Chapter 5
The formation of the 'major independent'
Miramax, New Line and the New Hollywood
Justin Wyatt
While much of the economic film history of the New Hollywood has focused on the conglomeration of the industry and the globalization of media production, the industrial structure has changed not just for the major studios, but also for those distributors on the margins, the independent film and video distributors. In this chapter, I intend to analyse how the marketplace for independent film (films not released by the majors) has shifted in the past two decades by considering the development of the two largest independent companies, New Line Cinema and Miramax Films. The case studies of New Line and Miramax illuminate the diverse distribution, marketing and advertising methods developed and co-opted by the independents to weather an increasingly competitive economic climate. Perhaps strongest evidence of the two companies' success in traversing the marketplace can be seen by the recent mergers between these independents and major companies which have provided both New Line and Miramax with substantial financial backing-In terms of independent production, the video and cable boom initially seemed to create an increased demand for product. As one industry analyst commented in 1987,
Why are there suddenly so many new companies joining the low-budget bandwagon — companies like Cinecom and Island, Goldwyn and Alive, Skouras, Cineplex, Atlantic, Vestron and Spectrafilm? The answer is home video. For one thing, the independent home video companies need products to fill their pipelines. Since the studios already have their own video companies, new movie forces need to be created.1
This boom can be evidenced through the dramatic increase in independent production in the second half of the 1980s, particularly from 1988 on. Considering all films receiving MPAA ratings, independent films increased from 193 in 1986 be 277 in 1987 and to 393 in 1988.2 The figures for 1989 through 1991 also remained close to the 400 mark.
The formation of the 'major independent'
75
is period of increased production was marked by a substantial growth in me costs and by the widespread failure of most independent films: between jog 1989, the years coinciding with the film production boom, negative SDubled, while film rentals for independent companies dropped 33 per •.-.jse companies which were able to launch one or more breakthrough ji. extended their assets and weakened their longevity in the marketplace.
about $63 million in domestic gross for Dirty Dancing in 1987, but . :ed to double production. With failures ranging from art house films ~- _ ■   . - Gothic (1986), John Huston's The Dead ( 1987)) to teen pics (Dream '. 1989), Biß Man on Campus (19S9)), the company had financing cut
-   .-.v. Pacific National Bank, and was forced to shut down production and r      ~ in 1989.'' Similarly, Cinecom, after A Room With a View (1986), and iiter My Life As a Dog (1987), were unable to replicate their initial major Other independent companies, such as New Century/Vista, Circle, Odeon, Spectrafilm and Weintraub Entertainment Group, could not cwen one breakthrough success. _?o has proven to be an unreliable market for the independents. Indeed, ii and 'sell-through' (purchased directly for the home) videos have been ■jed as 'A' title businesses. As Strauss Zelnick, former president and ating   officer   of  Twentieth   Century   Fox,   comments   on this
video is released after theaters, the success in video tracks the ss in theaters like every other market. Certain pictures outperform ;»aceo, but that would never induce you to make a picture because if it m at the box office, video will not 'fix' the failure. A movie will u&alu in accordance with its performance at the box office which BBS tou won't make enough money to justify the decision.3
S3, successes drive the push at every additional market window so that 'A' we most likely to translate to video and cable successes. Consider that NBe top ten sell-through titles in 1991, five were distributed bv Buena Vista ^Classics), with the remaining titles all grossing over S75 million theatri-"*"h^e the video market expanded, independent companies were not the : • : this growth in the long run. Part of this phenomen : D :; rxphfawH msr: towards sell-through spending in the video market: while rental spend-■ increased between 1985 and 1992, the amount allocated to sell-through multiplied seven times during the period.7 Only certain titles are launched ■i-through approach: namely those videos which have already proven their a: tr.-e theatrical box office. Films that are star based and famihv oriented ■xctore possess repeatability in home use) also have a greater chance of
76
Economics, industry and institutions
being sell-through items.8 These factors tend to privilege in the video market major releases with a track record of box office performance. Consequently, many of the independent companies initially 'helped' by video and cable eventually severely cut production (for example, Cinecom and Cannon) or exited the market altogether (for example, Island, Alive, FilmDallas, Skouras, Vestron, Atlantic Releasing, Avenue, DEG). By 1992, the top-grossing imports were distributed only by New Line, Miramax, Goldwyn, and the dying Orion Classics.9
New Line and Miramax have been able to withstand this shakeout by consistently developing movies with the potential to cross over beyond the art house market. The companies differ in the methods employed for long-run survival though. Whereas New Line has continually favoured gradual expansion and diversification only following breakthrough successes, Miramax's presence is based much more on marketing and targeting audiences beyond a narrow art house niche. In the process, both companies have been able to develop respectable market shares and some commercially impressive cross-over films.
