22 janvier 2013

Self-Affirmation Delusion (USA Cinephilia)

The State of the "Art Film" : Why "Art Films" Are Thriving (Richard Brody; The New Yorker; 17 jan 2013)

Turd Polishing

Richard Brody of the New Yorker doesn't think the arthouse market is an endangered species in the USA, on the contrary he believes that it is THRIVING. WTF? Keep on polishing that turd! 

He wouldn't look at reality in the eyes and acknowledge that there IS some kind of a problem...
  • between the lopsided distribution of domestic versus foreign cinema in USA commercial theatre, 
  • between the distribution of American indies and Major Studios releases, 
  • between how many spectators watch the best American films (as voted by American critics) within the USA, and how many watch them in other countries in the world. 
People who call themselves "cinephiles" in the USA are diseased. This disease is called "Self-Affirmation Delusion".
Either they lie to themselves, and actually have no clue about what is going on around them (see the charts above about the ACTUAL state of artfilms at the Spectators, Distributors, Exhibitors and Critics level respectively). Nobody with a sane mind would consider these numbers "successful" or even remotely encouraging... But Richard Brody, maybe just ignores them, ignores the comparison with other markets from comparable countries in Europe (or in the West more generally), and with the rest of the world, or he knows and decides to lie to his readers, by spewing out a standard propaganda speech to keep the masses happy and comforted in their own superiority.

Positive Thinking (or Panglossianism)

Positive Thinking is a method that works well if you need a morale boost before a job interview or a blind date... to help you perform at the best of your possibility, to prevent stress from making you under-perform  But Positive Thinking isn't a miracle cure, it's only a placebo, it doesn't make reality go away, it doesn't make you perform above your own limitations. But what can you do when an entire nation is raised on Positive Thinking at a national scale, in political statements, on news channels, at school, at work, in commercials, in entertainment... Repeating that the USA is the BEST COUNTRY IN THE UNIVERSE is in effect the national motto  or more exactly a religious mantra. Keep telling yourself you're the best will make it happen. Not doing something about, not making some efforts, not reforming, not improving upon errors, not tracking your progress, not comparing your level with what best is found in the world... nah. Just repeating USA will ALWAYS be at its best is enough sweat. Keep polishing that turd together, until it's the shiniest that ever was.

Brody doesn't give a shit that artfilms (American-made or Foreign imports alike) are gradually and systematically becoming a Straight-to-Video commodity, that VOD will replace the default theatrical release (which was only exceptionally above 100 screens nationwide anyway). It's not the theatrical sales that are doing bad (at worst, it is stagnating), because people continue to "go to the movies" in mass, IF it is Hollywood-made spectacle of course. The only sector going down is the arthouse circuit. You can't blame that on a world wide bank crisis, a recession, or a massive transfer of viewing habits from the big screen to the home cinema. It is not happening for the blockbusters. Only for the arthouses. Why? Because regular movie goers, with mainstream taste, continue to ENJOY going to the movies, while so-called "cinephiles" have given up, and prefer to sit on their ass watching DVD or BluRays at home, watching their brick-and-mortar circuit of independent arthouses go bankrupt, shut down and die. They don't give a shit. And critics wouldn't even stand up to call for action, solidarity, support... Because they don't care.
Last year a bunch of bored hipsters took it upon themselves to put the heroic effort to push a petition button online to support Margaret, one out of a hundred American-made indie movie neglected or red-lit by Hollywood distributors (not even an outstanding indie, just one that is barely decent, that tries very hard to produce a Hollywood lookalike network narrative drama, a melodramatic distant adaptation of Cassavetes's Opening Night). What about all the others? What about all the world-class foreign films, much better than Margaret? Nah, that's too much effort. Besides they don't even think there is anything to be done... because EVERYTHING is GREAT.

In his article he seems pretty happy to boast about "The state of the 'Art Film' ", as if there was anything to be proud of... He's content to report that Sofia Coppola's next film will be released only in a handful of theatre, and, what a fantastic news, on VOD! Yeah, theatrical films are switching to being viewed only on the small screen, in digital form, and he celebrates! 

"In short, 2013 is already a very good year; we’re living in a golden age of cinematic quality and quantity, and distributors are—not unfailingly, but nonetheless diligently and courageously—making a remarkable range of excellent films available (even if it’s the ones that remain unavailable that stick in the craw)."
Failing distributors, yes! Diligent and courageous? Who the fuck are you kidding dude??? Since when securing a safe, limited release on a dozen arthouses, in NYC and LA, to test the water, see if it sticks, could be described as courageous??? Courageous would be to open The Artist on at least 1000 screens nationwide, long before the marketing momentum of an Oscar win. Opening it on 4 screen for 4 weeks, and waiting after the Oscars ceremony to raise its distribution to over 1500 screen, is as cowardly as can be. Opening the film that was voted number 1 by all American critics in 2012, Holy Motors, on a handful of screens (and letting it reach a whooping 29 screens after the polls announcements) is NOT courageous. Opening a Hong Sang-soo film on 2 screens across America, is NOT courageous. You're in total denial dude! 
Didn't you notice that even American indies get a wider release abroad? Have you no pride? Have you no shame? With close to 40000 screens, the USA has the largest theatrical circuit in the world! Above China or India!!! And yet, you let smaller countries release YOUR films on a wider scale than at home? Isn't it a definite proof that your distributors/exhibitors are totally useless? (See: Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 1-2-3-4-5-6)

