Netflix '06

Netflix grew more than any company in the film industry last year. So, I was intrigued by this article on their current thinking and direction. Personally, I think it's clear their current business model has a limited lifespan. It's only a matter of time before DVDs go the way of vinyl and VHS. But for now, the digital distribution models are not taking hold because there are broadband issues that still need to be resolved and, at this point, most everyone still watches most of their entertainment through cable on TVs because the computer screens are still used primarily for what I'll call "traditional purposes" small screen delivery of applications, web browsing and music... not to mention sex.

In a few years these distinctions will break down and any successful content distributor will need to do so digitally. For now, it's all about Netflix. It's the best alternative out there right now. I left last year, when they started throttling me and went to Blockbuster. Blockbuster is too slow, even without the throttling factor, so, I returned to Netflix. I'm able to watch a full DVD, often with features like commentary tracks and other stuff that makes the mystery behind movie-making so accessible, almost every day for under $20./month.

This fits my lifestyle, and apparently that of many others, since the company's stock tripled last year. Consumers want control. We all want control. We want to watch films on our own timetable. Why should I run my life around theater schedules, traffic, or even VOD rules, which usually force you to watch the whole movie at once, or in one day. With Netflix, I keep the film as long as it takes me to view it, I can stop it, rewind, watch one scene twenty times, skip another entirely. I view the film the way I want to view it, when I want to view it.

You may have noticed I never review the theatrical run of a film, only the DVD, because in addition to the reasons I just mentioned, I want to be able to do a full review of a film, including the deleted scenes and comments of the director, actors, writers, cinematographers and everybody else whose views I've heard expressed on these invaluable tracks.

Seems Reed Hastings and the Netflix guys are typical Valley ideologues who want a revolution. They want a seat at the table, they want to democratize film. They are doing it. Their business model is intimately tied to the trend toward indie films, to public desire for independent art, particularly in music and film. They are responding to to the disconnect Hollywood had with the American public for twenty years preceding Napster. Napster and its progeny brought the public an awareness of the corporate structure shaping the product that was supposed to pass for American art and culture. Our music and film had become pablum, so when artists started responding with something real, and avenues started to develop to distribute it, Madison Avenue and Hollywood were eventually forced to respond.

But meanwhile, Silicon Valley has increasingly realized its own power on this field. I've lived in Silicon Valley a long time and it's a very cyclical place. The last few years of the past two decades saw wild growth, followed by depression and then a deceptive calm before things go crazy again. In another few years (especially if it's Hillary in '08), we're gonna be drunk with power again around here when all these geeks move from the dry, quantitative stuff into content. Welcome to the new Hollywood baby, don't forget where your new king, Steve Jobs, lives. For now, The VCs are still scared shit of content because their poster boy is still Hollywood's whipping post. If Hank Barry and John Hummer are cleared, and they should be, things could change and the vultures could get a taste of the big cash that awaits them.

It's gonna be wild and Netflix will be a big player, if they can fend off a challenge from Amazon, who seems most interested in taking the second big direct attack (Blockbuster being the first). They also need to watch Google, who is clearly going for the young, indie filmmakers. Any big internet company not looking at indie filmmakers today, will be sorry tomorrow, and they are starting to know it.

Being a smart, forward looking company (hey, at least they tried some VOD), Netflix is now going into development and trying to do more with their user data. Just don't make the mistake of producing by numbers and committee or you'll end up where Hollywood is now, films that show no real heart and vision. When the director's vision is undermined too much, the film always suffers. The audience intuitively picks up on the disconnect.

Netflix rents only 30% new releases and the rest is catalog (unlike brick and mortar stores which typically rent 70% new releases), showing that Netflix users are getting enough product to start reaching out. I like to watch the big budget pictures too, and once I have, I have more time to check out smaller films. People will watch the heavily promoted films, they're often very good. Here's the concept that those in control of these huge media conglomerates never seem to get. There is relatively little penetration. The powers that be look at this as a zero sum game, even though it's not, and that's what causes so much of the problem.

While consumers may not spend much more on entertainment than they have in the past, they do have the ability to consume far more and better content. They want to do so, and they will pay for it. There is so much more room in the marketplace for good quality content than is recognized by the big players because they are so intent on keeping the bucks they had before and from the same sources. They refuse to accede to the desire of consumers to spend their entertainment dollars in ways that respect their autonomy.

Take the issue of video windows. Netflix is on the right side of this, demanding these onerous windows, which force people to see a film on the big screen or wait six months to see it at all, to close up. Even though the grosses for home video/DVD are now over three times the size of box office receipts ($10B), all the studios can see is the threat to box office receipts. They are far more attuned to their margins than gross sales. Stop looking at your price points and start looking to overall revenue and alternate revenue streams. Instead of putting all your upfront investment, our equivalent of R&D, into production, use it for development of new business models.

