MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Mummy’s Boy Klady

IMG_9494

So the question of the week seems to be whether The Mummy will, somehow, be affected by its uniformly lousy reviews. And so far, so minimally off tracking. In other words… not a trend.

What has been unique this summer so far is the unanimity of harsh negativity for so much product. I will be doing a fuller analysis of this next week when I am back at my desktop.

More to come… probably…

55 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Mummy’s Boy Klady”

  1. Chucky says:

    The Mummy = Pointless Remake + Mr. Scientology.

    It Comes at Night = Unoriginal + Standard Hard Sell.

    Meagan Leavey = Military Worship.

    And most spectacularly …

    My Cousin Rachel = Academy Award Winner.

    Put them all together and they scream Epic Fail on the level of Theresa May over in the U.K.

  2. Bob Burns says:

    the WW hold is the story.

  3. Stella's Boy says:

    Ethan what happened to It Comes at Night’s $20 million opening?

  4. Geoff says:

    Wonder Woman holding that well IS a pretty big story – granted the competition is pretty weak overall – but for a big comic book movie to drop less than 50% doesn’t happen very often does it? According Scott Mendelson from Forbes, it’s playing more like a Disney Princess story than a superhero film….not sure I like that comparison very much but I’m sure WB will take it.

    As it stands, it’s now pacing ahead of the first Guardians, Iron Man, and Man of Steel so $300 million domestic is looking pretty likely….maybe it even edges ahead of the other DCEU films so far and tops $330 million domestic. Internationally, who knows? You have Cruise tearing shit up now and the Transformers coming soon….

    But yeah UGLY summer overall so far at the American box office: Guardians 2 is grossing on par with what was expected, Wonder Woman is over-performing, and everything else is performing well below expectations…Pirates, Alien, Baywatch, King Arthur, Mummy…I don’t know, is there REALLY a clamor for a new Transformers movie or Cars sequel?

  5. Sideshow Bill says:

    It Comes At Night’s Cinemascore is a D. Whoa.

    I’ll still see it but general audiences didn’t embrace it at all.

  6. Geoff says:

    And to be fair to Ethan, It Comes At Night DID seem really buzzed about a few weeks ago….and considering how Split and Get Out opened earlier this year, $20 million could have been a real possibility.

  7. Dr Wally Rises says:

    I said it in the Mummy review thread, but man, what a sorry bunch of movies. Happily, I’m looking forward to Dunkirk, Homecoming, Apes, Detroit and Baby Driver over the next couple of months, but for now I’m not venturing near a theater.

  8. PTA Fluffer says:

    Feature films and the theatrical moviegoing experience are rapidly losing their cultural significance. The product the industry is serving up (at $300 million a pop for dreck like The Mummy) certainly isn’t helping.

  9. palmtree says:

    Yes the hold. A 40% hold on a $100m opening is incredible. That means you have repeat viewers and word of mouth… that means you have legs. Heck, who knows where this could end up.

  10. Stella's Boy says:

    I’m not trying to pick on Ethan. Just wondering what he makes of the opening as he indicated It Comes at Night was tracking very well. I don’t think it was the easy sell that Split and Get Out were.

  11. TrackerBacker says:

    Ethan was completely wrong about how It Comes at Night was tracking, as I suggested a couple of weeks ago. No legitimate tracking service was projecting anywhere near 20 million.

  12. Arisp says:

    It comes at night cinemascore means people were expecting some genre retread, instead if something different and slow burn and unsettling. It just proves how moviegoers are mostly stupid.

  13. Stella's Boy says:

    Similar to The Witch right Arisp?

  14. Sideshow Bill says:

    ” It just proves how moviegoers are mostly stupid.”

    True. The mostly stupid come at night…mostly.

    I can’t wait to see it. And I didn’t find the ending of The Witch bleak myself. I found it…uplifting, maybe? Maybe not if taken literally but symbollically she was freed. Then again I have a freakish adoration for that film.

  15. Js partisan says:

    Cars 3, is secretly a movie about female empowerment. They aren’t marketing it this way, but that’s what the movie is about… Which is trippy as hell. This alone, makes me feel Cars 3 is going to make some bank.

    Now, with Transformers, it’s going to be big in China. That’s about it.

  16. Movieman says:

    Did Michael Bay cut a half hour out of “Transformers 5″?
    I’d been reading 182 minutes (!!), but now I saw a run time of just (just!) two-and-a-half hours. Fingers crossed.

