Going After Netflix, Cannes Bans Streaming-Only Movies From Competition Slots (slate.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Going After Netflix, Cannes Bans Streaming-Only Movies From Competition Slots (slate.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday May 12, 2017 @08:40AM from the growing-tension dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Cannes Film Festival is taking a stand against Netflix. Responding to a rumor that the streaming service's Okja, directed by Bong Joon Ho, and The Meyerowitz Stories, directed by Noah Baumbach, would be excluded from awards consideration after being included in the Competition lineup, the festival released a statement clarifying and adjusting its positioning going forward. The short version: From now on, if you want to compete at Cannes, your movie had better be released in French movie theaters -- not just online. There has long been a point of tension between Cannes and Netflix, to the extent where the inclusion of Okja and The Meyerowitz Stories came as a bit of a surprise. Netflix films had previously been snubbed and festival officials had advocated for "discouraging" the streaming service's online-first approach to release. The two movies included in Cannes' lineup this year are slated for theatrical bows stateside, but according to the festival's official statement, "no agreement has been reached" to get the moves into French cinemas and the effort to reach one was made "in vain." However, the statement does clarify that this rule goes into effect next year, so Okja and The Meyerowitz Stories will remain in competition and eligible for the Palme d'Or.

82 of 136 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

They should either ban digital or get over it by drinkypoo · 2017-05-12 08:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can see the argument for banning something not shot on film, if film is your thing. But if you're going to allow that, then banning something for being straight-to-streaming is wrong.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by rwa2 · 2017-05-12 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, yes, online streaming will become a newsworthy sensation of the times for people who live and discuss happenings in the moment. Cannes will become relegated to being the debut release venue for hipsters who lovingly handcraft their timeless masterpieces.
  Well, I see the point of them carving out that niche for themselves in a bid to stay relevant.
2. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by cayenne8 · 2017-05-12 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  I can see the argument for banning something not shot on film, if film is your thing. But if you're going to allow that, then banning something for being straight-to-streaming is wrong.
  Hardly anything is shot on film these days...so, I think that point is moot.
  It is all mostly filmed in digital these days. Heck, its hard to even find film to shoot a movie on these days.
  But to me...a movie is a movie, no matter where how it if filmed or where it is shown and enjoyed.
  I'm not sure I can see what the object is over there, unless they are afraid that French physical cinema houses are going to go out of business, and this is some sort of ploy to try to have some protectionism against their demise?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
3. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by wonkey_monkey · 2017-05-12 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  It is all mostly filmed in digital these days.
  You mean it's all digitalled in digital.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
4. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by Motard · 2017-05-12 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  They have their goals (some of them may even be good - or not). Who cares? It's their choice. Their award.
  MTV has been getting press for their awards this year. The criteria are not the same as for the Academy Awards, Sundance, The Golden Globes, etc.
  Perhaps we need a 'Movie Awards Award'.
5. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-12 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Movie theatres are digital now. There is no difference between showing a DRM'd watermarked big budget blockbuster on a big screen or hooking your xbox up to it (Halo was so freaking awesome that night!)
  So, Netflix FR, rent an old movie theater, spend 35K on a digital projector, and charge a buck for admission to watch your movies. You need 2 employees, one to run the movies and clean between each show, the other to sell tickets. Don't even sell concessions, take it as a loss leader and meet all the requirements and make them fuckers fume and dance next year when they have to change the req's yet again if they want to keep you out.
  Then again, I don't care about Cannes. I have Netflix. :)
6. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by Austerity+Empowers · 2017-05-12 09:37 · Score: 2
  
  I can see the argument for banning something not shot on film, if film is your thing. But if you're going to allow that, then banning something for being straight-to-streaming is wrong.
  Not having learned the lesson of ballet and opera, some are inclined to preserve the portions of the art-form that are entirely irrelevant, at any cost, including their art.
7. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by gravewax · 2017-05-12 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  movies stopped being shot on film long ago. regardless this is a lot like the rest of the movie industry where they stick there head in the sand and pretend the world isn't going to move forward as long as they don't want it to.
8. Re: They should either ban digital or get over it by saloomy · 2017-05-12 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  Their relevancy is being able to select which movies are seen by distribution companies and high-powered executives. With online distribution, just about any decent film maker can offer their movies to Netflix and bypass Cannes altogether. I don't know, but I'd bet movies that are independent pay or reward the CFF if their movie gets picked up, so the CFF is just protecting their market.
9. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by Misagon · 2017-05-12 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  There are still a few directors who still prefer to shoot on film ... even though the film will be digitized for post-production later.
  Christopher Nolan is one of them.
  Star Wars The Force Awakens was also shot on film, some 35 mm, some 70mm (IMAX).
  
