 Spike Lee 2009 As the BFI celebrates 20 years since the release of Spike Lee's seminal film with The Independent Interview and a season of movies on the Southbank, the director talks to Kaleem Aftab about race and retrospectivesSpike Lee arrives at the BFI Southbank on Monday as part of a celebration of Do The Right Thing, his third film, which premiered at the Cannes film festival in 1989. In the two decades since then, the film has been recognised by the American Film Institute as one of the greatest 100 American movies in film history and was highly listed in a Sight and Sound Poll of the best films of the past 25 years. It was also, as Barack Obama coyly admitted last year, the movie that the President of the United States of America took Michelle to see on their first date. All in all, a far cry from the divisions and debate that the race drama provoked on its release. It was the most controversial and discussed film of that summer. You couldn't pick up a magazine or newspaper without someone having an opinion on the Brooklyn tale or the director. Critics David Denby in New York Magazine and Richard Corliss in Time argued that Do The Right Thing was of no value except as agitprop to incite the black community to riot. In the opposite corner was Roger Ebert who wrote that "it comes closer to reflecting the current state of race relations in America than any other movie of our time". It's not to belittle Lee's other films, including Malcolm X or Inside Man, or his two great documentaries 4 Little Girls about the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama and the Katrina documentary When the Levees Broke, to state that Do The Right Thing remains the key work in his oeuvre. The director would never admit that it's his best film. "My films are like my children", he says. "I don't have a favourite." Yet in all the literature that Lee approves, from the children's book he wrote with his lawyer-turned-writer wife Tonya, Please, Baby, Please to the blurbs on the back of DVDs, it's always Do The Right Thing that is given the status of first among equals.
By SARAH MCBRIDE, JESSICA E. VASCELLARO and SAM SCHECHNER
Google Inc.'s YouTube is in discussions with major movie studios about streaming movies on a rental basis, a test of whether the online video giant can persuade its millions of users to pay for premium content. For Hollywood, the move could represent a bold attempt to offset its dwindling DVD sales with online revenue.
YouTube is talking to Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., Sony Corp., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. and Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. about charging for new titles on the existing YouTube site. In some cases, these titles might be available on the site on the same day that they come out on DVD.
Some studios already make full-length movies available on YouTube free, though they tend to be older, lesser-known films. It is unclear to what extent older movies or television shows will be a part of the new agreements.
While details vary from studio to studio, generally speaking the agreements would allow consumers to stream movies on a rental basis for a fee. However, in some cases, the movies could be available in way that they have been previously -- free, with advertising.
Negotiations are continuing and there are no guarantees the deals will be struck. Many details remain in flux, including whether users will eventually be able to download movies. People familiar with the matter say that new movie rentals are likely to be around $3.99, the price Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store charges for new movie rentals. The companies hope to keep pricing on par with what consumers pay for video-on-demand for new titles, these people say.
In a statement, a YouTube spokesman said the company is always working to expand on "its great relationships with movie studios and on the selection and types of videos we offer our community."
The talks are a sign of how YouTube is emerging as a competitor to a broad spectrum of entertainment outlets, including Blockbuster Inc. and Netflix Inc. as well as iTunes and Amazon.com Inc. The Hulu LLC joint venture and Sony's Crackle allow users to watch full-length movies free, but don't generally include new releases. Hulu is a joint venture of General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal, News Corp. and Walt Disney Co.
YouTube began as a place for scrappy, home-grown videos, but it has become increasingly aggressive in striking deals to host television shows, movies and other professional content as a way to draw in advertisers and viewers. But movie studios and TV networks won't give up their most popular content for a share of advertising, which they complain isn't sufficient. The negotiations with the studios are part of an effort to open up new revenue streams by charging users themselves.
Hollywood has also been eager to distribute more of its films online -- as long as it can collect a reasonable fee. Though many studios now sell and rent movies online through services such as iTunes and Amazon.com, that has yet to produce meaningful revenue. By cutting a deal with YouTube, which had nearly 428 million global visitors in June, according to comScore, it can potentially reach a much wider audience.
Studios have been pursuing these kinds of deals with renewed urgency, as revenue from DVD sales has eroded more quickly than they had anticipated. Adams Media Research says studio revenue from DVD sales should fall by about $850 million this year to $12.9 billion.
However, YouTube users aren't accustomed to opening their wallets to watch videos. And the full-length movies that already exist on the service -- ranging from classics such as the 1940 "His Girl Friday" to more recent movies like the 1999 horror flick "House on Haunted Hill" -- have drawn a modest number of views compared to content like comedy clips and music videos. Many consumers balk at watching full-length films on a computer screen.