    “It Comes” proves that Shults can do genre as well as anyone. Now I’d like to see him try his hand at comedy after helming two uber intense emotional workouts.
    My only real disappointment was the undernourished female roles, especially after Shults having written one of the juiciest female lead roles in recent memory w/ “Krisha.” It’s not like Ejogo and Keough weren’t up to the task.
    Not remotely surprised by that CinemaScore “D,” though. Figured it would go over like a lead balloon with multiplex audiences.

    “The Mummy” was a colossal bust. And I was actually thinking it might be a fun Popcorn Movie on the basis of the inescapable trailer. Found it overproduced (like just about every 21st century tentpole wannabe), and underwhelming. Only Jake Johnson put a smile on my face.

    Surprised “Megan Leavey” didn’t open better. I’m guessing Bleecker didn’t do a whole lot of marketing to Christian groups (usually an easy mark for “inspirational,” military-themed films). Or could it be a Trump thing?

    Also surprised that “My Cousin Rachel” laid an egg. It looked like the kind of upscale British period piece that’s traditionally catnip for older audiences. Maybe it’ll have legs?

  17. Geoff says:

    JS,I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious about Cars 3 or not.

  18. Michael says:

    The chart is wrong about WW. 38.2 to 15.8 isn’t 40%. It’s about 59% percent. Still good as by the time the weekend is over the drop will be about 50% which is good.

  19. Pete B says:

    Sideshow,
    I agree with you on The Witch. She was now in control of her own fate, which is something she otherwise never would be. The film opens on her face in a state of bewilderment/fear and ends on her face in a state of euphoria.

  20. Mike says:

    I thought there was a moment after the euphoria that could be read as something else. Regret? Sadness? Dread? Not sure, but it stuck with me.

  21. Monco says:

    Since the movie makes the witch real it is valid to take the ending literally.

    And I dug It Comes At Night. It’s becoming better the more I think about it.

  22. Va says:

    If Wonder Woman appeals to teenage girls, it might stay for months. Nearly every year there is a summer movie that appeals to female audiences that predictions underestimated.

    When the end of The Witch said it was based on diaries, I took that as a mass hallucination not any truth. Something like Ergot poisoning from a fungus in bread that was common in the middle ages.

  23. Pete B says:

    But does the “mass hallucination” explain the sequence with baby Samuel and the old crone?

    I figured Eggers put in the broom lube scene to signify that there was indeed evil in the woods.

  24. Js partisan says:

    Geoff, that’s what the story is about. It’s not about Lightning, as much as it’s about Cruz Martinez. Seriously. I was shocked, but that’s the theme as much, as anything else.

  25. leahnz says:

    funny how mass hallucinations (the toxic fungus in bread and beer was a real thing) and other such delusions so often ended with women being burned alive (there’s nothing in the movie to suggest such a scenario though, i actually mentioned the same thing here on my first viewing since i thought it could be a plot point after reading about the toxic fungus in some research)

    i just re-watched ‘the witch’ (third time) a few days ago cuz i kind of can’t stand it for the ending and wanted to see if i was harsh, but no.
    i can’t even imagine how people interpret the ending as tomasin being ‘free’ and ‘in control’ when she literally becomes a (conveniently naked) minion of satan in a coven with a penchant for eating babies.
    as she ascends, getting higher and higher, her face goes from a sort of shocked elation to contorting in a sinister way, alternating with what looks like fear and elation and uncertainty, so i also think she is in conflict re her fate when it comes right down to it, which i thought was a nice touch even tho i find the end cliché, inane, unimaginative and disappointing.

  26. palmtree says:

    “The chart is wrong about WW. 38.2 to 15.8 isn’t 40%.”

    Actually, WW earned $11m on Thursday as part of that $38m opening Friday. So if you subtract that, you get $27.2m.

    Then if you compare just the two Fridays, $27.2 vs. $15.8, you get a 42% drop.

  27. Pete B says:

    Leah, everyone has their own take on things, but mine was that Tomasin was just a commodity to her family. She was going to be bartered away for goods. So choosing Phillip was probably the first choice she ever got to make for herself in her whole life. I’m not saying it was a good choice.

    As for being naked, well that goes back to Adam & Eve. Religious folk usually have strict dress codes.