  --
  "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
10. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by Xtifr · 2017-05-12 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  French people don't have access to the Internet?
11. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by tlhIngan · 2017-05-12 10:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Movie theatres are digital now. There is no difference between showing a DRM'd watermarked big budget blockbuster on a big screen or hooking your xbox up to it (Halo was so freaking awesome that night!)
  So, Netflix FR, rent an old movie theater, spend 35K on a digital projector, and charge a buck for admission to watch your movies. You need 2 employees, one to run the movies and clean between each show, the other to sell tickets. Don't even sell concessions, take it as a loss leader and meet all the requirements and make them fuckers fume and dance next year when they have to change the req's yet again if they want to keep you out.
  Then again, I don't care about Cannes. I have Netflix. :)
  The problem is the rules.
  First, to be eligible in the Cannes film festival, your film must be shown in a theatre. Easy enough to do for anyone.
  BUT, French law has it that no streaming service may show that film until three years after its theatrical debut. Now we have a problem since it disallows simultaneous streaming and theatrical releases, as well as many films that show at various film festivals and then head to digital distribution months after the showing.
  That's the real problem
12. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by dwywit · 2017-05-12 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  "Captured", then "ingested", then "post-processed", then "distributed".
  Kind of like what happens when humans go to the market and capture their food, then they ingest the food, then they process the food, then they distribute what's left.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
13. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by ThePawArmy · 2017-05-12 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but what have they digitaled lately?
14. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-12 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  In France, it is against the law to stream films to French audiences unless they have been in wide release domestically for at least three years.
15. Re: They should either ban digital or get over it by that+this+is+not+und · 2017-05-12 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  But the French has Minitel, when the rest of us had to BBS on bulky PCs and 300 baud modems.
16. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by jimtheowl · 2017-05-12 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Their goals, according to their own site http://www.festival-cannes.com... is as follow (in french):
  
  "Pour durer, le Festival a dû rester fidèle à sa vocation fondatrice qui était de révéler et mettre en valeur des uvres de qualité pour servir l'évolution du cinéma, favoriser le développement de l'industrie du film dans le monde et célébrer le 7ème art à l’international. Aujourd’hui encore, cette profession de foi constitue le premier article du règlement du Festival."
  
  This basically states that their first rule is to reveal and put in value quality creations to serve the evolution of cinema.
  
  In my view, Netflix is part of this evolution and their stance is contrary to their own rule (for which they stress their fidelity).
17. Re: They should either ban digital or get over it by ArmoredDragon · 2017-05-12 15:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Most film/artistic rewards are usually about somehow benefiting those who run them. For example, it's a pretty open secret that you can't win the Oscars without doing some heavy bribery:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03...
  In other words, if you've ever wondered why a rather average movie can win so many awards (I'm looking at you, Lost in Translation) it's because somebody paid good money for it to happen.
  That said, it's best to just ignore them.
18. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by peawormsworth · 2017-05-12 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  ...carving out that niche for themselves in a bid to stay relevant.
  By doing this, they are admitting that they are irrelevant. Imagine a music awards show saying they will only award artists who produce a vinyl copy.
  Perhaps instead of trying to for relevance, they should use their brand to move with the market and find alternate profit models.
19. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-12 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  Wait why the hell does France have that law? Did they buy it or something?
20. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by squiggleslash · 2017-05-12 23:06 · Score: 2
  
