Bubble #6 (Reading Response: Due 2/22)

1. Why was 1989 considered a transitional year for independent distribution? In economic terms, what was the meaning of the term “indie-blockbuster”? How did the industry respond to the “indie-blockbuster”?

During this period, many of the independent studios that had thrived in the 80s unfortunately fell victim to their overzealous investments. While it could be seen as the death of the independents, one called it the “independent shakedown” since it got rid of the weakest links, leaving the well-structured studios to reap the benefits of the approaching decade of the nineties. Economically speaking, the indie-blockbuster was a film that, “on a smaller scale, replicates the exploitation marketing and box-office performance of the major studio high concept event picture”. In a nutshell, a small investment that reaps the same benefits as a studio film, in relative ratio terms that is. The industry responded by creating sub-studios within their major studio company, sub-studios that would produce indie-blockbusters separate from the workings of “A pictures” being done by the studios.

2. What criteria guided Miramax’s acquisition strategies in the 1980s? What additional strategies by the Weinstein brothers led to Miramax’s growth while other independent distributors failed?

Miramax had three elements of criteria they followed in acquiring their films. First, they “selected movies that could be promoted as quality pictures”. Second, they “selected nonclassical films that focused on unconventional subjects and styles”. Third, they found “marketing hooks that could help the films transition from the art house to the multiplex”. Besides these criterion, they appealed to multiple niches and used sex, violence, and controversy as sales strategies, allowing them to grow while others failed.

3. Who financed sex, lies and videotape, and why did they allow Miramax to distribute the film theatrically? Why did Miramax pursue the the distribution rights to the film so aggressively?

The film was actually financed by RCA/Columbia Home Video and Virgin. RCA maintained domestic rights and Virgin maintained the foreign rights. They gave the rights to distribute theatrically because their initial expectation of breaking even through home video distribution alone was poor judgement in itself, due in part to the booming video rental industry of the time. Plus, the film was a success at festivals, including Sundance. Miramax had been known for being the outbidder among all independent studios, and this was one film they weren’t going to let slip through their fingers.

4. What were some of the key promotion strategies utilized by Miramax for sex, lies, and videotape? What markets did they appeal to simultaneously, and how did they appeal to those markets? What is meant by “finding the high concept in low budget films”?

Their main goal was to provide a soft landing for an art-house film falling into the blockbuster world. They first appealed to the art-house audience with blurbs of critic praise and listings of the awards the film merited. Then they targeted the young audience by calling it “one of the best of 1989” and “an edgy, intense comedy”. In finding the high concept in low budget films, Miramax differentiated itself by running towards controversy rather than away from it.

5. What kind of distribution strategy did Miramax use for the film? Contrast this strategy with current “saturation booking” of Hollywood blockbusters.

During distribution, Miramax never overestimated their position relative to studios. Miramax understood that their films would have to complement the studio films rather than directly compete. With that said, they relied heavily on word of mouth and free publicity. They gradually released the film, allowing time for it to gain appraisal and an appropriate buzz.

6. Why were Amir Malin’s comments about niche films prescient of broader industry trends, at a time where many people predicted the demise of niche films?

His comments suggest that middle-class films are less cost effective because they do not do well in foreign markets if they did not do well at home in the first place. This is opposite of event films that can fail at home and thrive in the foreign market. Malin also used the term “sophisticated” when referring to sex, lies. This alludes to the fact that these niche films were being advertised as films different than the usual studio productions, though they advertised themselves of offering what Hollywood does and more, “full of sex, violence, and risky content”.

7. By the mid 1990s, what function did the term “independent” actually serve in the industry? What was ironic about the so-called “Year of the Independents” at the 1995 Oscars? What were the repercussions of the bifurcation of the industry?

The term became familiarly defined as a “hybrid of the studio’s A picture and the post-studio-era exploitation film”. What was ironic about the “year of the independents” was that all the independent studios were owned by larger major studio companies. The bifurcation of the industry caused two things. The first being that the two Hollywoods, niche-targeted and high-concept, both developed interrelated but fundamentally distinct aesthetics. High-concept maintained superstars and big explosions while nice-targeted maintained gritty camerawork and edgy subject matter. The second effect was that these films would all, officially, need a target audience, one that would be found in the marketing plan.

Bubble #5 (Reading Response: Due 2/9)

Amy Taubin, “Part of the Problem”

1. Rather than answering specific questions about the interview, provide your own reactions to Van Sant’s comments on one or more of the following topics in relation to our in-class discussions/debates about Van Sant and authorship:

--His explanation of why he remade Psycho.

Van Sant discussed when he was in a studio meeting he brought up a question concerning why directors would want to remake a forgotten film, which would, in doing so, “grave-rob” the directors original work and create something new for an audience that didn’t understand the original, the inspiration. This isn’t fair for the original director and gives no chance for the new director to be understood in comparison to the original director. In remaking Psycho, a film everyone knows and loves, Van Sant was able to show off his different directorial vision, even with a shot for shot remake. Though the films look the same, they feel completely different, and thats because of the change in director. Because audiences know the original Hitchcock version so well, they are able to point out the apparent differences when watching Van Sant’s version, allowing people to actually witness a change in the film with the change in director.

J.J. Murphy, “The Temporal Complexity of Elephant”

Why did Van Sant consider the traditional screenplay format restricting? What alternative models for storytelling did he turn to for Elephant, and what specific techniques did he use in developing the film’s narrative and style?

Van Sant argued that with a traditional screenplay, the filmmaking process is far more restricting because there is no room for the “fun stuff”. With a screenplay, a director becomes so focused on copying and transferring everything in the correct manner that there is never any time to sit back and interpret it as it is presented. Once again, there is no time for what Van Sant calls the “fun stuff”. Van Sant chose to cast non actors—in the style of neo realist films—in order to create a stronger sense of reality. Feeding more into this reality, Van Sant threw out the script and approached the film in a more formal way of handling situations as they came about. He also layered the film to create a sense of events happening simultaneously in a medium of real time, in turn giving the audience this sense of temporal complexity.

Given that the film seems to have three acts, how is the second act of Elephant different than most conventional Hollywood screenplays?

The second act is different because at the end of the first act we are introduced to the two killers entering the school. This scene of Alex and Eric changes everything, creating a definite tension in the film. One would expect the second act to be the massacre, but instead it goes back in time to continue on in tracking the development of the characters before the massacre, which ends up not occurring until act three. Because of the unusual back and forth narrative of Elephant, the shooting doesn’t happen in act two, but is instead introduced. The film continues on with its narrative to address the underdeveloped stories before entering into act three, the massacre.

What does Murphy suggest is “one of the startling and largely unrecognized aspects of Elephant’s time frame”? What observation does Murphy make about the use of time in the third act?

The aspect of the time frame that Murphy brings up concerns the shot breakdown. There are just as many shots in the third act as there are in the first and second combined. Obviously, the pacing of the third act has increased in comparison to the slow first an second. Another observation that has been made is that the violence that is carried out in the third act lasts about twelve minutes, which is very similar to the fifteen minutes of violence that took place during the Columbine massacre.

In terms of character development, how is Elephant similar or different than Hollywood and most independent films? What specific strategies does Van Sant use in relation to revealing character? How do these strategies relate to the themes associated with high school experience?

Murphy points out that the movie is ultimately not character driven, leaving little room for any kind of character development. The development that is included, however, is spaced about the movie because of the temporal complexity of the narration, which makes it similar to other Hollywood movies since development happens throughout the entire movie. It is mentioned that simply watching a character provides plenty interpretation for many viewers, and Elephant succeeds in this by literally following these characters around with the camera. However, there is a disconnection in high school that is presented with the same long tracking shots from behind, all of which occur in the mundane prison-like building that is called high school.

Bubble #4 (Reading Response #4: Due 2/1)

1. What are the four ways Leitch argues that Van Sant’s Psycho is unusual? And what “yawning fallacies” are suggested by Van Sant’s approach to the project? What are some of the logistical problems Van Sant faced in remaking the film in the 1990s?

The initial difference that has been pointed out is that, unlike most remakes, Gus Van Sant’s intentions were paying homage to Hitchcock, as opposed to simply re-doing Psycho in hopes of a better version. The second was Van Sant’s fearless approach to the marketing of the film, advertising with a poster that revealed the early murder of the films heroine, an act that originally took audiences by surprise with the original. Van Sant assumes audiences already know Marione is killed halfway through, but just in case they do not, the advertising is sure to clear up any sense of surprise. Thirdly, Van Sants approach to “remakes” differs in that he literally remade Psycho—shot for shot and line for line—which in itself is something original. Van Sants desire is to recreate, not reinterpret. In doing so, his fourth unusual approach is that he recreated the filmmaking process of Hitchcock, and went on to advertise that echoed style of filmmaking, in turn creating a film that “uniquely wasn’t Hitchcock’s Psycho”. Two of the yawning fallacies concerned Van Sant’s classification of the film as as being exactly like the original, yet completely different, in terms of its textual, cultural, and technical characteristics. Think about it; its in color, the actors are different, and it takes place in the the 90’s. Those changes were the logistical problems that were addressed when the film was remade for the 90’s.

2. What is the key difference for the audience’s experience of the shower scene in Van Sant’s Psycho? How is this similar or different from general genre expectations and conventions inspired by Hitchcock’s Psycho?

Audiences have a different experience in watching the remake because they have the knowledge that the famous shower murdering scene is coming. Where the original gave audiences an element of suspense, the remake has no way of giving that entertainment. It stays true to its intent of paying homage by reveling in the fact that there is no way for Van Sant to surprise us, for Hitchcock already has.

3. What are some of James Naremore’s objections to the Van Sant Psycho, particularly in the area of casting and performance? How does he use the story of the Royal Cook to explain his critical position?

Naremore is dissatisfied with both performances of Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. While Vaughn imitates the original character created by Perkins, Heche instead tweaks Leigh’s original character, in turn creating her own updated version of Marion. Naremore considers these choices made by both actors to be “bad choices” as Vaughn is creating nothing while Heche isn’t remaining faithful to the concept of a remake, or in this case, a direct recreation. It is also noted that Heche created a new character to make Marion’s murder more ironic when, in reality, the murder is ironic enough considering the audience completely expects it. Using the story of the royal cook, Naremore concludes that no matter how hard any of them tried, including Van Sant, this new version of Psycho just could not create the same effect of the original.

4. What are some of William Rothman’s objections to the Van Sant Psycho, particularly in terms of the relationship between Hitchcock’s stylistic system and the creation of meaning? How does Leitch question some of Rothman’s assumptions about style and meaning? What are Timothy Gould’s objections to Rothman’s critical assumptions?

Hitchcock used camera gestures to create suggested meaning, meaning that is apparently stepped on with Van Sant’s choices pertaining to camera work. Van Sant’s camera work is seen as imitation rather than genuine gesture through original creation. The latter of the two obviously carries a stronger meaning, which in this case of recreation, cannot be achieved. Leitch poses the question, however, “How could Rothman tell whether Van Sant was, or had become, such an author?” It is interesting to consider that maybe Van Sant’s style of authorship is coincidentally similar to that of Hitchcock’s. Rothmans argument examines Van Sant’s remake directly through a lens of Hitchcock’s Psycho, in turn making it impossible for Van Sant’s Psycho to be seen as a Van Sant film.

5. Why is Hitchcock’s status in academic film studies particularly unique? What parallel does Leitch make between Naremore’s viewing of Van Sant’s Psycho and Leitch’s students’ viewing of Hitchcock’s Psycho?

Naremore, who saw the original Psycho upon it’s release, perceived it as scary and something fresh while Van Sant’s Psycho is perceived to be completely academic and not at all scary. This perception is contrasted with contemporary screeners of Hitchcock’s Psycho who find the original to be far more academic than its successor. Leitch discusses that there is no good time to watch Psycho because if one watches it today, they would have already been jaded by the other horror movies on the market. On the contrary, if one were to view Hitchcock’s Psycho on opening night, the suspense would be enjoyed at the expense of being blind to Hitchcock’s irony which isn’t revealed until later years when everyone has seen Psycho.

6. Why does Leitch suggest that perhaps Van Sant “out-Hitchcocks Hitchcock”?

Van Sant was not creating an image of Hitchcock, but instead was creating an image of modern “Hitchcocks”.