Bite Your Tongue

In a deliberate effort to take ad money out of Hollywood Elsewhere's pocket, a piece by "agent turned manager turned producer" Gavin Polone about the over-ness of the Oscars appeared in New York magazine on 1.23:

"Any film thought to have a shot at an [Oscar] award has to be released in the late fall or early winter, meaning that almost every film released between January and September is pretty much out of the running. Distributors select the films they think can garner awards and release them during the last quarter of the year all at once, meaning that the holiday season is hugely overserved by prestige projects and all other seasons woefully undersupplied.

"As a result, the Oscars damage the prospects of the very movies they're designed to promote. If there were no Academy Awards, there would probably be a more even release of quality films throughout the year, making it more likely that additional people would see those films, since most moviegoers don't schedule their year to make room for increased movie attendance in November and December. Instead, it's a battle royale for ticket buyers, and too many movies lose out.

"Many in Hollywood would say that the financial reward of Oscars success makes the cost and loss of dignity worthwhile, but the facts indicate otherwise. A detailed statistical analysis of the Oscars' box-office effect by Boxofficequant.com showed that almost all of the ticket money flowed in after the nomination, not the win. But this is also misleading, since it is difficult to know how a film that was nominated would have performed had it not received a nomination.

"Of course, some people do benefit from the Oscars, aside from publicists, the trade press, the New York and Los Angeles Times (have you ever seen any kind of anti-Oscars article in those publications?), and Los Angeles billboard owners: the individuals who win. Directors, screenwriters, actors, editors, and anyone else with a nomination or a win gets a big bump in pay after being so honored -- as much as $5 million, it's said, for a Best Actor trophy.

"Unfortunately for the payer of this Oscar bonus, there is no correlation between anyone's winning an award and future box-office success, despite the big deal made about Oscars in marketing campaigns. PopEater's Jo Piazza showed that of the top 100 highest-grossing films of 2010, 40 percent of the top twenty featured Oscar winners, while 50 percent of the bottom twenty did. If possessing a statuette was actually worth something, shouldn't there be some direct correlation between casting an Academy Award winner and higher box office?

"Really, I see no point to any of it, other than the kitschy fun of the spectacle, which, as with the Miss America Pageant, certainly can be entertaining in limited doses. But by the third speech of someone thanking his spouse, agent, manager, psychic, dog walker, and the person who clears his chakras, I am always bored and left wondering why he couldn't just have a private conversation with the person to whom he wishes to express his gratitude, and then find something more interesting or entertaining to talk about on television.

"Fortunately, the public seems finally to be losing interest. The Oscar broadcast has evidenced a pretty steady decline in audience share since the mid-seventies. Last year, obviously feeling the need to bring in a younger viewership, the Academy hired James Franco and Anne Hathaway as hosts. The plan didn't work; there was a 12 percent drop in the 18-to-49 demographic and a 9 percent decrease in overall viewers. Clearly, this is because the audience feels alienated from the choices of nominations and winners, not how they are presented. As with any cultural institution, when the interest and support of the young are lost, it is just a question of when, not if, that institution becomes fully irrelevant. I can't wait."

Long Owns...? << previous | next >>Dargis Factor

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 27, 2012 at 6:27 PM

comment #1

Rashad Author Profile Page says ...

100% agreed with this guy. Spread it out, and stop ignoring early release movies.

Posted by Rashad Author Profile Page at January 27, 2012 6:59 PM

comment #2

James Rocchi Author Profile Page says ...

Sorry, but I'm with Polone on this one. There are actually four easy ways to fix the Oscars, none of which the Academy would ever do.

1) Cut the BP noms to 8 and increase the total number of Best Actor, Best Actress, both Supporting categories, both Screenplay categories and Best Director to the same #. This would a) enable a broader pool of nominees, b) promote more quality work and more quality films and c) let edge-films and edge-performances have some room to grow.

2) Make it mandatory that half the BP nominees must be from the period of Jan-June. No more December pile-up, no more dead season at the theater for grown ups for the first 9 months of the year.

