What's up Cinephiles, my name is Tj and welcome
to the Cinematheq Weekly News Wrap up.
You may hear some running water and some thunder
behind me, that's because there is a storm.
Ok.
We are also running through all of these stories
pretty quick because I need to get to a bar
so I can watch the Raptors game tonight.
The first bit of news I want to talk about
is that Miramax is for sale.
The beIN Media Group who purchased Miramax
in 2016 have been getting some offers, some
interesting questions from interesting parties.
Who are like "Hey man, you wanna sell Miramax?"
and beIN is like "yah, kinda, a bit."
Reports are that Miramax is now worth about
650 million dollars, and that beIN Media Group
wants to give up no more than 50% of the company.
So they're looking to still stay in control
of the studio while still also making some
of that sweet sweet movie cash.
So if you have a spare 325 million dollars
that you want to spend on a movie studio,
maybe consider Miramax.
Odds are that he companies sniffing around
are making some kind of long term play for
streaming service rights.
We know that Disney used to own Miramax and
we also know that they have a controlling stake
in Hulu and their own Disney+ services, so
it would make a lot of sense for them to put
their own money back into the company they
used to own so they get some of the sweet
sweet streaming content on their platform.
Good guy Netflix has announced that it is
partnering with three Indigenous cultural
organizations in Canada.
The initiative is part of the five year plan
that Netflix announced in order to enrich
and to bring forward new talent in Canada
to the tune of 25 million dollars over that
time span.
The three organizations, ImagineNATIVE, Wapikoni
Mobile, and the Indigenous Screen Office will
have access to some of those funds although
it's unclear as much to how much of that 25
million dollar pot they are going to be able
to draw down from.
One of the great things about this initiative
from Netflix is that, at least in the case
of these three organizations, is that Netflix
isn't taking exclusive rights over what is
produced from the funds that they are giving
up.
They don't have first look, they don't have
exclusivity, they don't have any of that.
So this really seems to be a good will gesture
by Netflix.
Now the more cynical amongst you might be
asking "Why would a multi-billion dollar corporation
be doing something like this?" and odds are
it plays into Netflix's overall strategy of trying
to not be regulated by the CRTC in Canada.
And if you're wondering what the CRTC is,
it's kind of Canada's way of making sure that
our culture doesn't get overrun by stuff from
south of the border.
You know, those guys.
Even though Netflix doesn't have first look
or exclusive rights on the things that are
going to be created with this money, there
is still a good chance that these organizations
will come to Netflix with these ideas and
that's too bad because as we all know if Netflix
puts out your original work it's no longer
a movie it's a tv movie, and it's no longer
eligible for Oscars or awards at film festivals.
It can only get Emmy's.
Now here at Cinemateq we feel very strongly
about this but we never want to name names
when it comes to this discussion, it just
seems useless to smear people especially when
they have such high standings in the cinema
community.
That said, please do not look any further
into the fact that this next story is about
how Steve Spielberg allegedly screwed Michael
Douglas out of a best acting award at Cannes
in 2013 because the film Michael Douglas was
in was funded by HBO.
In a recent interview with Benicio Del Toro,
Michael Douglas revealed how he felt that
his acting award for his film Behind the Candelabra
was squashed by Steven Spielberg at the 2013
iteration of the Cannes Film Festival.
That year Steven Spielberg was the president
of the competition jury, so he would have
the power to do that.
This also falls in line with Spielberg's recent
behaviour as he has been campaigning in Hollywood
that films made with Netflix money, or Hulu
money, should be nominated for Emmy's instead
of Oscars because they're just "tv movies".
There is a lot of ridiculous stuff in this
story, but what is most ridiculous is that
this film was actually shopped around to every
major Hollywood film studio, and they all
passed on it because the homosexual subject
matter.
Add on to that the fact that the film was
released theatrically in every territory besides
the United States and probably Canada.
And if you want to get really into the weeds
with this, it was directed by filmmaker Steven
Soderbergh.
But no, the fact that HBO put money into this
project when no one else would that makes
it a tv movie and therefore Michael Douglas
shouldn't get an award for it.
It makes a lot of sense, don't you think?
Now if you think I've sounded a little angry
in this episode of Cinemateq, it's going to
end any time soon because the film Rocketman
will not be screened in Samoa because censors
there think it's too gay.
Deadline reported that the film was being
banned from Samoa quoting the censor that
the film did not mix with the cultural and
christian beliefs of the country.
The countries censor, who is presumably the
only person in all of Samoa who has actually
seen the film admitted that it's actually
pretty good.
But then walked back a bit and said that there
were things in the film that were not appropriate
for public viewing.
