Cannes screening of Netflix movie halted after non-stop booing

Netflix has landed at Cannes surrounded in a haze of controversy.

The streaming giant is launching its biggest bid yet for legitimacy and prestige on the field of film distribution, by premiering its latest acquisition, Bong Joon Ho's Okja, at the world-famous film festival.

However, Netflix's dreams have swiftly turned into something of a nightmare, with director and head judge Pedro Almodóvar opening the festival by stating he didn't think films without cinematic distribution should even be considered for the festival's Palme d'Or prize.

Source: independent.co.uk

It also mentions how the aspect ratio was screwed up, which affected the protection.

I find it crazy that Almodóvar claims that a movie shouldn't be considered for a Palme d'Or if it didn't have a cinematic release. It just shows how stuck in the past Cannes actually is - is it actually relevant any more?

brevity

Hmmm, I think both sides have an argument here.

If you are showing a movie at an awards ceremony but the only way you can see it is by signing up to a subscription service (I know the first month is free), then that's a little backwards. The movie should be widely available so that people can see it properly i.e. in a cinema.

On the other hand, perhaps a different section needs to be made at Cannes - something to support online only movies.

Tom Mann Centuria

brevity wrote: »

Hmmm, I think both sides have an argument here.

If you are showing a movie at an awards ceremony but the only way you can see it is by signing up to a subscription service (I know the first month is free), then that's a little backwards. The movie should be widely available so that people can see it properly i.e. in a cinema.

On the other hand, perhaps a different section needs to be made at Cannes - something to support online only movies.

Why not movies made for tv as well then? Fwiw I tend to agree with Almodóvar. It wouldn't be hard to get the film in a limited number of cinemas if they bothered.

Harry Palmr

Cannes is two things - the marketplace and the awards, one is vital the other is utterly needless, just a bunch of red carpet bull****ters.

seamus

People who work with dying media formats usually either get on board with next big thing, or rail hard against it and then perish on that rock.

Clearly this guy has gone for the latter.

Nervous Wreck

OP omits the part about the booing...

Audience booed when the Netflix logo showed at the start of the film (uppity cnuts) and then it became clear that the film was being shown in the wrong aspect ratio, so they continued to boo until it was turned off to be rectified.

People need to get a grip, booing a film because it's produced by Netflix, which is fast becoming a very strong, confident production outfit.

As to those saying that it shouldn't be a contender for awards because it's not as widely available as if it were in cinemas, are ye mad? You can watch this film anywhere an Internet connection is viable, for cheaper than a cinema visit!

Mr E

I think that there are parallels to be drawn between paying €9.75 in the cinema vs. €9.99 on Netflix. You're still paying to see it, just through a different medium (and without overpriced popcorn).

Hrududu

I'd equate Netflix movies with Made for TV movies so I can understand why some think they don't belong at a film festival

Decuc500

Fair play to Cannes for taking a stand.

If Netflix aren’t going to show their films in cinemas they should have their own streaming film festival and not use Cannes to get exposure.

Varik

Dinosaurs complaining about the asteroid.

pixelburp

The Cannes' festival is synonymous with booing audiences. At this stage it doesn't really mean anything; it's just a bit of a circle-jerk that contrives to get a bit of free publicity for films with its tradition for uppity guests/hosts/audiences...

Tony EH

Mr E wrote: »

I think that there are parallels to be drawn between paying ?9.75 in the cinema vs. ?9.99 on Netflix. You're still paying to see it, just through a different medium (and without overpriced popcorn).

Yeh, that's 9.99 plus your sub. Also, a lot of people don't want Netflix, but in some cases may like to view a particular film. It's akin to wanting to play 'The Last of Us' and having to buy a Playstation to do so. :mad:

I get the point about the films being available for everyone to see. But I also understand that it's the film that matters, not who's stumping up the money. And I've liked a couple of Netflix financed films

I can see both points of view.

I think the solution is for limit theatrical release of Netflix film before these awards ceremonies get underway. That can't be that hard surely.

Plus, Netflix doesn't love cinemas and cinemas don't love Netflix. They're in competition which each other as a delivery platform. I can well understand why Cannes would be bothered.

As someone else said, sure why not show all TV movies, if Netflix are allowed?

NinetyTwoTeam

The film being shown at the wrong aspect ratio would have been exactly what the Netflix detractors wanted, it would appear to reinforce their point that they're not proper filmmakers, even if it was not their fault which it may not have been.

I love going to the cinema but rarely do now due to the cost. I think both models will continue to be popular, would like to see cinema tickets come down in price though and if it's Netflix and the like that help cause that I'm all for it.

