« Hot Button - The Indie Thing | Main | Hot Button - No, The Stars Are Getting Smaller »
June 23, 2008
Taxi To The Toilet
There was actually a very good film by the same title as this entry... Taxi Zum Klo... apologies for the grab.
But Alex Gibney continues to push ThinkFilm on his Oscar winner, Taxi To The Darkside, now claiming that Think was fraudulent in its handling of the film, allegedly knowing that a financial crisis was coming that would get in the way of a wider post-Oscar release.
IndieWIRE does a good job of offering the Gibney side, the Think side, and the objective side.
I look at the numbers on Born Into Brothels, Think’s last Oscar winner, which was also seen as an underperformer, and indeed, you do see a leap after the Oscar win. But there was a huge difference on the objective interest in the two films. Brothels, even though considered an underperformer in the white-hot landscape of docs at the time, had a much stronger run both before and after the Oscar. It was ay $718,096 before winning, its worse weekend offering a $3660 per-screen average. Taxi, on the flipside, went into Oscar night with $105,667 and only one weekend – its opening – with a per-screen better than $2150. And after the Oscar win, Taxi’s per-screen just kept dropping.
Now… Alex can blame Think for not spending enough money promoting the film after the win. He can argue that there was a bigger theatrical life for his film and that Think blew it. But it would be a real feat to prove actionable negligence, unless he has some specific inside info that has not yet become public.
I would assume that this whole thing is simply a play by the very, very smart Mr. Gibney to get back the rights to his Oscar winning movie from a company he is disappointed with and who he fears, reasonably, might soon sell off his property to someone else.
And I would assume that Mark Urman, who has been pushed hard by Gibney and is under enormous pressure in a community that he has been a respected and hard-working member of for a long time, is slapping back at Gibney because he has just had it.
All of us who are owed money by Think – including Nancy Willen, Gibney’s Taxi publicist, who is referred to in passing by Gibney in the IndieWIRE article – know that the bills are not being paid. It is highly likely that the new money source is seeking to fund ongoing efforts by the company and not to cover a backlog of debt. And Urman has to walk that line. Think being active is like a red flag in front of some hungry bulls.
So in closing… Gibney’s claim is goofy, yet the effort is understandable and, I am pretty sure, honorable. Urman’s smackback is goofy, yet the reaction is understandable, and I am pretty sure, honorable.
Gibney would not be the first person to scream, “Cut me loose of this nightmare,” before an anticipated ax falls. But his actions do make it harder for others to trust Think as the company tries to move into the future. And if producers won’t get into bed with the company, the company can’t stop itself from dropping out of business in time.
Tough sledding.
ALSO: Lunch With Gibney
Posted by dpoland at June 23, 2008 11:19 AM
Comments
"All of us who are owed money"
So you're an 'us' too?
Posted by: jeffmcm ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 23, 2008 12:03 PM
You know, with all due respect to Gibney, you'd think that after he made the terrific Enron doc, he'd be more alert to... well, tell-tale signs of creative accounting.
Posted by: Joe Leydon at June 23, 2008 12:11 PM
Jeff, maybe you should offer your skills as Dave's copy editor.
Posted by: martin at June 23, 2008 01:02 PM
Or his sales agent.
Posted by: jeffmcm at June 23, 2008 01:09 PM
Yes, J-Mc... MCN is owed money by ThinkFilm.
And Joe... I don't think there was any creative accounting in play here or any accusation of same.
Posted by: David Poland at June 23, 2008 01:20 PM
Wouldn't you describe misrepresenting (allegedly) your financial status as a form of creative accounting?
Posted by: Joe Leydon at June 23, 2008 01:33 PM
This whole scenario makes me wonder why we never hear directors making a rukkus about the Weinstein brothers buying their film and then not releasing them. I'm not sure how the system works, but when a company purchases a film at a festival surely there's a part in the contract and states somewhere that the film must be released, right? I still can't believe why any filmmakers would sell their movie to that company. Why hasn't some filmmakers come out and publicly whipped these guys?
Nevertheless, back to ThinkFilm and Taxi to the Darkside.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at June 24, 2008 12:44 AM
KCamel, this is why there are a lot of films that play in places like Encino and Irvine for one week and never anywhere else. Contractual release obligation fulfilled, they move on.
Posted by: jeffmcm at June 24, 2008 01:02 AM
I don't know what those "Encino" and "Irvine" places are, but I get your meaning. Still doesn't explain why any self-respecting director/producer would give their film to them anymore.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at June 24, 2008 04:49 AM
Sorry, they're suburban areas of Los Angeles. As for your other question, I'd say 'money' and 'seduction'.
Posted by: jeffmcm at June 24, 2008 11:34 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)