« Love Is All Around | Main | ComicCon '07 »
July 19, 2007
Old Dogs, New Tricks
Drama on the borders of the critical community continued this week, as some sloppy reporting on an e-mail sent to Fox by the Chicago Film Critics Association, led by Dann Gire, leaked out just as Fox was figuring out how to handle the issue raised by the letter, when and how studios screen movies for critics who are not amongst the studios’ idea of “the most important.”
The letter came shortly before Fox announced its intention to have an all-media screening the night before (Thursday 7:30p) The Simpsons opened. Even then, there was a premiere, a junket, and a couple early screenings (earlier on release week) scheduled for select outlets. Fox has now expanded their invitation list for the earlier screenings, though the largest part of the media list – print, TV, radio, and web - will still see the film on Thursday.
Fox is not the only studio struggling with the issues of how to screen. Sony became the NY Post’s favorite whipping studio when they chose not to preview a number of their films in the last couple of years. The question of embargo has been focused on by The New York Times in recent weeks, covering the tip of the embargo fight iceberg, which is still endlessly up in the air. Questions of who should be allowed to review when - and to what and whose ends - are challenging and almost everyone has a strongly felt self-serving answer.
I am not one for humiliating people for sport, so I won’t reprint any of the CFCA letter and its many “whereas”s and “be it further”s. It’s embarrassingly pretentious and could easily have been avoided by a couple of phone calls.
However…
Fox has made some real progress towards coming up with a well thought-out system to allow them to serve critics by previewing movies for critics in a reasonable timeframe while feeling that their business interests are being served by creating actual consequences for embargo breakers.
It may not seem complicated, but I can tell you that I have had many conversations about how onerous studio publicity departments feel the burden tracking the behavior of the hundreds of individual critics with whom they work is. Additionally, the studios are still struggling with the whole system of long lead writers, medium lead writers, and short lead writers. In the era of the internet – aka, "from now on" – the distinctions are getting blurrier and even feature writers are now adding critical and spoiling information to stories long before even internet critics get in their shots.
Of course, these issues only seem to come up in the wave of tension that expensive movies in summer tend to create or in the case of “critic-proof” crap that studios simply don’t see the value in exposing to people who like to put poison to quill.
From my perspective, it is the inconsistency that causes aggravation. As I tell every publicist who shows me any movie at any time, all I need is to be told the rules and I will happily abide… unless I sense that the rules have changed, at which time I will stick to my word unless given a go ahead… but I will ask.
But I have to acknowledge that I am in a unique place with the studios. There are often occasions when they open the door to me writing about a film before others have a chance to do so. And that creates another set of issues. (a different column)
To me, the most basic element of how we all operate with the studios is, “we are in business together on some level… be clear and fair about your rules and if we don’t live up to our end, punish us.” It may not seem like punishment to be left out of a BRATZ screening, but try explaining it to your editor.
I got involved with this story after the Los Angeles Times ran a story last Friday stating: “Today, however, studios are faced with online critics who post reviews moments after they exit the theater. Later screenings now help a studio control its online press.”
Of course, for a long time now the LA Times standard position has been to bash the web like a bunch of cranky grannies waiting for some on-liner to come change their bedpans. That is, until it is in their interest on their web outlets. (The Tribune Company’s Baltimore Sun became the first media outlet to review the new and final Harry Potter book today, breaking embargo by three days. The New York Times followed.)
But the irony is that the first (perhaps only) occasion of spoilers running regarding The Simpsons that I could find came on April 21, when the venerable Newsweek ran spoilers in the magazine and website more than three months before release.
In any case, rules are rules. If studios are concerned about spoilers getting out “moments after (on-liners) exit the theater,” they should simply set a clear embargo date and enforce removal from the guest list in future if embargo is broken. Same with print and television. While Fox is working to make sure that a workable system is in place for on-line and smaller print, TV m and radio journalists, it is unlikely that the Big Dogs will be punished for their infractions anytime soon. That is the balance of publicity nature.
To be fair, some studios have taken serious measures against some all-star feature writers who they felt were deceitful in the process of doing stories. But the studios still worked with the outlets, even if refusing access to a particular writer.
In the end, I think that Fox is making a significant step forward in this area. One initiative, suggested by the CFCA, was to make that critics group a local gateway to earlier screenings, with the threat of being dropped by the studio and the group if embargo agreements are broken. Seems fair to me, though it puts a bit of a burden on the critics groups involved.
Chicago has always been a uniquely unbalanced market with Roger Ebert (and partner) and The Chicago Tribune always being an access priority for studios and everyone else being on a second tier. As always, the screenings “you” weren’t invited to always become apparent and chafing has occurred. I think it remains any studio’s absolute right to screen something for Roger and/or The Trib before showing it to the rest of the crowd. On the other hand, there is a legitimate interest in seeing films with a reasonable time until deadline. And if a structure is in place, the ability to address such issues as studios delaying screening until the alt weeklies are past deadline for the week of release can start.
Finally, I don’t want to give the impression that other studios haven’t sweated and toiled over coming up with answers to these issues. But the rules still bend and blur all the time. If Fox can find a good working solution, others will surely follow that example. In the end, it is all about trying to have a good working relationship that works for everyone involved. We’re all – on both sides – just trying to do our jobs. It would be great if studios could be proud of showing every movie as widely as possible before release and it would be great if all journalists were always true to their word. But neither is assured.