3) Make it mandatory that, for Oscar consideration, a film must play the top 20 Markets for a week, not merely NY/LA, thereby cutting coastal elitism off at the knees and giving audiences exposure to great films. Yes, this makes life harder for distributors, but, at the same time, a) I don't give a damn, as a moviegoer; I just want to see a good movie if I live in, say, Chicago or St. Louis or Seattle or Austin with the same access as a Manhattanite or Angelino and b) Having an Oscars ceremony that doesn't mean jack to the vast majority of America also makes life difficult for distributors.

4) Eliminate/Ban all "For Your Consideration" advertising, all "The Art of " Books and other tchotkes, and any and all screeners are sent in standardized sleeves with just the title in black type to Academy members within 3 weeks of the film's opening date, thereby eliminating the end-of-year logjam of films for voting.

As for where the Academy is broken more seriously -- an aged and out-of-touch membership, the fatuous rules for Documentaries that leave films like "The Interrupters" blocked and ignored -- these are problems for another day. But, as a modest proposal, the four ideas above would be a good start in making the Oscars reflect an industry that cares more about moviegoers than about shabby, palm-greasing campaigns.

Posted by James Rocchi Author Profile Page at January 27, 2012 6:59 PM

comment #3

Zach Heltzel Author Profile Page says ...

Out of this year's Best Picture nominees, three came out in the summer. Granted, the other six came out between September and December, but still, three.

Posted by Zach Heltzel Author Profile Page at January 27, 2012 7:15 PM

comment #4

Sasha Stone Author Profile Page says ...

I agree with you, Jim, except on the Oscar advertising part. For one thing, it's incredibly naive to think they would ever do that. Their budgets are built around such advertising. Moreover, many smaller contenders -- like Margin Call, Albert Nobbs, Rampart and others pay a pittance to have their films advertised to get a fighting chance. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't but that's about the only chance they have to bring awareness to their projects.

Sure, you're probably thinking about the big studios when you say that, and obviously I have a personal stake in Oscar advertising since that is how I, and many other outlets, survive. But if you're talking about the problems with the Oscars there are plenty more things you could be talking about.

Here are the problems as I see them:

1) The Oscars are too insular, The voters go from their houses to the Academy theater to watch movies but they're mostly out of touch with what's going on in the real world. They don't yet see how much it has changed.

2) Academy members don't really see everything and therefore they can't really step out of the groove of picking the popular films.

3) The critics are hella annoying, this year more than any other, and they (along with the swollen blogosphere) has created this culture of pass/fail instant punditry where a movie is barely seen and suddenly snap judgments pour in left and right. This happened with Hugo at the NY Film Fest. A great movie, Hugo, and yet you'd hardly know it from the instant punditry flooding out of Lincoln Center - it was like "this movie is going to play poorly with the flyover states" type crap. That, to me, creates a situation where films are treated like Presidential candidates, where the least offensive film rules the day. The whole notion of every Tom Dick and Harry saying loudly "this film is flawed" and all of the critics groups and contests make it something it should never have been.

You can't find many websites now that have people who write passionately about film. Mostly I see snobbery and silliness from critics and it's so irritating.

So before you start blaming the Oscars and the industry that's bloomed up around it, take a look at your own industry and what THAT has done to movies.

4) voters must stop voting for their friends.

5) Best Picture must go back to ten nominees because the two years they had ten nominees they shined the most brightly. They could honor an array of films, from sci- fi to gay-themed movies, to projects directed by women -- those were the days. Now it's back to shitsville.

Posted by Sasha Stone Author Profile Page at January 27, 2012 7:17 PM

comment #5

James Rocchi Author Profile Page says ...

Sasha --

Allow me to politely disagree and offer that my suggestions were hard, fast and enforceable rules, as opposed to the more fuzzy philosophical attitudinal shifts ("voters must stop voting for their friends" -- and how do we enforce that?) you talk about. As we all know, you can't legislate good taste -- but you can re-think and regulate voting processes.

And as debased and depraved as film criticism has become -- in no small part thanks to myself -- even 'thumbs up/thumbs down' says more to me than the endless spreadsheets and guru-charting and horse-racing of Awards season.

