16 novembre 2008

Long Tail consumers

Dina Iordanova : "The channels of circulation described here are still being studied independently from one another. Yet, there is a growing and overarching acknowledgement that they increasingly interact and interlink, in a hybrid and flexible, mercurial and mutating manner. The result is a more complicated picture, one that leads us to the realisation that it is necessary to underpin the argument by dynamically correlating the peripheral strategies of the global cinema."
Via "Maya" I found this book : "Budding Channels of Peripheral Cinema: The Long Tail of Global Film Circulation" Dina Iordanova, 2008 [online book preview here] Here is Dina Iordanova's own blog : Dina View
Dina Iordanova : "Chris Anderson's The Long Tail: How Endless choice is Creating Unlimited Demand. Why The future of Business Is Selling Less of More (2007) [..] contained the definitive announcement of the end of blockbuster culture and the arrival of Internet-enabled trade for niche products. [..] The suppressed treasure-trove of cinematic content of 'peripheral cinema', sidelined into the margins by the enduring blockbuster culture, is about to break through and reveal all its glorious richness and diversity, in large measure due to shifts in the channels of distribution. The Long Tail was showing and why this might already be happening.
Analysing the ways in which the new Internet-based technologies are transforming distribution patterns in the creative industries, Anderson argues that for the first time in history blockbusters and niche markets were on a nearly equivalent footing. Both are equally worthy of development from a distribution point of view because the large number of niche products multiplied by even a sales still results in a viable and powerful economic figure, creating the 'Long Tail' effect.
In the new mode of distribution, a vast number of products, while not available in stores are now obtainable from Internet-based distributors that command huge on-demand inventories and that can both expand existing markets and cater to niche consumer interests. Markets become liberated from the 'tyranny of the geography' : the new distribution set-ups permit unrestrained availability of relatively small numbers of distinctive products, and the remote village residents can have access to cultural goods as easily as those in the most central metropolitan locations." [..]
The Long Tail, Chris Anderson's lecture at UC Berkley, 17 Nov 2006 [YouTube video] 55'

The concept of the Long Tail, explained on Chris Anderson's WIRED blog, says that "when control of information and processes becomes more democratized, a tail distribution of content suppliers and consumers forms. Control shifts to the tail of its own accord." The Long Tail of least popular (less profitable) movies (for instance) counterbalances the few "best sellers". It's a Power law distribution, therefore according to the Pareto principle (or 80-20 rule, as represented by the orange-red colours on the graphic above, the 2 coloured areas have the same surface), 20% of the most prolific suppliers weigh as much stock as the 80% left of less prolific suppliers. Or 20% of the most frequent consumers order as much as the 80% left of less frequent consumers. Or the top 20% of B.O. movie winners sell as much admissions as the 80% left of B.O. bottom combined.
"The forces of Web 2.0 create a natural shift of control and democratization of supply and consumption. Low-frequency events or populations cumulatively outweigh the initial portion of the distribution. Most control falls into the Long Tail, making more use of resources, with a tendency to route around ineffective central control."
Dina Iordanova : "It's only now, with the enabling power of the Internet, that the distribution of "peripheral" merchandise can reach wider audiences alongside the few smash hits that traditionally dominate image markets. What the Long Tail concept arrestingly illustrates, however, goes beyond the immediate concern of the on-line marketability of specialised cultural goods. It demonstrates the reconciliation of commercial viability and special interests, and, with its view of triumphant narrowcasting, brings together production (niche creativity) and consumption (dispersed demand for a broader range of cinema.) [..]
We have been led to believe that the world of cinema is divided into Hollywood, powerful and thriving, and the rest, weak and fading. [..]
This model is also used to describe the Power law distribution of blockbusters vs niche movies, as well as the distribution of Paper Press (few titles but prominent fame and high circulation) vs the wide Blogosphere (small readership but sprawling endlessly, and relaying information through an interactive network), or the distribution of the "Big 6" Major Hollywood studios vs the crowd of shoestring-tight budget Indie producers, or even the distribution of the 4 major international Film Festivals vs the countless small local festivals. Thanks to the internet, stock and distance to your nearest supplier become moot points, liberating small distributors from structural costs, and opening them to an instantly worldwide consumer base. The niche interest cinephiles can now join forces and access their rare objects of desire even if the traditional commercial structure only supplies popular/profitable items.
Dina Iordanova : "These processes are best seen on a scale that transcends strictly defined framework of the national. Peripheral cinemas can no longer be treated as a mosaic of discrete cultural phenomena. One increasingly recognises that the localities of production are spatially disjointed and the audiences increasingly scattered around the globe. This is where studies of peripheral cinema come into the picture. They approach the cycle of film production, dissemination, and reception as one dynamic process that transcends national borders, reflecting the mobility of human existence in the global age. [..]
The multicultural realities of today's world make it important to grasp the complex interactions of circulating iconographies, ideologies, and narratives. Our current concepts of the pattern of comprehensive cultural exchanges are inconsistent and patchy, and there are only a handful of studies at our disposal that propose a more complex picture of the 'alternative modernities' at the periphery. We need a better understanding of the essence and the effects of transnational cultural circulation originating from the periphery, one that we can only acquire by bringing together knowledge and analysis of the various strands of trans-border media flows present in our globalized environment."
Taste in Film culture will no longer be dictated by the mainstream majority, and hopefully giving a chance to niche movies to progressively reach popular status because they are actually available. Online distributors produce their stock on order to limit wasted time and excess stock.
Whereas the old system defined the popular items a priori (through market studies and statistics), thus condemning less popular items to stay underexposed (because ordering them, stocking them, marketing them was too expensive for the unlikely customer willing to buy it locally). In the Global Village, even the less popular movies may foster a larger fanbase by accumulating all insignificant isolated local niches and turning them in a sizeable share for the market to profit from without rendering scarce items excessively overpriced.


Related article:
Related posts:

11 novembre 2008

Cycle Bazin 2008-09

Plusieurs rendez-vous autour d'André Bazin (1918-1958) pour les mois à venir, en hommage au cinquantenaire de sa disparition (mort il y a cinquante ans jour pour jour aujourd'hui).
Tout d'abord, Ouvrir Bazin, un colloque franco-américain à Paris organisé par le nouveau campus de l'Université Diderot (site des Grands Moulins dans le quartier de la Bibliothèque Mitterrand), en collaboration avec l'université de Yale. (25-29 nov 2008)
  • 25 nov (Grands Moulins) : Ouverture
  • 26 nov (Grands Moulins) : Avez-vous lu Bazin? (Dudley Andrew, André S. Labarthe, Olivier Faivre, Michel Mourlet, Raymond Bellour, Antoine de Baecque, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin)
  • 27 nov (Grands Moulins) : Un Bazin d'après-guerre (Steven Ungar, Antoine de Baecque, Marc Vernet)
  • 27 nov (Grands Moulins) : Un Bazin moderne (Angella Dalle Vacche, Dudley Andrew, Marc Cerisuelo, Rochelle Fack)
  • 28 nov (Grands Moulins) : Un Bazin impur (Jean-François Chevrier, Bruno Tackels, Diane Arnaud, Florence B. de Courville)
  • 28 nov (Cinémathèque Française) : Un Bazin écrivain (Dudley Andrew, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Jean Narboni, Philip Watts)
    projection
    de Van Gogh et Guernica d'Alain Resnais, Les Désastres de la guerre de Pierre Kast
  • 29 nov (Grands Moulins) : Bilan critique, Recherches en cours (Seugnhoon Jeong, Diana Lemberg, Grant Wiedenfield, Nicolas Thys, Ryan Cook, Jeremi Szaniawski, Michael Cramer)
voir détails du programme sur le site Paris Diderot
Et, Opening Bazin, le pendant américain de ce colloque à l'université de Yale, NY, USA (voir détails sur leur site) PDF schedule
Screening: Toute la mémoire du monde (1956/Resnais)
  • Bazin in the 50s (Steven Ungar, Angela Dalle Vacche, Philip Watts, Dominque Bluher)
    Bazin and the Disciplines
  • The Transmission of Bazin (Hervé Joubert-Laurencin)
  • Bazin’s Religious Discourse (Philip Rosen)
  • Evolutions of Bazin (Tom Conley)
  • Geography: the fault lines of Bazin’s education (Ludovic Cortade)
    The Aura of the Image
  • Myth in the ontology of early cinema according to Bazin (Tom Gunning)
  • Superimposition from Bazin to Greenaway (Daniel Morgan)
  • From Bazin to Deleuze (Diane Arnaud)
  • The Tense of the Shot (Raymond Bellour, Daniel Stern)
    Screening : Nights of Cabiria (1957/Fellini); Flowers of St. Francis
    (1950/Rossellini)
    Bazin in History
  • Bazin in the USSR and Russia (John MacKay)
  • Bazin and the journals (Antoine De Baecque)
  • Bazin and Walter Benjamin (Monica Dall’Asta)
  • Translator of Walter Benjamin: impossible task (Bruno Tackels)
    Bazin in Hiding
  • Bazin’s bad taste (James Tweedie)
  • A Moustache in flight: Bazin on masks and men (Ivone Margulies)
  • Bazin’s Chaplin (Prakash Younger)
    Bazin Today
  • Bazin as Modernist (Colin MacCabe)
  • Ontology Aside (Jean-Michel Frodon)
    Screening: Nothing but a Man (1964/Michael Roemer)
    Grasping the Opening
  • The Future of an Archive, The Future of Bazin (Dudley Andrew, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin)

