Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Don't keep it reel: why there's life after 35mm

After 120 years and countless movies, 35mm is officially on the way out. In January, 63% of the world's screens will be digital, according to report from IHS. Last year, 67% of global screens were still 35mm. The year 2011 is the tipping point, when digital cinema replaces celluloid as the mainstream form of projection. It's the end of an era and the start of something new.

"Since 1889, 35mm has been the principal film projection technology," David Hancock, head of film research at IHS, said this week. "However, after 10 years of market priming, movie theatres now are undergoing a rapid transition … spurred initially by the rising popularity of 3D films."

In 2009, James Cameron's Avatar convinced the industry that it was time for an upgrade. Studios scrambled to slap a 3D sticker on their film, which would earn them both a ticket uplift and novelty audience appeal. And so cinemas joined the move towards digital, automating a process that projectionists have spent years perfecting.

The impact is as far-reaching as it gets. The distribution and manufacturing of prints has changed completely. In 2008, 13 billion feet of 35mm was used per year. Next year, 4 billion feet of celluloid will be used, as print production costs rise and films are sent out as files on USB sticks. The switchover is picking up speed. In America, the statistics warn, there will be no mainstream 35mm usage by 2014.

High-definition picture and sound have eclipsed the quality of celluloid. All the major films are now digital, if not 3D. Peter Jackson's The Hobbit and Ridley Scott's Prometheus are both using the Red Epic camera, with Jackson shooting in 48fps – double the standard frame rate of 35mm.

But even if you can accept the improvement in quality, and the reduction in human and mechanical error, digital's takeover has other casualties. With projectors now operated at the push of the button, projectionists are fading out from cinemas altogether. For the last few years, BECTU (the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union) has struggled to negotiate employment terms with major chains. Many projectionists are fired, or resign, while cinemas retain a handful as maintenance staff to perform other technical duties in between pressing "Play" and "Stop" on screenings of Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Without the watchful eye of a projectionist, things can still go wrong. Digital screenings can freeze, the sound can cut out – or in one manufacturer fault (now reportedly fixed) – the picture can turn completely pink.

By ushering in digital and ushering out people, it's not the medium that's under threat, it's the wealth of knowledge the industry is set to lose, as the art of projecting gives way to pixels and software packages.

It's a sad price to pay for a CGI Chipmunk, something shown by the documentary The Last Projectionist, which played at Cannes this year. And yet it found those facing unemployment quite pragmatic.



"The projectionists know they work with technology, and although it's a 100-year-old trade, if you go back further, that trade didn't exist," explains director Tom Lawes. "It's a transient thing, and they understand that."

The Last Projectionist captures the history of cinema – particularly independent cinema – while the projectionist trade is still around. The documentary visits the IMAX at Birmingham's Thinktank to film the setup of its 70mm projector. Since then, the IMAX has announced it can no longer afford to maintain the print format and has become a 4K digital screen instead.

While the Thinktank projectionist still has a job, the future isn't bright for the man in the box. Eventually, someone will decide to streamline the system, and the role will be axed. But with the arrival of digital comes a new set of skills. In addition to the varying types of video files, there are events and satellite linkups that fill up cinema calendars. Digital theatre screenings, such as National Theatre's NT Live, regularly sell out around the world, as people are given a new way to access culture that simply wasn't possible with analogue.

The opportunities extend to regular programming too. While the New Beverly in LA continues its heartfelt campaign, the Electric cinema in Birmingham (owned by Last Projectionist director Lawes) has just upgraded its two screens to digital and enjoys the newfound flexibility.

"We can easily move films around from one screen to another," Lawes explains, highlighting the changing relationship between studios and smaller venues. "We showed X-Men: First Class this year one week off release date – that never would have happened before."

It's good for independent productions too: "We don't have to send a film off to another cinema. We can keep it here on the server and, for a small film such as Weekend, we've got the flexibility to show it again in a few months."

