OSCAR packs his bags

U.S. film industry cashes in abroad

LOS ANGELES — The awards season for films, which reaches its tearful climax with the Oscars on Sunday, has long been only loosely related to the film business. Hollywood is dedicated to the art of funnelling teenagers past popcorn stands, not art itself. But this year’s awards are less relevant than ever. The true worth of a film is no longer decided by the crowd that assembles in the Kodak Theatre — or, indeed, by any American. It is decided by youngsters in countries such as Russia, China and Brazil.



Hollywood has always been an international business, but it is becoming dramatically more so. In the past decade, total box-office spending has risen by about one-third in North America while more than doubling elsewhere. Thanks to Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes and Inception, Warner Bros. made $2.93 billion outside North America last year, smashing the studio's previous record of $2.24 billion. Falling DVD sales in America, by far the world's biggest home-entertainment market, mean Hollywood is even more dependent on foreign sales.



The rising foreign tide has lifted films that were virtually written off in America, such as Prince of Persia and The Chronicles of Narnia: the Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Despite starring the popular Jack Black, Gulliver's Travels had a disappointing run in North America, taking $42 million at the box office so far. But strong turnout in Russia and South Korea helped it reach almost $150 million in sales elsewhere. As a result, it should turn a profit, says John Davis, the film's producer.



The growth of the international box office is partly a result of the dollar's weakness. It was also helped by Avatar, an eco-fantasy that made a startling $2 billion outside North America. But three things are particularly important: a cinema boom in the emerging world, a concerted effort by the major studios to make films that might play well outside America and a global marketing push to make sure they do.



Russia, with its shrinking teenage population, is an unlikely spot for a box-office boom. Yet cinema-building is proceeding apace, and supply has created demand. Last year, 160 million movie tickets were sold in Russia ---- the first time in recent years that sales have exceeded the country's population. Ticket prices have risen, in part because the new cinemas are superior, with digital projectors that can show 3D films.



The big Hollywood studios are muscling domestic film-makers aside. In 2007, American films made almost twice as much at the Russian box office as domestic films -- 8.3 billion rubles ($325 million) compared with 4.5 billion rubles. Last year, the imported stuff made some 16.4 billion rubles: more than five times as much as the home-grown product, estimates Movie Research, a Moscow outfit. Earlier this month, Vladimir Putin, Russia's prime minister, said the government would spend less money supporting Russian film-makers and more on expanding the number of screens.



Growth is much quicker in China, where box-office receipts reached $1.5 billion last year. China's regulator has claimed that cinema screens are going up at a rate of three per day; some are IMAX screens that command higher ticket prices. The government allows only 20 non-Chinese films into the market each year, virtually guaranteeing big audiences for those that make the cut. Moviegoers and censors alike warm to family films and movies that seem to reflect China's central place in the world. Thus, expect long lines for Kung Fu Panda 2 this summer.



Unfortunately, Hollywood has learned (as have many other industries) that great sales in China do not always translate into great profits. In America, distributors tend to receive 50 to 55 per cent of box-office receipts, with the rest going to the cinemas. Elsewhere, the average take is 40 to 45 per cent. In China, where Hollywood must use a domestic distributor, the proportion is roughly 15 per cent. American films may be yanked in favour of domestic ones (Avatar had to make way for Confucius last year). The World Trade Organization has ordered China to reform, but few moguls expect it to.



Growing fears of piracy have led studios to release films almost simultaneously in many countries; increasingly, the premiere takes place outside America. That changes the marketing game, says Michael Lynton, head of Sony Pictures. Studios used to rely on rumours of American success seeping out of the country, priming audiences elsewhere to see a film. Now they must conduct co-ordinated global campaigns. These are more expensive and tougher on the talent. Stars are corralled for two-week marketing blitzes that may take them to 10 countries -- "like a political campaign," says Lynton. Actors who are willing to do this (such as the indefatigable Black) may find themselves working more regularly.



Big noisy spectacle travels best. Jason Statham, the close-cropped star of many a mindlessly violent film, is a particular Russian favorite. Films based on well-known literature (including cartoon books) and myths may also fare well. Films that trade on contemporary American cultural references are about as popular abroad as an oil slick on a NASCAR track. Comedy travels badly, too: Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler provoke guffaws at home but incomprehension abroad. As the market swings away from America, funny films are less likely to find financing or broad distribution anywhere. "You won't see us doing a lot of comedies," says Brad Grey, head of Paramount Pictures.



The growing internationalization of the film business suits the biggest outfits, and not just because they can afford explosions. The major studios' power lies not so much in their ability to make good films -- plenty of smaller operations can do that -- but in their ability to wring every possible drop of revenue from a film. With their superior global marketing machines and their ability to anticipate foreign tastes, they are increasingly dominating the market. For everyone else, there is a chance to win a gold statue.



Credit :  Winnipeg Free Press

Traditional Oscar couple might split up this year

MONTREAL - It was exactly a month ago when this cynic suggested there was no need to hold this year’s Academy Awards gala, that the biggest mystery surrounding the bash would be to see how Sunday's hosts James Franco and Anne Hathaway would fare.



