The Hot Blog: Every Time I Think I’m Out…

« Bring Your Own Opportunity Not To Talk Politics | Main | A Right... A Responsibility... »

November 03, 2008

Every Time I Think I’m Out…

So… I am a bit tired of writing about it and talking about it and I am pretty sure that the answer to it, ultimately, is a private answer.

But today I found myself called out by Patrick Goldstein, suggesting that I broke embargo on Milk.

Ironically, this came after an hour or so of me complaining loudly to a rep of Focus Features about the full review of Milk that was released by Variety today - more than two weeks before full reviews were allowed by the studio - by agreement with Focus, which I didn’t know about when I agreed to hold my review, but not my comments about the film. Had I know that this was how they were going to go, I would not have agreed to the rules to which I agreed.

But this stuff rolls uphill and downhill. Patrick thinks he should fairly be triggered by a combination of me (and presumably, other web writers’ comments) and the full Variety review. In this blog, in comments, Jeremy “Mr Beaks” Smith posted the embargo demand that he had been subjected to, which did not include allowing him to comment before a longer review.

Here I am, following the rules I had been given, and pissing others off. Here I am, watching Variety follow the rules that they had negotiated, getting pissed off at the studio for hanging me out to dry. Perspective is everything... but it should not be that complicated.

Some of this is really simple to me. There is NO reason why the trades should be allowed an earlier review date than ANYONE. They are no longer primarily a trade magazine. They are a website. And many more people read their reviews on-line than will ever open any of the 50,000 copies of the daily paper they print. Moreover, the increasing pressure from the trade to be first to review can only be explained by the sense that it is in their competitive interest to be first. Fair enough. But that also means that if they are allowed this advantage, it is a clear disadvantage to everyone else.

And why?

Traditions. Old traditions whose rationale is no longer legitimate.

Yesterday, I wrote a somewhat ambiguous blog entry about (in part) all of this stuff when after two days of embargo negotiations with all critics in Los Angeles for a movie that was shown widely for the first time last week NOT to be written about until press viewers saw the film again on a celluloid print, someone at the LA Times broke that embargo… though he had no actually been embargoed because he was not put into the film by the regular media channels… but he did know about the embargo everyone else was under…

This came on the heels of two full-out embargo breaks by Variety on another film; one from a feature writer/blogger who saw the film for an interview and reviewed it unexpectedly (which is why she was not officially embargoed) and the second from someone who has not been a daily writer until recently… and who studios don’t quite yet know how to handle. (This is the second incident of this from him in the last two weeks.)

And don't even get me started on the recent spate of private e-mails from long lead press screenings being run before the movie has been seen by most of the press, much less written about, in long or short form. You don't think that's bad? Then why do the authors of the e-mails want their names hidden?

This problem is made more dramatic by the awards season, in which studios are showing many movies well before their actual release dates. (Frost/Nixon was more of a freak situation with its early London appearance.) It also happens when the studios are dancing around showing their big summer movies, when tensions are incredibly high for all involved.

And I am sympathetic to the studios on this. I know it is hard. And there are many masters to which even the highest level of execs answer.

But it is time for the studios and the journalists to sit down and to come up with a workable answer that addresses the realities of how things have changed. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are blogs with reporters working the same beat as other blogs. Patrick Goldstein is a blogger and the LA Times is printing more immediate info via blog than any other way. There are people who cut a bigger swath with what they write and people who cut smaller swaths. There are people who play by the rules and others who intentionally flaunt the rules.

I am comfortable with rules, even if the cut down on my access… because I have wasted way too much time for too long fighting these fights. I am honored to be the blocking back for the internet movie writers of the world – and God knows, many of them resent me and choose to believe that I have been breaking down walls for the last decade only for my own benefit – but the big boys are now on the web turf and we need to find answers that really work… for everyone.

I addressed some of this in the response I posted to Patrick’s blog, which I reproduce below the fold…

I, David Poland didn't have Focus come down like a house of bricks on me because Focus' very specific instructions were followed to the letter.