Podge_irl

Tony EH wrote: »

Yeh, that's 9.99 plus your sub.

No, it's just 9.99. You don't pay extra for individual content on Netflix.

Tony EH wrote: »

It's akin to wanting to play 'The Last of Us' and having to buy a Playstation to do so.

Actually it's akin to buying 'The Last of Us' and getting to play 5,000 other games for a month included in the price.

Tony EH

Podge_irl wrote: »

No, it's just 9.99. You don't pay extra for individual content on Netflix.



Actually it's akin to buying 'The Last of Us' and getting to play 5,000 other games for a month included in the price.

Is there no monthly subscription fee for Netflix? I don't have to sign up to Netflix to watch the film?

Drumpot

If a movie is well made and good enough to be considered for an award, why would it be a lessor movie just because it wasn't in the cinema?

It's Just snobbish, old fashioned bollox as far as I am concerned. You can justify anything if your head is far enough up your own ass.

looksee

Yes you pay the €10 (give or take) every month. For that you get to watch lotsa films. The same price into the cinema gets you one film and a ton of ads. Its a bit of a pointless comparison tbh.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

If a movie is well made and good enough to be considered for an award, why would it be a lessor movie just because it wasn't in the cinema?

It's Just snobbish, old fashioned bollox as far as I am concerned. You can justify anything if your head is far enough up your own ass.

Because it's a matter of platform.

Cinemas and the likes of TV channels are in competition for viewers.

It really is as simple as that.

Podge_irl

Tony EH wrote: »

Is there no monthly subscription fee for Netflix? I don't have to sign up to Netflix to watch the film?

Yes, but there is only a monthly subscription and there is no fixed contract term. So you're welcome to pay your tenner, watch the movie you want AND watch lots of other movies/TV shows for the month and then move on without anymore Netflix.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

Because it's a matter of platform.

Cinemas and the likes of TV channels are in competition for viewers.

It really is as simple as that.

So the awards aren't really about art, it's about celebrating art from one platform?

What makes a mockery of it is you can just bypass this rule by limited release in a cinema.. as somebody mentioned , it's an archaic rule supported by those stuck in the past.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

So the awards aren't really about art, it's about celebrating art from one platform?

What makes a mockery of it is you can just bypass this rule by limited release in a cinema.. as somebody mentioned , it's an archaic rule supported by those stuck in the past.

Who's complaining about the "art". I haven't seen anyone from Cannes mention Netflix movies as "lesser" or "artless".

I mentioned limited cinema release and I don't understand why that can't happen. Are Netflix against it?

Yourself isit

Tony EH wrote: »

Is there no monthly subscription fee for Netflix? I don't have to sign up to Netflix to watch the film?

You said 9.99 plus your sub

The 9.99 is the sub.

Tony EH

Yourself isit wrote: »

You said 9.99 plus your sub

The 9.99 is the sub.

Right. But the point is many people don't want to sign up to Netflix and pay a tenner a month in order to watch one particular film (regardless of the rest of the content).

Whereas, you can walk into a cinema and watch that particular film, without any interest in seeing another one.

In any case, Cannes is a French film festival, designed to award films that have had a theatrical release in France. They are free to choose what films they wish and the restrictions by which they want those choices to come about.

I see both POVs as said earlier. However, frankly, I care about Cannes as much as I do the Oscars and that on a ICGAF level. I'm surprised it's such a big deal.

Also, I don't think this is a "snobbery" thing. The Telegraph summed up the issue well:

Netflix’s Cannes controversy

In April 2017, US streaming company Netflix had two films nominated for the prestigious Palme d’Or award: Okja and The Meyerowitz Stories, both of which were due to debut at the Cannes film festival.

The next month, under pressure from the The Federation of French Cinemas (FNCF), festival organisers announced that in future only films with a cinematic release in France will be eligible for the prize.

The French cultural exception is one key reason for this controversy. In France, cinema tickets are taxed and the funds raised subsidise the country’s domestic film industry. Netflix’s distribution model would starve French cinema of funds, critics argue.

However, the company’s options for a release were restricted by the “media chronology” clauses of the French law. Under cultural exception regulations, a film must take no less than 36 months from cinematic release to its debut on an online streaming service – a process incompatible with Netflix’s business model.

Sad Professor

Cannes audiences boo everything. And in this case, they mainly booed because of the aspect ratio issues. I followed this story on Twitter as it was happening and this is first I've heard it suggested that they booed just because it was Netflix.

