Netflix Inc

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Movies

      Israeli Filmmaker’s Critique of ‘The Kashmir Files’ Draws Fierce Backlash

      by

      The filmmaker, Nadav Lapid, criticized “The Kashmir Files,” a Hindi-language film that depicts a violent chapter in the restive region of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.NEW DELHI — A prominent Israeli filmmaker who sharply criticized a popular but contentious Indian film at a government-sponsored film festival faced a police complaint on Tuesday as Israeli diplomats scrambled to apologize.The filmmaker, Nadav Lapid, used his closing remarks at the festival, which was in the Indian state of Goa, to criticize “The Kashmir Files,” a Hindi-language feature film depicting a violent chapter in the restive region of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir during which members of the Kashmiri Pandit community were persecuted, attacked and killed.The violence and subsequent exodus of Kashmiri Pandits, a Hindu minority in the Muslim-majority region, occurred during a militant insurgency against Indian rule in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The film, a blockbuster hit that includes graphic scenes of violence, has been heavily promoted by India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, as a moving reflection of a sordid chapter in Kashmir’s history.State governments controlled by the B.J.P. gave their full endorsement of the film. Government workers were given time off to see the movie, and got tax breaks on tickets. The party paid for movie tickets for party workers, and later organized screenings.Some film critics and opposition politicians, however, found the film dangerously and unnecessarily provocative. The film supports a B.J.P. narrative of Hindu persecution to emphasize subjugation, a theme that is often repeated in political speeches and in efforts by top government officials to rewrite India’s history, playing up violence committed by Muslims against Hindus.The filmmaker, Mr. Lapid, issued his critique on Monday in remarks at the International Film Festival in India, where he was the festival’s jury head.“That felt to us like a propaganda, vulgar movie, inappropriate for an artistic competitive section of such a prestigious film festival,” Mr. Lapid said.“I feel totally comfortable to share openly these feelings here with you onstage,” he added, “since the spirit that we felt in the festival can surely accept also a critical discussion, which is essential for art and for life.”Nadav Lapid during the 74th Cannes Film Festival in France in 2021.Eric Gaillard/ReutersThe backlash to his remarks — from Indian politicians, Bollywood actors, Israeli diplomats and members of the public — was swift and severe.A Hindu lawyer in Goa filed a police complaint against Mr. Lapid early Tuesday, citing a criminal law that prohibits speech that deliberately offends religious sentiments.Israel’s ambassador to India, Naor Gilon, condemned Mr. Lapid’s comments on Twitter as “presumptuous and insensitive.”“You should be ashamed,” he added of Mr. Lapid, complaining that the filmmaker’s speech had made the work of Israeli diplomats in the country more difficult.There was no immediate response to messages sent to Mr. Lapid for comment. But earlier during the festival, he told an entertainment trade publication in Goa that he was participating in the festival not as an ambassador for Israel, but as an artist who travels the world seeking out different cultures.“If I wanted to represent Israel, I would have gotten into diplomacy,” he said in the interview.Israel’s consul general, Kobbi Shoshani, told a local TV news network that he didn’t agree with Mr. Lapid’s assessment of the film, and that his speech was a “big mistake.”The veteran Bollywood actor Anupam Kher, who starred in “The Kashmir Files,” also called Mr. Lapid’s comments “shameful,” drawing a comparison between the Jewish Holocaust and the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits.“It’s shameful for him to make a statement like this,” Mr. Kher said on Twitter. “Jews have suffered Holocaust and he comes from that community.”Mr. Lapid’s comments underlined India’s growing polarization under B.J.P. rule. While members of the main opposition Congress party said “hate was eventually called out,” members of the B.J.P. asserted that the “truth” about Kashmiri Pandits “will triumph.”On social media, some Indian writers and members of the political opposition defended Mr. Lapid’s right to critique the film on its merits.In India, the response to “The Kashmir Files,” which was released in March, has been deeply divided along political and sectarian lines. Nonetheless, it is a commercial success. Despite having no song-and-dance numbers — a staple feature of Bollywood movies — the film was an instant hit, grossing more than $43 million in worldwide sales. It cost about $2 million to make.The festival featured more than 280 films from 80 countries. Anurag Thakur, India’s information and broadcasting minister, singled out the Netflix series “Fauda,” from Israel, for praise. The series is a hit in India, and its fourth season premiered at the festival.Mr. Thakur also spoke, in Hebrew and English, of the two countries’ growing ties.“We have conflict in the neighborhood,” he said. “At the same time, we have thousands of years of history.”“India will be the content hub of the world in the near future,” Mr. Thakur added. “This is the right time to collaborate and reach out and make films around those stories which are not told to the world. India is the place and Israel is the right partner.”Mr. Lapid’s comments also no doubt embarrassed the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which organized the festival, and has paid special heed to India’s increasingly close relationship with Israel. The government found itself in the awkward position Tuesday of trying to distance itself from a head juror whom its festival committee had selected and given a platform.“His attempt to politicize the I.F.F.I. platform, which celebrates diversity in filmmaking by way of stories, narratives and interpretations by filmmakers, is unacceptable and condemnable,” Kanchan Gupta, a government spokesman, said of Mr. Lapid, and referring to the International Film Festival of India, the event’s official name.“Mr. Lapid is welcome to his personal views but the I.F.F.I. platform is not meant for airing those views,” he added. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Noel Diary’ Review: Revelations on a Cold Winter’s Night

