Category: Film

What should I ask Brian Koppelman?

I will be doing a Conversation with him, here is Wikipedia:

Brian William Koppelman (born April 27, 1966) is an American showrunner. Koppelman is the co-writer of Ocean’s Thirteen and Rounders, the producer for films including The Illusionist and The Lucky Ones, the director for films including Solitary Man and the documentary This Is What They Want for ESPN as part of their 30 for 30 series, and the co-creator, showrunner, and executive producer of Showtime‘s Billions and Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber…

So what should I ask him?

Why aren’t Barbie tickets more expensive?

That is the theme of my latest Bloomberg column, as for mamny showings there is excess demand and long waits to see the movies.  Here are some of the reasons why markets are not clearing:

A more relevant factor behind the static pricing has to do with social networks. Both the movie theater and the studio want to attract customers who will talk about the movie afterwards, whether directly to their friends or on social media. They also want customers who will want to see the movie multiple times, and generate a kind of cult following.

For the most part, younger audiences better serve these functions than do older audiences. Younger people have on average more friends and see them on a more regular basis, and are more likely to text friends or post on TikTok. They generally have greater enthusiasms. Older people are more likely to have more limited social networks, filled with other older people, and if they have children at home, less likely to go out.

In other words, in terms of publicity at least, a younger moviegoer is more valuable than an older moviegoer. (It is a painful admission for an older moviegoer like myself.) So if theaters raised their prices, the audience would skew older and wealthier. It would be harder for the movie to generate much buzz, and what buzz it did generate would have less impact.

Keeping the price low, on the other hand, favors those willing to scour the internet for tickets, or those who can commit to a scheduled movie date and time in advance. This is typically a younger group.

A second reason for keeping prices low is that moviegoers might feel ripped off if they had to pay a higher price for every movie they really wanted to see. In the short run, the theater would pull in more money, but over time moviegoing could become less popular. Customer goodwill matters.

A third reason that the price does not rise is concession income. A movie theater earns much of its income — it can be almost one-third of revenue for some chains — from selling soda, popcorn and other items, and typically it does not share that money with the studios. That makes revenue from ticket sales a smaller share of the overall profit.

I am looking forward to the rest of this year in movies.

How to assign property rights in actor AI likenesses

This is an issue in the Actors and Writers Guild strikes, with a key issue being whether studios should be making “take it or leave it” offers which give them rights to the AI likenesses in perpetuity, even for extras.  Here is part of my take in my latest Bloomberg column:

I suggest that the eventual strike settlement forbid studios from buying the rights to AI likenesses for more than a single film or project. Or, as a compromise, the contract could be for some limited number of projects, but not in perpetuity. Actors thus would remain in long-run control of their AI likenesses, yet if they wanted to keep selling those likenesses – project by project – they could do so.

Note that this proposal is along some dimensions quite inegalitarian. That is, future stars would end up much richer and the large numbers of actors who fail would end up slightly poorer. They would not be paid small upfront sums for rights that would quickly become worthless.

We can feel better about that trade-off if we consider the interests of the fans. Many people (myself included) enjoy the image and thought of Han Solo (one of Ford’s most famous roles), whether or not they are paying money in a given year to see the Star Wars movies. Would those fans prefer that Ford or some movie studio be in control of the Han Solo image?

The answer may depend on the wisdom and aesthetic taste of the actor in question, but overall I would opt for actor control of the AI likenesses. At least some actors will care about the quality of the projects their likenesses are attached to, rather than just seeking to maximize profit from deploying the likenesses. So, if the question is whether an AI likeness of Han Solo can greet visitors at the entrance to a Disney ride, Disney might say yes but Ford might say no, or at least he would have that choice.

Having celebrity images remain scarce rather than overexposed is a good aesthetic decision, even if it keeps some market power in the hands of Ford, his eventual heirs and future movie stars more generally. With these additional restraints on AI likenesses, we will likely end up with a more exciting, less tired and less overexposed kind of celebrity culture, and I hope that leads to broader social benefits, if only by cultivating better taste among fans and viewers.

Such a proposal is not so unusual when viewed in a broader context. Standard labor contracts don’t allow you to sell your labor to your boss in perpetuity, as you always retain the right to quit. Few people consider that limitation on contracting objectionable, as it protects human liberty against some hasty or ill-conceived decisions, such as selling yourself into slavery. If your AI likeness ends up being such a good substitute for your physical being, as it seems our current technological track may bring, why should we not consider similar restrictions on the contracts for the AI likeness?