What is courageous is to select films before they have been released anywhere, like major festivals do. They put their trust in them, before any jury or critics poll or BO figures or Academy awards come in, they place a risky bet ahead of the business circuit, they grant faith to an artist. That is courage. Releasing A Separation, a worldwide popular success as a serious non-Hollywood art film can be, on only 4 screens, even though it was months after its success in Iran, in France, on the festival circuit... is NOT courageous! It's being AFRAID of risking money on something that already had a history of popular success. If you can even back this, then what? 

Sorry, I see no sign for self-congratulation there. No one in the USA is professing a voice of reason, offering a reality check to those self-affirmative pundits, telling things as they are, and not how the marketing propaganda would like their turd polished... 
Releasing high-profile foreign films on 1 single screen in NYC, just to get it registered in print in the New York Times, is not what we could call "courageous", or even "admirable" for the art film scene. This is a sham, a cover up. You can't lie to yourself and pretend that a WIDE RANGE OF EXCELLENT FILMS is AVAILABLE when it is de facto NOT AVAILABLE to practically EVERYONE in the USA except one neighborhood in Manhattan. Who are you kidding? Are you preaching to babies? Are you a baby yourself? What is it you think is going right in this scam? Hopelessly delusional.

Then he digs out an old article from 1992 (that he couldn't find anything more recent is proof of the silence of the press on this situation!) to show how the 80ies and 90ies were so much worse... I have a hard time imagining a worse level of commitment really... The USA is still dead last compared to any European country. So worse than a 5 screens release is what? Zero? Yeah right. Congratulation!!! The RICHEST country in the world, with the WEALTHIEST movie industry in the world, asks for applauds because they release world-class masterpieces on 5 screens now instead of ZERO. WOAW. I'm floored.

So Brody and his pal Roger Corman pat themselves in the back for this appalling distribution circuit, domestic-centric and entertainment-exclusive club. They even go so far as blaming THEIR FAILURE on the unaffordable price tag of European films... If Hollywood can't afford it, then which country could? Yet, the distribution of non-Hollywood films is doing pretty well everywhere, EXCEPT in the USA. Maybe it's time to realise that there is an unspoken CENSORSHIP going on here. Not by law like in Iran, but stricter than Iran's isolationism... WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL BAN... There is no cause for celebration to beat Iran at his own game. 
Even if it was true, that ALL European distributors ask for too much money (dude, do you really want me to check if ALL SINGLE major European films unreleased in the USA had a fee way above standard practice, only to find out you didn't buy them because you're too lazy?), it wouldn't excuse the USA to deprive its citizens from the best of what cinema has to offer... Sometimes you have to pay the price, especially when you're the last country on Earth would should complain about financial problems. That's what happens on the art market, the highest bid wins the world-wide coveted painting! American museums don't scrap the spoils after European museums or Japan or China have bought out all the major artworks... they make sure to get the BEST, at all costs. That is the strategy when you seek to maintain the highest level of art appreciation in the world. If you want Kiarostami, you pay whatever he asks, period. You don't settle for "nevermind, we won't distribute it then"... If a smaller country with an economy 1 tenth of your size can release the same films, you shouldn't draw attention to this aspect. Cope out! Liar! 

Maybe we should organise an Aid concert to donate money to the penniless Hollywood distributors so they can buy our movies... Wouldn't that be embarrassing; they would still take the money I'm sure.

American distributors and exhibitors just didn't learn how to do their job, how to take risks, how to put some efforts to attract and build an audience. The full extant of what they can do is to rent a guaranteed blockbuster and watch the profits cash in. If the appeal is not immediately visible or if the carpet-bombing marketing didn't fabricate ready-made die-hard fans long before the release, they have no clue how to do their job, how to HELP a film, how to bring in audience that come in by themselves... How dare you speak of COURAGE???

" In other words, viewers could see something of the essence of the European art cinema in the Hollywood movies of the seventies. "
Bullshit! Stop lying to yourself. New Hollywood in the 70ies (10 years later!) was never on the level of formal experimentation and thematic transgression that it ever was in the 60ies in Japan, France, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Germany, the UK, Québec, South America, Yugoslavia, Argentina, Portugal, Brazil... IT was a shock for the puritan mentality of the time, but it was merely a Hollywood-lookalike "neorealism". Not to mention all these directors jumped right in the doors of Hollywood when they try to buy them out, and went on to become VERY COMMERCIAL, POLITICALLY CORRECT for-hire directors in Hollywood. We can't exactly say the same for all the independent directors in the rest of the world. Who are you brainwashing with such lies? Don't you think your readers know at least a little about New Hollywood and the New Waves in the world? 
Besides it's an excuse a profit-driven studio executive would come up with. How could a film critic with self-respect, would declare that since Hollywood stole all the good ideas from Europe (and applied them with much less talent or subversion), then it was A-OK to stop importing them. WTF? On what side of history are you? Even if Hollywood and Europe made films based on the same aesthetic and thematic (which is far from the truth!), it will NEVER make two films interchangeable, or films from one part of the world dispensable... Isolationism might be a political argument (at times), it is NEVER a cultural argument! Don't you defend culture wherever it comes from, you miserable movie-pages employee??? This is really disappointing...


