Comments on: Cinema and Los Angeles http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/ Is This a Film Blog? Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:57:53 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: M. Leary http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1093 M. Leary Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:46:16 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1093 The AFI critic as programmer news is excellent. Thanks for the link. And to contribute: Whenever in Paris for a sizable amount of time, I end up spending most of it in the Forum des Images, glued to one of the screens in the archive area where one can instantly watch most of what has been committed to celluloid and hard drives by French artists. It is a great use of a few euros. I am not even aware of whether something like this exists in the States, and can't imagine why there hasn't been a similar instantly accessible archive in at least one of the cities I have lived in. The AFI critic as programmer news is excellent. Thanks for the link.

And to contribute: Whenever in Paris for a sizable amount of time, I end up spending most of it in the Forum des Images, glued to one of the screens in the archive area where one can instantly watch most of what has been committed to celluloid and hard drives by French artists. It is a great use of a few euros. I am not even aware of whether something like this exists in the States, and can’t imagine why there hasn’t been a similar instantly accessible archive in at least one of the cities I have lived in.

]]> By: HarryTuttle http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1091 HarryTuttle Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:36:27 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1091 Here is an effort in the right direction : "<a href="http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/1216" rel="nofollow">Eccentricities of an American Film Festival: AFI Fest 2009</a>" by Gabe Klinger So it is possible to bring underexposed film culture to the wider audience, with sponsors, with free entrance. Here is an effort in the right direction :
“Eccentricities of an American Film Festival: AFI Fest 2009” by Gabe Klinger
So it is possible to bring underexposed film culture to the wider audience, with sponsors, with free entrance.

]]> By: HarryTuttle http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1079 HarryTuttle Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:26:35 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1079 Well, an art museum isn't exactly where the mass audience get their culture... it's an elite venue. That's why I said it's the tip of the iceberg. If you want to improve the culture of a society, you need to the movie goer base, and bring quality movies where they go watch their usual Hollywood blockbusters, in the same commercial venues, or in the same quarters at least (in an arthouse nextdoor). Well, an art museum isn’t exactly where the mass audience get their culture… it’s an elite venue. That’s why I said it’s the tip of the iceberg.
If you want to improve the culture of a society, you need to the movie goer base, and bring quality movies where they go watch their usual Hollywood blockbusters, in the same commercial venues, or in the same quarters at least (in an arthouse nextdoor).

]]> By: Michael http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1074 Michael Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:34:57 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1074 Harry, I agree with you that public familiarity is an important part of this process -- and with that familiarity, film programs are more likely to survive. The money itself is a secondary issue, given that the museum here has a $75 million annual budget; once they take film more seriously as an art unto itself and not an "outreach" tool, they could very well play a role in that public familiarity that you allude to. Harry, I agree with you that public familiarity is an important part of this process — and with that familiarity, film programs are more likely to survive. The money itself is a secondary issue, given that the museum here has a $75 million annual budget; once they take film more seriously as an art unto itself and not an “outreach” tool, they could very well play a role in that public familiarity that you allude to.

]]> By: HarryTuttle http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1045 HarryTuttle Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:02:35 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1045 Is there an American journalist who would get the idea to survey the film culture of influencing Hollywood people? How much do they know about film technique, film history, world film culture... I bet the result would be appalling. Isn't it news worthy? Isn't it what American readers want to know? Isn't it the job of a journalist to investigate these issues at the root? Is there an American journalist who would get the idea to survey the film culture of influencing Hollywood people? How much do they know about film technique, film history, world film culture… I bet the result would be appalling. Isn’t it news worthy? Isn’t it what American readers want to know? Isn’t it the job of a journalist to investigate these issues at the root?

