Oct 11 2009 02:36 PM ET

The gutting of Miramax: Are studio specialty divisions headed for the dustbin?

Adventureland_dlWhen it comes to Hollywood’s major-studio specialty divisions — those companies within companies that produce and distribute what we used to call movies, and what we now call “small,” “independent,” “quirky,” “end-of-the-year,” “Oscar-bait” “movies for adults” — is the sky finally falling? I hope I turn out to be Chicken Little for even asking that question. I hope that the answer is no.

But the signs right now are not good. A little more than a week ago, Disney made the announcement that it was shrinking (though not eliminating) Miramax, laying off a fair portion of its employees and reducing the number of films the division would release in the upcoming year. At a glance, it looked like your basic, everyday economic-crisis management maneuver. It looked like Disney was saying: We’re downsizing the company in order to save it. But let’s look at the facts.

According to the New York Times, Miramax will eliminate 50 jobs, leaving a grand total of 20 employees. And though Daniel Battsek, the division’s tasteful and industrious president (he took over after Harvey and Bob Weinstein split from the company they’d created to go out on their own), will remain in the top spot, the division’s operations, according to Disney president Alan Bergman, “will be consolidated under the larger umbrella of Walt Disney Studios.” Instead of releasing 6 to 8 films a year, Miramax will now release just 3.

Three movies. Total. In a year. Let’s be clear: That’s not organic shrinkage — that’s borderline decimation. And it’s not happening in a vacuum. It follows, last year, the closing/consolidating of Paramount Vantage, Warner Independent, and New Line. A coincidence? Perhaps. But Hollywood, a place of cliques and tribes, has always had a way of doing things in wary, competitive packs. Like making dueling asteroid movies or going 3-D. The winnowing down of specialty divisions may be a marketplace decision, but it’s also starting to feel like the acquiring of this year’s trendy handbag — the thing one has to do because everyone else is doing it. And the cruel truth is that from the standpoint of short-term profits, this particular handbag makes a terrible kind of sense.

Here are the four films that Miramax has released so far this year, and also what they grossed at the box office: Adventureland ($16 million), Chéri ($2.7 million), Extract ($10.8 million), and The Boys Are Back ($333,000 — it’s too early to tell on this one, since it has only just opened and is still playing in less-than-fully-wide release). The executives at Disney must have looked at those figures and thought, “Who needs this? We can make that much with a Miley Cyrus movie in one afternoon!” The Miramax label is being maintained, for now, because it still has value, especially for its back catalogue of DVDs. But what those numbers make plain is that specialty divisions, now more than ever, really are in the boutique game. They have precious little overlap anymore with the blockbusters that are Hollywood’s bread and butter.

So how many major-league boutique-brand movie companies are still left? In addition to the shell-of-its-former-self Miramax, there is Focus Features (the specialty division of Universal), there’s the lone-wolf Weinstein Company, there’s the vitally elite Sony Pictures Classics, and, of course, there is Fox Searchlight, now the offical 800-pound gorilla of specialty divisions (and I mean that in a good way — we need as many gorillas as we can get). As long as these companies are thriving, or even surviving, the spirit of adventurous moviemaking that they represent lives on. But the extreme downsizing of Miramax carries a special, and rather sad, symbolic weight. Back in the late ’90s, when Disney acquired Miramax in the first place, that unlikely merger — the Mouse House and the House that Harvey Built, the kingdom of family entertainment and the adult grotto of Pulp Fiction — became the template for the new-era, indie-based specialty divisions. Here, it seemed, was a workable, and profitable, model for how Hollywood could on keep making artful movies at the same time that it fed the increasingly kid-happy maw of the megaplex. This was more than a business plan. It was, in its way, a dream, one that reached back to the dream of soulful popular entertainment that has always kept Hollywood alive.