  28. leahnz says:

    wut

  29. EtGuild2 says:

    Yeah…..IT COMES AT NIGHT not only flatlined, even the normal tracking was way off. movieweb was still relying on an outlier and going with $17 million this week even though it seemed clear it wasn’t moving.

    Lol @trackerbracker, the same service nailed Wonder Woman’s opening though. The movie you said was tracking in a narrow range, but apparently needed an illegitimate service to predict its opening. Its good to know you have corporate tracking service brand loyalties though. As always, I appreciate your combination of bizarre aggression and willingness to ignore your own misstatements in interacting with me.

    Overall I’m super bummed about being so wrong on this and the CinemaScore. It performed even well below the low end of predictions. :'(

  30. Sideshow Bill says:

    Love all the talk about the ending to The Witch. I appreciate the different viewpoints and interpretations. But I remain with Pete B. She was going to be sold for goods, had no control and eventually had a chance to have control. Whether it’s the right or good choice is debatable but I see elation in her face in the final shot (and what a shot it is). Will she be damned to Hell? Probably. But for now she escaped her situation. I won’t go as far as to call it “feminist,” but I think it’s an empowering choice for the character considering the life she was stuck in. I just LOVE that film, man. I get flutters in my belly when I think about it. Everyone here knows that feeling.

    The “mass hallucination” thing takes me back, again, to A Field In England. I still can’t get over that movie. I need to watch it again.

  31. EtGuild2 says:

    I love the ending. BTW I can’t believe Wheatley and A24 haven’t hooked up yet, they seem made for each other in their willingness to alienate mainstream audiences with brilliant but aggressively uncommercial endings.

  32. Sideshow Bill says:

    Wheatley and A24 would make quite a match. I love his career trajectory thus far. He could have sold his soul and done a big Marvel movie movie or something by now (and probably make a good one) but he’s in his own groove. I haven’t seen Free Fire yet but it sounds like a bit of a lark.

  33. TrackerBacker says:

    A24 released Free Fire…

  34. EtGuild2 says:

    Good call! Wheatley’s “most commercial” release, but with another alienating ending. Definitely a lark though.

  35. Sideshow Bill says:

    “A24 released Free Fire…”

    Oops. My bad.

  36. leahnz says:

    hold the phone so tomasin, living in a climate of oppressive religious zealotry wherein she’s treated like chattel and unfairly blamed for the difficulties of the family, witnesses the various disappearances, deaths and murders of her family, esp her beloved father slaughtered by a goat – the very same goat who then literally reveals his true form as satan, thus pandering to the ridiculous religious fanaticism that the movie *appears* to hold a mirror up to until that point when it devolves into a silly bible-thumping cliché – but this is empowering, almost feminist film-making because tomasin finally gets to choose her fate, and instead of choosing actual freedom/escape in some form instead summons the devil and gets naked to become a misogynist religious cliché beholden to the evil personified who killed off her family, and this is seen as being in control, freeing and empowering? ok then

  37. Pete B says:

    Yep. Ain’t it great?

    I’m not always stuck out in the wilderness alone with no food, no horse, no gun, but when I am – I choose Black Phillip.

  38. leahnz says:

    nope, idiotic

  39. Sideshow Bill says:

    I’m very careful in what I call “feminist” because A) I’m a man, and B) I’m a single father raising 2 teenage lesbian feminist daughters who will call me out on bullshit. I stopped short of saying the ending was “feminist.” I also stated that it maybe wasn’t the right decision as she’s now in service to the Devil and will burn in Hell for eternity and whatnot. But she DID make the choice. And to my eyes she looked pretty happy with it. That’s my interpretation.

    My girls, who didn’t like the movie as much I did, agree that the ending showed a happy, empowered Tomasin. She was offered the choice and she took it, willingly.

    That’s my interpretation, leah, though I fully respect what you’re saying. Agree to disagree.

  40. cadavra says:

    Saw CARS 3 today. It’s almost literally an apology for #2, as if it never existed. And a key character is not only female but Latino (Cristela Alonzo).

    It. Will. Be. Huge.