As for smaller films, either quality will out in an no-money campaign, or it won't -- but the money that Film District hosed out to get one technical nod for "Drive" could have probably paid for another film in and of itself. And I'd rather see one more movie than one thousand more "For Your Consideration" ads.

I also think keeping the BNP noms at a steady 8 would decrease confusion will still representing a larger pool of movies -- and having those other categories at 8 Nominees, as I propose, would create even more buzz for smaller films.

Finally, banning "FYC" ads would not involve banning any and all movie ads for sites like yours and Jeff's and, yes, my employers; in fact, promoting Jan-June Oscar-worthy films as films at the time of their release, not as an endless wave of late-Dec. cannon fodder, would spread that revenue pool out through the year for people, publications and institutions who depend on that ad revenue.

All of this is noted with respect, and my ideas are a thought-experiment, nothing more.

James.

P.S. No one but you and Wells ever calls me 'Jim.' But from you both, I'll take it.

Posted by James Rocchi Author Profile Page at January 27, 2012 7:34 PM

comment #6

Chris Willman Author Profile Page says ...

Sasha: Is this year's crop of nominees really "shitsville"? How many of the best picture nominees are really shit? I would say two out of eight. I don't think you'd say many more than that. I have extremely long shots I would've liked to see in there, like "Melancholia," "A Separation," and "Beginners," and of course the seemingly-not-such-a-long-shot "Dragon Tattoo." But I don't get the apocalyptic sentiments from you and so many people. Isn't this, in the end, really all about "Loud/Close" and (as Hitler would have it) Jonah Hill? The documentary and song madness aside, I just don't get the alarmist movement as a result of these particular nominations.

Posted by Chris Willman Author Profile Page at January 27, 2012 7:54 PM

comment #7

Luke Y. Thompson Author Profile Page says ...

I don't really have a problem with this year's crop of nominees - I do find it tiresome the way every other movie blog has to be about Oscar predictions 50% of the year because that's where the ad dollars come from...though I guess it's good they still do come from somewhere.

If, as James suggests, there were legitimately a way to spread the prestige films out all year somehow, that would work for me. I suspect it wouldn't work for the studios, who probably enjoy having a dumping ground.

Silence of the Lambs, y'all. Best Oscar call ever, for many reasons.

Posted by Luke Y. Thompson Author Profile Page at January 27, 2012 8:49 PM

comment #8

Gaydos Author Profile Page says ...

Forest for the trees times folks.

It's very simple so I dont understand why this nonsense pops up in the pontifications of Patrick Goldstein and the self-righteous ruminations of Gavin Polone.

But it's so obvious that their tantrums HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF REAL INDIE AND OVERSEAS FILMMAKERS.

Ask anyone who knows ANYTHING about specialty film marketing and they will tell you, Jan-Mar used to be the land where SLINGBLADE mades its bones via hucksters like Harvey beating the drums. It was called WORD OF MOUTH and its damn hard to even do at all today.

Films need MARKETING and specialty films can't compete with $100 million blockbuster ad budgets. They NEED AWARDS SEASON to get audience attention and biz traction.

So explain to me, why it's okay to market blockbusters by spending literally BILLIONS, but a mortal sin to market dramas, foreign language films, edgy dark adventurous cinema ie what the biz shorthand calls CRITIC-DRIVEN cinema.

The lifeblood of these films and THE ONLY WAY they have a chance to recoup is critics group honors, guilds, Globes and Oscars.

The sked is already too compressed now because the Academy moved up their date.

Studios don't make specialty films and they largely shed the shingles that release them.

Why should they care that a shorter awards season screws indies?

SO:

Stop demonizing the marketing of interesting films.

Stop sermonizing that only blockbusters should have a chance for financial success.

I'm a loud critic of the current crop of both films and critics, but damnit, there is ONLY ONE PLACE where anything EVEN KIND OF INTERESTING has a chance to find an audience and that's during the HOOPLA, SILLINESS, TUB-THUMBING, BLOGNOSTICATING, PARTYING AND CRITIC BLEATING of AWARDS SEASON.

