I've not commented on the post about the demise of WELLSPRING as we currently know it (mainly, because the one and only response confused the fuck out of me) so I cannot point fingers, but if this doesn't get people on this blog into some kind of discussion I'm not going to feel good about this place anymore. The announcement that WELLSPRING is saying bye-bye to theaters has put me in a state of semi-shock. Basically, Werner and Marie-Therese picked up the best stuff in the world and put it on screens for those of us who care to see it up there. Magnolia and the like have put in a great effort as well, but for me anyway, WELLSPRING was the place. NOTRE MUSIQUE, the Ming-Liang films and on and on. Denis. That's what it was all about to them and for the more formative years of my cine-education in this city's arthouses, that's what it was all about to me. WELLSPRING was the dream - the company that bought the works that will define cinema and...you all know the rest.

Having said all of that, I consider myself more aware of the realities of the business than your average bloke, and I'm not completely surprised that the company kicked it (to a certain degree - I know they're not gone altogether). The quote in the NYTimes piece is right on: "Foreign movies are generally regarded as more dependent on reviews and publicity than domestic ones, and Mark Urman, head of theatrical releasing for the art-house distributor ThinkFilm, blames the lack of media attention on dwindling audience interest. 'Nobody's writing about them, because nobody cares, and nobody cares because they don't penetrate the culture,' he said. 'It's a vicious cycle.'

I couldn't agree more. Nobody cares. That's basically the gist of it in my mind. It has always been the biggest issue with the arthouse community - fans and professionals alike have seemed trapped by this. So many films have come and gone, less than a blip on the cultural radar. My real interest in REVERSE SHOT was a belief that getting behind these films - in any way - was adding to the small campaign to get people to see them, to raise awareness (a phrase that seems fitting in this artfilm-as-endangered-species culture). Sometimes I fault the distribution companies for lackluster campaigns. WELLSPRING's recent release of Denis' THE INTRUDER seemed almost embarrassing. I am knee-deep in THE culture and I didn't really know about it's release. But ho-hum, I'm not privy to their strategy meetings or marketing budgets, so I'm hesitant to be too harsh here but more and more I feel like the strategies employed by the smaller distributors fall short. Yet I can't shake the constant reminder that our culture will basically go see whatever it is told to see. "Nobody is writing about them because nobody cares and nobody cares because they don't penetrate the culture."

Who are these people and how do we make them care? Not cinema studies majors who are writing their thesis on Mekas. Not "hipsters" and "literati" and whateverthefuck you want to call those who attend retrospectives at Lincoln Center but Average Joe Blow. How do you get his ass in a seat for a great film? I know more than a few who say it's impossible because Joe will just never "get" it, he's not smart enough. I still haven't bought that... I really haven't. And I haven't bought the campaigns on so many "arthouse" films - the add in the VOICE, the Lincoln Center screening, et al. I would love someone with a real marketing background to weigh in but my honest sense is that innovation in the realms of marketing isn't exactly alive in the indie film world. In the companies that run the world, the entertainment industry and most industries on the globe, the marketing departments are as important as any. I suddenly feel like so many films have been short-changed here...is the arthouse and foreign film incapable of penetrating the culture? Is it going to be impossible to make people care? Is it that the community doesn't care enough about our old friend Joe?

The only thing I am certain of is that I will not chalk up this kind of shut-down to The Man winning again. It is one of the faults of the "arthouse community" and so many who are passionate about the kind of films that WELLSPRING released that we balk at the sound of commerce, mass appeal, the Average Joe. He - or at least his friend who sneaks in a foreign film every once in a while at Blockbuster - may the one responsible for keeping places like WELLSPRING alive in years to come.

i find it strange that often i find myself becoming insecure when listing my Top 10 Films of the Year to people i don't know because all of a sudden i'm paranoid that they'll think i'm some pretentious art snob, because chances are they haven't heard of at least half of the films on my list. which makes NO SENSE AT ALL. i should be ferocious in my advocacy for a Beau Travail or a Tropical Malady because they are profoundly beautiful works. but somehow the culture is so twisted that liking these films can be mistaken for pretension, which is completely asinine. as far as getting people to treat a subtitled film like any other, i think we have to train them while they're young. seriously. trying to get a 45-year-old man to 'understand' the concept of foreign cinema is like trying to teach a raccoon html. ain't gonna happen.