The big issue here is that the theatrical window for streaming platforms in France is 3 years! So if Netflix relented and agreed to release the films in French theatres, they wouldn't be able to add them to their streaming catalogue until 2020. While I personally think Netflix doesn't care about movies or the cinematic experience, I can understand why this is unworkable for them.

I'm not anti-streaming or anti-Netflix and the French window is obviously absurd, but I think the 3 month theatrical window is a good thing and ensures that movies continue to be made first and foremost for the big screen, even if most people don't get to see them that way. You can't blow up the whole theatrical model without seriously affecting the art form. However, it's possible that ship has already sailed.

pixelburp

Sad Professor wrote: »

Cannes audiences boo everything. [...]

I think this need emphasising; the booing is a tradition and like you said, the audience in Cannes boos evvvvvverything. The Netflix thing is nearly incidental, but of course makes for a saucier narrative that Cannes seen to be booing Netflix.

seamus

Tony EH wrote: »

Right. But the point is many people don't want to sign up to Netflix and pay a tenner a month in order to watch one particular film (regardless of the rest of the content).

Whereas, you can walk into a cinema and watch that particular film, without any interest in seeing another one.

The point is that either way you can pay a tenner to watch that one particular film, if that's what you want.

The only difference is that Netflix provides a month's unlimited access to a library of other stuff for that tenner. But you don't have to watch it. You're not obligated to.

Nervous Wreck

seamus wrote: »

The point is that either way you can pay a tenner to watch that one particular film, if that's what you want.

The only difference is that Netflix provides a month's unlimited access to a library of other stuff for that tenner. But you don't have to watch it. You're not obligated to.

Indeed. The price argument is stupid. Signing up to Netflix for a month is cheaper than one visit to the cinema (excluding Fiver Tuesday deals etc.) so Netflix obviously wins out on that front.

Agent Coulson

Also when I watch Netflix I don't have half a dozen assholes looking at their mobile phone for the entire movie.


People need to boo that **** in cinemas.

Tony EH

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Indeed. The price argument is stupid. Signing up to Netflix for a month is cheaper than one visit to the cinema (excluding Fiver Tuesday deals etc.) so Netflix obviously wins out on that front.

True. You can just torrent it for nothing.

Hrududu

Hrududu wrote: »

I'd equate Netflix movies with Made for TV movies so I can understand why some think they don't belong at a film festival

In fairness, Netflix does produce some pretty quality movies. Their documentaries are superb and their own content is getting better and better with each one that comes out.

Some people have been complaining about the exclusivity of movies on Netflix -- this is nothing new and has been around more or less since the beginning of modern entertainment.

Tony EH wrote: »

True. You can just torrent it for nothing.

You joke, but Netflix has actually reduced my torrenting of movies and TV shows quite considerably. Same thing with how Spotify has stopped me torrenting music entirely.

ligerdub

I was disappointed they were booing for that rather than the content of the film.

It's a standard Netflix checklist.

- Anti-business
- Some sort of positive spin about animal rights
- Young girl with prominent role.
- Non-white/traditional main character

Not to say this sort of film shouldn't be made, but Netflix have a very high propensity for pushing a liberal agenda. Almost all of their documentaries are made with a slant of eco-warrier, highlighting white supremacy as some sort of common and significant problem, promoting discrimination against women or ethnic minorities as factual as well as other topics along the theme.

These are of course interesting topics, but they are generally made without much critical slant or examined in any great detail.

johnny_ultimate

I welcome the prominence of streaming. It makes films more universally available, and faster, and more affordably. Okja is a case in point: the director's previous film never even got a theatrical release over here due to extraordinary distributor bitterness. It is one of the best cases in point of what streaming can offer. The delay between festival release and commercial release is often excruciating, so anything challenging that is also welcome.

At the same time, I am troubled and frustrated by Netflix's approach, and fully sympathise with the frustrations audibly voiced in Cannes. I will always value the cinema experience as the best way to watch a film. I go to cinemas where there are 9.9 times out of ten no disruptions worth noting, and no matter how good my setup is at home I cannot even come close to guaranteeing the same level of immersion or engagement than in a darkened room with a big screen and like-minded crowd. Some of it is a simple romanticised fondness of the cinema, but I offer no apologies for that whatsoever. The 'ritual' and the effort involved in going to the cinema ensures I am more committed and open to the film.

The problem I have with Netflix is their limited purview to date. None of their films to date have been particularly worth writing home about, and while that looks to change in the coming months and years (I'll be among the first buffering Okja), I see nothing in the way of ambition to fund more ambitious, niche or experimental works. Middling indies, solid documentaries and a few high profile, expensive big hitters are what they're offering to date - and I'd be concerned about how the company's lust for 'content' above all else would impact the variety and artistic quality of films available in the worst case scenario that they do tangibly start eating into cinemas' market.

