Movie adaptations of novels often prove to be cases of “they should have left well enough alone.”  With remakes of adaptations, the risk can be doubly great.  Fortunately for Hollywood, the early books of James M. Cain seem to have written with films in mind. Cain was proof of the old axiom that pulp fiction often provides better source material for films than does literature.

Why?  Because many of the elements that will distinguish a book as literature aren’t translatable to the screen.  Prose style, interior monologue, subtle characterization, narrative asides – these things are generally cast aside.

The standard characteristics of pulp, however, such as strong narrative momentum, clearly defined plot points, well-paced suspense arcs and easily typed characters, are components that often make a highly-filmable script.

Cain’s trilogy of pulp classics, Double Indemnity, The Postman Always Rings Twice, and Mildred Pierce, are cases in point.  It should be noted, however, that Cain didn’t consider himself a pulp novelist.  On the contrary, he considered himself a writer of romances.

While this might seem to be stretching a point with respect to Indemnity and Postman, one could at least argue that Cain had drawn his themes from literature.  Both books, which are essentially the same story cast in different milieux, are updated versions of Emile Zola’s Therese Rauquin.  The formula: A man and a woman fall in love, and, carried away by their passion, decide to murder the woman’s husband.  But their crime poisons their relationship, and tragedy follows.

Cain’s focus was on the passion, not the crime.  What makes the stories compelling, however, is the fact that the two elements are fused together.   In fact, you might call it Cain’s syllogism.  If (a) a man and a woman fall in love, and (b) the woman is married, then (c) the husband’s days are numbered.

Mildred Pierce, while often grouped with the first two novels, was clearly a departure.  Passion still plays a part in thep proceedings, but of a different sort.  In this case, it’s a woman’s blind devotion to her daughter.  This motive force is both the key to her success and her curse.  Cain specialized in triangles, but in this case it’s one that more closely resembles the one formed by real life Hollywood star Lana Turner, Turner’s lover Johnny Stampanato, and Turner’s daughter.  Same geomtery, same type of tragedy in the end.

The original filmed version of Mildred Pierce was directed by Michael Curtiz, and starred Joan Crawford, Zachary Scott, Jack Carson and Anne Blythe.  It was one of Curtiz’s best efforts, and is probably the best of the adaptations of the three books under discussion.

The remake will be a five-hour mini-series, directed by Todd Haynes (“Far from Heaven”).  Rachel Evan Wood and Guy Pearce will co-star.  From early reports, the setting of the story has been moved to New York, which seems like an odd choice, since the original took place in Glendale, California.  In fact, it’s worth remembering that the three kings of classic pulp, Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler and Cain, were all essentially California novelists.  None of them hailed from that venue, but like the rest of American popular culture in the 20th century, they moved west.  Ironically, the cradle of American noir was the land of perpetual sun.

Director Ridley Scott has announced that he’ll direct two (yes, two) prequels to his 1979 sci-fi hit, “Alien.”  Scott announced last July that he would direct a single prequel, but apparently the project has spawned a prequel-sequel, if there is such a thing.  If the plan bears fruit, Scott will put a definitive stamp on a franchise which thus far has seen four films, each helmed by a different director (James Cameron, David Fincher and Jean-Pierre Jeunet directed the sequels).

Speaking to MTV, Scott revealed some of the details behind the first prequel: “It’s set in 2085, about 30 years before Sigourney [Weaver's character Ellen Ripley]. It’s fundamentally about going out to find out ‘Who the hell was that Space Jockey?’ The guy who was sitting in the chair in the alien vehicle — there was a giant fellow sitting in a seat on what looked to be either a piece of technology or an astronomer’s chair. … [The film] is about the discussion of terraforming — taking planets and planetoids and balls of earth and trying to terraform, seed them with the possibilities of future life.”

Scott has been planning the first prequel for several years.  The screenplay is currenty in its fourth draft stage.  Scott’s protege, TV commercial director Carl Rinsch, had been slated to direct the new project at first, but 20th Century Fox, the studio that owns the franchise, apparently balked at the  idea of handing over the reins of a high profile project to a first-time feature director.  While Scott had intended to act as producer on the project, he will now assume the director’s mantle as well.