You Tube and the studios are still hashing out how to divide revenue from the new arrangement. For deals that involve advertising, YouTube is likely to give partners the majority of the revenue, as it has done with other partners in the past. Some deals may also guarantee the studio a minimum fee per title viewed, in some cases just under $3, according to people familiar with the matter.
YouTube is pressing studios to allow the movies to be streamed on mobile devices, but some of the studios are resisting, even though that is currently allowed under other online rental services such as iTunes.
Under current plans, 10,000 Google employees will test the service for a period of three months, people familiar with the matter said. The trial was supposed to start at the beginning of September, but was pushed back as studio negotiations dragged on.
 The Culver Studios By Richard Verrier
In an industrial yard behind Burbank's Bob Hope Airport, dozens of orange forklifts and 135-foot-high booms stand idle, gleaming in the afternoon sunlight. As recently as two years ago, the yard was largely empty because the equipment was busy being used to hoist cameras, rig lights and build sets for "Iron Man," "Get Smart," "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and other movies shooting throughout Southern California.
"I've been doing this for 25 years and I've never seen such a sustained downtime," said Lance Sorenson, president of 24/7 Studio Equipment, who recently had to lay off two of his drivers and has imposed three- and four-day workweeks for the rest of his 44 employees.
Across town in Culver City, at the landmark studio where "Gone with the Wind," "Citizen Kane," "The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet" and "The Andy Griffith Show" were filmed, there's a similar story. Now an independent production facility known as the Culver Studios, the soundstage complex just lost one of its largest tenants, the syndicated game show "Deal or No Deal." That program will tape future episodes in Waterford, Conn., a suburban town known for its nuclear power plant, large state park and assortment of shops and family-owned restaurants. The chief draw: Connecticut's 30% production-tax credit.
"It's a huge blow to us," said James Cella, president of the Culver Studios. Others also have been hard hit by the outflow of production to other areas, known as runaway production.
At Modern Props, also in the Culver City area, nearly half the employees have been laid off, and those remaining are on 20- to 40-hour workweeks. John Zabrucky, the company's founder, thought he'd gotten ahead by opening a satellite office in Vancouver, Canada. But now so many states are offering tax incentives to film and television producers that he can't keep up.
Hundreds of small blue-collar businesses like these sustain Southern California's entertainment industry. Many are struggling amid a sharp drop in local film and TV production triggered by the recession, a rise in runaway production, and the fallout from a writer's strike and a yearlong contract dispute between studios and the Screen Actors Guild. According to the state Employment Development Department, jobs in movie and television production were down 13,800 in May compared with a year earlier.
On-location feature film production in the area has fallen to its lowest levels on record. Student films generated as much activity on the streets of Los Angeles in the first quarter of 2009, when only a few movies, including "Fame" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel," were shot there.
California's share of U.S. feature film production dropped to 31% in 2008 from 66% in 2003, according to the California Film Commission. That largely reflects a falloff in the Los Angeles area, where feature filming activity in 2008 was nearly half what it was at its peak in 1996.
Television production, which recently has been a more reliable source of jobs in the region, is also declining. A recent survey from FilmL.A. Inc. found that 44 of 103 TV pilots this year were shot in such disparate locations as Canada, Illinois, Georgia, New York, Louisiana and New Mexico.
More than 30 states have sought to outbid one another with tax credits and rebates aimed at luring productions away from California. Sacramento has responded with its first-ever film-tax credit program, but most analysts think the credits are too small and restrictive to have much effect.
"L.A. is at risk of losing a good part of one of its signature industries, just like it did with the aerospace industry in the early 1990s," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.
Few know that better than Cella, of Culver Studios. He previously ran Steiner Studios in Brooklyn, N.Y., and was tapped to run Culver in 2006 after a group of investors including Lehman Bros. acquired the 14 soundstages from Sony Pictures Entertainment for $125 million. But the studio's business took a big hit recently when NBC Universal and Endemol USA opted to move "Deal or No Deal" to Connecticut.
The show brought in more than $1 million in rental income to Culver Studios, Cella said, adding that there was little he could do to keep the producers from leaving. "I could give them this space for free and it still wouldn't compete with Connecticut," he said. The studio, which still hosts "The Bonnie Hunt Show" and others, has seen its occupancy rate slide to 46% from 85% in the last year.
 Howie Mandel Most of "Deal or No Deal's" 250 crew members lost their jobs in the move. "It's a crying shame," said Lindsay Hovel, an associate producer on the prime-time version of the game show hosted by comedian Howie Mandel. "There are so many talented people, and they're just not able to work in the [entertainment] capital."
The relocation was doubly bruising for Cella because it was announced just after California approved its film-tax credit program, which Cella lobbied heavily for and helped craft. The credits, however, don't cover game shows.
Still, Cella predicts that the tax deal will attract some TV shows back to California. "If we don't do something now, there's going to be nothing left," he said.
