Did Star Wars kill Roger Corman?

Every so often, someone comes along and blames George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for ruining the movies. The argument is always the same. Before the bearded ones came along, Hollywood was making artsy films that meant something. After Jaws and Star Wars, Hollywood began making money more than anything else.

I've always been able to brush off that argument is disingenuous nonsense. But what do you do when the accuser is Jack Nicholson?

I was watching the excellent documentary Corman's World, about the man who was the king of the B-movies. His movies were quite literally cheap and often unabashedly exploitive. And most of them made money. One of the few that didn't was 1962's The Intruder, a racial drama starring William Shatner as a cracker.

Corman was never going to be Stanley Kramer, so most of the time he cranked out schlock, and he occasionally lucked out into making an actual good movie like The Pit and the Pendulum and the original Little Shop of Horrors, which starred one Jack Nicholson (in the role Bill Murray played later.)

Corman gave Nicholson his break, so it's not at all surprising to watch him boost Corman. It is surprising to hear him say the words, "I hated Star Wars."

Nicholson says, "If Star Wars doesn't make a ton of cabbage, we'd still have little green lines across the screen." The documentary basically argues that once Jaws and especially Star Wars made the popcorn movie hugely profitable, that sparked the twilight of Corman's career.

There is some validity to that. Certainly after the juggernaut of the Force, it became that much harder for Corman's scrappy little movies to break through. Cheap sci-fi and horror were eventually relegated direct to home video. It's not unlike what happened in the porno industry. In the 70s, some porn films like Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door we're actually kind of artistic. In the VHS age, porn became just an endless parade of friction.

Maybe Star Wars took Corman out of theaters, and that is too bad. But it hardly ruined him. In fact, Star Wars itself is not unlike a Corman movie with a really big budget. Have you looked at the 1977 film lately? Sure, it's big piece of myth-making, but in many ways, it's a scrappy little film, especially compared to the other slicker episodes. A line like "But I was going to the Tosche station to pick up some power converters" would be right at home in a Corman movie.

And Corman's spirit lives on today, not only in protégés like Scorsese, Howard, Sayles and Demme, but also in disciples like Robert Rodriguez, who is a past master at making movies on the cheap, and especially Quentin Tarantino, whose pictures are Corman flicks writ large. Their Grindhouse was a very bloody valentine to Corman.

Nicholson complains that instead of making 12 movies a year a studio makes "12 circuses." He's not wrong, and I'm mindful of that the week that Battleship comes out. But wasn't one of Nicholson's best-known roles in a circus called Batman? Playing a clown, no less?

But I don't want to be too hard on Jack. Corman's World also treats us to the sight of Jack Nicholson crying during his interview. And he's not acting. For that alone, Corman's World is wild.

 

 

Netflix redux

Since I opined about the Netflix split in my last post, I have run across a number of well-written commentaries about this dunderheaded Qwikster move. My favorite was a smart and pointed editorial by Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits, who wrote:

My personal opinion is that it's ill advised. There's still a lot of life in physical media yet - especially on the rental side. There's no shortage of DVD rental subscribers. I also strongly suspect the streaming/downloading future is nowhere near as simple and rosy as adherents wish to believe. Broadband infrastructure upgrades are still way behind here in the States, and Net metering alone could prove a show-stopper to this model. As more and more businesses push cloud services and streaming content, Internet access providers are going to start asking SOMEONE - either those offering the content or those consuming it or both - to pay for the true cost of the bandwidth they're using. That means added and fees for consumers and a LOT of them. Streaming movies might not be so appealing to cash-strapped consumes as the costs to enjoy it continue to rise. The other problem with streaming is that sooner or later, the content providers (read: the Hollywood studios) are going to realize that they don't need Netflix and other content delivery middle men anymore - they can simply create their own streaming services and maximize their own profits.

But Netflix's decision reflects the uncertainty all of the entertainment industry is feeling. As the world of entertainment content continues to go digital and online, and as physical media eventually takes a back seat over the next decade, nobody really knows exactly how much people are willing to pay for such content and how profitable it will be. Yes, people might pay $15 a month for downloading, but no one is going to pay $35.99 for a single movie download. Likewise, while CDs and hardback books once sold for $20 each, most music fans are eschewing albums for $.99 song downloads and most ebooks are $9.99 or less. Plus, Netflix can't exactly be reassured by the fact that the Post Office seems to be having ever growing difficulties and some politicians are actually calling for it to be abolished entirely. Mailing and distributing physical discs requires a LOT of costly infrastructure - tracking software, sorting machines, distribution centers. Yes, streaming requires infrastructure too, but a lot less of it. Which means lower costs. The bottom line is that from a purely business standpoint, Netflix's decision probably makes sense to them - especially in the long run. But in the meantime, a company that's already pissed off its customers en masse multiple times, is apparently happy to piss them off some more and is betting that it won't matter in the long run because they're the biggest player in the streaming/rental business. This is classic corporate arrogance, plain and simple. Maximize profits at all costs - even at the cost of consumer service and convenience.

