Quips notes 25.11.04

Apparently online since 1996 and (likely, to many) still one of the most invaluable movie resources available, the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) is another popular online company owned by Amazon (along with the Alexa website popularity ranking site, for instance). IMDB boasts over 25 million visitors per month in their recently updated home page banner, and offers hundreds of thousands of movie and television titles that pretty well span the general history of cinema worldwide, including (in most cases) cast and crew names, production info, and other trivia and tidbits for movie buffs and film critics alike.

I use the Internet Movie Database all of the time, after I'm done screening whatever new releases have appeared in town. Writing most of my notes in a darkened theatre while watching the big screen sometimes results in a few pages of indecipherable scribbles that successfully hide a character's or actor's jotted down full name, or obscure the complete title of the book that this or that movie has been adapted from. So, luckily, I'm normally able to turn to the same - far more legible - info that's been made available through this easy to use, widely popular website. I also check out the IMDB as a handy general resource for finding out what's up and coming during the following weeks and months ahead. It's a great website over-all, and well worth checking out if you haven't given it a look already. Even if you're just curious about what actor played in a particular movie - or what movies have featured a specific actor - to confirm your idle suspicions, for instance.

The other aspect of this site that I enjoy is that its database of film information seems to be updated with submissions from regular, ticket buying movie enthusiasts, as well as from professional agencies and production studio representatives. Anyone can submit a new title, or add to the IMDB's existing information, simply by signing up as a member for free. Some might think that it's slightly questionable to allow anyone and everyone within arm's reach of a web accessable computer to add info to a site that a lot of people may rely on, but I like the idea of it being an open resource. Much like the Wipikedia online encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) is set up. With knowledgeable people working behind the scenes to ensure that the database actually remains reliable, by researching and verifying what's being submitted before any new info is added, I don't really see the problem. In fact, this is likely a great way for a small production company, one or more working actors and/or a completely unknown writer with limited creditials to potentially widen their scope of helpful contacts or to broaden outside interest in their work. Up to 25 million opportunities per month, possibly. More on that in a moment.

Along with a wide range of services, The Internet Movie Database also offers a premium membership, as well as a free membership, to those who are interested in becoming more than just passive visitors. Having tried out the free access to the paying membership they offer there for a limited time, I can tell you that there doesn't really seem to be a whole lot of difference to what's offered through the premium plan than what's made available to free registered members. Or, to those who choose to access the site as anonymous non-members. The layout and info are simply organized differently for the premium members, with a lot more statistics and media-related stuff made readily available for those who don't have the time (or don't know how) to hunt around for it manually, and are willing to pay for that convenience.

Additionally, what I've discovered about the Internet Movie Database's free membership registration is that it's relatively easy to add new info to the website. I'm back on track with the self-marketing potential I'd mentioned earlier. Sure, it can get slightly time consuming, depending on what info you've decided to submit for approval. However, I was able to key in a handful of direct links to the recently archived reviews at my own website, Stephen Bourne's Movie Quips (www.geocities.com/iamstephenbourne/moviequips.html), in less than an hour without too much hassle. It was simply a matter of figuring out which movies I wanted to add a relevant link to their External Reviews listing, click the Update button at the bottom of that page, and then add the specific link and description to each of those titles for consideration. Checking back about a day later, most of them had already been added.

So, now people checking out the Internet Movie Database for info about such Canadian movies as 'The Snow Walker' (2003) or 'The Delicate Art of Parking' can easily find a direct link to my website's archived movie review of those titles within the list of other external reviews found on those pages. And, since each archived review already has a built in link to my main page of current reviews, I consider it well worth taking the time to do that little bit of DIY online promotion of my site through the widely popular Internet Movie Database.

Thanks for checking in.

Quips notes 22.11.04

Since 1996, the web traffic monitoring service owned by Amazon (www.amazon.com) that's widely known as Alexa (www.alexa.com) has apparently been keeping track of what the most popular websites are around the world. It collects hits info on what sites people visit the most. Specifically, people who subscribe to Alexa. And, it seems as though, in a lot of cases, the Alexa database also keeps track of the sites that these same people don't visit very often. Alexa has the inside scoop on just how many websites exist within and outside of that group's radar, and uses this information to rank each web address accordingly, based on tabulating hits automatically submitted by their subscribers. Making that info available to anyone who decides to download the free Alexa Toolbar and install it as part of their web browser.

