The Virtual Reality

---

In the past months the debate over film release windows – media chronology as the French call it – has intensified.

While every politician and policymaker is speaking about the ever elusive ”new business models” that will save the day, we in the audiovisual sector have patiently explained just how interdependent all players in our value chain are, and that the (pre-) financing and distribution of films are inseparably linked. Our current business model is not so easily replaced. This makes the transition into the digital age all the more complex and challenging.

But even if we’d rather do business as usual, there is no denying that the world around us has changed. The virtual is a reality.

And our audience is famously wanting to access everything, everywhere, anytime – for free or a very low price, with little regard, it seems, for the long term cost  or consequence for those who make or distribute the content they so desire.

The entire audiovisual sector is concerned, but a cornerstone of the industry appears to feel particularily threatened: The cinemas.

Film directors love the cinema, we want our films to be seen there – and by as many people as possible.

However, in an interview with Cineuropa this week, even the head of the Europa Cinemas network, Claude-Eric Poiroux, acknowledged that ”…there is such competition today that some  films perhaps don’t have the space that they would like to have in cinemas. So releases on VoD and not in cinemas, why not? But cinemas won’t necessarily take the risk of   doing this at the same time.”

In their letter to the Commission, European Parliament and heads  of Member States they proclaim that “… films are initially created to be shown on the big screen, as cinemas are considered the gold standard for enjoying a cinematographic work. It is simply not possible to compare the cinema experience with watching a film on a mobile device.”

But with fierce competition for space, time and attention, some smaller films may only play in theatres 2-3 weeks before being taken off, and they must also  suffer the fate of being completely off the market for the remainder of the holdback period – losing any synergies with the promotion and advertising campaigns mounted  for its initial release. And on top    of this, statistics show that piracy  is particularily rampant during this time.

For a filmmaker no window is simply not acceptable.

So what to do?

Everybody agrees that every  film is unique and needs a tailored distribution and marketing strategy to reach its potential audience. But to suggest that some films might possibly benefit from changing the chronology of release windows is just as heretic as when Jean-Luc Godard said  that ”a story should have a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily in that order.”

And nowhere does this idea court more controvery than in France.

Not only did a chain of cinemas in France just torpedo the cinema release of Brazilian filmmaker Marcos Prado’s feature debut Artificial Paradises because it was previewed online to generate advance buzz,    also the French Independent Producers’ Syndicate (SPI)   took to the barricades this week and issued a statement in which they do not shy away from attributing ulterior motives to whomever dares challenge the established system: ”A previous or simultaneous online release under the pretext of reaching as many viewers as possible is the Trojan horse of a consumerist vision of the sector, to the detriment of its diversity.”

Interesting results of early tests in the USA and UK are very quickly dismissed as anecdotal and not transferable to European films.

But, as the French scientist Claude Bernard wrote: ”We can solidly settle our ideas only by trying to destroy our own conclusions by counter-experiments.”

During the roundtable discussion in Cannes, a representative from the telecom sector relayed their experience which was that the more they develop services to be enjoyed in the comfort of your home, the    more people also want to go out.

So why is it that cinemas have so little confidence that audiences would still want the superior experience of a night out in their local movie theatre, if they could  also access the film online?

In fact, in many cases they already can, because of piracy.

A successful theatrical run creates the brand value a film needs to perform well in other release windows. In the digital age maybe the positive rub-off can eventually go both ways?

The few experiments that are now emerging are mainly targeted at films which have a very limited cinema release anyway.

Claude-Eric Poiroux of Europa Cinemas is at least open to try: ”If some want to experiment, why not, and we will follow them with interest to see if its viable or not”.

It cannot, however, be viable if cinemas are determined to see it fail.

In Cannes Annette K. Olesen pointed out that filmmakers are by nature prepared to take risks, and  in this time of transition other parts of the industry must do the same. Even cinemas must evolve and adapt to the virtual reality.

If the films we spend years making could be seen by more people if we discover different ways of combining old and new distribution forms, isn’t that a good thing for the entire sector?

As online services develop and diversify, video-on-demand (VOD) is no longer just one thing. There is already a variety of economic models for complementary online windows at different stages in the life of a film: Transactional (pay-per-view or download-to-own), subscription (all you can eat), and free (advertising based or public service free to air). These could be further refined.

Why couldn’t there be an exclusive virtual cinema window? – a  “cinema-on-demand” (COD) – controlled and branded by the cinemas themselves?

Wouldn’t it make sense to expand their own online presence beyond booking tickets and showing trailors?

Under the current system it often seems that the further down the value chain, the less risk you take and the more money you (potentially) make.

That is no longer sustainable.  Online services must also contribute to financing the initial creation, just as cinemas do.

Considering the bitter lessons from our colleagues in the music sector, all professions in the audiovisual value chain should now work together to strengthen what is perhaps our weakest link – the connection to our audience.

After all, as Annette K. Olesen wrote in her op-ed last November:

“We make films for the audience – not for the screen.”