New Line Cinema and franchising
Formed in 1967 by Robert Shaye, New Line Cinema began as a non-theatrical distributor focusing on the market for 'special events' on college campuses. Through such films as Reefer Madness (1936) and Sympathy For the Devil (1970) and a lecture series representing among others William Burroughs, Norman Mailer and R.D. Laing, New Line maintained a constant presence until 1973 when Shaye decided to open a theatrical distribution arm.10 Shaye targeted his product narrowly, distributing, as described by Variety, 'arty and freak' films. 'Arty' translates to films by Lina Wertmuller (The Seduction of Mimi (1974)), Claude Chabro! (Wedding in Blood (1973)) and Pier Paolo Pasolini (Porcile (1969)), while 'freak' would include Reefer Madness, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Pink Flamingos (1972). Shaye opened some of these films, such as Pink Flamingos, in a midnight screening pattern, followed by a larger theatrical release. By 1974, the New Line Cinema distribution slate mixed foreign, sexploitation, gay cinema, rock documentaries and 'midnight specials' reserved exclusively for midnight exhibition. The intent behind these choices was to tap those markets which would be ignored by the majors, and to maximize the difference of New Line's product from more traditional commercial film.
In 1978, New Line began a limited policy of film production inspired by two major factors. As the market for art films became more established, a greater number of distributors entered the marketplace and competition became more intense within this market. As a result, 'the bidding auction' for film distributior. encouraged the price to rise. New Line had already begun to advance money
The formation of the vmajor independent'
77
■Ver the small amount of $150,000) in pre-production deals to acquire the ■■meted pictures for distribution.11 Shaye's decision to enter production was bv access to a fresh source of production funds: Chemical Bank and a — _r :: rrivate investors supplied a $5 million loan based on New Line's consist :.< record.12 Vowing to limit budgets to under $2 million, Shaye maintained IK kis decision to enter production was also motivated by the growing rs__: .-• jf money from television, syndication, foreign territories and other osrv markets.13
■er die next decade, New Line continued to augment their distribution slate miups, often forming long-term alliances with production companies. For New Line signed an exclusive three-year deal with the British company Tide Productions giving New Line all North American rights, excluding :<deo.14 Even more significant from a financial standpoint, New Line sd ~:o a distribution partnership with Carolco Pictures, under which New B£r?ed to release lower-budget Carolco features separate from their features ■^>nr Pictures.15 During the decade, New Line also managed to translate the Kjzrt: exploitation film A Nightmare on Elm Street (1985) into a wildly profit-ci-rart series by developing the iconic value of Freddy Krueger. Breaking ±je expected decay from film to film in a series, Nightmare III (1987) grossed m3on more than Nightmare II (1985) and Nightmare IV (1988) grossed $7 e more than Nightmare III. Revenue from the franchise was funnelled back fee company rather than into hasty and sizeable production and distribution s<:c: as Shaye commented, 'We are a highly efficient operation with signifi-ir*- overhead. One Elm Street annually suffices to pay for it. We do not need pictures merely to support our distribution apparatus, so we can be me in our judgments'.1
e '•-.zhtmare franchise was augmented by New Line's most successful film — cs successful independent film ever made — Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Bsc Si35 million in 1990. The film moved New Line from a loss position in — i $5.3 million profit for the first half of 1990.17 Picking up the completed Vf« Line's share of ticket sales amounted to only 15 per cent, yet this tided to the Nightmare franchise, transformed the company.18 Based on a about crusading radioactive reptiles, the film possessed a wide level of given the comic book and a host of assorted merchandised items: in tir prior to the film's release, over 100 companies licensed Turtles axiise totalling approximately $350 million. Immediatelv on release, New executives began referring to the Turtles as a franchise — Turtles II was a vear after the first film and Turtles III two years later. The lag on the Em did not lower the box office revenue. As New Line marketing and ■Don president Mitchell Goldman described at the release date of Turtles III, 's no question that we knew the turtles weren't what thev once were.
78
Economics, industry and institutions
However, there's a second generation of children who are 3 or 4 years old and who love the turtles. We knew the videocassettes, TV show, and toys were still selling well.'19
New Line's franchises recall Paramount's adherence to 'tent pole' movies: in the mid-1980s, Paramount built their release schedule around commercial tent poles, like the Indiana Jones, Star Trek and Beverly Hills Cop movies, which could support less viable projects.20 For New Line, the franchise permitted two developments: the creation of a home video division and a separate distribution arm, Fine Line Features, devoted to more specialized, hard-to-market films. While many New Line films had been distributed through RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video, the benefits of retaining video rights were clear: control of another window of release and the advantage of further coordination of the theatrical-video release programme.
