« The Marketing Of Sundance Begins At Home | Main | Klady's Friday Estimates »
January 12, 2007
Can Someone Really Be This Wrong?
Mark Harris is a smart and talented man and I am loath to insult him…
However, his editorial on the AMPAS Oscar season that ends on February 25 this year is probably the single stupidest, honorably-intended piece about Oscar I have read this year or perhaps in years.
Or perhaps it is not all that honorably intended, as I would contend that the ONLY significant victim of a season shortened by a month is Traditional Media and their ad sales. The HFPA’s Golden Globes have also suffered in perceived relevance. And while BFCA’s Critics Choice Awards are in TV jail with E! this year, the expectation is that the group – of which I am a member – will get a deal with one of the broadcast nets or one of the big cable nets in the next few months.
But the real damage? Ad salespeople who, in the entertainment business, see Oscar as The Holy Grail. People pay big premiums, buying ads for many movies that are no longer in theatrical release. CHA-CHING! And the trades rely on these sales to survive, suffering this year in particular.
Another month would be like manna from heaven to all entertainment publications, including this one. My argument is not without consequence to my bottom line. Another month of Oscar might be worth an additional six figures in annual revenues to MCN. It would be worth millions to EW, The LA Times, The NY Times, and the trades.
But let’s even take Mr. Harris’ argument on its face. It is still a false claim based on what must be a convoluted notion that any of the movies he hopes will get Oscar attention are made and released in a vacuum.
Each of the five films he chooses to mention has a history that has nothing to do with the “short” Oscar season.
Children of Men – Premiered at the Venice Film Festival in August, played in Europe all fall
Letters From Iwo Jima – Finished in October, strategically placed in February release date to support Flags of Our Fathers, moved into December late in the game, exclusively to jump into the Oscar race after Flags had turned lame
The Painted Veil – Editing ended in September, before the film was re-edited for two months because the filmmakers wanted the film to clear Chinese censorship intact. Still started screening for critics before Dreamgirls.
Pan's Labyrinth – Premiered at Cannes last May.
Venus – Premiered at Telluride on September 2.
Every one of these films made the choice to go into release in December. Every one of them is supported by very bright studio marketers and Oscar consultants. If Mark Harris or anyone else wants to make the argument that they deserve more awards traction, so be it. But to argue that they were victims of a short season is to be either a sucker or a fool… or to have some ulterior interest.
The only December awards wannabes that actually could not have been released much earlier were The Good Shepherd, Apocalypto, Factory Girl, and Miss Potter. Apocalypto was, apparently, seen enough to be mostly ignored. Factory Girl was still being edited in December and simply should have pushed into 2007. Miss Potter was and is a non-starter, as was The Good Shepherd.
The real situation is usually more like Factory Girl… but the Weinstein forced the issue. Perfume is a film that had no chance in a December release and should have either gone out in October or next year… but the filmmakers forced the issue. The Pursuit of Happyness, a huge hit, should have launched earlier if it wanted to chase awards, in my opinion… but Dec was a great date for the film and the studio had Bond at Thanksgiving.
But I am gilding the lily.
It’s the Oscars, stupid. No one is a virgin here.
Harris claims that studios won’t adjust to the year ending when the year ends because of money. But that doesn’t keep anyone from screening movies en masse before release. And they all do. Unless they choose not to.
And the idea that quality films can only do business in December is simply beyond stupid. The Proposition didn’t make a lot of money because First Look doesn’t have Searchlight’s finesse or money and is still a movie starring actors who few know. The Last King of Scotland, which did have Searchlight’s muscle was never going to be a big hit, no matter what the reviews. It’s a period movie about a fictional doctor and a Ugandan dictator!
The reason “quality” movie clamor for December dates is that they hope free advertising in the form of awards buzz will drive their difficult-to-market films. Same as it ever was.
Studios have made the adjustment to the new dates. The season is shorter. To repeat a theme, the only increase of hysteria this year has been in the media. EW is one of the many Traditional Media outlets that made the effort to expand Oscar coverage. But it seems they couldn’t increase ad sales doing it. Ouch. Don’t blame AMPAS, an organization that would be well served by cutting down the season by another couple of weeks. Awards fatigue is growing every year. Floating your event out into March will not improve that.