]]> By: HarryTuttle http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1044 HarryTuttle Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:54:59 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1044 LACMA is the tip of the iceberg. And the museum wouldn't think twice if a tycoon made an annual check of $500,000... they would comply. If LACMA drops the ball, Hollywood could build a new space elsewhere, or rent it... We're not talking about ACORN, we're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry. If a small country like France can afford it, I would be shocked that Hollywood couldn't. They just need to put their mind to it, to start to find it a top priority. All the rest (LACMA or not, in LA or in NYC, in a brand new building or in an existing institution, funded by federal taxes or by private donations...) is pure formality. Waiting for the audience to ask for it and buy tickets is the wrong attitude. The audience could only become attracted by foreign cinema and oldies IF they are in contact with them again and again, all their life, getting familiarized with them by constant immersion in such culture. The principle is to make films available on daily basis, all year long, years after years, give cine-clubs, improve popular culture and taste. That's how people will respond more actively to underexposed art film programs in the future. That's how executives, people influencing the Hollywood industry will get better at their job, to greenlight less flops, and secure more quality productions (in the mainstream market). Why reasonable people wouldn't see the long term benefits of this meagre cultural investment? LACMA is the tip of the iceberg. And the museum wouldn’t think twice if a tycoon made an annual check of $500,000… they would comply.
If LACMA drops the ball, Hollywood could build a new space elsewhere, or rent it… We’re not talking about ACORN, we’re talking about a multi-billion dollar industry. If a small country like France can afford it, I would be shocked that Hollywood couldn’t. They just need to put their mind to it, to start to find it a top priority. All the rest (LACMA or not, in LA or in NYC, in a brand new building or in an existing institution, funded by federal taxes or by private donations…) is pure formality.

Waiting for the audience to ask for it and buy tickets is the wrong attitude. The audience could only become attracted by foreign cinema and oldies IF they are in contact with them again and again, all their life, getting familiarized with them by constant immersion in such culture. The principle is to make films available on daily basis, all year long, years after years, give cine-clubs, improve popular culture and taste. That’s how people will respond more actively to underexposed art film programs in the future. That’s how executives, people influencing the Hollywood industry will get better at their job, to greenlight less flops, and secure more quality productions (in the mainstream market). Why reasonable people wouldn’t see the long term benefits of this meagre cultural investment?

]]> By: Michael http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1043 Michael Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:52:43 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1043 I entirely agree with you about the need for the industry itself, along with individuals, to get behind the film program and support it, in large part because they themselves would benefit from it. Having said that, the issue is less outside support as it is the museum's own priorities. They lost money on the venture because they never took it seriously or funded it properly to begin with. They consider the film program more of an "outreach" to the public instead of a bona fide arts program that should be curated in the same way they curate photos, paintings, sculptures, and so on. Of course, the argument against that is that the museum doesn't actually own the films they show, but that in actuality doesn't mean they shouldn't be as committed to film as they are to their more standard exhibits. They are, after all, the best institution in Los Angeles to do this, and they could make an important and indelible cultural contribution if they continued the program beyond June 2010. In other words, if they had additional funding but maintained their old attitudes, I'm not sure how well the program would do -- but with some funding and a lot more focus, they might be able to make something more alluring, profitable, and permanent. I entirely agree with you about the need for the industry itself, along with individuals, to get behind the film program and support it, in large part because they themselves would benefit from it. Having said that, the issue is less outside support as it is the museum’s own priorities. They lost money on the venture because they never took it seriously or funded it properly to begin with. They consider the film program more of an “outreach” to the public instead of a bona fide arts program that should be curated in the same way they curate photos, paintings, sculptures, and so on. Of course, the argument against that is that the museum doesn’t actually own the films they show, but that in actuality doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be as committed to film as they are to their more standard exhibits. They are, after all, the best institution in Los Angeles to do this, and they could make an important and indelible cultural contribution if they continued the program beyond June 2010. In other words, if they had additional funding but maintained their old attitudes, I’m not sure how well the program would do — but with some funding and a lot more focus, they might be able to make something more alluring, profitable, and permanent.

]]> By: HarryTuttle http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1038 HarryTuttle Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:38:42 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1038 I can't believe that Scorsese is the only person concerned by World Cinema and cinema History in the USA... What is $100,000 to A-list actors, directors and executives? They should rush by dozens to have their name engraved on a donor's plate at the museum (for sparing pocket change that will be tax deductible). This can't be a financial issue in Hollywood, is it? Even without resorting to a state funded cultural subsidies (which is frowned upon in the USA), private donations or non-profit sponsors could easily spare such an insignificant budget, to give to America THE best Cinema Culture Program in the world. That's where the industry is making the most money, that's where the industry should pay back its dues to the rest of the world, who keeps buying Hollywood movies at the expense of their own local culture. That would be just kind charity. I can’t believe that Scorsese is the only person concerned by World Cinema and cinema History in the USA…
What is $100,000 to A-list actors, directors and executives? They should rush by dozens to have their name engraved on a donor’s plate at the museum (for sparing pocket change that will be tax deductible).
This can’t be a financial issue in Hollywood, is it?
Even without resorting to a state funded cultural subsidies (which is frowned upon in the USA), private donations or non-profit sponsors could easily spare such an insignificant budget, to give to America THE best Cinema Culture Program in the world. That’s where the industry is making the most money, that’s where the industry should pay back its dues to the rest of the world, who keeps buying Hollywood movies at the expense of their own local culture. That would be just kind charity.