Producing a digital print is also far cheaper for film-makers, giving them a better shot at distribution. "Ironically, The Last Projectionist couldn't have been made without digital," Lawes admits. "If we had to create 10 35mm prints, you'd be looking at £20,000. Where's that going to come from? The Film Council? They've shut that down."

As The Last Projectionist gets a UK theatrical run next year with City Screen (who operate the Picturehouse cinemas chain), it's a fitting tribute to a dying age, as digital changes cinema for small companies as well as global corporations.

The year 2011 is the most important one for cinema since 1927. It's sad to see 35mm become a specialist format projected by a few, but 120 years is a pretty good run for any form of technology – DVD has only been around for 14. Even once 3D's appeal has worn off, digital will remain an exciting new medium for film-makers and audiences. And while the New Beverly and others continue to show prints the way they were originally intended, the machine keeps rolling forward. Film is dead. Long live film.

Icon stops UK distribution and axes London jobs

Icon is to close its distribution wing in the UK and cut around 20 out of the 32 jobs in its London office, reports Variety. Lionsgate UK are said to be in talks to acquire Icon's library and distribute those titles acquired by the label but not yet released.

Employees at Icon, said to be shifting towards a greater emphasis on production, are currently going through a redundancy consultation phase. In January, 15% of staffers at the company were laid off as a cost-cutting measure. Variety suggests that the managing director of the company, Ian Dawson, had been given a year to improve Icon's performance or face its closure.

If Lionsgate does buy the library, it will be picking up titles such as A Single Man, The Road, Precious, The Killer Inside Me, Man On Wire and Paranormal Activity. The label had a number of high-profile releases this year including Project Nim, The Devil's Double, The Beaver and, most recently, Drive.


Monday, 28 November 2011

Harry Potter wins big at Bafta children's awards

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two was one of a host of double winners at the Bafta children's awards on Sunday night.

The movie adaptation of the boy wizard's final adventure scooped the feature film prize, beating the likes of Kung Fu Panda 2, Tangled and its own predecessor, Deathly Hallows Part 1.

The blockbusting release also triumphed in the film category of the Bafta kids' vote, chosen by more than 400,000 7- to 14-year-olds in an online poll.

"Harry Potter is part of popular culture," said Warwick Davis, who played the role of Professor Filius Flitwick in the films, and who accepted the award.

"The series is going to leave a legacy for generations of children to enjoy. Look at Star Wars; the original movies are 30 years old, but we talk about them as though they were released recently. The Harry Potter films will be the same."

Sunday, 27 November 2011

Take it or leave it: the long shot

Anne Billson

Long takes make the viewer an active participant rather than a passive sponge, encouraged to scour the frame, or worry about what might enter into it.

As the rhythm of commercial movies has speeded up, long takes have increasingly become associated with slow art movies, and for many years tended to bring out the worst in me. During a shot of townsfolk tramping down the street in Béla Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies (a film famously composed of only 37 shots) I nodded off, had a little dream and woke up again – only to find the townsfolk still tramping. Bruno Dumont's L'humanité opens with a widescreen shot of a horizon, bare but for a couple of trees; a man appears on the extreme left, and you realise with a sinking feeling the camera is going to stick with him till he's toiled all the way over to the right. I started giggling before he was even halfway across.

But rewatching Omar Sharif's slow approach on camel through the desert in Lawrence of Arabia, I'm struck now by David Lean's timidity – how much more involving it would have been if he hadn't cut that long shot up into bite-sized pieces, and instead had let it play out in real time. No such restraint from Gaspar Noé, who in Irreversible refuses to cut away from Albert Dupontel smashing a man's face in with a fire extinguisher, or from Monica Bellucci being raped in a pedestrian tunnel, a take that goes on for so long the viewer passes through shock into boredom and then annoyance – always a risk with ultra-long takes, though, judging by the rest of Noé's oeuvre, it could be precisely the reaction he was setting out to provoke.

