Archive
- February 2011
- November 2010
- August 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- July 2007
Return to main blog page.
The Whole Equation
David Thomson’s new one ‘Have You Seen’ is in the house - perspicacious and sometimes acidic appraisals on 1,000 films. It reminds me to pull his wonderful The Whole Equation down from the shelf. This is a rollicking history of Hollywood (that’s Rita Hayworth on the cover) which sounds two themes repeatedly - ownership and distribution. Ownership because who pays the bills calls the shots - it’s rare to find people with an emotional and creative investment in a film, who also have a significant financial interest, much less a controlling one (an exception is Copolla who apparently owns Apocalypse Now outright).
So why don’t people who dream up and make films own them? 1) Cost - the prohibitive economics of film begets a million birthright/mess of potage deals and 2) Distribution. Distribution is where the movies started (theatre owners needing a spectacle to pull in punters) and it still runs the show. If you can’t get a film out there - why make it at all? But if you’re reading this, that can change can’t it? Today breakingviews.com is reporting that the first Hollywood/YouTube deal is in the pipeline. You’ll be able to watch Hollywood ‘product’ for free, provided you wade through a moat of advertising first. So the new distribution format is co-opted by the old power structures… and yet this is still a slightly more even playing field. We don’t own any cinemas but we do have a PC. ![]()
Leave a comment
The comments you make will be monitored before appearing above.