The new films, in what is quickly becoming the de rigueur choice for the sci-fi genre, will be shot in 3D.  As the 3D process tends to darken film quality, Scott will shoot in ultra-bright conditions, and will then adjust the visual quality of the film in post-production to attain a darker effect.

The target date for the release of the first prequel is late 2011, or early 2012.

As if America hadn’t already reached a saturation point with synthetic securities, some of the wizards on Wall Street have dreamed up a new investment vehicle which will no doubt further obscure the underlying value of an industry that is already held together by an amalgam of smoke, mirrors, tarot cards, baling wire and chewing gum.

Although weekend box office figures used to be the province of industry execs, today these numbers are followed avidly by movie nerds the way baseball junkies follow batting averages.  Time wasted?  Not anymore.  The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has just authorized Media Derivatives to create an exchange for movie futures.

According to reports, the new exchange will sell contracts that will predict domestic ticket sales of newly released film.  The contracts will treat films as a commodity (think soy beans), which is nothing new, since the major Hollywood studios have pretty much seen movies in this light since day one.

And while there’s nothing new about trading commodities futures (Aristotle wrote about an early version of the concept), it should be noted that on the Media Derivatives exchange an investor won’t actually have a contract tied to an underlying asset, as would be the case with soybean futures or stock options.  In this case, you’re simply betting on the numbers.  A closer analogue would be the lottery, or perhaps a horse race.

Of course, really serious movie nerds with a commercial bent are apt to think that they can forecast the numbers with a fair degree of accuracy, the same way that most sports fans believe they can predict game scores.  Sports fans have long been able to put their acumen to the test, either through informal betting pools at work, or at Las Vegas, or with their local bookie.  But the movie buff?  Now he’ll have his chance as well.

Critics of the plan say the new exchange will provide a limitless opportunities for fraud and collusion, most of which will be difficult to police.  For example, if a film company or studio senses that a soon-to-be-released film is probably a turkey, they could buy a lowball contract on the exchange, and then pull their advertising and promotion on the film, to ensure the film’s poor results.  They’d lose money  on the film, but potentially they could make much of it back on the derivative contract.

Also, tallying ticket sales is sometimes more of an art than a science.  The figures released are often no more than studio estimates.  If significant derivative money were at stake, how much could these figures be massaged?  It’s possible that, irrespective of the real ticket sales of a film, unscrupulous studio execs could falsify their numbers in order to meet the needs of a particular bet on the derivatives exchange.  You might think that it would be difficult to evade scrutiny with this sort of chicanery, but it’s generally acknowledged that the best fictions in Hollywood have been authored by accountants, not screenwriters.

On the other hand, an exchange such as this could provide filmmakers with legitimate hedge opportunities.  Suppose Martin Scorcese has poured his heart and soul into a sequel to GoodFellas, but early market testing has indicated that the new picture (tentatively titled NotSoGoodFellas) will sink like a rock at box office.  There was a time when Scorcese would have been powerless to do anything but hope for the best.  But now he’ll have the opportunity to hedge his bets.  He can hope that NotSoGoodFellas will draw viewers in swarms; meanwhile, he can take out a contract on the Media Derivatives exchange, betting that the film will tank.  A potential disaster becomes a win-win situation.

If this works out, maybe Woody Allen will start making movies in America again.

In an attempt to steal a few morsels off of Netflix’s plate, satellite TV vendor DirecTV is launching a new service called DirecTV Cinema.  In an agreement similar to the one recently reached by Blockbuster with some of the major Hollywood studios, DirecTV will be able to offer movies on demand nearly a month before they become available on Netflix.

The new deal will make as many as 400 new movies from Universal Studios, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Bros. available on a pay-per-rental basis.  DirecTV currently has 19 million subscribers, and the hope is that the new feature will increase the revenue stream from the existing client base, and also attract new subscribers to the fold.

Netflix, of course, now offers a certain portion of their library in streaming, on-demand format to their subscribers.  They recently struck a deal with studios that will allow them to increase their streaming selection, although they will have access to these titles nearly a month after the DVDs go on sale.  This seems to be a compromise that the studios have worked out with both Netflix and Blockbuster to maximize profits from DVD sales when revenue from that niche continues to decline.

