so, here’s a thought: maybe nothing is wrong. maybe i’m just a fucking clown.
check this, from a recent variety article: Shrinking release slates, a focus on tentpoles and the emergence of a ‘new normal’ in the homevid market has allowed the largest media congloms to boost the financial performance of their movie divisions, according to Nomura Equity Research analyst Michael Nathanson.
according to mr. nathanson, the studios are cutting costs and the declines in homevideo are leveling off, and international boxoffice is growing (from 50% of boxoffice ten years ago to 70% today), and (with one exception), stock prices are up for the companies that own these studios, so maybe everyone is getting what they want, and these companies are all flush, which is great, right, because this is actually the only time in history trickle-down economics has ever worked; when a studio is flush, they spend like crazy (because your stock price is all about market share), and when you’re on a bad streak, you spend even crazier to get out of the hole. i’ll tell you another thing, there’s no business or industry this big that’s this FINANCIALLY TRANSPARENT. and unlike some other businesses, there is an OBJECTIVE ECONOMIC VALUE assigned to an asset, unlike that derivatives bullshit that brought the world to its knees. you can’t say something made more money than it did, or that (internally) you didn’t spend what you spent. it’s all written down, and it’s CONTRACTUAL that these numbers are made available. don’t get me wrong—there’s a lot of WASTE—way too many layers of executives, i mean, why am i having conversations with people who don’t have the power to make decisions? and they get simple things wrong, like REMAKES—how about instead of remaking all the famous shit, analyze your back catalog and remake the shit that wasn’t great but had a great idea in it; like a generic programmer you own that was made 50 years ago that could be great now if you threw some fresh talent at it. you could do that if you had someone at the studio that had seen a lot of those movies, or if you hired someone who had. how hard is that, really? and the executive ecosystem is kind of distorted because executives don’t get punished for bombs the way filmmakers do, so there’s a lack of new ideas about how to approach the business. but, again, on a macro level, it’s pretty clean economically, considering its size, i mean, hell, entertainment is our third biggest export. and it’s one of the few things the world acknowledges we do really well. that’s why i’m done being embarrassed about it—at least i’m not spending my days trying to figure out how to make a weapon that kills people more efficiently. so yeah, taking the thirty thousand foot view, maybe i’m wrong, maybe i’m a clown, maybe the business is fine, and maybe my feeling that the studios are like Detroit before the bailout is totally insupportable. i mean, i’m wrong so often it doesn’t even raise my blood pressure anymore. really, maybe everything is just FINE.
and yet.
admissions—the number of people who bought tickets—in 2003: 1.52B
admissions in 2012: 1.36B
that’s a 10.5% drop.
why are admissions dropping? no one knows for sure. it’s probably a combination of things. ticket prices, too much competition for eyeballs in other places (a lot of great TV out there). and make no mistake: THEFT is a big problem. i know there’s a lot of debate out there, and for all the people who think everything on the internet should be free, good luck when you try to make a living and raise a family on what you create. here’s a quote from Steve Jobs:
“From the earliest days at Apple, I realized that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software, we’d be out of business. If it weren’t protected, there’d be no incentive for us to make new software or product designs. If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear, creative companies will disappear or never get started. But there’s a simpler reason: It’s wrong to steal. It hurts other people. And it hurts your own character.”
i DO think what people go to the movies FOR has changed since 9/11. i think the country is still in some form of PTSD, and i think people are generally looking more toward escapist films, and hey, there’s a real argument to be made that only people who have it really good would want to make something that makes you feel bad. nobody i know who’s going through a tough time wants to see a film that gives them a tough time.
let’s drill down into some more numbers:
in 2003 there were 455 films released
275 of the 455 releases were independent films and 180 were studio films.
in 2012 there were 677 films released
549 of the 677 releases were independent films and 128 were studio films.
so a 100% increase in independent films, and a 29% decrease in studio films.
and yet, the market share of studio films in 2003 was 69%, and the market share of studio films in 2012 is 76%.
so fewer studio films are being released, but they are taking a bigger slice of the pie, and more indie films are competing for a smaller slice.
that’s rough. really rough. when i started as an independent filmmaker, reaching an audience was like trying to hit a thrown baseball; now it’s like trying hit a thrown baseball with another thrown baseball, and that is why i’ve spent all this time talking about the BUSINESS of movies and MONEY because i want you to understand the various and very powerful forces that are causing CINEMA as i define it to shrink in mainstream movies.
as i said, i think there are ways the studios could make better assets for less money by taking a different approach to talent, but i don’t see it happening. and i don’t understand why somebody won’t give me half a billion dollars to find out if i’m right. that sounds like a lot, right? well, there are a couple of films coming out this summer that individually represent half a billion dollars in resources. so just trade me one big movie. no? shit. well, maybe i can raise it on kickstarter . . .
