Screening shut-outs
2006 has been a significant just-say-no year as far as publicists screening (or not screening) movies for critics and journos. Earlier this year the trend of publicists deciding against holding press-screenings of mediocre movies seemed to accelerate. And now there’s a new development affecting…well, just Hollywood Elsewhere right now, but maybe others as the trend spreads. I’m speaking of being barred from screenings of a couple of films because of too much meanness and negativity in my postings.
I’ve been told in no uncertain terms that I’m off the invite list to screenings of Running With Scissors, in part because I wrote a piece about the implications of Ryan Murphy‘s film not going to Toronto (“The Old Toronto Sidestep” — a carefully-sculpted, fair-minded piece if I ever wrote one), and partly due to other jottings that have cast shadows. And apparently because I’ve been trashing Columbia and Sofia Coppola‘s Marie-Antoinette (once again — a very well-made, bold-stroke movie that I personally despise for its shallowness). And perhaps because I’ve also thoroughly trashed Columbia’s Stranger Than Fiction.
There’s another situation happening with Disney, apparently because I ran a negative pre-release review about the deplorable Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. My piece followed the two trade reviews plus David Poland‘s rave, in which he used the word “joy” to describe the way Pirates had made him feel (and would presumably make others feel). Disney didn’t like that I did this (it’s okay to run raves in advance but publicists naturaly want pans to run on opening day) and of course we all know what a fatal blow critics reviews were to the grosses of both Pirate pics.
One result is that Disney didn’t invite me to Monday’s all-media showing of The Guardian. No great loss, you might say. But now I’m wondering if they’re going to do the same thing with screenings of Chris Nolan‘s The Prestige (10.20), which is supposed to be quite good.
I don’t know if these shut-outs are necessarily the beginnings of studio vendettas (probably not — every day brings a new negotiation, a new set of cirumstances), but I know now that at least two distribution execs from Disney and Columbia marketing have followed the example of a situation that was happening at the end of last year with New Line Cinema (which has had a long-standing problem with my anti-Peter Jackson rants — can anyone think of a franchise more impervious to the slings and arrows of sourpusses like myself than the Lord of the Rings trilogy?) .
And I’m starting to wonder if this is just a flare-up, or will it increase, or will it just be a constant factor from here on?
The bottom line is that studio publicists are freaking more and more about high-profile internet buzz, and the message in all of these shut-outs is obviously, “Cool your jets, consider the political realities, use more modifiers, play a better game of pattycake…or else.”
On one level I can see their point. A studio is certainly not obliged to provide free access to product before it is in the marketplace. But to those leaning in this direction, I say this: No, you’re not obliged to show it to me…but you’re obviously making a statement by saying no to screenings. If you were to say, ‘Here’s our film, take a look but absolutely no reviews until opening day’, I would respect that and adhere. But you’ve chosen to be instinctual and defensive instead, and that, as you must understand, speaks volumes.
Ha ha.
Wells to jeffmcm: Why it this funny, Jeff? You’re taking the side of these two publicists, fine…but why do you feel this way? Or is it too much trouble to ll sort it through and put it into sentences?
I think this is a very worrisome state of affairs. I remember Pauline Kael complaining in her day that the studios don’t want objective criticism, but rather want the critics to be part of the marketing. It seems to have gotten worse. It is one thing if a critic is unfairly reviewing a first draft script, or an unfinished film at a sneak screening. But your criticism seems fair for the most part.
There must be a way for critics to band together to protest this. Can’t film critics associations come to your defense?
There is no way for the sorry state the movies are in to improve unless critics can write tough analysis, which can educate the public, and maybe one day, improve the taste of the average movie-goer. As one critic once said, the problem is not tough film criticism, but the fact that there is not enough of it.
Don’t give in.
One solution is the old saw that if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. I’m not suggesting that Jeff tone down legitimate negative criticism. But he has admitted that he just doesn’t “get” certain genres. One reason why LOTR was so impervious to sourpusses is that Jackson did a very good job of translating the material (once deemed unfilmable) to the screen. Yet Jeff’s reviews basically broke down into “I tried as long as I could to last through it but it became torture so I walked out.” That’s not an indictment of the film, that’s an indictment of the genre. I think Jeff was shocked when he actually liked King Kong, after two years of preparing to hate it. But then his old biases kicked in and he had to do a 180.
So my suggestion would be, if Jeff sees a movie in a genre he normally hates and ends up liking it (i.e. The Incredibles), print the rave. If the movie is well made, but not his cup of tea, say so. But stay away from pre-release hatchet jobs designed to “save the state of American movies.” They have no effect and they’re only succeeding in reducing access.
Jeff
I dont agree with everything you have to say, but I visit your site hourly because your insight is always valuable, even when we don’t agree.