Up until fairly recently, I really hadn't heard of Alexa at all. The name popped up during an online correspondence that I was having with the membership contact person at the Broadcast Film Critics Association (www.bfca.org). They've been in existence since 1995. The BFCA - according to their site's information, which I'm apt to believe is true - is "the world's largest and most prominent film critics group", and the online home of the famed annual Critic's Choice Awards. They're essentially the Big Kahuna of movie critics associations in North America, if not worldwide. So, of course, I gave joining up with them a shot.

Well, it didn't happen.

Primarily because membership with the BFCA is heavily based upon what the demographic reach is through whatever broadcast medium you make your movie reviews available to the public. Through television, or radio, or the web, for instance. Regarding the web, BFCA apparently uses Alexa in order to verify what your audience numbers are, if you're an online reviewer like me. And, well, my site's numbers weren't too great. According to Alexa, my movie reviews website, Stephen Bourne's Movie Quips (www.geocities.com/iamstephenbourne/moviequips.html), ranked 5,453,186th. That was back in September, when I was attempting to join the BFCA. No where close to registering a blip on the popularity radar screen, unfortunately. The ranking was too low to be considered. And, they didn't seem interested in checking out the ranking of the websites that I regularly supply my reviews content to. No problem. I thanked the nice membership contact person for BFCA's time, and figured I'd try applying again later. Now that I had a better idea of what to care about, towards making that goal of my becoming a Broadcast Film Critics Association member a reality.

While all of that was going on, I actually did give the Alexa Toolbar a try. And, had it running full tilt. For about an hour. Until I realized that, well, I really didn't like the idea that this software was collecting data about my web browsing habits. Let alone storing it all on my computer's fairly wimpy hard drive to be fired off to the number crunchers at Alexa, whenever the software felt like it while I happened to be online. It was also relatively unsettling to discover how much slower my computer behaved while I surfed the web, after I'd installed their toolbar as directed. So, I uninstalled it. Fixing the speed issue fairly easily, thankfully. I later heard from a friend that his computer was loaded up with viruses, and that he was sure the culprit was the Alexa Toolbar that he'd installed and had been running on his web browser for a while. The way I look at it, what's important is that things seem fine with his computer nowadays.

In checking out Alexa after my own cited concerns and problems, what I'd also discovered was that I really didn't need to install their toolbar at all. Alexa has a fairly comprehensive website that actually offers you most of the Alexa Toolbar information already. Just not as automatically. For instance, if I want to find out what my movie reviews website's traffic ranking is right now, all I need to do is go to their site, plug my site's web address into their search engine, and there it is: 5,700,415. Uh-oh. It seems we've sunk in the polls a bit. However, the point is that Alexa can still be a useful source for this sort of info. Even if you don't want to use their toolbar. Even for personal pages like mine.

How am I sure that Alexa's giving me an accurate - albeit ego-crushing - ranking of my otherwise awesome site? Well, they do mention that personal websites are ranked differently. And, if I go to the page where they list other websites that Alexa thinks are linked to mine, I find that all of those sites are actually linked to my web host, Geocities (www.geocities.com). However, by plugging in Geocities' web address, I get a completely different traffic ranking for them: 440. So, I know that this horribly precise-looking 5,700,415 popularity rating is right. By Alexa's calculations, anyways...

Thanks for checking in.

Quips notes 16.11.04

While involved in the usual amount of after-screening nosing around that I normally refer to as researching a movie before writing my review, it was interesting to read what one local independent filmmaker said about something he'd learned in film school. Apparently, the prevailing mindset passed down to students is that Canadian films simply can't get made without government funding. Frankly, I consider that notion to probably be one of the main reasons why relatively few homegrown full-length movies are made and released annually in this country.