      by

      Justin Hartley (“This Is Us”) is no stranger to the themes in this holiday romance, while Barrett Doss (“Station 19”) brings nuanced comedic timing and charm.The actor Justin Hartley, who won fame on “This Is Us,” is no stranger to the themes in the holiday romance “The Noel Diary.” The yearning of adoptees, the tug of interracial connections and the repercussions of a family tragedy should ring a welcome bell for fans of NBC’s wonderfully weepy melodrama.In the movie, Hartley plays Jake Turner, a best-selling author who returns to his estranged mother’s home in Connecticut after her death. He learns she had become a hoarder — though a notably hygienic one — and finds a journal by an unknown author amid the clutter.A young woman pens her worries onto its pages in the movie’s opening scene.Barrett Doss (“Station 19”) brings nuanced comedic timing and charm to Rachel, whose search for her birth mother — the journal writer — has led her to Jake’s childhood home, where she’s seen standing tentatively across the street.Although Rachel is engaged, the two immediately share a spark, one stoked by their road trip to Jake’s even more estranged father in hopes of learning about Rachel’s mother.James Remar, Bonnie Bedelia and Essence Atkins do nicely buttressing work as Jake’s rueful dad, a compassionate neighbor and Rachel’s birth mother. And the director Charles Shyer brings a journeyman’s ease to the screenplay (based on Richard Paul Evans’s novel by the same name): embracing holiday movie expectations here, gently deflecting them there.The roadways are as snow-dappled as the town of Maple Falls, where a showing of a holiday classic further bonds the traveling pair. Their on-the-road revelations offer hints of what could turn out to be a wonderful life. While this will come as heartwarming news for sentimental viewers, it’s sure to leave one unsuspecting fiancé out in the cold.The Noel DiaryNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 39 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Glass Onion’ and ‘Matilda’ Test Netflix’s Approach to Theatrical Releases