  41. leahnz says:

    Sideshow Bill: for sure. critiquing art is a messy business – and i do feel quite a bit of disdain for the movie.
    it does seem (just purely anecdotally mind you) that it’s mostly men who get a bit bent out of shape about criticisms of ‘the witch’, while for example the women i saw it with the first time at a film festival, we just rolled our eyes at the end, it’s like really, ‘women are literally scary, evil witches, if you can’t beat em join em!’. this is an old and stale misogynist religious cliché. it would be nice to get a new take and not something so regressive
    the awful fact is, actual real-life women were persecuted and burned alive, drown and hung, mass murdered for going outside very narrow patriarchal religious boundaries in which their power and actions as people were attributed to ‘the devil’ and they were murdered for it, so it is a bit disturbing – and not a little ironic – to see dudes describe tomasin’s fate, in which she succumbs to literal evil in exchange for power, celebrated as ‘freeing’ and ’empowering’ (i’ve seen this elsewhere too not just here on the blog); there’s no subversion of a clichéd trope, it IS a clichéd trope (and considering historically for women with even just a modicum of power outside patriarchal structures, being accused of being a witch and slaughtered is not even a fictitious clichéd trope)

  42. Pete B says:

    Just read on Vulture that the goat who was Black Phillip has a cameo in It Comes at Night. That’s pretty darn cool A24!

    http://www.vulture.com/2017/06/the-goat-from-the-witch-also-appears-in-it-comes-at-night.html

  43. Sideshow Bill says:

    I get what you’re saying, leah. If I were viewing it with a different set of eyes –maybe even female eyes– I would see it differently. But I didn’t take her transformation as misogynist. A cliched trope? OK, maybe. But I just took it as a supernatural movie and now she’s a witch, in the classical “monster movie” sense. But if you take into account the real history of the witch trials then I can see your point. Especially since the movie goes to such great lengths to be authentic. Maybe it does try to have it’s cake and eat it, too. You’ve given me something to consider. But I still absolutely adore it.

    I do consider myself a feminist. And not just because I listen to Bikini KIll and love Kathleen Hanna and Sleater-Kinney. I have a genuine interest and concern for the lives and rights of women. Especially, as I said, raising 2 teen daughters who also happen to be gay. It’s a learning process. I get what your saying. Thank you for engaging and being respectful and clear. Good conversation.

  44. Mike says:

    My take on The Witch’s ending, was what other choices did she have? She could stay at the farm and probably die. She could try to make it to the settlement and probably die. Make it to the settlement and be taken in by another family and treated as a second-class servant. Make it to the settlement and be put to death for witchcraft. What were the other options she should have chose?

    I get what Leah is saying, but though it isn’t revolutionary, I thought The Witch defied convention. Most of these movies would have had her be the witch all along until the SHOCKING TWIST!!! or gone to witchcraft early in the movie. Here, the movie’s whole purpose is to show how a rational, God-fearing young woman would wind up in Satan’s arms because there were so few choices she could hope for in her life. It’s exactly because we know that so many real women have been tried and killed for witchcraft that we can appreciate her circumstances and hope for her future, even if we know that will cost her her soul.

  45. Sideshow Bill says:

    That’s the big thing for me too, Mike. It was about her choice. She finally HAD a choice. Whether she makes the right or wrong one can be debated. And I too get what leah doesn’t like about it. She’s even made me think and rethink about it in different terms. But to me it was about her having the power of choice.

    At the end of the day, as much as I view it as a real work of art, it’s still a “monster movie.” A witch movie. What leah says about the history of witches is true but in horror movie terms they’re still effective monsters (and heroes). Eggers has said his whole idea was what if a witch lived in the woods behind his house. In this movie there really is one. It’s at it’s very core a monster movie, above all else.

  46. Mike says:

    See, I took it less as a horror movie and more a play on the idea of “You’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t,” with magical elements. At the heart of the patriarchal Puritan fate is the idea that you’re already preordained to either be damned or go to heaven, and you can never know. So, even if you’re good all the time, it’s already been written that you could still be going to hell. And we know that the girl had doubts about the purity of her soul. Faced with the idea that you’re already damned, it changes the equation. Do you live as Godly as you can through hardship and possible death/hanging knowing that you’re probably already damned or do you take the worldly pleasures and submit to knowing for sure that you’re damned? It’s a Sophie’s choice that I find interesting.

  47. Sideshow Bill says:

    I love that take, Mike. It takes me to the hunting scene where the father asks Caleb about what his “corrupt nature is.” He says “”My corrupt nature is empty of grace, bent unto sin, only unto sin, and that continually.” They believe they’re damned no matter what. I’ve always felt that this idea invited the witch, and Black Phillip, into their lives.

