Film festival head Theirry Fremaux, on allowing two Netflix films in the Palme d’Or competition last year:
“Last year, when we selected these two films, I thought I could convince Netflix to release them in cinemas. I was presumptuous, they refused.”
And:
At the time, Netflix tried to secure temporary permits to screen the films for less than a week in France, day-and-date to their online releases. That move wasn’t permitted because of France’s strict chronology laws and the two sides couldn’t reach an agreement.
As a result, the festival has changed the rules to require theatrical release in France.
And:
“We have to take into account the existence of these powerful new players: Amazon, Netflix and maybe soon Apple.”
The film industry is changing rapidly. The movie Unsane is in theaters right now. It was filmed exclusively using iPhones, no film cameras involved.
Netflix is being barred from Cannes competition because they do not show their films in theaters. Why not prohibit Unsane because it was not truly “filmed”? To me, this move shows Cannes as a purist, for sure, but also shows Cannes as a festival rooted in the past.
Relatively few movies are actually “filmed” these days. Most are shot on some form of digital camera. I think that’s a different issue than having cinema screenings.
It has nothing to do with snobbery. Nothing at all. Why bother with an Emmy award vs an Oscar award then, if there is to be no distinction between theatrically released vs what’s released on Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc to be viewed on television or mobile devices.
Being released in “theaters” is a stupid requirement and it doesn’t mean anything. If film is truly art, then it doesn’t matter what screen it is released on. Quality craftsmanship stands on it’s own.
20 years ago, there was only television and film. What is Netflix? Is it television? Is it film? Is it both? Is it neither?
Netflix is a studio with a streaming output, they do not have a venue, that is left to their customers, the audience. I can stream Netflix to my phone and I’m sure my local theater could put it on their projector. Movie studio’s customers are theaters to begin with, who resell it to the audience, then directly to the audience through “home” sales. It’s just semantics.
The point is, what used to be a clear line is now very blurred. Cannes is excluding Netflix based on the outlet, not the quality of the content, which only serves to preserve their ideology. This seems both futile and shortsighted.
“Is something shown on Netflix or HBO, to be viewed at home on your TV, really a film in the sense of theatrically released content. ”
That’s a tautaology. Of course if we define a ‘film’ as something released in a theater then anything not released in a theater cannot be a ‘film’.
The more interesting question is why the venue matters. When I watched Atomic Blonde on HBO last night was it a different work than in the theaters? No. Is the experience different? Yes. Does the difference in experience matter to how we define what it is? That’s the crux of the matter to me (beyond the rather banal issue of whether Cannes is old fashioned, etc.)
Seeing a Movie in theater with a crowd is part of the cinema experience. Hitchcock mentioned this often is interviews. I have agree with the judgment is this case.
Cannes is just another club and Netflix has to buy their way into it like everybody else.
But Cannes won’t stop the success of Netflix, no matter how snobby they behave.
It’s not old fashioned nor snooty. It’s not class or cultural warfare. It’s simply the rules of their competition — the films actually have to be released in theaters. the Oscar rules require a one or two week screening run (3 showings a day) to qualify, too.
Why not argue that anybody should be able to compete in the Olympics? Why do I have to qualify as part of an organized association’s national team? because thems the rules.
Netflix isn’t really barred, they just didn’t follow the qualifying rules.
Netflix content that isn’t given a theater screening is in the same category as direct to VHS/DVD/BluRay content. It’s not a new phenomenon.
Good point. But I still don’t understand why it matters.
Dave, the iPhone example was strawman at its finest. The Palme d’Or competition change has nothing to do with the promotion of, or sanctity of, actual film. Things haven’t been filmed, for the most part, in years as we’ve moved to digital.
This is entirely down to theater vs television. Is something shown on Netflix or HBO, to be viewed at home on your TV, really a film in the sense of theatrically released content. Spielberg himself believes they should not be eligible for Oscars, but rather Emmy awards.