Autres événements sur Paris jusqu'à mars 2009 :
  • 24 nov 2008 : Redefining the Neorealist Image (Angela Dalle Vacche, University of Columbia de Paris, VIe)
  • 25 nov 2008 : Vie et seconde vie d'André Bazin (Dudley Andrew, Grands Moulins, XIIIe)
  • 2 déc 2008 : Cézanne et les frères Lumières (Angela Dalle Vacche, Grands Moulins, XIIIe)
  • 12 Jan 2009 : Remnants of Tragedy (Philip Watts, rue Charles V, IVe)
  • 13 jan 2009 : Guerre et Mémoire Chez Godard (Philip Watts, Grands Moulins, XIIIe)
  • 16 jan 2009 : De Bazin à Jacques Rancière : critique et théorie du cinéma (Philip Watts, Institut National de l’Histoire de l’Art, IIe)
  • 27 fév 2009 : De Bazin à Flaubert, suite : Madame Bovary selon Renoir (Jean-françois Chevrier, Institut National de l’Histoire de l’Art, IIe)
  • 10 mars 2009 : Les films renaissent aussi. Resnais, Marker, Rouch (Steven Ungar, Grands Moulins, XIIIe)
  • 13 mars 2009 : Scènes dans une bibliothèque. réflexions sur un film d’Alain Resnais (Steven Ungar, Institut National de l’Histoire de l’Art, IIe)
  • 16 mars 2009 : Visual Remains and the Poetics of Culture (Steven Ungar &
  • Dudley Andrew, University of Columbia de Paris, VIe)
  • 20 mars 2009 : Renoir et le réalisme (Dudley Andrew, Institut National de l’Histoire de l’Art, IIe)
    téléchargez le programme en PDF sur le site de l'université Diderot


Cycle de projections de quelques 70 films sur lesquels Bazin a construit ses théories critiques. (27 aout-1er décembre 2008)
Voir détails sur le site de La Cinémathèque Française

My reports :
  1. Ouvrir Bazin - Day 1
  2. Ouvrir Bazin - Day 2
  3. Ouvrir Bazin 3 - Steven Ungar
  4. Ouvrir Bazin 3 - Antoine De Baecque
  5. Ouvrir Bazin 3 - Marc Vernet
  6. Ouvrir Bazin 3 - Angela Dalle Vacche
  7. Ouvrir Bazin 3 - Dudley Andrew
  8. Ouvrir Bazin 3 - Marc Cerisuelo
  9. Ouvrir Bazin 3 - Rochelle Fack

09 novembre 2008

Burdeau : film saviour?

In direct continuity with my post on Conflict of Interests, that was inspired by Emmanuel Burdeau's project to buy Cahiers for himself and turn it into a distribution company, here is his speech to the NYFF crowd (9-27-2008), right after Le Monde announced his "business plan" was rejected.

Thanks to Amanda McCormick for posting the videos of the panel discussion at the Film Comment blog. (see part 2 & 3 on YouTube for Burdeau's speech)
Burdeau : "I'm sure it has been more dramatic here [in the USA], we have noticed for the past 3 or 5 years that more and more movies that we love, made by directors that are really important, famous, they are not released. They have more and more difficulties to be released in France. I'm talking about Abel Ferrara, very famous director in France, his last two movies haven't been sold to any French distributor. I'm talking about, probably one of the greatest filmmakers today : Pedro Costa. He had great articles in Film Comment [Mar-Apr 2007], Art Forum [Sept 2006]... When the films are shown in festival or museum there is always a crowd. And the film was selected in competition in Cannes. But when it was released, 500 people went to see it in 3 weeks time. Whereas on the other hand, at festivals there is 3 times more in one screening. So this is an economical and a critical question: Cahiers du cinéma has always been dealing with films released each week and each month. But what happens is that the most important movies (not only ones made by obscure filmmakers) don't have the most important time of their career in public theatres, but elsewhere, in festivals or in museums... Should we change? Not be a monthly anymore? Should we change the way we organise every issue?"
I totally agree there, the situation is real. It's the proposed solution that is wrong.

It's hard for niche auteurs to keep making films that only festival goers are going to watch... it doesn't payback the increasing cost of film production.
I also agree that the Film Press can no longer wait the cue of local distributors to publish an article in their pages (see my earlier post on Abolish Locale). You know the way critics vaguely mention films when they review a festival, and then wait for the national distribution to publish a full review. This is a tacit rule imposed by the MARKET that critics agree to in order to get access to private screenings. I'm not sure Film Criticism can still function that way, controlled by the Industry, in this day and age.
Because, like Burdeau says above, when the Industry decides not to release a film, this acts as an effective censorship, the Press will not talk about these unreleased films. This may serve the interests of Studios and Distributors (who manage the markets to maximize their profits) but it doesn't serve the auteurs (shelved on a waiting line), the audience (deprived of films that people can see in other parts of the world), nor the critics (who can't speak of films they want to address). This is an absurd situation. The content of film discourse shall not be dictated by the Industry.

Another problem is the fact that low revenue films draw more audience at festivals than in public theatres when they are released nationwide... Only in France could this situation survive, thanks to state subsidies funding movies, distributors and arthouses that don't make profits. So this is another aspect to look at : the direct competition of festival screenings on the subsequent public box office of these small audience films. (see my earlier post on Mushroom Festivals)


The point where I disagree is when he argues that the Film Press (in decline, and in the case of Cahiers, close to bankruptcy!) is the most appropriate patron to support these "unloved auteurs left behind" :
Burdeau: "If Ferrara or Shinji Aoyama in Japan, or Pedro Costa have a really hard time to be released, and when they are released it's a nonsense because no regular viewer goes to see it, then Cahiers should play a political role, militant, activist, and release the films themselves. We're going to become distributors for this kind of films. Some people say : "OK there's going to be a conflict of interest. You cannot be both reviewer and distributor". I don't see it that way. We're talking about obscure filmmakers, they won't make us rich."
No go. And it's not just an ethical issue (conflict of interest)...
If you are aware that this distribution branch won't make you rich, why do you add this to your "business plan" to save Cahiers from its debts? Clearly it puts an additional burden on the already financially struggling magazine! More responsibilities, more investments, more time consumed, more marketing costs...
How will the Cahiers team find resource to adequately support these films (and not ruin them), when the redaction already complains they have TOO MANY films to review each week?
Or maybe the point is to turn Cahiers into a multinational media conglomerate, not only publishing its own books and DVDs, but also distributing films and why not producing them. Thus Cahiers becomes its own self-sustainable bubble. Maybe a great "business plan" but a lame conception of artistic liberties... Was the point of all this to rack up for the Press the subsidies originally destined to Film Creation?

So obviously struggling auteurs won't be saved by a mortgaged magazine (they need solid financial support from a patron of the Arts that will not go down if one film flops), and vice-versa, Cahiers won't be saved by merging with a distribution company (because it would just ruin the reputation of journalism independence, among readers, among auteurs not-supported by Cahiers-distribution, among other distributors-competitors). Even if this new hybrid model was economically viable, which is not, I'm not sure the dubious benefits would overcome the sacrifices in term of ethics and liberties for both parties (the corrupted critics and the auteurs supported).

Why of all people in France or in the world should Cahiers be the only possible saviour of Costa and Ferrara? I know, if there were other options they would have made themselves known by now... since the movies are not released yet to date. But that doesn't mean that Cahiers, or any film magazine company, should stand in for the role of somebody else.
The cinema industry is struggling, fine, let's not jump the gun and turn the industry on its head. If we need a major reform of the cinema circuit, the preferable option isn't to let Cahiers do it all by themselves.