but i don’t want to end on a down note. some years back i got a call from an agent saying, hey, would you take a look at this film, it’s been to festivals and people seem to like it, but we can’t get distribution. the film was MEMENTO. and i thought, okay, if this can’t get picked up, it’s really over. then, the financiers decided to form a distribution company and release the film themselves, and it made 25m dollars. so every time i get pessimistic i remind myself: someone out there is working on something cool right now, and we’ll get to see the result, one way or another.
and i always tell young filmmakers, when you’re trying to get money, i don’t care who you’re pitching, or if you’re pitching the darkest, most horrible story of genocide or child murder or criminal injustice, when you reach a certain point in the story, stop yourself like you’ve just realized something and say: but you know what? at the end of the day, this film is about HOPE.
thank you.
Additional Resources
Articles
Carruthers, Lee. “Biding Our Time: Rethinking the Familiar in Steven Soderbergh’s The Limey.” Film Studies, Winter 2006.
Cieply, Michael. “Where Pills and Crime Collide: Antidepressants Give Soderbergh a Thriller’s Plot.” New York Times, January 9, 2013.
Collins, Scott. “The Funk of Steven Soderbergh: His First Film, sex, lies, and videotape, Put Him on Top of Hollywood’s Hill. He Predicted Then That It Was All Downhill from There. Why Was He Right?” Los Angeles Times, February 6, 1997.
Chanko, Kenneth M. “Steven Soderbergh Hopes That Three Is His Lucky Number.” Boston Sunday Globe, September 26, 1993.
Diamond, Jamie. “Seems the Oh-So-Serious Phase Is Over.” New York Times, June 21, 1998.
Dieckmann, Katherine. “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: Steven Soderbergh Comes Clean.” Village Voice, August 8, 1989.
Doherty, Thomas. “Erin Brockovich.” Cineaste, June 2000.
Erickson, Steven. “Out of Sight: The Further Adventures of Steven Soderbergh.” Los Angeles Magazine, January 2001.
Gabriel, Trip. “Steven Soderbergh: The Sequel.” New York Times Magazine, November 3, 1991.
Goss, Brian Michael. “Steven S
oderbergh’s The Limey: Implications for the Auteur Theory and Industry Structure.” Popular Communication, 2004.
Henry, Michael. “Steven Soderbergh Talks about His Latest Film Traffic.” Positif, no. 481 (March 2001).
Henry, Michael. “An interview with Steven Soderbergh—Like a Gentle Bomb That Silently Detonates.” Positif, no. 504 (February 2003).
Hoberman, J. “Behold the Man.” Virginia Quarterly Review, Winter 2009.
Itzkoff, Dave. “Picturing Him in Sequins and Capes: Liberace’s Tale, From Michael Douglas and Steven Soderbergh.” New York Times, May 17, 2013.
Jacobson, Harlan. “Steven Soderbergh, King of Cannes: Truth or Consequences.” Film Comment, July–August 1989.
Jones, Scott Kelton. “Straight Man: Joking Around, or Not, with Limey Director Steven Soderbergh.” Dallas Observer, October 14, 1999.
Kehr, Dave. “The Hours and Times of the (Film) World according to Steven Soderbergh.” Film Comment, September–October 1999.
Malcolm, Paul. “Back in Sight: The Return of Steven Soderbergh.” LA Weekly, July 3, 1998.
Perren, Alisa. “Sex, Lies and Marketing: Miramax and the Development of the Quality Indie Blockbuster.” Film Quarterly, Winter 2001.
Sayeau, Michael. “‘This Number Is the Nadir of Passion’: Steven Soderbergh’s The Girlfriend Experience.” English Language Notes, Spring-Summer 2010.
Schilling, Mary Kaye. “Steven Soderbergh on Quitting Hollywood, Getting the Best Out of J-Lo, and His Love of Girls.” New York Magazine, February 4, 2013.
Siegel, Scott, and Barbara Siegel. “Soderbergh’s Starpower.” Film Journal International, March 2000.
Siskel, Gene. “Candid Camera: sex, lies, and videotape Director Faces Reality.” Chicago Tribune, August 6, 1989.
Smith, Gavin. “Hired Gun.” Film Comment, Winter 2001.
Steven Soderbergh. “Soderbergh on Soderbergh.” Film Comment, January–February, 2001.
Taubin, Amy. “First Look: Solaris—Steven Soderbergh Follows Andrei Tarkovsky into Space for a Walk with Love and Death.” Film Comment, November–December 2002.
