by Ellen Seidler | Film, TV
Streaming brings viewers quality stories and a cornucopia of great roles for women
I don’t watch a great deal of television, but when I do, more and more I find myself drawn to Netflix. I recently watched two excellent dramas, Jane Campion’s “Top of the Lake” and “The Fall” a BBC production starring Gillian Anderson. The migration for dramatic storytelling from cable TV and movie theaters to streaming services does not diminish the “film industry” but enhances it– demonstrating film’s enduring role in our creative culture and opening up new ways of cinematic storytelling in the process.
Last night I sat down to check out Netflix’s new series “Orange is the New Black.” I hadn’t read anything about it and had intended to watch only the first 55 minute episode….yeah, right. Five hours later I finally turned out the lights and went to bed. In fact, I was so drawn into the show that I had to really force myself to stop watching. I had succumbed to binge viewing in all its obsessive glory.
Jenji Kohan, the creator of Showtime’s “Weeds,” is behind the new comedy/drama that takes place in a women’s prison in upstate New York. Loosely based on a memoir of the same name by Piper Kerman, the series revels in rich multi-cultural characters and their compelling, often poignant, back stories. There is much humor amid the tears, and the show does have moments that are almost shocking in their un sanitized frankness, but it’s all done in service of the story.
Tatiana Maslany plays 6 roles in Orphan Black
I approach the joy of binge-viewing such quality programs with mixed feelings. On the one hand I love experiencing the unfolding narrative over the course of an evening, but at the same time dread when it comes to an end–an experience I recently had with the compelling BBC-America series “Orphan Black” (which I recorded and watched via DirecTV on-demand).
The added bonus of being able to watch these shows on Netflix is having the chance to watch so many talented women display their acting craft in such a variety of rich roles. Whether it be Tatiana Maslany playing multiple versions of her clone or Elisabeth Moss shedding her Mad Men persona for a Kiwi cop, rich female characters are sadly few and far between in most traditional Hollywood fare. In fact, according to a recent USC Annenberg study that reveals women receive less than one third of the speaking roles in 2012.
Across five years (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012), 500 top-grossing films at the U.S. box office, and over 21,000 speaking characters, a new study by USC Annenberg found that females represented less than one-third (28.4%) of all speaking characters in 2012 films. When they are on screen, 31% of women in 2012 were shown with at least some exposed skin, and 31.6% were depicted wearing sexually revealing clothing.
Even worse? “There has been no meaningful change in the prevalence of women on screen across the five years studied. In fact, 2012 features the lowest percentage of females in the five years covered in this report,” said Communication Professor Stacy L. Smith, the principal investigator. “The last few years have seen a wealth of great advocacy for more women on screen. Unfortunately, that investment has not yet paid off with an increase in female characters or a decrease in their hypersexualization.”
Streaming has made finding shows featuring diverse female characters a whole lot easier and the good news is that Netflix has already renewed “Orange is the New Black” for a second season. My 8 bucks a month is money well-spent.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy, Politics, TV
David Kaplan, head of Warner Brother’s anti-piracy unit made news this week in Los Angeles at the 4th Anti-Piracy and Content Protection Summit. According to a Q & A with Kaplan posted on the event’s website, he characterized the studio’s approach to IP enforcement this way:
Generally speaking, we view piracy as a proxy of consumer demand. Accordingly, enforcement related efforts are balanced with looking at ways to adjust or develop business models to take advantage of that demand by offering fans what they are looking for when they are looking for it.
Of course this makes sense. Piracy apologists often attempt to rationalize the dubious notion that consumers are entitled to have everything available–anytime, anywhere– by charging that obsolete distribution models are a sign that distributors are ignoring audience demand.
However, it’s not as simple as it may seem. The reality is that it takes time to build new business methods–and meanwhile, in the thriving universe of digital theft–as is true with most black markets–the pirate’s model has never been constrained by such “trivial” issues as contracts, licensing, budgets, or the law.
In an ideal world filmmakers would be able to release their films to worldwide audience simultaneously. With models like day and date release finding success, it’s likely such an approach will someday become the norm.
But…even when that day does arrive, the other elephant in the room remains-Will consumers be willing to pay instead of going to pirate sites that offer fast and free options with the click of a mouse? Finding efficient ways to meet audience immediate demand only solves one piece of the piracy puzzle. The other is how to thwart the black market entrepreneurs who compete directly with legit distributors? Remember–profit comes easy when a business has little, to no overhead costs associated with the content it offers.
Kaplan sees this issue as a “top priority.”
I think our top priority would be to remove the financial incentives from
those who would profit by building businesses based on the unauthorized exploitation
of our intellectual property. A close second would be educating consumer about the
importance of IP protection and the availability of legitimate alternatives to piracy.