There are people knowing this job better than film critics, people whose job is to distribute films! This is not just a weekend distraction, it's a full time activity, film writers don't have the luxury to give attention to! If you have that much spare time you're probably not covering all the films to review that well.

There are more intelligent/productive propositions to make for a sustainable market welcoming all sorts of films :
We need to convince more investors (who know how to balance a freaking budget!), we need to help them take more risks (with more incentive regulations), we need to update the system of distribution (currently sold out to blockbuster interests), we need to organise a parallel niche market (special for low-revenue films, small crowds, slow turnout because the take-the-money-and-run weekends only work for blockbusters)

Burdeau : "The positive aspect for the crisis, to me, is that we need to understand that the separation between the critical world and the cinema world is not what it used to be 50 years ago when Cahiers was founded. On one hand we have a monthly magazine and on the other hand we have the film shown in the theatre. And to me the internet is really the place that shows that these things have to go together whether we want it or not. When you're writing on a blog, you can have on the same page an article and a piece of the movie or the whole movie. At the same time you can be a magazine and a theatre."
Well, maybe a blog can be a magazine and a theatre, because it grows outside legality and does not abide to journalistic ethics... but the equation is not reversible. This is taking the reality of the Press a little lightly to think that a magazine could just "do like the blogs" ("since they steal all our readers anyway").
To turn Cahiers towards the internet is a mature decision, progressive, inevitable... to embrace Web 2.0, to update more frequently, to engage with your readers, to go international, to be bilingual (or multilingual). Yes, that is great. Everybody wants that.
But the internet is not the excuse to turn a Critic into an imperialistic Movie Tycoon extending its hand on all branches of the industry they are supposed to watch and criticize from the OUTSIDE. If Cahiers goes executive, fine, I'll watch your Costa films, but I'll stop reading your magazine-catalogue, sorry. I don't care for more self-complacent publicity. Maybe that's what you want. You want to give up on Film Discourse, and just champion films by signing them up or not.
Cahiers films Inc. vs. the rest of the world!

01 novembre 2008

Abolish locale

Nomadism that is, locale is meaningless on the web.

Coninuation from the subject mentioned in my previous post (Nomad Cinephilia), Adrian Martin writes in the latest Filmkrant (Nov 2008) : "Abolish all film magazines!"
"Almost every film magazine on the Net sticks to an old, pre-WWW format: reviews of current film releases, the latest Film Festivals and events and books, some general reflections on cinema and its cultural context. But the idea of the 'local' reigns supreme: when a new film reaches your city, that's when you devote serious attention to it - for the sake of your local audience. But why should it matter, any longer, whether You, the Living premieres in Cannes in 2007 or Melbourne in 2008 or Iceland in 2010? Cyber-magazines still refuse to face the implications of their global address; they are afraid to throw open their topics and co-ordinates."
He concludes : "And the film magazine of the future will be both a generator and an organiser of those critiques."
I couldn't agree more. The idea of the local is abolished by the Global Village. World cinema as we experience it, inaugurated in distant major festivals, creating instant buzz in every language around the world is less tied to the local than other cultural goods.
If your activity as blogger depends on local distribution (although with import, VOD and pirate download... this is rarely true), fine, there is no reason why distributors should decide the week when a film gets reviewed. But publishing a review on the WORLD WIDE WEB for everyone to see, should define itself from its material (the film) rather than its contingency (spatial or temporal coordinates when you got to see it).
When Google returns you pages on the film you're interested in, you don't pick the blog based in the nearest location to where you're at... especially if you have the luxury to rather read a better one written a year ago in another corner of the globe.
Why do we read film criticism anyway? To find something that is playing in our town, because we want "to go to the movies"... just any movie available to fill an idle night out? Or do we know our way around the cinema planet already and go right to something we have in mind? I think cinephiles don't need "recommendations of the week" or "show schedules"... they are already organised to know what's available nearby, they just need to hear about the films that are playing at their favorite theatres. And the average movie-goer can easily open several windows and make an educated choice by comparing what various critics say on such or such film.

Online reading is just no longer contingent.

Online writing is just no longer timely.

Film Criticism has no business with distribution. Newspapers made it so on paper, because they make the news, they get their package of novelties in every issue to bait the subscriber with a periodic fix... But now that the internet gives the opportunity to cinephiles to think outside the box, to be aware of what is going on beyond their borders, ahead of the weekly schedule of their local screen. People don't watch movies on cue anymore... this was so XXth century!
The audience is back in power now. We have the choice to wait before watching a film, because it'll come back in the form of DVD or VOD. We have the choice to watch it before a distributor deems it profitable, either at a festival or by imports. We have the choice to revisit oldies whenever we want, and not just when they come out on DVD, or when there is a big event at the Cinémathèque.
So why should the new Film Criticism continue to follow the pattern imposed by distributors and the weekly press? No reason whatsoever. It's just out of habit, because the framework is comfortable. Meanwhile, liberty is out there in the open, and internauts know where to find it.

We don't need to know if the critic watched the film on DVD or in theatre... WTF is a "DVD review"? Is it the improved "theatrical review"? Would the opinion be different if reviewed in theatrical release? If we plan to watch that film on DVD should we make sure to read the "DVD review" or else we'd be lost?
If I plan to watch a film in Paris, should I read reviews in French, from a Parisian website exclusively? Was the film shown differently in the print subtitled in English or in Spanish? Should we give more importance to the film object, its materiality or to its content, to the piece of cinema every viewer is expected to encounter upon discovering it, indiscriminatively, regardless for the screen size, the language and the city we happen to see it.

Nomad criticism intends to break down such trivial fences. Let's take into consideration the big picture of Film Discourse! Let's be part of one unique cinephile community, because Cinema is timeless and ubiquitous, and we all see the same movies. Let's give smart readers a consistant content, that may be used as they see fit, whenever they need it.
The critic is there to document cinema, they say what they have to say, a bottle at sea trusted to unknown currents or auspicious winds.
However, just like the buzz on the blogosphere, the Web 2.0 circulation of articles is in the hands of the READERS. And readers are everywhere and anywhere, anytime. That's the beauty of internet archives, everything is always current when we need it (provided Google put it on frontpage for us).

30 octobre 2008

Mushroom festivals

Via Michael Guillen at The Evening Class and his recent post on "Film International Special Issue on Film Festivals (Vol. 6, Issue 4)" :
Dina Iordanova :
  • What is the impact of the worldwide festival network on the other elements of the global film industry?
  • How does the festivals' hierarchical … system impact on the complex dynamics of global cultural production and distribution?
  • What is the place of festivals in the structure of international film distribution (and, increasingly, production)?
  • What historical and technological conditions led to the current powerful positioning of festivals as fundamentally influential cinematic institutions?
  • What is the role of festivals in the system of national, regional and worldwide cinematic culture?
  • Can the international festival operation be economically rationalized?
  • Are festivals indeed crucial yet underestimated links in the context of the global film industry?
Two years ago, Frodon candidely complained in Cahiers there were TOO MANY films released every week in France... Likewise, could there be such a thing as TOO MANY festivals? My answer is : this is ridiculous, on both counts.

Toronto and Venice lock horns over the spot for greatest September festival... Battle of the Premieres, and lost virginity for new films, thunder stolen, adopted auteurs swap, Star sighting and TV coverage, clash between Gala screenings and award-worthy artfilms, festival missions and festival audience.

Last month, some critics (Adam Nayman, Robert Koehler, Scott Foundas, Mark Peranson, Andrew Tracy) in Toronto had an interesting roundtable on this subject at Eyeweekly. For once we don't hear critics complain about their accreditation badge colour! and they put films first, considering whether they get enough visibility in a program of over 300 films, if Toronto is becoming the show opener for the Oscars, if the line-up is coherent. These are the real problematics.

In Cannes this year there was this documentary, 40 x 15 (2008/Jahan) about the 40 years struggle of La Quinzaine des Réalisateurs / Director's Fortnight, as a parallel section overshadowed or even actively suppressed by the Official Competition, showing the hunt for world cinema discoveries in the hope Berlin would not get them first and that the Official Competition didn't contact them first.