Paul Guyardo, DirecTV’s chief sales and marketing officer, recently told BusinessWeek, “Research tells us that 15 to 20 percent of our customers also subscribe to Netflix, so that’s where the genesis of this idea came from.”  According to Guyardo, the movies will be of Blue-Ray grade, which is superior to the streaming quality currently offered by Netflix.

While DirecTV might be taking aim at Netflix, however, a more likely target might actually be cable provider Comcast, who also has an on-demand library.  While DirecTV’s new feature might exceed Comcast’s in terms of visual quality and title selection, their pricing model will be similar.

It should be remembered that the primary reason that many consumers are drawn to Netflix is the attractive subscription price.  For $8.99 per month, they can view the entire Netflix library on disks, and a certain portion of those titles on-demand, whereas the DirecTV price points will be $4.99 and $5.99 per rental, with rental periods lasting 24 to 48 hours after the first viewing begins.

True, under the new agreements, Netflix customers might have to wait a bit longer to see the most recent titles, but for many consumers timeliness is a secondary issue.  If they felt a greater urgency about seeing the latest releases, they would probably have seen them during the original theatrical run.

For most Netflix customers, convenience and economy are primary considerations.  While the industry continues to evolve in leaps and bounds, until the next paradigm shift occurs, Netflix will continue to have the most attractive offering for the busy movie buff who likes to watch films frequently, with limited hassles, and a minimal bite to the pocket book.

Last week, Disney-ABC Domestic TV formally announced the cancellation of “At the Movies,” the final iteration of the long-running syndicated TV show that began as a showcase for the dialogue between Chicago film critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel.  Disney’s announcement ran as follows:

After 24 seasons with us in national syndication, the highly regarded movie review show “At the Movies” (formerly known as “Siskel & Ebert” and “Ebert & Roeper”) will air its last original broadcast the weekend of August 14, 2010. This was a very difficult decision, especially considering the program’s rich history and iconic status within the entertainment industry, but from a business perspective it became clear this weekly, half-hour, broadcast syndication series was no longer sustainable. We gratefully acknowledge the outstanding work of the program’s current co-hosts, A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, and top-notch production staff, and it is with heartfelt appreciation that we extend very special thanks to the two brilliant, visionary and incomparable critics that started it all, Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel.

In the wake of this announcement, Roger Ebert has revealed that he plans to resurrect the show in a new format, to be called “Roger Ebert presents At The Movies.”  The show will be produced by Ebert and his wife Chaz.

Ebert does not plan to make regular appearances on the show himself.  He lost the use of his voice as a result of surgery for thyroid cancer, and now, rather like Stephen Hawking, is able to communicate vocally only through the use of a laptop computer, which converts his keystrokes into electronically generated spoken words.

Until recently, Ebert, like Hawking, was forced to relay on a generic, artificially-generated voice that sounded a bit like an android whine in an old sci-fi film.  Fortunately, a recent software advance, which synthesizes word sounds based on recordings of Ebert’s own voice, now allows him to sound much like his old self.  He recently demonstrated this device on Oprah Winfrey’s syndicated TV show.

“At the Movies” had suffered a decline both in popularity and prestige in recent years.  The initial slip occurred with the death of Gene Siskel, who died of brain cancer in 1999.  The show stumbled through a long selection process to find a replacement, eventually settling on another Chicago critic, Richard Roeper.  This pairing seemed to stabilize the show’s fortunes, even as the growth of the internet made a multiplicity of film reviews easily accessible to mainstream audiences.

In 2002, Roger Ebert first began treatment for tumors on his thyroid and salivary glands.  He was able to continue working until 2006, when additional complications necessitated emergency surgery which cost him the use of his voice. He retired from appearing on the show at that time.

A number of long-term guest hosts filled in for Ebert, until 2008 when Richard Roeper left the show.  At that time, Disney brought in a fresh team, Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz.  This team never caught on with the public, and they were replaced by A. O. Scott and Michael Phillips in 2009. This final pairing lasted barely a year before Disney decided to pull the plug on the whole franchise.