I, too, am not thrilled by the Variety break today because it, as you state, goes against my understanding of the structure to which I was agreeing. If the comments were negative, the response would have been exactly the same... except for private e-mails of agreement from some of those involved.

And in your case, Patrick, the studio doesn’t (I don’t think) see you as a film critic in any real way, so even though you are now blogging, those rules are different too… which creates a whole additional set of problems for both the studios and the rest of the press. Variety, via non-critics, have become regular embargo breakers without any regard to the rules everyone else is laboring under. And just this last weekend, a Los Angeles Times blog broke an embargo that was carefully negotiated by the film’s publicist, but was gotten around because the journo came to the screening with a ticket that didn’t come through the publicists… so he could claim he wasn’t informed. (Added Note by DP. 4:39p: I am not saying that this was a ploy by the writer... just that the circumstances came down in his favor because this edge came to pass, purely by chance... even if he knew that others were being bound and that this was the studio's preference.)

It’s complicated, but it’s time to seriously address these situations.

Let me be 100% clear. I have argued - and did, just this morning - that studios have a right to decide what they want to do. But that said, as we are all in a business that involves trust, they should have some real transparency on the issue of embargoes. Variety is now primarily read on the web... so they should have no competitive advantage on review release dates... they are not the two-headed semi-private purveyor of industry info now... they are a consumer targeted website.

If the studios want to keep changing their review embargo policies – and I have been negotiating review dates on almost every awards movie and most high-profile mainstream releases for a few years now – they should at least be clear about what the structure is. And frankly, if they are determined to continue to offer an unfair advantage to the trades – or to me, if you feel the advantages I am sometimes offered to be unfair – I would suggest that a boycott of that film or that studio is in order. But for most, this is cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

What is really the most fair is for studios to have no more than three review release dates. The distinction between what a “review” is and what a “write about it” is must be thrown out. If they want early web buzz, let everyone who is seeing the film write something… perhaps with a word limit of 250 or 350 words. If they want to let the trades and others write well before release, set a date and let everyone try to get into that group as they will. And certainly, the idea of the release date being sacrosanct for reviews is now unworkable… unless the studio holds everyone to no reviews until then… strictly.

The hard part of this, for me, is that when I argue about these issues with studios, it is assumed that I can be placated by being given privilege. But that is not what I seek. I seek an honest, uncomplicated, relatively fair system.

And studios have worked with all kinds of agreements with all different kinds of writers for a very long time. We are now in a place where Variety, in Anne Thompson’s blog, is running e-mails from “friends” about their opinions of long-lead screenings that are no accessible by Variety’s critics or most of their writers. Pure Ain’t It Cool News. Full circle.

Time to think it out… like adults.

Posted by dpoland at November 3, 2008 04:27 PM

Comments

Here's my capsule review before even seeing the movie...

Kids:

Milk is good for you.

Twinkies not so much.

Posted by: mutinyco at November 3, 2008 05:01 PM

Here's an honest question for DP, which I hope will not be taken as an attack: What is the substantive difference, for you, between a 'review' and a set of 'comments'? Is it really, as it has appeared to be over the years, just a matter of word count?

Posted by: jeffmcm at November 3, 2008 05:13 PM

Dave, I have to say that to my eyes you wrote a review of the film. I don't think 'write about it' means 'give a short version of a review.' Using that standard, blurb reviews in magazines like Entertainment Weekly aren't reviews.

Posted by: Devin Faraci at November 3, 2008 05:26 PM

These things are not defined by me. They are defined by the studio I am talking to at the time. That's just the nature of the beast.

The reasonable arguments about how to define these things is exactly why there needs to be some real transparency.

Posted by: David Poland at November 3, 2008 06:04 PM

Nothing like being pissed off and powerless, eh?