Who knows how that dream will now evolve? This year, Jason Reitman’s terrific and haunting new comedy, Up in the Air, a quintessential movie for adults, will be released by Paramount Pictures — not by a specialty division, but by the studio proper. That’s only one movie, but it is still, in its way, an encouraging sign. Maybe the new trend will be for studios that shutter their specialty divisions to incorporate the best of what those divisions have been doing. Just about the best movie I’ve seen from a specialty division this year is Adventureland, Greg Mottola’s ticklishly clever and wistful ’80s nostalgia comedy, a youth-movie romance that’s good enough to invite comparison to Dazed and Confused. Would Disney proper, or some other studio, now make that film? Maybe it’s time, in a strange way, that we stopped thinking of a movie like Adventureland as “special.” I hope that the crumbling of specialty divisions isn’t a trend that continues, but if it does, maybe that’s Hollwood’s unsconscious way of taking good movies out of the boutique.

Comments (37 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2
  • Mike S

    I don’t think independent or art films are dead. Wounded definitely. I think they have gone back underground, retrenched, as they had prior to the indie-explosion of the 90′s. They are there but audiences are going to have to hunt them down, discover them via DVD, film festivals, or the Internet. I recently discovered a film series called ‘Red Riding’ via film festival. It is perhaps the best thing I have seen all year. Will it get mass distribution? I don’t know. I doubt it. It goes against everything that studios put out right now. The film – films actually, since it is a trilogy – are challenging, contain tricky narratives, and bleak as hell. They are also the best crime drama I have seen in a decade. Would Miramax release something that bleak? I’m gonna say no. I think it falls on the audience to hunt down films, find them, and spread the world. The independent boom of the 90′s and early 00′s didn’t just create a volume of classic films – it created a audience hungry for films that went against studio blockbusters, that *want* to be challenged as well as entertained.

  • bedc01

    Am I the only one who feels bored by what hollywood releases now a days? And I’m talking about the so called big event movies. I made it a point to not watch transformers, g.I. joe and terminator salvation, just based on the trailers alone, I knew those movies weren’t my cup of tea anymore. Now I stay home and watch lost, galactica or dexter to get my fix of good stories

    • Sienna

      No, you’re not. I feel like these days they’re just putting out drivel. And it’s not that I don’t or haven’t ever liked big budget movies. It’s just that there’s no heart. Every studio seems to be about the bottom line. They’re not into making good movies–they’re into making money. And on top of that there’s no new ideas. Everything seems to be a remake or a sequel, or based on a children’s toy. I mean, they’re making a movie about the View-Master. What is that?

    • Mark

      Nope, you’re right. Then again, there will be some actually good/entertaining big budget movies that slip through like Star Trek or Harry Potter or Pixar movies. But more often than not we get more Transformers and Terminators than those.

  • Marshall

    I don’t think specialty movie and divisions are dead, but wr will bury them if we don’t go see the movies they release. This is a topic I have written extensively about on my blog, and if you feel the same way as I do, please comment and let me know. Sorry to be shamelessly promoting myself on your blog, Owen, but I have to do it somewhere to establish myself. Anyways, the link to my most prominent post about this subject is:

    http://marshallandthemovies.com/2009/08/11/mindlessmoviegoing/

    Marshall

  • Sarah

    I LOVE Adventureland. Movies like this better be able to stick around!

  • Martin

    Intelligent blockbusters are usually rare, but lately they have been even almost non-existant. Where are the Forrest Gumps, Jurassic Parks, Titanics, Lion Kings? Each of them are completely different from each other and made over $500 million each (adjusted for today’s dollars, according to Boxofficemojo.com). This year’s top grossing movie is Transformers (which made $403 million) and was critically a dud. Great blockbusters nowadays tend to be based on superheroes, which isn’t bad, just very specific and possibly an indication of lack-of-ideas. I think the disapperance of “art house” fare is due to the dumbing down of cinema in general, not because independents aren’t viable.