Sorenson, of 24/7 Studio Equipment, also is pinning his hopes on the state tax credits to spur business. A major studio film can generate $75,000 in rental income for a company like Sorenson's. But this year, 24/7 has worked mostly on a few low-budget films such as Screen Gems' "The Roommate." His company's feature film business has plummeted 50% since 2007.
Sorenson made up for the shortfall by renting out equipment to TV shows, but even that is no longer a sure bet.
One of his customers, the HBO series "Hung," filmed three months in L.A. and two months in Michigan, which offers a 42% tax credit. Another customer, the TNT series "Leverage," has opted to film its second season in Portland, Ore., which offers a 20% cash rebate on qualified expenses.
"It would be a lot different if we were smoking busy," he said. "But . . . every rental right now is like a precious jewel."
Local prop houses also are struggling from the downturn. Some have recently closed and others have cut their payrolls.
 Serving Los Angeles and Vancouver Modern Props laid off 17 workers last month. The company owns a 120,000-square-foot warehouse that contains 80,000 props.
"I was in shock," said Luis Peniche, 21, a former sales assistant who lost his $25,000-a-year job after two years at Modern Props. "I really loved working there. It was like family."
Unable to pay his rent, Peniche moved into his sister's apartment in Van Nuys. He also stopped taking classes at Santa Monica College because he couldn't afford the books and tuition. "I'd love to work in the entertainment industry, but it's just so bad out there."
Zabrucky launched the company 32 years ago, specializing in leasing furniture, lights and electric control panels to sci-fi TV shows such as "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and eventually to some of the biggest movies in Hollywood, including "Die Hard," "Ghostbusters" and "Men in Black."
Modern Props became one of the largest prop houses in Hollywood, employing 50 people in its heyday in the late 1990s. But the business has eroded through much of the last decade, squeezed by the growing use of digital effects; the growth of reality television, which spends little on props; and especially the departure of shows to other locales.
"We know how to do what we do very well," Zabrucky said, "but we can't fight the fact that everything is just being sold right from underneath us."
Last summer, Modern Props lost one of its clients, the ABC series "Ugly Betty," to New York. "Their set decorator was in every week placing orders. That's $14,000 a month we lost," lamented Ken Sharp, vice president of sales and operations for Modern Props.
To highlight the plight facing his business and others, Zabrucky recently designed skateboard decks that show a pictograph of the country, with California highlighted, and distributed them to hundreds of Hollywood executives as well as city and state politicians. The deck shows arrows pointing away from the state and the words "don't run away."
Hollywood is fighting to stop an exodus of filmmakers who are being lured from Southern California by subsidies and tax breaks.
Labour unions, studios and independent producers are urging California lawmakers to support tax credits for local production, after a bill sponsored last year by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nzqez failed to pass the state legislature.
The group wants California to match incentives being offered by more than 20 other states. Countries from Iceland to Chile also are chipping away at Los Angeles film and television production, the county's third-largest industry. Feature shoots have fallen 32 percent since 1996, according to Film L.A., a non-profit group that arranges local film permits.
Until recently, Los Angeles unions and politicians focused their concern on Canada, where a favourable exchange rate and government incentives helped attract scores of movie projects. As the Canadian dollar has risen and made location shoots less of a bargain, filmmakers have turned to other sites.
"Just as New York would never let Wall Street leave the city, we can't let the film industry leave Los Angeles," said Los Angeles City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, 44, who is seeking to eliminate fees for filming on city property.
It's a big target for other states. Spending on film-industry payroll and purchases in California was $34.3-billion (U.S.) in 2002, 60 percent of the U.S. total of $56.6-billion, in the most recent figures from the Washington-based Motion Picture Association of America.
The number of days spent shooting movies, television shows and commercials in Los Angeles rose 4 percent last year, according to Film L.A. That compares with a 35 percent increase in New York City, after passage of laws in 2004 that refund filmmakers as much as 15 percent of production costs for crew and equipment. The city also offers free permits, parking and police on location.
Cities including New York, where Warner Bros. this year filmed the pilot TV episode of The Traveler, are courting producers more aggressively.
"It wouldn't have been worth it" two years ago, said Lisa Rawlins, vice-president of studio and production affairs at the Warner unit of New York-based Time Warner Inc., the world's biggest media company. "Pilots are always shot economically."
One challenge for the industry is to convince legislators from other parts of California that subsidies aren't a handout. Retaining production will provide economic benefits to the entire state, said Amy Lemisch, director of the California Film Commission, a state agency spearheading the lobbying.