Funnily, Amazon - despite their streaming service having made far less of a cultural impact - are doing a much better job. The films they're supporting are better (MUCH better so far - have been startled at how many high quality films have borne the Amazon Studios logo recently), and their more traditional approach to theatrical releases is more encouraging, although the gap before online release is much longer. Mubi, the under doggiest of the streaming players dipping their toes in the distribution puddle, have achieved the best balance of all so far, although perhaps have a bit of leeway given the niche market they're dealing with.

Ultimately, I don't see Netflix expressing much interest in the diversity of world, independent or classic cinema out there - certainly not to the same degree Dublin's cinema scene manages to sustain (allowing for the not inconsiderable fact that not everyone reading this will be in a lucky position) and that's nothing compared to what you find in other cities like London. I look at Netflix and see a company with little interest in the art of cinema, even if some of their films will almost certainly be good given the cash reserves available.

Again, the big concern in the very long-term is that Netflix establishing a lot of power in the mid-tier, crossover space (Okja, The Irishman, War Machine) is that they will potentially make it harder for arthouse cinemas - who rely on the bigger names to support the smaller ones - to keep themselves going. And, unless Netflix makes MASSIVE changes to their curatorial approach and isn't just throwing money at some big names, that'll be a pretty unwelcome outcome.

If the option is there to watch the new Scorsese film at home or in the Lighthouse is available, the latter will always win The distribution scene is changing, in some ways for the better. But the pushback? I'd count myself as one of the ones happy to do some of the pushing.

GarIT

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If the option is there to watch the new Scorsese film at home or in the Lighthouse is available, the latter will always win The distribution scene is changing, in some ways for the better. But the pushback? I'd count myself as one of the ones happy to do some of the pushing.

For some people, many others would rather watch at home. If I had the option of paying the full cinema ticket price to watch a new release film at home on release day I would.

<snip>

With regards to Netflix & cinema releases - is it not the case that previously cinemas refused to have theatrical releases because it was being released simultaneously online? I know that that happened with Beasts of No Nation

Netflix bought the worldwide distribution rights for around $12 million. The film was simultaneously released theatrically and online through its subscription video on demand service on October 16, 2015,[17] with Bleecker Street handling the theatrical release.[18] Considering the online release a violation of the traditional 90-day release window of exclusivity to theatres, AMC Cinemas, Carmike Cinemas, Cinemark, and Regal Entertainment Group—four of the largest theater chains in the United States—announced that they would boycott Beasts of No Nation, effectively downgrading it to a limited release at smaller and independent theatres.[9][19] The film was also theatrically released in the UK on October 16, 2015, in Curzon Cinemas

Wikipedia

Sad Professor

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Ultimately, I don't see Netflix expressing much interest in the diversity of world, independent or classic cinema out there - certainly not to the same degree Dublin's cinema scene manages to sustain (allowing for the not inconsiderable fact that not everyone reading this will be in a lucky position) and that's nothing compared to what you find in other cities like London. I look at Netflix and see a company with little interest in the art of cinema, even if some of their films will almost certainly be good given the cash reserves available.

Again, the big concern in the very long-term is that Netflix establishing a lot of power in the mid-tier, crossover space (Okja, The Irishman, War Machine) is that they will potentially make it harder for arthouse cinemas - who rely on the bigger names to support the smaller ones - to keep themselves going. And, unless Netflix makes MASSIVE changes to their curatorial approach and isn't just throwing money at some big names, that'll be a pretty unwelcome outcome.

Yeah, I see a lot of people saying Netflix is good for small films, but small films are doing fine without them. They are getting made - in droves - even if they struggle to get distribution. And being acquired by Netflix isn't necessarily helping with this if Netflix acquire them only to dump them into their catalogue with no promotion. Where Netflix can have the biggest impact is with the mid-budget films - the films which Hollywood has mostly stopped making and which the indie industry generally can't afford to finance - but nearly all of these films are still in the pipeline. Even if they are great, if Netflix pursue the same simultaneous-release-or-bust policy that they pursed with Beasts of No Nation then they may do serious harm to exhibitors.

I'm no fan of exhibitors and how they've allowed the theatrical experience to deteriorate, but the idea that you can screw them out of a huge part of their business and expect them to continue functioning as normal is nuts. We'll be going from a situation in which most people can't see these films theatrically to one in which nobody will see them theatrically, no matter where they live. Movie theatres will become the sole domain the big studios who are increasingly abandoning the traditional cinematic narrative with a beginning, middle and end in favour of multi-movie arcs and shared universes.