" “The repertory houses died because of video,” but a new generation of movie lovers who are accustomed to watching movies on their computers increasingly go out to watch movies on the big screen, and—at least in New York—the repertory scene is booming."
What a delusional hypocrite! Why a megalopole such as NYC, with 20 million urbanite inhabitants, cannot outperform the arthouse ticket sales of a smaller country (including both urban and rural populations thus with a lower density of culture-driven intellectuals!) like Belgium, The Netherlands or Austria (each under 17 million population)??? I'd like to know.
"Booming" my ass! What a strong word, for an arthouse circuit that can't dedicate more than 5 screens to festival winner films... Totally out of touch with reality, using disproportionate vocabulary for marketing purpose and refusing to call for action to improve the disastrous situation. 


"On the one hand, the Internet makes it possible to get a discussion going—in effect, to force the hand of publication’s editors by making news news from the ground up."
Yeah sure! But where did you see that happening yet? Even your column is still on propaganda mode.


"virtual revelation of the ubiquitous director as “that man [or woman] behind the curtain” and the sense that the director was, in effect, on hand at the edge of the frame throughout the film, guiding the action and commenting on it"
That's his definition of what "European art cinema" is, the very guy who wrote a biography of Godard himself... What a joke! There is nothing else to draw from European cinema once you caught on with this trope. Nothing else! It's basically The Wizard of Oz, and all the formal invention, the intellectual reflection, the sociopolitical subversion, the themes, the stories, the mise en scène styles, the visions, the unique voices... none of this is WORTH distributing, as long as Hollywood can turn them into watered-down, pre-digested stereotyped remakes for domestic consumption. Yeah I would expect that mentality from an apologetic studio executive, not from a guy who pretends to write serious criticism in the New Yorker! 

"If the so-called art cinema has become increasingly important (and if Hollywood itself has expanded, radically, its aesthetic range—and it has), it is, in part, because the range of subjects at hand has expanded"
More delusional B.S. Increasingly important in the world, not quite in the USA though. 

"We’re seeing more American films that qualify for that loose term, art film."
LMAO.

"Indeed, the increased pace of production for Terrence Malick and other directors is due to the presence of congenial financiers who don’t expect something other than what the filmmaker intends to deliver."
Yeah, cause they are funded (or co-produced) by European risk-takers money!

"And while it would be familiarly silly to think that all is for the best in this best of all cinematic worlds, the range of styles and subjects, and of world views and experiences, that the cinema now offers is bewilderingly, dazzlingly vast—and the works in question are more readily available than ever".
Silly indeed, but it doesn't stop you from gushing out an hyperbolic, undeserved praise and feeding your readers with delusional propaganda. Vast it is not. I begin to worry whether you know the meaning of the adjective you use. But who cares? The American people is bred on Positive Thinking, and collective denial. So the press plays its part in feeding this delusion, just like another branch of the self-serving marketing campaign. There is no "independent critic" working in the USA today. There is no "cinephiles" in the USA today, if there ever was. If there were, they would take offense to such article, they would organise themselves and defend a dying arthouse circuit, instead of encouraging it substitution by video distributors!


17 janvier 2013

Michael Haneke philosophiquement (France Culture)

Philosopher avec Michael Haneke (Adèle Van Reeth; France Culture; 2013)

1. Le cinéma sans issue (14 jan 2013) [MP3] 58'
avec Philippe Rouyer (critique, Positif)
Certains films rassurent et donnent envie de se réconcilier avec le monde, d’autres, et c’est le cas de l’œuvre du cinéaste dont nous allons parler cette semaine, laissent au mieux, un goût amer, au pire, une colère violente dont on ne sait si elle se porte sur le film qui vient d’être vu, ou sur la réalité elle-même.
Alors après Woody Allen, Alfred Hitchcock, Eric Rohmer et David Lynch, Philosopher avec Michaël Haneke, c’est le défi de cette semaine.
Demain, Valérie Carré viendra nous parler du Ruban Blanc, à l’occasion des 24 heures France-Allemagne organisées par France Culture, mercredi, Yannick Rolandeau dissèquera la perversion sans issue de Funny Games, et jeudi, c’est le philosophe Bernard Baas qui viendra jouer du piano malsain aux côtés de la Pianiste. Mais pour l’heure, pour commencer cette semaine, j’ai le grand plaisir d’accueillir Philippe Rouyer, critique de cinéma qui connaît l’œuvre deMichaël Haneke mieux que personne, pour nous initier au cinéma sans issue du réalisateur autrichien, du 7ème Continent au magnifique Amour.

