Miramax Applies ‘Indie’ Methods to Bigger Films

Re “Ambitious Miramax Gets Lost in ‘Tweener’ Land,” Commentary, Feb. 3: Peter Biskind charges that Miramax “took a bath” on “Gangs of New York” and predicts the same for “Cold Mountain.” In fact, on “Gangs,” we minimized our risk through the widely reported pre-sale of foreign rights for over $65 million, before a $78-million box office gross and an even higher video gross to date. “Cold Mountain,” with a net cost of approximately $79 million (tens of millions less than other current epics), has grossed $82.9 million through Feb. 8 -- well on its way to profitability. Even if the film were a failure, which it is not, we would not need “bailing out,” as Biskind asserts.

Biskind’s mischaracterization of Miramax’s priorities is ridiculous. After complimenting our “terrific” recent, smaller films, he asserts that we only distribute such movies to preserve our “street cred.” We don’t think “street cred” at all. His criticism of Miramax having “thrown 30 to 40 movies [per year] against the wall” is likewise misinformed. Libraries are critical to the financial health of film companies. Biskind has misconstrued what was in fact the rapid and efficient building of a 550-film library.

We have not abandoned our roots. Rather, other studios have joined us in a part of the business that we helped show is an area where quality movies can profitably be made. If anything, that is the legacy of Miramax. Biskind’s criticism that we do not spend like the majors on larger projects turns reality on its head. We simply attempt to apply to bigger films the same fiscal conservatism that has helped us succeed in the “indie” arena.

Where is it written that only major studios should make movies for wider audiences? Where is it written that indies should stay in their own sandbox and never venture forth?

Rick Sands

Chief Operating Officer

Charles Layton

Exec. Vice President

Miramax

New York City