Hedge fund previously named by rights owner Halcyon in lawsuit blaming them for trying to wrest control of franchise
LACMA Director Grilled on Film Program
Michael Govan on his vision, the heated "popcorn" talk with the public -- and playing make-up with Martin Scorsese.
Slideshow
It’s perhaps the most anticipated head-to-head competition in Oscar history.
Kathryn Bigelow’s low-budget indie war film, “The Hurt Locker,” and James Cameron’s 3D mega-blockbuster “Avatar,” both nominated for nine Oscars Tuesday, are going directly against one another for Director and Best Picture, among other categories.
Oh, and of course, Bigelow and Cameron used to be married.
Which film is going to win the big Best Picture prize on March 7?
TheWrap breaks down the competition.
When the Los Angeles County Museum of Art said earlier this summer it was suspending its 40-year-old weekend film program because funds had run out, LACMA's director Michael Govan was besieged by criticism -- even from luminaries like Martin Scorsese.
Then on Aug. 26, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and Time Warner Cable came to the rescue, each pledging $75,000, enough to keep the program open until June 2010, which led Govan to decide to expand the museum's film department -- an endeavor that will require $5 - $6 million if it wants to survive past the end of the next fiscal year.
Govan was grilled by TheWrap's Amy Kaufman about his about-face, his vision for the new film department and playing make-up with Martin Scorsese.
Film series attendance was down 50 percent over the last 10 years, yet when the program got suspended, there was huge public outcry. If people are so upset, why didn't they show up sooner?
It's a little bit of human nature. But it's better that more people got involved in the discussion than were actually going to the theater. This shows me there's a larger potential audience. Maybe I'm being hopeful there, assuming that if people sign petitions, we can convince them to actually join.
To what do you attribute you drop in audience?
I don't want to get stuck on that point. You can't have no patrons and no audience, and we have patrons. Obviously, it's a question of balance. I think we can do better if we run some fun outdoor programs, that kind of thing. All we were seeing were negative trends -- less audience, no money, and costs rising. Not one positive uptick. Now we've got money coming in, and we've got more people coming to the theater.
But why try to expand things now, during tough economic times?
I actually thought it was a good time to confront it, while the economy is down, because we had postponed our bigger building projects.
Film is becoming more important and the city is becoming bigger. That's why we need a bigger program. And we really just didn't have the money to run the film program the way it was. Everyone was saying, "You only need $150,000." But the trend line was the issue. $150,000 was the minimum we needed to run the program.
What do all the costs go towards?
Staff. A film coordinator and a second person, a projectionist. Lots of people are involved if you run a theater. And you have the costs of film rentals. So let's get the right budget -- instead of $360,000 a year, it's $500,000 a year.
What happened during last week's "popcorn summit" meeting between you and the members of the L.A. film community?
The meeting was extremely productive in terms of sharing creative ideas. What I tried to communicate was what I've tried to communicate from day one: You won't see LACMA without film.
Comments
mack10 Says
Greenhouse gases
Main articles: Greenhouse gas and Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and earth's surface. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).
Recent atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases. Monthly CO2 measurements display seasonal oscillations in overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum occurs during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during its growing season as plants remove some atmospheric CO2.The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[19] Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed, even by those who do not agree that the recent temperature increase is attributable to human activity. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[20][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent[not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[21][22] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and other gases.
Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[23] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[24] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.[25] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, particularly deforestation.[26]
CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Accordingly, the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100.[27] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.[28]
The destruction of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons is sometimes mentioned in relation to global warming. mp3 indir usdown.net watchfootballlive.org watchnflfootballlive.net watchfootballlive.org nflfootballonline.org nflfootballonline.net nflfootballlive.net Although there are a few areas of linkage, the relationship between the two is not strong. Reduction of stratospheric ozone has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s.[29] Tropospheric ozone contributes to surface warming
Marias Says
The solution is simple. Hold a seance w/ Ron Haver.games
Roscoe Karns Says
The solution is simple. Hold a seance w/ Ron Haver.
He put brilliant retrospectives together.
And the auditorium was packed.
Roscoe Karns Says
The solution is simple. Hold a seance w/ Ron Haver.
He put brilliant retrospectives together.
And the auditorium was packed.