DC Film Society: Adam's Rib May 2018

Netflix v. Choice

I remember first learning that Dee Rees was directing Mudbound. A few years prior I had discovered her debut film, Pariah, almost by accident at the Landmark E Street Theater. Rees’s gifts for blending intimate storytelling with larger themes and for drawing raw, compelling performances from her cast made Pariah one of the biggest surprises of the year. She became one of the small group of directors for which I couldn’t wait to see what they would do next. Anticipation grew when Mudbound won acclaim and awards at the 2017 Sundance festival. But then Netflix swooped in, buying the film’s distribution rights for $12.5 million. Netflix began streaming the film on November 17, 2017 the same day it started a limited theatrical run. And I do mean limited. In the DC area, only the Landmark West End, with its tiny theaters and tinier screens, played the film. Even there the film only ran for a very short time, and I didn’t make it.

As such, I was only able to see the film on Netflix. The raw, soulful performances, the measured pace, and the elegiac storytelling all came through, but something was missing. Mudbound had an epic scope and brilliant cinematography, and was the type of film that should engulf you and take you to a different place. But that effect became diluted seeing it on television. I was not moved by the film the way I should have been.

The Mudbound experience stayed in my mind when I learned of the recent dispute between Netflix and the Cannes film festival. Last year Cannes allowed some Netflix-distributed films in its competition. After blowback from French distributors, Cannes changed its rules specifying that no film that cannot play in French theaters would be included in the competition. For a film to play in France, it cannot appear on video for three years. The Cannes rules change effectively eliminated Netflix movies from competition, although it allowed them to be exhibited there. Netflix wasn’t having that, and pulled all of its films from Cannes.

As my boss would ask, “Who cares and so what?” Does what happens at a festival in Europe, that most of us will never attend, really matter? On the surface, no. I care much more about what happens at the Toronto International Film Festival, which I have attended several times, and has much more bearing on what films make it to the US. But let’s dig a little deeper. Before this dispute Cannes was set to screen the world premiere of The Other Side of the Wind, from Orson Welles. This was one of the “Holy Grail” movies for cinephiles. Welles shot the film in the early 70s, but, as he often did, ran into money problems. He never completed post-production and the footage remained largely unused for decades. After Welles’s death, friends and devotees often tried to raise the capital needed to complete the film, but to no avail. Finally Netflix supplied the financing and, under the supervision of producers Frank Marshall and Filip Jan Rymsza, completed the film.

This rebirth of an unfinished work from one of cinema’s storied auteurs should be cause for celebration. Netflix deserves credit for devoting the resources needed to complete the film. Instead, Marshall has called the film “collateral damage” in the battle between Cannes and Netflix Welles’s daughter begged Netflix to reconsider saying “I saw how the big production companies destroyed his (Orson Welles) life, his work and in so doing a little bit of the man I loved so much. I would so hate to see Netflix be yet another of these companies... The Other Side of the Wind belongs in Cannes, where they love and respect him more than anywhere else.” As of this writing, her plea has gone unheeded.

France’s three year “window” between theatrical release and video release is extreme, to say the least. Forcing people whose time commitments or workload make going to the movies difficult to wait that long is unduly harsh and untenable in 2018. Unfortunately, Netflix has gone to the other extreme through its “day and date” release. This means no window at all. For films such as Mudbound, Netflix starts streaming the same day they arrive in theaters. In theory, “day and date” offers viewers more choice. They could see the film in theaters or at home without having to wait.

In practice, “day and date” plays out very differently. Big movie chains such as AMC and Regal devote many screens to the blockbusters from the major studios. Just look at your multiplex and see how much Avengers: Infinity War is playing. That leaves less space for smaller films. Arthouse theaters generally have fewer screens then the big chains. Either way space is limited. Like any business, theaters are expected to make money, and that will weigh heavily on which films they elect to show. Should theaters devote precious space to films that are only playing theatrically or films that viewers can see at home? I don’t have an MBA, but even I can answer that question. That’s one reason why Netflix films, even the prestige ones such as Mudbound, get a small theatrical release if they get one at all. “Day and date,” in the current environment, removes the choice to see a film in a theater. Streaming becomes the only option.