I daresay we're now so accustomed to machine-gun editing that the "subliminal" shock image of the demon face in The Exorcist doesn't seem seem so subliminal any more. But it's in horror movies that I really enjoy seeing long takes, especially the sort of dread-inducing camerawork of John Carpenter or Kiyoshi Kurosawa. Long takes make the viewer an active participant rather than passive sponge, encouraged to scour the frame, or worry about what might intrude into it. Like Smiley's spies, you're constantly scrutinising facial expressions, or on the lookout for movement that shouldn't be there.

Flurries of violent cutting obscure rather than delineate the action; the effect is impressionistic, which has its uses, but is now so prevalent I sometimes fear that generations of filmgoers will soon be incapable of tolerating longer takes, the same way high-heel wearers can no longer walk in flat shoes because their tendons have shrunk. Maybe, as suggested by the late cultural theorist Theodore Roszak, they've become so addicted to the flicker of film passing through a projector, the fix on its own is no longer potent enough. They need hyper-rapid editing as well.

Pearl & Dean: Distribution/Exhibition

For some useful information concerning audiences, the Pearl & Dean site is well worth a look when compiling case studies for Section A of FM2. Forthcoming releases are shown along with budgets and the estimated breakdown of audience demographics.

Pearl & Dean are proud to represent cinemas ranging from multiplex chains, offering landmark locations throughout the UK & Ireland including Showcase, Empire, Apollo, Movie House and AMC chains, to smaller local cinemas like the Berhamstead Rex. We are also proud to represent the majority of the independent exhibition sector, with a wide portfolio of quality circuits such as Curzon, Everyman, Scott Cinemas, Northern Morris and WTW Cinemas each offering individuality and often a specialist audience. This wide variety of cinemas have a hugely varied schedule of programming from the latest blockbusters through classic and art-house movies to alternative content such as live opera or concerts.

All of this enables us to offer you, the advertiser, the ability to target either specific demographics or the population as a whole. The cinema is the best environment in which to showcase any brand. The audience is in a relaxed, receptive state of mind. There are no distractions and advertising is seen as part of the whole cinema experience. This results in cinema advertising being the most impactful media channel available.

HMV to launch on-demand film service

HMV is to launch an on-demand film service featuring titles such as Harry Potter and The X-Men, as the embattled retailer turns to digital channels to counter slumping in-store sales.

HMV has partnered with FilmFlex, the video-on-demand rental service joint venture between Sony Pictures Television and The Walt Disney Company, to launch the new service called hmvon-demand.

The service – which will offer titles from more than 30 distributors, including all of the major Hollywood studios – is soft launching on Thursday.

HMV is the latest company to look to cash in on the increasing demand for digital film services, joining rivals such as Amazon's LoveFilm, Tesco's BlinkBox, Google's YouTube. US online video service Netflix is also launching in the UK and Ireland early in 2012.

The music retailer, which has closed almost 30 stores in the past few months in response to a 15% sales slump, is planning a major marketing campaign for January across its store network as well as online and in advertising.

FilmFlex offers a white label service – partners such as Channel 4's Film4 service have launched their own branded movies-on-demand offering – using an online rental model.

HMV said that the new film service will be available via PCs, with plans to expand to other digital devices, with models including download-to-own and cloud-based locker services also in the works.

"With a growing number of consumers now incorporating video-on-demand into their viewing and purchasing habits, the time is right to include a digital service into our own offer," said Mark Hodgkinson, marketing and e-commerce director at HMV.

Jeff Henry, the former ITV and Hallmark Channel senior executive, was appointed as chief executive of FilmFlex's European operation in July.

"Our deal with HMV illustrates perfectly the benefit of combining their well-known brand and high traffic volumes with our own expertise in technology and content," said Henry.

Disney and YouTube strike reel deal

YouTube is to make Disney's library of films available on its new movie rental site for the first time as part of the Google-owned website's ongoing bid to present itself as the No 1 destination for video on demand in a rapidly developing marketplace.

The deal means films from Disney, its wholly-owned subsidiary Pixar, and other studios such as DreamWorks (which distribute via the Mouse House) will be available to stream online. Titles initially available will include films such as Cars 2, Alice in Wonderland and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.