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

With regards to Netflix & cinema releases - is it not the case that previously cinemas refused to have theatrical releases because it was being released simultaneously online? I know that that happened with Beasts of No Nation



Wikipedia

Yes, exhibitors boycotted the film for very understandable reasons from their POV. As I said earlier, I understand Netflix's difficult position re: the French theatrical window, but everywhere else they should just give films their 3 months in theatres like Amazon is doing.

johnny_ultimate

ligerdub wrote: »

It's a standard Netflix checklist.

- Anti-business
- Some sort of positive spin about animal rights
- Young girl with prominent role.
- Non-white/traditional main character

You'll be glad to hear Netflix's next film is about a archetypal middle-aged male action hero who lives in a utopia with no social problems or inequality whatsoever. Over the course of the film, he gradually learns to appreciate the virtues of unchecked neoliberalism and contemporaneous factory farming practices.

ligerdub

johnny_ultimate wrote:

You'll be glad to hear Netflix's next film is about a archetypal middle-aged male action hero who lives in a utopia with no social problems or inequality whatsoever. Over the course of the film, he gradually learns to appreciate the virtues of unchecked neoliberalism and contemporaneous factory farming practices.

It's the hope that kills.

Sad Professor

Guys, please keep in mind that the flagrant discussion and/or promotion of watching pirated movies is against this forum's charter. The issue of piracy in general as it relates to this thread can of course be discussed, but please refrain from offering personal justifications or anything that might be perceived as boasts about your own pirating activity, thanks. A few posts have been edited or deleted.

/mod

Guy:Incognito

brevity wrote: »

Hmmm, I think both sides have an argument here.

If you are showing a movie at an awards ceremony but the only way you can see it is by signing up to a subscription service (I know the first month is free), then that's a little backwards. The movie should be widely available so that people can see it properly i.e. in a cinema.

On the other hand, perhaps a different section needs to be made at Cannes - something to support online only movies.

It's cheaper to pay for a month of netflix and watch it than to go to the cinema . Plus you don't have to even leave you're house. If anything it's more widely available .

Hrududu wrote: »

I'd equate Netflix movies with Made for TV movies so I can understand why some think they don't belong at a film festival

If the godfather (example plucked randomly from my head)was a netflix movie would it automatically be crap?

Hrududu

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If the godfather (example plucked randomly from my head)was a netflix movie would it automatically be crap?

I didn't say Netflix movies were crap. I said I equated them with Made for TV movies. As in they were filmed with the intention of being watched at home on TV as opposed to being released in cinemas. I'm a big Netflix watcher. And like other posters it's stopped me acquiring content from other sources so to speak.

But if a brilliant film made by the BBC for broadcast on the BBC is ineligible for a film festival then I don't see why a Netflix film should be eligible

Agent Coulson

Adam Sandler's new Netflix movie The Meyerowitz Stories got a standing ovation at Cannes last night.

Wossack

independent is some rag..

Okja currently holds a 82% approval rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 17 reviews, with a weighted average of 7.9/10. On Metacritic, the film has a score of 77 out of 100, based on 10 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
The film was met with boos, mixed with applause, during the its premiere at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival, once the Netflix logo appeared on screen and again during a technical glitch (which got the movie projected in an incorrect aspect ratio for its first seven minutes). The festival later issued an apology to the filmmakers. However, despite the studio's negative response, the film itself received a four-minute standing ovation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okja
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/okja-netflixs-cannes-premiere-gets-four-minute-standing-ovation-press-screening-snafu-1005530


So some boos about the netflix logo at the beginning and the end, consistent booing in the beginning till technical issues are resolved (wrong aspect ratio, for which the festival apologised to the filmmakers), and then it receives a 4 minute standing ovation at the end.

Tony EH

Is there actual confirmation that there were "boos about the netflix logo", or was it booing solely for the buggered AP that scuppered the first few minutes of the film?

Sad Professor

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Adam Sandler's new Netflix movie The Meyerowitz Stories got a standing ovation at Cannes last night.

Baumbach is a festival darling so this isn't hugely surprising, but it was one of two Netflix films that was the cause of all of the controversy, so if nothing it else it proves Cannes audiences aren't out to get Netflix.

I think pressure from filmmakers will eventually force Netflix to back down and start playing ball with exhibitors. Looking at interviews, Baumbach is being careful with his words, but says he made the film with the intention that it would be seen theatrically.