaggeration intended) trying to kill off the cinema as a destination to see films.

I wonder whether, if there were no barriers to doing so, it would be in the company's interest to just release their major acquisitions theatrically and on the streaming platform simultaneously. I would have absolutely seen The Meyerowitz Stories by now, for instance, if it had had any kind of theatrical release, but I don't have a Netflix account and have far less interest in watching it on the TV at home – so they've lost my money, and undoubtedly that of many other people in the same situation.

That’s what they want! Theaters don’t want to waste their money and space on movies people won’t see because they can see it for free at home, but because the movies aren’t being given those releases no one knows they exist. Movies need the release model they have because the mechanics and residual marketing that release brings are the only way most people ever learn about new movies. But Netflix insists: no exclusive window, movies for everyone.

Todd McCarthy reported last week that The House That Jack Built is just being held up by haggling over whether it'll be in or out of competition. He also claimed that High Life screened for the selection committee after the initial lineup announcement, though Denis said in this interview (published on Saturday) that the film won't be ready in time for the festival. Perhaps the interview was conducted some time in advance of publication and the situation changed in the interim.

Meanwhile, the Directors' Fornight lineup is out.

Ribs wrote:That’s what they want! Theaters don’t want to waste their money and space on movies people won’t see because they can see it for free at home, but because the movies aren’t being given those releases no one knows they exist. Movies need the release model they have because the mechanics and residual marketing that release brings are the only way most people ever learn about new movies. But Netflix insists: no exclusive window, movies for everyone.

I'll just say here from personal experience that Netflix doesn't care even when a theater is willing to waste their money and space on a movie that people can see for free at home. I'm convinced the only reasons any Netflix movies ever see the inside of a theater are a) as part of an awards campaign or b) the filmmaker had enough pull to insist and Netflix is doing the bare minimum to mollify them.

mfunk9786 wrote:He’s baaaaack

I am totally here for what is sure to be an absolutely insane press conference.

Cannes jury:
Cate Blanchett
Chang Chen
Ava DuVernay
Robert Guédiguian
Khadja Nin
Léa Seydoux
Kristen Stewart
Denis Villeneuve
Andrey Zvyagintsev

The press release appears to be gone from the website, so there might be some changes within the next few hours.

In Competition
The Wild Pear Tree by Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Knife + Heart by Yann Gonzalez
Ayka by Sergey Dvortsevoy

OOC
The Man Who Killed Quixote by Terry Gilliam [Closer]
The House That Jack Built by Lars von Trier

UCR
Donbass by Sergey Loznitsa

Midnight
Fahrenheit 451 by Ramin Bahrani
Whitney by Kevin MacDonald

I though House that Jack... was in competition...?

Well... it's not.

I've seen a link to an Indiewire article stating "Jack to Compete for Palme d'Or" only to reveal in the body of the article that it's screening out of competition. Nice reporting there.

It really feels like Yann Gonzalez was on-hold in case Denis wasn't ready to screen. Generally, if a film screens and isn't in the selection then, you know, it was rejected, but it does legitimately seem like Denis made a call, an easy one, given that there isn't exactly a relationship between her and the festival and thus no incentive to show it with unfinished VFX or whatever.

I haven't seen Gonzalez's first feature and I won't by the festival, but it definitely reads like this year's Double Lover---for competition completists or levity after seeing a long Ceylan film. I woudn't be surprised if they screen von Trier's the day of.

I...forgot about Dvortsevoy, and missed Tulpan when it was making the rounds at the end of the last decade. I guess I'll catch-up with Tulpan!

I'm not expecting much from Gilliam's film frankly and I'm not really a fan anyway, but a lot of people are anticipating it, so screening it as the closing film is an absolute shrewd move to keep everyone around.

New Loznitsa is exciting, regardless of placement, obviously. Although, it might have snagged an award with Zvyagintsev's presence, who in 2010 called My Joy the best Russian film of the last ten years.

Of note: Fifteen countries are represented in competition (out of twenty-one), with one of the French entries being set in Syria/Iran. This seems notable, especially if most are of some baseline level of quality. More than a third come from Asia. Typically, there's only one Spanish language film in competition (by someone who doesn't speak the language, no less). The lineup is legitimately exciting in its uncertainty---preawareness can only go so far, especially after all the familiar names laid eggs last year. Denis, Assayas, Nemes, Reygadas, Sorrentino, Audiard, Leigh, et al. will continue to submit their films to Cannes.

Omensetter wrote:I...forgot about Dvortsevoy, and missed Tulpan when it was making the rounds at the end of the last decade. I guess I'll catch-up with Tulpan!

That's his least interesting film, in my opinion. His earlier documentaries are really great, however.

This is the final day of the Tribeca Film Festival. What were the big splashes this year?