YouTube marketing executive Minjae Ormes said newer titles would be joined over time by classic movies from the Disney back catalogue. "Check back in because even more of the great Disney classics and new releases will be added in weeks to come, including our YouTube Movie Extras with behind-the-scenes clips, interviews and more," he wrote on the YouTube movies blog.

YouTube launched its movie rental site in May as it seeks to reposition itself as a one-stop shop for on-demand video. The site is also launching a co-branded channel with Disney with a reported budget of between $10m and $15m, one of more than 100 it plans to unleash, all based on original programming. The channel will be available on both Disney.com and YouTube, launching in early 2012. "Disney Interactive will produce and programme the co-branded video destinations for both Disney.com and YouTube, providing a family-friendly experience for viewers across both platforms," Disney and YouTube said in a statement earlier this month. YouTube was bought by Google for $1.65bn in 2006, and the investment reflects the company's view that the internet is the next phase in the television business.

In the UK, YouTube has moved into a soon-to-be crowded video-on-demand marketplace that already includes Amazon-owned LoveFilm's movie streaming service and will see US giant Netflix enter the fray in early 2012. The latter announced last month that it is making its first venture into Europe by launching in the UK and Ireland next year.




LoveFilm announced its own deal to show Disney films in April. The service also has agreements with film studios such as MGM, Momentum and Warner Bros. Netflix has more than 25 million users in the US, Canada and Latin America, while LoveFilm has more than 1.6 million subscribers in the UK and Europe.

YouTube remains the top hosting destination for amateur video with more than 3bn views per day, and boasts that more footage is uploaded to the site in one month than the three major US networks have created in 60 years. However, it has yet to prove itself as the No 1 destination for paidfor video on demand in the face of increasing competition from Apple's iTunes, Hulu and Netflix, among others.

Saturday, 26 November 2011

Are Hanna and her violent sisters doing it for themselves?

Hanna (2011)
Cert : 12A
Director: Joe Wright
Cast: Cate Blanchett, Eric Bana, Jason Flemyng, Jessica Barden, Michelle Dockery, Olivia Williams, Saoirse Ronan

Do kick-ass young heroines empower women or are they just sustaining a masculine idea of what feminism is?

Imagine a film that celebrates an adolescent boy who's trained from birth to kill other people and ruthlessly committed to doing just that. Hug him, and he'll snap your neck. If one of his arrows somehow misses your heart, he'll shoot you in the back of the head. Even if you're the unsuspecting young recipient of his first-ever kiss, he'll feel obliged to give you a surprise beating afterwards for no obvious reason.

Such a character's possible influence on young cinemagoers might give cause for concern. However, Hanna's a girl, so that's all right. Is it?

As a remorselessly homicidal young cutie, Hanna is just one member of what's becoming something of a big-screen sorority. Her most obvious antecedent is Kick-Ass's Mindy (aged 11), but we've been seeing a lot of Lisbeth Salander as well as quite a few other tigerish women like those in Sucker Punch. Katniss Everdeen is eagerly awaited in the forthcoming adaptation of Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games.

These brutish babes were perhaps foreshadowed by Luc Besson's Nikita and Mathilda, as well as by various Japanese pitiless poppets. Now, however, they seem to be becoming not only mainstream but both attractive and praiseworthy. This is clearly good news for blokes who are titillated by murderous misses; but what's it doing for women?

To find out, Hanna's star, Saoirse Ronan, went to a screening for an all-female audience. "What they really got out of the film was a sense of empowerment," she reports. The women found that her character, who "is female and has this strength over so many people", was "very exciting to see on screen". Maybe, but perhaps it's worth asking whether ultra-violence is the optimal form of female assertiveness.


Some might imagine that violent behaviour by fictional young women would be unlikely to infect their real-life counterparts, because girls, unlike boys, are hard-wired to shun brutality, and can therefore be relied on to interpret female-enacted savagery merely metaphorically. Maybe such thinking should be regarded as either feminist or misogynist poppycock; anyway, apparently it's wrong.