When a guy like Joe Morgenstern feels insulted by being wanded entering a theater, I get that. But as the great Corleone said, “This is business and this man is taking it very, very personal.”
Can’t we all just get along?
Posted by poland at July 19, 2007 01:34 AM
Comments
As a self-made movie critic who publishes exclusively on the net, I have no problem with not being on the first press screening guest list. I do accept there is a critic hierarchy, and accept my place in that hierarchy... although I always did get giddy whenever I found myself in a screening room with the likes of Elvis Mitchell or Jack Mathews or Jami Bernard when I lived in New York City. I understand I will almost never get to beat Todd McCarthy to a review of the latest Hollywood film, because he will always be given first crack at a title, whilst I will be somewhat down the list.
What I DO have a problem with is when a publicist lumps me and others who do play by the rules in with the asshats who do rush to their computer and gets their insta-reviews up as soon as inhumanly possible. You'll almost never see me get a critique up within 24 hours of seeing a movie, because I like to swirl a film around my head for a while, not unlike a wine connoisseur with their bottles of Bordeaux. It's more important for me to understand why I reacted to a movie the way I did before I write, and that's something that I feel most modern critics are not able to do on an hour's notice.
What I would like from publicists is for them to recognize the professionalism of the onliners who do play by the rules, and I want them to come straight out when they do invite me to a screening and say exactly when I must hold my review. "Save for opening week" isn't good enough. "Please hold until no earlier than 9AM Pacific Time on the Monday before release" tells me exactly what they expect.
For a bunch of communicators, it's a shame we (the critics and the publicists) can't just talk to each other like civilised human beings.
Posted by: Edward Havens ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 19, 2007 03:04 AM
Is it really fair to say the New York Times broke an embargo? The review says they bought the book off the shelf at a store that put it out early.
Posted by: Eric at July 19, 2007 05:37 AM
So the news that Fox just pulled out of Comic-Con has nothing to do with their continued paranoia of press/people actually seeing their footage?
Coincidental.
Here's a solution for Fox, which seems to be gun shy about showing its product: Stop making movies.
Posted by: TMJ at July 19, 2007 08:26 AM
fox pulling out of comicon is huge. it echoes things ive been hearing for awhile now: a belief from the studios that these events are far more costly in terms of control of the property and not worth the effort.
It's unfortunate that is had to happen, but these cell phone cameras and eight thousand websites that run these stories have frustrated the studios because they just can't control them. they have the main film sites on lockdown and can filter content to them easily, so why bother screening for a few thousand convention atendees and lose control.
Spiderman 3 is a fine example. They showed a venom clip at Comicon. It showed up on the web over a hundred time on youtube and other sites. So the first glimpses of venom people get is a 2 megapixel camera phone.
Posted by: anghus at July 19, 2007 10:17 AM
Couple things... 1. Yes, Eric, it is fair to say that NYY and Balt Sun broke embargo. Embargos are agreed upon by content owners and the media. It is the mindset that "if I can see it, I can write about it" which makes studios so appropriately paranoid.
2. People need to start understanding that this issue is not just about how a studio feels about their product. In the case of The Simpsons, I have been convinced that the paranoia is really about spoilers... not because it makes sense logically, but because each of these movies has a team of people behind the scenes, each of which has their own personalities. There are producers who should be showing their movies who won't, some who shouldn't be showing their movies who do, and some who are just plain difficult. This is why I feel that consistency on the studio set by accountability on the part of the press would be a hugely positive step.
3. Making a ComicCon thread...
Posted by: David Poland at July 19, 2007 11:45 AM
This is a small point and not really worth arguing about, but... really? You're saying the Times can break an embargo imposed by a publisher on the sale of the book by booksellers? An embargo the Times, as a third party, never agreed to?
I pretty much agree with everything else you've written above, but for some reason this nit makes me want to pick.
Posted by: Eric at July 19, 2007 12:23 PM
Do you think that The Times' book review doesn't have relationships with all the publishers and embargo agreements... especially as the NYT often is given the advantage of being first out of the gate?
Obviously, all book reviewers are getting copies of books well in advance of the publication dates. The effort is more than 2 hours and writing time. And unlike movies, it seems to me to be fairly standard to review before the book is available to the public by a few days. But like the movies, this is all agreed to.
That is why the NYT is rationalizing their review break by arguing that some schmuck broke the rules so they can... same at in Baltimore, where some guy got a delivery a few days early, so BOOM, all bets are off.
Now, I would happily discuss whether NYT would have gone had The Baltimore Sun not have gone.
Is you nit scratched now?
Posted by: David Poland at July 19, 2007 12:50 PM
I see what you're saying, but the embargo here amounts to a deal to hold publication of a review in exchange for the privilege of an advance copy of the book. And you're right, the Times almost certainly had been given a review copy. But the review, for the purposes of this discussion, was not written from that privileged copy-- it was written about a book that apparently anybody in New York could have bought off the shelf. The "information" obtained by the Times was not a part of the original deal and would therefore not be subject to the same agreement.
Agree to disagree on that point, I suppose. It probably doesn't deserve the time already devoted to it.
What do you think, would the Times have gone ahead in the Sun hadn't? I don't think the Sun's decision affects the ethics of the Times' decision either way.
Posted by: Eric at July 19, 2007 02:47 PM
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.)