pictures

At this year’s festival to unveil our inaugural Cannes issue, I had to opportunity to sit down with Sony Pictures Classics co-founders and co-presidents Michael Barker and Tom Bernard and EVP of Acquisitions, Production and Business Affairs Dylan Leiner on the Main Stage at the Marché du Film to discuss the company’s festival strategy, bidding wars, artificial intelligence and more. Watch the full conversation and read edited excerpts below.

How much does the festival reception of a movie, the reviews coming out of a festival, the buzz around it, shape decisions that you’re making? Or is it just confirming what your gut already knows?

Leiner: I want to tell one story that speaks to that, which was at the first Berlin Film Festival we attended after COVID. I remember, in the same day, I ran into three international distributors who all asked if we had seen “The Teacher’s Lounge.” And I didn’t even know what the film was. It wasn’t on our radar, it wasn’t in competition. So we quickly saw “Teacher’s Lounge” and we acquired the film [which went on to be nominated for the 2024 international feature Oscar]. And that was one of the great values of an in-person festival, the ability very quickly to communicate with distributors, with tastemakers, with critics from around the world and get that kind of information. Gut, personal taste… It plays into it a lot, but then we need reassurance. And being at a festival and being in this fishbowl environment is really helpful for that.

For a lot of people, myself included, the mystique of a festival is often around the bidding war narratives: Who’s going to pick up what and what are they going to pay? I’m curious for your take on the first big acquisition of this year’s Cannes, A24 buying “Club Kid” for a reported $17 million.

Bernard: Throughout the years, there were companies [that would] maybe overpay, or they were going to bid to get this movie no matter what, because they were the headline in all the newspapers covering this festival. So in terms of a company that’s branding — which, A24 is one of the best in branding — I think that that had to do with a little bit of the cash that went up. … There’s a branding aspect in a lot of festivals for a movie that’s a hot movie that the press has decided to seize on.

Barker: Here’s a key to how we have survived. It’s different from the way you talk about it. When we acquire a movie, whether anyone else has offers, we try to block it out. And we have trained ourselves to not let that noise bother us. What is it worth to us? What do we think it’s going to do? Dylan runs these incredible models of what it’ll do on the low end, what it will do on the high end. And then you decide where you want to be.

Bernard: Or we think we can make it work.

Barker: But at no point do we sit around and worry about who else has a higher offer for the movie. Because I have to say, in very few instances, on the movies we buy, are we the higher offer. We just do the best we can, and if we lose it, we lose it.

Bernard: [French film producer] Serge Silberman, a sage of the past, he always said, “You never lose money on a movie you didn’t buy.”

That brings up a question that I had about “Nuremberg,” which was a real success. What you’re saying is, it performed in alignment with your expectations. Were there any lessons that you took away from that in terms of future projects that might come along?

Leiner: Yes, it performed in accordance with our expectations. What’s interesting about that film, we acquired it here last year. Nobody else was really interested in the movie. … So our challenge basically was to figure out how to convince the filmmaking team that, because it was a very expensive film, that we were the right company to acquire the film on the terms that we could afford and that we could make it work. And it was a very intense series of phone conversations, in-person meetings.

Bernard: We felt like we were auditioning to get married to somebody. We were never going to be able to pay to make their money back. It was a $40-million movie, and they were really sort of out there without anybody really looking at it. And we said, “Listen, sell it to us. We think it’s going to be a great success. We’ll make your movie way more valuable over the test of time.”

Barker: There are two types of movies that are being made and distributed. One are the big tentpole studio movies. It’s about winning the weekend theatrically. These are the theatrical-driven movies. And it’s all about making that huge budget back very quickly. But the other kind of film, which is why we are in business, is the evergreen. Every one of our films, we open it with the best marketing push we can. Yes, we try to get the highest box office. But what we know will happen, even if the box office ends up being less, we believe in these films as long-term players. And these films have really long tails. You look at movies like “Run Lola Run” or “Call Me By Your Name” or even “Living” … They have generated revenues to the filmmakers and to us that’s way beyond what the box office would have portended when it opened.

I would be curious, what areas of the filmmaking process or the film distribution process do you think AI is appropriate for use, that you’ve experimented with it, that you’re excited about its prospects? And where are your red lines, if you have any?

Barker: One of the people on our staff — we really love our young staff. One of them was writing a screenplay with AI, and told me they got certain rules on AI. And I’m listening to all these rules. You can’t have your main character die in a first scene. You can’t have your romantic female lead be totally unlikable, people aren’t going to go. I’m listening to this, and I said, “Have you ever seen ‘Sunset Boulevard?’” And she goes, “No, what is that?” I said, “Go watch that movie.” She came back and she was like, “Holy cow.” I said, “Billy Wilder sat down and made that up based on what he observed.” AI is not going to be able to do that.