  I would take the opposite point of view. What medium it's recorded on is irrelevant - I can't for the life of me see why that would matter to Cannes or anyone else. The point is that it's the intention that the work be shown on a large screen in front of an audience. That reflects the type of work in much the same way that a website and a novel may contain the same number of words, but you'd expect the latter to be written in an entirely different way to the former, in part because the intent is for someone to sit down and read it on their lap over a period of days rather than navigate to the good bits using the computer at their desk.
  From Canne's point of view a good way to gauge that intention is to require it be shown in a cinema. That way they can feel reasonably that they're getting the same kind of work, comparing like with like.
  Now, is it technologically behind the times? That's arguable. Likewise it's arguable that a test that something should only be eligible for "Novel of the year" that it be printed, bound, and sold in a bookshop, would be behind the times too. But the latter test would be far more behind the times than the former. Netflix doesn't have cinemas yet, and it's doubtful most cinematographers of straight-to-Netflix viewers have a screen hundreds of feet wide in mind when composing shots. So, subtle as it may be, if Cannes has not accepted TV or straight-to-VHS movies before, it's probably right it bans straight-to-Netflix content too.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
21. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by DarkOx · 2017-05-13 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  I would argue that refusing to allow something to win novel of the year because it was only distributed electronicly would be silly. The medium is text, its not and has never been about the type face or format. If it were authors would scream about how large print and paper back additions clearly destroy the integrity of their work. I have never heard such claims.
  A novel is a fictional or dramatized historical narrative in text. That is what defines it.
  A movie is a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images. Because it has a visual component I think its legitimate for a director to argue that there is an intended distribution media and display format. If the intent is direct to netflix, than perhaps Cannes should have viewers watch those films on a typical sized television set and a usual viewing distance, say 46" from 7 feet; or even on a tablet or smart phone.
  To bar such films however says they are not about jurying art, they are about dictating it.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
22. Re: They should either ban digital or get over it by AHuxley · 2017-05-13 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  In the past a person needed to find, get given or buy physical film. It was expensive and unless donated a lot of projects needed wealthy funding or some free support.
  That was a great gate keeper to ensure only a select few could ever set movie trends or ensure only their movies got national and international release.
  With digital streaming all that is protection is gone. Skill, merit, a good script, creativity and getting good reviews is the only cost.
  People can create, edit, add sound tracks, correct color without needing an orchestra, access to real film lab with experts who could work with color film.
  Having been seen in France is ok, it is a French festival, so unless invited thats just part of entering.
  New streaming creators will win this last stand of the cultural elite.
  The decades of been invited into France, presenting a movie on physical film, been photographed at an event on film, been written about in select paper trade publications is not really as needed as it once was.
  
  The real change is in quality of script, working with low cost computers, buying or renting lens quality, finding music, special effects, a plot, actors who can act.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
23. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by LienRag · 2017-05-14 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about film, it's about the movie experience.
  
  As Godard says, "La télévision fabrique de l'oubli. Le cinéma fabrique des souvenirs."
  
  He may be right or wrong, but there's a full theory about how movies are different from television (the line may be blurred by home cinema, though), so there are some rationals behind a decision to keep them separate at a film festival.
24. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by drinkypoo · 2017-05-14 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  The point is that it's the intention that the work be shown on a large screen in front of an audience.
  The audience is largely irrelevant. The large screen is relevant, but now it's common for home viewers to have a screen which is perceptually just as large as a movie screen, and it's not uncommon for home viewers to have more resolution than digital projection now that 4k is a thing.
  Let's face it, it might as well be The Grammys. Cannes is about putting asses in theater seats in the same way that the Gramophone Awards are about record sales. Which is to say, it has nothing whatsoever to do with artistic merit. That's okay, but stop pretending, right?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re:They should either ban digital or get over it by jimtheowl · 2017-05-18 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  I would certainly object to 'there being no horror movies during film festivals' and I would personally choose by my own free will to be at a festival 'for romantic films, so I'm sorry to say that this particular example was not a very good one for me.
  
  I don't think that 'this is very much the same thing'. I agree with that they can do whatever they want, but to promote the development of the industry and preserving the industry as it is are two very different things. They are claiming to be focused on the development, but this decision seems to indicate something else.
  