      by

      The company agreed to some exclusive theatrical distribution for “Glass Onion” and “Matilda the Musical,” but it’s not clear exhibitors will get much more.“Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery,” the much-anticipated follow-up to the 2019 sleeper hit directed by Rian Johnson, was supposed to be the moment Netflix crossed the Rubicon.Rather than give the film a perfunctory theatrical release — a strategy designed to ensure most viewers ultimately watch a movie on the streaming service — Netflix, in a first, would give the film a traditional, exclusive run in a large number of cinemas.It didn’t happen.After much back and forth, and contrary to the wishes of some Netflix employees and Mr. Johnson, a theatrical release for “Glass Onion” that at one point some people inside the company hoped would reach up to 2,000 screens ended up at 638 in the United States. The movie, which was released on Wednesday and has received positive reviews, will run in theaters for just one week before becoming available on Netflix on Dec. 23.What was supposed to be the moment to prove the value of theaters to the streaming giant will not come to pass. Yet the company is also involved in another intriguing theatrical experiment this weekend, one that could end up providing Netflix with even more valuable feedback.On Friday, “Matilda the Musical,” financed and produced by Netflix, will open on more than 1,500 screens in 670 locations across the United Kingdom and Ireland. The movie, starring Emma Thompson as the villainous Miss Trunchbull, will be released and promoted by Sony Pictures, which, in a unique one-picture deal, licensed the rights to Netflix on the condition that Sony could hold onto the United Kingdom for a theatrical release. (“Matilda,” which is based on a stage musical that itself is based on a children’s book by Roald Dahl, is beloved in the United Kingdom. The musical has been running in London’s West End since 2011.)“It will be a good example of what could be done,” said Tim Richards, founder and chief executive of Vue International, a London-based exhibitor with theaters in countries including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany and Italy. “If there was ever a film made for the big screen, it’s ‘Matilda.’”Sony Pictures, which declined to comment for this article, bought the film rights to “Matilda the Musical” in 2015, with the show’s director, Matthew Warchus, set to oversee the adaptation. At the same time, Netflix was trying to bolster its roster of family films and had its eye on the Roald Dahl estate. (In 2021, Netflix ultimately purchased the entire Dahl estate, giving the company the ability to adapt books like “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and “The BFG” into films and television shows, while also controlling the publishing rights.)At the end of 2019, the companies entered into an arrangement whereby Netflix would finance “Matilda the Musical” and produce it in conjunction with Sony and Working Title Films, a U.K. producer. Netflix would control rights to the finished product worldwide, excluding the United Kingdom and Ireland, where Sony would own the rights and release the film theatrically. “Matilda the Musical” will not appear on Netflix in the United Kingdom or Ireland until next summer, though it will be available to stream in the United States and other countries on Christmas.“Matilda the Musical” is receiving a traditional theatrical release in the United Kingdom.NetflixSo far the film has received positive reviews. The Independent deemed it “a frothy, whimsical delight,” while The Guardian called it “a tangy bit of entertainment, served up with gusto.” It has a 100 percent positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and could do the kind of business that the original “Peter Rabbit” did at the British box office, where it sold $54 million in tickets.Whether the box office performances of “Glass Onion” and “Matilda” have any long-term impact on Netflix’s approach to theatrical distribution is a big question. According to three people with knowledge of Netflix’s inner workings, numerous executives in the company’s film group would like Netflix to embrace a more traditional strategy regarding film releases, but the co-chief executives, Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings, remain focused on streaming. “There is no question internally that we make our movies for our members, and we really want them to see them on Netflix,” Mr. Sarandos said on an earnings call last month, adding, “Most people watch movies at home.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.Learn more about our process.Netflix declined to comment for this article.Discussions about a significant theatrical release for Netflix’s biggest movies began in earnest in April, after the company’s stock dropped 35 percent following a dismal first-quarter earnings report, according to the three people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal matters. “Glass Onion,” one of two “Knives Out” sequels the company purchased for $450 million in 2021, seemed to be the perfect candidate. The original grossed an impressive $165 million domestically — a notable feat for a movie not based on any well-known intellectual property.Spencer Klein, the company’s distribution director, went to the theater owners’ trade convention in Las Vegas to inform eager exhibitors that in light of Netflix’s subscriber slowdown, the company was considering wider theatrical releases. The issue was again brought up at a retreat for senior management in May and discussions continued in June, the people said, when there were preliminary talks about pushing back the streaming debut of the action-adventure film “The Gray Man” to allow for additional time in theaters. (This idea, specifically, never gained much traction.)Each conversation ended the same way, the three people said, with Mr. Sarandos adamant that a theatrical model was a confusing distraction and that the company’s best films should debut on Netflix. It wasn’t until September that Mr. Sarandos re-engaged in the debate, allowing his film team to use “Glass Onion” to test the market to examine two things: whether big-budget Netflix films could make money in theaters, even with the added marketing and print costs required; and whether those additional marketing costs would ultimately improve the film’s performance on the streaming platform.Netflix is releasing “Glass Onion” in more than 600 theaters, but that’s below what some in the company’s film group wanted.Netflix, via Associated PressScott Stuber, Netflix’s film chief, was hoping to put “Glass Onion” into a wide release, anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 screens, according to the people familiar with the discussions. Mr. Sarandos wanted 500. They agreed to more than 600 with a 30-day window between the film’s theatrical debut and its appearance on streaming. Mr. Sarandos demanded that it play for just one week and that the exhibitors promise not to release the box office numbers to the news media. For the first time, the two largest theater chains in the United States, AMC Theatres and Regal Cinemas, agreed to a deal with Netflix, along with other smaller chains. AMC’s chief executive, Adam Aron, said in a statement at the time that the deal showed that “both theatrical exhibitors and streamers can continue to coexist successfully.”That enthusiasm was short-lived, stifled when Mr. Sarandos emphasized his commitment to streaming during last month’s earnings call.Some of the large exhibitors were considering backing out of the deal after his remarks, according to one of the people familiar with the company’s inner workings. They remained only because they hoped a success story would change the top executives’ thinking. It helped that Netflix had committed a healthy budget to marketing “Glass Onion,” running commercials during “Sunday Night Football” and “Saturday Night Live,” and showing the trailer in theaters before movies like “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” and “Ticket to Paradise.” “We want as many people as possible to see it in theaters,” Mr. Johnson, the director of “Glass Onion,” told The Hollywood Reporter this week about the film. “And then we want it to do incredibly well when it hits Netflix — so lots of people see it and so it demonstrates to everybody, most of all Netflix, that these two things can coexist.”Mr. Sarandos’s thinking runs counter to what other major studio heads now believe. “I’ve seen the data,” David Zaslav, the chief executive of Warner Media Discovery, said during a recent investor conference. “A movie that opens in the theater performs five times as well as a movie that you put direct to streaming.”Yet, releasing films theatrically is far from a sure thing these days. The U.S. box office is down some 32 percent compared with 2019, and the pandemic significantly altered moviegoing habits. Older moviegoers have yet to return to the cinema in big numbers, and studios are making fewer films, 36 percent fewer, in fact. One exhibitor said that if the three big streaming companies — Netflix, Amazon and Apple — released roughly 20 movies in theaters each year in total, that would help make up for the deficit and potentially return the business to a healthy place.Until then, theater chains are hopeful that releases like “Glass Onion” and “Matilda” will convince the companies to try more like them.“I’m hoping that ‘Glass Onion,’ even though it’s a very limited release, will deliver sufficient numbers that will certainly tweak some interest into doing something more in the future because they’ve got some amazing movies coming up,” Mr. Richards of Vue International said. “They’re moving slowly but I’m hopeful that there will be a change in thinking.” More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Falling for Christmas’ Review: Trip Down Memory Lane

