Trouble at Home? Disney Cuts Off its Kid.

by Lindsay Wilkinson, SUNY Cortland, December 3, 2004

Printer-friendly version

Isn’t it a shame when the future of filmmaking might be jeopardized because big businesses are too busy trying to make everyone but the general public happy? Disney is currently caught in this pickle since they cut off money to its daughter company Miramax this past summer, forcing Miramax to lay off several employees. (3)

What this means, exactly, is that Miramax won’t be able to campaign as aggressively for Oscars as it has in the past.  With Oscars coming up in February, it’s crucial for production companies to have the money to campaign: nominations, and most notably, awards by the Academy lead to much increased box-office and DVD revenues. Though it has received its usual budget for the next fiscal year, Miramax will have to result to tactics that require less money--tactics it used before it was bought by Disney to campaign for the last fiscal year, which may not be so bad after all.

Created in 1979 in New York by brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein, Miramax was named after their parents, Miriam and Max. (1) Critics have often argued over the contributions Miramax has made to the film industry.  Some strongly believe Miramax has positively played a role in the independent film business while others think it has led to the death of “real” independent films (artistic films that are produced by small companies unaffiliated with even larger commercial companies as many film studios are).  Despite the butting of heads among film critics, it is obvious that Miramax is responsible for bringing indie films to public attention, or as some would say, to the mainstream audience.

The indie film culture of New York City is something that New Yorkers take pride in, even as it competes against the hundreds of commercialized Hollywood blockbusters that are turned out to the mainstream every year. As a small production company, the two brothers pushed to make these indie films popular and they succeeded. By word of mouth, their credibility and reputation spread. The Weinstein brothers, with their buoyant personalities, are two very well-known players in the film industry.

Obviously, being acquired by a huge conglomerate had the critics churning over the fact that this might hinder Miramax’s indie credit.  Since independent films are usually low budget, the common belief is that the films are more thoughtfully scripted and focus is on style and artistic techniques of the true art of filmmaking.  The other side to this is the films produced by large commercial organizations that take millions of dollars to make and are heavily advertised to the general public.  These films are thought to be ordinary and more universal because they are meant to appeal to a large, worldwide population.  Independent films have the reputation of almost being an acquired taste and therefore appealing to a smaller population of a culturally enlightened, open group of people.

What Bob and Harvey Weinstein have done is successfully unite the art of indie films with the general public. They gave filmmakers more money to hone their skills and techniques to create an even better, refined indie film. Then they gave the public a chance to see it by opening the film in theaters owned by commercial companies instead of only small independent theaters where the majority of the population does not seek out films. So Miramax and the public both came out on top.

Street credibility and approval of the film culture combined with money attracted big names and more people across the country were given the chance to see these beloved films. Who said the public couldn’t handle an indie flick? Or that they wouldn’t understand it? We live busy lifestyles and we respond to what the media shows us: it’s doubtful that most of us will research what small, indie films are playing in the small, indie theaters on the other side of town. Ever see Good Will Hunting, Pulp Fiction, Life is Beautiful, Gangs of New York, Welcome to Sarajevo, Shakespeare in Love, The English Patient, Kill Bill Vol.1 and 2, Dogma, Kids, Muriel’s Wedding, The Crying Game, Frida or Confessions of a Dangerous Mind to name a small, small few?  Most of us wouldn’t have been able to recognize the titles if it weren’t for the funding that went into advertising them. Some of these films have gone on to become huge successes in the mainstream while some command huge cult followings: either way adds to Miramax’s successful contributions to cinema in marrying indie to the mainstream.  Many critics say that since Miramax has gone mainstream, they’ve compromised their artistic prestige. That’s up to the individual viewer to decide for him or herself.

Besides Disney’s latest attempt to knock Miramax down a notch, they have given the illusion that they do not believe Miramax has made any valuable contributions to Wall Street.(2) Tell that to the audiences.  And also, why buy the company then? One thing for sure is that Miramax has inspired a number of major studios to base some of their smaller divisions in New York as well as give credit to some real independent companiesπ.  All major studies have jumped on the indie bandwagon and now hold a special place for indie films within their company, and many of these divisions are based in New York as well.  Other true independent companies, including IFC, ThinkFilm, and Palm Pictures are now gaining recognition due to the publicity Miramax created.(1)

Many people are sure Miramax will survive despite Disney’s brutality. Miramax has accumulated loyalists such as directors/writers Woody Allen, Quentin Tarentino and Martin Scorcese, and actors such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Uma Thurman, Ben Affleck, Renee Zellwegger, and Nicole Kidman.  Most people have come to recognize the Miramax name so it is doubtful it will take any huge losses in the box-office, but the Oscars are another matter.

So why the cut-off from Disney? It’s not exactly clear. A Disney spokesman acknowledged the benefit of “maximizing profitability for the shareholders.”(3) Others thought perhaps Disney wanted to get rid of the company altogether, but another source says Disney rejected a proposal from Miramax that would enlist $450 million from Goldman Sachs so that Miramax would benefit from a higher budget even if Disney contributed only half of Miramax’s usual annual budget, which is $700 million.(2) This would also decrease the amount of exposure Disney would have on a project it didn’t completely approve of, as they have in the past with Priest or Kids- or Fahrenheit 9/11, which Disney, notably CEO Michael Eisner, blocked Miramax from distributing despite Harvey Weinstein’s active role as executive producer of the film.(3) A long-time rivalry between Harvey Weinstein and Eisner has been speculated as one of the reasons why Disney abruptly cut off Miramax.  It’s hard to say for sure.

Disney has to protect its entire image, so films of controversial issues--such as religion, sexuality and politics--in its eyes, could jeopardize its reputation with other audiences, most notably its cash cow: children. At the same time, Disney will disrupt Wall Street if it cuts Miramax off too much after Disney recently lost Pixar. With all the confusing messages Disney is sending to Miramax, audiences and Wall Street, perhaps it has something up its sleeve. Whatever it is, if anything, don’t worry too much. Miramax probably isn’t going anywhere thanks to Bob and Harvey Weinstein. 
 

Sources:

(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/magazine/03ESSAY.html

(2) http://feed.proteinos.com/001976.html

(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/movies/28mira.html

DESIGNER: Greg Montano, New Media Design, SUNY Cortland, USA

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://neovox.cortland.edu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/76

your thoughts?