A feature film with a $17-million budget generates about $1.8-million in sales and income tax for the state, the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. estimates.Film, TV and commercial production provides jobs for 241,000 people in Los Angeles County, including camera operators, drivers, carpenters and makeup artists. The industry trails only tourism and international trade, according to Los Angeles County Economic Development. Including music, the county has about 30 percent of all U.S. entertainment employment, with New York second at 10 percent.
New Mexico offered tax breaks, cheap hotel rates and a $7-million loan to lure the 2004 romantic comedy Elvis Has Left the Building, said Bob Darwell, 42, a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer who helped Capitol Films arrange the financing.Louisiana offers a transferable 25 percent tax credit on money spent in the state. As most filmmakers aren't based there, they sell the credit to a broker who resells it to a Louisiana company. The state also offers a 10 percent credit on salaries paid to Louisiana residents and a 4 percent sales- and use-tax exclusion that reduces the cost of equipment purchases.
"We have a very simple incentive package that can save 12 percent of the production's cost, we have trained crews that speak English, and if we don't have a piece of equipment, we guarantee that it'll be there in 24 hours," said Einar Tomasson, project manager of the Film in Iceland Agency, in an interview this month at a conference in Santa Monica, California, that also drew film commissioners from as far away as Chile and Australia.
The California Senate last year failed to vote on a bill by Nzqez, a Democrat representing central Los Angeles that would have provided tax incentives for local movie production.
Rather than trying to get the incentives passed as a standalone bill, Nzqez will seek to include them in next year's budget, said his spokesman, Richard Stapler. Budget negotiations for the fiscal year starting July 1 will begin next month.
"We get a lot of input from groups and individuals in the industry to keep this a front-burner issue for us," Stapler said.
Finally, Kollywood is feeling the heat of the global economic meltdown.
Till recently, whopping budgets, big productions and skyrocketing star prices were the order of the day.Taking stock of the situation, the powerful Tamil Film Producers
Council (TFPC) had chalked out plans to do some cost cutting and revive the sagging fortunes of Kollywood.
As Ramanarayanan, President of TFPC said, “The cost of production has to come down. We were living on excess and the ongoing financial crisis highlights the need to control spending. Even actors should cut down on their fees. We are trying to implement certain changes to make filmmaking profitable.”
Suddenly producers and directors have become smart and are completing schedules on time within the budget. Last week, producer G Dhanajayan and director Kannan completed the first schedule of Kanden Kadhalai starring Bharath and Tamannaah covering close to 50 percent of the film in a record 27 days. Scenes for the film have so far been shot at Chengelpet, Ooty, Coonoor, Pollachi and Thirumoorthy dam.
Says director Kannan, “I am delighted with the way the film is progressing. Both Bharath and Tamannaah attended our script reading session before the shoot and made things easy while shooting. The production team offered everything on time making any compromises unnecessary.”
The remaining part of the film will be shot in Theni, Pollachi and Chennai in June and the film will be completed in 55 days within the budget.
Another case in point is Kamal Haasan’s Unnaipol Oruvan, a remake of A Wednesday.
Kamal plans to complete this bilingual in Tamil and Telugu within 45 days at Ramoji Rao Film City in Hyderabad and release the film in the first week of July!
The film will have Malayalam superstar Mohanlal in the Tamil version while Telugu top star Venkatesh will be seen doing his role in the Telugu version. The film will be marketed and sold to distributors only after completion. The actors’ salary and producer’s share will be from the profits accrued from the sale of rights and distribution rights. It is a win-win situation for Kamal, as he will be able to complete the entire film on a shoe-string budget.
Similarly, Soundarya Rajinikanth and her Ocher Studios are trying to keep the cost down for their Venkat Prabhu film Goa. After completing the village scenes of the film in Theni, they are starting their second schedule in Goa, which they will complete in 45 days.
Dhanajayan maintains that these tough times will initiate smart sizing. Says he, “Spiralling star fees and astronomical movie budgets are hurting the industry. This will come down. The financial crisis could also bring back good sense, respect for the craft of filmmaking and restore focus on creative issues in Kollywood.”
LOS ANGELES – "Slumdog Millionaire" took the best-picture Academy Award and seven other Oscars on Sunday, including director for Danny Boyle, whose ghetto-to-glory story paralleled the film's unlikely rise to Hollywood's summit.
The other top winners: Kate Winslet, best actress for the Holocaust-themed drama "The Reader"; Sean Penn, best actor for the title role of "Milk"; Heath Ledger, supporting actor for "The Dark Knight"; and Penelope Cruz, supporting actress for "Vicky Cristina Barcelona."
A story of hope amid squalor in Mumbai, India, "Slumdog Millionaire" came in with 10 nominations, its eight wins including adapted screenplay, cinematography, editing and both music Oscars (score and song).
"Just to say to Mumbai, all of you who helped us make the film and all of those of you who didn't, thank you very much. You dwarf even this guy," Boyle said, holding up his directing Oscar.
