Chicago Film Critics Assoc Update
As I have been the covering from the start – unlike some who would claim an exclusive because they found an e-mail in their inbox following two weeks of me reporting the evolving story and putting my ass on the line with the LA Times, Fox, and friends in the CFCA – here is the most recent event in the CFCA mishigoss, a letter from Dan Gire to his CFCA membership.
The reason this is not the last step in the chain is that the details of what the CFCA’s enforcement plan and Fox’s expectations are not addressed in this e-mail. That is the crux of this issue, not all the details, which were already pretty much covered in this blog in total days ago. This letter says, “The CFCA offered to put disciplinary teeth in its Ethics Code to ensure that its members would not release movie reviews early.” Dann Gire has not responded to an e-mail asking for any detail about what those teeth – understood initially to be dismissal from the group, the penalty of which includes not receiving Academy screeners – are now meant to be.
Dann also does some dancing with the timeline, Fox’s displeasure with the LA Times story, in which his quote that “an agreement between the studio and his 59-member group was imminent” was a particular cause of irritation since the deal was still up in the air with Fox waiting for Gire to get back to them, and finally with the upheaval in the ranks of CFCA membership, many of whom openly discussed leaving the group in light of the ham-fisted and embarrassing handling of all of this.
However, he does confirm how error ridden the LAT story was. Still waiting for that corrected piece, LAT.
If, in fact, the deal is set – the settlement is still not officially “signed off on” by Fox – and the penalty is being removed from CFCA membership and Fox screening lists if embargoes are broken (professionally or anonymously), I believe it can be a template to cover many of the screening issues of recent years. There will still most certainly be selective screenings and movies not screened at all, by Fox and every studio. But a formal agreement on embargo is an idea whose time has come, creating accountability on both sides.
Dan’s letter starts below and the rest can be found after the jump.
My Fellow Chicago Film Critics:
This will hopefully clear up a lot of the misinformation that has been passed around and reported about the Chicago Film Critics Association’s negotiations with 20th Century Fox.
(continued after the jump)
On July 9, the Chicago Film Critics Association’s Board of Directors passed a resolution to stage an “action of protest” against 20th Century Fox films. This action was not a strike, boycott, quest or “war against Fox,” as it has been described. Rather, our call to action – a temporary freeze on interviews and non-review materials – was designed to open up lines of communication with the studio. The critics wanted a fairer, more inclusive policy to see press screenings earlier, without some critics forced to see a movie the night before its public opening. That prompted the action of protest. We made no secret of this action. As a result, a few critics organizations from around the country contacted the CFCA to voice their support for the action and the negotiations.
On July 12, I had my first telephone conversation with Chris Petrikin, SVP of Fox Corporate Communications, and Breena Camden, EVP of National Publicity and Field Marketing. We shared our views and mutual concerns about press screenings and critics’ reviews. In the days following our initial talk, Mr. Petrikin and Ms. Camden remained open and flexible in our negotiations.
The next day, CFCA board members Erik Childress and Alejandro Riera and I crafted an initial proposal to resolve the screening issue, based on Fox’s concern about film reviews being released before a movie’s opening date. We sent it to Ms. Camden and Mr. Petrikin, who said the studio would be amenable to opening up its earlier press screenings to CFCA members if the CFCA could show good faith in assuring that film review dates would be respected. The CFCA offered to put disciplinary teeth in its Ethics Code to ensure that its members would not release movie reviews early. A preliminary agreement was roughed out and it appeared that our negotiations would be quickly resolved.
Then a report on the negotiations appeared in the L.A.Times on July 20. It was a report fraught with misleading information. The article incorrectly reported that the CFCA is waging a boycott against movies by Fox and Fox Searchlight, and that other critics organizations had joined the boycott. That never happened. Inside the story, I am properly quoted as saying that an agreement with Fox is imminent.
Since the publication of this report, many people, including other critics, have assumed that the CFCA is indeed boycotting Fox movies (it is NOT) and that Fox has been stonewalling or trying to ban more critics from its screenings. In fact, the opposite has been happening.