In starting his new venture, Ebert plans to do more than simply fashion a reasonable copy of the original show.  He plans to focus more on smaller indie films than before, and he plans to modernize the show by exploiting new media as much as possible.

On his website, Ebert recently elaborated on his plans for the new show:

We’ll…go New Cinema. Not just the One Weekend Wonders, although you gotta have ‘em, but indie films, foreign films, documentaries, restored classics, the new Herzog, the new Bahrani, the new Almodovar. What’s new on Instant Streaming. What great movies should everyone see? Hey, Paramount just announced $1 million for ten $100,000 movies. Those kinds of films. What kind of a real movie lover cares who has the “exclusive” first trailer in the newest extrusion of the “Transformer” franchise? It’s time to smarten up.

One of the most appealing elements of the original Siskel & Ebert show was the ability of the two hosts to create an amalgam of critical intelligence and mainstream enthusiasm in their appreciation of cinema.  They were serious without being pretentious, and their dialogues often seemed like a cross between one of Pauline Kael’s New Yorker reviews and a Laurel & Hardy comedy routine.  In fact, it was the latter element that led some of the more blue-nosed critics to dismiss them, but the favor they lost with academic types was more than compensated for by approval with the general public.

Ultimately, it was their natural enthusiasm that viewers were attracted to, and one hopes that Roger Ebert will be able to capture the same lightening in a different bottle with the new show.  Ebert will announce the identity of the new host soon.

According to a report in The Washington Post, there’s a rumor circulating that Netflix is exploring the idea of deploying a new iPhone app for streaming movies and TV shows.  Actually, it’s a bit more than a rumor.  Netflix is currently conducting a survey with their user base to ascertain what the demand might be.

While this sounds like an obvious match in terms of desirability, current iPhone users who are wedded to AT&T as their service provider can already hear alarm bells ringing.  The AT&T network already seems to be taxed to the breaking point, as data feeds downloaded by iPhone users continues to grow exponentially.  Complaints of dropped calls and poor coverage are becoming legion.  It it seems unlikely that the current system could accommodate the addition of a streaming Netflix service.

Not to worry.  As a workaround, it seems that the new app would work only via WiFi.

The full text of the Netflix survey is as follows:

“Imagine that Netflix offers its subscribers the ability to instantly watch movies & TV episodes on their iPhone. The selection availability to instantly watch includes some new releases, lots of classics and TV episodes. There are no advertisements or trailers, and movies start in as little as 30 seconds. You can fast-forward, rewind, and pause or watch again.

The movies & TV episodes you instantly watch are included in your Netflix membership for no additional fee.  Whenever you want to instantly watch content on your iPhone, your iPhone must be connected to a Wi-Fi network (such as one you might have at home or at work, or in public places like coffee shops, book stores, hotels, airports, etc.)

If this functionality were available, how likely would you or someone in your household be to instantly watch movies & TV episodes on your iPhone via a Wi-Fi network?”

Thus far, there has been no official announcement, from either Netflix or Apple, that a deal is in the works.  And one should note that Apple is generally extremely protective of its home turf.  Would they approve of an app that posed potential competition to iTunes?

Nevertheless, it seems clear that a marriage between Netflix and a mobile OS is inevitable.  Currently, Apple is the big dog on the block.  But with Google’s Android and Microsoft’s latest Windows Mobile iteration both entering the fray, it should only be a matter of time before your favorite movies will be coming to a cell phone near you.

Program Highlights: This year’s festival has an exciting mix of offerings from established masters, notables of the future and possible Oscar candidates.  Festival-goers will surely recognize names such as Alain Resnais, Ken Loach, Peter Greenaway, Marco Bellochio, Chen Kaige, Jan Hrebejk, Catherine Brelliat, and Hong Sang-soo, all of whom have offerings this year. And  audiences will surely be exctited and intrigued by films from such promising new talents as Sarah Watt, Lu Chan, Marie Ade, Corneliu Porumboiu, and Andrea Arnold.

Below are summary lists of films and filmmakers eligible for this year’s New Director Audience Award; and 17 films submitted for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar.

New Directors: Ahmad Abdalla (Egypt), “Heliopolis”; Urzula Antoniak (Netherlands), “Nothing Personal”; Stéphane Aubier, Vincent Patar (Belgium), “A Town Called Panic”; Ilisa Barbash, Lucien Castaing-Taylor (U.S.), “Sweetgrass”; Alvaro Brechner (Uruguay), “Bad Day To Go Fishing”; Alexandre Franchi (Canada), “The Wild Hunt”; Don Hahn (U.S.), “Waking Sleeping Beauty”; Christo Georgiou (Cyprus), “Small Crime”; Hernán A. Goldfrid  (Argentina), “Music on Hold”; Andre Khrzhanovsky (Russia), “Room and a Half”; Donal Mosher, Michael Palmieri (U.S.), “October Country”; Gerald Peary (U.S.), “For the Love of Movies”; and Ben Wheatley (Great Britain), “Down Terrace.”

Oscar Submissions: “About Elly” (Iran); “Ajami” (Israel); “Bad Day to Go Fishing” (Uruguay); “Chameleon” (Hungary); “Dawson Isla 10″ (Chile); “Forever Enthralled” (China); “Home” (Switzerland); “The Misfortunates” (Belgium); “Mother” (South Korea); “Nobody to Watch Over Me” (Japan); “Police, Adjective” (Romania); “A Prophet” (France); “Protector” (Czech Republic); “Reykjavik-Rotterdam” (Iceland); “Terribly Happy” (Denmark); “Ward No. 6″ (Russia); and “The Wind Journeys” (Colombia).

Website: Northwest Film Center.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs officially launched his company’s latest gadget, the iPad, today in a packed auditorium in San Francisco.  The long-rumored device, which has actually been in development in one form or another for the past 20 years, won’t actually go on sale for another 60 days, but Jobs gave a live demonstration of the gadget to whet the appetites of the various media reps and corporate execs who were present.

The iPad isn’t the first tablet-style computer to hit the market, but Mr. Jobs is hoping that it will be the first one to do so successfully.  Previous attempts at similar devices have failed to ignite much enthusiasm in the marketplace.  Indeed, one might say that, unlike Apple’s foray into the cellphone market, which was already well-defined, the iPad is an attempt to set the parameters for the tablet market, much as the iPod did for portable music players.

Jobs believes that the iPad, which he called “so much more intimate than a laptop and so much more capable than a smart phone,” will capture a segment of the mobile market that has yet to be fully exploited simply because the right product hasn’t come along.  Naturally, Apple is making a gamble that the iPad will fill the void.  In a typical flare of Jobs hyperbole, the Apple honcho described the device as a “truly magical and revolutionary product.”

The price points for the iPad begin at $499, and will top out at $829.  Functions will include Wi-Fi connectivity, and will allow users to play games, read e-mails, surf the web, run spreadsheet and word processing programs, listen to iTunes music, watch movies and read e-books.  It has a 9.7 inch screen, weighs 1.5 pounds and is powered by a 1 GHz Apple A4 processer, which Apple is making in-house.  Data storage is in the flash drive format, ranging from 16BG to 64GB.

Although the device will be sold “unlocked,” Apple is teaming with AT&T to offer a pre-paid style data plan for $30 per month. AT&T customers who currently bemoan dropped calls caused by overburdened cell networks probably have a shock in store for them, as the amount of data being transmitted over the AT&T grid will increase exponentially if the iPad catches on.

But will it catch on?  Obviously Steve Jobs & Co. are gambling that it will.  At the demo today in San Francisco, the iPad looked like an iPhone on steroids.  The question is, will consumers decide that it does too much for a phone, and not enough for a laptop?  Or, like Goldilocks, will they decide that it’s just right?

So Conan O’Brien has pulled the plug on his Tonight Show operation, and moved on, after a mere seven months in the House that Johnny Built.  While he launched comic barbs at NBC during much of his last week of broadcasts, and vowed to make each of his last five shows, if not funny, at least “crazy expensive,” his farewell speech on Friday night was nothing if not gracious.  If you’re feeling sentimental, you can read the complete text of Conan’s farewell speech by clicking on the link.