It's very sad to look at a festival curator backstage smooth talking a young director to premiere in HIS line up rather than elsewhere. I understand the dynamics of maintaining the standing of their section, but the superior interest should be the auteur's. I mean, who cares if one auteur "owes" you because you helped his debut film? I don't think the imperatives of the film industry can revolve around the fixed date of a certain festival. Let the guy shine in another festival if he was invited elsewhere. Why should a young auteur be morally tied to a festival, bound to open every films in the same city, being "typecasted" in a certain region of the world?
If a young director discovered by la Quinzaine gets picked up for his second feature for the Competition, it's obviously advantageous for his career, and more prestigious for the film. I'm not comfortable with this bitter rivalry between subsections within a festival, or between the major festivals... There are obviously big money at stake for festivals to collect the most exclusivity... but this business is not necessarily helping Cinema as a whole.
Festivals should be collaborative, instead of confrontational. They should trade auteurs and movies, to make sure the largest number of films get a special spotlight, instead of running after the same "celebrities", and copying a line up we've seen elsewhere...


On the grand scheme of things, it's a good thing that there are more festivals everywhere. It does discredit a bit the exceptional aspect of the events, but they fill a role that the official circuit of theatres doesn't do : exposing foreign and art films to a wider public, as well as offering the "festival culture" to a wider population outside major cities.

There are Festivals (with actual world premières, and prestigious prizes) and festivals (repeating in smaller cities the line up already seen in major Festivals). In term of festival audience, the former are for an elite of critics and insiders, the latter open the doors to the same films to a wider population of local reviewers and cinephiles.

Now there will be a point when too many local festivals compete with the public release of niche films only a limited number of people want to see anyway... and the timing of its release after the festival tour. Will distributors stop acquiring them if their attraction potential is too small and if they already met the better part of its potential viewership on festival screens?
So what is more profitable for the career of a small film? To get a fancy tour around the world to meet festival crowds, or to gamble on a public release and meet the general audience? I don't know.

Until contrary evidence, I think it improves the spread of film culture to let flourish as many local festivals as possible.

28 octobre 2008

Collaboration v. Institution

Clay Shirky shows how closed groups and companies will give way to looser networks where small contributors have big roles and fluid cooperation replaces rigid planning.
emerging technologies enabling loose collaboration will change the way our society works. [See the lecture at TED on video]
"How do groups get anythings done? How do you organise a group of individuals so that the output of the group is something coherent and of lasting value instead of just being chaos? [..]
The answer is to put the cooperation into the infrastructure, to design systems that coordinate the output of the group as a byproduct of the operating system, without regard to the institutional models."
The Blogosphere is exactly that. Web 2.0 builds in a system that allows people to communicate across platforms, countries and institutions, with RSS feeds, blogrolls, and tags. Folksonomy, or collaborative tagging, is an example of user-generated taxonomy that finds its place in the big picture when everyone only deals with the tags that best suit their own need.
Of course tags are not 100% reliable, and it is disconcerting to the conservatives at the Institution, editors in serious newspapers, critics from reputable magazines. But the scale of this new pool of information takes on a completely different dimension. That's why we can't compare the Press with the Blogosphere, point by point! The competition is unfair. And the purposes are not even equivalent.
The wealth of the Internet doesn't function on a Zero-error model like the Press (though we could challenge this proverbial infallibility...) but thanks to statistical laws, the inevitable misinformation can be easily overlooked, and the reliable content will eventually surface. Now the advantage of this new model is that if you accept that EVERYONE (non-academics) is allowed to contribute (for free), to give their personal opinion, their own definition, thus as much potential mistakes, you benefit from a wisdom of global efficiency! We may access a much larger range of subjects, trivia and sources than if a radically smaller number of Institutions struggle to publish these informations one by one. The accuracy of the Blogosphere is in its size.

A blog shall never threaten the authority of a newspaper (maybe a couple of lucky bloggers, for exceptional reasons), the Blogosphere shall not be substituted to the role of Institutions. That's why the defiance is ridiculous on both sides. The Blogosphere is like a anthill, where the activity of the individual doesn't matter, as long as the global community prevails in the end. The contribution of many benevolent bloggers generates an ensemble of powerful content for the Internet-savvy reader. There is no obligation of regular periodicity, dispatch of topics, organisation of work, because the enormous crowd shall eventually cater to all imaginable needs. This is because every blogger does whatever they want/like that the resource of the Blogosphere is constantly alimented with fresh new insights that the reader is able to hand-pick for a custom reading.
The activity of the writer and the activity of the reader are totally distinct online from the old paradigm of the paper media. We no longer follow the ONE source we were conditioned to trust, we are empowered by the choice to elect our own content.

"As with the printing Press, if it's really revolutionary it doesn't take us from point A to point B, it takes us from point A to chaos. The printing Press precipitated 200 years of chaos, moving from a world where the Catholic Church was some sort of an organising political force to the treaty of Westphalia when we finally knew what the new union was the nation-state. Now I'm not predicting 200 years of chaos... but 50 years in which loosely coordinated groups are going to be given increasingly high leverage. And the more those groups forego institutional imperatives, like deciding in advance what's going to happen or the profit motive or the leverage they'll get. And institutions are going to come under an increasing amount of pressure, and the more rigidly managed and the more they'll rely on information monopolies, the greater the pressure is going to be. And this is going to happen one arena at the time, one institution at the time. The forces are general but the results are going to be specific. The point is not that we're going to transition from only institutions to only cooperative framework. It's going to be much more complicated than that. But it's going to be a massive reajustment. And since we can't see in advance what's coming, we might as well get good at it."
The parallel with Film Criticism follows the same pattern. The Institution is the anointed official Press, and the Collaborative is the pro bono amateur blogosphere. And the conclusions are identical... we can see the first results already in the recent economic crisis of the paper business model. It just doesn't work like it used to anymore!
Readers feel less enslaved by the hegemony of a relatively small number of venues emitting the news, and they want to diversify their choices, instead of staying faithful to a particular revue, like if they were football fans... The consumers are less "captive", subscriptions are less sustainable, but even the quality of these magazines are less permanent as they used to.
And the flourishing offers online give the power back in the hands of the consumer. Readers don't have to settle with the meagre choice of the Press Establishment, they may now find riches on the Internet or even create their own content for other readers.
The exclusivity of official and reliable information is over because it is available to all : IMDb, Wikipedia, GreenCine Daily, Google... Is it dangerous? Only to the economic model of the paper Press. But I don't think that we should see this as a danger of misinformation in the big picture of Film Discourse. This is a chance to bring in more people to the table, spontaneous candidates, passionate cinephiles, from diverse background, new profiles, people who would have been turned down or discouraged by the Institutional route...

25 octobre 2008

Online Cultural Credibility

More from Adrian Martin's Valdivia speech on The State of Film Criticism (see previous post)
Adrian Martin : "the Internet is an enormous “delivery system” that of course can carry every kind of film criticism, journalistic, middle-range or academic."
"Many older, established critics are nervous about the Internet. Some University film teachers, also are worried. They suspect that what appears on the Internet lacks cultural authority, and it is unprofessional. It is a kind of democratic nightmare, everybody shouting their stupid opinions all at the same time. It seems, to some people, like an unholy chaos."
This is key here to stop using the word "internet" as some sort of overarching cultural entity, a homogeneous community, a rival to the Press industry or TV... The internet is no competition nor an alternative to the news media, it is a NEW media.

Like Adrian Martin says, the internet is only one of many means of communication for the cultural voice to express itself. A DELIVERY SYSTEM, like the telephone is. We don't blame the telephone, as a tool, for all the useless information it is used for everyday. We don't question the reliability of this entire network system when we need to use it to deliver serious matter. Likewise the internet is not responsible for the amount of crap output. Only people, writers and readers alike, choose the level of culture they put in/expect from the internet. The new cultural entity is not the internet itself, but something people make their own : a myriad of cultural identities assembled in self-organised groupuscules. And we can only blame individuals for the misinformation and the inane babbling, not the "internets" as a whole. The internet is serious when we use it seriously, it is casual when we use it casually.

We could use the same deceiving straw man (directed at the evil internet) to describe the Press as an unreliable bundle of highs and lows, if we lump together News of The World and The New York Times.... just because they are both newspapers published on paper by the "Press industry".

I'm glad paper critics start to give up on this primary aversion to this technology, to speak of the blogosphere for what it is, for its potential (see the latest NYFF Film Criticism roundtable) and not by equating it with its lowest common denominator, its bad apples (see an earlier NYU roundtable this year).


