6 ms·

Cannes Artistic Director Explains Netflix Competition Ban

43 points by cctt23 9y ago

hereiskkb 9y ago
Good cinema is good cinema no matter the release medium. This is making a statement that people who release their art with a certain distribution outlet and medium are somehow inferior. Deplorable.
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  I get that. I really do. But would it kill Netflix to pay for a few short, limited theatrical releases? Seems more like a contest of who can be more stubborn. Edit: Nevermind, read the comments below. Theatrical showings is not the problem but the ridiculous limits French law places on streaming theatrical releases.
- aaron695 9y ago
  > Good cinema is good cinema no matter the release medium. So should computer games be allowed? Books? If it can't be viewed in a cinema, I'm not sure how you can think it must be allowed to be called cinema. And no cheating, a limited release is cheating, let's not be children and pretend it's not. I see nothing wrong with their logic. Going to the cinema is a experience, I can't see how you can argue it's not? If Netfix is not part of that experience (Which it definitely isn't) I can't see how artists who see value in the cinema experience are deplorable? Come on, we are using tech to cut out our friends through Facebook etc as it is, do you really think it's deplorable to lightly fight people sitting at home watching TV rather than joining friends in a experience out of the house?
- usrusr 9y ago
  Film art, good or bad, has no place at a sales event if it's already sold. It simply isn't a quality statement. It would be like a wholly owned alphabet subsidiary that doesn't need or take any investors trying to get into ycombinator, or like an NFL team crying foul for not being allowed to compete in the NCAA.
jogjayr 9y ago
Is there a reason Netflix can't do a limited release in a few French theaters, as many as necessary to satisfy the eligibility requirements? Or are they not particularly concerned about being ineligible for the Palme d'Or? Which is also a valid stance.
- readams 9y ago
  French law requires movies shown in theaters in France to stay off streaming for 36 months. It's an absurd regulatory capture on par with us auto dealer requirements.
  - debt 9y ago
    A film should only be shown in a theater to create a true cinematic experience. I don’t think the regulation is absurd at all. If Netflix makes films and shows them only within a TV format, than it’s a tv show. The cinematic arts requires a cinema by definition.
    - reedx8 9y ago
      The working definition of a "TV show" is a series with regular installments/showings overtime, or at least many shorter length shows. A "movie" is the opposite, with just one production film. This is flexible, of course, as a movie can have later installments, but it is not its primary purpose. There are many "movies" that never make it to the Cinemas because of bad production value, ie bad movies! Your definition would call Netflix's recent film "Bright" a show, which of course it is not. Cannes is being ridiculous.
      - bdcravens 9y ago
        So would the Marvel Cinematic Universe series be a show or movies? How about James Bond?
        pfisch 9y ago
        TV show episodes aren't released years apart. TV seasons are.
kelukelugames 9y ago
We should start a pool on how many years it will take for Cannes to accept Netflix and other streaming sites.
techsupporter 9y ago
Side note: Could we, as submitters, please try a little harder to submit the original source link instead of the reblogging link? The linked article from The Verge is little more than pull quotes from the full article by The Hollywood Reporter and the source link is provided in the opening lede: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-artistic-director-banning-netflix-competition-why-he-allowed-streaming-movies-last-year-1096800 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-artistic-direc... The outlets that write the original report deserve our clicks and interaction as much as (or, I'd argue, more than) the summarizers.
- rurban 9y ago
  Well, the original statement is here: http://www.festival-cannes.com/fr/infos-communiques/communique/articles/communique-de-presse-du-festival-de-cannes http://www.festival-cannes.com/fr/infos-communiques/communiq... in french, not in english. And the original interview with Le Film Francais in which he explained it - in french - is not even online. He hates online media and the internet. Hollywood Reporter is just the most major copycat.
ggg9990 9y ago
The entire purpose of Cannes is to showcase films which need distribution. It’s pointless to show films there which have already secured distribution. It’s worth noting that the films shown there can be and are purchased for distribution by Netflix, Amazon, etc.
- philliphaydon 9y ago
  I donno about Cannes Film Festival, but Cannes Lions it mostly a circle jerk award full of fake adverts. Do the 2 have any relation or only in name?
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    They have no relation. Cannes Lions (successfully) used the non-protectable Cannes name to imply some connection.
    - philliphaydon 9y ago
      Ok, good to know.
    - namdnay 9y ago
      It's quite an interesting symbiotic relation. The film festival is very expensive for the town of Cannes (and a complete nightmare for all of us living in the region), but it also fuels the prestige that lets Cannes host dozens of these less known but far more profitable events: MIPIM, MIDEM, Lions, Yachting...
- cornholio 9y ago
  But we have to ask this question: what will the future hold for this distribution model, in a long tail world where small producers can monetize their productions directly, using online platforms such as Netflix? If this alternative market thrives, how long until traditional theaters switch to acquire performance rights directly from the producers, using specialized, low friction marketplaces? While I agree in principle to the decision of the festival organizers, it's hard not to observe an outdated business model fighting for its own survival.
crocal 9y ago
I don’t think Netflix customers nor Netflix cares. The competition is a side show to the real purpose of the festival, that is the professional event where deals and contacts get made.
moomin 9y ago
The truth is, Netflix loves any publicity that associates them with high-quality movies. Since the depressing truth is, most of their movie output is just plain dull stuff, in contrast to their pretty great TV commissioning.
Eurongreyjoy 9y ago
Arguing whether or not Netflix should be allowed to enter the competition since they are already a distributor ignores the idea that none of Netflix Original films would win a Palme d'Or. Their documentaries with substance might have a chance, but the Netflix Original movies have been less than interesting or thought provoking - See "Bright".
majewsky 9y ago
So as far as I understand, films submitted to the Cannes film festival must have a theatrical release in France, and then French law forbids streaming for 36 months after the theatrical release. I don't see why Netflix doesn't just submit a few of its own movies to Cannes, then does a token theatrical release in one cinema in France somewhere (to abide by the letter of the law), then prominently displays the movie in the streaming catalog. But when a French person selects the movie, it just says: "This movie is not available before $long_away_date because of $stupid_french_law. By the way, this is the phone number of your representative. Just saying."