  I can see this written by someone who cared about producing content, where that decision seem to be motivated by the need to be profitable.
Flirting with irrelevance by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-12 08:47 · Score: 1

Awards or not, these movies will still exist, and they will still be recognized as great -- just without the "Palm d'Or."
1. Re:Flirting with irrelevance by bobbied · 2017-05-12 08:59 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What's a "Palm d'Or" anyway? French for "Oscar"?
  Personally, I don't care about either award.... They are all just a bunch of people in the same nutty industry getting together to pat each other on the back (or where ever).. I'm not a film maker, I don't covet their attention and I don't value their opinions about what's a good or bad film.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Flirting with irrelevance by PopeRatzo · 2017-05-12 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  What's a "Palm d'Or"
  Isn't that the annual Pornhub award?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
3. Re:Flirting with irrelevance by omnichad · 2017-05-12 09:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  What's a "Palm d'Or" anyway? French for "Oscar"?
  You're meant to type that into Google, not the comment box.
4. Re:Flirting with irrelevance by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-05-12 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  No, that's Palm d'Hairy.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
5. Re:Flirting with irrelevance by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-05-13 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Literally, the Golden Palm. That's palm as in tree, not as in part of the hand.
I had my own movie festival in my backyard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-12 08:47 · Score: 1

Goonies and All About Eve. I wonder which film will win this year?
Note that my festival is just as prestigious as Cannes, we both choose what we want to show, ignore all the rest, and then pretend that these were the best films!
1. Re:I had my own movie festival in my backyard by Darinbob · 2017-05-12 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Goonies of course. Although All About Eve should definitely get honorable mention for tackling a complex subject rarely discussed at matinee.
Netflix canned by Cannes by Spy+Handler · 2017-05-12 08:48 · Score: 5, Funny

missed an opportunity with the title
1. Re:Netflix canned by Cannes by Darinbob · 2017-05-12 12:31 · Score: 2
  
  Netflix net flicks canned by Cannes.
2. Re: Netflix canned by Cannes by senatorpjt · 2017-05-13 01:22 · Score: 2
  
  Since they're going to allow them this year, "Cannes kicks can on canning Netflix net flicks"
Rip Cannes 1947-202X by netsavior · 2017-05-12 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

When you decide to narrow your view of what a film is, while the whole world pivots to something else, you can only last for so long.

I mean the fall from prominance will be quick, even if the festival lives on for a few decades after they actively choose irrelevance.
1. Re:Rip Cannes 1947-202X by omnichad · 2017-05-12 09:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Referring to movies as films is a bit like calling an mp3 a tape.
  No, it's like calling a collection of MP3's an album. Which people do.
2. Re:Rip Cannes 1947-202X by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-12 09:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  McDonalds is successful, but I wouldn't call it good
3. Re:Rip Cannes 1947-202X by manu0601 · 2017-05-12 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  the Académie Française has been around for hundreds of years fairly successfully for the purpose of prescriptively defining French language
  
  I disagree a bit. Most of the time, the Académie Française sets up an official french translation for a foreign word way too late: many people already adopted the foreign word and they will not change their habits.
4. Re:Rip Cannes 1947-202X by Falconhell · 2017-05-13 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Much like Trump.
Who? by s1d3track3D · 2017-05-12 08:59 · Score: 3, Funny

Cannes just became MORE irrelevant.

FYI Cannes/RIAA/MPAA/BMG/Old Media, etc., burying your head in the sand is not the best strategy in the long run.
You have offended the church! by Puls4r · 2017-05-12 09:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Typical old-business-model bullshit. You're not making the theaters money so they won't let your play in their lot.

Next you'll tell them the world is round. And we know how THAT ended up last time.
1. Re:You have offended the church! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-05-12 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  That is what entertainment awards ceremonies were created for, admittedly: to generate interest in the industry to sell tickets.
  To be fair, Netflix only cares for the exact same reason.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
They should be excluding exclusiveness. by Gravis+Zero · 2017-05-12 09:14 · Score: 1

What they should really be banning is platform exclusive titles. Meaning, if your movie title is exclusively release on platform XYZ then it's disqualified. It's an effort made in vain but if you're going to do it, do it for a good reason.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:They should be excluding exclusiveness. by omnichad · 2017-05-12 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Have you not seen the marketing phrase "Only in theaters" to induce FOMO and artificial scarcity? Nevermind that it's on DVD and Blu-Ray in 6 months. Most movies shown in theaters are exclusive at that time.
2. Re:They should be excluding exclusiveness. by Misagon · 2017-05-12 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  The platform is "Netflix", the movies available in France only to Netflix' subscribers.
  If they are going to be neutral and streamed, then they should be available to anyone to stream for a one-time fee, not just to those who pay a monthly subscription fee.
  