Separate Lies

This DVD is worth getting for the commentary track alone. It's all so British I felt like I was in some Noel Coward play. Julian Fellowes, first time director, Oscar-winning writer of Gosford Park, showed an interesting blend of British haughtiness and sensitive introspection. He also wrote the screenplay, based loosely on a novel, that explores, as one might expect, separate lies, and the separate lives and perspectives from which they spring. The lies start falling like bricks from a crumbling building once Anne, played by Emily Watson, accidently runs over a neighbor.

She holds her secret a bit until her husband, James (Tom Wilkinson) begins to suspect their bachelor neighbor Bill, (Rupert Everett) was at the wheel. During an all too Martha Stewart-like chopping session, she admits to her husband first, that she was with Bill when the man was hit, then that she was driving (Great Gatsby anyone?) and then that, OK, she fucks Bill. Hubby barfs and then his moral dilemmas begin. Seems that James was all for "doing the right thing" and turning Bill in, even before he knew he was fucking his wife. But, now that his wife is the driver, well, how would that look for a rich, important barrister to have a hit-and-run wife?

So, the lies begin. It's an interesting exploration of morality because, although we have affairs and even a killing, there are no real villains. Fellowes himself says when he's asked who the audience is supposed to root for, his answer is "all of them". One would think the adulterous, reckless Anne would come off pretty badly but we understand her affair. James is a straight up, hardworking guy but insensitive, removed. I can't put it any better than Fellowes who describes the situation as one where Anne is diminished, nothing she ever does is quite right. With Bill, she can breathe. We also forgive the accident, as does the victim's wife, because Anne shows true contrition and wants to confess.

Bill, one might think, could also be viewed askew, he doesn't much care about conventions or black and white morality. He shows no remorse for having the affair. However, I find James, who tries to follow all the rules, until he himself ends up in bed with his secretary, to be the least sympathetic because he represents that rigid, arrogant, rich, upper crust mentality that just assumes everyone should show the benefit of breeding. Anyway, the lies all intertwine like filigree, as we watch how the different characters deal with dishonesty.

We see the impact of each lie as the truth is revealed. Don't we all live lives of little lies we don't even see? Sometimes all the little lies add up to a very dishonest life. We compromise to coexist, we end up as people we never set out to be, we say it's OK when it's not, pretend we're happy when we're not. No one lives without lies and we all have to make judgments every day about how to juggle the various facts and fallacies of our lives. Sometimes people don't even know when they are lying to themselves or others. Lies come from fear. When we tell the truth, we often hear it in return, and the fear of that keeps many in the darkness of secrets and lies.

Who is more honest, the person who tries to follow the rules, but who lives a life of uncomfortable compromise, or someone who flaunts conventions but is willing to present himself as he really is? For me, the latter. Who's more honest, the person who has the affair or the one who lives as though he's happily married when he's not? For me, these murky moral issues become clear when you look for the fear. If you look, you'll find the fear. In my opinion, fear is the measure of a man. Don't look for the lies, we all lie. Look for the fear, that will tell you the trustworthiness of the man.

Valley Fog Blog

The following is the welcome to my newest blog, which is, yes, Valley Fog Blog.

This blog is all about the film Valley Fog and the long, slow, tortuous history of its route to fruition. As I recall, the idea to do an independent film preceded the actual concept for the film. I was going through a period of creativity which, not coincidentally, came around the time of my divorce. I was exploring several other mediums at the time: music, blogging and painting. Film was the natural fourth, I've been a film buff most of my life.

What made it all feasible was that the barriers to entry for making a good looking, quality film were coming down. I realized it would be possible to tell my story on film for a fairly modest price... but, what story? They say write what you know and that's exactly what I did... finally, about two years later.. when I finally started writing scripts like a dervish. First I had to try several, let's just long tortuous routes, such as trying to get actors to improvise my drama on a line by line basis and generally, learn a lot of lessons the hard way. All of this along with my teenage son, who will probably go on to tell the story in his own way in a few years, and probably with a budget a million times the size.

But, back to the beginning. We started the project in earnest about a year ago, filmed with a cast of four and a crew of three over a few weekends last winter. At that point, with all the issues surrounding the demise of my own marriage fresh in my mind and wanting expression, we focused on the relationships. There was a married, interracial couple, Jason and Shari, fighting over kids, who were having an engaged couple, Greta and Nick, over for lunch. We had no script (that's one lesson I learned the hard way... never again!) and I spent endless hours with the actors going over the intricacies of their various and twisted histories with and without each other... let's just say it was "complicated".