The filmmakers accepted the best-picture trophy surrounded by both the adult professional actors who appeared among the cast of relative unknowns and some of the children Boyle cast from the slums of Mumbai.
The film follows the travails and triumphs of Jamal, an orphan who artfully dodges a criminal gang that mutilates children to make them more pitiable beggars. Jamal witnesses his mother's violent death, endures police torture and struggles with betrayal by his brother, while single-mindedly hoping to reunite with the lost love of his childhood.
Fate rewards Jamal, whose story unfolds through flashbacks as he recalls how he came to know the answers that made him a champion on India's version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."
As he took the stage to accept his prize for playing slain gay-rights pioneer Harvey Milk, Penn gleefully told the crowd: "You commie, homo-loving sons of guns."
He followed with condemnation of anti-gay protesters who demonstrated near the Oscar site and comments about California's recent vote to ban gay marriage.
"For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think it's a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect on their great shame and their shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that support," Penn said. "We've got to have equal rights for everyone."
For his demented reinvention of Batman villain the Joker, Ledger became only the second actor ever to win posthumously, his triumph coming exactly 13 months after his death from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs.
His Oscar for the Warner Bros. blockbuster was accepted by Ledger's parents and sister on behalf of the actor's 3-year-old daughter, Matilda.
"I have to say this is ever so humbling, just being amongst such wonderful people in such a wonderful industry," said his father, Kim Ledger. "We'd like to thank the academy for recognizing our son's amazing work, Warner Bros., and Christopher Nolan in particular for allowing Heath the creative license to develop and explore this crazy Joker character."
Since his death, the 28-year-old Ledger has gained a mythic aura akin to James Dean, another rising star who died well before his time.
The Joker was his final completed role, a casting choice that initially drew scorn from fans who thought Ledger would not be up to the task given Jack Nicholson's gleefully campy rendition of the character in 1989's "Batman."
In the months before Ledger's death, buzz on his wickedly chaotic performance swelled as marketing for the movie centered on the Joker and the perverted clown makeup he hid behind.
Ledger's death fanned a frenzy of anticipation for "The Dark Knight," which had a record $158.4 million opening weekend last summer.
The previous posthumous Oscar recipient was Peter Finch, who won best actor for 1976's "Network" two months after his death.
Cruz triumphed as a woman in a steamy three-way affair with her ex-husband and an American woman in Woody Allen's romance.
"Has anybody ever fainted here? Because I might be the first one," Cruz said, who went on with warm thanks to Allen. "Thank you, Woody, for trusting me with this beautiful character. Thank you for having written all these years some of the greatest characters for women."
"OK, that fainting thing, Penelope," Winslet joked later as she accepted her best-actress prize for "The Reader," in which she plays a former concentration camp guard in an affair with a teen. "I'd be lying if I haven't made a version of this speech before. I think I was probably 8 years old and staring into the bathroom mirror, and this would be a shampoo bottle. But it's not a shampoo bottle now."
It was Winslet's first win after five previous losses.
"Slumdog" writer Simon Beaufoy, who adapted the script from Vikas Swarup's novel "Q&A," said there are places he never could imagine being.
"For me, it's the moon, the South Pole, the Miss World podium, and here," Beaufoy said.
The epic love story "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," which led with 13 nominations, had three wins, for visual effects, art direction and makeup.
"The Dark Knight" had a second win, for sound editing.
"Milk" writer Dustin Lance Black offered an impassioned tribute to Milk.
"If Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he would want me to say to all the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told they are less than by the churches, by the government, by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value, and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights, federally, across this great nation of ours," Black said.
"Man on Wire," James Marsh's examination of tight-rope walker Philippe Petit's dazzling stroll between the towers of the World Trade Center in 1974, was chosen as best documentary.
The acting categories were presented by five past winners of the same awards, among them last year's actress winners, Marion Cotillard and Tilda Swinton, plus Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, Kevin Kline, Sophia Loren, Anthony Hopkins, Shirley MacLaine and Robert De Niro.
It was a much different style for the Oscars as each past recipient offered personal tributes to one of the nominees, without clips of the nominated performances. Awards usually are done in chit-chat style between a couple of celebrity presenters.
After last year's Oscars delivered their worst TV ratings ever, producers this time aimed to liven up the show with some surprises and new ways of presenting awards. Rather than hiring a comedian such as past hosts Jon Stewart or Chris Rock, the producers went with actor and song-and-dance man Hugh Jackman, who has been host of Broadway's Tony Awards.
Instead of the usual standup routine, Jackman did an engaging musical number to open the show, saluting nominated films with a clever tribute.
