3 ms·

But your assertion there is that made-for-TV (or made-for-Netflix, or whatever follows) movies intrinsically have less value. You're saying a movie can only rea

But your assertion there is that made-for-TV (or made-for-Netflix, or whatever follows) movies intrinsically have less value. You're saying a movie can only really be "cinematic" if it comes out in a cinema. That's exactly the nonsense we're talking about here. Distribution channel doesn't mean anything. There are strong correlations between being able to put on a show and production values, but it's not causative. Define a movie by its actual qualities. Runtime, dialogue(?), even picture format... But forget about distribution. Lots of people have cinemas in their houses now. Where they don't have to pay £30 to be surrounded by sweaty strangers and sit on uncomfortable and dirty seats. Plus snacks and transport.

olavk 10y ago
Where do you get "less value"? They are just delimiting what kinds of movies the will considered for their festival. The Academy Awards also have certain restrictions on the picture format in place to prevent straight-to-video movies from consideration. If you don't like going to the cinema, why do you care about Cannes at all? It is a film festival which celebrate cinema and the associated mystique and glamour. Nobody is preventing you from watching whatever you want in your home cinema.
- oliwarner 10y ago
  You're saying only movies shown in a cinema can be cinematic. That's the value you're discounting. Again, I think you need to separate the building from the art.
  - olavk 10y ago
    Never mind the word "cinematic", the point is the festival and similar movie awards have a certain definition for what kind of moving picture entertainment they consider eligible for their awards. The definition includes that the general public should be able to go to a cinema and buy a ticket to see the movie on a big screen. That's not saying other forms of entertainment cannot have value, just that Cannes is about a certain form.
    - oliwarner 10y ago
      I don't disagree that that's their definition. I wish you'd stop repeating it. It's that definition that's so stupid. Conflating "form" with distribution as if the latter affects the first. No, I'll give you a chance... But how do you think they review these things? It used to be DVD screeners but (ironically, here) Cannes set up an online VOD service for screeners. How do you assess something that has to be available via cinemas, on computer via a wonky streaming service? This rule is simple (and classic French) protectionism of a distribution channel that is failing to compete.
      - olavk 9y ago
        It is a film festival for cineastes - film lovers or film snobs if you will. Its whole culture. For them there is a big difference between the big-screen cinema experience and watching home video. It is certainly a bigger difference than just the means of distribution. I think it was David Lynch who said "If you haven't see my movies in a cinema, then you haven't seen my movies". You may not care for this difference, but why does it anger you so that others do?

olavk 10y ago

Where do you get "less value"? They are just delimiting what kinds of movies the will considered for their festival. The Academy Awards also have certain restrictions on the picture format in place to prevent straight-to-video movies from consideration. If you don't like going to the cinema, why do you care about Cannes at all? It is a film festival which celebrate cinema and the associated mystique and glamour. Nobody is preventing you from watching whatever you want in your home cinema.

oliwarner 10y ago
You're saying only movies shown in a cinema can be cinematic. That's the value you're discounting. Again, I think you need to separate the building from the art.
- olavk 10y ago
  Never mind the word "cinematic", the point is the festival and similar movie awards have a certain definition for what kind of moving picture entertainment they consider eligible for their awards. The definition includes that the general public should be able to go to a cinema and buy a ticket to see the movie on a big screen. That's not saying other forms of entertainment cannot have value, just that Cannes is about a certain form.
  - oliwarner 10y ago
    I don't disagree that that's their definition. I wish you'd stop repeating it. It's that definition that's so stupid. Conflating "form" with distribution as if the latter affects the first. No, I'll give you a chance... But how do you think they review these things? It used to be DVD screeners but (ironically, here) Cannes set up an online VOD service for screeners. How do you assess something that has to be available via cinemas, on computer via a wonky streaming service? This rule is simple (and classic French) protectionism of a distribution channel that is failing to compete.
    - olavk 9y ago
      It is a film festival for cineastes - film lovers or film snobs if you will. Its whole culture. For them there is a big difference between the big-screen cinema experience and watching home video. It is certainly a bigger difference than just the means of distribution. I think it was David Lynch who said "If you haven't see my movies in a cinema, then you haven't seen my movies". You may not care for this difference, but why does it anger you so that others do?