On July 20, as a gesture of good faith, Fox invited all members of the CFCA to its upcoming movie “The Simpsons,” On the same day, the CFCA officially lifted its action of protest to fulfill our part of the bargain. In a letter to the membership, I explained that to continue being invited to early press screenings, Chicago members must agree to abide by the rules and respect the opening review dates of motion pictures. In essence, Fox and the CFCA have exchanged one professional courtesy for
another professional courtesy. It is my hope that from now on, critics groups and Hollywood studios can find common ground for an industry-wide agreement on professional conduct that will benefit studios and critics.
Meanwhile, let me repeat: Chicago’s film critics and 20th Century Fox have resolved their screening and embargo issues. The protest is over.
We’re good to go, people.
Dann Gire
Interesting. Basically, Fox got to see how long it could push around a group of critics before it resulted in bad publicity for the studio. I still think that this is just a battle in a war that will ultimately be won by the studios. When movies that don’t screen for critics open at number 1 or when movies that get panned by critics make hundreds of millions of dollars, you gotta think that the studios will eventually tire of spending the money to screen their films for critics. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I’m becoming concerned that all of the studios will come to that realization ultimately.
Noah: No offense, but I have said this for a long, long time — eventually, the studios will realize that they can get away with not screening many (if not most) films. Period. And that will be the day that critics on the East Coast can claim complete dominion over critics on the West Coast. Such is life.
No offense taken, Joe. We’re in agreement. Planning a big move to the East Coast anytime soon?
“As I have been the covering from the start – unlike some who would claim an exclusive because they found an e-mail in their inbox following two weeks of me reporting the evolving story and putting my ass on the line with the LA Times, Fox, and friends in the CFCA…”
I’m pretty sure the hard and fast ethic of journalism is service to society, not the lead being a stated proposition for the writer’s validation.
If that’s all you have to say about the story, I am pretty sure you are missing the point, Kris.
I didn’t miss the point, just felt I had to fight through unnecessary sanctimony to get there. I’d have been more intrigued with “the piece” rather than notes about how hard you fought than the “other guys” for “the piece.”
Their movie hasn’t even opened, and already the Simpsons are bringing people together.
One point I fear may not be addressed in this “settlement” is the matter of weekly papers that publish on Thursdays. Unless they run capsule reviews of everything in current release, there is no point in reviewing a film for them the week after opening; that ship will have sailed. Fox (and the other studios) could switch to opening everything on Wednesdays, as they did “Live Free or Die Hard,” but they probably won’t. By prohibiting Thursday reviews, even of films given “early reviews” by Ebert & Roeper and national magazines, they are forcing weekly papers out of the movie reviewing business.
What bugs me is that a lot of the current restrictions are penalizing professional journalists as a reaction to the studios’ real concern, the amateur bloggers who post reviews of rough cuts and such weeks or months in advance of release. What do you expect from corporations that stopped sending out year-end screeners to critics instead of investigating the real sources of piracy?
I could go on about my conspiracy theories – the phrase “in restraint of trade” keeps running through my mind – but I should put my time to better use, such as deciding which of tonight’s three screenings – all from the same agency – to go to, or exploring options for early retirement.
“Unless they run capsule reviews of everything in current release, there is no point in reviewing a film for them the week after opening; that ship will have sailed.”
Well, no point unless you can bring something new and/or provocative to the discussion.
Steve may be on to something: A few years ago Paramount held back its NYC critics’ screenings until Wednesday at the earliest. Par didn’t want the Village Voice — or other weeklies for that matter — running negative reviews prior to release day. The Voice has a Monday deadline and hits the street Tuesday night. Cui bono?
“‘Unless they run capsule reviews of everything in current release, there is no point in reviewing a film for them the week after opening; that ship will have sailed.'”
“Well, no point unless you can bring something new and/or provocative to the discussion.”
Try convincing an editor people would rather read something new and/or provocative about last week’s movie than the same thing everyone else is writing about this week’s. No one’s secure enough in their job to take that risk.
Yes, Steve… a very real issue and a very real game played by studios.
One of the reasons I have been less than excited about the CFCA public behavior is that they aren’t doing much to deal with the real issues in Chicago… which are not having to take a backseat to Roger & Richard & Michael (old or new).