Adrian Martin : "You will notice that it is in the comparatively smaller countries that these important initiatives are happening, places like Chile, Argentina, or my own Australia. But not so much yet in England or America or France, the “old world powers” that are expressing all this anxiety about crisis and the “loss of solid values and standards” in criticism."
Adrian also mentions an alliance of the overlooked "small countries" from the Southern hemisphere, against the cultural hegemony of the North. I agree with the unfair imbalance, this is a constructive development, to strengthen the "underdogs" in the meantime. But I'm not sure the confrontational polarity will help to make disappear the divide on the long term. We need to break down the monopoly of the North altogether. We don't need to live in a world entrenched in a North v. South mentality.

I agree that all this noise around the alleged "film criticism crisis" (as if it was a new phenomenon) in the North is futile and misdirected, especially when we read their inadequate, outdated, reactionary concerns. Although it is always welcome to get them critics to take a self-reflexive look at the state of their profession losing touch, day after day, with the quickly evolving reality of cinema, media and cultural consumption.


Adrian Martin : "Too often, we go into a new technology, with its new possibilities, with the same old ideas of what a publication should be, and what it should do. In terms of a “middle range” film magazine, this means we head straight for the latest interesting films, the latest Festivals, the latest books; we do interviews and write reviews, we talk about directors, and do some “overview” essay pieces. But this standard “spread” is not enough anymore, it is blocking our critical, intellectual imagination. We need to completely redefine what a “film magazine” is or could be, and I am interested to hear how my colleagues respond to that challenge."
"And when I see the latest amazing mixtures of these elements in the best films shown here at Valdivia, I know we have to hurry up to produce a new kind of film criticism, a criticism that is proper to our time."
Indeed! And what should be this new form of criticism relevant to our contemporary appropriation of culture and cinema? This is a vast subject...
  • Online film criticism is no longer censored by editors and sponsors with a populist agenda.
  • Online film criticism doesn't need to please the largest crowd, and may dedicate all its time to niche subjects and small crowds without risking to waste investments.
  • Online film criticism can hand-pick its own selection of films without the pressure to cover every weekly releases imposed by distributors.
  • Not writing about a film is also a form of disapproval, and it allows to spend more time on films requiring in-depth treatments (both admirable achievements or offensive films).
  • Online film criticism is open to interaction/collaboration with the reader, to turn the reader into a writer.
  • Online film criticism is immediate and reactive, instantly updatable to avoid the spread of errors or misinformation.
  • Online film criticism is multimedia. It can freely use image, sound and video to better suit the moving picture material criticized.
  • Online film criticism is hypertextual and multidimensional (spatial/temporal).
  • Online film criticism is polymorphic, taking any, every form necessary to suit each film, each topic, contrary to the stereotyped format (length, content...) imposed by the Press.
  • Online film criticism is international, in touch with every territory of underexposed cinema cultures, with other schools of thought, with other markets, with other critics, with other venues, with other cultural fields, across language barriers and taste standards.
  • Online film criticism is participative and amateur, each contributor contributing according to their engagement with the film, contrary to the professional duty for the same single critic to write something on everything, whether (s)he is inspired or qualified to do it.
  • Online film criticism is not based on institutional/academic authority where each article must honour and further the reputation of the paper it appears in. However it is based on anonymous and exceptional contributions which gain authority over time by creating a buzz by itself among its readers (and not because it was published in a reputable magazine).
  • Each article must fight on its own terms to earn a wider visibility thanks to the eventual retribution/recognition by readers and fellow bloggers.
  • Online film criticism is a FREE resource of cultural informations opened to the world (as long as you have a computer hooked up to the web), because culture (or rather the commentary on cultural activities) should be free and shared selflessly among fans.
  • Online film criticism could open a passionate dialogue about Art, between viewers and critics and filmmakers, without formal postures and talking points.
  • ...
This alone would change the face of Film Criticism as we know it. And that's for starters... a whole new world is to be reinvented.

17 octobre 2008

Nomad Cinephilia (Adrian Martin)

Speech by Adrian Martin at the Valdivia Film Festival, Chile (8 October 2008)
"The State of Film Criticism"


Adrian opens with the same categories David Bordwell laid out in his post "In critical condition" (May 14, 2008), to describe the disparity in form and content we can find online today:
  1. - regular short review (periodic journalism)
  2. - mid-range critical longer essay (opinionated, think piece with more distance)
  3. - Academic article or book (in-depth, no periodicity)
And this is very important to make readers aware of this partition of roles among whoever call themselves "film critic". Without such identification of the purpose and intent, the constraints inherent to each writing form, the quality standards of film discourse blend in vaguely into a unique voice or should I say "noise". And readers will complain academics aren't prescriptor of taste enough or that reviewers are too personal. It is very important to know the various levels of discourse and what specific standards they observe. Please, let's stop calling everything written on a movie "Film Criticism". Bordwell explains very well the 4 criteria that make a film writer an art critic (to describe, to analyse, to interpret, to evaluate).

Let bloggers who only care about evaluation or opinion express their impressionistic opinions. Let the actual critics get into formalist details and history without complaining they spoil the film or fail to make reading entertaining. All film writings are not equivalent, and it depends on WHAT writers put in their articles, and HOW they talk about the film that make them either a critic or a reviewer. (I shall come back to that point later)


Adrian also proposes interesting, progressive, constructive ideas on the development of film discourse on the internet. In his book presentation he talks about the "nomad theory" (in another blog of La lectora provisoria) :
Adrian Martin : "The idea of traveling theory is this: you go to a place that invites you, in which you are welcome. A place where you make some new friends. And you bring, humbly in your maleta, your ideas, your concepts, your own points of reference.
You then take your ideas out of your suitcase, and you set them up in the street, in the air. They mix with the local culture, the local language idioms, with the local ideas and situations.
Everyone, in the situation of traveling theory, has to improvise, to meet half-way. There is no fixed, imported truth that is coming from the far-away “centre” of the world.
The centre is wherever you and I are, right now, unpacking our suitcases together.
Traveling theory is all about inventing new ideas, theories, connections. It’s about building a new machine for the present. And then that machine can fly to some other place, to be pulled apart and out together again, differently."
Indeed Adrian Martin is an example of this new internet paradigm, this global culture of the World village, across borders and language barriers. This is what the internet (interconnexion of networks!) is all about and this is the bright future we could hope for a film discourse rid of its territoriality, nationalism and establishment. I don't know his bibliography from the top of my head, but I heard he has published many articles around the globe, he contributes to many small revues, participate to roundtables outside of his country (Australia).
This is the kind of critic we need in the world today. People like the best Festival curators, like Pierre Rissient, Marcos Müller, Thierry Frémaux, Olivier Père, James Quandt... who go out and visit the smallest countries to bring back discoveries. Critics can't just wait at home for the industry to send them the memo with a list of films to talk about in weekly batch format.

Adrian effectively exchanges with critics of other countries, such as Chile (La fuga), Argentina (La lectora provisoria), Netherlands (Filmkrant), Slovenia (Ekran, in English at Girish), Denmark (16:9), Spain (Cahiers España, Tren de Sombras)... who knows where else, and not just with France (Cahiers Atlas) and USA (NYU) and helps to internationalize the critical discourse, to meet and engage with other "schools of thoughts". And the same way we watch our favourite films subtitled, we should also penetrate foreign discourse thanks to translation. Transnational film criticism is the goal of the internet generation. It doesn't matter whether we speak about cinema in English, French or Chinese... we need to find a way to break down the institutional walls put in place by the DVD regions, the distribution market, the extent of the press circulation, and the tongue territoriality. We don't get paid on the internet, therefore we are not subject to commercial competition and other nationalistic embargo. We, isolated cinephiles of the world, passionate about world cinema, must build the bridges that the Movie Industry sees no selfish profit to fund.
Adrian Martin (in Valdivia): "At last, the inevitable has occurred: the big movie companies have decided that they no longer need critics to publicise and discuss their products, to make them known, or give them an added “special cultural value”. The movie companies almost completely control, by now, what newspapers, radio and TV can say about films."
see my post on Critical Fallacy 9 : conflict of Interest on Media Conglomerates.
Adrian Martin : "Today, to put it bluntly from my perspective, it is that “middle range” of film criticism we must commit to, strongly and passionately and vigorously. We must expand this middle range, and pull more into it from all directions. And we must pursue this dream not only in old-fashioned, single-language “hard cover” publications – but in a multi-lingual, cross-cultural way, on the Internet."
This reminds me of the fight for "Le cinéma du milieu" initiated by Ferran in France earlier this year (see my post A French Perspective (Responsibilities)), to defend the production of middle-range artfilms that don't have the big budget of highly commercial projects but require more money than shoe-string films made without expensive sets, costumes and cast. This is a thought-provoking analogy with the Film Criticism scene, both financially (budget cuts at newspapers) and culturally (disdain for middle-of-the-road articles blamed for being too intellectual and too superficial at once), because what matters is to reach out to a wider mainstream audience, and overcome the formal cost to become more accessible.

