May be you've heard about this indie movie which was screened at Sundance film festival just a few days ago. It's called "Escape from tomorrow", it's filmed in gorgeous black and white by director Randy Moore, and everybody - including U.S major newspapers - is talking about it. Why? Not only because apparently the movie is really good but also because the film was filmed almost entirely at Walt Disney World and Disneyland Anaheim. And without Disney authorization.
Oh-ho, you begin to understand where the problem is... And what the film is talking about, you ask? Well, as i was not at Sundance and did not watched "Escape from tomorrow", here is how the L.A Times describes the storyline in its excellent article: "Basically, the film is about a down-on-his luck fortysomething father (Roy Abramsohn) on the last day of a Disney World vacation with his henpecking wife and their two angelic children. As he takes his children to various attractions, the father is haunted by disturbing imagery; he is also, in the meantime (and with his children in tow), tailing two young flirtatious French girls around the park". What the L.A Times forgot to say in their synopsis is that the father learn by a phone call on the last day of his WDW vacation that he's fired from his job. And, even if he is suddenly shocked and depressed, decides to don't tell it to his wife and children.
So, for the L.A.Times "Ultimately, Escape from tomorrow is a character study about a man who seems to have lost any sense of optimism in a place that’s overrun with it". But apparently it's also more complicated than that with a third act which "takes on an increasingly macabre tone. And though the movie borrows tropes from horror movies (think young girls running out of sight and creepy smiling dolls) and 1950s futurism, it most often evokes David Lynch, both in its deadpan tone and its utter inscrutability".
Below, a first clip from the movie showing a sequence in a swimming pool. But, for obvious reasons, you won't see any WDW buildings in this clip. Also, although that the way the father is looking in this sequence at the two young "lolitas" may seem "transgressive" Roy Abramsohn, the actor playing the father, insist that the father is not a pederast, that seeing the girls makes him realize how his youth is gone forever, and he became obsessed with them a bit like the character played by Dirk Bogarde in Luchino Visconti's 1971 Death in Venice.
How they succeed to filmed a whole movie at WDW without any cast-members noticing that they were filming is also an interesting question. This other L.A Times article will learn you more about how they did it but basically the movie was shot with a small Canon camera and a crew "guerrilla style" with no script in the hands of anyone, the director and actors communicating by messages through their smart phones to avoid anyone suspect they were shooting a movie. Below, two interviews videos, one with Roy Abramsohn who plays the father and the other with the director, Randy Moore.
You can watch another good video interview from the L.A Times of both Randy Moore and Roy Abramsohn HERE.
Of course the big question now is how Disney is going to react to this movie and will they try to stop it to be released in theaters? So far, "It's unclear if Disney will have legal objections to the movie that might prevent it from being shown beyond the festival, in movie theaters nationwide or on DVD or video-on-demand... so far, no distributor has picked up the film". Normally, the corporate logic would be that Disney don't like at all "Escape from Tomorrow". That said, according to Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University who watched the movie at a screening last weekend: "I think on both copyright and trademark fronts their (Disney) case would be pretty weak". "It's a film that falls pretty squarely in the territory of fair use, which addresses copyright," added Wu, who specializes in intellectual-property issues. "And to establish trademark infringement they'd have to prove that a reasonable person would think Disney is endorsing the movie, and I think they'd have a hard time doing that." Wu also added that although "Randy Moore and his cast and crew could be guilty of trespassing because they violated the terms of the passes sold to them by Disney, that probably would only be a misdemeanor and does not tend to result in large punitive damages".
So, what Disney should do? Personally, as i've said, i've not seen the movie so it's always difficult to talk about a movie you haven't seen yet, but i have the feeling that it's a good, and even an interesting movie. And the fact that it was chosen to be part of the Sundance Film Festival is also a good sign. So, personally i think that Disney should do nothing, that they should released a statement saying something like "Although the WDC don't endorse or approve any ideas include in the "Escape from Tomorrow" movie and forbid any unauthorized filming in Disney theme parks, the WDC accept the right to free expression as defined in the constitution of the United States of America". This would be much smarter than to spend a huge amount of money in lawyers to stop the movie to be released, and specially now. Why? because last year has been a fantastic year for the WDC, movies were successful, it's a kind of new golden age for Disney theme parks, etc... everybody has a good image of the WDC, so may be it's not the right time to remind everyone that the WDC is also a big corporation ready to sue a small indie film. I think Disney has much more to lose than to win to try to stop "Escape from Tomorrow" being released, i think it's a kind of corporate trap that they will create themselves. And Randy Moore has said that "he's not trying to shut Disney down or hurt them", that "This was the story, and WDW was the only place I could tell it". We can perfectly understand why Disney could have a corporate reaction to "Escape from Tomorrow", but in this case i think Disney should try to be, if i can say, "more intelligent than corporate".
