The Incredible Shrinking (Expanding?) Film Critic Profession @ SXSW, March 14, 2009

The Incredible Shrinking (Expanding?) Film Critic Profession
SXSW Film Festival
Austin Convention Center, Austin, TX
Saturday, March 14th, 2009
Notes by Erin Scherer


Moderator:

Gerald Peary, Director: For The Love Of Movies, Film Critic for The Boston Phoenix

Panelists:

Marjorie Baumgarten, Senior Film Editor/Critic, Austin Chronicle
Shawn Levy, Film Critic, The Oregonian
Karina Longworth, Spout.com
Scott Weinberg, Cinematical, FEARnet

"What is the current state of film criticism?" Is the question moderator Gerald Peary sought to answer in this panel. He opened the panel by saying:

"It's in the best shape that it's ever been in, because there's so many critics, critics for every taste. There are more good critics now than at any point in American history, but at least in the print world, there are critics getting kicked off right and left. It's a shrinking, shrinking world in which many critics who have had their jobs for many years are being laid off, and the papers are disappearing, all part of being the end of the print world."

Peary recalled the story of a "art film" distributor calling him, ranting that "ten, fifteen years ago, every major city had a solid critic who everyone trusted. A "soft critic" who liked art films. Nowadays, the critics are writing for other critics, and not the general public, and web people have no influence at all."

Scott Weinberg commented that if the distributor had to rely on reviews to sell their movies, that they were probably not a very good distributor, then added:

"The question that irritates me is, "What is an art film? Is Benjamin Button an 'Art Film?' Is Slumdog Millionaire an 'Art Film'? Guess what? Friday the 13th is an 'Art Film'! Some people created it, it's a piece of art. I don't get these designations."

Much of the panel was devoted to the impact of the web on film criticism.

Both Weinberg and Karina Longworth responded to the distributor's rant that web critics lack relevance by mentioning that filmmakers actually want to have their films reviewed by bloggers like themselves, if mainly for publicity. Longworth stated that she was often "drowning" in requests for reviews.

In the past, it was much more difficult to obtain press credentials, due to the lack of legitimacy of blogs and irresponsible web reviewers.

"A lot of times, people are writing reviews to get invited to the next junket. Those sites I have a problem with--the sites that are only helping the marketing along without any honest insight or negativity," Weinberg said.

With more festivals and events willing to let bloggers in, Karina Longworth has seen the status of the web critic improve over time. "That was a big problem, in like, 2005. Now, not so much. Cannes is the only one that won't give me press credentials as a blogger."

Weinberg mentioned that "What I think is cool about the blog world is that the more CNN mentions a blog, the more people like Karina and my fellow bloggers earn more respect as columnists, bloggers, and writers. Right now, I think it's still anybody in in the basement with a keyboard can write, "I LOVE The Watchmen, LOL."

Yet the future is a little more bleak for print critics: Shawn Levy, Marjorie Baumgarten, and Peary all commented on the shrinking size of their reviews: they used to be able to print 800 to 1,000 word reviews; now they're lucky to print 500. Peary pointed out that as newspaper critics have cut their staff, film critics are often among the first to be cut. Peary cited an article from Variety that mentioned that 28 Critics have lost their jobs over the past several years.

Even with the opportunity of everyone and anyone to review a movie on the web, Longworth and Weinberg do not feel threatened.

"It's not just anybody writing," Longworth stated. "There's a difference between going to the movies casually, and writing a blog post about it, and someone who is dedicated, whether it's something they do in their free time, or as a profession. There's a process of natural selection: people who have something to contribute become a major part of the discussion very quickly."

Overall, they concluded that the presence of film critics can help stimulate the conversation on films, especially ones that don't get wide releases. Critics have a breadth of knowledge on the subject they're writing about, and at their best, can function as a Consumer Reports for the potential ticket buyer (or badge holder).

As Karina Longworth established: "Our goal is to get comments. Our goal is to get people talking."

Natasha Vargas-Cooper: I'm a film critic for eonline.com. I have a question that we all get asked: Do you watch movies twice?

Baumgarten: Hardly ever. There's never the opportunity. Sometimes I'll watch a movie Tuesday Night, and have a review in by 10:30 the next morning.

Vargas-Cooper: Sometimes I get a comment like, "You need to see the movie again!"

Baumgarten: I'm not the Pauline Kael type of "I don't want to see it a second time. I don't need to."

Weinberg: There are so many films I haven't seen, so if I'm going to pop in, like Nightmare on Elm Street again, why not watch Peeping Tom again?

Q: I would like any of you to address the question of availability for audiences. You go to a film festival. You see ten good films, but if I don't live in a major city, or if the film is not released on DVD, your review may sound great, but I may take no action because I can't see it.