Recently Netflix executive Ted Sarandos said that “day and date” releases “are going to be more and more accepted as part of the distribution norm,” a frightening idea. I have nothing against seeing films at home. Much to my wife’s chagrin I have over 600 DVDs and subscribe to three streaming services, including Netflix. However, there’s no denying that seeing a film in a theater is vastly different than seeing the same film at home. Call me a traditionalist, call me old fashioned, but the only way to get everything out of a film, particularly from a master director, is on the big screen. To me, film at its best is an immersive experience. The lights go down, cell phones are off (or at least they should be), and you surrender to the film. Watching it is all you are doing. Ideally the film controls everything you are seeing and hearing. A film at home is enjoyable, but you can be interrupted. You stop and start the film as needed, possibly while other things are going on in the background.

While I was learning about The Other Side of the Wind not showing at Cannes, I was wondering if I will even have the option to see it in a theater. Confining an Orson Welles film to television is a disservice to his fans and an anathema to everything he stood for. Next year, Netflix will release The Irishman from Martin Scorsese and starring Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Harvey Keitel and Joe Pesci. As with The Other Side of the Wind kudos to Netflix for stepping up with the financing when others did not. Again though, are we only going to see it on a TV or other devices? Scorsese has devoted his life to celebrating and preserving cinema. Turning his work into only steaming content is a crime.

Of course Netflix doesn’t invest in films out of the goodness of their heart. Their primary motivation is to develop content for their service. Netflix is doing so at an accelerated rate, even though they have a negative cash flow. On the one hand, Netflix provides hope and money to independent filmmakers. On the other hand, without a theatrical release how many people will find these films on Netflix? Even for those who can’t make it to theaters regularly, theatrical distribution shines a spotlight on films, so you later have an idea what to look for on streaming. Netflix has thousands of series, documentaries, and features. High profile series such as “Stranger Things” and “Orange is the New Black” gain notice, but it can be hard to find other gems out of the deluge of content. For example, on April 13, Netflix debuted Come Sunday from Joshua Marston (Maria Full of Grace) and starring Academy Award nominee Chiwetel Ejiofor. I generally keep good track of what new films are on the way, but only found out about Come Sunday accidentally when I researched this column.

Netflix’s rigid adherence to the “day and date” strategy is needlessly forcing filmmakers into a choice between theatrical distribution and streaming. It doesn’t have to be this way. Amazon also funds distribution of independent films and streams them on their site. But Amazon allows for a theatrical distribution window. For filmmakers, this allows for an increased spotlight and a better chance for award consideration. For Amazon steaming subscribers, this only means a delay of a few weeks, not much of an issue with all of the other content available. For theatergoers, this means a more robust distribution, at least in arthouse theaters. This is a true choice between seeing a film in a theater or at home, a win-win. Amazon’s model worked well for films such as Manchester by the Sea and The Big Sick. Of course Amazon is still primarily a goods delivery company and does not have as much resources devoted to content as Netflix.

Battle lines are being drawn. Steven Spielberg opined that Netflix films should receive consideration for Emmys, not Oscars. Theater owners have grown to believe that Netflix is trying to destroy their business model, and are now even less likely to show Netflix offerings. Netflix is sticking with “day and date” and is accusing its opponents of being out of touch. At one point Netflix toyed with buying its own theaters, but seems to have cooled on the idea. Netflix’s public stance also seems hypocritical. My wife and I enjoy the Israeli show “Fauda,” which Netflix streams for US audiences. Season 2 debuted in Israel on January 1, but Netflix will not be showing it here until May 24. There could be several reasons for why this is the case, but regardless, Netflix is showing that it can accept a staggered release for some content. Why can’t it do the same for prestige films here?

Bill Clinton, describing DC, once said “Common sense isn’t very common.” And that’s clearly the case here. Theater chains and owners could accept a compressed theatrical window and Netflix could accept having a window in the first place. Amazon has showed that this model can work. Netflix isn’t going away, and dire predictions to the contrary, neither is theatrical distribution. Some predicted the end of movie theaters in the 50s when television became popular. Others said it was doomed in the 80s with the rise of home video. But it’s still here. I don’t know who will win a continued battle, but I know who will lose: theatergoing audiences. I have been a Netflix subscriber for 14 years, and like much of that they have to offer. That doesn’t mean that I want them dictating what I can and can’t see in theaters. What I see and how I see it should be my choice, not theirs.

Adam Spector
May 1, 2018