    I’ve gotten a lot of different ways to think about it from this forum. I love it. Gonna watch the film again tonight. Even though I disagree with her conclusions I will keep leah’s thought’s in mind as I do.

  48. Pete B says:

    One last item from me on The Witch. I love that Tomasin flickers between exasperation, embarrassment, and bitterness when Phillip asks her to write her name in the book. She’s angry and ashamed that she can’t even sign her own name. That one scene alone proved that Anya Taylor-Joy is an actress to watch.

    She rocks the “speak true” scene as well.

  49. Sideshow Bill says:

    ^^^
    LIKE

  50. leahnz says:

    Sideshow Bill, i know you love this movie so the fact that you’re even willing to try to look at it through a different lens says a lot; you’re a sport and i suspect that this openness serves you well as a parent.

    (and i like the movie and the film-making style up until the end so maybe that’s why i’m so hard on it, otherwise i probably wouldn’t give a toss, taylor-joy is indeed excellent)

    interesting conversation and insights, lots of rationalising the story elements as told rather than looking at the film-making choices that lead to the story as told, which is what interests/vexes me. a couple thoughts to add:

    the idea that in the Puritan context tomasin is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t seems relevant, but to describe her as choosing ‘worldly pleasures’ before her possible damnation is where it goes off the rails because in the context of the movie the witch(es) are clearly literally minions of satan (why does everyone keeping referring to the devil as “Phillip”, this seems disingenuous, the intent of the film is clear: the goat is literally the devil in disguise) and the witches are portrayed as evil, luring succubus killers who do very, very bad things and wipe out tomasin’s family, much to her distress. in this narrative tomasin is fully aware, first-hand, of this fact before she makes her ‘choice’, so it’s bizarre to equate her choice – to sell her soul to become a murderous succubus – as choosing WORLDLY PLEASURE(?). her choice does not involve her going off to become some vague naked floaty forest nymph, she joins a coven of evil killers beholden to the devil. that this isn’t articulated anywhere above kind of illustrates this strange blind spot men appear to have re this movie: tomasin chooses the power of evil.

    the idea of ‘what choice does she have?’
    in that movies are written, even with the ridiculous literal ending tomasin had lots of theoretical choices; the one she makes – to sell her soul to the devil for evil supernatural power – portrays her as weak and submissive. she goes from being chattel in the real world of religious patriarchal hysteria and persecution to being chattel in the supernatural patriarchy of satan in his coven of killers. this ties into my original thoughts above; what could have been a story with something fresh to say becomes a misogynist cliché. woman who seek power are so often reduced to evil, power-hungry witches and tomasin – not matter how pretty and appealing – disappointingly joins their ranks

  51. Mike says:

    Leah, I can’t argue over the movie you wish they made rather than the movie they did make, and know that I’m not that big a fan of the movie, I just found it compelling and the ending left me thinking. In my view, it’s a movie about damnation. To have made it with an empowered female protagonist who breaks from a patriarchal society could have been good, but it wouldn’t have been the movie they set out to make. Nor do I feel it would have been genuine to the time period presented.

    A couple of points: the worldly pleasures thing is directly mentioned by Phillip or the devil in the butter line. And she makes mention of glass windows and other worldly pleasures at other points in the film. That is presented as part of her character. As for the sexual consorting with the devil, I read her face differently than others, as I’m not so sure she’s experiencing joy at the end.

    Also, you make it out that the witches are the only evil ones. While she may love her family, certainly her parents, but also her siblings, are presented as awful, mean people who tell her she is damned and falsely accuse her of being a witch. Her father ripped her from not one, but two separate communities where she had friends and an easier life. I’m not saying that they deserve to die or that they’re as evil, but nor are they presented as a loving family, either.

    Again, I go to the idea that in the film she is presented as someone given two shitty choices and she picked one. I could have easily seen the movie ending with her picking the other choice and also having it end horribly. What is the choice she should have made?

  52. Sideshow Bill says:

    Thank you, leah. I appreciate it. And I appreciate you continuing to expand upon your thoughts. I haven’t yet had a chance to watch it again but when I do i will keep these things in mind. Will they change my viewpoint? Probably not. But they are things to think about and i think you have valid thoughts.