Weinberg: If you really like a film, we want you to be frustrated. We want you to send e-mails to the filmmaker and pester them and ask, "When can I see it?" We don't want to literally frustrate you, but if there's an independent film I love that might not go anywhere, I'll treat it like There Will Be Blood.

Longworth: I'm kind of in the habit of pestering people I know in distribution, so I yell at them about movies.

Q: In the last few election cycles, I have seen a maturation of political blogs. Some are hybrid, some are print and web, and some have been just web. But in the last four years, the blog of record has become a reality, as far as who's available to the sources, what sources make themselves available to them, and also being read regularly, I'm wondering where film criticism stands in its evolution.

Peary: I just talked to Michael Barker from Sony Classics, where he's going to places like The Huffington Post into having a film critic, which they don't have right now.

Longworth: They don't have their own freelancers. They don't pay anybody.

Weinberg: I was reviewing for like, six years before anyone paid me. I figured I was paying my dues, I was honing my craft.

Q: For the better part of 30 years, Americans had Siskel and Ebert on their television screens every week. You have political shows, you have sports shows, and every other sort of panel show. Why do you think we're living in an era right now where there are only two shows devoted to film criticism, and both of them feature members of the Lyons Family?

Peary: We live in a very philistine, very anti-intellectual culture, and that's impacted our film criticism. Film critics are looked on too suspiciously by most of the public: "Why don't you like movies? Can't you just enjoy a movie? Why do you have to criticize it?"

Levy: I don't think that it's a natural thing for television to have criticism.

Q: But sports shows have it all the time!

Longworth: That's an argument, that's not criticism.

Big Apple Film Festival - Distribution in the New Age - Nov. 17, 2007

4th Annual Big Apple Film Festival
Distribution in the New Age
November 17, 2007

Video from Brian Chirls.

Panelists:
(ED) Erik Davis (Managing Editor, Cinematical.com)
(PG) Peter Goldwyn (Vice President Acquisitions Samuel Goldwyn Films)
(BC) Brian Chirls (Four Eyed Monsters)
(CT) Clémence Taillandier (Head of Theatrical Sales, Zeitgeist Films)

Moderator:
(AL) Aaron Levine, Gen Art Film Division Coordinator

Summary:
“Distribution in the New Age" is a panel discussion that will focus on utilizing the Internet, as well as other modern technology and media outlets as a means of independent film distribution. The panel will focus on areas such web based marketing and promotion, how to best utilize websites such as YouTube and MySpace and other options available for DIY film distribution in the modern age.

(AL) Where are we at with the WGA strike? What are the writers looking for? How does the strike affect your job or the nature of what you do?

(ED) Learned last night that talks are scheduled to resume on November 26. It’s kind of a surprise. The Davinci Code sequel became the first casualty of the strike. Looks like there will be a media blackout. I support the writers.

(BC) The writers are looking for a larger percentage share of DVD and download sales. The last negotiation was in 1988. They received too small a share from home video sales. Producers argue that sales are not significant enough.

(CT) The strike doesn’t affect Zeitgeist, which distributes foreign films and documentaries.

(PG) Samuel Goldwyn released Southland Tales, which had a lot of bookings, but The Rock was supposed to promote the film on late night TV and couldn’t because those shows weren’t being taped. We also release foreign films and documentaries. There’s still going to be stuff for us to buy. The effect won’t hit us till 2009.

(AL) Have innovations in digital distribution changed your business model?

(BC) The amount of screens for digital projection is still limited. Most theaters still want prints, but there’s always a way to do it. The traditional window is theatrical, then PPV, DVD, now download. There’s room to mix that up. With Four Eyed Monsters, it started out at film festival, then had a theatrical release and on YouTube (1 million views). After YouTube, got a TV deal. There’s also a DVD distributor who will take it wider, but still in negotiations on that.

(CT) Zeitgeist is still trying to make money through theatrical releases. We distribute five films per year. We’re thinking of digital distribution. We’re doing some, but not making any money. Still relying on prints. Hoping there will be a niche audience for digital.

(AL) Will Day-and-Date be a standard of practice five to 10 years from now?

(ED) There will be a lot more within five to 10 years slowly as the Internet moves to TV. There’s a lot of talk about Brian DePalma’s new film Redacted now. You can watch it on PPV or in a theater. It’s hard to imaging films like Spider-man or Transformers doing Day-and-Date.

