“I think the more fundamental thing is that they’re [Netflix] the people who are stepping up and spending money on movies that aren’t Marvel comic movies or big action franchise movies and that type of thing, which is pretty much the business of the studios now. We can’t argue with that.”
As you know, there has been much discussion about Netflix and its role in promoting, or for some deluding, cinema. I have always defended the streaming giant in its relentless pursuit to, quite frankly, be the only major studio around interested in producing original storytelling for top-notch directors (Coen, Scorsese, Fincher, Cuaron, Soderbergh, Chandor, etc).
However, I’ve always been a realist when it comes to this topic. Suffice to say, the real question many should be asking is, “what might be Netflix’s endgame?”
The above quote by Coen describes the positives of Netflix. After all, the streaming giant went to bat for Coen, much like they did for Scorsese’s “The Irishman,” when every other studio balked at the idea of producing and green lighting his and brother Ethan’s 2018 western “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.”
Is it fair to assume that Scorsese, Coen, Fincher, and company would rather have a major studio backing their films instead of Netflix? Not at all, because such a case would give these artists the luxury of getting proper theatrical releases and not have the half-assed “Netflix treatment,” which consists of renting out small-scale indie theatres for only a week or two, only to bury the film afterwards in their never-ending streaming catalog.
And yet, Netflix is losing millions in box-office receipts by resorting to the half-assed theatrical approach.
If a major studio had greenlit “The Irishman” then maybe we wouldn’t be talking about “Midway” debuting at the top of the box-office the same weekend Scorsese’s movie was released. In fact, “The Irishman” barely made $350,000 in its first weekend, opening in only 3 L.A. and NYC theaters. A “strong” showing for such limited availability.
Doug Stone, president of Box Office Analyst and a theater owner, has been quoted as saying that
What Netflix and its CEO Ted Sarandos are trying to do is quite obvious: their goal is and always has been streaming. And so, the goal is to drive more subscribers to sign up for its streaming service. If the company leaves a film in theaters for three months, the typical release window for major movie theaters, that’s three months it isn’t on the streaming service. Something that paying subscribers may not be happy about.
The only reason Netflix has given the aforementioned half-assed theatrical plan to fall titles “Marriage Story,” “The Irishman,” “My Name is Dolemite,” and “The Two Popes” is quite simple: they want to be eligible to win Oscars. For Netflix, getting nominated for Oscars is the best possible way to legitimize their content as “cinema.” And so, it’s up to the Academy’s board of directors to change the rules, decide if they want to expand the theatrical release window to be eligible for an Oscar (right now it’s just a week). Steven Spielberg even fought hard for it earlier this year, only to receive major backlash over his behavior.
As a film critic, I am not going to be affected by Netflix’s theatrical rollouts because I manage to watch most of their important movies at film festivals and press screenings. In that way, the theatrical experience isn’t lost on me. But what about every other non-press cinephile? Sure, Netflix should be commended for picking up the slack by promoting great directors, something its studio competitors have all but abandoned these last few years. However, knowing that the majority of people who will watch “The Irishman” will do so at home and on a much smaller screen than Scorsese intended is not something Netflix should be proud of.
Contribute
Hire me
Advertise Donate Team Contact Privacy Policy