There are several movie production studios in existence across this country. According to the Canadian Film and Television Production Association's (http://www.cftpa.ca) published 2003 guidebook listings, there were about four hundred registered production studios in operation last year. Many of which cite feature films as being one aspect of their litany of services. Alliance Atlantis (http://www.allianceatlantis.com), Lions Gate Entertainment (http://www.lionsgatestudios.com), Universal Studios Canada (http://www.universalstudioscanada.com), director Atom Egoyan's Ergo Film Arts, and TVA Films are all in there. So are many, many other apparently medium to small-sized production studios. Thirty-five pages worth in all.

Flipping over to the same guide's sixty-two paged, money-related section - half of which is made up of public funding organizations that do all appear to be either federal or provincial government agencies - a quarter of the remaining half that doesn't cover various tax credits does in fact list private funding for Canadian feature films. There aren't many, though. The $100,000 Astral Media The Harold Greenberg Fund (http://www.themovienetwork.ca, http://www.astral.com), and the annual $35,000 Theatrical Feature Film Development Program (http://www.ipf.ca) from Cogeco are a couple from the handful of private sources listed that aren't primarily related to television series funding. So, it's basically true. Without one or more government hand outs, Canadian movies simply won't get made if they require a big budget.

So, what's the alternative? Smaller budgets, perhaps?

Well, when you consider that a good chunk of monies required also include promotion and distribution costs, that might not be a viable option. To use a slightly unfair example, it could very well be that there really aren't a lot of Canadian film producers in existence who could write a great script that makes a pile of cash someplace, which could then be pooled with available private investment, in order to afford making 'Reservoir Dogs' (1992). Quentin Tarantino did it, though. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_Dogs). That movie went on to reportedly gross over $2 million. However, Tarantino isn't Canadian. He probably didn't go to film school in Canada. He likely didn't have the benefit of being taught to play by the established rules so that he could essencially go on filmmaker welfare if he wanted to get his picture made. Actor and 'Reservoir Dogs' star Harvey Keitel could have kept his investment in Tarantino's $1.2 million first movie, if it had been made north of the border, it seems. Or, maybe not.

The website http://www.canadacouncil.ca is the online face of one of the nation's acknowledged longtime piggybanks for filmmakers, The Canada Council for the Arts. Created by Parliament in 1957, the Canada Council is based here in Ottawa and has what they call The Media Arts Section that, according to its CFTPA blurb, "assist(s) independent artists working with media arts as a form of creative expression and to support experimentation with form, content or technology in a variety of genres". They specify artists as being either Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada working in film, video, new media and audio. Surprisingly, the Council merely offers up possible grants ranging from $3,000 to $60,000, depending on whether the applicant has a proven emerging, mid-career, established or independent standing. Not too much.

There's also the National Film Board of Canada (http://www.onf.ca), which apparently answers to the Government Film Commissioner, who reports to the Minister of Canadian Heritage; and the Cultural Industries Development Fund (http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca), established by the federal Department of Canadian Heritage and exists through the Business Development Bank of Canada. In other words, welcome to the jungle of bureaucracy. Abandon all hope, ye who enter...

All of this likely explains why the majority of Canadian moviegoers have probably seen far more imported flicks from the United States and abroad than those originating from our own country. I've merely scratched the surface of what it actually takes to get a finished script to several big screens in Canada, but it definitely seems as though there's no real viable infrastructure or - from the general moviegoer's perspective - a recognizably tangible English-language motion picture industry here to begin with.

Why? What's the hold up? The network and public interest must exist on some level. Beyond the local Art House and Indie Fest screenings, aired Wrap Party shmoozing and ads of vaguely recognizeable directors faces pontificating about how magnificent and poignant they - I mean - Canadian feature films really, really, truly are, honest. The workings do exist in part, if what little I've shared here is any indication. So, why aren't we seeing Canadian dramas, actioners, comedies and horror flicks being cranked out and widely released into Canadian movie theatres on a weekly or monthly basis alongside their American and other foreign counterparts? Sadly, I'm pretty sure what that independent local filmmaker mentioned - despite those thirty-five pages containing Canadian feature film studios - has already answered that question.

Thanks for checking in.

