
Banning Netflix, Amazon from Festivals and Awards Is Wrong - teh_klev
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/03/27/banning-netflix-amazon-from-festivals-and-awards-is-wrong
======
chomp
I don't understand where this cheerleading for these multi-billion dollar
companies started.

First off, these companies aren't banned at all. They are free to show them.

They can't compete unless they show their movie in a French cinema, which they
refuse to.

The only way to legally watch these movies like Okja is to subscribe to these
companies. If Cannes gives out an award, you can't go see it in an independent
cinema, you can't buy it on disc, you must subscribe to Netflix or Amazon. I
completely side with Cannes on this fact. You can't celebrate film by
promoting the distributor (and in this case, their subscription model).

Netflix and Amazon are going to continue their quest to destroy cinemas, and
in this case, French business. If Netflix and Amazon want to start their own
awards, then they can go ahead and do it. I'll make sure to stay away from it.

~~~
amarkov
It was my understanding that Netflix wanted to show their movies in French
cinemas, but French regulations would prevent them from doing that while also
streaming the movies for subscribers.

~~~
chomp
Yes. The CNC wanted Netflix to show their movie in more than a measly 6
cinemas since it was showing at Cannes, and the windowing regulations require
3 years before a movie can go from cinema to streaming. This is mostly a
protectionist cinema regulation, though there are talks to reduce it going on
right now.

I'm not at all a fan of regulatory capture, but I do understand that you can't
pay lip service to the spirit of Cannes - celebrate film and cinema, don't
promote your streaming services.

~~~
s2g
So you watch it at home and suddenly it’s not art anymore.

~~~
tlholaday
What you watch at home is `video`. What you watch in a movie theater is
`cinéma`.

~~~
thirdsun
Speak for yourself. Surely you understand that there's a wide spectrum between
watching a film on a laptop with built-in speakers and the true theatre
experience you mentioned.

Personally, I use a good projector and a high quality audio system in my
living room and while not typical, I'd consider it far from unusual. Degrading
any media consumption that happens at home in a blanket statement really
doesn't add anything to the discussion.

------
TaylorGood
I had posted on Twitter from a comment here that "good cinema is good cinema
no matter the release medium" – a hollywood writer targeted my tweet in
regards to Spielberg comments.

He said: "His argument is that the very definition of “cinema” is the movie
theater. Are you saying that a very good film shot and released on NBC should
be allowed entry to the Oscars? That’s what the Globes and Emmys are for."

So I said: The source of production and viewing outlet is less relevant than
10 years ago. At 30,000 feet the end user would say a movie is a movie and,
some don’t prefer a movie theatre.

His response: "So you’re saying that TV movies should be eligible for Oscars?
And, if so, should the Emmy awards for those films be eliminated?"

My response: "No, I’m not saying any of that. I’m not in that industry. A
movie is a movie to me and most the world. That’s all"

The bottom line: Strong opinions and ego are flaming internal Hollywood
politics, which, are disregarding the enduser.

~~~
Raphmedia
> The source of production and viewing outlet is less relevant than 10 years
> ago.

I couldn't agree more.

My living room tv is a 65" 4K monitor. It cost me around $999 during sales.

The perceived size of that screen at such a low distance gives the impression
of looking at a bigger screen that the one at the local cinema.

We watch Netflix on it using two pairs of high quality headphones.

This results in a better viewing experience than going to the cinema. If I
really felt like going there, I would simply burn some butter in a pan and
play some crying children sounds in the background.

~~~
adventured
And next up, plausibly even better ways to simulate massive viewing at home
via virtual reality tech getting perpetually better.

Obviously home projection tech is amazing now as well, if one wants to leave
the glass behind.

~~~
fein
A 110" wide powered projector screen and a decent 1080p projector will run you
less than $1000.

I did my full setup for about $730 with an Optoma HD27. Have not used the TV
since.

~~~
jlewallen
I did the same when I moved into a smaller 1 bedroom and had to choose between
having a television or my small apartment woodshop. It's been great.