Part of text: copyright L.A Times
Escape from Tomorrow poster picture: copyright Randy Moore
15 comments:
Now I really want to watch this movie, it sounds really interesting!
"Personally, as i've said, i've not seen the movie so it's always difficult to talk about a movie you haven't seen yet, but i have the feeling that it's a good, and even an interesting movie."
You have a feeling it's a good movie? I know there could have been something lost in translation but what exactly is "good"? A film is so many things, simply saying it's good isn't particularly descriptive. You feel that it has a good story? You feel that it's well made? You feel that it's overall good? Seems to me, you can't judge any of that without having seen it, so why would you say that? I know this is a blog, and not necessarily unbiased journalism, but with a story that is questioning how the Corporate giant is going to react to the poor little indie filmmaker, an unbiased article would have been nice.
Pelter, Each time i say in an article "i have the feeling that it's a good movie" whether it's for this one or for instance for Disney's OZ, the great and powerful that i've not seen too, it's my "body" who is "feeling" it, the way it "vibrates" when i see or read anything about it. I can't be more descriptive about a movie that i've not seen, it wouldn't have any sense, so the only thing i can say is what i feel through the only things ( clips, articles, interviews ) which are available. I'm not trying to make a film review of a film i've never seen.
I may be wrong in my "feeling" which will be no big drama if i am, but i'm not trying to write an unbiased article. I never do this, i'm just writing what i am feeling, that's all.
I am so glad you posted this article! I did some reading up on this topic and found an article from the New York Times. The article describes some of the overall movie plot...with *warning* Spolilers!
*
*
*
*
“Escape From Tomorrow” is about a family of four setting out to spend a day of fun at Walt Disney World. They ride the teacups and pose for pictures at Cinderella Castle, but Dad (Roy Abramsohn) starts to go bonkers after receiving a phone call from his boss. He drools over under-age girls, thinks animatronic figures are evil and coming to life, and pretends to shoot himself with a fake Frontierland rifle.
There is a gruesome vomiting scene, a creepy obese guy on a motorized scooter and a sequence at Disney’s Epcot theme park in which Mr. Abramsohn’s character is Tasered. He is then taken to a secret room underneath Epcot’s Spaceship Earth sphere — referred to in the film as “the giant testicle” — and brainwashed. Ultimately he suffers a bloody death at Disney’s Contemporary Resort hotel.
“You can’t be happy all the time,” one character says near the film’s end. “It’s just not possible.”
*
*
*
Here is the link for the enitre article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/movies/escape-from-tomorrow-at-sundance-scrutinizes-disney.html?_r=0
Well, if Disney would still own Miramax, they could even buy the distribution rights and make money from it. Sadly, Disney threw it's footing in the indie movie segment out of the window ...
What the? So some hack "filmmaker" violates Disney's property rights and the privacy of its guests and Disney is supposed to be okay with it and actually bless it? Don't you realize what a can of worms that opens? Then they will never be able to deny anyone to do anything that involves filming in the park, because the person doing it will say "but you let that other guy get away with it!"
This isn't about some moronic liberal fantasy about "The Big Evil Corporation" vs. "Little Kind Indie Filmmaker", it's about right vs. wrong. First off, he doesn't even have the respect to bother to ask permission to film. And then he sneaks around like a rat, secretly filming the park. And then he has the nerve to say he was not trying to hurt Disney. If he wasn't, then why all the sneaking and deception?
The 1st Amendment does not allow you to violate the rights of others, specifically in this case property and privacy rights. You can't come into my home invited or not, secretly make a film there of my other guests and my rooms when I'm not looking and then say you can do so because of freedom of speech or freedom of "expression" (which is not in the Constitution to begin with). So I don't even want to hear that excuse, freedom of speech is not carte blanche that allows you to do whatever you want, whenever you want. The people quoted in the post saying that you can must have gotten their laws degrees from a Cracker Jack box.
I have no interest in this film. Sounds like another tedious, ponderous, depressing, pseudo-intellectual bundle of artsy fartsy crap where the "filmmaker" tries to impress us with his supposed cleverness in using weird camera angles and black and white film and his supposed "deepness" via turgid and boring "introspection." "You can't be happy all the time." How profound! I never would have figured that out without this "film."