Russia has held one of its most scaled-back Victory Day parades in years, citing the threat of attack from Ukraine, where a decisive victory for Moscow’s forces has remained elusive more than four years into the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II.

The May 9 parade on Moscow’s Red Square is Russia’s most revered national holiday, a moment to celebrate the Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi Germany and to commemorate the 27 million Soviet citizens, including many from what is now Ukraine, who were killed during the war.

Once used to showcase Russia’s military might, including its nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles, this year’s parade featured no tanks or other heavy military hardware rolling across the cobblestones of Red Square.

Instead, weapons including a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile, the new Arkhangelsk nuclear submarine, the Peresvet laser weapon, the Sukhoi Su-57 fighter jet, the S-500 surface-to-air missile system and a range of drones and artillery were displayed on giant screens on the square and broadcast on state television.

Soldiers and sailors, some of whom have served in Ukraine, marched and chanted as President Vladimir Putin looked on, seated alongside Russian veterans in the shadow of Vladimir Lenin’s Mausoleum. North Korean troops, who have fought against Ukrainian forces in Russia’s Kursk region, also took part in the march.

Fighter jets flew above the Kremlin’s towers and Putin delivered an eight-minute address, promising victory in the war in Ukraine, which the Kremlin refers to as a “special military operation”.

“The great feat of the victorious generation inspires the soldiers carrying out the tasks of the special military operation today,” Putin said. “They are confronting an aggressive force armed and supported by the entire NATO bloc. And in spite of that, our heroes march forward.”

With snow-capped peaks tumbling towards the turquoise waters of the Caribbean, the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta National Park is one of the jewels in Colombia’s tourism crown.

But behind the picture-postcard views lies a more sinister reality.

Armed groups are holding local businesses to ransom and terrorising Indigenous communities.

The signing of a 2016 peace deal between the Colombian state and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) ended more than half a century of war and helped propel a country long associated with druglords and rebels onto the global tourism stage.

Since then, thousands of visitors have poured into the Sierra Nevada each day, trekking through pristine jungle to white-sand beaches or climbing towards Colombia’s mountaintop Lost City, which predates Peru’s Machu Picchu.

Few notice the men in camouflage watching from a distance.

They are members of the Self-Defence Forces of the Sierra Nevada (ACSN), a group of former paramilitaries that controls cocaine trafficking routes in the region and is also involved in illegal gold mining.

Extortion has become another lucrative business for the group. The “Conquistadores”, as ACSN members are often called, demand a cut of the earnings of hotels, tour bus companies and Indigenous communities, whose hand-woven hammocks and bags are snapped up by visitors.

“We are afraid and anxious about the future,” said Atanasio Moscote, the governor of the Kogui Indigenous people, who live high up in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta National Park, which the Kogui consider “the heart of the world”.

In February, the government closed Tayrona National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site overlooking the Caribbean, for more than two weeks following threats against park rangers, allegedly issued by the ACSN.

Authorities have accused the group of pressuring Indigenous Wayuu residents in the park to resist a crackdown on illegal activities such as logging.

Together, Tayrona and the Sierra Nevada national parks received more than 873,000 visitors last year.

The influx of tourists marks a dramatic shift from the 1980s and 90s, when the region was a battleground for brutal clashes between paramilitaries and FARC rebels.

Ten years after FARC laid down its arms, the ACSN – founded by a paramilitary leader who was later extradited to the United States – holds sway in much of the area.

In recent months, Colombia’s biggest drug cartel, the Gulf Clan, has tried to muscle in, vying for control and prompting clashes with the ACSN.

Caught in the middle are Indigenous communities “who don’t speak Spanish, and who live off their crops and their traditional knowledge”, said Luis Salcedo, governor of the Arhuaco people, who also live in the Sierra Nevada.

Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president in modern history, included the ACSN in his bid to negotiate the disarmament of all armed groups in the country.

But four years after he launched his “Paz Total” (total peace) campaign, the ACSN still dominates the Santa Marta area, said researcher Norma Vera.

Extortion has now emerged as a key issue in the campaign to elect Petro’s successor in polls starting on May 31.

The Ministry of Defence says it has received more than 46,000 extortion complaints since 2022.

Omar Garcia, president of the hotel association in the coastal city of Santa Marta, a gateway to the Sierra Nevada, said he fears for Colombia’s fragile tourism boom.

“Any news affecting the image [of a destination] and visitor safety makes tourists think twice,” he said.