Quips notes 11.11.04

As an average movie fan, I sometimes wonder what the fuss is over box office returns. Word is, the numbers flaunted around proclaiming this or that movie has raked in millions on its opening weekend are pretty well based partly on speculation and partly wishful thinking, more than hard fact or carefully tallied data anyways. It's been ages, apparently, since the actual accumulated ticket sales of a film have been used exclusively in calculating its gross returns so closely after it opens, and I suspect most people already realize this. However, you still hear and read about it, as though the box office figures are actually important. Or, particularly reliable to moviegoers in deciding whether or not to go see whatever's playing at the local movie theatre.

This is feeling like a rant is coming on...

It seems as though the box office ratings fall somewhere within the larger, rather propagandist vacuum of the motion picture industry in general. The machine that tries to convince you to at least buy a ticket to the latest movie, and do it again, before buying it on video or DVD soon afterwards. Whether you actually see the movie after buying your ticket or purchasing that video is likely far less important to the machine, frankly. You've done your job as a good consumer. Now, do it again...

According to the Nielson Ratings (http://www.entdata.com/index.html), the 'USA Weekend Box-Office' - which does include Canada - ranked the following movies as the top five hits for this past weekend, out of the usual ten they list:

1. Incredibles, The (2004) $70.5M $70.5M
2. Ray (2004/I) $13.6M $39.6M
3. Grudge, The (2004/I) $12.7M $88.8M
4. Saw (2004) $11.1M $35.4M
5. Alfie (2004) $6.22M $6.22M

The figures to the immediate right of each title indicate this latest weekend's gross box office, and then the total box office accumulated during the run of each movie since they first opened in theatres. Sure, I've read that one of the reasons the opening box office figure for 'The Incredibles' is so high could possibly have to do with reports of people buying a ticket to it simply to see the first trailer for 'Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith', which isn't slated for release here in Canada until May 19, 2005, and then leaving before 'The Incredibles' even started. Fair enough.

However, seventy million dollars is still an extremely high figure. Particularly considering that it apparently takes about a year before the studios actually know that hard data regarding specific ticket sales. One would think that it's merely a matter of each theatre being connected to some kind of network, where the total number of ticket sales are immediately sped along high speed internet lines each time a screening starts, to be dumped into a central database kept deep within the heart of some Hollywood star chamber of number crunchers, for instance. Apparently not. Apparently, that seventy million dollar figure is based on speculation of ticket sales. In this case, probably taking into account that 'The Incredibles' is being shown on a large number of movie screens across a wide map. So, of course the box office could be higher. The results of which are then provided by the studios. Filtered through the media as legitimate news, in order to convince you to join the masses and buy your ticket or be left behind.

Until recently, I figured the Academy Awards were about the only hard sell that the studios would use - beyond advertising hype by various means - to get people to see this or that movie. When 'Mystic River' was suddenly re-released into theatres long after its big screen run, and yet a couple of weeks before the subsequent Oscar nominees for that year were announced, it then seemed pretty blatantly obvious that it had already been decided somewhere by somebody in the know that it was going to win something that could pique the interest of more people to go pay and see it. And, I was right. Unfortunately. It kind of confirmed a suspicion that a Best Picture win has more to do with a movie being the best at making the most money - even though 'Mystic River' didn't win Best Picture - as opposed to it representing the best of everything that makes a movie great and thoroughly enjoyable for the majority of ticket holders. The industry that makes movies and seems to be all about making money makes that decision, and awards the Oscar for Best Picture accordingly, apparently. However, if that's the case, what's that win based on? Box office numbers, likely. Numbers that seem more and more to be made up, and left unverified until long afterwards. Until the actual figure is no-longer newsworthy, or useful to the studios, or becomes deflated by fact as the true numbers come more closely into focus, I guess. Or, they simply end up as Trivial Pursuit answers and movie quiz teasers, or appear on sites such as the box office guru (http://www.boxofficeguru.com) as fairly dry statistical info that average moviegoers likely don't care about by then.

I suppose that's why I normally don't pay much attention to box office figures anyways. Normally, I've already seen and have reviewed a movie before its figures are announced, so it's a moot point to both my enjoyment (or not) of a film and my critique of it.

Thanks for checking in.

