Films Without Borders - Tim Johnston

The following is a great commentary on the 'globalisation' (or non-globalisation) of film by my friend Tim. Says a lot about the politics of marketing and what a movie really is 'for'. I think it is for a lot of things but the marketing and copyright issues are slow to catch up with the on-line demand. Netflix in the U.S. has cornered the market, I think, so far. Being able to watch on demand movies, through a subscription, on your television, computer, or hand-held device is definitely pretty amazing. I wonder too, though, what Netflix means for the 'movie-experience'. Having so much control over 'how' to watch a movie seems to really alter what the movie is 'for'. Obviously, this really only applies to 'new releases'. But even for movies that have been out for a while--does it change what they are for when the viewer decides how, when and where to watch it? Does it matter what a movie is for? I don't know for sure but there has to be something to be said for having 'your place' to watch a new movie (or even an older one). If the Golden Globes, Oscars and BAFTAS are going to celebrate themselves this time of year, we should at least benefit from some sort of option that makes seeing the movies before the awards shows, I think. I agree with Tim. I also agree with Ebert that the local cinema may be losing ground but still has a 'place'. Let's get this worked out, execs in power-suits. What if Netflix finds a way to get rights to new releases the day they come out? And what if my Netflix subscription was able to be used in the UK? And what if I projected the films from my computer out on to a wall in the plaza outside my apartment?

Tim:

During this year's award season it again annoyed me that films take so long to make it from their country of origin to cinemas abroad. This became especially clear during the Golden Globes which took place before many of its contestants were shown in the UK. How is this possible? They don't have to be translated and director's cuts are usually only undertaken for films exported from abroad to the US in case they are deemed not fast-moving enough for American audiences.

The negative effects of the industry's tardiness are manifold:
1. Because users don't want to wait so long to see a film that has perhaps already won some awards and that everyone is talking about they download it, depriving its makers of the reimbursements they deserve. Sandra Bullock and Jeff Bridges have bagged Golden Globes and will do the same at the Oscars but British filmgoers won't be able to see their films in time for the awards.
2. Films lack relevance. Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story came out in the States in September 2009 when everyone was still talking about the economic crisis. Its UK release date is 26 February 2010, five months later. Even though I like the narrative style of his documentaries I am not going to watch it with a half year delay.
3. Foreign films are placed at disadvantage. By the time films reach audiences abroad, the hype surrounding them has often died down. One is less inclined to watch Mesrine: Killer Instinct ten months after its French release date than if it had come out at the same time.

In a thoughtful piece on film piracy, Mark Kermode has explained that the reason people download films is not that they are unscrupulous thieves but that users nowadays want to choose the way they watch a film, be it at the cinema, at home on the telly or on a portable gadget. That would give people who don't even want to be at the cinema the option of staying home and sparing us their popcorn-crunching and cell phone-ringing.

Just like the music industry took ages until it responded appropriately to Napster (with iTunes), the film industry is dragging its feet, blaming the users instead of recognising how demand has changed. To me it is unfathomable how in the age of globalisation it can take five months (Up), a year (Mesrine) or even longer (Ponyo) for a film to spread across the globe. The UK is especially slow as many films are translated and released in Germany and Spain before their untranslated versions make it to London. Does the British industry want us to download movies?

Any libertarian economist will tell you that when a market is constrained, the resulting trade is suboptimal. If you look at the majority of films coming out of Hollywood at the moment, I think the word suboptimal is flattering to say the least. If we had more power over what we can watch (through global video on demand) we wouldn't have to resort to the American mainstream films that are being dished out almost daily. A walk through Leicester Square should prove to anyone the severeness of the situation. Here are the options: Percy Potter and the Lightning Scar, James Cameron's Smurfahontas, It's (not very) Complicated, The WolfDouche, Alvin and the Chipmunks The Reekquel, From Paris with Travolta and -last but not least- Valentine's Day.
Faced with these options, I would risk legal prosecution by downloading a non-Hollywood film anytime.