After one of the actors moved out of the area, I shelved the project. I didn't really have enough footage to make anything, despite my occasional lame comments to my son that we did. Finally, I figured out how to use the original story and make a feature out of it without using the actor that had moved. So, about a year after the original shoots, with a much bigger cast and crew, including two of the original actors, we continued the story of the original luncheon by showing the various friends of the foursome discussing it, and what happened, primarily the fact that Jason and Greta end up kissing each other. Then there are additional scenes to illustrate more of the mentality of Silicon Valley and the merging of worlds that happens when Jason's corporate type friends interact with Greta's cool band mates.

There was also more exploration of the way relationships and affairs are viewed by various constituencies, from Shari's PTA mom friends, to the San Francisco independent film community. I also tackle current issues going on in Silicon Valley today surrounding the new distribution mediums for music and film. The company Jason and his buddies work for is "Lime", a thinly veiled Apple-like company which, in the fantasy world of film would be sporting the lime slice that for many is the international symbol of revolution, taken from Limewire.

We see a culture of arrogant executives seeking, or should I say, sucking, the fresh views of the young filmmakers but also wanting to sell them on the corporate values they embody. The young indies recognize the sell-outs for their internal emptiness and lack of creativity, but also try to figure out how long they can hold onto their freedom and expressiveness in a world where money can be made in many different ways from content they provide.

Below is the current draft of the official Valley Fog synopsis:

Valley Fog

Are the elite of Silicon Valley on the cutting edge or do they live in a fog of distorted values? Are those shaping the future of electronic entertainment clearly seeing the needs of the consumer or are they blinded by dead marriages and the desire for stature?

Jason Sanville is a man who grew up with everything and succeeded as a professional musician, a start-up entrepreneur and as an executive at a high profile Silicon Valley company. He has an artistic, intelligent wife, two beautiful kids, a big house in Palo Alto and all the perks of life. But, he is restless and unhappy. His wife is bored and frustrated. They can’t get along.

One day an old friend and former business partner, Nick brings over his bohemian fiancé, Greta. Jason, feeling threatened by Nick, ends up kissing Greta over a game of chess in his family room. Finally, it seems someone cares about him in a genuine and free way.

This gets him thinking about his lost career in music. He asks some of his co-workers if they would like to put together a cover band, the Limetimes, and while they are having lunch, Jason sees Greta. They reconnect and she tells Jason she will be singing at a new, hot nightclub nearby. He comes to see her play and that night they go back to his house while his wife and kids are out of town. Before long, Greta’s band mates, a group of San Francisco artists and filmmakers, show up and things get pretty wild.

The next morning finds them over croissants discussing the evening and saying goodbye at the train, but who knows if the goodbye is final? Jason has never felt more alive. He has finally regained some real connection to his creative self and clearly wants more. Greta doesn’t want to become a cliché or sacrifice her spiritual and emotional needs to become “the other woman”, but is also attracted to Jason and wants to bring out the best in him.

North Country

Although the crooning Reese Witherspoon, is supposedly a lock for Best Actress this year, Charlize Theron turns in another dead-on dramatic performance in this look at sexism and sex in northern Minnesota mining country. In a normal year, this film and Cinderella Man would have gotten far more attention. But, this was a year to honor gays as a group worthy to be considered an oppressed minority.

Unfortunately, these days it takes a lot more than a twenty year old lawsuit to focus on us the problems women face in this world. This film makes it all too easy to say, yeah, well maybe in the past men could get away with tipping women in porta-potties over on the job, but they could never get away with that again. Maybe in northern Minnesota they can get away with scrawling pictures on the wall of blow jobs, but not around here. Maybe in the 80's women were still afraid to tell anyone when they were raped by a teacher, but, not now.

Maybe this film was overlooked because no one wants to talk about sexism any more. The young women say it doesn't exist. The schools are almost back in the business of openly promoting boys again because it's becoming increasingly obvious they can't compete with girls in the academic environment, particularly at early ages.

North Country is a fabulous film and I find it sad that it was shut out by newer, sexier causes. Sure, gays need rights, and blacks and Hispanics and Arabs, and just about everyone else in some way or another, and sexism gets lumped in right along with prejudice against the overweight and everything else. But, I've always seen this issue in a bigger way. Men and women have to deal with each other in a way the other sub-groups can avoid. Issues between the sexes permeate our society in a different way. While those with small, closed minds can often just avoid dealing with certain race issues, or homosexuality, we all have to interact with members of the "opposite" sex. I mean the terminology gives it away, doesn't it?

The sexes are divided by silence and ignorance that still exists all around us today. As long as we have a society that hides its fears and normal, human urges behind veils we will continue to dehumanize sex and degrade women for owning their sexuality, or as was portrayed in this film, simply for being a young, attractive woman.