06 septembre 2008

Spectres du cinéma

Francophone-only :

Voici une nouvelle revue en ligne, Spectres du cinéma, à laquelle je collabore, formé par un collectif d'habitués du forum des Cahiers du cinéma (Stéphane Belliard, Borges, Raphaël Clairefond, Lorin Louis, Adèle Mees-Baumann, Arthur Môlard, Simon Pellegry, Sébastien Raulin, Jean-Maurice Rocher).
Premier numéro d'automne 2008, conçu cet été, et publié aujourd'hui sur le blog dédié au téléchargement de la revue électronique au format PDF (2Mb). A lire sur internet donc ou à imprimer chez soi.

De nombreux textes sur 76 pages, avec notamment des dossiers sur "Approches du réel" (Still Life de Jia Zhang-ke et Juventude em marcha de Pedro Costa), "Regard(s) morbide(s)" (Redacted, Cloverfield, REC, Diary of the Dead), "Représentation des minorités mexicaines dans le cinéma hollywoodien du XXIe siècle" (avec mon premier article de cinéma en français, il me semble, une critique du film Los Bastardos de Amat Escalante!)

Ainsi qu'un formidable entretien de 10 pages que nous a accordé Charles Tesson, ancien rédacteur en chef des Cahiers du cinéma. Il commente la crise des Cahiers et leur projet de revente imminente, les nouvelles modalités de la critique à l'age d'internet, du cinéma asiatique et de bien d'autres choses.

Téléchargez la revue ici dès aujourd'hui ! (c'est gratuit)

21 août 2008

Europe is too different

Caller's question (Los Angeles) :
"I was wondering if you think that foreign films if they had been made in English with no other differences would manage to find a broad audience in the US. I don't think so because of culture shock. The actors that we want the most often in the US outside of Americans are of course the British because of the language similarities. But the British culture is very different from ours and even then it could be a hard time making a translation. I think it would be really hard to translate French, Italian, Chinese or Japanese culture to a broad audience here. what do you think?"
Answer by Mick LaSalle : "I agree. There are some movies, if they were made in English, they would do rather well. But even then they would need some kind of adjustment. It would be different, the stars are different. There is different attitudes towards life. Although I do sometimes observe that there are some English language movies, were they subtitled, would actually get great reviews from critics but because they are not subtitled people don't appreciate them because they are American. [...] But even though just doing a direct translation would be in most cases a little bit of a jolt. The English they have a different culture but their values, the way of looking at life is much more similar to ours than the way the Italians look at life, and certainly the way the French look at life. I mean when you travel on the continent and then when you go the England for a couple days and it almost feel like you're home, it really does, and it's not just because they're speaking English. They don't stop to work at 2 o'Clock in the afternoon for 4 hours for absolutely no reason... and they just have a different way to look at life that is more similar to ours."
Podcast by Mick LaSalle at the San Francisco Chronicle (07-16-2008) it's in the first 3 minutes.

The old continent is too different from Americans, life style, language, culture... "cultural shock", "a bit of a jolt"... heck they are just like the Chinese! We grew apart in our own separate ways ever since you guys flee to the New World. Americans and Europeans, we are not the same people. Our cultures are so incompatible now that it is impossible to conceive watching our respective movies, even with a direct translation. Really the only way to comprehend European storylines for the broad American audience is the home-made remake. Even if the entire world sees no problem watching translated Hollywood blockbusters and loving them, it cannot possibly work the other way round, Americans CAN NOT understand a foreign culture, even the Brits! It's too far from what they are used to.
Way to go "broad American audience"! Bravo Mick LaSalle! That's indulgent nationalist self-suggestion at its best. Not to mention the discriminative stereotypes...

I admire the fact they even ask themselves this kind of question about subtitled foreign films though, given their scarcity on the American market, it's a moot point anyway... But I guess there are too many of them already if they become a worry.

18 juin 2008

Three times 4 eggs - Funny Games (2)

First part of the review of Haneke's Funny Games here (sorry for the delay)

SECOND GAME : THE FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR

Haneke illustrates almost literally here a typical principle of manipulation known in psychology. The idea is to ask little at first to secure chances to obtain more later. Once the foot is in the door it becomes impossible to leave the intruder out, both physically and metaphorically.
When the perverse manipulator knows that what he actually wants will be refused systematically, he sets up a pre-conditioning behaviour, trivial and costless, that will commit the victim into accepting something that would have been easy to turn down otherwise. This experiment was described by Freedman and Fraser, and by Kiesler.



This is my favourite sequence in the film. Watch this precise treatise of manipulation at work:

1) the knife in the water

The father and the boy prepare the sail boat at the deck. Paul proposed his help when they asked a hand to the neighbours at the gate. The family is embarrassed that the dog barks at Paul, which puts them in a situation to apologize for the inconvenience of the dog misbehaviour (which will play a role later). The dog has been barking on and offscreen ever since they arrived at the house. This is a security system signal they didn't pay attention to.
The mother is on the phone in the kitchen and the father sent the boy for a knife. This scene plants two key elements : the functioning phone left on the sink and the knife brought by the boy into the boat. In a patronizing and maternal tone, she says "I want to see this knife again" (she will see it again at the end of the film indeed, on the boat!), implying they might lose it or damage it on the boat.

2) 4 eggs

Peter, the clumsy idiot, comes at the door (behind the mosquito net), on behalf of the neighbour, to ask for 4 eggs.
- "How did you get in?" (Paul, the other guy, was invited in through the automatic gate).
Peter pretends the neighbour told him about a secret hole in the fence between the two properties. The mother never met him before. Under normal circumstances she could easily refuse this odd request and go on with her life, thus escaping a tragic massacre. Unfortunately, it's virtually impossible to reject this meaningless preparatory "participation" (in the manipulative scheme), and thus engages in an escalation of greater sacrifices, always more inescapable!
If Peter had asked for all 12 eggs right from the start, she would have had an easy excuse to refuse without being rude or earning a bad reputation. Moreover she's offered an opportunity to be serviceable, at low cost, to her friend who happened to be inexplicably distant earlier in the opening scene. We realise Haneke (and his killers) had set up the trap much earlier than we thought.
Actually every single word of the dialogue is highly interesting. She offers a cardbox to carry the eggs, he overpolitely declines to cause her the least hassle, leaves it to her judgement. At this point she makes the choice to become helpful to her neighbour, and he doesn't even force her to accept anything. She's empowered by an impression of free will.

3) 4 more eggs

Peter didn't even walk out the frontdoor that the eggs are already dropped on the floor. Peter is so embarrassed that it's touching. As a good housewife, the mother pretends it's no big deal, says these things happen and that the mess is quickly fixed. His immaculate gloves might get soiled so Peter doesn't even try to help her (there is a medium shot of him holding his hands in the air like a surgeon trying to keep them from touching anything). This little (planned) incident puts the mother, once again, in a gratifying position where she could be helpful and merciful, at low cost. She feels good about herself now, and gradually convinces herself Peter is useless and most importantly harmless.
Peter still waits for his eggs. Though she's a little more reluctant to comply and has more reasons to refuse now. The original good deed now costs her 8 eggs and leaves her only 4. The numbers are important here. The first time, it only cost her 1/3 and left her 2/3, so the exchange was acceptable. The second time, the situation is reversed, and the split is unfavourably imbalanced. So the act of giving definitely means something different symbolically.
Remember Peter doesn't actually want eggs (because the neighbours are already dead!), all he wants is to get her to surrender more and more of her free will to him, unknowingly.

The other aspect of the foot-in-the-door technique is the process of commitment. The small inductive act, opens up a favourable inclination to continue to accept similar acts. And it's also expected to be consistent in our actions. If she accepted to give 4 eggs once (and even went on saying how happy she was to be serviceable!), she's most likely expected to accept again. This begins the escalation of commitment, in order to justify the initial act that she was persuaded to do.