I’ve said it before –if the financial incentives to run pirate websites disappear, and popular content made readily available through legit channels, piracy’s impact will diminish. The problem remains–how do we get there? At a time where content creators are adapting to online distribution, ad providers, search engines, web hosts, and payment processors continue to drag their feet when it comes to making real inroads against infrastructure and incentives that underpin digital piracy.
n the White House’s just released “2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement” the word “voluntary” appears 36 times including this statement:
The U.S. Government is pursuing an innovative and multi-pronged strategy to combat infringing foreign based and foreign-controlled websites by encouraging cooperation by law enforcement, development
of voluntary best practices, and international leadership…
The White House document also offers this carefully worded prescription as one path forward combatting IP theft online:
22. Facilitate Voluntary Initiatives to Reduce Online Intellectual Property Infringement and Illegal Internet Pharmacies
As an Administration, we have adopted the approach of encouraging the private sector to develop and implement cooperative voluntary initiatives to reduce infringement that are practical and effective. It is critical that such efforts be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws and with the Administration’s broader Internet policy principles emphasizing privacy, free speech, competition, and due process. Together with law enforcement efforts, private sector voluntary actions can dramatically reduce online infringement and change the enforcement paradigm. We encourage all participants to continue to work with all interested stakeholders, including consumer advocacy groups, to ensure that voluntary initiatives are as effective and transparent as possible.
It’s great to think that we can all reach a consensus to combat the scourge of piracy through “cooperation.” However, the fact is there’s still a very long way to go. Until ad providers, advertisers and companies like Facebook and Google, whose tentacles reach far and wide throughout piracy’s infrastructure, get serious about cleaning up the act all this talk about “voluntary” initiatives is just talk.
The fact is, when it comes to profiting from online piracy, money speaks louder than words. It may just take a bit more “law enforcement” to make those responsible pay attention and take meaningful action to clean up their acts.
by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
As the pirate world turns….
The mystery (and confusion) deepens over the fate of the popular pirate movie site Movie2k.to. Two weeks ago it suddenly disappeared from the web. Speculation was that it had something to do with efforts in the UK to block pirate websites. A few days later the site appeared to be reborn as movie4k.to but now, according to a report on a German-language site www.20min.ch the real site is now found at movie2k.tl and the site owners claim movie4k.to is a fraud. Imagine that, a pirate site subjected to fraudulent behavior. Karma….oh, but I digress. Here’s the skinny (translated badly from the original German):
Recently, Movie2k.to than Movie2k.tl again on the net. The operators claim to be the real Movie2k. At the same time they warn other websites Movie2k look confusingly similar. A name is not mentioned, but apparently Movie4k is meant. There, one could be captured viruses, write the supposedly real Movie2k operators.
The virus problem generally applies to free download and streaming portals: “The problem is the integration of advertising banners, the malicious code redirects or contain” says Marc Rubin of the Swiss Pirate Party.
Despite similar design, there is a marked difference between the two competing streaming sites: English-language series and porn movies no longer offers Movie2k.tl the time being.
What’s particularly rich in this story is that it appears, from what I can tell reading the translated account, it seems that the movie2k.to site was actually pirated by the operators of movie4k.to. I must admit, you have to chuckle just a bit when pirate sites start eating their own. Here’s more from the 20min.ch story:
The question remains in the room, why the supposedly real Movie2k-founder no longer use their old web address. An explanation: In Movie4k.to and Movie2k.tl it could be to free-riders, who want to benefit from the popularity of the name. A similar assumption has MarcRubin of the Pirate Party: “. Anyone can copy web content, embed the links to the movie streams and can refer to its own Internet address on” Mostly supervising a team a site like Movie2k. “Maybe there were quarrels and one of the sides is an offshoot,” speculated the pirate.
No matter how this all plays out, it’s nice to see a pirate website getting a taste of its own medicine.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Piracy
Business models may be evolving, but the need for action against online piracy hasn’t
Unless you’re Rip Van Winkle, and as zombie-soaked Netflix binge viewers will attest, it’s become pretty clear that changes are afoot in Hollywood and beyond. Now some of Hollywood’s biggest players are chiming in to confirm it.
During a panel on the Future of Entertainment at the USC School of Cinematic Arts. producer/director Stephen Spielberg grabbed headlines when he predicted there’d be a “meltdown” in the movie industry Spielberg was joined on the panel by producer/director George Lucas and Don Mattrick, President of Microsoft’s Interactive Entertainment Business. According to Variety, both filmmakers predicted a shift in Hollywood’s business model:
“They’re going for the gold,” said Lucas of the studios. “But that isn’t going to work forever. And as a result they’re getting narrower and narrower in their focus. People are going to get tired of it. They’re not going to know how to do anything else.”