Worth a ponder, these are not easy issues.

*Barbie*

You can object to the lack of plot impetus in this work, or cite several other objections, not entirely without reason.  Yet the film is fresh, interesting, and creative throughout.  It is full of ideas, starting with an investigation of how lookism oppresses women, and then it continues to deepen.  By the end, the surface-level and Straussian readings dovetail nicely and converge.  The song “Closer to Fine” is used well.  By no means fully satisfying, but insightful throughout.

*Oppenheimer*, the movie

Well, you know how the story ends so there are no real spoilers.  I will say I found about thirty minutes of excellent movie in a three hour experience.  The best material starts when the test bomb goes off.  There is remarkably little about the social, intellectual, or scientific excitement at Los Alamos — a serial Netflix installment would have done a better job with that.  The dialogue is choppy and poor throughout.  Most of all, the movie spends about two hours fleshing out McCarthyite themes in what I found to be a very repetitive and uninsightful manner.  I have seen what — five?? — movies that do the same.  Even Woody Allen did a better job of this in his The Front.  The various male-female relations all seem so hurried.  There was too much music.

So I give this one a thumbs down.  I do like that it forces the viewer to think more about nuclear weapons, and I am sure many people will learn some history from it.  The movie definitely has its uses, but overall I enjoyed Mission Impossible 7 more.

Mission Impossible 7 (no real spoilers)

Eh.  It has some good scenes, but there was no movie in the movie, as they say.  I do understand this is a film and also a visual event, but the evil AI should have been kept abstract, rather than visualized in such a corny, stupid fashion.  That reminded me of Hitchcock’s Spellbound, which is also too visually literal.  This installation of the MI series uses a bunch of Hitchcock tricks, some expected James Bond, and then a bunch of LOTR moral and “power corrupts” themes, which don’t fit the kinetic emphasis in the on-screen action.  Most of all, I am struck by the great lengths they go to in order to portray lone individuals as decisive over the final outcomes.  In a Bond movie there is a wire to be cut, a button to be pressed, and a specific villain to be vanquished in a remote island lair, with a stomach punch-invulnerable henchman along the way.  OK enough, but here they have to work far harder.  They even solve for the strategic game between the AI and the good guys, and it still isn’t clear who is a decisive agent in the action.

And so the movie ends with “part I and uncertainty,” as even 2 hours 40 minutes was not enough to get a single individual to matter.  Modelmakers, take note.

My excellent Conversation with Reid Hoffman

Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is the episode summary:

In his second appearance, Reid Hoffman joined Tyler to talk everything AI: the optimal liability regime for LLMs, whether there’ll be autonomous money-making bots, which agency should regulate AI, how AI will affect the media ecosystem and the communication of ideas, what percentage of the American population will eschew it, how gaming will evolve, whether AI’s future will be open-source or proprietary, the binding constraint preventing the next big step in AI, which philosopher has risen in importance thanks to AI, what he’d ask a dolphin, what LLMs have taught him about friendship, how higher education will change, and more. They also discuss Sam Altman’s overlooked skill, the biggest cultural problem in America, the most underrated tech scene, and what he’ll do next.

Here is one excerpt:

COWEN: Given GPT models, which philosopher has most risen in importance in your eyes? Some people say Wittgenstein. I don’t think it’s obvious.

HOFFMAN: I think I said Wittgenstein earlier. In Fireside Chatbots, I brought in Wittgenstein in language games.

COWEN: Peirce maybe. Who else?

HOFFMAN: Peirce is good. Now I happen to have read Wittgenstein at Oxford, so I can comment in some depth. The question about language and language games and forms of life and how these large language models might mirror human forms of life because they’re trained on human language is a super interesting question, like Wittgenstein.

Other good language philosophers, I think, are interesting. That doesn’t necessarily mean philosophy-of-language philosophers à la analytic philosophy. Gareth Evans, theories of reference as applied to how you’re thinking about this kind of stuff, is super interesting. Christopher Peacocke’s concept work is, I think, interesting.

Anyway, there’s a whole range of stuff. Then also the philosophy, all the neuroscience stuff applied with the large language models, I think, is very interesting as well.

COWEN: What in science fiction do you feel has risen the most in status for you?

HOFFMAN: Oh, for me.

COWEN: Not in the world. We don’t know yet.

HOFFMAN: Yes. We don’t know yet.

COWEN: You think, “Oh, this was really important.” Vernor Vinge or . . .