Just as she's convinced by his smooth talking, Peter "inadvertently" drops her phone into the sink water. She's really getting annoyed by now, while maintaining a polite face. She's dying to get rid of him as quickly as possible. This time she puts the eggs in a box, despite him politely declining again (sticking to his original easygoing pattern), and sends him home.
Once he's gone, her face is relieved, she even smiles at the way she got all stressed up from nothing. She doesn't even look much bothered by the broken phone. This whole thing cost her more than she first expected when she accepted, but she's happy her good deed will put her neighbour in a better mood for the golf game they arranged the next day.

4) the last 4 eggs

The dog makes more noise. And the mother sees the two intruders rush in to escape the dog attack. The housewife feels sorry of course and is put in a guilt-inducing situation where she has to apologize and make up for it as they blame this misbehaviour on her poor training of the dog. Peter dropped the eggs yet again, because of the dog this time, and asks for the last 4 eggs. The stake raised, now she has to give up all 12 eggs, with nothing left for her. All or nothing.
But the process of commitment carefully set up makes it more difficult to get out of her responsibilities. She has to justify her refusal to hand out the 4 eggs. In fact she finds less credible arguments to excuse herself out. They repeat what she said earlier in a polite conversation, to use it against her false excuses now :
Peter : "You said you will go shopping on Monday anyway"

These 4 eggs, or more exactly the decision to give them for free, represent so much more emotional frustration than their face value. She only withhold the eggs by principle to express her anger and punish them for becoming insistently rude. Step by step, the original 4 eggs cost the price of twelve. Even twelve eggs isn't a big deal for this wealthy bourgeoise, but she doesn't want to be fooled a third time in a row. This trivial demand has been invested with a symbolic stand off. Even if she keeps the eggs to teach them manners, she would have lost 8 eggs and a phone, without the initial expectation to make up with her "upset" neighbour. Not to mention the bad reputation.
She didn't ask anything to begin with... and in 10 minutes she risks to get cross with her neighbours because this clumsy stranger asked for eggs that are useless to her! All this is rather silly.

5) a golf club

Notice that the two strangers entered the hallway, backs to the door (Trojan Horse-like intrusion of the private space in harmless clothes), the foot-in-the-door worked, literally. Suddenly Paul admires with emphasis her husband's golf clubs. These little words both remind her about the game they want to enjoy with the neighbours later on (Paul : "We [intruders+neighbours] don't stand a chance against such perfect clubs"), and flatter her ego (she humbly declares "a club doesn't make the player").
OK, last chance to start the vacations on the right foot. She's persuaded to let him try a swing in the garden, in the hope to put all this petty misunderstanding behind them. She would probably not have let a stranger use the precious clubs under normal circumstances, but this new foot-in-the-door, a step deeper, pushes her to accept this little concession. This will drag her into more trouble of course... She just gave her killer the weapon that will cause her demise!

6) good cop, bad cop

She grew a certain mistrust and dislike for Peter, but she still has to be grateful and polite to Paul because he helped for the boat. The situation now evolved in a good cop/bad cop manipulative relation. Paul plays the good cop, trying to conciliate the clashing parties with compromising solutions. This way it's easier for the mother to concede something to Paul that she would deny to Peter.
When the dog stops barking in a scream, the father arrives to see what's going on. He wants to sort out the conflict, but it's too late. The trap is loaded, the killers planted a firm foothold in the house, the family is hooked.
Paul welcomes the new participant because the dialogue with the mother was at a stalemate. He now can manipulate the father to press his wife into submission. The father doesn't know what happened, and his wife can't explain anything because the whole thing is so silly and she's too humiliated to have to justify herself in public. The father even has to apologize for the aggressiveness of his wife, but still wants to obey her so asks them to leave without the eggs even though he doesn't understand why.

7) a kneecap for a slap

Until now, the conversation is annoying at worse but remains very polite and restrained. In total control of the situation, Paul may taunt his upset victims, push them to the edge and let them make the incriminating step across the decency line. Paul makes a bad remark and gets a slap in the face. Peter instantly grabs a club and demolishes the father's knee cap! An eye for an eye. The father just gave them the opportunity (and the justification) to raise the stake, to go from verbal annoyance to physical violence.

This is really a cat-and-mouse game, the cat enjoys watching the captive mouse suffer, prisoner, struggling to get away. They could use the hyperbolic amount of violence usual in killer movies and end this tragedy before we begin to question our sense of morality. But Haneke wants us to endure the reality of what we asked for when we bought a thriller ticket. Violence isn't just spectacular effects, surprise jumps, adrenaline rushes... Paul and Peter only find it entertaining when the victims are fighting back.


to be continued... (eventually)

Related link:

12 juin 2008

The fate of Cannes 2007 films...

Like Andy Horbal did in his city of Pittsburgh for this year's Cannes line up, I would like to track down the releases in France of all the films in competition last year (award ceremony on 05-27-2007). By looking at last year's batch, we have more distance to appreciate what happens in one year time on the rights acquisition circuit.

It seems the auteurs get their 15 minutes of fame during the festival with a mandatory press coverage. But they are quickly forgotten ever after, unless they are lucky to make a monster tour in the film festivals around the world to garner more acclaims. What concerns me here most especially is the state of distribution of the award winners in Cannes as well as the sidebar selections.

Do artfilms showing up in Cannes get more chances to be acquired on foreign markets?
Personally I don't think we should complain if the films take a long time to see the light of a publicly accessible screen in our country. We have to give time to the distribution market. There are so many films made every year that not everyone is going to get a fast release. The timing of festivals is a world apart, its a semi-private première for professionals and critics. We anticipate a film for a couple of years sometimes, only because we heard about it from festival goers, while we should really just enjoy the moment of its official public release as if it was a first time. This tension is aggravated by the global news network of the web. Wherever a film premières, we can hear about it from afar.

[EDIT: Nonetheless a film is a creation of the present and should be shown to the audience within a reasonable period of time to remain in tune with the contemporary atmosphere (social, political, cultural) we live in! 3 years seems to be a maximum to me, maybe 5 in case the relevance to a time frame is not specific...]

And I don't find it much beneficial for cinema that major Studios today release blockbusters on the same day all around the world. Maybe it's the best counter to piracy they've found, but it kills the local negotiations of exhibition circuits in each country, by not letting them express their preference, their own timing, their understanding of the pulse of their audience. Releases are scheduled by Studios at a pace of "take-the-money-and-run" weekends one after the other, which doesn't leave much room for weaker films to meet their slower audience (anyway I digress).
  • OFFICIAL COMPETITION (22 feature films selected/2 unreleased)
  • UN CERTAIN REGARD (20 feature films selected/5 unreleased)
  • DIRECTOR'S FORTNIGHT (23 feature films selected/6 unreleased)
  • INTERNATIONAL CRITICS WEEK (7 feature films selected/2 unreleased)
There were 72 feature films officially selected at the Official Competition/Un Certain Regard (by Thierry Frémaux from 1615 submissions!), at La Quinzaine (by Olivier Père from a thousand submissions!) and the debuting films of the International Critics Week.

It's been over a year now they made their world première in Cannes. I've been lucky to see 46 of them, at the numerous festival screenings gracing Paris, but the distribution is not as generous in the rest of France for the average movie goer. 15 haven't been picked for distribution in France yet (well two of them are scheduled to come out this September). It might take another couple of years for some and never for others (4 of these haven't even been released in their own country yet).
6 films have only been released in one country, and half of them are French (undeserved/overestimated spot in the line ups, a bit of a French bias there maybe...). If a film is selected at an International Film Festival it is expected to be at least appealing to an audience beyond its own borders and culture, right? We're judging "international films" on equal footing here, regardless for their nation of origin.

Cannes doesn't always give the best films of the year, but it's a good sample of the top tier. Thus it's interesting to know how they fare worldwide on the cinephile markets (if not at the top of the box office). If these don't get distributed, then what chance do stand the artfilms not selected in a major festival?
The numbers of countries releasing these films is taken from the IMDb pages (festival screenings don't count, TV premières or DVD releases do), so might not be entirely accurate or up-to-date, but I'll just use it as a rough indicator.

Expectedly, the "best-sellers" across the most foreign markets are all American submissions : Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, My Blueberry Nights, Death Proof and We Own the Night with over 35 countries reached in one year.
[EDIT: Actually My Blueberry Nights is not an American film like I thought, it's a China-France co-production, so that makes it the most successful non-American film in the Cannes selection, 3rd on the list]
The Palme d'Or winner (4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days) comes next, thankfully, with 32 countries, which isn't bad for a "bleak Romanian movie".
3 French films (awards winners too): Persepolis, Le Scaphandre et le papillon and Paranoid Park also did well (about 30) this year, though made by non-French filmmakers (!). The best French auteur (Breillat) only convinced 8 countries (another league!).