]]> By: Michael http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1015 Michael Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:46:16 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1015 Harry, you make some good points about the national commitment (or lack thereof) to film and to the arts in general. The odd thing about LACMA's film program is that, after the museum canceled it, several parties stepped in and donated $150,000, and this has kept the program on through next June. So roughly $150,000 to maintain the program for a year, and the museum's budget is $75 million. A drop in the bucket. Now, if they really wanted to be committed to film -- and if they were genuinely concerned about what their program means for Los Angeles -- they could make the program even better, giving it full-time staff and genuine promotion; that might exceed the $150,000 they have at the moment, but it wouldn't be astronomical by any means (and easily obtainable). In other words, it's entirely feasible, provided their attitudes are in the right place. Of course, my larger concern is what the whole debacle means -- it could very well be that it's a symptom of a larger cultural problem. I wish Hollywood weren't so obtuse to all this; Scorcese took the museum to task, but we haven't heard too much from others in the industry. Harry, you make some good points about the national commitment (or lack thereof) to film and to the arts in general. The odd thing about LACMA’s film program is that, after the museum canceled it, several parties stepped in and donated $150,000, and this has kept the program on through next June. So roughly $150,000 to maintain the program for a year, and the museum’s budget is $75 million. A drop in the bucket. Now, if they really wanted to be committed to film — and if they were genuinely concerned about what their program means for Los Angeles — they could make the program even better, giving it full-time staff and genuine promotion; that might exceed the $150,000 they have at the moment, but it wouldn’t be astronomical by any means (and easily obtainable). In other words, it’s entirely feasible, provided their attitudes are in the right place. Of course, my larger concern is what the whole debacle means — it could very well be that it’s a symptom of a larger cultural problem. I wish Hollywood weren’t so obtuse to all this; Scorcese took the museum to task, but we haven’t heard too much from others in the industry.

]]> By: HarryTuttle http://www.filmwell.org/2009/10/25/cinema-and-los-angeles/comment-page-1/#comment-1010 HarryTuttle Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:43:28 +0000 http://www.filmwell.org/?p=4417#comment-1010 Thanks for this great article. Hopefully the powers-that-be will listen up... I wonder why USA, the first economy in the world, the first cinema industry in the world, could not afford (at the very least) as much subsidised culture as we have in France. Hollywood domestic 2008 B.O. : $9.8 billion US 2008 TV Ad revenues : $141.7 billion US 2008 DVD, VOD revenues : ? total : $151.5 billion (+DVD/VOD) French subsidies support cinema production, scenario, marketing, distribution, exploitation, videos, short films... they are paid for by taxes on TV revenues, video revenues, cinema admissions (=$816 million) which is 0.5% of the Hollywood budget (without counting DVD/VOD) The question is : could Hollywood spare less than 0.5% (especially since L.A. only needs a complement, not a full budget from zero) of their revenues for a non-profit investment in maintaining a "cultural reservation" for art cinema in L.A. the capital of cinema? I guess the shame of being ranked behind NYC, Chicago, and Paris isn't worth that price. Thanks for this great article. Hopefully the powers-that-be will listen up…

I wonder why USA, the first economy in the world, the first cinema industry in the world, could not afford (at the very least) as much subsidised culture as we have in France.

Hollywood domestic 2008 B.O. : $9.8 billion
US 2008 TV Ad revenues : $141.7 billion
US 2008 DVD, VOD revenues : ?
total : $151.5 billion (+DVD/VOD)

French subsidies support cinema production, scenario, marketing, distribution, exploitation, videos, short films… they are paid for by taxes on TV revenues, video revenues, cinema admissions (=$816 million)
which is 0.5% of the Hollywood budget (without counting DVD/VOD)

The question is : could Hollywood spare less than 0.5% (especially since L.A. only needs a complement, not a full budget from zero) of their revenues for a non-profit investment in maintaining a “cultural reservation” for art cinema in L.A. the capital of cinema? I guess the shame of being ranked behind NYC, Chicago, and Paris isn’t worth that price.

]]>