      by

      Lindsay Lohan stars as an amnesiac who falls off a mountain and in love in this Netflix holiday romance that is all too familiar.“Falling for Christmas” isn’t a Hallmark Channel original, but it certainly resembles one. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: A gallant blue-collar widower strikes up an improbable romance with a wealthy, stuck-up heiress betrothed to a cocky himbo who is written expressly to be disliked. The rich young woman and the blue-collar guy don’t have much in common at first, but she soon shows a predilection for domestic labor, making it clear that she can be reformed. But her fiancé is irredeemable, because he’s on his phone a lot and uses terms of endearment like “angelcakes.”The obligatory twist on the formula in this case is that the heiress, Sierra (Lindsay Lohan), comes down with amnesia after a skiing accident, leaving the generous Jake (Chord Overstreet) to care for her over the holidays at his rustic lodge. (Her amnesia seems curiously selective: She doesn’t remember her name or where she’s from, but everything about her personality remains intact.) As they wait for her memory to be recovered, Jake and Sierra bond over various nondescript holiday activities, most of which feel like they were improvised on set — gingerbread house food fights, cavorting in the snow.Meanwhile, Jake is struggling to keep his lodge afloat, which he blames on “people booking Airbnbs.” It’s interesting to consider the parallels between the effect Airbnb has had on the hospitality industry and what streaming platforms like Netflix have done to traditional broadcasters like the Hallmark Channel. The director, Janeen Damian, doesn’t seem to have considered it. At one point, in a truly shameless bid for self-referential humor, Sierra is disrupted in bed by the gonging tu-dum of the Netflix logo and an ad for another Netflix holiday movie. If this is the standard we’re dealing with, I’d rather have amnesia.Falling for ChristmasNot rated. Running time: 1 hour 33 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Enola Holmes 2’ Review: A Clever Force of Nature

