Captain Kirk's aborted takeoff
|
All of that will be much appreciated by the filmmaking community, except for one niggling fact: MGM and its sister company, United Artists, two of Hollywood's proudest labels, have now ceased to function as autonomous production entities.
The effective shutdown again spotlights a fascinating anomaly: After almost 40 years of ownership, why didn't Kirk Kerkorian succeed in creating a global megacompany on a par with Viacom or Disney? Kerkorian's proprietorship spanned the explosion of video and DVD, the vast expansion of the overseas market and the burgeoning of the videogame industry. Yet at the end of the day, while Kerkorian himself made off with a vast payday (which he doesn't need), his companies remained as rickety as when he took them over two generations ago.
Some hypotheses:
- He had no real passion for the business. Though Kerkorian liked watching movies and even paid to see them rather than attend industry screenings, he distrusted Hollywood and its players and kept a resolute distance from them.
- Though a brilliant dealmaker, Kerkorian never really understood the potential of the ancillary markets that exploded around him and was suspicious of technology.
- Kerkorian listened to his lawyers and even let them select his top executives (their advice was terrible). Kerkorian even appointed some of his attorneys, like Frank Rothman, a litigator, to run his company (their performance was also terrible).
- He had lousy luck. His company here and there created movies that should have worked but didn't. He had some production chiefs who should have clicked but didn't. Time and again, Kerkorian put down his bets but rarely won.
Las Vegas treated him better, and he understood the players. He was out of place in Hollywood. And ultimately out of time.
* * *
Everything keeps getting bigger in China, but ... oops ... last week the government mandated that film festivals should get smaller. Film Festivals like Shanghai and Changchun have become too international, say the bureaucrats, with too much emphasis on awards and dealmaking.
True, China's policies have always been inscrutable, but this sudden downsizing seems in sharp contrast to other trends. Its economy soared 9.5% last year and exports are booming. So what would explain this new doctrine that smaller is better?
Some theories:
- The Chinese believe that "for your consideration" ads are blatantly capitalist.
- The regime has decided that France's cultural protectionism is not such a bad idea.
- The success in the West of films like "Kung Fu Hustle" and "House of Flying Daggers" reflects a vulgar new manifestation of Chinese takeout.
Whatever the explanation, major film festivals will now be "localized" or switched to biennial status and the number of awards in the arts and media field will be sliced from 90 to 24. If this phenomenon were to catch fire in the U.S., the networks would instantly echo with the sounds of silence.