  --
  "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
3. Re:They should be excluding exclusiveness. by Oligonicella · 2017-05-12 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  And their platform is rl theaters. It could be argued that those showings are the more exclusive if you want to see more than one movie a month. Just because *you* can afford more doesn't mean Jean Luque can.
That's easily solved by maroberts · 2017-05-12 09:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Netflix buys a small French cinema, has one off showings of its movies.
Problem solved.

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
1. Re:That's easily solved by Falconhell · 2017-05-13 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  All the streaming content suppliers could chip in. It would be nicely ironic if it was a great success!
France Media Chronology Law by Guillermito · 2017-05-12 09:38 · Score: 5, Informative

The article doesn't mention the real problem: France Media Chronology Law. It states that if a film is shown in theaters in France, then the distributors should wait three years until they make it available for streaming. If it wasn't for this law, Netflix could just release the films on a limited number of theaters to appease the Cannes officials.
1. Re:France Media Chronology Law by Maxo-Texas · 2017-05-12 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Can't mod today but I'd give you +5 Informative if I could!
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
2. Re:France Media Chronology Law by bidule · 2017-05-12 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Bingo!
  This is good PR. They don't want the streaming French customers to suffer because of the evil theater monopoly. And next year, Netflix will ask for an exemption (derogation?) and get more free publicity that way.
  
  --
  ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
3. Re:France Media Chronology Law by Guillermito · 2017-05-12 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL but I would imagine that you simply cannot alter the release order envisioned by the regulators ("Theaters > DVD > Pay-per-view > Pay TV > TV > Subscription Streaming > Free Streaming") without breaking the law and being subjected to the stipulated penalties.
4. Re:France Media Chronology Law by phayes · 2017-05-12 12:21 · Score: 2
  
  Yup, in France you MUST protect the Cinema owners lobby, & then Canal+ the paid TV channel.
  Why? Because that is how France financed French movies & TV series over the past few decades and no other distribution system can be conceived of by French politicians.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Aww, that's cute. by hackel · 2017-05-12 09:39 · Score: 1

They're regulating themselves into irrelevance. Well, good riddance. Cannes is long past its prime, anyway. I certainly don't give credence to their official selections anymore, and neither should anyone else.
This is temporary as fewer people go to theaters by Maxo-Texas · 2017-05-12 09:40 · Score: 2

Netflix and other streaming services need to simply start their own awards.
And then when everything is streaming and going straight to disk and theaters are dead- Cannes will be irrelevant.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re: Relevance by Anonymous Coward · 2017-05-12 10:20 · Score: 1

Yes, I second your motion to remove his likeness and other slave owners.
Cannes no longer relevant then by mfh · 2017-05-12 10:24 · Score: 1

From my perspective Cannes shot themselves in the foot. A lot of great films are going immediately to stream and this technology has no impact on the story, directing, cinematography or acting.
Are they really this snobby? I can't see a case for eliminating any segment unless that segment poses a real threat to film quality in which case there still remains no reason to eliminate them from contention; if a project isn't good it wouldn't get an award anyway.