As early as 1983, New Line announced that they would split their product into mainstream and speciality items.21 Ira Deutchman, former marketing and distribution president of independent distributor Cinecom, was chosen to be the president of Fine Line Features, the specialized division of New Line launched in 1990. Distancing himself from the failed 'classics divisions' of the major studios, Deutchman highlighted the market appeal of the potential Fine Line films: 'We're looking for films that perhaps take a little more immediate special attention to launch them into the marketplace, a little more time to find their audiences, but they have more market, more crossover potential than classics-oriented films.'2" The move has allowed New Line to produce more commercial fare and to hire stars as insurance for their films. Most conspicuously, in 1994, New Line's product included two Jim Carrey vehicles, the comedy/special effects movie The Mask and another film for which they paid $7 million for his talents, Dumb and Dumber. Ridiculed in the press at the time (Carrey had appeared in only one successful film, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994), when the deal for Dumb and Dumber was signed), both films became blockbusters, with The Mask making $119 million and Dumb and Dumber $127 million domestically.23 Fine Line Features enjoyed earlv success with the art house hit by Robert Altman, The Player ($21.7 million) in 1992, but their track record since has been less auspicious: top grossers for each year include Altman's Short Cuts ($6.1 million in 1993), the documentary Hoop Dreams ($7.8 million in 1994), The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love (a dismal $2.2 million in 199S), and finally a breakthrough hit with Shine at the end of 1996 ($36 million). Shaye vowed to concentrate on acquiring distribution rights for Fine Line Features, rather than being an active producer.24 This decision was motivated by the lower revenue potential associated with specialized art house films. By separating product between the two arms, Shaye has been able tc create a market identity for each companv and to allocate advertising/distribution expenditures consistent with each film's potential pay-off.
The formation of the 'major independent'
79
liramax Films and marketing media controversies
Films, run by Harvey and Bob Weinstein, also started by mining the college . through booking rock concerts and roadshow concert movies.2S Their ce in film distribution began with acquiring distribution rights to films st the right pickup price, would enable them to reap at least a small profit. Billie August's Twist and Shout (1986): with the North American rights - S 50,000, Miramax was able to nurture the film to about $1.5 million r«:x office.26 I've Heard the Mermaids Singing (1987), Working Girls^ (1987) and te Imqueror (1988) were all successes for Miramax in the mid-1980s.
x became more visible with the acquisition of Steven Soderbergh's sex, '-.deotape, which they advanced $1.1 million for the North American i rights alone. Appropriately enough the film was produced through pre-ae video rights to RCA—Columbia Home Video. Winning the Audience
- tne Sundance Film Festival and the Palme d'Or at Cannes, sex, lies was hr Miramax as a sexy and intense comedy about relationships: ad images
Peter Gallagher and Laura San Giacomo embracing, and James Spader MacDowell about to kiss. Highlighting the critical acclaim also, realized a gross of over $26 million domestically. The film's success can to its topicality: many critics considered the film as primarily >n the relationship between culture and technology in the age of 'safe Graham (James Spader) videotaping interviews by women talking zxir sex lives and his professed total reliance on masturbation as a sexual
— e film represents the intersection of the latest 'new technology' with —tr.er with a form of sex that is completely safe. As Karen Jaehne astutely >:-derbergh wants Graham to explode the neo-conservative Eighties with
Ae wav David Hemmings did the swinging Sixties with photography in Soderbergh's technique was to start by exploring the limited sexual 5 available in the 1980s, a move that was calculated to some extent by rrror. When queried on the difficulty of the project in terms of funding, rn explains, 'Well, on the one hand, it may seem like a risk. On the -trr.ember that we've got four relatively young people drenched in sexual-i rim that can be made for $1.2 million.'28 Given the critical triumph, ir.z aggressive marketing by Miramax, the gross destroyed the previous nir.< :or an art house hit. Independent marketing executive Dennis O'Con-itz has worked at Strand Releasing and Trimark Pictures, believes that the ~.ice for independent or specialized film has changed drasticallv since the :<ri, lies and videotape. In terms of box office, whereas the mark of an ncent success used to be a gross of about $3 million, the figure currentlv is S10 million.29 Perhaps because of his film's role in this phenomenon, rh now has mixed feelings:
80
Economics, industry and institutions
The positive aspect is that it shows that 'art movies' can be a viable commercial product. They don't have to remain ghettoized as an art film. The bad thing is that it's established an unrealistic benchmark for other films. That's unfortunate. All you have to do is look at the Sundance Festival in the following years after sex, lies won, and you see films which may have been passed over since 'it's just not another sex, lies.' I actually think that my next two movies (Kafka and King of the Hill) will hold up better over time. I just feel that sex, lies is so much the beneficiary of being of that time that it's become so dated, like a Nehru jacket!30
The experience with sex, lies has been replicated on many occasions by the company - more specifically, selling a product which lends itself to media-induced controversy. Repeatedly Miramax has maximized the publicity created by challenging the MPAA ratings system: Miramax films Scandal (1989), The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (1989), Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (1990) and You So Crazy (1994) all received X (or NCI7) from the ratings board, with Miramax publicly announcing the injustice of the ratings system for independent companies compared to the majors." While in some cases, cuts were made to obtain the R rating, most often (Cook, Tie Me Up!) Miramax chose to release the film unrated. Despite this fact, Miramax wagered often lengthy campaigns - all heavily reported in the media - against the 'arbitrary and capricious' ratings system which would assign an X to, for example, Tie Me Up! 2
This ratings battle also has occurred with Miramax's advertising, with the company receiving reprimands from the Classification and Rating Administration of the MPAA.33 After releasing Peter Greenaway's The Cook, The Thief His Wife anc Her Lover unrated - yet foregrounding the letter X in the ad copy, 'X as in . . . ' -Miramax sought to advertise Greenaway's Drowning By Numbers (1987) through a silhouette of a naked man and woman embracing matched with a critic's quote stating, 'Enormously entertaining. No, no one gets eaten in this one.'34 The MPAA believed that the combination was too suggestive for widespread advertising. Amid wide coverage in industry trades, Miramax surrendered the R rating for the film, rather than alter the advertising.