HOFFMAN: Well, this is going to seem maybe like a strange answer to you, but I’ve been rereading David Brin’s Uplift series very carefully because the theory of, “How should we create other kinds of intelligences, and what should that theory be, and what should be our shepherding and governance function and symbiosis?” is a question that we have to think about over time. He went straight at this in a biological sense, but it’s the same thing, just a different substrate with the Uplift series. I’ve recently reread the entire Uplift series.

Self-recommending!

Is American Culture Becoming More Pro-Business?

In Capitalism: Hollywood’s Miscast Villain, a piece I wrote in 2010 for the Wall Street Journal, I described the slew of movies and television shows featuring mass-murdering corporate villains including “The Fugitive,” “Syriana,” “Mission Impossible II,” “Erin Brockovich,” “The China Syndrome” and “Avatar,” and Hollywood’s not so subtle attacks on capitalism with characters like Jabba the Hut in the Star Wars universe and the Ferengi in Star Trek. I explained some reasons for Hollywood’s antipathy to capitalism:

Directors and screenwriters see the capitalist as a constraint, a force that prevents them from fulfilling their vision. In turn, the capitalist sees the artist as self-indulgent. Capitalists work hard to produce what consumers want. Artists who work too hard to produce what consumers want are often accused of selling out. Thus even the languages of capitalism and art conflict: a firm that has “sold out” has succeeded, but an artist that has “sold out” has failed.

…Hollywood share[s] Marx’s concept of alienation, the idea that under capitalism workers are separated from the product of their work and made to feel like cogs in a machine rather than independent creators. The lowly screenwriter is a perfect illustration of what Marx had in mind—a screenwriter can pour heart and soul into a screenplay only to see it rewritten, optioned, revised, reworked, rewritten again and hacked, hacked and hacked by a succession of directors, producers and worst of all studio executives. A screenwriter can have a nominally successful career in Hollywood without ever seeing one of his works brought to the screen. Thus, the antipathy of filmmakers to capitalism is less ideological than it is experiential. Screenwriters and directors find themselves in a daily battle between art and commerce, and they come to see their battle against “the suits” as emblematic of a larger war between creative labor and capital.

However, I also noted that some good stories could be told if Hollywood would only put aside their biases and open their eyes to the world:

…how many [movies] feature people who find their true selves in productive work? Not many, which is a shame, since the business world is where most of us live our lives. Like many works of literature, Hollywood chooses for its villains people who strive for social dominance through the pursuit of wealth, prestige, and power. But the ordinary business of capitalism is much more egalitarian: It’s about finding meaning and enjoyment in work and production.

Well, perhaps things are changing. Three recent movies do a good job highlighting a different perspective on capitalism: Flaming Hot, Air and Tetris.

Flaming Hot (Disney) tells the story of a janitor and his improbable rise to the top of the corporate world via leveraging his insights into his Mexican-American heritage and culture. The details of the story are probably false but no one ever said a good story had to be true. A standout aspect of the film is Richard Montanez’s palpable excitement witnessing the Frito Lay factory’s operations — his awe of the technology, the massive machines churning out potato chips, and his joy at being part of a vibrant, productive enterprise, quirks and all. Montanez does find meaning and enjoyment in work and production. Flaming Hot also skillfully emphasizes the often-underestimated significance of marketing, which is frequently brushed off as superfluous or even evil. Incidentally, does “Flaming Hot” contain a subtle nod to the great Walter “E.” Williams?

Air (Amazon Prime) is about a shoe contract. Boring? Not at all. The shoe was the Air Jordan and Air is about Nike’s efforts to court Jordan and his family with a record-breaking and precedent shattering revenue percentage deal. Nike was not united on going all in on Jordan and at the time it was a much smaller firm than it is today so a lot was at stake. Jordan wanted to go with Adidas. His mother convinced him to hear Nike out. Jordan’s mother comes across as very astute, as she almost certainly was, although it seems more probable that it was Jordan’s agent, David Falk who engineered the percentage contract. Regardless, this is a good movie about entrepreneurship. Directed by Ben Affleck, who also portrays Phil Knight, “Air” showcases Affleck’s directorial prowess, previously demonstrated in “Argo,” a personal favorite for personal reasons. 

Tetris (Apple) is also a story about legal contracts. In the dying days of the Soviet Union, multiple teams race to license the Tetris video game from Elektronorgtechnica the Soviet state owned enterprise that presumptively held the rights as the employer of the inventor, Alexey Pajitnov. Gorbachev and Robert Maxwell both make unlikely appearances in this remarkable story. One aspect which was surprising even to me, all the players take the rule of law very seriously. A useful reminder of the importance of property rights and a sound judiciary to the capitalist process.