Quips notes 09.11.04

Lately, I've been trying to concentrate at least a portion of my spare time towards researching the jobs market for writing movie reviews. Don't get me wrong, though. I already have a full-time job. This focus has more to do with my working at making this thoroughly enjoyable, relatively expensive hobby pay for itself in some capacity. To start with, anyways. However, I'm not really getting any younger anytime in the foreseeable future, either. So, I'm looking to see what's available now, and possibly down the (short) road, for the long run. Locally, nationally, and internationally. Writing is writing, I figure. And, it seems as though at least some sources need the specific content that I'm offering - even if it appears to already be provided by somebody else at the moment.

Unfortunately, plugging something along the lines of 'job+movie+critic' into a search engine is pretty well a waste of time. The links that come back are either jobs in movies, jobs in general, movie descriptions containing the word 'job' or 'critic' within them, or posted articles by and of current movie critics who already have their jobs as, well, movie critics. It's the unfilled positions that I'm looking to find out more about. So, I just keep on a-lookin'. Slowly. Patiently. Relentlessly. Whenever time permits...

One site that I've managed to stumble upon and have begun regularly checking in with is http://www.freelancewriting.com. Frankly, I still wince at its rather ugly, flashy grocery tabloid-like front page everytime I drop by there. However, the content is pretty useful throughout and I like that they offer listings for both paying and gratis writing opportunities under separate categories. They also offer a wealth of free 'industry' info - outside of their newsletter and chatroom that visitors can sign up for and contribute to - that I've found to be interesting, since some of it relates to books being optioned for movies and such. Plus, the freelancewriting site lists various writing contests that boast cash prizes and/or possible publication.

An even uglier-looking, content-rich website that I've also discovered lately is http://www.writing-world.com. I've found it to primarily be good as a kind of short cut online resource for links to specific sites, as opposed to being the comprehensive one-stop 'sticky spot' that the freelancewriting site has turned out to be for me. I've pretty well exhausted trying to make use of the sub-sub-sub-directories offered through Google and Yahoo; hunting through the 90% of stuff that I'm not particularly interested in, just to find the few sites that I might find useful on some level or another. So, finding the writing-world site is a welcome alternative for my purposes.

Thanks for checking in.

Quips notes 04.11.04

It doesn't happen nearly as often as I might hope for, but every once in a while, I discover that somebody I've never met and won't likely ever meet has chosen to add a link to my movie reviews website, Stephen Bourne's Movie Quips, at their site. This is a pleasant surprise for me, frankly. Different than the encouraging visitor frequency that's tallied and accumulated by the hits counters I rely on for basic statistics info, learning that somebody has actually decided that they want the people who visit their site to discover mine is like a vote of confidence in a way. Particularly when it's done by an individual, and is related to something positive and fun.

The most recent occurance of this can be found at a fan website created for admirers and followers of rising Hollywood star and former supporting actor for television's 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', Marc Blucas ('I Capture the Castle' (2002), 'First Daughter' (2004)) at http://mblucas.net. This fairly comprehensive site offers its visitors a variety of pages full of info about Blucas' career, as well as encourages people to join the community of his fans to chat about him and how adorably hunky they think he is. It also features at least one of my movie reviews, recently cut and pasted by that site's webmaster from my own reviews website into its own page there at http://mblucas.net/articles/movie_reviews/000279.php, with a link back to my reviews site through one of my online reviews archive pages.

That's how I discovered the Marc Blucas fan site. While doing a regular keyword search through Google, part of my review for 'First Daughter' came up, but wasn't on any of the webpages that I previously knew about. Sparking my interest in investigating it a little further.

Now, I suppose a normal reaction by, say, someone like me, who spends a lot of my spare time building a body of experience by writing this web content with the intent of parlaying that effort into a paying gig would be to get all upset that somebody had lifted my copyrighted movie review for their own online use. Copying and using it elsewhere without my permission. However, that wasn't my reaction at all. Primarily because one of the sites that I supply this original content to has been farming out my stuff without my involvement for a while, with the result being that more people check out my movie reviews website (and come back) through those portals than if that wasn't being done. People reading my movie reviews is always a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. People regularly dropping by my reviews website because of that is cause for thanks. Which is what I did in this case, through email.