Enormous publicity was generated by the campaign for The Crying Game which, unlike the original British ad campaign, centred on a shot of supporting actress Miranda Richardson with a smoking gun. For its North American opening in November 1992, the tag line proclaimed 'Play it at your own risk. Sex. Murder. Betrayal. In Neil Jordan's new thriller nothing is what it seems to be.' By January, the ad line was replaced with the following: 'The movie everyone is talking about, but no one is giving away its secrets.' Miramax wanted to stay away from the film's political elements and instead position it as a thriller based around a core secret (the gender of the character Dil, played by Jaye Davidson, revealed
The formation of the 'major independent'
81
-_-.rough the film). This major secret was responsible for the film's cross-cess; due to the barrage of publicity and press coverage growing from the r. amazing $62.5 million was grossed by this film which would seem to be -•thin the boundaries of the art cinema.35 As Variety describes Miramax's -.£ campaign, 'Miramax sold the film as an action-thriller with a big ".: it had been realistically pegged as a relationship film with gay connota-might never have broken beyond the major cities.'36
rdi sex, lies and videotape, The Crying Game benefited from engaging its I in current and timely issues — in this case, the national debate over : _il rights, specifically the proposal to end the ban on gays serving in the r In many ways, the film's thriller plot line is secondary to the romance 3:1 and Fergus (Stephen Rea) which addresses the blurry line between a and repulsion, not to mention constructed and essential differences xual, gender, class and national lines. As with the 'gays in the military' : r..m confronts the fears of straight men being considered a sexual object :ce of the same gender. Less commented on during the release were the rates inherent in such a position. While Jordan does feature an unlikely c" pairing of IRA member with a transvestite hairdresser, the film does iii embody many cliches and stereotypes of gayness: the in-the-closet sip. the continual drug-taking and nightclubbing, and the mental/ peal instability invoked by the character of Dil. Therefore, while the : certainly placed and maintained the film in the domestic market, the =- popularity of the film must be considered in terms of its ideological 'r.mg Game simultaneously allowed viewers to engage the subject of ■s£e reinforcing 'traditional' and discriminatory views, all within the sre of the thriller.
«r»egy of refocusing an advertising campaign also  surfaced with i rughest grossing film, Pulp Fiction. The campaign was designed to cross con as possible from an art house audience to a wider action-thriller Trie trailer demonstrates this approach: the preview begins solemnly by ai£ that the film has won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival and s r-een one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year. Suddenly acpear through the screen, and a fast-paced barrage of shots from the mswig the action, sexuality and memorable sound bites. Through the ta-imax has been able to sell to the art house audience through the film's nut, more significantly, an image was created of the film as being full . comedy and sex. This approach no doubt broadened the film's audience ii     _  :-iting those drawn by the critical acclaim. This strateg) can also be ■Kffi m Pulp Fiction's one-sheet which defines the term 'pulp fiction' for _-. l.   ,:ar - a process clearly aimed at educating the masses '■' r.   might have A   -     -. nv an 'obscure' title.
82
Economics, industry and institutions
Figure 5.1 Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta and Harvey Keitel in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction (1994). Courtesy of Buena Vista and the Kobal Collection
The impact of New Line and Miramax can be illustrated through the case of director Robert Altman.38 Despite a strong critical reputation, a series of commercial failures in the late 1970s and the relatively disappointing box-office gross of the pre-sold, marketing-oriented Popeye in 1980, created a hostile climate for Altman within the major studios. Altman's only film for a major studio since Popeye was made in 1983 for MGM - O.C. and Stiggs - which was released in a handful of theatres four years later, and then directly to home video. Since his estrangement from the majors, Altman has been forced to work in other media (cable for The Laundromat (1985) and Tanner '88 (1988), network television for The Room (1987), The Dumb Waiter (1987) and The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (1988)) and for independent studios (Cinecom for Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean (1982), United Artists Classics for Streamers (1983), Cannon for Fool For Love (1986), New World for Beyond Therapy (1987), Hemdale for Vincent and Theo (1990), Fine Line for The Player (1992) and Short Cuts (1993), Miramax for Ready to Wear (1994)).
Altman's return to media prominence relates directly to the efforts of New Line/Fine Line and Miramax in promoting and publicizing Altman's films. New Line chose to release The Player in 1992 through their art house distribution arm Fine Line Features, rather than directly through New Line Cinema. This choice indicates that the film, while probablv among the most 'accessible' of A/tman's career in terms of character and narrative, remained a challenge in terms of
The formation of the 'major independent'
83
placement within the marketplace. On release, Universal's Tom Pollock com-- ented that the film's 'unbridled hostility' towards the studio system could have r-een turned into a 'brilliant marketing ploy had a "major" distributed it'.39 I
:uld argue that Fine Line's marketing strategy for The Player did indeed centre :c Airman's alienation and independence from the studio system. Altman's "iconoclastic' past and his return to form after a decade away from Hollywood rentred many of the publicity opportunities developed by Fine Line.40 While foregrounding Altman as auteur has been a consistent focus for selling his films, rus effect with The Player was augmented by repositioning Altman as a famous irector returned to form. This approach was repeated in 1993 with Fine Line's release of Altman's Short Cuts, with the advertising centred almost entirely on the —atch between Altman and the writings of Raymond Carver. The tag line zescribes, 'From two American masters comes a movie like no other.'
Miramax's selling of Ready to Wear expands this strategy even further. Miramax Fiims has thrived due to its marketing savvy, particularly the ability to apply exploitation' techniques to art house product. Their approach follows from several earlier Miramax campaigns. Miramax's ads for Ready to Wear ran without prior approval by the MPAA, creating a media frenzy over the scantily clad model Helena Christensen in the one-sheet. While the MPAA had banned the image from the film's advertising, the issue was extended even further when Columbia Records continued to utilize the shot in promotion for the soundtrack CD.41 Since the posters included the line 'See the Movie', the MPAA believed that the ads constituted movie promotion, and threatened to revoke the movie's R rating. Miramax hired high-profile attorney Alan Dershowitz to represent their case, with Dershowitz and Helena Christensen appearing at a press conference on 1S December, ten days before the film's premiere.42
An ensemble comedy/satire of the fashion industry, with a narrative structure close to the crisscrossing of Altman's Nashville (197S), A Wedding (1978) and H.E.A.L.T.H. (1979), Ready to Wears release was propelled not only by the ad .-:rjtroversy, but also by a title change less than a month prior to release.45 Mbarzmax marketing vice-president Marcy Granata explained that the change from —r .  '        to Ready to Wear was motivated by the feeling that Americans would are r :   r::;inal title 'difficult to pronounce and even harder to define'.4*' Altman Wl--~ei with the shift: 'Miramax is a company with incredible gut instincts ; kind of thing.,4S These comments seem curious from the director whose •*CT" - : mmercial success was M*A*S*Tl, a title which no doubt proved perplex-x:;_ for many moviegoers in 1970. However, Altman realized the publicity
mm presented by suddenly translating a title which had beer, covered in
^■pm for over a year. The media controversy generated bv the shift allowed ;arner more press coverage as a means to compete in the competitive « :.    -    -•/.ease schedule.4''
84
Economics, industry and institutions
Life under conglomeration
If Miramax and New Line represent the most ambitious and seasoned independents, their current claim to the label 'independent' is much more tenuous. In May 1993, Disney acquired Miramax, while the Turner Broadcasting Corporation merged with New Line. Paying close to $60 million for Miramax, Disney acquired the Miramax film library (over 200 features) and the talents of the Weinsteins who signed contracts for a five-year period.47 Disney agreed entirely to finance the development, production and marketing of Miramax's features. The benefits for the Weinsteins include better ancillary deals in markets such as home video and pay television. The brothers estimate that by aligning with Disney they will be able to extract in excess of $750,000 to $2 million per film. Bob Weinstein cites the example of two Miramax children's films — Arabian Knight (1993) and Gordy (1995 - which failed theatrically but were saved by aggressive selling at the videc window by Disney: 'We were rescued by Disney in home video. Now, that's a clear case of synergy.'48 Ted Turner acquired New Line Cinema, along with Castle Rock Entertainment, to provide fresh programming for Turner's television networks, TBS and TNT.49 New Line/Fine Line was acquired for about $600 million, while Castle Rock cost Turner $ 100 million in cash and about $ 300 million ir. assumed debt.so
The intent for both Disney and Turner was to leave New Line and Miramax as separate from the allied companies. In this manner, both New Line and Miram=a would be able to maintain some autonomy. This position is significant given the lessons learned from the 'classics' divisions of the major studios in the eari» 1980s. Established to distribute specialized product, the classics divisions, such as Triumph Films (Columbia) and Twentieth Century Fox International Classics entrusted distribution for their films to the studios' domestic distribution arm. Focusing their energy on the mainstream (and more costly) films, domestic distr: bution bungled release after release from the classics divisions. New Line ar.-: Miramax have retained control of distribution and marketing for their release; The most impressive difference given their new affiliation was a greater access :: funds and more latitude in production decisions.