Yeah, things are changing, and changing fast. That doesn’t mean it is a bad idea to slow down and access exactly what we mean by “film” (as the actual medium from which the term was pulled isn’t applicable today). Cannes believes that means theatrically released before reaching your home. I’m not sure I have an issue with that at this time.
IDK, I think there are always exceptions to the ‘rules’ if the governing body deems them worthy. If Cannes only qualifies ‘Cinema’-released movies, then Cannes will be obsolete in 10 years. A movie, is a movie, is a movie. That’s how I see it.
Oh, and Cannes, I haven’t been to the ‘Cinema’ in about 14 years, yet I’ve seen 100s of movies since then.
There’s a term used among editors of anthologies and magazines: “slush pile” refers to the hundreds of submissions they receive from amateur writers who utterly lack the skills necessary to write a coherent story that other people will enjoy reading.
Editors adopt strict submission guidelines (the submission must be typed, double spaced, with standard margins and fonts, etc) in order to cut down on the number of worthless manuscripts that they have to look at. If you are not competent to follow the guidelines, your story doesn’t get looked at, at all.
Film and video has a slush pile too. It’s why direct to video is such a pejorative term. And for every production that actually manages to get a distribution deal on video, there’s more that are even more awful which mercifully never get distributed at all. The fact that someone managed to scrape together the money to buy cameras and hire actors does not necessarily mean that the film they made is any damn good.
So film festivals and award-granting bodies adopt strict rules designed to weed out at least some of the incompetent and unwatchable drek. Requiring that the film maker gets their film shown in actual theatres (which takes a certain amount of money and organization) is one such rule. Awards bodies that give out awards for outstanding TV shows have different rules, but they all have rules designed to weed out the chaff and keep the number of candidates for an award to a manageable level.
Netflix arrogantly assumed that they didn’t need to follow the rules, and got spanked for it. Complaining that this makes Cannes backward and not up with the times because digital streaming is just as foolish as complaining that magazine editors don’t consider manuscripts written in crayon on disposable napkins.
Dave, your silly strawman aside, this is an interesting issue. Keeping in mind my Marshall McLuhan-influenced film study classes at college, I could probably argue both sides of it if I wanted to.
Is it a different work if the experience is different? To a degree, yes. The different ways we can choose to consume it will vary our perceptions of that material.
“Cinema” has a slightly different definition than “movie.” Cannes is being specific in its focus. Their competition, their rules. As mdelvecchio said, just like the Oscars.
Some of the arguments here remind me a very little bit of complaints I saw a few years ago about the Peabody Award selection process. Proponents of a specific fan-film (cough) complained at length about the fact that the Peabody group appoints qualified committee members to select its winners, and didn’t somehow allow a crowd of online fans to vote.
Sorry, kids. There might be lots of things wrong with how Cannes is run, but this isn’t one of them.
“The more interesting question is why the venue matters.”
It used to matter in part because “made for TV” movies were manifestly inferior in almost every way to “made for cinema” movies. Partly budgetary, but mostly because things like broadcast censorship and the tyranny of pacing everything to accomodate frequent commercial breaks crippled the art form.
It used to and still does matter in that requiring that you get your movie in front of audiences in theatres is a blunt instrument for weeding out crappy films. True, it excludes works of brilliance by directors who don’t have the money or connections to get a distribution deal or to pay a theatre to screen their work, but for every good garage movie that it excludes, it excludes dozens of awful garage movies that nobody would ever want to pay to see.
The public regularly gets confused regarding a simple point… These are not public events. The owners of these events get to do whatever they damn well please. End of discussion.
Before The Florida Project, Sean Baker shot an entire movie using iPhones, Tangerine. It was released theatrically, and nobody complained about it not using film stock.
By the way, Amazon Prime chose to comply with the French rules for theatrical distribution, which is why films similar to Manchester-by-the-Sea, produced by Amazon, could still get allowed in the main competition. HBO Films was also able to screen Behind the Candelabra in Cannes, as it was theatrically released in my country. Netflix doesn’t want to comply, as they have another marketing strategy (or, most likely, as it would clash with their depreciation model, which currently covers the actual amount of their losses).