David, do you really think anything's going to change if you and your colleagues don't alliance in some way and take your beef to the studios together? Because, at this point, I can imagine them, now and then, giving each one of you an earlier embargo than the rest of the field just to keep you all placated and somewhere short of the "mad as hell" notch on the thermometer.

Posted by: Hallick at November 3, 2008 07:47 PM

Yeah, I'd have to say that was a review. Short and without much info, but my newspaper prints actual reviews only slightly longer than that all the time.

Posted by: The Big Perm at November 3, 2008 08:07 PM

David, you wrote from your Iphone immediately after the screening and your "thoughts" were pretty much a review, because they articulated how you felt about the film. Just because it didn't include a synopsis didn't mean it wasn't a review. How did you not break the embargo?

Sure, Variety and THR wrote real reviews, but this was only after the fact that bloggers essentially did as much, let's face it.

Posted by: The Playlist at November 3, 2008 08:24 PM

"It's good" = not a review
"It's good because..." = a review

And, Dave, you did the latter. You listed positive aspects about the movie relating to performances and it's Oscar prospects. Just because you didn't connect them all together and, yes, include a synopsis (which isn't anything relating to a review anyway) doesn't really stop it from being a review.

I don't care, mind you, I don't get the point of embargoes for the most part. If the studio thinks they have a strong enough product to show to critics then what's the harm in getting good word out early? And it's not like a movie like Milk can be ruined like a franchise movie or something with a twist.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 3, 2008 08:45 PM

Again... none of this is about me arguing what is or is not a review. It is 100% not the issue, since I worked within the much-discussed studio guidelines. I can't say that you don't have a point about whether it was a review, but it was most assuredly not an embargo break of any kind.

We can endlessly discuss what the dictionary should look like. The real issue, for me, is fairness and transparency.

Posted by: David Poland at November 3, 2008 10:48 PM

all this tsuris from the studio and you went and saw it again tonight?!?....

Posted by: scooterzz at November 3, 2008 11:37 PM

"since I worked within the much-discussed studio guidelines..."

So this tells me that, sometimes, depending on the studio guidelines, what you wrote would have been a review, and sometimes it wouldn't have been? I think that's the position you're taking.

Posted by: jeffmcm at November 4, 2008 01:44 AM

"MILK is going to FUCKING OWN." -- LEXG.

HOPE THAT DOESN'T "BREAK EMBARGO."

BROLIN IS GOD and so is PENN. VAN SANT = AWESOME.

FUCK YEAH.

Posted by: LexG at November 4, 2008 01:47 AM

Much Ado About Nothing. At All.

Posted by: christian at November 4, 2008 08:32 AM

"It is 100% not the issue, since I worked within the much-discussed studio guidelines."

Semantics and a great way to skirt the issue. KamikazeCamelV2.0 is very much correct, but obviously nothing's going to change your view there.

Posted by: The Playlist at November 4, 2008 09:00 AM

Of course I went back... and liked the movie even better.

I never, ever take out issues of process on films or filmmakers. It's not right.

And Christian... perhaps... but primarily in the "who cares what driver you use on the golf course... unless you are a professional golfer" way. This issue is very real to both the writers and the studios and we have to deal with it every week in our working lives.

If the answer is, "Print what you want when you want," I can live with that. But it is not the rules than 90% of movie journalists live under.

All I ever want is some firm ground from which to work. And I would like it for everyone.

And J-Mc - What I am saying is that in these situations, there are conversations with studios on each film. The rules change for a variety of reasons with a variety of goals. I work within those guidelines... but I would be happier having less freedom if it meant a more stable set of rules. Even if the studios all decided to continue the absurd practice of letting the trades review first, if that was a sure rule, at least I, as a journalists, could argue to join that circle. But when the target keeps moving and some outlets are more aggressive or motiviated or empowered, stray "bullets" end up causing problems.

Posted by: David Poland at November 4, 2008 09:07 AM

The Hot Blog

November 03, 2008

Every Time I Think I’m Out…

Comments

Post a comment