18
Apr 2012

Why Investing in Movie Production is a Good Idea

If you want to invest in movies, consider the one genre of film where knuckles turn white as they grip the seats, popcorn is forgotten, and you even forget to blink because you don’t want to miss what comes next.

Thrillers. The name says it all. These are films that put you on the edge of your seat and quite literally thrill you because you never know what’s about to happen next. In a thriller, the key is to keep the audience guessing. This creates suspense, or tension, deep within the viewer.

The reason why we love thrillers and why they have become so popular is that a good story involves tension. Of course, you can attain tension and should in other genres, but nowhere is it more intrinsic than in the heart of a good thriller. Movie goers attend a thriller because it keeps them guessing – all the time.

Thrillers such as Sleuth will turn your knuckles white

Thrillers also represent a great movie production investment opportunity. For instance, single location shooting has multiple benefits for keeping costs low. Movies like the captivating Sleuth comprise a cast of two people set in a house for the entirety of the film. The cast was kept to a minimum, without any need for extras and only one location was filmed. By not having to pay for transportation and rental fees for multiple locations, filming takes less time and the location can be chosen according to tax credits/incentives that also lower the overall cost of production. Limiting locations means less moves, less rentals and less props which can add up to big savings and larger investment returns when investing in movie production.

Movie productions like the cult classic Cube, the mega epic Castaway and the deeply riveting 127 Hours are all intense dramatic thrillers that take place in primarily one location and yet manage to keep the audience glued to their seat by combining a good script, great actors and an original premise.

Looking at thrillers and the buzz they create not only solidifies the powerful and popularity of this genre, but also emphasizes why they represent solid investments. Sure Tom Hanks in Castaway had to fly to get to the deserted island, and James Franco in 127 Hours had to drive into the middle of nowhere. Yet for a moment in time they never left the silver screen and the audience was perfectly happy to spend that time with their characters. Combine this with the teeth clenching suspense of a great film and you have the perfect recipe formovie production investments.

  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • LinkedIn
04
Apr 2012

Oscars 2012 recap: the Winners, the Losers and the Ignored

Though the Oscars have come and gone and the competition for the 2013 ceremony is already well under way, we thought we’d take a look back at those who shook hands with the golden guy this year, as well as those who got the cold shoulder.

Not a surprise to most, French silent film The Artist took five of the coveted awards, including the ultimate Best Picture prize. Best Director went to Michel Hazanavicius who beat out veteran Martin Scorsese (Hugo). Hollywood favourites Brad Pitt (Moneyball) and George Clooney (The Descendants) lost out to The Artist’s Jean Dujardin who took home Best Actor honours.

Oscar at the Academy Awards

Photo by chickpokipsie at http://www.flickr.com/photos/chickpokipsie

At least Pitt and Clooney could boast the honour of being nominated in the first place — the same cannot be said for a few leading men who didn’t even make it onto the short list. As Aly Semigran of Entertainment Weekly points out, acclaimed performances from Michael Fassbender (Shame) and Ryan Gosling (Drive and Crazy Stupid Love) were both left out of the race.

17-time Oscar nominee Meryl Streep took home Best Actress for the first time since 1983, beating out main competitor Viola Davis, who was also favoured for her performance in The Help. Arguably, the Best Actress list of nominees was missing a few names as well – including veteran actress Maria Bello.

Gary Goldstein (for the LA Times) agrees Bello was overlooked for her compelling performance in Goldrush Entertainment’s Beautiful boy: “On the lead actress front, another highly respected performer, Maria Bello, was robbed of consideration for her stunning portrayal of a mother devastated by her teenage son’s murder-suicide shooting rampage in the difficult, under-seen Beautiful Boy.” And this wasn’t the first time Bello was snubbed. Many agree, including LA Times’ Tom O’Neil and IndieWire, that she should have been nominated in her role in A History of Violence as well.

So what does it take for a film or performance to get onto the Oscar ballot? Well, it’s not just about making a solid picture or acting your heart out – it’s also about the Oscar campaign behind you. The fact is, independent production companies like Eric Gozlan’s Goldrush Entertainment don’t have the luxury of spending millions of dollars in advertising and must rely on their distributors to invest the time, money and energy it takes to build the type of campaign that will get a film the exposure it needs to get a nomination (just one ad in The Hollywood Reporter can cost around $25,000).

Gary Goldstein explains: “Had Beautiful Boy been sufficiently exposed to academy members and other voting blocs by its distributor, Anchor Bay, Bello may have very well found herself among the many fine lead actress contenders. But, according to the Gozlan’s co-producer, Lee Clay, ‘it was less an Anchor Bay-specific thing and more a small, independent movie-specific thing…to really mount a serious Oscar campaign, you’re talking about a spend of between half a million and a million dollars” and that kind of spend unfortunately isn’t possible when your dollars are earmarked to paying back investors. 

  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • LinkedIn