The bottom line is that while downloading is awesome in many ways, it's not so awesome in others. Quality suffers, content can suffer, and LOTS of jobs are going to be lost. Physical media needs to be authored, manufactured, packaged, shipped and sold in real, physical places by real, physical people. Digital downloads are stored on a server and are sent by computer to your playback device at the click of a button - all by computer with just a very tiny fraction of the human involvement physical products require. If you're a corporate shareholder, that's awesome - pure profit. If you're someone whose job is no longer required, well... maybe not so much. This is the trade off we're making as a society and it seems we're just all going to have to get used to it because it's here to stay. Welcome to the 21st Century, folks!

So the question becomes, what do we do now? I wasn't mad at Netflix so much for the price increase. Handled badly though it was, the cold hard cash always comes streaming out of our pockets when times are tough, whether we like it or not. Netflix could and maybe should have softened the blow by increasing the price gradually, rather than dumping it on everyone all at once. But it's also worth noting that Netflix's long-standing low price enabled a lot of laziness in the customer base.

Stories abound of people keeping discs for weeks or months on end because a lot of people figured "Ah, it's only $10, $15 a month. What the hey." Believe me, I know. I was guilty of this a few times myself. But all I and others were doing was devaluing that incredible bargain we had. As long as I kept a few of those titles, I might as well have BOUGHT the damn things or stuffed a few extra dollars in those red envelopes. If a price increase actually prompts people to turn the discs around faster, everybody gets more value for their money. That's one of the few - and maybe the only benefit of the sticker shock.

All that said, Netflix has enough egg on its face to keep the Easter Bunny hopping for decades. And I rather agree with this EW writer that Netflix is essentially treating its disc-renting customers as second-class citizens. I'm considering dropping Qwikster/Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs/whatever and sticking with the streaming, especially since I just bought a Roku box. Might even drop cable since I hardly watch anything except TCM.

Still, I would like to have physical discs to fill the gaps in the streaming catalog - especially TCM fare. Forget Blockbuster - I still consider them an evil empire that rightly and justly had its head handed to it on a silver platter in a red envelope. Redbox can help with new releases, but what about that older catalog material I like? I may take EW's suggestion and go with GreenCine, which caters to cinephiles like me. The disadvantage there, I suppose is that GreenCIne doesn't have nearly as many distribution centers as Netflix does, so the turnaround won't be so Qwik - er, fast. Still, I do have a number of titles in my own collection I've not managed to watch yet - not to mention a load of DVD extras I've never checked out.

And speaking of checking out, there's always the good ol' public library, which usually has a pretty good selection of classic fare. After all, the library was my first job. Sometimes it's good to get back to where you once belonged, as a certain fab foursome said.

Netflix - Red for danger

Earlier this year, when Netflix hiked its prices and everybody complained, I rolled my eyes skyward at how spoiled people were acting. For years and years, customers had gotten quite a lot for next to nothing, so when they were asked to pay a bit more than next to nothing, they cried foul in droves.

I thought, and still think now, that people had lost all sense of perspective. If they were only paying $10 a month for unlimited movies, and then the price become something like $16 a month for unlimited movies, the bargain was STILL amazing. People used to pay a lot more than that per month at the ol' Blockbuster.

But no one remembered that. People cried like babies who'd just had their pacifiers snatched from their mouths. They reminded me of Louis CK's routine "Everything is amazing and nobody's happy." It sounded like people who moaned about the Wi-Fi on an airplane going out, and they forget they're in a chair in the sky. The world doesn't owe you a living, folks.



Now don't get me wrong. I know the economy's tough, and in times such as these, every penny counts. And I understand the principle that hiking your prices during a recession may not be the wisest business  decision in the world.

But remember what I said before about people losing perspective? I think readers should understand mine. You see, I'm not your average Netflix user. I don't flock to the New Release section for 99 percent of my viewing like most people do. I see most new movies I want to see in the theaters. If I had to guess, I'd say that 70 percent of my Netflix is catalog titles and 30 percent is new releases. And even that may be generous.

I go to Netflix to get the titles you can't get at Redbox or at the few brick and mortar places still in business. So for me,  me, paying $23 a month for a virtually unlimited selection of movies, many of which I can watch instantly, is a HELL of a deal. And that's true even if I was paying only $15 before. I'll eat the cost because I love movies.