Get all Methodist on it, start imposing rules and restrictions and marketing limitations THAT THE BLOCKBUSTERS WOULDN'T HAVE IN A MILLION YEARS and you destroy the last chance for chancey cinema to even exist.

So here's my question for Gavin and Patrick: can you explain to me why it's ok for THE SMURFS to spend $100 million on marketing but it's despicable and evil to spend $7 million in marketing THE KINGS SPEECH to get attention and kudos that make people aware of its existence? Cos I simply don't effing understand this double standard. AT ALL.

Posted by Gaydos Author Profile Page at January 27, 2012 9:42 PM

comment #9

FlashDust Author Profile Page says ...

God, Sasha Stone is insufferable.

Posted by FlashDust Author Profile Page at January 28, 2012 12:46 AM

comment #10

Ray Author Profile Page says ...

I COMPLETELY park in Polone's garage. Doubt anything will ever change- the Academy would rather die than admit they're wrong.

"3) Make it mandatory that, for Oscar consideration, a film must play the top 20 Markets for a week, not merely NY/LA, thereby cutting coastal elitism off at the knees and giving audiences exposure to great films."

One of the absolute best DUH Oscar reccos I've ever read, and the easiest of the above to enforce.

Posted by Ray Author Profile Page at January 28, 2012 5:52 AM

comment #11

Ray Author Profile Page says ...

Related: FINALLY watched Moneyball last night. GREAT flick. NOT the year's best (I still admire Tree of Life more, flawed ending and all), but damn good.

The parallels between "old baseball" and the Academy are uncanny. They're doing it the way it's always been done because they still have the money to do it. But they're still doing it wrong.

Back to the movie..... a few things unfortunately kept it from going great. I know the script tried to sneak in all the baseball stats as atmospherics but that REALLY failed the story. Having read the book and knowing enough about baseball **I** understand why OBP is a better stat than RBIs or ERA, but the lay audience sure as hell doesn't understand it. All that was missing was a better establishing scene earlier on with "Peter Brand" explaining why all the scouts were focusing on the wrong things, and why valuing the other stats mattered. Instead, that message-- THE ENTIRE REASON THE MOVIE EXISTS-- was hopelessly muddled and diluted among a bunch of "montage" scenes shown TWO THIRDS of the way through the movie.

HORRIBLE script decision, one that annoyed me the entire movie (and left my baseball-ignorant girlfriend befuddled, wondering, "What's the big deal? WHY is this so scary to these old farts?"

It reminded me of the awesome simplicity of the Jurassic Park DNA cartoon. Sometimes, when the story IS that complex you DO have to tell, not show, and a good script/director finds a way to do so without screwing it up.

That aside, Pitt WAS awesome, and it'd be great if he won, which he won't, so that sucks. I liked Hill, but I don't get his nom AT ALL. Does someone owe him money or something? Totally should have gone instead to Brooks.

Posted by Ray Author Profile Page at January 28, 2012 6:01 AM

comment #12

The Reek Author Profile Page says ...

People still go to the movies? I'll take my over the top home theater over that any day and most americans do the same.

Posted by The Reek Author Profile Page at January 28, 2012 7:38 AM

comment #13

BobbyLupo Author Profile Page says ...

I agree almost entirely with Gaydos, except that the logjam at the end of the year doesn't help smaller movies either. It's one thing when the smaller movies have to compete against 'Avatar' or 'Sherlock Holmes', but when you've got the studios pursuing their Oscar movies like 'War Horse' or 'Dragon Tattoo', the smaller movies get buried. If you did something to spread the movies out more, you'd still wind up with the smaller movies focusing on December releases because of awards' season, but you won't have them cramming 'We Bought A Zoo' into the conversation, drowning out other movies.

Posted by BobbyLupo Author Profile Page at January 28, 2012 11:17 AM

comment #14

Gabe@ThePlaylist Author Profile Page says ...

Shrink the size of the Academy. By something like 80%. And have a rotating membership, so that the voters know that these votes count. And every single movie each year, even the blockbusters, even the tiny pictures forgotten by April, is GUARANTEED* one Academy member screening in October, November or December, where attendance is taken. Anyone with an attendance number less than 60% at all Academy-sponsored screenings doesn't get to participate.