~~~
arkades
That does not sound great for your lungs.

~~~
fein
That's why we have respirators.

As long as the apartment wood shop isn't heavily used for sanding, it will be
fine. I have a full garage woodshop and still do sanding out in the front
yard, even in the winter. I built a bar top and did the sanding in the garage;
was brushing sawdust off of everything in there for weeks.

~~~
arkades
I don’t really like giving out healthcare advice on the Internet. But also...
I feel bad for folks being harmed. I’m an amateur woodworker and a non-amateur
medical professional, so I’ve looked into this topic for my own self. Putting
on the n95 while you’re sanding isn’t sufficient in that sort of environment.

But I’d really rather you didn’t take my word for it: perhaps you’d consider
reaching out to a pulmonologist with experience in carpenters’ occupational
lung diseases, and get their take on it?

Spoken, honestly, as one stranger wishing another no harm.

~~~
fein
I don't use the n95's, I use the dual filter half mask respirators.

Similar to this: [http://a.co/1jM2zu6](http://a.co/1jM2zu6)

~~~
arkades
That’s still N95 with respect to particulate filtration. P95, to split hairs,
but equivalent with respect to the topic at hand.

------
Kadin
An impressive shot... at their own foot.

The only thing Cannes is going to hurt in the long run is its own relevance
within global popular culture. If they want to restrict themselves to movies
that have been shown in French theaters as defined and regulated by the French
government etc. etc., I suppose it's their prerogative to do so.

But they are sticking their heads in the sand if they don't realize that
audiences are less interested in that particular subset of media than ever. (I
don't think movie theaters will ever go away, at least not soon, but using
them as part of the definition for "what is a movie" is stupid.)

I hope that Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Hulu, and others will continue to spend
money on good cinema and continue to deliver it audiences in the way that
audiences want to watch it. If they play the long game, they're going to win.
Let the industry crusties pat each other on the back (this is politer than the
metaphor I was originally going to use) at their awards -- audiences have an
appetite for good storytelling and money to spend on it.

~~~
pradn
Cannes has little to do with popular culture. It's an elite event, open to
industry insiders and artists. A regular person can't just buy a ticket to go
to Cannes anyway.

The situation is roughly analogous to the US Academy requiring movies to play
in the US for some time. (There are more restrictions, but it's in a similar
spirit.)

~~~
rurban
Actually they can. Just take part in what's called the Int. Cinephile Society
with a lot of older French folks showing up at the screenings there. Many of
them don't know how to queue up, constantly jumping the line, so they are not
very much liked there. Typical waiting period is one hour in the line.

------
dumbfounder
Goodbye Cannes and Oscars. You do this and you will make yourselves
irrelevant.

~~~
sddfd
I don't think so.

Netflix, Amazon, etc. have some great entertainment, but they seem to avoid
serious, emotional, social, and political topics.

Instead they keep producing tons of supernatural/superhero series.

That kind of stuff was never particularly popular at Cannes anyway.

I guess what I am saying is that even though they share the medium, they do
very different things with it.

~~~
BookmarkSaver
> Instead they keep producing tons of supernatural/superhero series.

No, that's just the stuff that is most popular and visible, just like in
almost every other venue of the film industry. Dig slightly deeper, just like
in actual cinema screenings, and they offer plenty of lower-key content.

~~~
sddfd
So you are saying my recommendations are off?