Rent

Although director Chris Columbus protested that a critic can't change his vote, I agree with Roger Ebert that Rent, the movie, now on DVD, is probably best for Rentheads. I'm assuming this is the rough equivalent of a Deadhead, Trekkie and whatever they call the Rocky Horror Picture Show fanatics. Although I'm a fan of musical theatre, I'm also an advocate of filmmakers taking Broadway hits into the real world. I liked what Milos Foreman did with Hair and what Rob Marshall did with Chicago. While this was a very true rendition of the play, it just didn't really add that special justification for making it a movie.

What I did love is the story of Rent and the way it highlights the bohemian lifestyle and what it means. This subject is especially near and dear to my heart right now as we just wrapped my own indie film; Valley Fog, which is also about the bohemian lifestyle. So, what exactly is "La Vie Boheme" that the cast sings about? These are the artists. This is the counterculture. This is the very small group of people, in every society, that directly questions the prevailing values embodied in the culture around them. While the bohemians in Rent live the total underclass lifestyle in an aids and drug-ridden squat in 1989 NYC, the lifestyle has been shown more recently in a film called "Undiscovered", which is about a young musician facing the industry.

Undiscovered and Rent have the typical antagonists, the A&R guy, the landlord, the people who want to rape your talent, who want you and need you to sell out. Valley Fog takes this into Silicon Valley as we see these executive level guys exploring the young SF talent in filmmaking. It's the same vampire game shown so brilliantly in The Graduate; the older, established, burdened, trapped generation trying to suck the life out of the young in order to justify their own sad, fearful decisions. I think Rent is too sad. And, with the story coming out of the Reagan era, it is understandably sad. We are at a similar point today, with the conservative right in full control.

Don't ask about our bohemia today. It doesn't seem to have a strong voice these days. Although the powerful boomers have stood up to the plate with an enormous slate of films this year, and we have label-supported Green Day, Howard Stern, Bram Cohen, and the hackers, I would not call any of that particularly bohemian. We need a grass roots artistic movement and about the closest thing to it that I can see right now, other than possibly the true hip-hop (as opposed to the 50Cent manufactured type) community, also in SF, is the indie film community which is burgeoning beautifully through the film schools, websites, festivals and operations like CinemaSport. This is where many of the brilliant new ideas and observations are springing to life today. So, in the words of Rent, "Viva La Vie Boheme!".

Broken Flowers

More like broken movie... what is this, some ADHD test for the insane? Every shot in this deadly film was static, silent and way, way too long. It's movies like this that make me glad I don't sink ten bucks up front just because Bill Murray was good in his last movie. Yeah, he's got that deadpan look down pat. It looks like his whole face was dipped in Botox. Any small facial expression would have been appreciated in this bore fest.

He meanders aimlessly from one very slow, quiet old girlfriend to the next even slower, quieter ones looking for meaning and a child he never met, who may be looking for him. It's a good concept, but one I'll never be awake enough to see fulfilled in this movie (and I use that term loosely). Music, a pan, anything. I'm now watching some close up take ten seconds to zoom in on Bill sleeping in a plane. Fascinating stuff. What, is this a student film? Maybe that's why there's no director's commentary, or any commentary, or any movement.

As with In Her Shoes and the trendy hook of shoes running throughout.... this one has... you got it... broken flowers. I'm sure they represent something deep and meaningful about life, boring lives, lives that are slow and boring. Yes, now I think I understand what the director is trying to say. Stop, slow down, smell the broken flowers. Life is painful and disconnected and my boring film is so much better. OK, got it.

In Her Shoes

Songs that are designed to become big pop hits must have a hook. I guess it's the same for films. In this sentimental big budget comedy with Oscar darling Toni Collette and the ever bankable Cameron Diaz, the hook is shoes. If you don't pick up on that from the title, there's the closet containing countless pairs and of course the big line for the trailer; clothes never look good, food makes you fat, but shoes always fit... or something like that.

It's the story of two sisters dealing with the legacy of a mother who committed suicide in a single car accident when they were small children. I really started relating to the film at this point because I'm familiar with a real life incident like this and I do wonder about the kids and how they grow up wondering about the "crash" that killed their mother. It's hard enough to lose a parent but these two girls had to grow up surrounded by the lie that their mother was killed accidentally when in reality she was mentally ill and committed suicide. Even in progressive towns today, there is still great denial and shame and whispering. If one dies of a physical disease, it's one thing, but we still attach great stigma to mental illness.

What's also interesting is how different these sisters are (yes, they have only their SHOE size in common). Diaz is dumb and dyslexic, Toni is the plain, studious lawyer. But, although Toni is very functional, she can't really connect with Mister Right and carries great pain. The sisters do discover some truth and connection along the way.

There's no commentary track and Shirley MacLaine sleepwalks through this, but, I guess it's worth a pick on Netflix.