Indeed, these major independents, Miramax and New Line, have served to polarize the market for independent film. Miramax, in particular, has become even more aggressive in buying distribution rights to completed films, with ther efforts increasing the price for product. As Ira Deutchman of Fine Line comments, '[The Disney era] Miramax has definitely affected the marketplace. People are buying films earlier and earlier, and paying more and more.'52 Marcus Hu a the independent company Strand Releasing repeats this observation: 'It's tou^r when you find a Miramax buying up stuff like Clerks. If Crush had come out tins year, a bigger company would have snapped it up.'S3 Even executives at Mirarr-E3
The formation of the 'major independent'
85
r^it this syndrome is problematic: acquisitions vice-president Tony Safford zs. 'We think other people have overpaid. We are all having to make decisions that may involve overpaying because of lack of product.'54 the mergers in 1993, against professed intentions, corporate domination hat constrained both Miramax and New Line despite their greater capital. With Miramax, the policy of marketing through media contro-occasionally created friction with Disney. In 1995, this conflict was with the releases both of Priest, a British film directed by Antonia Bird i conservative gay priest fighting inner and outer battles to gain peace, and srr~. Clark's expose of debauched youth in New York. In a move that was by William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League, as placing 'salt sounds of believers', Miramax scheduled the release of Priest for Good k'_ramax, expressing surprise at the vehemence with which the film was i-^cested, shifted the release date amid a great deal of publicity. A represen-beadline over the incident read, 'Protest Delays Wide Release of Priest; ei Bows to Catholic Group and Reschedules Controversial Film's General uxion Till After Easter'.55 Advertising maximized the controversy: the title ne letter 't' in the shape of the cross, while the ad line referenced both i 3riest's secret and the secondary tale of incest which the priest must 'In the world of rituals, in a place of secrets, a man must choose between r rje faith and exposing the truth.' Given Miramax's affiliation with Dis-c effects persisted though: several stockholders, including the Knights of km and Senator Bob Dole's wife Elizabeth Dole, sold stock in Disney soon ?r:est scandal. The Knights of Columbus, selling $3 million of Disney jsd the company's ties to Miramax and Priest, while a Dole spokesman ■ced, 'Mrs. Dole was surprised to learn that Disney owned Miramax and
Records and has decided to sell her stock.'56 ■as able to maintain an almost consistent flow of publicity and promotion j icpearance at the Sundance Film Festival in January 1995 through its in July. Ostensibly a cautionary tale, kids follows a day in the life of 17-. a 'virgin surgeon' whose mission in life is to seduce virgins. One of «- conquests, Jennie, discovers that she is HIV-positive and, while Telly is g —ore girls, Jennie tries to find Telly to tell him the news. Playing into the ; — ost florid depiction of forgotten urban youth, the film's cinema verite rrr-ered the critics' and reviewers' beliefs that Clark was depicting only a ;_ed reality: as New York magazine titled their cover story on the film, Matter with kids Today?'57 kids received an NC17 rating (for 'explicit C-Lige, drug use, and violence involving children') from the Motion Pier-cation of America. Contractually Miramax, as a subsidiarv of Disney, re-ease NCI7 films. Thus the Weinsteins were forced to form another :ning Excalibur Pictures, just to release kids. Although some industry
86
Economics, industry and institutions
analysts viewed this move as an attempt by the Weinsteins to distance themselves from Disney, the brothers denied any such intention.58
Whereas Miramax has been able to continue its strategy of marketing through controversy, albeit with occasional institutional difficulties, New Line's fate under the Turner regime has been more precarious. The long-term differences in their life under conglomeration can be appreciated by contrasting two releases from 1996, Miramax's Trainspotting and Fine Line's Crash. Trainspotting, a mixture of hyperbolic music video visuals with a downbeat tale of heroin addiction among a set of friends in Scotland, became the second most popular British feature in UK box-office history and was adopted by Miramax for North American release. The Weinsteins partly dubbed the film to make the Scottish accents more comprehensible and sold it more along the lines of disillusioned youth than on heroin addiction. The trailer shifted the narrative trajectory to the heist of the last third of the film, limiting mention of drugs to an absolute minimum, while the print ad positioned the film in terms of lifestyle choices for the young ('Choose life. Choose a job. . .' through to 'Choose rotting away at the end of it all'). While the film's advertising diminished the role played by heroin in the narrative, a secondary level of publicity detailed the 'heroin chic' culture of emaciated and drugged fashion models and the rise of heroin use among the young. The result was a solid gross of $16.5 million, not a cross-over hit, but certainly a respectable art house box-office figure.