    • Jennifer

      I agree! It is sickening to me that Transformers grossed so much money, I thought it was so terrible I walked out of the theatre.

  • Harry Peters

    I prefer those “independent” movies you find in the back room of the video store.

  • Nate

    I saw Adventureland and I thought it was ok but certainly not the best indie film so far Owen. 500 days of summer? Moon? An Education ring any bells to ya?

  • Matt

    Yeah, I’m sorry, but I don’t think the big studios have any intention at all of making these great films. Hollywood studios only care anymore about making money. And while a $20 million box office for something that cost $1 million is a better return on investment than a $200 million blockbuster that makes $300 million, the bottom line is they see more money for the latter. So, we’re going to keep getting more and more of the blow-up-everything-except-the-dog crap that the masses all think they need to see when it’s flood-marketed to everyone. And that’s a shame, because true film lovers like I am are gradually being eliminated as an audience. It’s sad – I used to see a movie almost every week or two. Now, I barely see one every 2 or 3 months.

  • Daniel V.

    Fox Searchlight seems to be doing pretty well, but then again, Fox Searchlight has gotten more easily marketable films (500 Days Of Summer, Juno). Miramax has great films, no doubt about it, but they’re much harder to sell to the lowest common denominator.

  • Wes D.

    Honestly the type of movies that are endangered are B rated and BAD movies. District 9 kicked every level of butt…critically and commercially. It has no major actors it’s biggest draw is it’s director (something the average film goer doesn’t really appreciate.) Then you have Speed Racer… a very commercialized “wall” movie… failed commercially. Also companies are beginning to figure this out. Do you remember the marketing for “Jennifers’ Body” It started as simply, She’s hot see the movie, nobody showed. It then became the movies’ good come see the movie. People went, it was a little delayed but they went.

    • DT

      I’ve got to disagree with you on Jennifer’s Body. That movie, IMO, was a turd. Drag Me to Hell was better.

  • DT

    I like indie films myself, but I sometimes think they’ve fallen into their own cookie-cutter rut themselves. I know they’re personal films with small budgets, but many seem like quirkfests and aesthetically look like Little Miss Sunshine. They all featutre desperate dreamers on voyages of self-discovery who meet people who are quirky and desperate. Or maybe I’ve just been making bad viewing choices lately. There’s just not been much out with the edge and verve of Pulp Fiction or There Will Be Blood or No Country for Old Men lately. Thank God for Inglourious Basterds and The Hurt Locker. 500 Days of Summer was interesting but ultimately too cutesy/quirky fir my tastes. Jeez, am I starting to turn into Andy Rooney? I’m still in my 30s, so it’s too soon for that.

  • eli

    Cheri got released already. When did that happen? I was so looking forward to that one.

  • Shamrock

    Adventureland was nothing special. Highly disappointed. Really, what made that movie stand out? That Kristen Stewart can’t act?

  • kane

    all i will add is: man cannot live on bread alone.

  • david

    Wasn’t this ‘handbag’ effect in place when the studios starting gobbling up all the specialty divisions in the 90′s? Every movie studio had to have one. Now they have to get rid of them. I don’t think the despicable herd mentality that is so prevalent with these businessmen who now control Hollywood meshes very well with the gutso filmmaking that made these independent studios so successful in the first place. And hello, can the filmmakers who were part of that renaissance stop making popcorn junk for $$. I would take the Usual Suspects or Memento over superhero movies anyday.

    • Monty

      Funny how you say Usual Suspects over Superhero movies, considering its director, Bryan Singer, made X-Men 1 & 2 as well as Superman Returns…

      • beeswax

        Monty, I believe that is exactly the point david was making when he wrote “can the filmmakers who were part of that renaissance stop making popcorn junk for $$.”

        It was worth saying twice for those who missed it.

Page: 1 2
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Advertisement

Find Movies and Showtimes

Powered by MovieTickets.com

Choose Your Movie

All movies

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP