Filmmakers issue open letter, address only half the problem

Last week, there was an open letter drafted by many of today’s biggest Hollywood players regarding Direct-TV’s new “Home Premiere” on-demand service, which would rush select blockbuster movies into the home, with high-def quality, only 60 days after their premiere at your local multiplex. The letter raises concerns that reducing the theatrical window to 60 days would virtually eliminate the opportunity for platform releases to build up word-of-mouth on films like last year’s Black Swan and The King’s Speech. These are films you cannot successfully market without the benefit of a long-term release strategy.

It’s important to note that the letter does not address the day-and-date on-demand service that is happening with micro budget, arthouse, and foreign titles right now. As many communities do not have a revival or arthouse theater, day-and-date releases are seen as a benefit to filmmakers – providing distribution for niche films that would not be seen in most markets until home video anyway. Although not stated implicitly, what we’re really talking about here are those films that have the potential for success with general audiences – the “big” films that you see in most large chain theaters.

Here’s the argument: As theater attendance has steadily dropped with the rise of the “home theater”, this quicker on-demand service will contribute to further reduce the amount of time a film spends at the theater. The filmmakers believe that preserving the theatrical viewing experience is tantamount to the survival of the motion picture industry, and I agree. Not only is theatrical exhibition the primary source of revenue for most movies, but it is also the viewing environment for which these films are created.

In its current incarnation, however, the Direct-TV plan poses no great threat to anything. It calls for only one film to be available at a time, at the ridiculous price point of $29.99 for 48 hours of access. There is a sense that the filmmakers don’t expect it to be successful, but it’s a slippery slope, and their concerns about home video’s negative impact on theatrical exhibition have good foundation in historical precedent.

The home video market has been a major factor in the decline of attendance for years now, as the studios have continued, by choice, to hurry the home release of big movies in an attempt to capitalize on word of mouth from, and marketing dollars spent on, a film’s theatrical run. This, compounded by falling home video prices, has made it easier for consumers to rationalize not seeing a movie in the theater because of the affordability and convenience of renting or buying a video.

While I applaud these filmmakers for trying to get involved and help protect the business model that they feel is best for the survival of the industry, this letter completely fails to address the other key reason for falling attendance: the current state of the theater-going experience.

Rude customers who use their cell phones or talk during the main attraction act as though the theater is their personal living room. Poor projection and sound quality should not be an issue anymore with the technical advancements in exhibition, but they are. Lack of cleanliness is caused by both patrons who refuse to pick up after themselves and theaters being understaffed or not scheduling enough time between shows. It’s hard to make a case for anyone (especially families) to shell out the current prices when the conditions are so poor.

Improvement in the theatrical experience is the only thing that will sell more tickets and protect the industry from being cannibalized by the home video/video-on-demand markets. This would require a two-fold approach.

Firstly, the film industry needs to continue to push the limits of image and sound quality. This includes the use of large format film to give a sense of scale (like in Inception and The Dark Knight), an increase to higher frame rates*, exploring an increase in resolution quality for high definition**, and stereoscopic 3-D (No moaning please, for the right films, it’s awesome!), All these advancements will help keep the magic of the movies alive and the experience memorable.

Secondly, and most importantly, the exhibitors need to get their act together. Cleaner theaters, well maintained equipment (change a projector bulb once in a while), and better concessions are the basics – there is no excuse for missing these – ever! The tougher part will be for them to grow a backbone when it comes to enforcing their own policies regarding talking during the show, cell phone use, and general disrespect.

While it’s not surprising that the filmmakers who drafted this letter are obtuse to the current conditions of theater-going (most probably haven’t been to a theater with an average crowd in years), theater owners are definitely aware. The fact that they have not taken action, in an effort to create an environment that is inviting for all movie lovers, makes them negligent. They have no right to place the blame elsewhere for the loss of revenue that home video takes away.

As far as the filmmakers who drafted this letter are concerned, they need to start siding with the consumers who watch, rent, and buy their work. Both the falling standards of movie theaters, and the encroachment of home video on a film's theatrical window need to be addressed. If not, it won't matter whether the video is available 60 days or 6 months later; the industry will continue on its steady decline.



* The Hobbit is currently in production using a new 48 frame per second digital capture 3-D process. You can read a bit more about it here.

**Higher resolution quality is something they’ve been talking about for a few years. Current HD resolution is 1080p, but they’re experimenting with up to 4320p.

NEW! Green Lantern WonderCon footage

DC Comics has been running second place in the "Superhero Movie Race" for quite some time. Even with the enormous success of The Dark Knight, and their quality direct-to-video animation, they are having trouble keeping up with the ambitious pacing of Marvel Entertainment in the big arena.

Marvel is running on all cylinders and looks to have another great summer lined up with both Thor and Captain America building towards the 2012 release of The Avengers. They also have licensed property coming this summer from Fox (X-Men: First Class) and next year from Sony in the form of a new Spiderman film. Right now, Marvel characters are everywhere, and audiences like what they're seeing.

This summer will debut DC's big first step towards asserting itself as more than just the company that does Batman & Superman movies. On June 17th, Green Lantern will premiere at a theater near you, and until today, most fans didn't know just what to make of it. The presentation from last year's San Diego Comic Con was underwhelming, and the more recent teaser trailer emphasized humor over action, which left lingering doubts in most fan's minds.

This footage from Wonder Con will give you a glimpse at a Green Lantern movie that is epic in a way that no comic book movie has been before. I hope you enjoy...



I like it. It feels like it has real stakes, not just for Hal Jordan, but for Earth, the Lanterns, and the galaxy. There's a Superman-meets-Star Trek quality to Green Lantern that is hard to pull off outside of animation. Sure, I could nitpick over the CGI suit or casting of Ryan Reynolds, but it looks like they're getting more right than wrong here. We'll see if the final product lives up to this short 4 minute version, but I'm interested, much more than I was before.

What do you think?

Catching up with a Classic: Point Blank

"Catching up with a Classic" will be a recurring series here on Setting the Frame, where I screen a classic film that I've never seen and share my thoughts with you. I try to watch as many films as possible, but even some really big films slip through the cracks. If you have any recommendations for this feature, feel free to suggest. If they're on DVD or Blu-Ray, I'll try to track them down.

Point Blank

Dir: John Boorman

Starring: Lee Marvin, Angie Dickinson, Keenan Wynn, John Vernon

My first experience with Richard Stark’s novel, The Hunter, on which Point Blank is based, was the 1999 movie, Payback. My friends and I saw a sneak preview before the opening of the film and absolutely loved it. Payback is a cool, darkly comedic take on the material, and we all had a great time watching the bad guys get it handed to them by [then in his prime] Mel Gibson.

A few years later, Payback Straight Up: The Director’s Cut was released to home video, and we learned that the theatrical version was retooled and much of the added footage was shot without the director, Brian Helgeland. This edition restored the original look of the film, removed some characters and storylines entirely, and was more of a throwback to the gritty action films of the 1970’s. Although drastically different, I still thoroughly enjoyed this alternate version.

It was no surprise then when I also enjoyed Point Blank. Being that familiar with the recent adaptations made me fearful of being jaded towards it, like a reverse effect of my feelings towards Hollywood’s current remake craze. What I discovered in just the first few minutes, however, was that Point Blank is a different beast altogether, using a very different approach to the material than Payback.

The setup is simple. Walker is a small time bruiser who is double crossed, shot, and left for dead by his partner and his cheating wife after a successful robbery on Alcatraz Island. He returns a year later for his day of reckoning. Strangely, he resurfaces not just for revenge, but also for the money he was cheated out of that night, one year earlier. Obsessed, he refuses to take “no” for an answer, endlessly climbing up each new level of the criminal organization until he gets what he wants.

When called for, he uses his brain over his brawn, but there is no question that Walker is a man of decisive action. He’s tough and determined, but never cold-blooded. Although he carries a gun, he’s more likely to punch you in the face than pull the trigger. It’s a great tough guy performance by Lee Marvin, one of the many he built his career on.

Angie Dickinson is Walker’s sister-in-law, Chris, a night club owner with her own score to settle with the organization. Dickinson and Lee Marvin had some bad blood between them, which was the result of a physical scene in The Killers a few years before. This personal tension plays well here to create uneasiness between their characters, and really energizes one of their later scenes in the film together.

John Vernon, who is best known as Dean Wormer from Animal House, plays Mal Reese, the man who shot Walker, stealing his wife and his money. Vernon has a commanding voice and sinister look which lead him to a career of bad guy roles. He’s an appropriate scumbag here, weakly hiding behind the protection of the organization, as others take care of his dirty work for him. All of Reese’s attempts to stop Walker fall apart though, leading to their inevitable reunion.

In a small, but pivotal role, Keenan Wynn plays the mysterious Yost. He keeps a close eye on Walker and provides him with the whereabouts of key members of the criminal organization. Yost’s role is never fully defined, but his interests are at least aligned with Walker’s temporarily.  Is he a rogue cop who doesn’t mind seeing Walker spill some blood in the name of justice, or something else? Wynn keeps it ambiguous, letting the audience guess as the film plays.

There’s a very surreal quality to Point Blank’s early scenes that keeps the audience off balance. The opening sequence, for example, is cut together using a combination of motion picture and still frames, playing with the notion of fractured memories, the type that result from severe trauma. The entire first reel is surprisingly avant-garde for a major studio film of the time, causing the audience to doubt the picture’s reality.

Eventually, the film settles into a more conventional structure and one could certainly enjoy Point Blank for its hard-boiled entertainment value alone. The film is a stylish revenge picture, maybe one of the all-time greats. Walker could’ve survived the shooting, now just a broken man clinging onto something tangible because he can’t get back what he really lost. That is a valid interpretation, but I think you need to ignore too much to not wonder about the other possibilities.

The director, John Boorman, made very specific choices and we’re meant to question the meaning of the flashbacks, fantasy, and ambiguous characters. It’s not just style for the sake of style. Did Walker die that day, and somehow come back from the grave, hell-bent on revenge? Could he still be on the stone floor of Alcatraz, fighting for his life after Reese shot him, the entire film his dying dream of retribution?

I’m not sure whether I’ll ever be sold on any one explanation, but that’s not the point. The filmmakers respected their audience enough to know that they didn’t need to provide all the answers. “Reality-benders”, like Point Blank, always require your participation and imagination, but rarely offer easy answers. There’s just enough room to doubt yourself even when you think you have it figured out, which is exactly why I will be revisiting this classic again soon.

Until next time...

Getting started.

Hey everyone, C.J. here.

We're trying a few new things around here at Your White Marsh Suncoast . Obviously, one of those things is interacting with our customers on a whole new level by using facebook to communicate our special offers, events, and cool news.

This blog, Setting the Frame, will be a place for me to share my personal thoughts with you through film reviews, recommendations, and the state of Hollywood in general. Regardless of the chosen topic, it's going to be an honest representation of my personal perspective, which is to say that I'll be pulling no punches when I don't like something.

Now, I've been referred to as a Killjoy in the past (Thanks, Cesar.), but I do try to keep an open mind when I see a new film. My standards are simply very high. There's entertainment and there's art. I enjoy both when they are done well, but I've never been shy about pointing out what I don't like about something. The reverse is true also, when I like something, I'm very vocal about it and want others to at least check it out.

This will just be another forum for the discussion that naturally occurs when movie fans get together. You are all welcome to let me know what you think by commenting below. As long as we keep things respectful on both ends - no cursing, personal attacks, or spamming - there shouldn't be any problems. I always encourage you to be part of the conversation.

Look for the first real post later this week. Give me your feedback on the format as well as content.

Later,
C.J.