I’m qualifiying myself b/c this is bullshit, and it pisses me off. The studios have no fucking idea how to generate any type of interest in their films anymore. They are destroying the theatrical market and then they wonder why their sales are down. Yes, they can make more profits on DVD, but no one knows anything about what is coming out, or what they can look forward to in a few months. They are picking movies out the way they pick out groceries, and the studios only have themselves to blame for creating this culture.
People respond to internet buzz with people who are they feel empowered by and cineastes value honesty. If you can’t see their movies b/c you are honest about them, then they are going to lose part of their audience, and they should fucking know by now they can’t afford to continue to lose people. Fuck em. We are about due for another resurgence in indie cinema anyway.
jeffmcm to Wells: it’s funny because you deserve it. On principle you’re right that the studios are being jerks, but in practice this is not a bad thing.
If you start pissing on the floor most every time you go to a party, you have to realize you won’t get invited to every single party on the block. Zip it up and fly right for a while.
I have mixed feelings about publicists — some are very nice and helpful, others are evil and cruel — but this does seem fair, Jeff. You clearly have a vendetta against Sofia Coppola so why can’t publicists have vendettas against you. It goes both ways, man. And you’ve also written many items trashing Columbia specifically, not just their films. If you mixed a bit more nice/decent/polite with your biting, bitter, seen-it-all, chip-on-your-shoulder moviephobia, you might not run into this problem.
the publicists exist to get positive attention for their films, and they want a lot of control about who says what. fine, but it places too much emphasis on what they want said. having dealt with quite a few, it can be alternately rewarding and usually maddening.
but you can always pay to see the film jeff….
Exactly. God forbid HE should become a conduit for fuckwit PR types & their ‘Oh, you’re going to love this! Best movie of the year! Honest!’ bullshit.
Don’t let the bastards grind you down, Jeff.
Just remember, Jeff. No matter what, never make fun of Kevin Smith’s freakishly large calves.
Wells to Spam Dooley: Boy, you really punctured my tires, dude! Amazing. Do you do this all day with others or do you…you know, rest up between bouts?
Spam attacking you with private emails? I’ll bet you’re a real cunumdrum to the film world. Publicists should realize that you’re not the person they know, you’re an entertainer on the web and 99% of the people who come here don’t care or remember what you say, they just remember they saw something about it here — you’re free advertising.
You can’t be surprised by this. As I wrote re your earlier item about this (9/22), it makes no sense for then to screen movies for you. Especially Columbia.
You’ve constantly shit all over their Marie Antoinette movie and did All the Kings Men no favors either.
Don’t be surprised if Warners is next. You were all negative on The Departed until you saw it, and then realized it was good after all.
I love your blog, Jeff, but you reap what you sow.
Then why do you love the blog, Dix? You just like it that your name appears on something? Favors? Here, kiss my ass.
Oh, T.H., you’re pissed off ’cause you’re just another show biz washout.
Oh, that’s right, you walked away from it. Uh huh.
There’s a number of reasons I like this blog, but the truth is the truth and Jeff can handle it.
Don’t worry Jeff, Dixon will show you how to behave, and he can always take you as his guest to screenings, you reaper sower father provider nurisher bend me over blog god.
While I disagree with the no-Toronto-means-it’s-bad angle, this petty shit makes me think there IS something wrong with Scissors. Why not extend the invitation gladly and prove Wells wrong? Lame.
Spam attacking you with private emails? I’ll bet you’re a real cunumdrum to the film world. Publicists should realize that you’re not the person they know, you’re an entertainer on the web and 99% of the people who come here don’t care or remember what you say, they just remember they saw something about it here — you’re free advertising.
Then why do you love the blog, Dix? You just like it that your name appears on something? Favors? Here, kiss my ass.
Don’t worry Jeff, Dixon will show you how to behave, and he can always take you as his guest to screenings, you reaper sower father provider nurisher bend me over blog god.
“You shall be known by your enemies.”
This ‘blackballing’ can actually be seen as a good thing for you. By trying to freeze out criticism, studios essentially say to the critics and the world at large that: “We are spineless pussies with NO faith in our product.” And since the behavour of the underlings reflects the behaviour and attitudes of the executives and bosses- I don’t think they’re going to like it too much when they walk into a restaurant and find themselves the objects of looks and snickers by those that HAVE faith in the pictures they’re producing.
The larger trend of not screening pictures for critics and blackballing unfriendly critics is going to blowback on the studios.
Jounalists may be the only people in Hollywood to get to take their gloves off-
Even very powerful idiots like Russell Crowe and Mel Gibson can’t say what’s on their mind, (and they’re both at it again this week), without repercussions.
But journos beware- these are 100 million dollar investments- and when you go after someone’s pocketbook, they feel they have the right to punch back.
P.S. You can come to the Running with Scissors screening with me.
Jeff, in a way, maybe you should be flattered. If you were really under the radar, it might not matter to them.
Perhaps this is their way of acknowledging your
blog (and others’) influence.
Which does make me wonder, how much more traffic is coming to HE compared to, say, a month or two ago? Is it growing and by how much?