Elisabeth O. Sjaastad(Désolé, cet article est disponible seulement en anglais)

In the past months the debate over film release windows – media chronology as the French call it – has intensified.

While every politician and policymaker is speaking about the ever elusive ”new business models” that will save the day, we in the audiovisual sector have patiently explained just how interdependent all players in our value chain are, and that the (pre-) financing and distribution of films are inseparably linked. Our current business model is not so easily replaced. This makes the transition into the digital age all the more complex and challenging.

But even if we’d rather do business as usual, there is no denying that the world around us has changed. The virtual is a reality.

And our audience is famously wanting to access everything, everywhere, anytime – for free or a very low price, with little regard, it seems, for the long term cost  or consequence for those who make or distribute the content they so desire.

The entire audiovisual sector is concerned, but a cornerstone of the industry appears to feel particularily threatened: The cinemas.

Film directors love the cinema, we want our films to be seen there – and by as many people as possible.

However, in an interview with Cineuropa this week, even the head of the Europa Cinemas network, Claude-Eric Poiroux, acknowledged that ”…there is such competition today that some  films perhaps don’t have the space that they would like to have in cinemas. So releases on VoD and not in cinemas, why not? But cinemas won’t necessarily take the risk of   doing this at the same time.”

In their letter to the Commission, European Parliament and heads  of Member States they proclaim that “… films are initially created to be shown on the big screen, as cinemas are considered the gold standard for enjoying a cinematographic work. It is simply not possible to compare the cinema experience with watching a film on a mobile device.”

But with fierce competition for space, time and attention, some smaller films may only play in theatres 2-3 weeks before being taken off, and they must also  suffer the fate of being completely off the market for the remainder of the holdback period – losing any synergies with the promotion and advertising campaigns mounted  for its initial release. And on top    of this, statistics show that piracy  is particularily rampant during this time.

For a filmmaker no window is simply not acceptable.

So what to do?

Everybody agrees that every  film is unique and needs a tailored distribution and marketing strategy to reach its potential audience. But to suggest that some films might possibly benefit from changing the chronology of release windows is just as heretic as when Jean-Luc Godard said  that ”a story should have a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily in that order.”

And nowhere does this idea court more controvery than in France.

Not only did a chain of cinemas in France just torpedo the cinema release of Brazilian filmmaker Marcos Prado’s feature debut Artificial Paradises because it was previewed online to generate advance buzz,    also the French Independent Producers’ Syndicate (SPI)   took to the barricades this week and issued a statement in which they do not shy away from attributing ulterior motives to whomever dares challenge the established system: ”A previous or simultaneous online release under the pretext of reaching as many viewers as possible is the Trojan horse of a consumerist vision of the sector, to the detriment of its diversity.”

Interesting results of early tests in the USA and UK are very quickly dismissed as anecdotal and not transferable to European films.

But, as the French scientist Claude Bernard wrote: ”We can solidly settle our ideas only by trying to destroy our own conclusions by counter-experiments.”

During the roundtable discussion in Cannes, a representative from the telecom sector relayed their experience which was that the more they develop services to be enjoyed in the comfort of your home, the    more people also want to go out.

So why is it that cinemas have so little confidence that audiences would still want the superior experience of a night out in their local movie theatre, if they could  also access the film online?

In fact, in many cases they already can, because of piracy.

A successful theatrical run creates the brand value a film needs to perform well in other release windows. In the digital age maybe the positive rub-off can eventually go both ways?

The few experiments that are now emerging are mainly targeted at films which have a very limited cinema release anyway.

Claude-Eric Poiroux of Europa Cinemas is at least open to try: ”If some want to experiment, why not, and we will follow them with interest to see if its viable or not”.

It cannot, however, be viable if cinemas are determined to see it fail.

In Cannes Annette K. Olesen pointed out that filmmakers are by nature prepared to take risks, and  in this time of transition other parts of the industry must do the same. Even cinemas must evolve and adapt to the virtual reality.

If the films we spend years making could be seen by more people if we discover different ways of combining old and new distribution forms, isn’t that a good thing for the entire sector?

As online services develop and diversify, video-on-demand (VOD) is no longer just one thing. There is already a variety of economic models for complementary online windows at different stages in the life of a film: Transactional (pay-per-view or download-to-own), subscription (all you can eat), and free (advertising based or public service free to air). These could be further refined.

Why couldn’t there be an exclusive virtual cinema window? – a  “cinema-on-demand” (COD) – controlled and branded by the cinemas themselves?

Wouldn’t it make sense to expand their own online presence beyond booking tickets and showing trailors?

Under the current system it often seems that the further down the value chain, the less risk you take and the more money you (potentially) make.

That is no longer sustainable.  Online services must also contribute to financing the initial creation, just as cinemas do.

Considering the bitter lessons from our colleagues in the music sector, all professions in the audiovisual value chain should now work together to strengthen what is perhaps our weakest link – the connection to our audience.

After all, as Annette K. Olesen wrote in her op-ed last November:

“We make films for the audience – not for the screen.”

Elisabeth O. Sjaastad