Just when I thought everything was going great, and that Weinstein was finally going down after the New Yorker article and all, the sonofabitch claims four out of five Best Picture nominees. Remember folks: Weinstein buys up foreign films and shelves them so that they won't compete with his own films.
But don't you think he releases them if he either personally loves the film, or thinks he'll make money off of them. At least that's the general impression I've gotten from listening to him. What are some examples of films that he's purchased and shelved? I agree with you to a certain extent. Miramax has had a negative influence lately, particularly since they've become fixated with the Oscars. What kills me is that they don't do justice to their own films by releasing everything in the last month of the year. Certain pictures are just forgotten (the Philip Noyce films of last year, for example). That said, Miramax did many good things for "indy" and foreign cinema during much of the previous decade, in my opinion. They helped expand the reach of the kind of films that were not playing in malls and cineplexes fifteen years ago. Sure, they made a deal with the devil (Disney) to get some of that done, but moviegoers gained quite a bit from that deal. P.S. Gwyneth Paltrow is a whore. So is Zellweger.
Yeah, but boy do the Weinsteins know how to throw a party here in NYC... C'mon. It's common knowledge that most film critics are insecure nerds who desperately want to be in with the in-crowd. An invite to a party to meet Renee & Gwynnie and a bag full of Miramax branded tschochkes (you should see some of the sweet swag I get on a regular basis, and I am by no means a "player" in film media) is enough to make most members of the nominating committee wet themselves with the opportunity to put Harvey's stuff out in front. And both of the Weinsteins have that awesome schmooze talent where they can remember every two-bit critic from Ohio's name and can make them feel like Gene Friggin' Shalit on their weekend junket to the Big Apple. All award shows (the Independent Spirit Awards included) are tainted with film company dollars and influence, and they should be regarded as the jury-rigged messes that they actually are.
Re: Re: Anti-Miramax Thread That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when he pays for films and then refuses to either release them or put together a promotional campaign for them. Kiarostami's "Through the Olive Tree," Tati's "Jour de fete," and Demy's "The Young Girls of Rochefort." Then there are films he released but refused to market, like Jarmusch's "Dead Man" or Burnett's "Glass SHield." Miramax only releases about half the films they purchase. 20 years ago, before Miramax came to dominate the market, there were 5 times more foreign films shown in the U.S. than there are today. 30 years ago, there were 10 times more. I'm not blaming this decline on Miramax. But they didn't create or maintain a market for foreign films. They're merely presiding over a shrinking market.
Re: Re: Re: Anti-Miramax Thread I agree with you about the non-promotion of films. That's shameful. But 20 years ago, how wide was the distribution for those foreign films? What if you didn't live in a large market or near a college town? Could you reasonably expect to see those movies? I don't know. But my guess is that, to some extent, Miramax aided in bringing some of those kinds of films to theaters that weren't typically showing them. I'm not suggesting that their motivations were altruistic - Miramax developed that market because they thought they could make money. But that doesn't mean that no good came of it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-Miramax Thread I really don't know. I've never seen any data on the number of markets in which foreign films have been distributed,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-Miramax Thread I don't either. I'm just spitting into the wind, based on my own experience and others I've spoken to. The other problem (particularly with regard to not releasing films) is the Miramax has been shite when it comes to releasing DVDs. They aren't up to the caliber of other studios, and many never get released at all. I'm still waiting for an uncut version of Trainspotting (which came out on a nice Criterion laser a few years ago) on DVD, but Miramax is sticking us with the no-frills version. I assuming, of course, that Miramax owns the home video rights to these films as well. Listen, Harvey, you dumb prick, if you're not going to release these films, at least let Criterion have a go at them.
i want to know what the dealio is with them "distributing" Naqoyqatsi and it only turning up in about 10 theatres.
Films like that are tough to place in theaters. It's not like Miramax owns the theatre (though they do own one in NYC and plan to buy more) and can demand the owner show their movies. Miramax makes a schedule of films they intend to exhibit available to theatre owners months in advance. It's up to these buyers to tell Miramax (or Fine Line, or whoever) if they intend to book those films. If there is no interest, the film company will not invest in a campaign to sell interest in the film to the public. In Miramax's defense, here in NYC they screen virtually everything they get their hands on to media and industry months ahead of scheduled release dates in order to gage interest, and most importantly, to see if critics "get" whatever it is that interested Miramax's acquisition team in the first place. I've seen many Miramax movies in Manhattan screening rooms that I've read great things about from foreign markets, that absolutely blew. Miramax (wisely, in my opinion) uses these screenings to gage opinion outside their own jaded circles to see if U.S. release is justified. If nobody gets excited after actually seeing the film, it gets shelved or if it's lucky, sold off to a smaller company for even smaller/more-limited release than it would have received otherwise. But at the end of the day, the filmmaker probably received a more-than-fair paycheck (Miramax is notorious for overpayment for indie films) that he may not have received otherwise. As for the notion that Miramax buys films specifically to bury...although it's probably not out of the question, the Weinsteins are such astute businessmen that if they thought they could make a buck off a film, or even lose a few dollars in the name of developing a career that they could cash in on later, they'd release it.
But in how many cases do the theaters (especially the arthouses) make this decision themselves? They rely on Miramax to advise them. If Miramax decides to push 10 films in a given season, the vast majority of the theaters are going to exhibit those ten films. Especially now that most arthouses are owned by a chain. The days of the auteur-programmer are over. It's a damned tragedy.
Yep. There's only one theatre here in town that shows little known films and it is the smallest screen in a multiplex. About 80 miles away is a purely independent theatre (one screen) that shows whatever they want, but each film only runs about 5 days so I'm limited to what I can see there.
You'd be surprised (or maybe you know) how frequently movies, even Miramax-offered flicks, won't get picked up regionally because of a title that the local house may think unwieldy or unappealing (see: Naqoyqatsi). It's true that many houses blindly take what's offered to them by Miramax, but you'll notice that unless the house fills that first week, the film is instantly gone for something that is a surer bet to pay the bills. I, too, lament the death of the "mom & pop-run" house. I used to love the homey-ness of the couple art theatres near me, the free coffee urn in the lobby, the tattered posters of virtually every film ever shown there tacked on the walls with abandon, and the trust I could put in the guy who picked the films. Going to those houses made me feel like a member of the coolest club in town.
Basically, Miramax has sucked the air out of foreign films. Unleash "Amelie" in the "If it's French, it must be art!" style, all the while purchasing and shelving the real pieces of art in order to corner the market. Then they've a string of biopics of artists, always with just enough homosexuliaty to titilate but not enough to drive people away. ANd that is a fine summation of their mentality, enough intellingence to titilate, but not enough to challenge people. And because it's about Shakespeare, or Frida Kahlo, or Virginia Woolf, it must be artistic! Same formula, different material. In fairness, Miramax has released some of the best films of the 90s and 00s, but that's because they release the vast majority of films that are vaguely creative or artistic in this country that gets any kind of distribution or attention. At the same time, don't the artists have to sign off on this decision. Are Kiaoristami, etc. taking the most overly-generous offer available figuring that their films won't do well in "Twister"-loving America, anyway. Or because Miramax is the only one offering money? How do the artists play in, and are they partly responsible?