43 points by cctt23 9y ago

Good cinema is good cinema no matter the release medium. This is making a statement that people who release their art with a certain distribution outlet and medium are somehow inferior. Deplorable.

DubiousPusher 9y ago
I get that. I really do. But would it kill Netflix to pay for a few short, limited theatrical releases? Seems more like a contest of who can be more stubborn. Edit: Nevermind, read the comments below. Theatrical showings is not the problem but the ridiculous limits French law places on streaming theatrical releases.
aaron695 9y ago
> Good cinema is good cinema no matter the release medium. So should computer games be allowed? Books? If it can't be viewed in a cinema, I'm not sure how you can think it must be allowed to be called cinema. And no cheating, a limited release is cheating, let's not be children and pretend it's not. I see nothing wrong with their logic. Going to the cinema is a experience, I can't see how you can argue it's not? If Netfix is not part of that experience (Which it definitely isn't) I can't see how artists who see value in the cinema experience are deplorable? Come on, we are using tech to cut out our friends through Facebook etc as it is, do you really think it's deplorable to lightly fight people sitting at home watching TV rather than joining friends in a experience out of the house?
usrusr 9y ago
Film art, good or bad, has no place at a sales event if it's already sold. It simply isn't a quality statement. It would be like a wholly owned alphabet subsidiary that doesn't need or take any investors trying to get into ycombinator, or like an NFL team crying foul for not being allowed to compete in the NCAA.

jogjayr 9y ago

Is there a reason Netflix can't do a limited release in a few French theaters, as many as necessary to satisfy the eligibility requirements? Or are they not particularly concerned about being ineligible for the Palme d'Or? Which is also a valid stance.

