Cannes gloom and doom: The inside story

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Covering a film festival is a lot less glamorous than it sounds. You’re up all night, running from screenings to interviews and press conferences to noisy parties that you can’t really enjoy because you’re trying to get the scoop on what film bombed that afternoon or which specialty division put in a new offer on the movie that got a standing ovation early that evening--and of course, you still have to carve out a few hours to actually write your stories. The first time I covered the Toronto Film Festival I almost passed out walking back to my hotel before realizing that I was dizzy largely because I’d forgotten to eat all day.

Our intrepid Calendar reporter John Horn just returned from Cannes, a little worse for the wear, but with just enough juice left in his engine to answer a few questions about the festival, which was something of a downer for indy movie sales, with very few deals being made--and nearly all of them for much less money than in years past. John’s story about an increasingly unreceptive market for indy movies had some great nuggets, notably the startling observation that Paramount Vantage--which had a piece of ‘There Will Be Blood’ and ‘No Country For Old Men,’ two awards season standbys--has yet to make a profit.

Here’s a little Q&A we had about Vantage’s stormy response to his story and a look at the Cannes gloom and doom situation:

The Big Picture: So how mad was John Lesher about your remark that Paramount Vantage wasn’t making any money? What did he say?

John Horn: ‘I haven’t heard that kind of profanity in my professional life, ever. The insults flew for about two minutes, and then the line went dead. I think he had used up all the expletives--and combinations of expletives--he knew. The thrust of his very spirited complaint was that not only did I underestimate Paramount Vantage’s performance and reputation, but I also overestimated the returns and standing of its competitors. But the basic, even parenthetical, assertions in the piece--that Paramount Vantage had about 100 employees and had yet to make a profit--were never directly denied.’

The Big Picture: Has anyone asked for a correction?
John Horn: ‘Not that I have heard.’

The Big Picture: Why do people in Hollywood get so incensed about such a relatively innocuous, and obviously accurate assertion? What are they really mad about?
John Horn: ‘Well, it wasn’t at all innocuous in the view of Paramount Vantage. From its perspective, I was criticizing Paramount Vantage while praising Miramax and Fox Searchlight. And in the time-tested view of Hollywood, anything that’s good for my rivals is bad for me. In other words, I made Paramount Vantage look less successful than its peers, which is a dagger through any show business heart: It’s one thing to be successful, but it’s just as important to be perceived as successful.
Focus Features called to complain, too, feeling that the story suggested that it wasn’t doing well either. I didn’t come close to saying that, but Focus felt I had nevertheless left that impression. The congenialty prize went to Lionsgate, which not only said the story was accurate but felt it was fair, even as I said the company was getting out of the risky acquisitions game.’
The Big Picture: I kept reading that it was a really soft market at Cannes this year. Why is that? Is it because the equity money is drying up or because the movies were so bad? ‘I think it’s two factors. The money is still pouring in, so that’s not the problem, but it’s part of the problem. Too many independent movies are being made--the output has almost doubled in the last five years, to more than 400 non-studio movies annually--and the audience isn’t growing. So there’s less room and time for movies to become hits; the market is overcrowded. On top of that, the parent companies of the specialized film divisions increasingly turn to these art film outfits for big profits. So the buyers want home runs, not singles and doubles. And a lot of the Cannes movies looked to the buyers like singles and doubles.’
The Big Picture: The most anticipated film, for true film lovers, was ``Che.’’ I hear the screening did not go well at all. From who you talked to about it, what’s wrong with it?
John Horn: ‘It’s like so much of what’s wrong with the indie film business these days. It’s not so much that people detested the film, it’s that they detested what the film does to their business models. A lot of these companies have lucrative output deals for pay television, home video and international markets. But certain films--including those with subtitles, and those in black and white--are excluded from those deals. And ‘Che’ is half black-and-white, and largely subtitled. A tentative deal with the Weinstein Co. apparently fell apart over dubbing issues. So, again, it comes down to profits, not quality. New wrinkle for Hollywood, huh?’