      by

      Millie Bobby Brown delivers an understated, playful performance in this young-adult mystery sequel.Enola Holmes is back, and she’s ready for both her first official case as a detective and, work schedule permitting, some romance. Millie Bobby Brown delivers an understated, playful performance in the follow up to the Netflix young-adult mystery “Enola Holmes.” This time around, the director Harry Bradbeer and the screenwriter Jack Thorne forgo prolonged dialogue when Enola breaks the fourth wall, making more room for Brown’s intense looks and physical gestures to resonate.Working in the shadow of her famous brother, Sherlock (Henry Cavill), Enola realizes that independent, professional women are treated more like suspects than like trusted investigators in Victorian England. So it makes sense that her first case comes from a fellow young woman, Bessie (Serrana Su-Ling Bliss), who needs to track down a missing co-worker at a matchstick factory where women workers are mysteriously dying of typhus. (This plot point was inspired by the women who orchestrated the 1888 Match Girls Strike in London.)Sherlock himself is working on a case of stolen government funds, and the siblings eventually discover their cases are in fact linked. As Enola finds she can hold her own, both alongside and without her brother, a sheltered girl gives way to a young woman who embraces the literal and figurative fighter in her, finding solidarity with working-class women in the fight for women’s rights in the process. As Edith, a suffragist leader and jiu-jitsu master played by a steadying Susan Wokoma, proclaims in the film: “You can’t control Enola. She’s a force of nature.”Speaking of the movie’s well-choreographed fight scenes, when Enola’s mother, Eudoria (a delightful Helena Bonham Carter), and Edith band together to beat the heck out of grown-men assailants, one can’t help but cheer on this Y.A. feminist tale as a welcome addition to the Sherlock Holmes universe.Enola Holmes 2Rated PG-13 for moderate violence. Running time: 2 hours 9 minutes. Watch on Netflix. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Television

      People Love to Hate-Watch Tech Villains. That Won’t Hurt Spotify.