Might I suggest a print edition of ReverseShot available in the lobby of every Bob Evans across the country? Or maybe some of our comelier staffers could start offering 'Free Handjob' coupons with every ticket stub from 'L'Intrus'?

I'm (sort of) kidding, but at any rate, I don't think it's the lack of Joe Blows that's really caused American Arthouse distro to wither--oh, and HAS it really withered? I'd like to see some actual figures on this, because while I know the 60s had their share of success-de-scandale imports, like the 00s undoubtedly will, there are also plenty of horror stories, like Bande a part opening and closing in a week in NYC, or Au hazard Balthazar never logging a proper stateside roll-out--but anyways, as I was saying, I don't think it's for the lack of Joe Blows (and forgive me if I’m misreading your interpretation of Joe Blow, but that phrase makes me immediately think of the dude from King of Queens) that film culture’s hurting. I think its because that Junior Boho/ University crowd that once bankrolled the repertory/ arthouse theatres has significantly dwindled. Simply put, DVD-weaned young folk don't go out to difficult or different movies as much as they need to, something that became appallingly obvious to me when I was around nineteen years old and attending an Eric Rohmer retrospective in Washington DC, where I consistently found myself the youngest person in the packed theatre (except for that gorgeous, pensive redhead reading Gide at ‘The Aviator's Wife’, and if by some serendipity you read this, darling--TOTAL Missed Connection). Therein, I think, is ReverseShot's mission--to capture the hearts, minds, pocketbooks, and genitalia of a fresh-faced generation of cinephiles in need of guidance. The kids who’ll go to a Tim Burton movie because it seems at least a little different from everything else—give ‘em a little nudge into the unknown. The arty suburbanite teens who self-identify completely through whatever indie/ Krautrock/ grime/ garage/ whatever obscurity they’ve been downloading this week—make them want to drive an hour to see a movie, the way they’ll road trip for Belle and Sebastian. ReverseShot is for the children; let's get their scrawny asses into theatres, if only to spite Poppa Blow.

Thank you for that, SP. I had thought the original Wellspring posting would create more of a stir...maybe it just brought out the defeatist in everyone. (and yes, I've read that weird comment about 10 times and I still have no idea what the fuck it means...) You bring up a totally integral point about the marketing of these films...the only times you see these companies' marketing strategies really step up is when the content is either prurient (Capturing the Friedmans) or inherently marketable (Penguins). I'm not saying it's easy....but there doesn't seem to be a lot of ingenuity. (I say this with no marketing background of course). It's depressing...that straight-to-video release of Resnais's Not on the Lips was a harbinger of bad things to come....can you imagine never having seen these Denis or Ming-liang films on the big screen. The thought is shattering.

The explanation for that strange first comment (I had to look this up):
http://www.babygenius.com/brand.aspx?brandcode=babygenius

I think you've hit it right on the head, Robbiefreeling, with regards to the general apathy generated by the Wellspring announcement. Aside from the mean-spiritedness of the Weinsteins' manoeuvre (buying out a company with the sole purpose of shutting it down), the seat of my throw-my-hands-in-the-air-and-despair resides in the fact that with Wellspring's demise, it just got a little bit harder to see the movies that speak to me in some profound aesthetic/moral/cultural sense. I mean, it took THREE TIMES to get Hou Hsiao-hsien a North American distributor--FLOWERS OF SHANGHAI and THE PUPPETMASTER, &c., &c., and it took THREE TIMES to get Hou a freakin' peep?--so what hope is there? Keep on plugging with the RS-thing as per filmenthusiast's latest missive, I guess, but ach, this is in the same realm of sadness as when the Brattle was on life support.

I agree with filmenthusiast's take on the dwindling attendance among artsy collegiate types being the principal source of these troubled times, and I have to point at the studio 'arthouse' divisions like Focus, Miramax/Weinstein, WIP, SPC, and say 'you're to blame.' They've completely misappropriated the albeit tenuous notion of art cinema, lowering the standards for what would-be audience should consider 'different' (or god forbid 'difficult') work. Traditional film journalism hasn't been much of a help, describing the films produced by said divisions as 'independent' while burying or not even acknowledging many important works, both foreign and American, from distributors like Wellspring. It's gotten to the point where for many collegiate audiences (and I hear this a lot, as director of a college film society) Crash and Good Night and Good Luck are considered difficult and challenging artistic endeavors. In that kind of world, how can works that conduct an inquiry into form and disrupt the classical diegesis find an in?