But it's because I love movies that I find Netflix's response absolutely baffling. Basically, they've split into two companies. Netflix will now be the streaming-only service, and the classic disc by mail business will be spun off into an operation called Qwikster.

 Qwikster? What the hell is that? That name doesn't suggest movies and TV to me. That sounds like a name for someone who dumps flavored powder into milk.

But even more important than the name change is the operations change. Each customer who gets both services will now pay two bills. OK, annoying but not the end of the world. The bigger problem is that the sites will no longer be integrated.

So for example, if I go on Netflix, I see they have Steven Spielberg's first theatrical feature, The Sugarland Express. Oh, no, wait a minute. Like too many movies in the annoying Starz Play category, it's in the wrong aspect ratio. It's cutting off Spielberg's beautifully crafted images. Before I could always say, "No problem, I'll just dunk it in my disc queue." Oh, wait, not anymore. Now I have to jump through another hoop and find it on Qwikster.  Annoying.

Or let's take the flip of that example. Let's say I want to watch  Charge of the Light Brigade, with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Haviland. That was available on Instant. Oh, wait, it's not there anymore. Let's go to Qwikster. Damn, they don't have it anymore either. Now I've gone onto two sites and struck out, doubling my frustration. Guess I'll try my luck with TCM. Oh wait - I was considering dumping cable because I now have a Roku streaming box. THEN what do I do?

Now, I realize that my own argument could still make Louis CK scoff at me, just as I scoffed at others. Fair enough. But it's one thing to pass on the prices of streaming to customers. Regrettable as that is, that's expected. But it's a big mistake to compound that buy making your sites more difficult to use. AND dilute your brand at the same time.

So what's the next step? Since I have that streaming box now, I might keep Netflix and ditch Quixster for Redbox. But then Redbox won't have all those classic titles I like to watch. Gah!

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is damn lucky I love movies, because that love will probably compel me to keep both of his companies. Other customers haven't been, and won't be so loyal. I may stick around, but I'm disgruntled. I agree with columnist David Poland, who writes that Hasting's email to customers ought to have said this:

“Dear Netflix Customer… we loved being in the DVD business, but it is no longer financially viable… for anyone. We’re as sorry as you are. It is where we have lived all these years and built a great relationship with you, our subscribers. But the simple truth is, we cannot move forward if we live in the financial structure of the past. Shipping and distribution centers and competition from new delivery systems, including our own streaming build-out, have made the great deal we have offered you all these years impossible. And the streaming business can expand to the entire planet… all we have to do is to pay for content rights for each country, which is still remarkably cheap in most places (at least until we raise that bar).

We believe we can sustain a DVD shipping business for a couple of more years and we are going to keep offering that option to you for as long as we can. It will cost you a little more, but there is no bargain like it.

We know the future is streaming. But this is also a very expensive proposition. We are working hard to deliver as much high quality streaming content as possible. If you choose to stream only with us, there will be a lot less product available than you are used to from the DVD-to-you business. But it’s still a better value proposition than any other streaming company in the world. It is our commitment to remain the biggest, best, most easily accessed streaming media company on the planet at an incredibly affordable price of less than $10 month.

Honestly yours,
Reed Hastings”

At least the pill would have been easier to swallow - with or without the Qwik.

The Book of Eli/Uuhhh ....

January 9, 2011

The Book of Eli (2010: The Hughes Brothers): The Hughes' Brothers long-awaited return to narrative filmmaking is not a return to form. In fact, it's the weakest movie they've made. In addition to being dour and draggy, it's not even technically accomplished. The picture has been digitally processed out the wazoo, and the movie appears to have been shot through unflushed toilet water. A vibrant performance by Mila Kunis and a couple decent action scenes provide what few spurts of life the movie has. GRADE: C

I also received the Blu-Ray of one of the best movies of all time, 2001: A Space Odyssey, as a late Christmas present. In a word ... WOW. The picture is breathtaking and the sound has a presence I've never heard at home before. Can't compare to seeing the movie on the big screen in 70 MM (the way it was shot), but this is easily the next best thing. And sadly, it may be the ONLY thing readily available since 70 MM screenings of any movie are hard to come by. 

I watched the excellent documentary Exit Through the Gift shop this weekend, and I'll offer more on that later. For the moment, though, the movie has inspired me to someday begin a review with the word "Uuuhhh ...." 

Hmmm. Maybe I SHOULD see the third Transformers film. 

What happens to DVD extras if we go to downloads?

Despite my doubts about the longevity of Blu-Ray, I have been greatly enjoying the format since I upgraded on Christmas Day. (Well, except for the fact that I can't hear two of my BR's at full sound quality since my receiver doesn't support DTS, but that's another story).

One of the reasons I have been most enjoying the format is the array of extras available. Out of all the discs I have seen so far, that has never been more apparent than on Disney's Blu-Ray of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. 

The non-movie disc of the set is organized as an absolutely fascinating interactive tour through Disney's Hyperion studios, where most of its work through the 1930s was made. This includes several of the revolutionary shorts made there, such as Flowers and Trees (the first Technicolor cartoon), Steamboat Willie (the first sound cartoon, and the first Mickey Mouse cartoon to be released), The Old Mill (the first to make use of the multiplane camera) and one of my all-time favorite cartoons, The Skeleton Dance.  Even though that  was made 81 years ago, its ingenutiy still blows me away.



Such is the storage capacity of Blu-Ray that each and every one of these shorts (and more) is on the disc at full length. And that got me to wondering ....

I have doubted Blu-Ray would last very long as a format because sooner or later, we would be watching movies at home not through physical media, but through downloading or streaming. Witness Netflix's increasing emphasis on its Instant Viewing feature.

And yet, if that does indeed happen, what happens to Blu-Ray/DVD extras as we have come to know and love them? What about deleted scenes? What about making-of documentaries that, all told, are sometimes longer than the movies themselves? What about audio commentaries? Where is the place for them in the download world? How would downloads handle the kind of extras we have now? Could they? It would have to be a pretty complex system to include everything that's on Snow White. And I want ALL that stuff.

What worries me is that those extras would diminish, since most people buy discs to watch the movie and not the extras. Still, even the most lowbrow movies have them. Sony spent money to put a commentary on Paul Blart: Mall Cop, for pity's sake, so demand for extras must be out there somewhere.

That supposed, what happens to extras when downloading/streaming becomes the dominant movie delivery format? What do you think?

Why I hate the "rent it" vs. "see it" distinction

Quite often people  if such-and-such a movie is good. Then, if I give a mezzo-mezzo, "not really" answer, or sometimes even if I say I actively disliked a movie, people will then ask "So I should just wait for DVD, huh?"

I have never, ever understood the logic of people who ask that question. I want to tell those people. "Well, no, you shouldn't wait for the DVD. You shouldn't see it at ALL."

 OK, I understand that viewing in the theater and viewing at home have different sets of standards. But if I tell you a movie is mediocre or worse, why is it good enough to watch at home but not in the theater? A bad movie is a bad movie, period. Full stop. No change of screen size is magically going to make it worthwhile. Sure, maybe you'll blow less money, but you'll still have wasted your time, just like you would have in the theater. And yes, you can turn a DVD off, but you're still out your rental fee AND the time it took you to decide the movie sucked.

Consider 2012. On the one hand, that movie's reason de etre is the kind of spectacle that demands a big screen. On the other hand that overlong film also badly needs a chapter-skip button. So where does that movie fall? I say since the spectacle is the reason you see it, go to the theater anyway to get the most bang for your buck. I've yet to see a home theater that truly matches the real deal. Maybe a home theater can replicate the picture and the surround sound, but it can't duplicate the atmosphere of a theater.

It isn't just me who thinks this way. Roger Ebert's Answer Man column has a great Q&A on this very subject, and a great line of logic I had never considered before (bolded by me)

Q. I love the new "At The Movies" with Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott (good riddance to you know who), but I must say that I still don't get the "See It/Rent It" distinction. Either a movie is worth seeing, or it's not, right? I mean, I think it does work on the show as a sort of "thumbs sideways" to deal with the two-and-a-half star movies that can't quite be recommended, but still have some value that deserves to be recognized.

What I really don't understand is why our standards are supposed to be lower for rentals rather than theatrical releases. When you go out to see a current release is when you have to make compromises. Maybe the movie you really wanted to see sold out, or just finished its run, so now you have to pick the second best thing at that theater. Or you're with a large group that doesn't want to see a foreign film, so you have to settle on the most tolerable current blockbuster.