So, the fans of Marc Blucas get to read at least one more piece of relevent content on their website. And, they're given an easy access point to that content's source at Stephen Bourne's Movie Quips, where they can read about the other Marc Blucas movies I've reviewed so far. As well, they can read about the hundreds of other movies that have - through some outrageously monumental oversight or insane bad judgement on the part of those in charge of such things, of course - made it into the movie theatres without featuring a single frame of Marc Blucas in them at all...

As long as it's clearly pointed out that I'm the writer of one of my reviews that's being used elsewhere, with or without my knowledge, and there's an easily usable, working link back to my reviews website with it, I'd say that everybody benefits in the long run.

Incidentally, the URL for my movie reviews website is http://www.geocities.com/iamstephenbourne/moviequips.html.

Thanks for checking in.

Quips notes 02.11.04

It's likely that there's not a lot of difference between me and the average person who enjoys the whole experience of seeing a movie in a theatre. Yes, I do take notes during them, and I do write a review afterwards for pretty well every movie I go to see these days. And, I likely do sit through more big screen releases on opening weekends than the majority of people regularly do. Those would be glaring exceptions. However, by most accounts, I'm still an average guy who likes to talk about the movies I've seen - just like everybody else. Meaning, I normally buy a ticket to the show, after checking out what's playing at whatever movie theatre and when. Just like I've enjoyed doing for years, ever since I can remember first going to the movies in the Seventies.

The web is a great resource for planning trips to the movie theatre nowadays. Particularly since I like to figure out a general itinerary of movies to see a few days before they're actually slated to appear in the theatres for general viewing. Doing this also helps speed up the sometimes arduous process of updating my movie reviews website, Stephen Bourne's Movie Quips, from week to week, by finding out ahead of time what poster artwork I might want to include for that site and how many new reviews I'll need to set aside enough spare time for, to put them together once I've seen each new release. There's no point in my archiving all of last week's reviews if there aren't going to be enough new ones to replace them, for instance. So, doing a little pre-screening preparation spreads out the workload this enjoyable hobby usually demands.

The two main websites that I regularly check in with are The Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) and the Cineplex Theatre online directory at www.cineplex.com. The imdb site is great for getting an over-all idea of what might be playing in my area, and the Cineplex listing gives me definitive info about which new movies will be playing at either one of their two theatre chains here in Ottawa. Since the Cineplex listing is usually updated by mid-week, finding out what will be playing and at what times on opening day is simply a matter of selecting that Friday or Saturday from the drop down box and hitting 'go'.

Another favourite theatre website to check in with is that of the local Bytowne Cinema at www.bytowne.ca. Unlike the majority of multiplexes that include the Cineplex's twelve-screen South Keys (built in 1997) and seven-screen Exchange Centre (opened in 1994) theatres, the single screen Bytowne (formerly known as the Nelson Theatre, from its construction in 1947 until thirty-one years later) is probably one of the few relatively historic buildings in Downtown Ottawa that large numbers of people from a diverse cross section frequently want to visit, and has arguably maintained its standing as the Mecca for alternative film buffs since it took over from its predecessor, the Towne Cinema, in 1989.

Built in 1954 and maintaining a steady roster of Hollywood blockbusters for decades, the Towne Cinema became renowned for its repertory leanings in the late Seventies and Eighties, with specially-encouraged audience participation showings of 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show' (1975) being a locally famous highlight with my generation of teenagers for a time. It actually set the stage for the Bytowne - with both theatres simultaneously running independent, Art House and foreign-language films virtually invisible in decidedly mainstream movie theatres here for about a year, until the same owners closed the Towne. The Bytowne Cinema's published bi-monthly tabloid that's also been adapted for browsers in a scaled down version on their website, and one of the start clips sometimes used at the beginning of each screening - where the word 'TOWNE' appears, with 'BY' emerging to the close left shortly afterwards - are really about the only other obvious remnants of the Towne Cinema; other than the alternative video rental store that's lived near that landmark theatre's former entrance since before its doors were closed, that are still in existence these days.

Thanks for checking in.