NEWS: Smithsonian Film Deal Stirs Controversy
Jacqueline Trescott at the Washington Post reports today (following an article last week in the New York Times by Edward Wyatt) that a recent deal between the Smithsonian Institution and Showtime Networks has sparked outcry in the documentary filmmaking community. According to both reports, the deal requires filmmakers to offer the Smithsonian/Showtime unit the right of first refusal for any project that relies "heavily" on Smithsonian artifacts or experts. Projects accepted by the unit would be aired on a new cable channel called Smithsonian on Demand. Academic and educational users will still have access to the archives in most cases. The deal was announced March 9 and has been in effect since January. The new cable channel is set to debut programming in December 2006.
Now, readers of this blog know well that I am no opponent of the Smithsonian Business Ventures unit, or "the museum's attempts to make money" (Trescott), also known as operating in the black. But I do have some very real concerns about this deal. The Smithsonian is, at base, a public repository of information. Caretaker, curator and presenter of vast bodies of scientific and historical knowledge. I find it hard to imagine that the thousands of donors who have left sizable financial gifts and personal collections in the hands of the Institution intended for their use to be restricted in some cases to films that can reach, at most, 25 million homes.
Ken Burns, who is perhaps America's most prominent historical documentary filmmaker, has called the deal "terrifying" in another New York Times article. In the same article, a Smithsonian spokesperson says that the Smithsonian didn't "'have the financial resources, the expertise or the production capabilities' . . . to continue to provide extensive access to materials but not to reap any financial benefit from the result." There is no discussion of why SBV didn't simply raise the $2,000 a day fee they charge for this access to make it more financially viable. I have a hard time believing that filmmakers would not prefer doubling the fee rather than having their ideas relegated to an on-demand cable network. Of course the real money in these things comes not from the initial broadcast but from the sales of the DVD later--Burns documentaries have become something of a staple Father's Day gift, at about $100 a pop. So why not a cut of the royalities in addition to the daily fee?
What I find most troubling about this situation is the possibility that it pits public institution against public institution. The type of documentaries we're talking about here have become a staple of programming at PBS and its affiliates, such as WGBH in Boston, which produces Nova and American Experience. Are you really telling me that "Tupperware!" belonged on premium cable?
UPDATE 4/6/06: Well, lookee here. They're hiring a Head of Research and Development, which sounds an awful lot like the person who gets to make or not make that first refusal.
Now, readers of this blog know well that I am no opponent of the Smithsonian Business Ventures unit, or "the museum's attempts to make money" (Trescott), also known as operating in the black. But I do have some very real concerns about this deal. The Smithsonian is, at base, a public repository of information. Caretaker, curator and presenter of vast bodies of scientific and historical knowledge. I find it hard to imagine that the thousands of donors who have left sizable financial gifts and personal collections in the hands of the Institution intended for their use to be restricted in some cases to films that can reach, at most, 25 million homes.
Ken Burns, who is perhaps America's most prominent historical documentary filmmaker, has called the deal "terrifying" in another New York Times article. In the same article, a Smithsonian spokesperson says that the Smithsonian didn't "'have the financial resources, the expertise or the production capabilities' . . . to continue to provide extensive access to materials but not to reap any financial benefit from the result." There is no discussion of why SBV didn't simply raise the $2,000 a day fee they charge for this access to make it more financially viable. I have a hard time believing that filmmakers would not prefer doubling the fee rather than having their ideas relegated to an on-demand cable network. Of course the real money in these things comes not from the initial broadcast but from the sales of the DVD later--Burns documentaries have become something of a staple Father's Day gift, at about $100 a pop. So why not a cut of the royalities in addition to the daily fee?
What I find most troubling about this situation is the possibility that it pits public institution against public institution. The type of documentaries we're talking about here have become a staple of programming at PBS and its affiliates, such as WGBH in Boston, which produces Nova and American Experience. Are you really telling me that "Tupperware!" belonged on premium cable?
UPDATE 4/6/06: Well, lookee here. They're hiring a Head of Research and Development, which sounds an awful lot like the person who gets to make or not make that first refusal.
posted by Christina at
4/06/2006
1 Comments:
Since we had about a dozen hits on this post from WGBH today, I'm going to take this opportunity to ask what you folks think about this. Is the Smithsonian/Showtime deal really a risk to public television programming? Or are the documentary filmmakers blowing smoke?
By
Christina, at April 06, 2006 8:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home