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
1. Re:Cannes no longer relevant then by dwywit · 2017-05-12 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  The French are very protective of their film industry - anything that challenges the status quo is generally frowned on.
  Regardless of the long-term implications.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Of course by argStyopa · 2017-05-12 10:39 · Score: 1

...nothing prevents an industry being left behind as technologically irrelevant better than plugging one's ears and saying "nah nah nah" until it hopefully goes away.
Dumb fuckers.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Of course by Dutch+Gun · 2017-05-12 14:27 · Score: 2
  
  Wouldn't that be "non non non"?
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Point of contention by Misagon · 2017-05-12 10:41 · Score: 1

The point of contention here according to the Cannes Film Festival's official letter is not that it is being distributed on-line but that the movie is available in France only to Netflix's subscribers and not to the general public.
Back in 2009-2010, no movie theatre chain in my country wanted to screen The Blind Side because they thought that nobody over here would want to see it. Then Sandra Bullock went and won an Oscar for acting in it ...
It was then - before its regular streaming window - made available through on-line streaming, from the company I worked for at the time. But we made it available for everyone who registered and paid for it - we did certainly not limit the movie only to those who had signed up to our monthly subscription service.
I would liken these made-for-Netflix movies to made-for-TV movies that have been made to be shown exclusively on one TV channel. TV movies have never been eligible for a Palm d'Or or an Oscar in the past either.
So I would not call out Cannes just yet. However, if they would disallow streamed movies next year, even if they would be available to all in France, then I would call them hypocrites!

--
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
1. Re:Point of contention by Guillermito · 2017-05-12 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if prices in France are different, but based on US prices, if you were not a Netflix subscriber and wanted to watch a particular movie only available on Netflix you could subscribe to Netflix, watch the movie, and then cancel your subscription. In doing so you would have paid slightly less than the cost of a movie ticket. So I would argue that a movie only showing in Netflix is as available to the general public as a movie only showing in theaters.
2. Re:Point of contention by phayes · 2017-05-12 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  No. If the problem was with exclusivity, they would also be excluding Gaumont exclusive movies & UGC exclusives.
  Cannes worded the exclusion quite clearly: Release to theater chains or else.
  If it were possible for Netflix to project their production in a few theaters concurrently to releasing them for streaming to qualify for Cannes, they would probably do so, but that's not the problem. The problem is that it is illegal to stream any new movies in France until 3 years after they are released in theaters. THAT is the close minded legislative blocking point.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
3. Re:Point of contention by YuppieScum · 2017-05-12 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  So I would argue that a movie only showing in Netflix is as available to the general public as a movie only showing in theaters.
  Your argument is ill-conceived.
  To watch a one-off movie on Netflix, I need a credit- or debit-card, a reasonably spec'd computer with widescreen monitor, an OS and browser that supports whatever DRM-de-jour is required - or a SmartTV that isn't too old to support the latest NetFlix app - and an uncapped broadband connection. Then I need to trust that Netflix will honour my subscription cancellation request. Of course, this pre-supposes that the NetFlix catalogue in my region actually has the movie available...
  Or I could walk to my local cinema, pay some cash, and watch.
  I would argue that these alternatives are not equivalent...
  
  --
  This sig left unintentionally blank.
not so hard by bugs2squash · 2017-05-12 11:31 · Score: 1

I would have thought that some enterprising person could rent a movie theater, hook their phone up to netflix and project the output onto the big screen. Probably a bit blotchy, but Voila as they say...

--
Nullius in verba
1. Re:not so hard by phayes · 2017-05-12 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's illegal to stream content in France until 3 years after movies have been released to theaters. Straight to steam content isn't affected.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Who gives a fcuk about Cannes? by OneHundredAndTen · 2017-05-12 11:33 · Score: 1

They are the prototypical definition of obsolete.
Re:Relevance by phayes · 2017-05-12 12:07 · Score: 1

Revisionism is live and well already and not just by the right: They are ripping down monuments to confederate heroes like Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis in New Orleans. While the claim that it is to take a notch out of white supremacists by removing symbols of their heroes is valid, it is troubling that we prefer burying an inconvenient past rather than owning up to it. Slaves built many of Mankind's most iconic monuments like the Pyramids & the Colosseum yet there are no calls for deconstructing them.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Cannes Exists for Junkets by Nova+Express · 2017-05-12 12:17 · Score: 1

The Cannes Film Festival exists so people in the film industry can have a sponsored/tax deductible junket to the south of France. That's all.
Questions of "relevance" and "quality" are beside the point. Cannes will continue as long movie industry people can keep getting someone else to pick up the tab...