2. Le ruban blanc (15 jan 2013) [MP3] 58' 
Avec : Valérie Carré, maître de conférences au Département d'études allemandes à l’université de Strasbourg, spécialiste du cinéma allemand
Pour le deuxième temps de notre semaine consacrée au cinéaste Michaël Haneke, et à l’occasion de la journée spéciale qu’organise France Culture aujourd’hui mardi 15 janvier autour des relations franco-allemandes, j’ai le plaisir d’accueillir aujourd’hui Valérie Carré pour parler du Ruban Blanc, palme d’or au Festival de Cannes en 2009.
3.  Funny Games (16 jan 2013) [MP3] 58' 
Avec : Yannick Rolandeau, cinéaste
Quant à nous, après Le septième continent et Amour, lundi, Le ruban blanc, hier, et avant La Pianiste demain, c’est le troisième temps aujourd’hui de notre semaine passée à philosopher avec le cinéaste Michaël Haneke, c’est le philosophe Yannick Rolandeau qui vient aujourd’hui nous livrer les clés d’un film faussement joueur et pas si drôle, quoi qu’en dise le titre, Funny Games.
Tout commence par un jeu ; un couple et leur enfant assis à l’arrière de la voiture jouent à deviner le nom des compositeurs dont les musiques – classiques- sont diffusées à la radio. Ils s’amusent. Arrivés dans leur maison de campagne, chacun s’installe et un jeune homme, croisé rapidement auparavant alors qu’ils saluaient des voisins, entre dans la maison. Il n’en sortira pas. Un autre le rejoindra. Et ils joueront, eux aussi, à leur façon : ils joueront à tuer.
Dans quel but, se demande légitimement le spectateur, me montre-t-on ce jeu d’autant plus malsain qu’il est sans issue, puisqu’il conduit de manière inéluctable à la mort des personnages ? La question n’est pas celle de savoir si l’on peut jouer de tout, mais si le cinéma doit avoir des limites, morales, éthiques, au nom du respect du spectateur. Cinématographiquement impeccable, Funny games crée une expérience filmique rarement atteinte. Littéralement insoutenable, il contraint quiconque parvient à surmonter sa colère à s’interroger sur ce que la représentation d’une telle violence dit du monde, de nous-mêmes, et, entre le monde et nous-mêmes, le rôle qu’y joue le cinéma.
4. La pianiste (17 jan 2013) [MP3] 58' 
Avec : Bernard Baas, professeur de philosophie à l’université de Strasbourg
Voici le dernier temps de notre semaine passée à réfléchir sur le travail du cinéaste Michaël Haneke, lui qui, par sagesse de vie et intelligence du cinéma, filme l’insoutenable, non par provocation, mais comme rappel de ce de quoi le monde est aussi fait.
Après le 7ème continent et Amour, lundi, Le Ruban blanc mardi et Funny Games hier, c’est aujourd’hui le philosophe Bernard Baas qui vient jouer du piano malsain aux côtés d’Isabelle Huppert, pour évoquer le plus musical et le plus masochiste des films de Haneke, la Pianiste.

Voir aussi : 

16 janvier 2013

Wu Tianming

Né en 1939, Wu Tianming est acteur, cinéaste, mais aussi le producteur mythique des studios Xi’an dans les années 80. Sous sa direction, “ces studios se transforment en un Eldorado du cinéma, sur lequel souffle l’esprit nouveau et qui marque les débuts de la fameuse Cinquième Génération, celle qui a, entre autre, lancé le cinéma chinois dans une orbite internationale”, note Luisa Prudentino, spécialiste du cinéma chinois. Cet homme au charme débonnaire a non seulement produit le premier film de Zhang Yimou (Sorgho rouge, Ours d’or à Berlin en 1988) mais l’a fait aussi tourner comme acteur dans Le Vieux Puits (1986). Il a ainsi permis au futur célèbre cinéaste de rafler le Prix du meilleur acteur au Festival de Tokyo en 1987 !
Cette rencontre, animée par Damien Paccellieri, a eu lieu le 10 janvier 2013 au Forum des images, à Paris, dans le cadre du cycle De Pékin à Taipei, 1 000 visages de la Chine.


Voir aussi :

15 janvier 2013

Chinese pronounciation lessons


Leçon de prononciation chinoise - Cui Zi'en 崔子恩
Men and Women (1999); Queer China, ‘Comrade’ China (2008)


Leçon de prononciation chinoise - Jia Hongsheng 贾宏声
Samsara (1988); 2000 - Suzhou River (2000); Quitting (2001)


Leçon de prononciation chinoise - Lou Ye 娄烨 
Suzhou River (2000); Summer Palace (2006); Spring Fever (2009); Love and Bruises (2011); Mystery (2012)


Leçon de prononciation chinoise - Ning Ying 宁瀛
Perpetual Motion (2005)


Leçon de prononciation chinoise - Peng Xiaolian



Leçon de prononciation chinoise - Wang Xiaoshuai  王小帅
Beijing Bicycle (2001); Shanghai Dreams (2005); In Love We Trust (2008);  Chongqing Blues (2010); 11 Flowers (2011)


Leçon de prononciation chinoise - Wu Tianming 吴天明


Leçon de prononciation chinoise - Zhang Xianmin


Leçon de prononciation chinoise - Zhang Yang 张扬

à l'occasion du programme dédié à la Chine au Forum des Images :
De Pékin à Taipeï : 1000 visages de la Chine (9 janvier - 3 mars 2013)
80 films


Related :

14 janvier 2013

Bordwell vs Deleuze (Narration)

Narration historiography according to David Bordwell's book : Narration in the Fiction Film, 1985
[Chart adaptated to my Cinema Aesthetic Matrix]


* * *


Mapping of narrative structure according to Deleuze 2 tomes book : 
Cinéma 1. Image-mouvement (1983) / Cinéma 2 : Image-temps (1985)


Related : 

Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 6


On the Road (2012/Walter Salles/USA)
Target Audience : ADULT 18+ (Mainstream)
  • USA : 0.01% (6 max screens)
  • BRAZIL : 5.3% (120 max screens)
  • UK : 2.8% (100 max screens)
  • FRANCE : 7% (381 max screens)
  • GERMANY : 1.9% (90 max screens)
  • ITALY : 7.2% (226 max screens)
  • BELGIUM : 6.8% (35 max screens)
  • NETHERLANDS : 5.1% (33 max screens)
  • PORTUGAL : 2.1% (12 max screens)
  • AUSTRIA : 1.6% (9 max screens)
  • THAILAND : 0.3% (2 max screens)
Source : BoxOffice Mojo; IMDb



Related :

13 janvier 2013

Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 5



Somewhere (2010/Sofia Coppola/USA)
Target Audience : ADULT 18+ (Mainstream)

  • USA : 0.21% (83 max screens)
  • UK : 1.7% (62 max screens)
  • FRANCE : 4.1% (224 max screens)
  • GERMANY : 1.5% (71 max screens)
  • SPAIN : 1.5% (60 max screens)
  • ITALY : 7.6% (240 max screens)
  • BELGIUM : 2.7% (14 max screens)
  • AUSTRALIA : 2.1% (42 max screens)
  • RUSSIA : 5.3% (120 max screens)
  • NETHERLANDS : 3.1% (20 max screens)
  • TURKEY : 0.38% (6 max screens)
  • PORTUGAL : 2.1% (12 max screens)
  • ARGENTINA : 2.26% (20 max screens)
  • MEXICO : 0.4% (20 max screens)
  • BRAZIL : 0.7% (16 max screens)

Source : BoxOffice Mojo; IMDb


Related :

12 janvier 2013

Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 4




The Tree of Life (2011/Terrence Malick/USA)
Target Audience : ACQUIRED TASTE (Niche)
  • USA : 0.6% (237 max screens)
  • UK : 2.2% (80 max screens)
  • FRANCE : 6.4% (351 max screens)
  • GERMANY : 2.3% (109 max screens)
  • SPAIN : 4.4% (180 max screens)
  • ITALY : 5.8% (181 max screens)
  • BELGIUM : 4.7% (24 max screens)
  • AUSTRALIA : 2% (39 max screens)
  • RUSSIA : 14.3% (322 max screens)
  • NETHERLANDS : 2.5% (16 max screens)
  • TURKEY : 0.7% (11 max screens)
  • PORTUGAL : 6.5% (37 max screens)
  • SOUTH KOREA : 8% (161 max screens)
  • ARGENTINA : 3% (26 max screens)
  • JAPAN : 6.6% (224 max screens)
  • MEXICO : 1.63% (82 max screens)
  • TAIWAN :  4.5% (26 max screens)
  • BRAZIL : 2.8% (64 max screens)
Source : BoxOffice Mojo; IMDb



Related :

11 janvier 2013

Philosophie de la couleur (France Culture)

Jaune-rouge-bleu
Vassily Kandinsky,1925. Huile sur toile, 127 x 200


« De la couleur ! » (Adèle Van Reeth; Les nouveaux chemins de la connaissance; France Culture)

Improvisation 26
Vassily Kandinsky,1912. Huile sur toile, 97 x 107.5 cm



Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 3



Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012/Benh Zeitlin/USA) 
Target Audience : KIDS 7+ (Mainstream)
  • USA : 0.72% (286 max screens)
  • UK : 1.27% (46 max screens)
  • FRANCE : 1.7% (95 max screens)
  • GERMANY : 1.2% (57 max screens)
  • BELGIUM : 2.9% (15 max screens)
  • AUSTRALIA : 1.3% (25 max screens)
  • RUSSIA : 0.9% (20 max screens)
  • NETHERLANDS : 3.4% (22 max screens)
Source : BoxOffice Mojo; IMDb



Related :

10 janvier 2013

L'exception financière française (Maraval)


Quand on présente des comptes tronqués : exploitation en salle sans la seconde vie des films sur d'autres supports qui prennent de plus en plus d'importance par rapport à la projection en public (TV, DVD, VàD), en oubliant l'exportation différée (en particulier pour les films commerciaux à gros budget), c'est sûr que ça fait peur.
Mais si Maraval (Le Monde; 28 décembre 2012) n'était pas aussi sournois, il dirait que 17 films ont réussis à se rembourser dès la sortie en salle! Et que pour les autres, ils finiront de se rembourser grâce aux passages TV, à la vente en vidéo (puisque les spectateurs consomment davantage de chez eux qu'en salle)...
Comment un professionnel de la profession ose fabriquer de toute pièce une situation de crise sur-dramatisée? Il sait très bien comment ça fonctionne, que les gros films ne pompent pas les caisses du CNC, que l'exploitation en salle n'est qu'une fraction des recettes, que l'économie du cinéma indé américain n'est pas l'équivalent du blockbuster français... Pourquoi mentir? et dans Le Monde qui plus est!
C'est comme de se plaindre que l'Airbus A380 ne s'est pas remboursé à la première commande, qu'un nouveau journal doive fermer les portes dès qu'un numéro est déficitaire...
Et puis un film c'est pas un yaourt! On ne fait pas du cinéma pour faire des grosses marges de profit... c'est un bien culturel avant tout! En France plus qu'ailleurs. On ne peut pas prévoir si un film va rencontrer un succès public, même si le projet est parfait sur le papier. Si on refuse de prendre des risques, d'essuyer des échecs et des dettes, il faut placer son argent dans un autre secteur économique!
Certains films deviennent célèbres, voire culte, des années ou des décennies après une sortie désastreuse... Il faut avoir confiance en l'art, et donner leur chance aux réalisateurs même si la fortune ne sourit pas instantanément.

Si il n'y avait que des succès, le système français serait suspect... une odeur de pensée unique ou de lavage de cerveau totalitaire. C'est bien parce qu'il y a quelques navets, quelques flops que ça prouve que le CNC donne sa chance à tous, pas uniquement à des vainqueurs  à des paris gagnants, des investissements à revenus garantis. Mais qui sont ces naïfs qui s'étonnent des risques et des incertitudes???

Offrir un soutient financier à un scénario, avant que la première image soit tournée, c'est un pari. Et si les banques ne prétaient qu'après projection du film fini, aucun film ne se monterait jamais! Soyons réaliste. Produire un film est encore plus difficile que de publier un livre. L'éditeur doit juger du potentiel de lecteurs pour un manuscrit fini, le producteur de cinéma doit parier sur le public potentiel, et en plus sur ce qu'un scénario peut donner après tournage. C'est un problème d'imagination, et de confiance.

Même si on éliminait le soucis d'argent, le succès d'un film à budget illimité reste précaire et incertain... Et, seuls les films qui ont été financés ont la moindre chance de devenir un succès populaire ou un chef d'œuvre critique, sinon le tournage n'aura pas lieu et personne ne les verra jamais!

Et puis les salaires mirifiques, ça ne regarde qu'un infime partie de l'iceberg. Les grands spectacles commerciaux qui ne finissent ni aux Césars, ni à Cannes... Alors pourquoi la profession entière du cinéma devrait se remettre en cause quand une poignée de films bling-bling se plantent une année?

C'est marrant, l'an dernier il n'y en avait que pour The Artist et Intouchables... l'incarnation du succès français. Un an plus tard, tout est oublié, on pleure au premier film déficitaire comme si le cinéma français n'avait pas gagné d'argent depuis 30 ans. Encaissez un peu et attendez quelques années avant de crier à la banqueroute.




Voir aussi :

Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 2




Cosmopolis (2012/David Cronenberg/USA)
Target Audience : ADULT 18+ (Mainstream)
  • USA : 0.69% (273 max screens)
  • UK : 1.7% (62 max screens)
  • FRANCE : 6.7% (365 max screens)
  • GERMANY : 2% (100 max screens)
  • SPAIN : 2% (80 max screens)
  • ITALY : 8.7% (273 max screens)
  • BELGIUM : 4.9% (25 max screens)
  • AUSTRALIA : 1.7% (34 max screens)
  • NETHERLANDS : 3.4% (22 max screens)
  • TURKEY : 0.8% (13 max screens)
  • PORTUGAL : 5.6% (32 max screens)
  • ARGENTINA : 2% (18 max screens)
  • THAILAND : 2.6% (17 max screens)
  • BRAZIL : 1% (23 max screens)
Source : BoxOffice Mojo; IMDb



Related :

09 janvier 2013

Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 1



Moonrise Kingdom (2012/Wes Anderson/USA)
Target Audience : KIDS 7+ (Mainstream)

  • USA : 2.3% (924 max screens)
  • UK : 4.5% (163 max screens)
  • FRANCE : 5.2% (284 max screens)
  • GERMANY : 1.79% (86 max screens)
  • SPAIN : 2% (84 max screens)
  • ITALY : 7.2% (225 max screens)
  • BELGIUM : 2.3% (12 max screens)
  • AUSTRALIA : 2.9% (57 max screens)
  • RUSSIA : 8.8% (197 max screens)
  • NETHERLANDS : 4% (26 max screens)
  • TURKEY : 1.1% (17 max screens)
  • PORTUGAL : 2.8% (16 max screens)
  • ARGENTINA : 1.7% (15 max screens)
  • MEXICO : 0.5% (25 max screens)
  • BRAZIL : 1% (24 max screens)

