Cannes Artistic Director Explains Netflix Competition Ban | Hacker News Reader

Cannes Artistic Director Explains Netflix Competition Ban

hollywoodreporter.com

43 pointscctt2346 comments

The entire purpose of Cannes is to showcase films which need distribution. It’s pointless to show films there which have already secured distribution. It’s worth noting that the films shown there can be and are purchased for distribution by Netflix, Amazon, etc.

I donno about Cannes Film Festival, but Cannes Lions it mostly a circle jerk award full of fake adverts. Do the 2 have any relation or only in name?

They have no relation. Cannes Lions (successfully) used the non-protectable Cannes name to imply some connection.

Ok, good to know.

It's quite an interesting symbiotic relation. The film festival is very expensive for the town of Cannes (and a complete nightmare for all of us living in the region), but it also fuels the prestige that lets Cannes host dozens of these less known but far more profitable events: MIPIM, MIDEM, Lions, Yachting...

But we have to ask this question: what will the future hold for this distribution model, in a long tail world where small producers can monetize their productions directly, using online platforms such as Netflix? If this alternative market thrives, how long until traditional theaters switch to acquire performance rights directly from the producers, using specialized, low friction marketplaces?

While I agree in principle to the decision of the festival organizers, it's hard not to observe an outdated business model fighting for its own survival.

Distribution is even more important in a long tall world. There is so much great stuff on YouTube now that I rely on blogs and other intermediaries to tell me what’s worth watching. Similarly for movies I look to places that tell me what is worth watching. Distribution is getting the film in front of people through theaters, advertising, reviews, etc.

> The entire purpose of Cannes is to showcase films which need distribution

This seems like one of these things that were probably nominally true all along, but that everybody were very happy to forget as Cannes became a super-prestigious celebration of the art of cinema, but then gets dug up when it's convenient to keep the arriviste on the outside.

I mean, if Cannes is just an industry trade show, it certainly isn't justified that media from across the world (including public service media) sends their top arts reviewers out at great expense?

Why would I not want to have media representatives (including public service media) at an industry trade show? Things like "the newest trends from CES" are generally considered newsworthy.

There are actually two parallel events. The "festival du film" and the "marché du film". The former is for the show, and is not concerned with distribution in any way. The latter is where the money is made - a trade show where films are partnered with distributors.

So as far as I understand, films submitted to the Cannes film festival must have a theatrical release in France, and then French law forbids streaming for 36 months after the theatrical release.

I don't see why Netflix doesn't just submit a few of its own movies to Cannes, then does a token theatrical release in one cinema in France somewhere (to abide by the letter of the law), then prominently displays the movie in the streaming catalog. But when a French person selects the movie, it just says: "This movie is not available before $long_away_date because of $stupid_french_law. By the way, this is the phone number of your representative. Just saying."

Is there a reason Netflix can't do a limited release in a few French theaters, as many as necessary to satisfy the eligibility requirements? Or are they not particularly concerned about being ineligible for the Palme d'Or? Which is also a valid stance.

French law requires movies shown in theaters in France to stay off streaming for 36 months. It's an absurd regulatory capture on par with us auto dealer requirements.

A film should only be shown in a theater to create a true cinematic experience. I don’t think the regulation is absurd at all. If Netflix makes films and shows them only within a TV format, than it’s a tv show.

The cinematic arts requires a cinema by definition.

If this is sarcasm, it's very subtle and the point is lost on me.

You may find this informative, if you have a couple of minutes to spare:

https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Transformation+o...

(or some other hit on "quantitative change leads to qualitative change")

A film requires an extremely large format display. Not a small high definition display. Ideally it'd be a large, high definition display.

How a film is displayed informs how the film is shot. The same would go for audio as well. How the audio is heard informs how the audio is mixed and mastered.

Not to be condescending, but it's really not hard to understand. People don't make films to be shown on a phone for instance. Or if they do make films to be shown on a phone, then it's not a film they'll be making.

The working definition of a "TV show" is a series with regular installments/showings overtime, or at least many shorter length shows. A "movie" is the opposite, with just one production film. This is flexible, of course, as a movie can have later installments, but it is not its primary purpose. There are many "movies" that never make it to the Cinemas because of bad production value, ie bad movies!

Your definition would call Netflix's recent film "Bright" a show, which of course it is not. Cannes is being ridiculous.

So would the Marvel Cinematic Universe series be a show or movies? How about James Bond?

TV show episodes aren't released years apart. TV seasons are.

MCU releases "episodes" every few months

They release less than 2 a year most years

Being in a room with sticky floors and rude people that can’t put their phone down doesn’t some how elevate art.

Wait wait...French law as in law by the French government? You get hit wit fines by the government if you defy it? Or an industry norm like "If you allow streaming within 36 months of a theatrical release we won't talk to you/union workers won't work for you/no awards for you"?

If it's an actual law, that sounds utterly absurd. Good on Netflix for not playing ball.

Yes, it is an actual law made to protect theaters and the movie industry.

More information on it: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronologie_des_m%C3%A9dias

To be a bit more precise, the law on it self doesn't define the delays between different media releases, it only enforce those. Delays are defined by agreement between the different industry actors. I guess that the fact there's no big French streaming company make those delays quite unbalanced in favor of movies theatres and tv channels (that often produce movies released in theatres)

Welcome to France :)

We have laws on the percentage of "foreign" music you are allowed to play on radio stations (to fight against the evil english language), laws that prevent TV channels from playing films on friday or saturday evening (to protect those poor cinemas), laws that govern the number of pharmacies by number of inhabitants and disallow ownership of multiple pharmacies or ownership by non-pharmacists (to protect them against the great evil that is competition)...

> laws that govern the number of pharmacies by number of inhabitants and disallow ownership of multiple pharmacies or ownership by non-pharmacists

While that seems a bit over the top, I find the part where it must be owned by a pharmacist quite reasonable. It's the same in Germany.

It sounds logical at first, but combined with the single-ownership rule, it's actually a clever way to protect the "mom&pop store" model. Which is good for the owners, but bad for the consumers - no economies of scale, no competition, no supermarkets... Like being back in the early 50s

That there should be a licensed pharmacist at all times in the store - fine. But why does the store have to belong to one? To take a stereotypically German example, we don't say that all garages have to be owned by mechanics :)

Yours in calendrical heresy,

Reed Hastings

Cannes is mostly about having a venue for film makers to find distributors, Netflix films already have a distributor (it's Netflix).

It's equivalent to asking why The Last Jedi or Black Panther aren't allowed to enter the competition.

> It's equivalent to asking why The Last Jedi or Black Panther aren't allowed to enter the competition.

...Why aren't they?

I don't know the answer, but I suspect it isn't the same thing that's blocking Netflix.

Because those movies already have distributors...

Netflix is a distributor.

Netflix submitting films is cheating because they are using the festival not only as free advertising for their platform but it also goes against the spirit of the festival where film makers can showcase their work and easily have distributors buy their work.

No one is stopping Netflix from buying films showcased at Cannes, in fact that is highly encouraged (for anyone buying, at that) but for them to act like they are being mistreated is border line stupid. Especially coming from one of the largest tech and media companies in the world.

Major multinational corporations that act like the world is against them really rubs me the wrong way and for multinational corporations to take advantage of an extremely empowering art festival is even more sleazy.

Are you getting this from somewhere? Cannes has this to say about itself:

> What is the mission of the Festival de Cannes?

> In order to achieve this level of longevity, the Festival de Cannes has remained faithful to its founding purpose: to draw attention to and raise the profile of films, with the aim of contributing towards the development of cinema, boosting the film industry worldwide and celebrating cinema at an international level. And to this day, this profession of faith constitutes the first article of the Festival regulations.

( http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/qui-sommes-nous/festival-d... )

> The spirit of the Festival de Cannes is one of friendship and universal cooperation. Its aim is to reveal and focus attention on works of quality in order to contribute to the evolution of motion picture arts and encourage the development of the film industry throughout the world.

( http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/participer/rules?id=2 )

The criteria for eligibility are that the film was produced within the previous 12 months, that it hasn't been released internationally, that it hasn't been submitted to any rival international film festivals, and that, if chosen, the film will be released in French theaters in accordance with French law. Netflix is blocked by that last one, because the French law of cinematic releases says you can't stream them. I don't see what would block Marvel films if they wanted to enter, though.

The Last Jedi or Black Panther obviously wouldn't win the Palme d'Or and even if they did the audience for such films would not care a whit. So I've always thought that they simply didn't bother because there's no benefit.

Securing a distributor has nothing to do with the Cannes film festival main sections, only with the Cannes market.

But an admissible film has to be distributable in a french cinema. The Semaine and Quinzaine even allow Sundance premieres. Let's see what the Quinzaine director says on the Netflix decision, because their profile and selection was superior in the last decade over the official selection. I could see them honoring Bong.

Comparing it The Last Jedi or Black Panther is not equivalent at all, because Cannes cares about artistic qualities only, and Marvel and ‎Lucasfilm Ltd. are not respected for that.

Episode 3 was the opening film of the 2006 Cannes.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2005/feb/18/cannes2005.cann...

Netflix can show movies at Cannes, they just can't compete for the prizes.

Good cinema is good cinema no matter the release medium. This is making a statement that people who release their art with a certain distribution outlet and medium are somehow inferior. Deplorable.

I get that. I really do. But would it kill Netflix to pay for a few short, limited theatrical releases? Seems more like a contest of who can be more stubborn.

Edit: Nevermind, read the comments below. Theatrical showings is not the problem but the ridiculous limits French law places on streaming theatrical releases.

Film art, good or bad, has no place at a sales event if it's already sold. It simply isn't a quality statement. It would be like a wholly owned alphabet subsidiary that doesn't need or take any investors trying to get into ycombinator, or like an NFL team crying foul for not being allowed to compete in the NCAA.

The truth is, Netflix loves any publicity that associates them with high-quality movies. Since the depressing truth is, most of their movie output is just plain dull stuff, in contrast to their pretty great TV commissioning.

I don’t think Netflix customers nor Netflix cares. The competition is a side show to the real purpose of the festival, that is the professional event where deals and contacts get made.

We should start a pool on how many years it will take for Cannes to accept Netflix and other streaming sites.

Side note: Could we, as submitters, please try a little harder to submit the original source link instead of the reblogging link?

The linked article from The Verge is little more than pull quotes from the full article by The Hollywood Reporter and the source link is provided in the opening lede: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-artistic-direc...

The outlets that write the original report deserve our clicks and interaction as much as (or, I'd argue, more than) the summarizers.

Well, the original statement is here: http://www.festival-cannes.com/fr/infos-communiques/communiq... in french, not in english.

And the original interview with Le Film Francais in which he explained it - in french - is not even online. He hates online media and the internet. Hollywood Reporter is just the most major copycat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com