When you rent a movie, however, you have nearly the entirety of cinematic history at your disposal. That makes the competition for rentals much more fierce. Looking at Time Out New York, I see that there are 51 movies out here right now. That's a lot, but compare that to the thousands of choices available on Netflix. Why would I rent a marginal film like "New York, I Love You" when I still need to see "Killer of Sheep," "Au Hasard Balthazar," "Mishima" and "The Grey Zone"?
Rhys Southan, New York, NY

A. Amen. I've been against "rent it" from the first time I was exposed to the concept. It makes no sense. Either a film is good enough to see, or not good enough to see. Here's my theory about the invention of this ersatz category: It's an attempt to pander to those who would rather die than rent a great film like, say, Hitchcock's "North by Northwest" rather than a "rent it"-style dim bulb like "Couples Retreat." I think some editors, not mine, are terrified that readers might get the idea a critic is stuck up. If you'd rather rent "Couples Retreat" than the new restored "North by Northwest," "Bonnie and Clyde" or "Cool Hand Luke," that's what I am, stuck up, and happy to be.

Me too, Roger. What about you? What's your take on the "Wait for DVD" line of logic?

Do you rent from brick and mortar stores anymore?

On my way home recently, I passed by the video store nearest me, a Family Video, and their sign said something like "Many titles rent free."

"Boy, they must be desperate," I thought to myself. Then it occurred to me - I could not for the life of me remember the last time I went into an actual video store to rent a movie. Nowadays, if I'm going into Blockbuster (a company I tend to dislike), I'm going in there to see if they're selling rental copies dirt cheap.

And heck, a lot of times you can buy new (as in never sold) DVDs dirt cheap. Rummaging through Best Buy recently, I was delighted to discover they were having a sale on Warner Bros.' terrific two-disc sets. I picked up Heat and The Searchers for $20, which would not have purchased me ONE of those titles in the past. As an added bonus, I found the two-disc A Fish Called Wanda for $7.  

Of course, it has long been established that I'm far from Joe Average as a moviegoer. I'm more like Joe Extraordinary, or Joe Offbeat, if you prefer. Since I see most movies in theaters, I rent movies mostly to catch up on older titles. And when it comes to older titles, the selection in most brick and mortar stores is piteous.

For catalog titles, Netflix is a dream. And on the rare occasion that I need a new movie in a hurry, Redbox works fine for me.

The only reason I can think of to go to a brick and mortar store is if you're going with someone, particularly a child, it might be fun to shop with them and let them pick out a title. But such circumstances rarely apply to me.

So do you go to brick and mortar stores anymore? If so, why? If not, why not?  Do you foresee brick and mortar stores crumbling down soon? Will you miss them if/when they do?

DVDs/What Are You Watching? - October 20, 2009

DVDs

Imagine That: Never mind imagining. I'd rather remember a time when Eddie Murphy really did make funny movies.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: (Eric laughs hysterically for 17 minutes. His face then freezes into an impaasve mask, with all the expressiveness of Megan Fox.)

Um, no thanks. Once was about 4,042 times too many. Here's why. GRADE: D

What Are You Watching?

Grand Hotel: The only movie that ever won the Best Picture Oscar and no other Oscars doesn't quite feel so worthy of that prize today. The dramatics are a little soapy and over the top - as far as multi-character MGM dramas  go, I much prefer George Cukor's Dinner at Eight. Still, I was surprised to see how visual the film was, and it's impossible to deny a cast that includes both Lionel and John Barrymore, plus Wallace Beery, Joan Crawford (when she was actually attractive and appealing) and Lewis Stone. And there's one Greta Garbo, who gave us her immortal "I want to be alone" line in this film. Not inconsiderable, that. GRADE: B+

What have you all seen lately? 

DVD has two years left to live?

So according to Netflix's Big Kahuna, Reed Hastings. DVD has two years left to live as a viable format, and he thinks it will be replaced by streaming?

Really, Reed. Kinda living up to your last name there, aren't ya? Mind you, I have always believed that DVD would be replaced by some kind of on-demand viewing, but THAT soon? I really find that hard to swallow when your own streaming service, well - sucks, sometimes.

More often than not, when I try to watch a streaming movie on Netflix, I see a message that says something like "Your Internet connection has slowed. We are adjusting your playback to avoid further interruption."

Then, of course, I am interrupted about every 10 minutes with that message. It's more than a LITTLE annoying. When I was trying to watch The Ghost and Mrs. Muir this way, I was half-convinced a real spirit was messing with me. The interruptions got so bad when I was trying to watch the 1941 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I gave up and rented the good ol' DVD. So don't go round claiming streaming is it till ya get yers fixed, K?

(And it ain't a matter of my equipment bein' slow, Reed. I've seen many a complaint round the 'Net.)

But let me pose a question to my readers: Do you think DVD will be dead that quickly? And what about Blu-Ray? I have never been convinced that will break out the way DVD did, because the quality jump from DVD to Blu-Ray isn't even CLOSE to the quality jump of VHS to DVD. And frankly, given all the stories I've heard about botched transfers (Patton, Gladiator et al) I'm even less convinced.

Am I wrong?