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Their choice I guess.. by XSportSeeker · 2017-05-12 12:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, it's their festival, so it's their choice I guess. As it's our own to pay attention to it.
But surely they must be aware that they are reducing the festival from a competition to promote the art, to a shrill for the cinema business.
I mean, look at parts of the full quote:
"The Festival de Cannes is aware of the anxiety aroused by the absence of the release in theaters of those films in France".
What anxiety? Does anyone care these days if a movie isn't released in theaters? Is this the 80s or something?
"The Festival de Cannes asked Netflix in vain to accept that these two films could reach the audience of French movie theaters and not only its subscribers. Hence the Festival regrets that no agreement has been reached".
Why is a film festival taking active part in negotiating film releases in theaters? This only shows bias, which is extremely bad for any sort of competition.
"Any film that wishes to compete in Competition at Cannes will have to commit itself to being distributed in French movie theaters. This new measure will apply from the 2018 edition of the Festival International du Film de Cannes onwards".
This is where it becomes irrelevant then. I don't fucking care whether a movie is being shown in French movie theaters or not, and I bet a whole ton of french people also don't.
But it's great that they let us know. Because if someone asks why a great movie he/she watched on Netflix didn't show up on the festival at all, there's the answer: a biased approach of selection. We're gonna select the best films around the world, as long as they paid their due to the french movie theater industry.
Re:Well, France used to be the center of Europe. by Darinbob · 2017-05-12 12:29 · Score: 1

Naw, the center of Europe in in Lithuania. France is too far west.
+1 Informative by Kunedog · 2017-05-12 14:59 · Score: 1

That fact should be edited into the summary.
Their festival, their rules. by Mal-2 · 2017-05-12 17:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's a bit like auto racing. Every class isn't just open to any vehicle you want to enter, there are qualifications for each. This is why so many automakers release limited run production cars -- so that they can then race them in "stock" classes. They may only build 50 for sale, but it's a production vehicle, so they get to enter it.
Similarly, if someone wants their film in consideration for Cannes, they'll have to sneak it into a French theater or two. This hurts pretty much nobody, and is not an immense hoop to jump through. It's just the way the game is played.

--
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
1. Re:Their festival, their rules. by Mal-2 · 2017-05-12 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, didn't know that before. I suspect it would be trivial to offer content to Belgium and let their French customers figure out how to appear to be coming from Belgium. Hey, isn't that sort of geoblocking supposed to violate EU laws now?
  Netflix: "Yeah we don't offer that in France because of your stupid law, but we're also forbidden from inspecting too deeply to see if you're actually in the country we send the bills to. Wink wink."
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
2. Re:Their festival, their rules. by burningcpu · 2017-05-13 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  I feel that you should be apologetic for spreading misinformation, especially when the correct information abounded about you. It's worse because your misinformed comment is currently trending (sorry, I don't know a better term) at +5 Interesting. Sorry for the negative feedback.
Re:Relevance by Z80a · 2017-05-12 19:35 · Score: 1

Yet.
Wayne? by allo · 2017-05-12 23:06 · Score: 1

Who cares? This will only make them more irrelevant.
Re:Relevance by Falconhell · 2017-05-13 00:04 · Score: 1

I dont think its a valid comparison, the Pyramid builders are long dead and no longer have any effect on current circumstances, whereas slavery in the US even now has its effect in day to day race relations, never mind comparing past engineering marvels with a bunch of relatvely modern statues.
Re:Relevance by phayes · 2017-05-13 01:46 · Score: 1

Well then you're not really against slavery are you? Because if you were you were, by the logic of those tearing down monuments associated with slaveholders, you should also be for tearing down all the other works built through slave labor too.
It isn't about slavery, it's just burying inconvenient historical truths & cultural revisionism has won the day. We all used to mock the Soviets for airbrushing those who had fallen into political disfavor out of textbook pictures. Now some on the left find it politically expedient to do so themselves.
As race relations in the US are too heated for many to reason logically, look elsewhere. The issue is owning up to your past and not hiding it as the Germans do with the Shoah (with exceptions) or attempting to bury it as the Turks are still attempting to do with their genocide of the Armenians (with exceptions). My position is that though the former is more painful is is preferable to the shameful second.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue