Click here to read the full article.
Venice Film Festival chief Alberto Barbera has pulled off a pretty impressive feat this year by assembling a buzzy lineup with boatloads of stars set to disembark on
the Lido, despite having less movies from the U.S. studios and streamers at his disposal.
They include new projects from top international directors, including Martin McDonagh, Florian Zeller, Danny Boyle, Werner Herzog, Lance Oppenheim, Nanni Moretti, Hirokazu Kore-eda and Lee Chang-dong, plus the world premiere of Oasis reunion doc “Don’t Look Back in Anger,” with British brothers Liam and Noel Gallagher in tow.
After announcing his mouth-watering selection, Barbera spoke to Variety about the changing studio ecosystem and how it doesn’t necessarily mean that festivals will be left out of the equation going forward.
What’s your explanation for the dearth of films from U.S. studios and streamers? Have they gone cold on Venice and festivals in general?
We shouldn’t jump to hasty conclusions that could be misleading. Let’s stick to the facts. Look closely, at all the attempted predictions made in recent months regarding the films that could land in Venice. There were few Hollywood films listed in the predictions because the truth is that there just aren’t any. The problem is that they aren’t there. The studios are in such a state of stalemate, struggling and redefining themselves by merging. Or in any case, experiencing an identity crisis, that auteur films usually destined for festivals just aren’t there. It’s not because they don’t want to come to our festival.
The only film that could have — and this was a marketing choice made by Warner Bros., we can’t do anything about it — is Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Digger” with Tom Cruise. They announced months ago that they were bypassing all the fall festivals to release it directly in theaters. That is a marketing choice that, I believe, is less linked to the concern of the negative impact a festival can have. It’s just that I believe that film is so powerful and beautiful that this concern does not exist on anyone’s part. But that it is a marketing choice.
So what is the problem?
The real problem for everyone — and for the studios in particular — today is figuring out how to promote films. The real problem is that a whole series of tools used until yesterday no longer exist. They are no longer functional. They have been proven ineffective. But we still haven’t figured out what new tools to use to promote films. So in some cases, someone says, “I’ll throw that movie straight into theaters and, with this surprise effect, I hope to make it big.” Right? Or, if you’re Christopher Nolan, you create anticipation that lasts for months and then the result is automatic, you know? But in our case, the other few films that had been sort of pre-announced, they weren’t ready.
We recently read that [Aaron] Sorkin’s film “The Social Reckoning” was shooting some scenes in early August, and therefore there wasn’t actually time to complete the film. David Fincher’s film [“The Adventures of Cliff Booth”], which at one point seemed to be a sure thing, had to interrupt production due to family and personal issues, so the film is not finished. Maybe it will be completed in a month. But it is precisely that unforeseeable, unexpected and unwanted delay that means the film is not ready in time. Do you know of any other Hollywood movies?
What about “Dune 3”?
That’s releasing at Christmas, and it isn’t ready. I’ve spoken to Denis [Villeneuve] several times and he told me, “We’re in full swing, in full production, with a huge amount of special effects. We’ll be ready right around the release date.” So the problem is that the films are not here. To draw the conclusion that the studios’ attitude toward festivals has radically changed is wrong, because that’s not necessarily the case. It’s a contingency factor, the future of which we can’t predict. We don’t know if next year — which on paper seems to be much richer in interesting and promising [studio] films — will translate into a refusal to participate in festivals. Or if, instead, we will see a return to using festivals as platforms to promote films. That’s impossible to know at this time. But I’d be very cautious about jumping to conclusions. It’s not true because when the films are there, they come. Right?
Well, that turned out to be the case with A24, who are sending Robert Pattinson-starrer “Primetime” to Venice even after their film “Smashing Machine” flopped mightily after launching from Venice last year.
Well, the case of “Smashing Machine” was pretty problematic, because it’s a film that had enormous potential. Why didn’t it work? Who knows? Maybe the film’s positioning and marketing strategy were flawed. There were many reasons why that film didn’t work, when it actually had all the elements it needed to work. But all you have to do is realize that it’s not the festival’s fault if the film didn’t produce the box office results one might have hoped for. And in the case of “Primetime,” they are only doing Venice, so they must believe in us.
“Primetime” was not on our radar. How did you intercept it?
We’d been in contact with [director] Lance Oppenheim since the outset. Initially, it didn’t seem like there would be any difficulties in having it at our festival, until the last minute. Then, in reality, there was some uncertainty about whether it might be available, simply because Pattinson is shooting a film in London, so there was a risk he might not be available. And without Pattinson, promoting an ambitious film is more difficult. So, in reality, I think this is the last film we got confirmed. We saw it very, very late. It was one of the last films we saw. After we saw it, Pattinson confirmed he could come to Venice. He didn’t think twice. He immediately said, “Sure, we’ll come and do all the promotion that the film deserves in Venice.”
The studios actually are in Venice, since Disney is behind the Oasis reunion doc “Don’t Look Back in Anger,” for which Liam and Noel Gallagher expected to come. How did you land that?
That too is a film that, frankly, wasn’t on anyone’s radar. Not even ours. They told us about it at the beginning of June. And we obviously invited it immediately, because it’s a great musical film. We were all speechless. And the Gallagher brothers are very happy to come and have confirmed that they want to present the film. But there is another film from the studios that is Martin McDonagh’s “Wild Horse Nine,” from Searchlight Pictures. I have to say they are very loyal towards Venice and have always have been. And this film was planned to come to Venice from the outset. So on the one hand, it’s not true that the studios are not there. And on the other hand, the fact that some sat this year out, I don’t believe it’s a choice that compromises the relationship for the future in the years to come.
There is only one woman, May El-Toukhy, in competition this year? Why? Isn’t Venice striving for gender parity?
She’s the only one we found of adequate quality to compete internationally. I don’t think we can be accused of bias against women directors because, since 2000, Venice has awarded top prizes to more female directors than Cannes, Berlin or other festivals. The three presidents of this year’s main juries are women. We were hoping to find more female-directed films for competition, but fewer were submitted. Women-directed fiction films accounted for 24% of submissions this year, compared with 30% last year. Unfortunately, we also found them to be of lower quality, so we weren’t able to include more in competition. That’s a great disappointment, but there should be no suspicion of any bias on our part.
The only rigid criterion we follow is the quality of the films. We are absolutely opposed to selecting films based on gender because we don’t believe it’s beneficial. It’s humiliating for women if they’re thought to have been chosen because they’re women rather than because they made a good film.
We’re not the ones making production or budget decisions, or controlling women’s access to the profession. We judge only what’s submitted to us, and while those judgments are inevitably subjective, they’re based on the films themselves. If we’ve made a mistake by not selecting a film directed by a woman, people can judge that once they’ve seen the films.”
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