David Cronenberg's Crash describes a subculture of people sexually aroused by car accidents, following a young couple's descent into this world after their own crash. Admittedly, the subject matter strictly limited the film to art house exhibition, but New Line's owner Ted Turner reportedly delayed the release of the film after finding it distasteful: the release date was moved from October 1996 to March 1997, putting Crash's American release after many other territories, including Canada and France. Turner's intervention in his subsidiary companies over 'difficult' projects had already impacted Anjelica Huston's television film Bastard Out of Carolina, depicting the rape of a 12-year-old by her stepfather. Huston's film was dropped from Turner's TNT cable network after Turner called the film 'extraordinarily graphic' and 'inhumane'.59 Apart from shying away from controversy, the merger of Time Warner with Turner Broadcasting in 1996 further complicated New Line's position through making New Line directly compete with Warner Bros, for feature films. By mid-1996, industry trade papers reported that New Line was for sale by Time Warner as a result of this conflict of interest.60 Around the same time, the Weinsteins extended their deal with Disney for another seven years.6'
While historically New Line and Miramax were able to develop strategies — franchises and aggressive marketing/publicity — to maintain a consistent market presence, their merger with the larger companies has created a curious hybrid, the
The formation of the 'major independent'
87
r.-iependent'. The major independents have fragmented the marketplace oer.dent film further and further - through producing films parallel to the through stressing art house acquisitions which have the potential to er to a wider market. While New Line and Miramax have gained financial ---.rough their affiliations, the remaining unaffiliated companies have rre-d greater difficulty in acquiring product at a reasonable price. The net i .rntraction in the market for independent film, bolstering the status of jars and major independents, and creating an increasingly competitive those smaller companies. This movement towards the major independ-i market force constitutes a key shift in the industrial parameters of t film, studio moviemaking and the New Hollywood. These two . seemingly on the margins of Hollywood, actually illustrate a number s through which the New Hollywood has been refigured in industrial, c and institutional terms.
Acknowledgement
:: -iiank Ian Conrich and Conny Ford for sharing research materials on Cinema with me.
4
Notes
insert, Peter McAlevey and Katrine Ames, 'Hollywood goes independent', k. 6 April 1987, p. 66.
■ indie production pulse', Variety, 26 June 1991, p. 77.
:e Cohn, 'Domestic market for indie pix soft', Variety, 22 February 1989,
Stewart, 'Vestron saying nixed loan triggered woes, sues bank', Variety, 23 August
p-59.
fccsarď Ohmann (ed.), Making and Selling Culture (Hanover: Wesleyan University běs. 1996), p. 26.
faieper.dent New Line Cinema released Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Secret of the das tide #6), while title #10 - Sweatin' to the Oldies - was an exercise tape.
- :to Video Store Magazine Market Research, sell-through spending was -..'.ion in 1985, climbing to S4,450 million in 1992. W*d Verna, 'The great sell-through vs. rental debate', Billboard, 4 January 1992, p. V10. lac crossing imports for '92', Variety, 11 January 1993, p. 63.
»_-rr and "freak" films packaged to theatre trade by New Line; sex, too', Variety, *Hrl973,p.6.
V^arjve pickups a new policy for N. Y. 's New Line Cinema', Variety, 11 August 1976,
*ciup costs, other factors propel New Line to enter production', Variety, 28 June fet. p. 6.
88
Economics, industry and institutions
14 'New Line, Working Title in 3-year deal', Variety, 31 May 1989, p. 21.
15 Claudia Eller and Max Alexander, 'Turtles vid heads for sell-through as New Line catches screen sequel', Variety, 18 July 1990, p. 3.
16 Myron Meisel, 'New Line's nightmare spurs ambitious expansion program', The Film Journal, April 1986, p. 37.
17 Judy Brennan, 'Turtles a hero for New Line in first Half, Variety, 1 August 1990. p. 27.
18 Ronald Grover, 'Nightmares, turtles — and profits', Business Week, 30 September 1991. p. 52.
19 Martin Grove, 'New Line's future is filled with franchises', The Hollywood Reporter, 25 March 1993, p. 5.
20 For an analysis of Paramount's strategies in designing these commercial tent poles, see Justin Wyatt, 'High concept as product differentiation', High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Hollywood (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994), pp. 104—7.
21 'New Line restructured for 24-pic annual goal', Variety, 29 June 1983, p. 4.
22 Claudia Eller, 'New Line forms new label for specialty releases', Variety, 10 December 1990, p. 5.
23 Data on domestic New Line and Miramax grosses have been supplied by Entertainment Data, Inc.
24 Claudia Eller, 'New Line forms', p. 5.
25 Anne Thompson, 'Will success spoil the Weinstein Brothers?', Film Comment, July August 1989, p. 73.
26 Ibid., p. 75.
27 Karen Jaehne, Review of sex, lies and videotape, Cineaste, vol. 17, no. 3 (1990-p. 38.
28 Harlan Jacobson, 'Truth or consequences', Film Comment, July/August 1989. p. 23.
29 Dennis O'Connor, telephone interview, 19 May 1995.
30 Steven Soderbergh, telephone interview, 26 October 1994.
31 Miramax sold off distribution rights to You So Crazy to the Samuel Goldwyn Comparr-in March 1994. As a subsidiary of Disney, a Motion Picture Association of America member, Miramax was forbidden to release the film without a rating.