    This is a great conversation, and why I love this forum more than most. No trolling or bullshit. Gets a little salty from time to time but that’s ok. Otherwise it’s serious talk about films and whatnot.

  53. leahnz says:

    this made me think if there’s ever been a movie i felt a certain way about and someone actually talked me out of it… there must be one but i honestly can’t think of any off the top of my head

    mike you’re argument is weird.
    “To have made it with an empowered female protagonist who breaks from a patriarchal society could have been good, but it wouldn’t have been the movie they set out to make. Nor do I feel it would have been genuine to the time period presented.”

    so headstrong, forthright character tomasin doing something OTHER than selling her soul to the devil doesn’t ring true/feel genuine to the time period? think about what you’re saying man
    and why is that exactly? what is it about tomasin – quite a capable, heartfelt, resourceful girl, until she’s not – that you think it’s more “genuine” for her to submit to satan.
    yes the problem is the story they “set out to tell” goes full retard (never go) and culminates in a tired cliché rather than taking it somewhere fresh and shocking and unseen before

  54. Mike says:

    That’s okay, I find your argument weird in that you completely ignore the puritan parts of the story, as though that weren’t an important element. Your argument is that choosing the devil is bad, but let’s not talk about what her other options were, let’s just assume there were others and they were awesome.

    So, what is this choice she should have made, because the ones I see are all bad, if you play fair to the setting? (And by genuine, I mean realistic in her survival skills ability with a witch/the devil trying to kill them all and realistic in how oppressive the puritan society was.)

    All I can come up with is:

    1) If she stayed where she was, she was probably dead and probably damned.
    2) If she headed back to the settlement, she was probably dead and probably damned.
    3) If she made it back to the settlement, she probably would have been tried for witchcraft, executed and probably damned.
    4) If she made it back to the settlement and somehow wasn’t tried and executed, she would have been a servant to another family, who would treat her like crap and probably damned.

    So my argument is there is no right choice, because nothing about the puritan world would have let her be a headstrong, forthright or resourseful woman. That is the genuine setting.

    And, as my assumption is THAT was the movie they set out to make, I thought they did it well.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“When Bay keeps these absurd plot-gears spinning, he’s displaying his skill as a slick, professional entertainer. But then there are the images of motion—I hesitate to say, of things in motion, because it’s not clear how many things there are in the movie, instead of mere digital simulations of things. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that there’s a car chase through London, seen from the level of tires, that could have gone on for an hour, um, tirelessly. What matters is that the defenestrated Cade saves himself by leaping from drone to drone in midair like a frog skipping among lotus pads; that he and Vivian slide along the colossal, polished expanses of sharply tilting age-old fields of metal like luge Olympians. What matters is that, when this heroic duo find themselves thrust out into the void of inner space from a collapsing planet, it has a terrifyingly vast emptiness that Bay doesn’t dare hold for more than an instant lest he become the nightmare-master. What matters is that the enormous thing hurtling toward Earth is composed in a fanatical detail that would repay slow-motion viewing with near-geological patience. Bay has an authentic sense of the gigantic; beside the playful enormity of his Transformerized universe, the ostensibly heroic dimensions of Ridley Scott’s and Christopher Nolan’s massive visions seem like petulant vanities.”
~ Michael Bay Gives Richard Brody A Tingle

How do you see film evolving in this age of Netflix?

I thought the swing would be quicker and more violent. There have been two landmark moments in the history of French film. First in 1946, with the creation of the CNC under the aegis of Malraux. He saved French cinema by establishing the advance on receipts and support fund mechanisms. We’re all children of this political invention. Americans think that the State gives money to French films, but they’re wrong. Through this system, films fund themselves!

The other great turning point came by the hand of Jack Lang in the 1980s, after the creation of Canal+. While television was getting ready to become the nemesis of film, he created the decoder, and a specific broadcasting space between film and television, using new investments for film. That once again saved French film.

These political decisions are important. We’re once again facing big change. If our political masters don’t take control of the situation and new stakeholders like Netflix, Google and Amazon, we’re headed for disaster. We need to create obligations for Internet service providers. They can’t always be against film. They used to allow piracy, but now that they’ve become producers themselves, they’re starting to see things in a different light. This is a moment of transition, a strong political act needs to be put forward. And it can’t just be at national level, it has to happen at European level.

Filmmaker Cédric Klapisch