Research at the University of Montreal has shown that baby girls are just as aggressive as baby boys; they become less so only because of the social pressure that's brought to bear on them from infancy. Some researchers, such as Professor James Garbarino, a Chicago psychologist who has advised the FBI on criminal violence, believe that growing on-screen endorsement of violence perpetrated by women is stripping away this conditioning.

According to Garbarino, girls appeared immune to contagion by screen violence in the 1960s, but this had changed by the 1980s. He attributes this shift partly to the emergence of violent female protagonists. Even Hermione Granger gives him cause for disquiet. At the end of the third Potter film, she punches Draco Malfoy, exclaims "That felt good", and is rewarded with cheers from her friends. Says Garbarino: "Girls hit, it feels good and people appreciate it: that's the message."

If Hermione's modest fisticuffs have indeed sent out such a signal, the more robust activities of bruisers such as Hanna must surely prove yet more baleful. There are indications that girls are particularly likely to approve on-screen violence when they can see it as symbolising the triumph of good over evil. The mayhem perpetrated by characters such as Hanna is calculated to create just such an impression.

Of course, no one can be sure that cinema has had any impact at all on the way young women behave. Yet something has. In England and Wales, assaults have become the most common first-time crime for females under 17; such offenders now constitute more than a third of all girls receiving court sentences. Overall, the number of offences involving violence committed by female juveniles increased by 28% between 2002/3 and 2009/10. A similar pattern has emerged across the developed world.



Some may view this trend as evidence in itself of a kind of female empowerment. Others, however, may consider young women to be merely aping the pitiful conduct of their menfolk.

A perhaps surprising feature of the bloodthirsty heroics of characters such as Hanna and Mindy is that they're often wholly directed by some kind of patriarch. The young women in these films play out an entirely male-dictated version of what their self-realisation might constitute. Just how empowering is that?


Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Is 3D the medium of the future?

Steven Spielberg's 3D film The Adventures of Tintin took £25.5m in ticket sales around the world. And 3D is also entering Britain's homes, via expensive TV sets. Proponents of the format claim it is the future of media viewing.

But, according to Owen Weetch, of the University of Warwick, 3D isn't always worth the extra cash or spectacle-wearing and only some genres and films are improved by the format. "I started to investigate 3D cinema about six months before Avatar was released, when there was a great deal of advance publicity keen to tout 3D as the future of cinema, comparable to the introduction of sound or colour," says Weetch. "I was interested in whether this would be the case, or if it would simply be 'the emperor's new clothes'."

Watching films or researching other criticism and analysis of 3D, Weetch noticed a lot of condemnation of the format. "Critics such as Roger Ebert and Mark Kermode are opposed," he says, "and a recent study by L Mark Carrier of California State University suggests that the medium produces headaches, eyestrain and trouble with vision and 'there aren't any benefits in terms of understanding the movie better'."

Weetch disagrees. Some films are well worth the effort of 3D, he says. "In my research I investigate specific genres and how previous alterations to the cinematic image's width and depth – such as deep focus and wider screens – have impacted on those genres' representational strategies. Genres that in some way depend on the space or environment in which their stories take place certainly do benefit – exponentially – from the additional dimension."

Take Avatar, the 3D James Cameron-directed blockbuster that smashed all records to become the fastest movie ever to achieve $1bn in world ticket sales . "It's a science fiction spectacular about humans engaging with a new, alien space," says Weetch, "so a stereoscopic [3D] staging that emphasises deep space guides the audience into the story world. This aligns the viewer more forcefully with the protagonists, who are themselves exploring this space, and so heightens the immersive thrill of the story."

Horror films are another genre where it is worth paying for 3D, Weetch believes. "They have traditionally seized on the dark shadows at the edge of the frame to scare their audiences and 3D can use its extension of screen space to create unprecedented dark spaces, out of which threats might leap. The object of terror might have been hiding right in front of your nose while you've been scanning the distance."


Scary stuff – but not as terrifying as the academic's musings on Jackass 3D. "When a film's focus is on bodies moving through space, as in musicals, dance films and slapstick comedy, the impression of that movement becomes more palpable in 3D," Weetch says. "Jackass 3D and Pina 3D exploited this masterfully. For the person who finds one of the Jackass boys tying a remote-controlled helicopter to their penis amusing, surely that's going to be funnier if the helicopter flies out of the screen."