While these films may not secure a spot among cinema’s timeless classics, each is engaging, skillfully made, and entertaining. Moreover, each movie offer insightful commentary on different facets of the capitalist system. Bravo to Hollywood!

Addendum: See also my review of Guru one of the most important free market movies ever made.

*Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse*

This was one of those “within the first fifteen seconds you know it is going to be great” experiences.  Yes the movie is too long at 2 hours, 20 minutes, but what part would you want cut?  Every scene and indeed every frame jumps to life immediately and is a joy to watch and behold.  It also delivers on soundtrack, Afrofuturism, family values, a good India segment, and it is a wonderful New York City movie to boot.  Cinema is vital once again.

Did you catch all the William Kentridge references?

Of course it will make many people dizzy, and they will turn away in despair, but you might have said that about Rite of Spring as well.  It is true this movie will hit or maybe even exceed your upper bound on how much information you can absorb, but that is what we’re here for, right?

Big screen and good sound system essential.  This is probably the best thing I will see all year, and I don’t just mean cinema.

Two movies I forgot to tell you about

The first is Are You There, God?: It’s Me Margaret.  In addition to being a good movie, it is pro-American, pro-family, pro-religious tolerance, pro-suburbs, and even pro-New Jersey, none of it done pedantically or with excess self-consciousness.

The second is Polite Society, a British comedy-action-Pakistani marriage film, with a South Asian kinetic feel but ultimately in the Western moviemaking tradition.  One Pakistani younger sister is trying to stop the older sister from getting married, and she persists past a reasonable point.  The whole plot only makes sense if you realize the younger sister has been sexually abused (is it a spoiler if your reader/viewer might not have seen the point in the first place?).  Ultimately this movie is about the very limited range of options facing Pakistani women in British society, even with Western comforts and pseudo-freedoms.

Both are recommended.

At the Helm, Kirk or Spock? The Pros and Cons of Charismatic Leadership

That is a new paper (AEA gate) by the very smart Benjamin Hermalin, here is the abstract:

Charismatic leaders are often desired. At the same time, experience, especially with demagogues, as well as social science studies, raise doubts about such leaders. This paper offers explanations for charismatic leadership’s “mixed report card.” It offers insights into why and when charismatic leadership can be effective; which, when, and why certain groups will prefer more to less charismatic leaders; and how being more charismatic can make leaders worse in other dimensions, particularly causing them to work less hard on their followers’ behalf.

And here is one important part of the model:

…a charismatic leader can get away with concealing bad news without triggering overly pessimistic beliefs.

I like the paper, but isn’t Spock super-charismatic, and all these women want to sleep with him?  And isn’t there a long article about all the terrible decisions and advice stemming from Spock in various Star Trek episodes?

Matt Yglesias on movies vs. TV

But I’ve gotten really disgruntled with the “prestige TV” landscape and am trying to redirect my content consumption accordingly. One thing that makes movies really great in my view is that before they shoot a movie, they write a screenplay and the screenplay has an end. Both the screenwriter and other people have read that screenplay all the way from beginning to end and they’ve tweaked and changed it and gotten it into a position where they are ready to start production. Then after a movie is filmed, the editor and director work with the footage and come up with a complete movie that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. They then ship the movie out, and it’s screened by critics who watch the entire movie before writing their review.

This does not guarantee that every movie that comes out is good. But it does guarantee that if someone tells you “‘The Menu’ is good,” they are evaluating a completed product…

By contrast, TV shows have this quasi-improvisational quality where the showrunners are constantly needing to come up with new balls to toss into the air. In old-fashioned non-prestigious “adventure of the week”-type shows, this actually works fine because the writers are not building up tension or setting unexplored plots in motion. But as serialized TV storytelling has gotten more and more common, we’re more and more often asked to show patience through early episodes or to try to find things intriguing with no ability to know whether any of it will pay off. Creators often have no idea where they’re going with the story.

Back in HBO’s heyday, the tradeoff was that The Sopranos and The Wire got to paint on a giant canvas and tell stories that are just too capacious for the movie format. But eventually networks got tired of spending that kind of money and cut back the sizes of the casts to something more normal for television.

That is from his Friday mailbag ($).  The bottom line is that, like Matt, you should watch more movies and less TV.