Nominations for the Oscars had just been announced and it appeared to many that the major winners of the recent Golden Globe Awards would all repeat on the Oscar podium as well.

And Colin Firth, Natalie Portman, Christian Bale and Melissa Leo likely will, but there could be one king-sized exception. The Social Network, the Globe winner and the then-heavily favoured flick to cop the Oscar for best film, appears to be pulling a little lame entering the clubhouse stretch. The winds have changed, and it now looks like The King’s Speech will rule Sunday night.



Since losing the Globe for best film, The King’s Speech has made a royal rebound, sweeping the Producers Guild, Directors Guild, Screen Actors Guild and British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards – at the expense of The Social Network.



If it’s any consolation to Social Network’s David Fincher – and it probably isn’t – he should follow his Globe victory for best director with an Oscar in the same category. Best director and best film match up nearly 80 per cent of the time at the Oscars. But the feeling is that The Social Network, almost a unanimous pick among critics as the best film of the year, is getting the shaft for providing an all-too-honest glimpse into the realities of social networking and subsequent social alienation. Or, by contrast, it doesn’t provide the same happy ending as The King’s Speech.



So, lip-service of sorts will be paid to Fincher.



There is precedent for this. In 2003, the musical Chicago won the Academy Award for best film, but Rob Marshall, who had taken the Directors Guild Award that year, just like King’s Speech’s Tom Hooper has this year, was denied the Oscar for best director. Instead, the world’s most famed film fugitive, Roman Polanski, took the prize for The Pianist that year – also a sort of payback by Oscar voters who felt the latter film was getting shortchanged.



A similar snub took place at the Oscars in 1999. Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan had been the betting favourite to take best film and best director. But Shakespeare in Love surprised many by taking the award for best film. However, a little justice was delivered with the deserving Spielberg grabbing the Oscar for best director over Shakespeare in Love’s John Madden.



Hands up, film geeks, if you have caught some more commonality with Chicago, Shakespeare in Love and The King’s Speech.



Yup, it’s the Weinstein Factor. The same Harvey Weinstein, whose unauthorized documentary bio surfaced on HBO Canada earlier this week, was exec producer of Chicago, was producer of Shakespeare in Love and is the distributor of The King’s Speech.



The latter film’s recent success can be attributed to the headlines and hype generated by Weinstein, as well as the countless Oscar campaign cash in advertising he has put up. The man, described as “part Michael Corleone, part Orson Welles,” followed the same formula with Chicago and Shakespeare in Love.



It’s also worth noting that there is little love lost between Weinstein and Social Network producer Scott Rudin, no slouch either when it comes to creating massive Oscar campaigns. The two had worked together on The Hours – which netted Nicole Kidman an Oscar for best actress – but Rudin had his name removed from the credits prior to the film’s release. One can only imagine what kind of squabble led to that, and one can only imagine how much Rudin would love to get even with Weinstein.



Curiously, and despite all the honours the film has garnered, Weinstein, also known as Harvey Scissorhands for his penchant to re-cut films, wanted to perform a little surgery on The King’s Speech. Evidently, Weinstein felt that some of the cursing in the film should be excised to broaden its audience rating. Mercifully, director Hooper and screenwriter David Seidler were able to thwart Scissorhands, correctly arguing that the mild regal profanities uttered were integral to the film’s plotting, not to mention to the therapy employed to cure the king’s stuttering.



Hell, if it hasn’t upset the Royal Family, it shouldn’t bother King Harvey – who makes the tyrannical King Edward l look mellow.



As to why films play such an important role in our lives, frequent correspondent George Morris passes on these all-important “things you would never know without the movie industry” – which he has culled from a blog:



At least one of a pair of identical twins is born evil.

Most laptop computers are powerful enough to override the communications system of any invading alien society.



It does not matter if you are heavily outnumbered in a fight involving martial arts, because your enemies will wait patiently to attack you one by one by dancing around in a threatening manner until you have knocked out their predecessors.



If you are blond and pretty, it is possible to become a world expert on nuclear fission at the age of 22.



Honest and hard working policemen are traditionally gunned down three days before their retirement.



Rather than wasting bullets, megalomaniacs prefer to kill their arch-enemies using complicated machinery involving fuses, pulley systems, deadly gases, lasers and man-eating sharks, which will allow their captives at least 20 minutes to escape.



Once applied, lipstick will never rub off, even while scuba diving.



You’re very likely to survive any battle in any war unless you make the mistake of showing someone a picture of your sweetheart back home.

Should you wish to pass yourself off as a German officer, it will not be necessary to speak the language. A German accent will do.



The Eiffel Tower can be seen from any window in Paris.

If staying in a haunted house, women should investigate any strange noises in their most revealing underwear.

All bombs are fitted with electronic timing devices with large red readouts so you know exactly when they’re going to go off.

If you decide to start dancing in the street, everyone you bump into will know all the steps.





Source: The Montreal Gazette