readams 9y ago
French law requires movies shown in theaters in France to stay off streaming for 36 months. It's an absurd regulatory capture on par with us auto dealer requirements.
- debt 9y ago
  A film should only be shown in a theater to create a true cinematic experience. I don’t think the regulation is absurd at all. If Netflix makes films and shows them only within a TV format, than it’s a tv show. The cinematic arts requires a cinema by definition.
  - reedx8 9y ago
    The working definition of a "TV show" is a series with regular installments/showings overtime, or at least many shorter length shows. A "movie" is the opposite, with just one production film. This is flexible, of course, as a movie can have later installments, but it is not its primary purpose. There are many "movies" that never make it to the Cinemas because of bad production value, ie bad movies! Your definition would call Netflix's recent film "Bright" a show, which of course it is not. Cannes is being ridiculous.
    - bdcravens 9y ago
      So would the Marvel Cinematic Universe series be a show or movies? How about James Bond?
      - pfisch 9y ago
        TV show episodes aren't released years apart. TV seasons are.

kelukelugames 9y ago

We should start a pool on how many years it will take for Cannes to accept Netflix and other streaming sites.

techsupporter 9y ago

Side note: Could we, as submitters, please try a little harder to submit the original source link instead of the reblogging link? The linked article from The Verge is little more than pull quotes from the full article by The Hollywood Reporter and the source link is provided in the opening lede: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-artistic-director-banning-netflix-competition-why-he-allowed-streaming-movies-last-year-1096800 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-artistic-direc... The outlets that write the original report deserve our clicks and interaction as much as (or, I'd argue, more than) the summarizers.

rurban 9y ago
Well, the original statement is here: http://www.festival-cannes.com/fr/infos-communiques/communique/articles/communique-de-presse-du-festival-de-cannes http://www.festival-cannes.com/fr/infos-communiques/communiq... in french, not in english. And the original interview with Le Film Francais in which he explained it - in french - is not even online. He hates online media and the internet. Hollywood Reporter is just the most major copycat.

ggg9990 9y ago

The entire purpose of Cannes is to showcase films which need distribution. It’s pointless to show films there which have already secured distribution. It’s worth noting that the films shown there can be and are purchased for distribution by Netflix, Amazon, etc.

philliphaydon 9y ago
I donno about Cannes Film Festival, but Cannes Lions it mostly a circle jerk award full of fake adverts. Do the 2 have any relation or only in name?
- ggg9990 9y ago
  They have no relation. Cannes Lions (successfully) used the non-protectable Cannes name to imply some connection.
  - philliphaydon 9y ago
    Ok, good to know.
  - namdnay 9y ago
    It's quite an interesting symbiotic relation. The film festival is very expensive for the town of Cannes (and a complete nightmare for all of us living in the region), but it also fuels the prestige that lets Cannes host dozens of these less known but far more profitable events: MIPIM, MIDEM, Lions, Yachting...
cornholio 9y ago
But we have to ask this question: what will the future hold for this distribution model, in a long tail world where small producers can monetize their productions directly, using online platforms such as Netflix? If this alternative market thrives, how long until traditional theaters switch to acquire performance rights directly from the producers, using specialized, low friction marketplaces? While I agree in principle to the decision of the festival organizers, it's hard not to observe an outdated business model fighting for its own survival.

crocal 9y ago

I don’t think Netflix customers nor Netflix cares. The competition is a side show to the real purpose of the festival, that is the professional event where deals and contacts get made.

moomin 9y ago

The truth is, Netflix loves any publicity that associates them with high-quality movies. Since the depressing truth is, most of their movie output is just plain dull stuff, in contrast to their pretty great TV commissioning.

Eurongreyjoy 9y ago

Arguing whether or not Netflix should be allowed to enter the competition since they are already a distributor ignores the idea that none of Netflix Original films would win a Palme d'Or. Their documentaries with substance might have a chance, but the Netflix Original movies have been less than interesting or thought provoking - See "Bright".

majewsky 9y ago

So as far as I understand, films submitted to the Cannes film festival must have a theatrical release in France, and then French law forbids streaming for 36 months after the theatrical release. I don't see why Netflix doesn't just submit a few of its own movies to Cannes, then does a token theatrical release in one cinema in France somewhere (to abide by the letter of the law), then prominently displays the movie in the streaming catalog. But when a French person selects the movie, it just says: "This movie is not available before $long_away_date because of $stupid_french_law. By the way, this is the phone number of your representative. Just saying."