Caramel, a small film from Lebanon (French co-production) meets 20 distributors.
The Jury Prize (at Un Certain Regard), The Band's visit, a modest film from Israel (another French co-production), one of my favourite, was seen in 17 countries.
The Camera d'Or (best debut feature), Jellyfish, also from Israel (also a French co-production) ranks at 9 countries, the Competition Grand Prix (The Mourning Forest, another French co-production) and the Jury Prize (Silent Light, again a French co-production) make 8. The Best Performances winners each don't fare higher. Un Certain Regard Winner (California Dreamin') is at 5.

The others are all in the low single digit, which is disappointing for the influence of the Cannes seal of approval :
Among these gems neglected by the world (the ones I was most impressed by) are PVC-1, Blind Mountain, Solitary Fragments, Yumurta, La Influencia, Ploy, Parpados Azules, El Baño del Papa, Naissance des pieuvres, Aleksandra which deserve a much wider audience, hopefully in the coming years.
Most outrageously for Secret Sunshine which commercial and artistic qualities (more mainstream-friendly than any others in the above list) should earn it a spot near the top (of the cinephile sub-markets)!


Public nationwide release schedule in France for the Cannes 2007 films (57 released out of 72 so far) :

MAY 2007
  • OS : * Zodiac (Fincher) 05-17-2007 (48 countries)
  • OS : * Les Chansons d'amour (Honoré) 05-23-2007 (6 countries)
  • OS : * Le Scaphandre et le papillon (Schnabel) [Best Director] 05-23-2007 (29 countries)
  • DF : Après lui (Morel) 05-23-2007 (4 countries)
  • OS : * Une vieille maîtresse (Breillat) 05-30-2007 (8 countries)
  • OS : * Tehilim (Nadjari) 05-30-2007 (5 countries)
JUNE 2007
  • OS : * Death Proof (Tarantino) 06-06-2007 (35 countries)
  • CR : * The Terror's Advocate (Schroeder) 06-06-2007 (7 countries)
  • CR : Et toi t'es sur qui? / Just About Love (Lola Doillon) 06-13-2007 (2 countries)
  • OS : * Persepolis (Satrapi/Paronnaud) [Jury Prize] 06-27-2007 (31 countries)
AUGUST 2007
  • CR : * Una Novia Errante (Katz) 08-08-2007 (2 countries)
  • CR : * Naissance des pieuvres / Water Lilies (Sciamma) 08-15-2007 (5 countries)
  • DF : Caramel (Labaki) 08-15-2007 (20 countries)
  • OS : * 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days (Mungiu) [Palme d'Or/FIPRESCI] 08-29-2007 (32 countries)
SEPTEMBER 2007
  • SiC : * Jellyfish (Geffen/Keret) [Camera D'Or] 09-05-2007 (9 countries)
  • CR : * My Brother is an only child (Luchetti) 09-12-2007 (15 countries)
  • DF : * La Question humaine (Klotz) 09-12-2007 (3 countries)
  • SiC : * Nos retrouvailles (Oelhoffen) 09-19-2007 (1 country)
  • DF : Un homme perdu (Arbid) 09-19-2007 (2 countries)
  • OS : * Aleksandra (Sokurov) 09-26-2007 (7 countries)
  • DF : Control (Corbijn) [Awards] 09-26-2007 (19 countries)
  • DF : * Tout est pardonné (Hansen-love) 09-26-2007 (1 country)
OCTOBER 2007
  • OS : * Secret Sunshine (Lee Chang-dong) [Best Actress] 10-17-2007 (7 countries)
  • DF : Avant que j'oublie (Nolot) 10-17-2007 (1 country)
  • OS : * Paranoid Park (Van Sant) [60th Anniversary Prize] 10-24-2007 (24 countries)
  • OS : * Morning Forest (Kawase) [Grand Prix] 10-31-2007 (8 countries)
NOVEMBER 2007
  • OS : * The Edge of Heaven (Akin) 11-14-2007 (22 countries)
  • SiC : * Voleurs de chevaux (Wald) 11-14-2007 (3 countries)
  • SiC : * Párpados azules (Contreras) 11-14-2007 (2 countries)
  • OS : * Breath (Kim Ki-duk) 11-21-2007 (14 countries)
  • DF : La France (Bozon) 11-21-2007 (2 countries)
  • CR : * You The Living (Andersson) 11-21-2007 (16 countries)
  • OS : * My Blueberry Nights (Wong Kar Wai) 11-28-2007 (38 countries)
  • OS : We Own the Night (Gray) 11-28-2007 (35 countries)
DECEMBER 2007
  • OS : * Silent Light (Reygadas) [Jury Prize] 12-05-2007 (8 countries)
  • CR : Calle Santa Fe (Castillo) 12-05-2007 (2 countries)
  • CR : * The Band's visit (Kolirin) [Regard-Jury Prize] 12-19-2007 (17 countries)
  • CR : * Actrices (Bruni Tedeschi) [Regard-Jury Prize] 12-26-2007 (5 countries)
  • SiC : * XXY (Puenzo) [Critics Week Award] 12-26-2007 (13 countries)
JANUARY 2008
  • CR : * California Dreamin' (Nemescu) [Regard-Grand Prix] 01-02-2008 (5 countries)
  • DF : Garage (Abrahamson) [Award] 01-09-2008 (5 countries)
  • DF : Smiley Face (Araki) 01-16-2008 (2 countries)
  • OS : * No Country for Old Men (Coen) 01-23-2008 (42 countries)
  • CR : * Ye che / Night Train (DIAO Yi Nan) 01-23-2008 (1 country)
  • OS : Promise Me This (Kusturica) 01-30-2008 (7 countries)
  • CR : * The flight of the red balloon (HHH) 01-30-2008 (11 countries)
  • DF : * Elle s'appelle Sabine (Bonnaire) [Award] 01-30-2008 (4 countries)
FEBRUARY 2008
  • OS : * The Banishment (Zvyagintsev) [Best Actor] 02-06-2008 (8 countries)
  • DF : * O Estado do mundo (omnibus) 02-20-2008 (2 countries)
  • DF : Foster Child (Mendoza) 02-27-2008 (2 countries)
MARCH 2008
  • CR : * El Baño del Papa (Fernandez/Charlone) 03-19-2008 (5 countries)
APRIL 2008
  • DF : * Ploy (Ratanaruang) 04-16-2008 (3 countries)
  • DF : * La Influencia (Aguilera) 04-23-2008 (3 countries)
  • DF : * Yumurta (Kaplanoglu) 04-23-2008 (2 countries)
  • DF : Gegenüber (Bonny) [Award] 04-30-2008 (3 countries)
MAY 2008
  • CR : And Along Came the tourists (Thalheim) 05-14-2008 (4 countries)
JUNE 2008
  • CR : * Solitary Fragments (Rosales) 06-11-2008 (2 countries)
UNDISTRIBUTED (15 films)
  • DF : Savage Grace (Kalin) ? (13 countries)
  • OS : Import/Export (Seidl) ? (10 countries)
  • CR : * Mister Lonely (Korine) ? (5 countries)
  • OS : The Man from London (Tarr) 09-24-2008 (4 countries)
  • DF : Chop Shop (Bahrani) 09-03-2008 (3 countries)
  • DF : Dai Nipponjin (Matumoto) ? (3 countries)
  • CR : * Blind Mountain (Li Yang) ? (2 countries)
  • CR : Pleasure Factory (Uekrongtham) ? (2 countries)
  • DF : Zoo (Devor) ? (2 countries)
  • CR : * Magnus (Kousaar) ? (1 country)
  • CR : Munyurangabo (Chung) ? (1 countries)
  • DF : * PVC-1 (Stathoulopoulos) ? (0 country)
  • DF : Mutum (Kogut) ? (0 country)
  • SiC : A via láctea (Chamie) ? (0 country)
  • SiC : Funuke, Show Some Love, You Losers ! (Yoshida) ? (0 country)
Day of public nationwide release in France
and followed in brakets by : (indicative number of countries distributing the film as of now, according to IMDb's listing, Festival screenings don't count)

OS : Official Competiton
CR : Un certain regard
DF : Director's Fortnight
SiC : International Critics Week
* : films I've seen

If you want to do the same thing for your country, please leave a link to your listing in the comments below, so we get a more comprehensive idea of how far Cannes shines worldwide.