This nails the other part of the issue. If not theatrical release, then where to draw the line? What is to separate a Lifetime disease of the week film from a theatrically released film if Netflix and HBO offerings are to be afforded the same benefits? To simply say “quality” is far too subjective.
Because film matters. Because theaters matter. They may not to you personally, but they do to a huge segment of the population. I also understand a statement like “because film matters” won’t mean anything if it’s not something that you care about, but it’s something that holds a unique and special place in this country, and many others. For social reasons, for economic reasons, and for preservation of cinema, we need to hold the line someplace.
For the shrinking population of theater owners, there are very real economic concerns at play. Theater owners are not to be confused with the studios. The studios are going to get paid no matter where you watch it, but not theater owners, and we NEED theaters.
Netflix is a television driven service. It’s still where 70% of all Netflix content is viewed. A theater could, to use your example, also show Lifetime or Hallmark produced films as well, but they don’t. Those aren’t show at Cannes either. We recognize their is a difference.
If Netflix thinks they have a film worthy of Cannes and worthy of the Oscars, then put it in the theaters for a month before dropping it on the streaming service. If it’s really good, I’ll go see it on the big screen, as will many other film lovers, despite knowing it’ll drop on the service soon. It’s an easy compromise that Netflix refuses to make. They’re the issue here, not Cannes. Why should Cannes change their entire model just to please Netflix?
I do miss the cinema experience, I’ll give you that. I’d even pay good money for a VR rig that comes close to that, so I can watch at home. Maybe I need to give theaters another chance, but the ones near me are just plain bad.
Its true that Cris Nolan isn’t Steven Soderberg and one should probably view Dunkirk on an IMAX screen and Unsane on an iPhone. At the end of the day, even though I love great cinematography and 7.1, a really good script (along with some movie magic) will trump just about everything else. I have a 65″ curved Samsung 4K SUHD and love it, even though its probably oversaturated.
I doubt the younger generations can appreciate what the cinema experience used to be because they grew up with smart phones and eternal distraction. I miss the days of waiting in line with an eager crowd for the new mega blockbuster, the shared excitement and anticipation that was palpable in the air. And, true, you just can’t recreate that at home.
For Cannes, they are conservative purists (movie snobs) and at some point they will evolve to accommodate the younger generations. Its rather sad, but I doubt they want to become obsolete. And unless theaters figure out a way to maintain relevance, they will eventually capitulate to the will of the young.
I would argue that you’ve not really seen most of them as the director intended them to be viewed, and that does matter. Unless you’re exceptionally wealthy, a good home theater setup simply can’t compete with a true theater. If you saw Dunkirk on 70mm, then watched it at home, you’d realize they were two entirely different films.
To be clear, if your preference is to watch films at home, and you don’t mind waiting a few weeks or months to see them, that’s fine, but the theatrical release matters. For many films, there is a significant difference in the experience (this assumes you see it in a theater that cares about you and cares about film, not some run down local chain with shitty seats and a shittier screen).
I enjoy Netflix as much as the next guy. I have a large collection of films that we enjoy regularly on our home screen. That said, nothing beats seeing a well made film on the big screen. I’m not in favor of forsaking that in the name convenience.
You’ve got a good setup at home, and I’m a home theater buff too. I also totally get how lousy it is to spend $50 taking the family out to a film only to have the experience ruined by a bad projector, dirty theater, and some teenage asshole texting in front of you while an over active 6 year old constantly kicks the back of your seat. I get it, I really do.
Yet the social part of the filmgoing experience can’t be overlooked. When in a good theater that cares about the film and the audience, with a good crowd (I have the best luck with the first showings on a Saturday or Sunday oddly enough), the experience of a comedy, horror, or action adventure film is greatly enhanced. As much as anything else, it’s this that I hope we protect.