And let me say again… what is an Oscar cover doing coming out the second week of January?
Posted by poland at January 12, 2007 05:45 PM
Comments
Six figures? Wow, good job.
Posted by: jeffmcm ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 12, 2007 06:45 PM
Aren't you supposed to be at an awards show or something?
Seriously, you can huff and puff until you're blue in the face - the date change has altered the Oscar race in a negative way. Full stop. No one can convince me otherwise. Harris' piece is great.
Posted by: bipedalist at January 12, 2007 07:18 PM
"Expectations is"? Sorry, David, but I would flunk you for that.
Posted by: Joe Leydon at January 12, 2007 07:58 PM
"the date change has altered the Oscar race in a negative way."
Yeah, for the studios et al. who are still acting as though the old date is still in effect. Whose fault is that?
Posted by: Blackcloud at January 12, 2007 08:43 PM
The effect on the Oscar race is debatable but whatever it is it is not "unjust" which is where Harris loses me. Everyone knew the dates when the year started.
Posted by: Pat H. at January 12, 2007 08:51 PM
BiPed, would you really honestly like to keep talking about the Oscars for another month or two? Late March/Early April is ridiculous for Oscar. Considering it's all pretty stable except for the fifth position in most categories from December onwards, an extra month and a half is just painful.
Plus, I want good movies all year around, not just when the studios think I do. They say they would lose out on $$$ my releasing films throughout the year, but wouldn't they recoup it from the fact that there aren't 27 other arthouse titles competing for it? If Letters from Iwo Jima was released sometime in April for instance, I'm sure you'd get a bigger audience because they would be up for something being hailed as a sure-fire Oscar winner. But at the end of December pretty much everything is touted as being an Oscar lock.
I read an article today about Chris Noonan (director of Babe and the new Miss Potter) that said, and I quote:
"It was a savvy choice, with the film's star Renee Zellweger figuring in awards nominations over recent weeks for her touching performance.
Though the film's marketing budget has been much smaller than others courting Oscar gold, buzz has been steadily growing surrounding a likely Academy Awards nomination for Zellweger, something that delights Noonan."
And also, because studios don't release these late December titles overseas usually until after the Oscars they lose out because we all know they didn't win anything. If they released Factory Girl (for example) they could trumpet it's so-called Oscar abilities, but when the film's release comes around in May (or later, probably) it'll be an even more of a non-factor.
And then there was an ad in a newspaper today claiming Blood Diamond WON Best Picture at the National Board of Review (click my name to see it). Ridiculous.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at January 12, 2007 10:11 PM
BiP - Please be specific. How exactly has the shortened season - now three years old - damaged anything?
Posted by: David Poland at January 13, 2007 12:55 AM
"But to argue that they were victims of a short season is to be either a sucker or a fool… or to have some ulterior interest."
I'm intrigued by the way David regularly insinuates an ulterior motive for all these people he considers wrong in their analysis, but then becomes outraged when anyone wonders aloud if he has an agenda, too.
Posted by: Eric at January 13, 2007 07:14 AM
I also love how Dave insists the Oscar date change doesn't matter, except he regularly discusses every single date change in depth, analyzes how a release date change of even a week can hurt or help a movie, and is so into the concept of when things happen that he is bashing Entertainment Weekly for their tradition (which has to be several years old) of putting out an Oscar prognostication issue shortly after the new year. The only change there has been that they used to day "The Oscar Race Begins!" but now thanks to early bird pundits, can only claim "The Oscar Race Is On!" When would you rather have them put out the issue, DP? Twenty weeks prior?
Posted by: James Leer at January 13, 2007 11:18 AM
It's not the date of the ceremony that matters, but the date the studios can be bothered releasing their movies. Is it really going to hurt Miss Potter to be released a few weeks earlier?
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at January 13, 2007 07:22 PM
If everybody knows the Oscar dates in advance, the studios can schedule their films, wisely or unwisely, accordingly.
Posted by: Sam at January 14, 2007 07:18 AM
Exactly. It's their own fault.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at January 15, 2007 05:03 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)