Jackman later did a medley staged by his "Australia" director Baz Luhrmann with such performers as Beyonce Knowles and "High School Musical" stars Vanessa Hudgens and Zac Efron.
"Slumdog Millionaire" went into the evening after a run of prizes from earlier film honors.
The film nearly got lost in the shuffle as Warner Bros. folded its art-house banner, Warner Independent, which had been slated to distribute "Slumdog Millionaire." It was rescued from the direct-to-video scrap heap when Fox Searchlight stepped in to release the film.
"Slumdog" composer A.R. Rahman, a dual Oscar winner for the score and song, said the movie was about "optimism and the power of hope."
"All my life, I've had a choice of hate and love," Rahman said. "I chose love, and I'm here.
Have a film you want to make? Go independent. See the two most recent casualties
within the major movie film system which as we know it is over:
Item 1:Spielberg caught in the 'Jaws' of credit squeeze
By Guy Adams
He is impossibly rich, uniquely powerful and boasts a copper-bottomed CV that includes dozens of the most influential blockbusters of modern times. But even Steven Spielberg's career is stalling in the face of the global credit crunch. The legendary movie mogul, who recently "divorced" Paramount Pictures to turn his production firm, DreamWorks, into an independent company, finds himself struggling to raise enough money to get his ambitious new project off the ground. Ironically, given his unrivalled reputation for producing some of the most lucrative films ever made, such as 'Jaws', 'ET', and the Indiana Jones series, Spielberg seems unable to raise $750m(€525m) of the $1.2bn (€841m) needed to underwrite DreamWorks' forthcoming movie productions.
Collapse
Spielberg's problems date back to October, when an Indian company, Reliance Big Entertainment, agreed to put up $500m (€350m) to take his company independent, provided he could raise an additional $750m in loans to finance a total of 17 proposed films over the next seven years. But the collapse of AIG, which was due to provide a portion of the cash, and the tightening of credit markets left Spielberg unable to secure the cash and his bankers, JP Morgan, have delayed efforts to raise more money until the New Year. The Hollywood newspaper 'Variety' carried a front-page report that the company's cashflow problems had left an important distribution deal with Universal Pictures "in jeopardy". Its report noted that Spielberg's firm is being forced to "limp along" on $75m (€53m) in bridge financing and must find another $20m (€14m) by mid-January to compensate Paramount Pictures for its departure.
Item 2:
Disney Dumps Narnia
by Monika Bartyzel Dec 24th 2008 // 8:02AM
Can you imagine a world where The Chronicles of Narnia only made it through two installments? Can you imagine no Dawn Treader, or Silver Chairs, or Horses, or Nephews, or The Last Battle? It's come to be, at least where Disney and Walden Media are concerned. The Hollywood Reporter posts that the companies have chosen to not co-produce and finance the next Narnia installment (The Voyage of the Dawn Treader), citing "budgetary and logistical reasons." (And also declining to elaborate on these reasons.)
The plan was to get the film in production soon, to be released in May of 2010. But without a company and deep pockets to finance the fantasy, there's a decent chance that this will all go up in smoke. The key cast were attached to the third installment, but there's no telling if they'll wait around for a new bank. However, Walden does plan to shop the film around in hopes of finding someone willing to fork over the money. I imagine that it will be a pretty hard sell -- the second only pulled in close to half what The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe pulled in, so it's far from a sure bet, box office-wise.
One of my favorite movies of all time is Woody Allan's Hollywood Ending. What makes the picture so funny is that Allan who plays a "once famous," down and out director who is hired to do his "come-back film." Of course in the cast of the present HOLLYWOOD, it has a big problem on it's hands. What is it? Cash for new projects. Here is a great over view I found at Forbes.
The movie business isn't recession-proof, after all.
Judging by the box office--a record-setting $70 million opening for Quantum of Solace, fans camping out for Twilight and a blockbuster holiday season ahead--things seem great in Hollywood. But look away from the glow of the screen, and Tinseltown gets a lot darker.
All of the 10 highest-grossing studios, which control 91% of U.S. market share have scaled back or combined their operations in recent months. This year's top-grossing studio, Warner Brothers Entertainment, shuttered two of its independent arms, Picturehouse and Warner Independent Pictures, and absorbed a third, New Line Cinema, in an effort to cut costs. Their total film output will drop to 20 films this year, down 25% from last year's slate. Paramount and 20th Century Fox made similar cuts.
It isn't the terrible economy--yet. People are still going to movies. The big problem is Wall Street. Without money from private equity and big investment banks, which injected an estimated $10 to $18 billion into Hollywood in the last four years, studios have had to change the way they do business--fast. "I would be very dubious for Hollywood as we know it surviving," says David Thomson, film critic and author of Have You Seen ...?