Spielberg noted that because so many forms of entertainment are competing for attention, they would rather spend $250 million on a single film than make several personal, quirky projects.
Spielberg said that his own recent successful film “Lincoln” was almost an HBO project rather than a theatrical release and that in the future, such projects would most likely end up on TV, not in cinemas. He added:
…there’s eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There’s going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that’s going to change the paradigm.
His comments do not really come as a surprise. With the advent of VOD and other distribution options, more and more filmmakers, indie and established, are eschewing theatrical release and moving toward these new outlets. Many view it as liberating.
Producer/director Jane Campion’s recent 7 part mini-series, “Top of the Lake” that premiered in March on the Sundance Channel, (and is now streaming on Netflix) typifies the trend–one that’s opened new creative avenues for filmmakers. In an interview with Vulture.com earlier this year, Campion explained:
It goes back to being influenced by some very early brave television makers, like David Milch of Deadwood. I remember seeing that show and going, “Oh my God, they are making this on television?” It made me reassess my view of what was possible anywhere. It felt like they were able to be braver and have a dialogue with the audience which was a lot more vigorous in a way than with film, where it feels like you have to pander to the audience a bit more to get them out of their houses. There’s all these people sitting at home with their beautiful flat-screens already waiting for something exciting to happen. I thought I could have a place there. I could try, anyway.
As for Hollywood, the move toward bigger films guaranteed to bring in big bucks at the box office is nothing new. As theater-going audiences know, the tried and true trend of sequels and blockbusters is where it’s at. Niche films that have a dubious box office value are relegated to limited runs or bypass theatrical release altogether. Spielberg and Lucas’ remarks only confirm the obvious. In his NY Times magazine piece last summer, “How Does the Film Industry Actually Make Money,” Adam Davidson explained:
People have predicted the demise of the film industry since the dawn of TV and, later, the appearance of VHS, cable and digital piracy. But Fabrizio Perretti, a management professor at the Università Bocconi in Italy, says that Hollywood is now actually destroying itself. Because it’s harder to get financing and audiences, companies are competing to make bigger, costlier films while eliminating risk, which is why ever-more movies are based on existing intellectual property. Eighteen of the all-time 100 top-grossing movies (adjusted for inflation) were sequels, and more than half of those were released since 2000.
With quality entertainment available at the touch of a remote in one’s living room, why bother with a movie theater at all? George Lucas made this prediction:
You’re going to end up with fewer theaters, bigger theaters with a lot of nice things. Going to the movies will cost 50 bucks or 100 or 150 bucks, like what Broadway costs today, or a football game. It’ll be an expensive thing. … (The movies) will sit in the theaters for a year, like a Broadway show does. That will be called the ‘movie’ business.”
“There’ll be big movies on a big screen, and it’ll cost them a lot of money. Everything else will be on a small screen. It’s almost that way now. ‘Lincoln’ and ‘Red Tails’ barely got into theaters. You’re talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can’t get their movies into theaters.
The small screen and VOD options are generating new viewing habits like binge-viewing and time shifting and have created an increased demand for fresh, long form programming. While these changing business models will influence what we see, and where we see it, there are certain questions that remain–including what the impact of digital piracy will be?
Sunday’s season finale for HBO’s hit series “Game of Thrones” became the most widely pirated TV episode ever. For some, the rampant piracy simply represents a sign of success, but can the same be said for productions that don’t fall into the massive hit category?
For indie filmmakers, these emerging business models provide both promise and peril. As we move forward into this brave new world of cinema, we need to find a way to protect content creators from the ravages of digital theft. To that end, the actual method of distribution doesn’t matter as much as a creator’s ability to reach an audience and earn a living. If left un-checked, digital piracy will continue to undermine artists and audiences alike. Our brave new world of engaging VOD content risks becoming predictable and homogenous.
A “meltdown” as Spielberg called it, is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as what emerges is a vibrant model that fosters innovation, and is viable for audiences and creators alike. Filmmaking has always been a marriage of business and art, but as hearings on copyright reform in Congress approach, let’s hope lawmakers understand that no matter the business model, artists remain at the core of our creative culture, and theirs are livelihoods are worth protecting.
by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
It was too good to be true, of course. A notorious online pirate movie site Movie2k.to went offline last week, but now, less than a week later appears to have been reborn as Movie4k.to. Along with links to thousands of pirated movies the site offered this explanation as to its public mission and its dubious role as protector of a “free” internet:
Nobody should have the power to suppress somebody just because of money!
This site is the result of the need of many Human Beings. Everyone wants Movie2k.to/Movie4k.to back.