And as a general side note for context, homosexual
acts are illegal in Samoa, so sadly this is
not a surprising thing for the country to
do, but it does serve as an unpleasant reminder
that we still have a lot of work to do in
fighting for and winning LGBTQ rights all
across the world.
That's all the industry news I want to talk
about.
We've got one story from the festival circuit
that I think merits some attention.
For this one we have to go all the way to
Australia, the Sydney Film Festival, with
the new film The Nightingale, cause quite
a stir.
As of the writing of the articles that I'm
referencing for this piece, the film had debuted
on Sunday, and then had another screening
on Monday, and apparently people were walking
out in droves.
We have not seen the film because as far as
I know it's only been shown at Venice so far
and the Sydney Film Festival, although I'm
sure it's been seen at maybe a couple of other
places, but the subject matter of the film
is actually quite disturbing.
The film focuses on a period of colonization
in Tasmania around 1825 where there were numerous
atrocities committed against the indigenous population
as well as women in general.
The film goes into graphic detail showing
all of this happening.
Apparently the main character in the film,
within the first half an hour, is raped several
times and it is shown in graphic detail.
The audiences who were taking in the film
apparently didn't really know what they were
getting in for, and as soon as they started
seeing history played out as it apparently
happened they decided that they didn't want
any of it and a lot of them just left.
During the Sunday screening one woman apparently
walked out and shouted "I'm not going to watch
this, I've already seen her raped twice."
Obviously the reactions of the people watching
the film were quite severe, and when it came
to the Q&A afterwards the director got pummelled
by questions.
The director, Jennifer Kent, who made her
feature debut with The Babadook, responded
to the questions by saying "this is what happened".
And, in a press releases released on Monday,
insisted that they could have actually gone
further but decided that no one would want
to watch that film.
So the images that you are seeing, while terrible
and horrendous and apparently historically
accurate didn't even show the worst of what
actually happened.
I wanted to bring up the crowd's reaction
to this film and the director's comments defending
it as a way of getting into larger conversation
about history in cinema and how it's depicted.
Should we have films be historically accurate
to the point where they are uncomfortable
for the audience, or should we have films
like Danny Boyle's Steve Jobs that take history,
condense it, and map it on to actual events
that happened in order to show character traits
or is this just something that we leave up
to the director, to the artist, to figure
out the best way of expressing how they want
to look at a particular subject.
I think there is a lot nuance, a lot of grey
area in the subject, and I would be really
interested to hear what your thoughts are.
Do films have films have a duty to be historically
accurate, or is it ok for them to play with
subject matter in a way that makes them more
palatable for an audience.
Let us know what you think in the comments
below.
Alright everyone, it's almost beer o'clock,
so I'm going to be going through these last
ones a little...*burp*, oh dear, I just burped.
Emily: BLEEEEEEEEH.
TJ: It's already beer o'clock I'm drunk!
Alright I've gotta run so lets just get through
this...
Emily: Alright Tj, you gotta run, so let's
just get through this Put It Right Into
My Eyes Section.
Tj: Thanks Emily!
We're going to start off with Taika Waititi's first short film
Two Cars, One Night.
It was nominated for the Academy Award for
best short film.
It is now available on Youtube, it's about
50 minutes long, take a little bit of time out
of your day and check it out.
You know Taika Waititi because he was in What
We Do In Shadows and he also directed a film
called Boy that recommend you watch, and he
also did that Marvel called Thor: Ragnarok
which a lot people thought was kinda ok.
Next: Jordan Peele has given all of his praise
to Ari Aster new horror film Midsommar, which
will be coming out in about Midsummer.
The film shows a pagan cult doing all kinds
of pagan culty type things.
The trailers have been fantastic, and Ari
Aster previous film was Hereditary which I
personally loved.
So now that Jordan Peele is giving it his
stamp of approval I want to put it in my eyes
right now.
That's why we call this section that.
Anyways, next one.
Remember that time we talked about Le Cinema
Club on this channel?
Probably not because we only have 15 subscribers,
but I'm going to link to the video right here,
or right here.
I'm new to this, I don't know what I'm doing.
Le Cinema Club has finally relaunched and
the first film, Claire Denis' Keep It To Yourself,
is available to view.
In the article I'm linking to below you'll
be able to check out all of the films that
will be premiering on the service in the next
couple of months.
The next one up is the Chris Marker film
that I talked about, the name escapes me because
I am so anxious and stressed out right now
because of this stupid Raptors game but I
suggest you go over Le Cinema Club, check
out Claire Denis' short film, let me know
what you think about it in the comments below,
and we can have a conversation about it because
that's the whole point of Cinemateq.
Having conversations about cinema.
And with that, please subscribe to the channel,
like this video, I really have to go.
I'm, I'm just gonna walk out of here right
now and I'll see you guys later.
Bye!
