You Are Here: Blog
Back to Filmbrats

Archives

  • January 2003
  • February 2003
  • March 2003
  • April 2003
  • May 2003
  • June 2003
  • July 2003
  • August 2003
  • September 2003
  • October 2003
  • November 2003
  • December 2003
  • January 2004
  • February 2004
  • March 2004
  • April 2004
  • May 2004
  • June 2004
  • July 2004
  • August 2004
  • September 2004
  • October 2004
  • November 2004
  • December 2004
  • January 2005
  • February 2005
  • March 2005
  • April 2005
  • May 2005
  • © Joe Swanberg 2001-2005 all rights reserved.
    All film reviews are copyrighted by their respective authors.
    Hosted By DreamHost

    This site uses ForSite
    a product of Site9.

    Filmbrats.com is
    dedicated to
    Gregory Steven Vasich (1981 - 2004).

    Friday, May 20, 2005


    This Is Depressing...

    "Tellingly, Fox Searchlight, the distributor of Allen's last movie, "Melinda and Melinda," did not make a bid on "Point" because the studio is all too aware of his global numbers. They tell a harsh tale: $3.7 million in North America; $15.7 million worldwide; 25% of Allen's stateside audience are New Yorkers. Other distributors have stated the stone-cold truth: "Point" would be more commercial if it didn't have Allen's name on it. And by insisting on churning out a picture a year, Allen dilutes his currency. (By contrast, David Lynch retains his marquee value by keeping audiences waiting. France's Studio Canal was screening a Cannes promo reel for his new "Inland Empire," featuring a cast wearing rabbit heads.)"

    This quote especially makes me shiver...

    "Other distributors have stated the stone-cold truth: "Point" would be more commercial if it didn't have Allen's name on it. And by insisting on churning out a picture a year, Allen dilutes his currency."


    Holy shit! Have we really gotten to the point where a filmmaker like Woody Allen, who has made multiple masterpieces, is actually damaging a film's marketability, rather than helping it? I'm shocked! When did the tables turn? Must be that string of bad films he made. That's a shame.

    "You almost look at this year's competition films and don't have to worry about buying anything," says Warner Independent Pictures president Mark Gill, who, having viewed about 90 films at the festival and market, might not buy any. "They may be good, but none of them are remotely accessible to an American audience."

    Fuck you, Mark Gill. I'm an American audience member, and I take offence to your arrogant statement.

    What, is this guy trying to prove something? Is he punishing American filmgoers for not supporting Warner Independent's output so far? Why run an independent arm of a studio if you aren't going to appreciate your audience and good filmmaking? What is this guy's job? He's not running Warner. He's running Warner INDEPENDENT. How do you get jaded enough to see 90 films at the biggest and arguably best Festival in the world and decide that every single one of them is just too damn difficult for that dumb ass American audience? No wonder Warner Independent is doing so poorly.

    I wonder if the dismal state of American indies has something to do with the fact that fucks like this are running the show? How much contempt for the American audience will it take before this dude quits his job? I can't wait.

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home

    Powered by Blogger

    Film Sites

    Cinematical
    File Thirteen
    Film Threat
    GreenCine Daily
    IndieWire
    Mike D'Angelo
    Movie City Indie
    Reverse Shot
    Senses of Cinema

    Previous Posts

  • HOUSE PARTY 1-3
  • PALINDROMES and KUNG FU HUSTLE
  • Finally!!!
  • The Rating My Heart Skipped
  • Mark Cuban Still Creeps Me Out
  • A Little Caveh
  • Dads Acting Crazy at Director's Fortnight 2005
  • The Girl From Monday, Krush Groove, Breakin' 2
  • Well, I'm back. I know I've promised a few older ...
  • With this post, I'm stepping into uncharted territ...