The American film industry "can't sustain much higher growth rates or attract capital at the same low rates the way they could a year or two ago," says Harold Vogel, president of Vogel Capital Management and author of Entertainment Industry Economics. "All the risk has been repriced."
As financing costs escalate, so will production costs. That means fewer films. Though the reduction ripple won't hit the box office until 2010, the number of productions will be down 5% to 10% over the next few years, predicts Vogel. The total number of feature films in wide release climbed from 478 in 2000 to 631 last year, a 32% increase. The number of movie tickets sold increased by only 1% in that same period.
The independent film industry may shrink even more. According to remarks made by Mark Gill, CEO of The Film Department, at the L.A. Film Festival last June, of the 5,000 films submitted to Sundance last year only "maybe five" would make money. There were 477 independent films made in 2007, according to the Independent Film & Television Alliance, each costing an average of $16.5 million to make.
"There's been an open spigot of money flowing into Hollywood, and the pictures are killing each other," says John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theatre Owners. "We can't handle the number of movies we're getting right now."
Comment On This Story
International financing has increased importance. Recently, Abu Dhabi Media announced it will spend $1 billion over the next five years on U.S.-produced feature films. Steven Spielberg's new venture is being funded with $1.5 billion in equity and debt from India's Reliance ADA group.
The theater industry is also feeling the pinch as it transitions from film to digital projection. "The traditional funding sources are currently shut down," says Bud Mayo, CEO of Access IT, a third-party integration company that has converted 70% of the digital screens in the U.S. Last fall, Access IT announced plans to furnish 10,000 additional screens in by the first quarter 2011. They've installed eight so far this year.
Loans from investment banks provided companies like Access IT with the credit to install the new equipment, while studios essentially pay off that debt through a fee--usually around $1,000--for every digital copy they ship to the movie theaters. "As long as the movie theaters show movies, we're going to get paid," says Mayo. "We're very bullish on the industry."
Though the nationwide overhaul would cost near $3 billion, it would save distributors and theater owners nearly a billion dollars a year by replacing the cumbersome, costly film reels with digital versions. Currently 5,200 screens, or 13% of all the screens in the U.S., are digital.
Theaters without digital technology will be at a loss in the coming years as consumer demand for, and output of, 3-D movies increases. Starting in 2010, about 20% of all wide-release films will be in 3-D, a format that can only be shown on digital projectors with an additional converter.
Fithian remains an optimist. "History clearly shows that the cinema business tends to do better during recessionary times," says Fithian. "We have to have good movies to get people to come to the cinema." Maybe just not so many.
Kevin Smith is an amazing filmmaker who started out totally independent making the film Clerks on his credit cards totally 27,000 Dollars. He later sold the film to Miramax for 1.5 Million Dollars.
Here are some recent questions and answers with Kevin Smith at University Of Kansas.
Since writing, directing and producing the 1994 cult classic Clerks, Kevin Smith has become one of the biggest names in comedic filmmaking. Smith’s newest film, Zach and Miri Make a Porno, hit theaters last Friday. Jayplay recently had the opportunity to chat with Smith as part of his conference call with other student journalists around the country. Q. You’ve had a lot of difficulties with the marketing for Zach and Miri Make a Porno. What’s the big deal with the word “porno?”
A. I knew when we titled the movie Zach and Miri Make a Porno that it was going to turn some people off. I assumed that the people who would be turned off by that title were never going to see the movie in the first place, so I didn’t think it would be a big deal. But suddenly cities have been popping up that won’t allow us to put a billboard up. Like Philadelphia wouldn’t allow us to put up any billboard that had the word “porno” on it. I was flabbergasted, because I felt like we had used the cutest word possible to describe that industry. I understand people who wouldn’t be into pornography, but you can’t object to the term. How else are we supposed to describe it?
Q. Do you think this movie will change views of pornography?
A. I think most people will take this movie for what it is. I don’t think they’ll look at it like, “Hey, man, suddenly this is changing everything I’ve ever felt about the porn industry.” I’m not looking to convert people. I’m just looking to entertain them with this one story. There are a bunch of people out there that find it offensive, and I get that. And there are a bunch of people—mostly dudes—who see it as an essential part of their day. I don’t think the movie will affect that.
Q. How did growing up in New Jersey affect your filmmaking?
A. I think the area in New Jersey where I grew up affected the dialogue I write, where it’s kind of candid dialogue with a lot of vulgarity, because that’s just my circle of friends. I imagine if I grew up anywhere else it wouldn’t be that much different, although having the friends I have has certainly influenced me as a filmmaker as far as the stories I like to tell.
But you grow up in New Jersey and you’re kind of always growing up in the shadow of New York, and you’re the butt of a lot of jokes. There’s still that necessity to prove yourself to people, so I think we tend to try harder. Growing up in Jersey is like growing up fat. You just tend to try harder.