But not all 3D experiences are worthwhile. "It costs more to go to a 3D film, so you want it to at least try to earn its money," says Weetch. "The worst examples tend to be films converted to 3D in post-production, for example Alice in Wonderland 3D.

Like Avatar, it's about somebody entering a strange new world, but is filled with dull, flat compositions that display no real attempt to engage with the third dimension. "With conversion, you get a very artificial sense of flat objects being layered atop one another like cardboard cut-outs, rather than an honest sense of depth or curvature."

Some film-makers use 3D as an excuse to forego other, potentially more important parts of a viewer's experience, Weetch adds. He flags up the example of Sanctum, this year's 3D underwater adventure. "It made an honest attempt to engage with the aesthetic of depth, but was let down elsewhere, by rote storytelling or ineffectual direction. While 3D is one of many textual strategies that can contribute to thematic and narrative unity, it isn't necessarily effective on its own." Some filmmakers, Weetch adds, exploit viewers: "they think they can make money by foisting depth on to something shallow, and it simply doesn't work that way."

In the context of funding cuts to academia and questions over "Mickey Mouse degrees", Weetch admits he does face accusations that the films he studies are "not exactly serious or particularly highbrow." But that, he says, "presumes that 3D can't contribute to films that are concerned with characters and ideas, which I'd attribute to ignorance and snobbery. Tintin, The Hole in 3D, and Kung-Fu Panda 2 all contain psychoanalytic sequences where characters retreat mentally into their past, and 3D layering expressively portrays the inner workings of their minds."

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

Movie fans turn to piracy when the online cupboard is bare

Ask anyone who's studied copyright policy – scholars of music and literature, economists, sociologists, law professors – and they'll tell you that the No 1 problem with copyright is that it is enacted without recourse to evidence.

Professor Ian Hargreaves, the latest eminent scholar commissioned by government to review Britain's copyright policy, lamented that his advice echoed many of his predecessors', none of which had been heeded.

The UK Open Rights Group (disclosure: I co-founded this group and serve as a volunteer on its advisory board) recently contributed some more evidence to the debate – and its very timely indeed.

Here's what ORG found: though close to 100% of their sample were available as DVDs, more than half of the top 50 UK films of all time were not available as downloads. The numbers are only slightly better for Bafta winners: just 58% of Bafta best film winners since 1960 can be bought or rented as digital downloads (the bulk of these are through iTunes – take away the iTunes marketplace, which isn't available unless you use Mac or Windows, and only 27% of the Bafta winners can be had legally).

And while recent blockbusters fare better, it's still a patchwork, requiring the public to open accounts with several services to access the whole catalogue (which still has many important omissions).

But even in those marketplaces, movies are a bad deal – movie prices are about 30% to 50% higher when downloaded over the internet versus buying the same movies on DVDs. Some entertainment industry insiders argue that DVDs, boxes and so forth add negligible expense to their bottom line, but it's hard to see how movie could cost less on physical DVDs than as ethereal bits, unless the explanation is price-gouging. To add insult to injury, the high-priced online versions are often sold at lower resolutions than the same movies on cheap DVDs.

ORG is generous in their conclusions, absolving the industry of culpability for this problem. Consumers have moved online faster than the film industry whose films they want to watch. They are being confronted with the equivalent of empty shelves. It is unsurprising that many people have found ways of discovering and watching films online from unofficial channels. Blocking all the sites that offer non-licensed content in the world‚ presuming this could be done successfully in practice‚ would not improve a consumer's chances of buying a film online that is not for sale.

But whether or not the film industry can be held blameless for the patchwork, confusing, expensive, second-rate online market for movies, it's clear that punishing people because they're staying away from the market will do no good. It would be smarter to divert the nation's policy to supplying lawful alternatives rather than beating us up for not buying movies that aren't offered for sale in the first place.