32 Richard Huff, 'Shackles on Tie Me Up?: Kunstler calls X rating arbitrary', Variety, 2" June 1990, p. 10.
33 Will Tusher, 'Distrib forfeits R on Numbers due to ad flak', Variety, 27 May 199'.. p. 3.
34 Ibid.
35 Caryn James, 'The Crying Game wins at gimmickry', The New York Times, 31 Januar 1993, p. Hll.
36 Michael Fleming and Leonard Klady, '"Crying" all the way to the bank', Var.r. 22 March 1993, p. 68.
37 A month before the release of The Crying Game in North America, President-elect Bil Clinton announced that he planned to reverse the bans on homosexuals in the milits.-' as his first policy decision. For a chronology of events and issues leading to this pom-see Scott Tucker, 'Panic in the Pentagon', Humanist, vol. 53 (June 1993), p. 41. The national furore over this proposal is covered in Bruce B. Auster, 'The Commander ar.: Chiefs', U.S. News and World Reports, 8 February 1993, pp. 37-^K).
38 For a more complete account of the relationship between Airman and the larg-e:
The formation of the 'major independent'
89
industrial structure of the New Hollywood, see Justin Wyatt, 'Economic constraints/ economic opportunities: Robert Airman as auteur', The Velvet Light Trap, no. 38 (Fall 1996), pp. 51-67.
39 Peter Bart, 'Airman's revenge', Variety, 10 February 1992, p. 5.
40 As Altman commented in an interview just before the release of The Player: 'This film hasn't been released yet. This film, less than 3,000 people have seen it — in the world. I've got more mail from those screenings than on all the other films I've made in my lifetime. Twenty, thirty films . . . and everybody's writing about it; every goddam magazine that you could pick up has it as my "comeback". This is my third comeback, whaddya gonna do on my next one?!' ('The movie you saw is the movie we're going to make', Film Comment, May/June 1992, p. 28).
41 Claudia Eller, 'Is Altman dressed for success?', The Los Angeles Times, 7 December 1994, p. Fl.
+2 Greg Evans, 'Ready to dress down MPAA', Variety, IS December 1994, p. 6.
-3 Miramax also sold Ready to Wear, in a similar fashion as Fine Line's release of The Player, as the work of an acclaimed director — a one-sheet for the film suggests that Altman will 'do' to the fashion industry in Ready to Wear what he has done to the military in M*A*S*H, country music in Nashville, and the film industry in The Player.
44 Greg Evans, 'Pret fret nets translation', Variety, 1 December 1994, p. 6.
45 Ibid.
46 It should also be noted that Miramax shifted the release date as well — from 21 December to 25 December. This move was not explained by Miramax, although as Greg Evans points out, 'Pix released on the 25th get a crack at Christmas Day —oviegoers before reviews, word-of-mouth or B.O. reports get a chance to settle in.' Tx implication is that Miramax made both changes in an effort to maximize the -marketability of a film which they perceived as uncommercial.
;udia Eller and John Evan Frook, 'Mickey munches on Miramax', Variety, 3 May 1993, p. 60.
af Claudia Eller, 'The synergy between unlikely partners Miramax and Disney has sur-nrjed many — including Miramax and Disney', The Los Angeles Times, 1 December W95,p. Dl.
Sharpe, 'Turner film ventures gets mixed results', The Wall Street Journal, |> 11 August 1994, p. Bl.
i-dia Eller, 'Media's mega-deal makers', The Los Angeles Times, 18 July 1996,
[   BL D6.
r.i Springer, ' Sell it again Sam', American Film, March 1983, p. 55.
E. Frook, 'Call Harvey Mickey Mouth', Variety, 29 November 1993, p. 75. l:   >. Glucksman, 'The state of things', Filmmaker, Fall 1994, p. 29. .-. Brodie, 'Harvey's hefty cash lends fest some flash', Variety, 23 May 1994,
I P- 63-
" tzar. Dart, 'Protest delays wide release of Priest', The Los Angeles Times, 25 March 1995, x Metro 1.
'. \sne\ link to assailed movie spurs Dole's wife to sell stock', The Los Angeles Times, _-.e'l995,p. A16.
-- Hirschberg, "What's the matter with kids today?', New York, 5 June 1995, i pp-36-41.
3 EMm Dutka, 'Miramax circumvents kids controversy', The Los Angeles Times, 29 June '^"fS. p. Calendar 2.
90
Economics, industry and institutions
59 Warren Berger, 'A harsh story finally avoids a harsh fate', The New York Times, IS December 1996, p. H37.
60 Turner's reported pricing of New Line stalled some potential bidders for the company; see Dan Cox and Martin Peers, 'New Line goes back in time',' Variety, 10 April 1997, p. 1.
61 Claudia Eller, 'Miramax's production duo extending run with Disney', The Los Angeles Times, 10 May 1996, p. 5.