Q. You’ve always been known as a talented writer, but how do you feel your directing skills and the look of your movies have improved over the years?
A. Only recently has that stuff started to improve because I’ve started putting some thought into it. I’m not a born filmmaker, where it’s in my genes. I don’t live, breath and eat film. But I do like to write. When I made Clerks, it was more about writing the script and directing actors. I never really thought of the look of the film. And then when the reviews for the movie came in, people would write wonderful things about it, but invariably every review would say, “Well, it looks like shit, but man is it fun.” So I kind of took that, idiotically, as a pass to never try to improve my visual game, because I’m like, “As long as people are laughing, nobody gives a shit what it looks like.” It was only on Clerks 2 that I really started trying. I think that movie is the first one that I look at and go, “Oh, that is actually a visually interesting film.”
Q. What are you doing now that Zach and Miri is finished?
A. Hopefully in the spring I’m going to do a flick called Red State. It’s a little political horror movie. I’m looking forward to it because I don’t really feel like a filmmaker most days. I just feel like a guy who directs the stuff that he happens to write. With Red State, I get to switch genres altogether. There are no laughs in the movie whatsoever. I feel like if I can pull this one off, I might feel more like a filmmaker. If not, I’ll just be like, “Okay, I get it. I’m a dick-and-fart joke guy, and I should just do that for the rest of my life.”
Q. What advice would you give young filmmakers trying to break into the business?
A. I’d just say everybody should tell the exact story they want to tell, never mind the influence of people telling you how to change it or make it more marketable. At the end of the day, you’ve got to live with that movie for the rest of your life. That’s your flick. If you start subverting what you set out to do, then it stops being yours. Stick with your voice, because nobody else has your voice, so nobody else can do what it is that you want to do.
A growth in infrastructure is also fueling the acceptance of small budget films
Written by Gouri Shah
Walk into any multiplex today and chances are, a majority of the films being played out on those screens are small budget films featuring new talent. Whether it is the hilarious comedy about non-resident Indians called Loins of Punjab, thriller Johnny Gaddaar featuring newcomer Neil Nitin Mukesh, films such as Bheja Fry and Life in a Metro, or internationally acclaimed films such as The Namesake—industry experts say it is clear that audiences are developing a sensibility for small, independent films.
The box-office takings aren’t bad either: Madhur Bhandarkar’s Traffic Signal, which cost Rs5 crore to produce, made Rs15 crore at the box office, says an industry analyst. Right on cue, some film production houses are setting up separate divisions or companies under the parent brand to work on small budget projects. These have budgets less than Rs5 crore, and are generally less dependent on commercial success than mainstream Bollywood films.
“Today, production houses don’t have a choice but to start looking at small budget films or independent films. With actors turning producers, producers are now looking at lesser known names and smaller projects as an effective way to keep the ball rolling,” said Taran Adarsh, trade analyst, and editor of Trade Guide, a film business weekly. Top Bollywood actors such as Shah Rukh Khan, Juhi Chawla, Aamir Khan, Arjun Rampal, Ajay Devgan and wife Kajol have set up film production houses of their own. But why would studios set up separate divisions for budget films? Industry experts say there are several reasons ranging from de-risking their portfolio and clarity in brand strategy, a shift to large studio formats, to ensuring the inflow of new talent. They are also using high-content “art” films as an inroad to the international awards scene and markets beyond non-resident Indians.
“Today, with multiplexes, these small budget films can actually be made, and can be given a theatrical release to audiences with a growing sensibility for such work,” said Siddharth Roy Kapur, executive vice-president, marketing, UTV Motion Pictures.
These projects have a longer shelf life compared with bigbudget films, where the opening week is extremely crucial. “So, you could release a few prints first and the perception created by running full house for the first few weeks is extremely effective. Buzz is built purely on word-of-mouth,” said Navin Shah, chief executive officer, P9 Integrated Pvt. Ltd, which has a separate unit, P9 Searchlight, for small budget films.When it comes to selling an independent or small budget film, it’s vital to work smart. “You are catering to a discerning audience and, more often than not, (are on) a modest marketing budget,” said Shah. His company, which was responsible for marketing Traffic Signal, sponsored T-shirts with the logo ‘Traffic Signal’ for a large group of traffic cops running the Mumbai Marathon early this year.
There are two revenue streams for both big and small budget films: theatrical—through the number of prints sold—and non-theatrical—comprising home DVDs, satellite rights, DD telecast rights, etc. The only difference is that the territories and rights for big budget films are much larger. They also have additional streams of revenue comprising music rights, downloadable properties such as wallpapers, ringtones, music and international releases which are very rare for small budget films. Still, small is clearly getting big in filmdom.
|
RSS Feed