We, the Citizens, have to make clear that a “copyright infringement” cannot be compared to a violent crime. How come bootlegger get five years of jail time while child abuser are free on a 22-month probation? That is because money is way more important than an [sic] unique human life.
You cannot suppress the will of the People! One website goes, the next day five new appear. Did not the time come to overthink your marketing concepts and accept the new media?
So: FU Hollywood, FU GVU, FU Anti-piracy and FU Police. But we love Obama!
Thank You to all supporting us! Let’s not give up and fight for our internet freedom! #Movie4k
If fighting for “internet freedom” means hosting a site that rips off filmmakers of all stripes, indie or otherwise, and making money stealing the work of others, then I suppose Movie4k is justified in its swaggering grandiosity. Freedom to steal should not be construed, as it so often is, with freedom of speech. At least the movie4k folks seem to be admitting that the site is in the business of “copyright infringement” as they defiantly give the filmmakers the proverbial finger.
The reasons for move from the Movie2k.to to the Movie4k.to domain remain vague, but it doesn’t seem to have been a move that was voluntary. Hopefully the copy-cat site’s presence as an online emporium of theft (and illicit profit) will be short-lived.
Below is a graphic showing just a random sampling of indie film titles found on the site. These films, produced by independent filmmakers, are the type that don’t often have theatrical releases and depend entirely on back-end revenue to recoup production costs. The links to pirated downloads and streams offered on sites like Movie4k.to make it that much harder for indie filmmakers like these to finance their next film. For consumers this pirate site may offer the lure of “free” access to movies, but at what cost? How many new films won’t be made because ripping off the work of others is so easy? Be careful what you wish for…
If you want to find a site where you can watch your favorite films and support the filmmakers go here.
Movie 4k steals from indie filmmakers
Update: Turns out that movie4k.to may have ripped off the original pirate site and we may have a case of online pirates eating their own. That’s some just desserts!
by Ellen Seidler | Film, Piracy
Wondering where you can watch movies online with Movie2k gone?
Mourning the loss of your favorite free (pirate) movie site? Movie2k.to has been offline now for several days and the reasons aren’t entirely clear. There are still ways to watch movies online for free and the International Design Times has compiled a list of those sites here. Of course, unlike Movie2k these are sites that offer a legit (legal) way to watch movies.
Thomas Edison, “Father of Film”
Reading some of the reactions to reports of Movie2k’s shutdown on TorrentFreak it’s clear that some feel entitled to watch whatever they want, when they want, for free. I wonder if they apply that same attitude when it comes to their own work. Do they tell their boss not to bother giving them a paycheck because heck, they should work for free right? Somehow I doubt it.
At any rate I found this comment particularly amusing:
Free movies are possible. Ever heard of commissioning or sponsorship? This is how great works were done before the copyright monopoly came along. Wealthy benefactors wanted works created for them with which they could then share to boost their popularity. Some would profit, some were just nice people with too much money.
Aside from getting it wrong (try reading some cinema history) I’m not sure about you, but I wouldn’t want to depend on 21st century billionaires from Google, Facebook, etc. to determine what’s available for us to watch. Certainly the tech titans are free to create and share content as they see fit, and perhaps that would be preferable to today’s environment where they often use the content of others–often without permission–to fuel their growth. I fear, however, that such a scenario would simply lead to more generic content, driven by Google analytics rather than creative initiative.
The growth of American cinema was, and always has been, driven by business interests. Early on the studios implemented monopolistic practices to protect and grow their investments. It wasn’t until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1948 in U.S. v Paramount Pictures case that the studios’ control of all aspects of the movie production process from creation to distribution (vertical integration) was in fact an oligopoly, and a violation of anti-trust laws.
The court decision was the beginning of the end of the Hollywood studio system and changed the business of making and distributing movies. The decision, coupled with the introduction of television, paved the way for a more “independent” and creatively diverse cinema to emerge. Do we really want a return to the day when only the most powerful–those who can afford to underwrite a multi-million dollar movie production–determine what we watch? I don’t think so.
Those who think we can sustain a diversity of cinematic voices by demanding that they be “free” to watch are naive. Most films worth watching won’t be free to create. While we’re certainly moving into an era where mechanisms for securing production funds are evolving (i.e. crowd-source funding) we must encourage an environment where filmmakers can determine–for themselves–the best way to disseminate their creative work. Demanding a distribution framework where all content must be offered free of charge would inevitably undermine the both the quality and variety of films available.
Understanding and appreciating the historical context for cinema’s evolution over the past century provides a useful paradigm as to the possibilities for shaping film’s future. In the meantime, for those who would like to explore current cinematic offerings, here’s another source to find films online: Wheretowatch.com. Happy viewing!