*This will be determined by a branch of the Academy that deem a film worthy of screening due to the studio's own inability to host their own screenings. I.E. Strand Releasing, people like that. The Weinsteins will not be granted any Academy sponsored screenings, they will have to pay for them on their own. If the WB wants to campaign for The Hangover, it's on their dime.

Though I like another idea better - just fucking get rid of the Academy Awards.

Posted by Gabe@ThePlaylist Author Profile Page at January 28, 2012 12:03 PM

comment #15

Roger Sweets (gnosis) Author Profile Page says ...

Oh. My. God.... all of these movies that people think 'should' have been nominated. In fact, they just were not all that great. I honestly think that this year it is as simple as that.

The other half of the equation could well be the new rules - where only the films that someone feels really passionate about may have gotten in. But then that means the same thing, doesn't it? Because it does not take a really large percentage of number 1 votes to get a film in and yet all the younger members of the academy and all of those broad-minded older folks (they do exist, people! We don't all get plaques on our brains at 35.)

Somehow, these films that others are so aggrieved about not getting in, nobody voted for! I wonder why. Melancholia? Shame? Really?

And yet, this same system allowed Moneyball and The Tree of Life to be nominated... ask yourself, would they have been nominated in the old system? Not Tree of Life, I assure you.

And, we have seen edgier movies be nominated and get in recently (and win!); the data-driven answer, not the knee jerk answer, is the one that you just read.

The only way any of you get exactly the films you want is if the academy changes its membership to one person - you.

In case no one noticed, the academy has been experimenting with its voting rules for several years now - clearly a recognition that perhaps there is a better way. Shouldn't AMPAS be commended for being willing to change?

And it is, by the way, all just for fun. At least, for us!

Posted by Roger Sweets (gnosis) Author Profile Page at January 28, 2012 5:07 PM

comment #16

Raising_Kaned Author Profile Page says ...

"Though I like another idea better - just fucking get rid of the Academy Awards."

There it is; there's the "just one fix" (Jourgensen 4 Life) i skimmed this entire insufferable thread to read.

Posted by Raising_Kaned Author Profile Page at January 28, 2012 8:37 PM

comment #17

Raising_Kaned Author Profile Page says ...

"Oh. My. God.... all of these movies that people think 'should' have been nominated. In fact, they just were not all that great."

Movies like Martha Marcy May Marlene and The Skin I Live In (or Enter the Void and Never Let Me Go last year) are among the very finest released the past couple years, and they got a total of zero nominations (I could be wrong about NLMG, which could have picked up a minor, stray nom).

Short of banning the Oscars altogether, why not just separate them by size of budgets? Determine a certain numerical cut-off (I guess this could change slightly every year, accounting for inflation) between nominees for the Academy Awards and nominees for the Independent Spirit Awards.

Because you know damn well that's pretty much usually how it works nowadays, anyway.

Posted by Raising_Kaned Author Profile Page at January 28, 2012 8:43 PM

comment #18

Gaydos Author Profile Page says ...

Gregg Goldstein wrote a very sharp, very informed piece on this subject in VARIETY this week: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118049385/

Posted by Gaydos Author Profile Page at January 29, 2012 3:40 PM

comment #19

hermesconstance Author Profile Page says ...

Nice article. one of the bests, this website and desired to permit you be conscious that i've been gratified, heading via your site's posts. I should certainly be signing equally as much as the RSS feed and should certainly wait around for another post. best Regards

Posted by hermesconstance Author Profile Page at February 13, 2012 6:58 PM

comment #20

Drond2 Author Profile Page says ...

Movies like Martha Marcy May Marlene and The Skin I Live In (or Enter the Void and Never Let Me Go last year) are among the very finest released the past couple years, and they got a total of zero nominations (I could be wrong about NLMG, which could have picked up a minor, stray nom).
charter a private jet | internet marketing

Posted by Drond2 Author Profile Page at April 24, 2012 2:58 PM

Leave a comment