If I was Disney, I'd throw the book at this smug little twerp and send a message to other smartasses who want to pull the same crap and to hell with people who don't like it. It's not like people who hate Disney are going to hate them less for allowing this, and those who love Disney for the most part feel the way I do. The only "Corporate Trap" would be giving the rubber stamp for people to take advantage of the Park in such a way. And being "Corporate" is intelligent despite your implication, that's how corporations get and stay big. I love it when people attack corporations for being "stupid" when they have no idea what running one is like and when their idea of what is intelligent is moronic. So Disney is supposed to say while what the guy did was wrong and not allowed, we think it's okay anyway? Huh? That's your idea of "more intelligent than corporate?"
It's sad to see this great Blog jump off the rails like this by endorsing unlawful and immoral behavior.
"Well, if Disney would still own Miramax, they could even buy the distribution rights and make money from it. Sadly, Disney threw it's footing in the indie movie segment out of the window ..."
Yeah, they'd make a whopping 15,000 dollars from it. Big whoop. And they'd be sullied by releasing such drivel in the first place. There is a reason Disney left the so-called "indie film segment," because most of it is populated with pretentious film school wannabees.
What the? So some hack "filmmaker" violates Disney's property rights and the privacy of its guests and Disney is supposed to be okay with it and actually bless it? Don't you realize what a can of worms that opens? Then they will never be able to deny anyone to do anything that involves filming in the park, because the person doing it will say "but you let that other guy get away with it!"
This isn't about some moronic liberal fantasy about "The Big Evil Corporation" vs. "Little Kind Indie Filmmaker", it's about right vs. wrong. First off, he doesn't even have the respect to bother to ask permission to film. And then he sneaks around like a rat, secretly filming the park. And then he has the nerve to say he was not trying to hurt Disney. If he wasn't, then why all the sneaking and deception?
The 1st Amendment does not allow you to violate the rights of others, specifically in this case property and privacy rights. You can't come into my home invited or not, secretly make a film there of my other guests and my rooms when I'm not looking and then say you can do so because of freedom of speech or freedom of "expression" (which is not in the Constitution to begin with). So I don't even want to hear that excuse, freedom of speech is not carte blanche that allows you to do whatever you want, whenever you want. The people quoted in the post saying that you can must have gotten their laws degrees from a Cracker Jack box.
I have no interest in this film. Sounds like another tedious, ponderous, depressing, pseudo-intellectual bundle of artsy fartsy crap where the "filmmaker" tries to impress us with his supposed cleverness in using weird camera angles and black and white film and his supposed "deepness" via turgid and boring "introspection." "You can't be happy all the time." How profound! I never would have figured that out without this "film."
If I was Disney, I'd throw the book at this smug little twerp and send a message to other smartasses who want to pull the same crap and to hell with people who don't like it. It's not like people who hate Disney are going to hate them less for allowing this, and those who love Disney for the most part feel the way I do. The only "Corporate Trap" would be giving the rubber stamp for people to take advantage of the Park in such a way. And being "Corporate" is intelligent despite your implication, that's how corporations get and stay big. I love it when people attack corporations for being "stupid" when they have no idea what running one is like and when their idea of what is intelligent is moronic. So Disney is supposed to say while what the guy did was wrong and not allowed, we think it's okay anyway? Huh? That's your idea of "more intelligent than corporate?"
It's sad to see this great Blog jump off the rails like this by endorsing unlawful and immoral behavior.
I'm not endorsing anything, i just think that artists must be free - in fact they are naturally free that's why transgression is not a problem for them. And you can thanks their free spirit because if they were not we would never have had all the piece of arts they've created all along the centuries. That said it remain to be proven that this film is a piece of art, and the only way to know if their transgression was worth the result is to see it and not to judge it before seeing anything. May be it's a masterpiece ( which i doubt ) , may be it's a terrible movie, or may be it'll be simply good but without genius, and we'll see. In any case it's no big of a deal and even if the film is good, because it's an indie film not a lot of people will see it. If Disney send his lawyers it will just make publicity for the film which is where the trap is. Instead, if Disney understand this, in two weeks nobody will speak anymore about the movie. This is what i mean by being "more intelligent than corporate". I never mean that people running corporations are stupid because i don't think it's possible to run a company like Disney being stupid. That's why i have the greater respect for Iger, because he is a real intelligent man ( much more than Eisner because he don't have the ego problem that Eisner had ). But reacting like you do, i.e in a Republican way for such a minor affair leads to nowhere, except to add "one more bar to the jail".
