MCN Curated Headlines Archive for January, 2015

variety

“VOD day and date, you basically are signalling that this movie is not as good as the other movies. It’s a valid way to go if you don’t think you can sustain a theatrical run.”
Sony Pictures Classics’ Barker And Bernard On Female Films From Sundance And A Disdain For Foreshortened Windows

hollywoodreporter.com

“Annapurna is helping out to keep the doors open.”
Megan Ellison Saves Santa Monica’s Vidiots

“The biggest problem isn’t genuinely independent cinema, where lower budgets mean more opportunities for women in front of and behind the camera. The problem is the six major studios that dominate the box office, the entertainment chatter and the popular imagination.”
Richard Brody On “How Critics Have Failed Female Filmmakers”

NY Times

“The nominated shorts offer a vision of what the Academy Awards should and could be but very rarely are: eclectic, cosmopolitan, scrappy and surprising.”
Writes A. O. Scott

“Waiting for bliss is a fool’s game at Sundance, whose screeners and programmers sift through thousands of titles for a selection that’s too big to see in one movie-gorging gulp. Other festivals are bigger and certainly easier to navigate than this one, with its myriad locales and black ice. But Sundance has become the pre-eminent North American showcase through its steadily growing infrastructure, brand-building and legacy-burnishing and, of course, the quality of its choices. All the world, it seems, wants to make movies and wants to go to Sundance.”
Reports Manohla Dargis

“There’s a youthful energy. I love being here.”
Lindsay Bahr On A Park City Week With James Franco

indie wire

Sam Adams Sez Journos Not The Worst People At Sundance
“As journalists, we are being subsidized to watch movies, talk to cool people and then process what we’ve learned into articles the world can read. So lighten up, journalists. We’re here to cover the cool kids, not pretend to be them.”
But – Jordan Crucchiola Declares They Are

“They are unnerved not only that Selma threatens to become ‘official’ history, but that it represents a sea change in who has custody of that history.
Mark Harris Thinks Selma Through Thoroughly

LA Times

“The important thing is locating the cuisine or the restaurant or the chef within the context of the culture. You have to know about food, and you have to have the tools to evaluate it, but I don’t think it’s any more consumer criticism than when an art critic reviews an art show.”
Looking For “A Thereness Beneath The Thereness” In Sundance Sale City Of Gold

MCN Curated Headlines

Thawn Chwithy on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

Some Random Troll on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

Trenton Moore on: Philadelphia Film Critics Circle Nod Roma as Best Film, Cinematography and Foreign Film

Celia Ann Harrison on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

Celia Ann Harrison on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

Karen Christy on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

The Pope on: "ABC’s decision to cancel 'Roseanne' feels like a gutsy move. It looks like a stand against racism, a line drawn in the sand to delineate what is reasonable and what is not. It even looks like a data point in the 'How do we separate the art from the artist?' debate, and it offers a heartening answer: We don’t have to, because, in this case, ABC will not finance that artist. It’s somehow even more heartening because it comes from a massive corporate conglomerate that might lose money by making this decision. It feels remarkably just. It feels decent. I’m thrilled that Roseanne has been canceled. It was the right thing to do. But it doesn’t feel correct to hold up ABC as a new bastion of decency, either. 'Roseanne' felt like the Titanic, a ship that seemed too big to turn around — but in the aftermath of Barr’s tweet, it also seemed like a ship that was doomed. ABC’s decision to cancel Roseanne is a good thing, but it also seems like a decision to shut down something that was about to implode anyhow. With a little more context, it looks like a network taking a strong stance against racism… in a way that also rids them of a show that was about to fall apart anyhow."

Sergio on: "Even though the Marvel series are TV shows, Netflix has become entranced by this notion of the '13-hour movie' when developing a season. This format mashup does a disservice to both mediums. Television's strength lies in episodic structure, which allows writers to explore different tones, characters, story structure and conflict. Movies allow a filmmaker to hone in on one or two central themes, attack it from multiple angles and get out. Netflix’s model takes the most incompatible parts of each and slaps them together, creating a lumbering mutant medium. The '13-hour movie' model means we don’t get the brevity of a film or the variation of television; it means we get the singular focus of movies stretched out to television length. It’s exhausting and it does these heroes no favors."

tidalmediainc on: Black Panther: $387 Million Worldwide

Frances Aubrey on: David Klion On “Unlearning Woody Allen”

Quote Unquotesee all »

The Atlantic: You saw that the Academy Awards recently held up your 2001 acceptance speech as the Platonic ideal of an Oscar speech. Did you have a reaction?

Soderbergh: Shock and dismay. When that popped up and people started texting me about it, I said, “Oh, it’s too bad I’m not there to tell the story of how that took place.” Well. I was not sober at the time. And I had nothing prepared because I knew I wasn’t going to win [Best Director for Traffic]. I figured Ridley, Ang or Daldry would win. So I was hitting the bar pretty hard, having a great night, feeling super-relaxed because I don’t have to get up there. So the combination of a 0.4 blood alcohol level and lack of preparation resulted in me, in my state of drunkenness crossed with adrenaline surge. I was coherent enough to know that [if I tried to thank everyone], that way lies destruction. So I went the other way. There were some people who appreciated that, and there were some people who really wanted to hear their names said, and I had to apologize to them.
~ Steven Soderbergh

 

“I have made few films in a way. I never made action films. I never made science fiction films. I never made, really, very complicated settings, because I had modest ambitions. I knew they would never trust me to have the budget to do something different, so my mind is more focused on things I know. So they were always mental adventures I wanted to approach and share. Working for cinema with no – not only no money, but also no ambition for money. I was happy and proud [to receive the honorary Oscar] because of that, that [the Academy] could understand what kind of work I have done over 60 years. I stayed faithful to the ideal of sharing emotion, impressions, and mostly because I have so much empathy for other people that I approach people who are not really spoken about. I have 65 years of work in my bag, and when I put the bag down, what comes out? It’s really the desire of finding links and relationships with different kinds of people. I never made a film about the bourgeoisie, about rich people. about nobility. My choices have been to show people that are, in a way, more common and see that each of them has something special and interesting, rare and beautiful. It’s my natural way of looking at people. I didn’t fight my instincts. And maybe that has been appreciated in the famous circle of Hollywood.“

Agnes Varda