A few observations from the hip. I see many valid points floating around in here, especially in relation to what we might call the de-hipsterization of art films for younger audience. This is a function, largely I think, of the fact that this new generation has grown up in a low point for local repertory cinemas—these kids saw their movies in malls growing up and have formed their tastes based on the available selection. They go off to college and continue to cement those mores unless they end up in one of those rare markets where repertory dominates. Providence is a decent example: before 1999, the only two theatres in town were single-screen art houses that performed quite well. A new mall opened in walking distance with a 10-plex attached, and the indies took a hit. Never underestimate the motivating power of the familiar.

It’s easy to criticize the distributors of the little movies for what they do and don’t do, (I think there’s a bit more innovation lurking under the surface than we might realize—especially in terms of internet work which they’re all on a steep learning curve with—we real cine-folks are just not necessarily the intended target of these efforts) but I think the elephant in the room is not the endemic problem with really little titles. These have always been and will continue to be there—how do you convince someone in flyover country to motivate for the latest tiny Japanese import at any stage of the game? Also, I don’t think what we’re looking at is necessarily a problem with Americans’ willingness to see foreign titles—let’s remember that a few years ago in the wake of AMELIE, and CROUCHING TIGER, the “trend piece” in Newsweek et al. was about how profitable films from abroad were (HERO from 2004 absolutely cleaned up). Documentaries are the current “new thing,” but that bubble’s bursting around us right now, so in 2007-08 we may see a shift on to something else. We can argue the quality of breakout foreign movies all we like, but I think they present a compelling case against some massively inbred resistance to subtitles or rampant xenophobia lurking out there.

I think what is of more concern is the rapidly shrinking middle ground of pictures as studios continue to play their zero-sum game of increasing costs and diminishing returns which in turn leads to heightened anxiety and the necessity of the safe bet. It costs more money to make and distribute a movie than ever, thus these pictures all have to be recognizably genre and have to go out on more screens, screens which are ever more precious given the downward readjustment of the last 4-5 years after the over-expansion of the late 90s. So, ZATHURA gunks up the works, not necessarily making things harder for L’INTRUS, but for something along the lines of GOSFORD PARK. And when ZATHURA fails anyway, it’s not taken as a sign that the model needs changing, just that it needs to go bigger next time, thus leaving less room for the middle-pictures.

Partisan polarization in D.C. is a good corollary—if there’s no middle ground to agree upon, what gets done? Let’s face it, L’INTRUS is never going to make 1 million—not ever. But, its not going to break out of the ghetto and do moderate business unless we have more movies out there that the majority of filmgoers can agree upon. We’re approaching an either(X-MEN 2)/or (L’INTRUS) world right now and that’s no good for people who once went to the movies for entertainment. Folks are getting hipper and hipper to the stank of the bad blockbuster, and Hollywood’s in a reactionary tizzy that isn’t causing the proper response: putting better movies onscreen. The emergence of the specialty divisions is easy to criticize in the short term (look, I agree: a lot of this stuff isn’t particularly challenging), but I think in the long run their establishment may help get folks back into the right kind of theatres and brush up against those movies they might not have read about. I’m convinced that all it takes is a few films to turn someone on to movies, and if Fox Searchlight, Weinstein, WIP, and the like can at least increase proximity, it could help probability…

I am in complete agreement with the idea that we need to push for films that hit a kind of middleground, films that the "average" film goer can "relate to" - on however level (action, suspense, sex) - that also appeal to the "sophisticated" audiences. I still believe that in a certain sense, all of us who care about Godard (as rep of important cinema) really didn't at one point, then saw or read something, then saw a film, then learned that he was worth caring about. Something along those lines. I remember when I began to care about "artfilm" as such and it basically involved me seeing a couple "modern masterpieces" (i am quoting all of these things because they are not the point of my statement and I don't want you to get distracted), having a discussion with my older brother who was studying film at college at the time about what I had just seen, and then thinking, this is really interesting. Voila, a love for great cinema was born. I am of the belief that this can happen to most everybody while I am aware that environment and motivation, among other things plays a huge role.