(PG) It’s debatable. Redacted has a $20 price point on Day-and-Date. Exhibitors have a lot of problems. These films can only play in certain theaters that allow for Day-and-Date. It’s nice to have options. Some theaters aren’t as nice to go to anymore. Personally, I like going to theaters. Newer generations like watching things on smaller screens. There are a lot of unanswered questions.

(BC) Everything’s going to be Day-and-Date. If there’s no difference between watching a film at home or at a theater, then what’s the point? In almost every business, you can’t sell to consumers based on what they can’t do. Some theaters are now selling alcohol. Innovations can be made. The social experience is the biggest thing. Why spend more money on beer? Because it’s a social experience.

(CT) Exhibitors Zeitgeist deals with are devoted completely to cinema. Trying to make it a more cultural experience, ie. inviting filmmakers to Q&As. There’s still going to be an audience for specialty films. You can’t create the same experience on your flat screen TV.

(AL) What other innovations would you like to see in theaters?

(ED) I don’t go to theaters anymore. You have to sit through 20 minutes of ads. It bothers people. There should be two start times. The problem is, in New York City, every weekend films are sold out, so you have to get to the theater sometimes one hour early. It’s draining. There have been some ideas for special reserved seats and call-buttons on chairs for people making noises in the theater.

(PG) I like previews, just not the ads. I’ve always enjoyed trailers. Do you feel watching DVDs at home gives you a disconnect from the audience?

(ED) I don’t feel like I have a disconnect. I get comments from readers.

(PG) As a distributor, we want critics to watch films in theaters. There’s a big difference in the communal experience than watching something on DVD. Something gets lost when you don’t see a film with an audience.

(ED) There’s something to be said for watching a film at home.

(PG) We get a lot of DVDs before going to festivals, because sometimes we miss stuff. Ads can be reduced. I like a theater to be clean and have comfortable seats. An example of a good theater is the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, TX.

(BC) There should be a complete change in the way theaters schedule films. There’s always a lot of empty screens. There’s so much opportunity to fill screens with more independent and local films. This is a benefit of digital projection. Theaters should push back scheduling. Mix it up a little. Make screenings more eventful..

(CT) There’s a difference between art and commercial movie houses. Art houses should be closer to the audience. A platform for discussions.

(PG) There was a time when theaters did a lot of promotion themselves. You can’t leave your children in theaters by themselves anymore. The charm is lost. The distributor has to find group sales for the exhibitors now.

Audience Q&A

Q: Can the model for the new Radiohead album be applied to independent filmmakers?

(PG) It’s more inexpensive to make an album than a movie. How will you pay off your bills? Some films are cheap to make, ie. Mumblecore. Their distribution deals on a whole aren’t profitable, but their goal is to show it to an audience.

(BC) I love what Radiohead did. Pay what you want. People will download it anyway. Listen, then buy. Four Eyed Monsters co-director Arin Crumley got an emailed from someone who’d been searching for monster movies and found 4EM. He downloaded it, liked it, then bought it. This is a great opportunity.

Q: Do you think people will be willing to send money to filmmakers?

(ED) I paid between $10-$15 for the Radiohead album. It depends on the person. The target age is teenage males. Would the average teenaged kid shell out money? It depends on the individual person and how passionate they are.

(PG) There’s always a certain level of stealing. If you make things accessible, you take a risk.

(BC) You can get people to pay if there’s an experience. I think we’ve lost that.

(PG) Our job as distributors is to bring films to an audience. If you just put out a donation plate, a lot of people won’t put anything in it. You have to set a few standards. There needs to be some way to monetize the work. The Radiohead album was sold on a sliding scale, but their concert tickets won’t be.

(BC) We need to come up with equivalents. There is a cultural experience of consuming media. Four Eyed Monsters was a big challenge. Was the directors’ first feature and had no celebs. They created a podcast/video series to promote the film.

Q: What’s your opinion on the primary way for an indie producers with their own money to distribute their films with a goal to recoup expenses and make a profit?

(PG) The traditional theatrical route. Distributors get back the cost. They buy all rights to certain territories. Get a sales agent, or at least a lawyer. Work out a deal. Some filmmakers put out their own money. Some producers put up all the P&A (prints & advertising).

(BC) I’m a strong advocate of being prepared to self-distribute as a back up, even if you don’t want to. You can’t always count on going to a festival and expecting to get a huge deal. You plan gives you a better negotiating position if a distributor approaches you with, for example, $15,000 for all rights to your film.

(PG) Be careful about giving rights to distributors for long-term deals. Don’t take something like $15,000 for eternity.

(CT) If you’re making a documentary, make sure to clear all your rights. You need to trust the distributor.

(PG) Find out which distributors pay their bills. Find someone who has experience getting their money from distributors.

(CT) Be available to promote your film with the distributor.