Source : BoxOffice Mojo; IMDb



Related :

02 janvier 2013

Aesthetic Matrix : Animation



On the Cinema Film Style Matrix (which encompasses all cinema : animation, documentary, experimental, artfilm and mainstream) the territory of animation would only occupy a small area around Amateur, Parody, Conformism and Mannerism (simply because their aesthetic is not realistic compared to any live action film with real humans). Because they are an intentionally stylized representation of reality, a higher degree of artistic interpretation more dramatically different from what we are familiar with. But here, I'm only taking into consideration Animation itself (albeit excluding stop-motion and puppets for consistency), and remapping the aesthetic film styles within the subcategory of Animation, to distinguish the diverse sorts of tracing, technique, verisimilitude, anthropomorphism, as well as narrative structures. And there are great many ways to represent animation indeed, as we can see.
Also, an important detail to note is that animation is mostly embraced by the mainstream consumption. They are almost always made for a mainstream audience, and conversely, the audience is open a lot of different styles, switching from one to the next, without flinching even, because they are all cartoons, or animated film, whether they are in Black&White or Colour, old or new, linear or surrealist, melodrama or quirky stories... The only box that would remain in an elitist niche would be abstract animations (Len Lye, Stan Brakhage, Oskar Fischinger, Viking Eggeling, Norman McLaren, Peter Kubelka, Man Ray, Marcel Duchamp, Fernand Léger), these are clearly not appealing to the mainstream public. But even the conceptual animations, like the last segment of Fantasia, Dali's Destino or many music videos are still accepted and appreciated by a mainstream audience without any highbrow cultural education or elitist taste. 
This is an interesting lesson that Animation teaches us. Some Japanese Anime have quite an experimental narrative structure, with incomplete story lines, drastic cuts, chaotic action, not to mention the hardcore fans watch Anime subtitled, in their original language! And yet they are pretty popular, even within the very mainstream audience. It doesn't take intellectuals, elitists, snobs, to be OPEN MINDED about foreign cinema, artistically varied styles, complicated and serious stories! Even the old classic animation remains popular and accessible, unlike live action films where any film older than 10 years is considered prehistorical and elitist and obsolete... Today, the popular area of mainstream cinema is restricted to the off-center of the Matrix (Academism, Conformism, Parody, Mannerism), everything else is considered "INACCESSIBLE"!!! WTF? Anything that used to be mainstream in the past (like Expressionist Hollywood, like French Impressionism, like Modernity, like Neorealism, like Hollywood Psychology) are avoided and trashed by today's audience... just because they are not as fast-paced, or dumbified, or shiny as today's trends. Black & White is rejected for being outdated and snob when it is just an aesthetic choice to give a particular tone to a contemporary film. 
Why is there this discrepancy between what the animation audience is ready to embrace (and most of their target audience are children) a greater variety of visual styles, narrative styles and directing styles, and the narrow-minded comfort zone of live action mainstream cinema? Maybe children are more tolerant and open-minded, and mainstream grownups are lazy, conservative, complacent and apathetic...


Related :

22 décembre 2012

FC 2012 : Academic Matrix follow up

When you map the supposedly "Best Films of The Year" (according to Film Comment, and to whatever Hollywood distributors agreed to back up) on the Academic Matrix of the main aesthetic categories, you realise, first that they are almost all concentrated in one quadrant (much less diverse than the S&S 2012 Top50 of All Time Canon), and a very distinctive separation emerges between anglophone (indie) films and the non-anglophone films.
Firstly, this selection of "Best Films of the Year" aren't very far from the Academic core, the classical way of making movies. Hollywood's own center of gravity is located in the "Conformism" box, the mainstream, classical, conservative way of storytelling. The more state-of-the-art classicism is in the next box, the center of the matrix : "Academism" itself. Away from the center are more diluted version of this academism, and in the margins are the more stylized, formalist, realistic, or experimental. 
American cinema and more generally Anglophone movies usually conform to a very classical narration, stereotypical plots and tame form, even when they claim to be "indies". As you see, except for the handful of actual mainstream blockbusters (see the distribution numbers here), the American films ending up on a Year-End Best-Of, for American reviewers, are usually so-called "indies", because they are perceived to represent the more "artsy", less commercial, less profit-driven part of American cinema. That's the category celebrated at Sundance or Telluride, and the one nominated by the Academy to represent the "quality" side of American cinema. Although everyone knows they are made in Hollywood too, most of them funded by the same producers/studios (under different divisions and names), and the "indie" filmmakers themselves only dream of making an imitation of the traditional feel-good Hollywood movie to appeal to the masses but with "quality" and "feelings". On this map we can notice that they never stray off very far from the Hollywood formula.
The American films (even the Year's Best Of), is mainly classical, with a tendency toward "Mannerism" (i.e. the more stylised theatrics) and another one toward "Parody" (which is not solely the realm of pastiche but more generally the light (or lowbrow) genres, more geared for entertainment... These are not lower forms of filmmaking per se, as evidenced on the S&S Canon matrix, or La matrice des montages, where critically masterpieces and great masters operate and succeed. Notable exceptions : a couple films this year venture in surrealist territory to offer quite a disconcerting storytelling : Life of Pi and Beasts of the Southern Wild.