Taubin, Amy. “Bubble.” Film Comment, January–February 2006.
Taubin, Amy. “Degraded Dupes: Steven Soderbergh.” Sight and Sound, March 2007.
Taubin, Amy. “One Singular Auteur, Through Another.” New York Times, January 15, 2010.
Wallis, Victor. “Interpreting Revolution: Che: Part I and Part II.” Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, Spring 2009.
Woodward, Richard B. “Reality Play: Steven Soderbergh’s Bubble Violates Every Commercial Code by Focusing Its Lens on the Crisis Facing Workers in Rustbelt America.” The American Prospect, January 2006.
Books
Baker, Aaron. Steven Soderbergh (Contemporary Film Directors). University of Illinois Press, 2011.
deWaard, Andrew. The Cinema of Steven Soderbergh: Indie Sex, Corporate Lies, and Digital Videotape. Wallflower Press, 2013.
Dickenson, Ben. Steven Soderbergh and the Brief Independent Boom. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Gallagher, Mark. Another Steven Soderbergh Experience: Authorship and Contemporary Hollywood. University of Texas Press, 2013.
Goodridge, Mike. Steven Soderbergh. Boston: Focal Press, 2002.
Palmer, Barton R., and Sanders, Steven M. (eds). The Philosophy of Steven Soderbergh. University Press of Kentucky, 2010.
Soderbergh, Steven. Getting Away with It, Or: The Further Adventures of the Luckiest Bastard You Ever Saw. London: Faber and Faber, 1999.
Soderbergh, Steven. Sex, lies, and videotape. New York: Perennial Library, 1990.
Wood, Jason. The Pocket Essential Steven Soderbergh. Harpenden: Pocket Essentials, 2002.
Index
The index that appeared in the print version of this title was intentionally removed from the eBook. Please use the search function on your eReading device for terms of interest. For your reference, the terms that appear in the print index are listed below
alienation
All the President’s Men
Allen, Woody
Alphaville
Altered States
Altman, Robert
Annie Hall
Antonioni, Michaelangelo
Ashby, Hal
Asphalt Jungle
Atlanta, Ga.
auteur
Barton Fink
baseball
Baton Rouge, La.
Bergman, Ingmar
Bicycle Thief, The
black and white (cinematography)
blocking
Bond, James
Bound for Glory
Bradford, Jesse
Brantley, Betsy
Brazil
Brinkley, William
Buñuel, Luis
Burns, Scott Z.
casting
Chinatown
cinematography
Citizen Kane
Civil Action, A
Clooney, George
Coen Brothers
color
Columbia Pictures
Confederacy of Dunces, A
Conversation, The
Coppola, Francis Ford
Criss Cross
Cronenberg, David
Curtiz, Michael
Damon, Matt
Davis, Elliot
DeVito, Danny
Diabolique
digital video (DV)
Dobbs, Lem
Dogme
Dollard, Pat
Don’t Look Now
Douglas, Michael
editing
Ektachrome
Elliott, Alison
Faulkner, William
Fellini, Federico
film noir
Fincher, David
Five Easy Pieces
5000 Fingers of Dr. T, The
Fonda, Peter
Four Hundred Blows, The
Frank, Scott
freedom
French Connection, The
Friedkin, William
Fuchs, Daniel
Gaghan, Stephen
Gallagher, Peter
Games People Play
genre
Get Carter
Get Shorty
Getting Away with It
Godard, Jean–Luc
Godfather, The
Gray, Spalding
Guinness, Alec
Hamlisch, Marvin
Hard Day’s Night, A
Hardy, John
Hawks, Howard
Help!
Holm, Ian
Holmes, David
Hope and Glory
Hotchner, A. E.
Hough, Coleman
humor
Huston, John
Irons, Jeremy
Jackie Brown
Jaws
Jensen, David
Jersey Films
Joanou, Phil
Jonze, Spike
Kaufman, Charlie
Kentucky Fried Movie, The
Killing, The
Kubrick, Stanley
Lang, Fritz
Last Picture Show, The
Last Ship, The
Law, Jude
Leatherheads (football movie)
Ledford, Paul (sound mixer)
Lee, Spike
Leonard, Elmore
Lester, Richard
Lloyd, Walt (cinematographer)
Loach, Ken
Lolita
London, Barry
Lopez, Jennifer
Lowry, Sam
Lubitsch, Ernst
MacDowell, Andie
Malick, Terrence
Man from U.N.C.L.E., The
Martinez, Cliff (composer)
McConaughey, Matthew
Miller, Glenn
Miramax
Moneyball
Monty Python
Mottola, Greg
My Life as a Dog
Naked Lunch