O’Brien thanked NBC for giving him an outlet for his show business urges for most of his adult life, and went on to say, “Walking away from The Tonight Show is the hardest thing I have ever had to do. Making this choice has been enormously difficult. This is the best job in the world, I absolutely love doing it, and I have the best staff and crew in the history of the medium. But despite this sense of loss, I really feel this should be a happy moment. Every comedian dreams of hosting The Tonight Show and, for seven months, I got to. I did it my way, with people I love, and I do not regret a second. I’ve had more good fortune than anyone I know and if our next gig is doing a show in a 7-Eleven parking lot, we’ll find a way to make it fun.”

O’Brien is prohibited by the terms of his severance agreement from appearing on a rival network for several months.  According to the most obvious rumors, he’s on Rupert Murdoch’s short list of available TV personalities should Fox decide to make another foray into the late night arena.  But that’s a big if.  Fox’s last serious effort in the late night genre produced Arsenio.  Remember him?  And if Fox isn’t a likely option, then what are the alternatives?  Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert seem to have the late night slots sewn up on Comedy Central.  Late night productions are much more expensive than, say, reruns of Seinfeld, and not necessarily as lucrative, based on ROI.  What then?

Ultimately, there are only so many places in America where a person can host a late night talk show.  If the 7-Eleven parking lot venue doesn’t pan out, O’Brien can undoubtedly fall back on a career for which he’s already shown a certain aptitude – making Swedish beer commercials.  See the video below.

But O’Brien needn’t feel rushed about making a decision.  NBC will pay Conan & Co. $45 million in severance, which is more than Ken Lewis received in return for skulking away from Bank of America quietly.  Of that sum, O’Brien will keep $33 million for himself, and the rest will be paid out to his staff.  Not bad, for seven months work.

In a move that is seen as a first step away from a strictly ad-supported business model, Google’s YouTube is partnering with Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival to offer five films from the 2009 and 2010 festival line-ups on a rental basis.  There’s a limited time window for renting the films, Jan. 22 through Jan. 31, which corresponds to the time frame of this year’s festival.

Google purchased YouTube three years ago for $1.76 billion in shares, and while they’ve monetized the site with ads, YouTube has yet to turn a profit.  Many skeptics have questioned the wisdom the acquisition (or its price, at any rate), but as Ken Auletta outlined in his new book, Googled: The End of the World As We Know It , the integration of YouTube into Google’s suite of services is consistent with their long range goal of becoming the world’s first “$100 billion media company.”

Microsoft capo Steve Ballmer has scathingly characterized Google as a “one trick pony,” and certainly the brain trust at Google is well aware that being completely dependent on search for its business has its limitations. Hence the acquisition of YouTube, the development of the Android platform, and the release of the Nexus One smart phone. Google wants a bigger piece of your online and mobile experience.

That might sound ominous to anti-monopolists, or anyone else who fears scale, but as Ken Auletta pointed out in a recent interview , Google’s corporate culture sets them apart from many of their corporate peers.  “Google is not composed of cold businessmen,” said Auletta.  “They are cold engineers. The difference is that Google is not obsessed with killing competitors. They’re obsessed with eliminating inefficiencies.”

Microsoft’s business model, on the other hand, may be summarized by a simple three-step program: (a) copy the competition’s product, (b) annex the competition’s market share, either by leveraging Windows, or by throwing cash at the problem (e.g. Bing’s new omnipresent ad presence on the web), and finally (c) annihilate the competition.  And annihilation of the enemy is what Microsoft is all about.  Steve Ballmer is Dick Cheney in drag.

While Microsoft might seem reasonably benevolent on the surface, their long term goal has always been monopoly.  Monopoly may be defined as a single-player market, with no visible competition. And as you doubtless remember from Econ 101, in a market without competition, the single player can (a) safely repress any urge they might have to innovate, and (b) charge whatever they damn well please for the product.  Sound familiar?

If YouTube’s experiment in film rental proves at all successful, or even if it doesn’t, you can be sure we’ll see more of it in the future.