On the other hand, the films from World Cinema selected by American critics are not the "Best Of local indie production", they are generally high-profile productions, sometimes even mainstream in their local market, and most often, more than just the struggling artsy independents from their respective countries, they are the grand standing films that competed on a planetary level, with the best of what each country had to offer, within the elitist scene of (major) international film festivals. And the result, is farther away from classicism. What Americans (and Hollywoodophiles) name "festival films", or "slow films", mostly come from the bottom-left quadrant, centered around "Realism" and "Hyperrealism", the new trend of (actual) independent cinema in the world. They are more INDEPENDENT stylistically from the major production of mainstream studios.
And this might explain why the "Hollywood patriots" tend to complain about festivals that favour this hyperrealistic trend (and label it in the most possible pejorative manner) and neglect the more genre driven theatrics of American storytelling. Thus the divide between an American conception of how "indie" cinema should be, and how independent cinema is in the rest of the world.



Mini "roundtable" about Film Comment 2012 Top50 list by its editors
Dec 2012 (Gavin Smith, Kent Jones, Robert Koehler) 17'28"

Gavin Smith introduces (timidly) the results with a caveat about the "concensus" aspect of such poll (solely reserved to American reviewers) and also acknowledges the fact most of these titles premièred in Cannes and other major festivals! Flashback to January 2011 (see Without Festivals) and February 2012 (see Critical Fallacy #13 : Inconsistent Standards)... Did they wait for me to tell them that the job of film critic was to issue opinions that are consistent with one's own practice??? I hope not, yet, it's only in 2012 that they discover that, maybe, it isn't so smart (or productive) to lambast foreign festival all year long when you draw ALL YOUR BEST FILM CANDIDATES for your Year-End list... Sigh. At least, when we start on the right foot, by being intellectually honest and objective about the formation and the function of such polls, we can have a reasonable conversation about stylistic trends, quality, and taste, whatever the winning titles are.

Anyway, the chief editor continues by expressing his reluctant endorsement of this poll (as usual! see: Double-Standards) since he doesn't feel his taste is represented by this (undesirable) "consensus". Be sure that if his favourite picks were at the top of the list, he would find this poll the most awesome expression of democracy... Bias and double standard WIN! He's one of the reviewers who prefer fun and entertainment (Dan Kois, Mark Cousins anyone?) and still want to cheat their way into serious "artfilm" circles (they want adult cinema, political stories, historical documents... but not so damn depressing! with a bit of zaz and laughters between the bodycounts of human tragedies for fuck sake!), and lead a team of editors at Film Comment that contradict his taste. Nothing wrong with a mainstream taste, or for preferring plain entertainment (as an individual movie goer speaking for him/herself), but when you claim to give an educated opinion on the state of world cinema as a whole, on the achievements of the best filmmakers, on the important documents, you can't underestimate the standard difference between easy leisurely distraction and the more resourceful accomplishments made in a whole different level of filmmaking. Maybe the mass won't approve, and you won't have as much fun as watching bodies being dismembered in slasher flicks, but serious drama and documentaries take more efforts to make and critics are there to acclaim hardwork, not primary-instinct-based spectacles, however successful they are...

This said, and given the state of the artfilm niche and the moribund cinephilia in the USA, the results of this poll aren't so bad. Well, they do boost a lot of mediocre American spectacles (that are merely the best of the entertainment industry, or in other terms, well-made spectacle, which appear as masterpieces when compared to the majority of Hollywood approximate productions).
It is certainly unexpected and cause for congratulations that a UFO like Holy Motors tops the list of the American cinephile taste, accompanied by This Is Not A Film (#4), The Turin Horse (#6), Tabu (#11), Attenberg (#25), Two Years At Sea (#38) and Alps (#45). They are not totally useless (even if their "shut-in DVD complacency" gave up on artfilm theatrical projections), and they know when to stick their neck out, in spite of the threat of "elitist" namecalling from the mass of their readers, in support of challenging artfilms without commercial appeal and little narrative tradition to hold on to for the average moviegoer. Let's ignore the fact they list alongside, in the same breath, laughable spectacles such as Bernie, Argo, Looper, Skyfall,  Haywire, Compliance, Kill List, and The Dark Knight Rises... which would be enough to question their understanding of world-wide quality standards (maybe these are the best you've seen all year on your Hollywood-control market, but there are dozens of artfilms that popped up on the festival circuit this year that are ignored, even by the "undistributed list" addendum! For instance, Faust was on the unreleased list last year, and this year has been forgotten, both by voters and distributors...




Related :