~~~
TheJoYo
i don't even use netflix recommendations. cinesift.com is one way to find
stuff, but really anything but netflix for netflix recommendations.

~~~
TheJoYo
i guess it's called [https://flickmetrix.com/](https://flickmetrix.com/) now

------
wwweston
I'm going to push back on the case that this kind of exclusion would somehow
make these awards / festivals irrelevant. That's unlikely. The power of the
recognition they extend has much less to do with how broadly inclusive they
are; it has much more to do with whether whatever they put the spotlight on is
something that resonates with general audiences, with enthusiasts, and with
others who work in the medium. As long as Cannes and the Oscars are
functioning well as one kind of curator, they'll probably remain relevant.

Now, if those left out were to start some sort of new award or festival, and
it were to become as reliable a curator of attention as the currently
prestigious festivals and awards. Or if it became more so. You'd need the
participation of services that have a broad reach, who could draw attention to
it, if only there were a few of those left out in the cold for pushing their
new model who might want to do such a thing...

~~~
AJ007
One of the differences of being in my 30s, rather than 20s, is discovering
things I thought were very relevant and influential are sometimes totally
unknown.

In the short term, Cannes and the Oscars may be very relevant. Yet, if
something were to happen where they lost relevance for a younger generation,
in another decade or two not only the relevance will have vanished but so to
would much of the popular awareness they even existed.

------
bubblethink
Banning users from enjoying art because they use vpns or don't care for DRM is
also wrong. It's hard to care about what feuds traditional studios and these
streaming companies get into. They deserve each other.

------
twblalock
This is a prime example of an industry responding the wrong way to being
disrupted.

------
PeanutNore
I've read elsewhere that film festivals like Cannes also perform a vital
business function for independent filmmakers whereby distributors attend to
find movies they want to buy the rights to distribute to more theaters in
various countries, and filmmakers bring their movies there seeking this to try
and get their film onto more screens.

For Netflix and Amazon exclusives, this part of the film festival is
completely irrelevant, and I would imagine that the people who use film
festivals to shop for independent films to distribute would rather not waste
their time,

------
hbnyc
This is ripe for a new awards ceremony inclusive of all platforms.

~~~
acchow
IMDB should host one :)

~~~
Slippery_John
Potential conflict of interest since IMDB is owned by Amazon.

------
adventured
Given the disaster ratings at the latest Oscars, Netflix and Amazon might just
as well go ahead and start their own new awards shows and lock out old
Hollywood. It's obvious who has the power now, old Hollywood is a little dog
barking at a couple of tigers.

"Oscars Drop to All-Time Low 26.5 Million Viewers"

[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-
oscar...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-oscars-eye-
new-low-early-numbers-1091636)

~~~
philwelch
26.5 million viewers is still a lot for something that is neither a sporting
event nor a Presidential address, inauguration, or debate. It’s enough that
other networks will schedule around it rather than going head to head.

~~~
crysin
Unless you're AMC.

------
otaviokz
They should just create their own awards, you know, with black jack and
hookers. Seriously though, anything that curves to Hollywood's caprices isn't
that great anyway.

------
butterfi
As an avid movie watcher, this means nothing to me. Gatekeep your self-
indulgent, self-congratulatory, award shows. Pontificate all you want about
what "film" is or isn't. I'm not going to movie theaters on a regular basis
because they are noisy, expensive, and often not worth the price a premium
ticket. The genie is out of the bottle.

------
WheelsAtLarge
Seems to me that it's only a matter of time before these festivals open the
way to streaming services. They are dominating the creation of episodic
content simply because of the money they are spending. Festivals can't ignore
all that content. Also, streaming services can just start there own and stream
it which givis them more content.

------
bdreadz
Just make good content. Make a new award ceremony. Invite everyone.

------
androck1
The Post's article has more details and a link to the original source (which
is behind a paywall): [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2018/03/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2018/03/26/cannes-film-festival-bans-netflix-films-from-competition-
also-no-more-selfies)

Sounds like the core of the issue involves "French cultural exception" which
"mandates a 36-month delay between a movie’s theatrical release and streaming
date."

It's not clear to me if Cannes cares about the 36-month period (I can't
imagine...) as much as theatrical release. If the latter, films like
Manchester by the Sea which were released in the theaters would still compete
at Cannes.

Seems absurd, particularly that this is enshrined in law, but that's just me.