I am most supportive - in some ways - of the films that lean in that direction; I think it's easier for a grown adult to swallow a BROKEBACK (Arty? Commercial? Political?) than NOTRE MUSIQUE (Dense and Boring - but brilliant). I guess that's what I'm talking about when I say we need Joe Blow - if we can get him to see something with ANY sort of content that might leave him thinking, "well, that was actually interesting and, maybe, important," Joe might be more likely to check out another one...and who knows where it goes from there...

OK, well, I'm pretty much part of the middlebrow audience that seem to bear the brunt of the scorn here, so let's see if I can testify to some of the queries.

I work all week in a job that doesn’t pay very much and a lot of outside hours not taken up by my commute is pretty much devoted to two classes and catching up on sleep. That being said, I’m also a recent college graduate with not too much responsibility yet, so I like to enjoy myself by keeping up with worthwhile movies, music, and books and I am able to make time and set aside a little money to do so. Part of that is reading all kinds of critics, from LAT/NYT to sites like yours. I live near L.A. so it’s not much trouble to see the latest movies; still, the nearest theatre playing CACHE is forty min. away, and I had to see JUNEBUG on dvd because I never even knew that it played here. As for the latest Godard and Hou and Bergman, I would never even know that they had movies out unless you guys talked about them. Now, I’m pretty much just hunting around looking for a better video store that would allow me a selection of foreign and independent film but which doesn’t necessarily require me to drive to Santa Monica two nights in a row (although my hallucinating eyes may have seen SARABAND on my local Blockbuster shelf – this being the same store that allowed me to purchase a used copy of FUNNY HA HA).

To make this long rant short, I try. I want to have a good knowledge of film in general. I am not afraid of challenging, unconventional material. I also liked some of the movies that the boutique studios put out this year, but I don’t have the illusion that those currently up for the Academy/Spirit Awards are the most daring films of the year. However, you have to admit that for supposedly “small-budgeted” pictures they get the job done in terms of putting butts in the seats. For me, it IS a matter of promotion, not just to you guys whose first order of business is to find out the top prizewinners at the Berlin Film Fest, but also to those of us who may glance only once a week or so at the LA WEEKLY/VILLAGE VOICE event calendars. (I keep wondering, after hearing about TROPICAL MALADY for the past two years, just how long it was able to play in L.A. A week? Two? Scott Foundas complained about this too.) If there’s a problem with getting my ass in a seat to a buzz-y foreign/independent film it means that I didn’t hear about it while it ran (although, I must admit that the trailer for HEAD-ON scared me a little). I did, however, hear about BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN’s sold-out initial runs and was relatively assured of the fact that it would come closer to my neighborhood – but drove out of my way to Hollywood to see it during the first week anyway.

To sum up: I try relatively hard to see all kinds of movies. Of course, because of my limited budget, I am more likely to see the ones for which I hear good reviews from multiple sources as opposed to one mention on a few sites or a random mini-festival here and there (although I try those sometimes, too). But the fact that I am more likely to see BBM as opposed to, say, KINGS AND QUEEN is not due to that fact that I am “scared” or turned off by the latter’s “weirdness”, but because I’ve had BBM in my face for quite some time and frankly, I’m still not sure where KINGS was playing. I will try to see the latter at some point, of course, because I trust this site. But you understand the difficulty; I admit to being lazy a lot of the time, and trusting that dvd release more often than not (hello, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE), but I swear I’m not out to bury the arthouse business with my apathy. A lot of these specialty films, as far as I can tell, DO make it out to the critics in the major publications and do get screened in the coasts at some point or another, but you’re all right in pointing out that beyond the release, there’s virtually no more talk to make it a more permanent fixture. Promotion, promotion. And no, indeed, the polarization of taste due to commerce doesn't help.

Oh, and on a personal note, my college town didn't have an arthouse theater. For the most part, I had to try and build my film education on my own (I took a one class on postwar European film, and luckily we had a nice video store within walking distance). If this lack somehow 'solidified' my middlebrow taste, then it has to be something that takes more time to develop into something more mature, right?

Finally, BEFORE SUNSET was release on Warner Independent. You can't hate them too much.