FZ you are right I posted something similar but it didn't post for some reason. Disney has every right to sue and ensure this film is not profited from or distributed. They are a private corporation, freedom of speech/expression is limited once you enter on private property, you can't just do whatever you want with Disney's intellectual and private property.
Daniel, of course Disney has every right to sue if they want to, there is no doubt about that. What i'm trying to say is: even if they are in their own rights to sue, etc... is it the best thing they have to do, or is it better for them to don't do anything? That's all the question i'm asking, i'm not specially on a side or another one and if you really want me to choose one side, probably i would be on the side of Disney. And if i was Disney CEO ( which i'm not ) i will ask to see the film first, and then take a decision, but so far i will probably choose to do nothing, to don't sue. Because i think it's a trap. Not legally speaking, of course, but on another, less material, plan. But it's not a trap created by the movie authors, it's a trap created by the corporate logic which, in this kind of situation, is generally pushing to take decisions in a reactionary way. And i think that's where you need, precisely, to be "more intelligent than corporate" i.e to don't act in a reactionary way, but to THINK first. If the movie is done with an obvious destructive intention against Disney then the answer might be different. But if it's not the case and if Disney World is used only to serve a story - and even if in the background this story criticize the corporate system - but in a talented way, then Disney will win more to do nothing. Why? Because when you are a corporation as big as Disney is not only you will attract critics but in fact they are "part of the pack". The mistake consist to divide the corporation and the critics it can inspire. Occidental logic always divide reality but it's wrong, corporation AND critics of it are ONE same thing. That's why it would be a mistake, in this case, to sue the movie authors. If they do it it'll be, on a certain point of view, just like if they were shooting at themselves. If what i'm trying to explain is not totally understandable, let me know, and i'll find a better way to explain it.
Wow Alain, I think you're totally wrong on this subject. I really hope Disney prevents this film from being distributed, even if that means suing the movie makers. The last thing I want to see are a bunch of wannabe copycat filmmakers running around the parks trying to make silly little films, because one guy was able to get away with it. What about all the park guests that end up being accidental extras in these films? I sure wouldn't want to be included in this type of movie/film without my consent.
Dear Anonymous, with all my respect for your comment and although you're right on the principle, i.e that if Disney do nothing it "could" open the door to others copycat filmmakers, i think that it's wrong to worry about this, and i will explain you why. In fact the question is not to film in guerilla style inside Disney theme parks, the question is WHAT to film and what any filmmaker will need first is the right film idea.
In the case of Escape of Tomorrow they may have found a film idea which is "in theory" interesting , i.e "what happen when a family goes in vacation at the happiest place on earth and that the father suddenly learn that he's been fired from his job and get depressed?". But they may have found the only idea not only which "fits" to be filmed in a Magic Kingdom but ALSO the only one that could be filmed in a way that avoid them to be noticed by the cast members. Because it's one thing to film a movie with this kind of "personal/intimate" story where most of the "action" is inside the mind of the main character ( if i can say ) and it's another one to film AND stay unnoticed a movie that requires "real" action which would be much more difficult if not impossible to hide.
that's why i'm not worry that a no Disney reaction could open the door to similar kind of experiences, because in theory it could be the case but in fact LIFE doesn't work like that.
Sorry, I still don't agree. This is a very dark film, where (SPOILER) the main character dies a very gruesome death at the resort. Not something I'm sure that Disney wants to be associated with. Even without Disney's consent, people will automatically/naturally associate the Disney parks & company with the film. Just imagine if some of our minors would somehow watch this film, and heaven forbid, end up having nightmares due to the twisted nature of this particular film. That could have a long term serious effect on how they would feel (in a negative way) toward the Disney parks, and may even prevent the family from considering to stay there, all because their child watched something horrible happen at the park on TV or on the web. I think we could all agree that this is the last thing that Disney would want to happen.
I'm also guessing that Disney won't have to do anything (at least for now), because I can't imagine any real/major distributors from picking up this film, just because they're probably too afraid to go up against Disney in court (which is probably a sure thing to happen). Also, Disney has deep pockets and a pretty strong hand in Hollywood and if I were a distributor I wouldn't want to get on their bad side. Bad for business.
Just my two cents...
Thanks!
Oh, that's a different matter than the previous one you were talking about ( that it may influence others guerrilla style film making ), and of course i can agree with this point, on the fact that he gruesome death of the father at the Contemporary Resort gives a bad image.
I want to add that the fact that i did a post about this film doesn't mean that i endorse or agree with everything about it. I did a post because Disney and more is a site talking about everything about Disney and even if the WDC is in no way involved with this film i think it's interesting to talk about it, even if a lot can disagree with this movie.
Post a Comment