      by

      “The Playlist” resembles other TV dramas that follow founders to their eventual comeuppance — except Spotify isn’t facing any messy implosion.Daniel Ek, a founder of Spotify and its current chief executive, sits in front of a U.S. Senate committee hearing. Or rather: A Swedish actor playing Ek sits in front of a Senate hearing, as imagined by a Swedish production designer. A fictitious senator named Landy is grilling him, hard. “Your business model just doesn’t work for musicians, does it?” she asks. Her tone makes it obvious that she already knows the answer Ek would give if he were willing to tell the truth. As she peppers him with facts and figures about Spotify’s market share and artists’ measly cut of its revenue, Ek tries to fight back, insisting that his streaming service, whatever its shortcomings, is still the best path forward for musicians hoping to make a living from their art. But the more Landy presses, the more shaken Ek looks, as though he didn’t expect the questioning to be so tough. There is a moment in which it seems he might be considering the possibility that her criticisms have merit: Maybe, despite all of his company’s rhetoric about freedom for artists, he really is just a new breed of music-industry monopolist.After Ek, the committee calls Bobbi T, a fictional musician and, coincidentally, a childhood friend of Ek’s. She is appearing as a representative of Scratch the Record, a musicians’ advocacy group calling on Spotify to distribute more of its revenue to the artists whose work constitutes the core of its platform. Her own songs are streamed 200,000 times each month, yet she struggles to get by. She understands, she says, that “in every generation there are winners and losers.” But lawmakers, she insists, should be able to tell “the difference between change and exploitation.” Ek, sitting in the audience, looks as if he would rather be somewhere, anywhere, else.These scenes appear in the sixth and final episode of “The Playlist,” a new Netflix series that chronicles Spotify’s journey from Ek’s brainstorm in Stockholm to a worldwide streaming behemoth. The first five episodes, inspired by a book by two Swedish journalists, have the same narrative shape as basically every show or movie that fictionalizes the real story of a tech start-up. Socially alienated coders with a bold vision? Check. An open-plan office with a foosball table? Check. Stodgy industry executives who just don’t understand the coming sea change (until they’re forced to)? Fund-raising woes? Just-in-time software breakthroughs? Check, check, check.This final episode, though, abandons the source material completely, zooming forward into a fictional near-future: Ek’s big Senate hearing takes place in the year 2025. This future may look a lot like the present, but it is in many ways as fanciful as anything on “Star Trek” or “The Jetsons.” This is a world in which people are moved by the opinions of musicians who aren’t megastars, and there’s some threat of legislative action that could plausibly help bands replace the lost revenue stream of physical albums. It’s a future in which Spotify is bigger than ever — but battle lines are being drawn, and they’re making Daniel Ek sweat.We love stories about underdogs who, armed only with the strength of their vision and perseverance, hit it big and change society. The world of business used to be a little too slow-moving, complex and impersonal for that kind of narrative. But tech start-ups — with their meteoric overnight successes, unconventional young founders and industry-upending products — changed that, creating a new well of David-beats-Goliath stories.Of course, we now know that many of tech’s Davids ended up becoming Goliaths of their own, creating at least as many problems as they ever fixed. Others, we’ve learned, were merely hucksters, plying their trade at the intersection of fad-oriented venture capital and loose regulatory structures. None of this has dimmed our appetite for tech-underdog tales. We still want the fun of seeing David outwit slow, out-of-touch Goliath; it’s just that we also want to congratulate ourselves, along the way, for seeing through David’s every move. So we get stories like “The Dropout,” which shows us Elizabeth Holmes turning an undergraduate hunch into the company Theranos (before being exposed as a fraud), or “WeCrashed,” which lets us tag along as Adam Neumann makes WeWork into an international office-space empire (then gets pushed out as the company becomes a financial mess), or “Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber,” which traces the company’s dramatic transformation of urban transit (while stressing, at every turn, the amoral ruthlessness of one of its founders, Travis Kalanick). We watch these companies dupe and manipulate the world while, sitting at home on our couches, we enjoy the experience of knowing better.More people than ever, I suspect, harbor a vague sense that what Spotify offers must, in the end, be screwing someone over. But the company hasn’t had anything close to a significant moment of public reckoning, let alone been revealed as some scam or house of cards. (If anything, the industry has reveled in the money Spotify brought pouring back to major record labels; it’s musicians who often end up empty-handed.) This is why “The Playlist,” notionally a behind-the-scenes imagining of the past, is forced to lurch into a wholly fictional future. Only there can it give Spotify the comeuppance that the genre has conditioned us to expect, but reality has completely failed to deliver.It’s striking that even after loosing itself from the shackles of the present, the show can’t find its way to giving Spotify more than a slap on the wrist. Bobbi T, the struggling musician, pleads for Congress to pass a law guaranteeing a fixed payment to artists every time one of their songs is streamed. “The Playlist” gives no sign, though, that this will happen, and it has no particular vision of how artists could accumulate the leverage to force the issue. Nor does it suggest that normal people will start paying for albums again. It doesn’t depict the live-music industry reversing the trends making it less and less viable as an income stream, and it certainly doesn’t show masses of people quitting Spotify or other streaming platforms (like, um, Netflix) in protest. All it gives us is the pageantry of a Senate hearing and a few pointed questions, something executives endure all the time without much changing. The show seems to know this: In the end, the fictional future Ek cares what Bobbi T has to say mostly because they went to high school together.Unlike, say, Theranos, Spotify’s product works — just not for most musicians. That’s one reason it hasn’t imploded. Another is the service’s successful colonization of our imaginations. More than once in “The Playlist,” die-hard skeptics are won over by opening Spotify and experiencing the thrill of a seeming infinity of options, all at their fingertips. The app itself tells a visceral story about what’s possible — inevitable, even. Users have largely accepted this story. Anyone looking to challenge it will have to tell a story of their own, and it won’t be enough for this story to be obviously correct or morally right. It will have to somehow feel as powerful and exciting as Spotify itself: the type of thing you could imagine making a whole TV series about.Above: Jonas Alarik/Netflix.Peter C. Baker is a freelance writer in Evanston, Ill., and the author of the novel “Planes,” published by Knopf this year. More