Question Of The Day: Embargoes
In recent years, the Hollywood “trades” have become failing business models with an aggressive desire to compete for consumer eyeballs on the internet. Reviews are promoted as “breaking news,” The Hollywood Reporter is on the Reuters newswire, etc.
The trades have two significant strategic advantages over the web sites with which it competes daily, including this one. 1. They print paper that is perceived as a daily industry flier that ends up in offices of the industry, even though little of the news is consumed in that matter anymore. 2. A few studios still buy into the long-trashed notion that these outlets have a right to an early review date, based on the first NYT/LAT pre-release ads.
Year after year, I have (as others have) made the case against the early review date. And about half the studios have gotten it and now understand that just as a writer like me can trigger the trades to review – them claiming that the seal has been broken so they have The Right – it is only fair and reasonable that the trade review date triggers many other outlets.
I have always been respectful of embargo, both for myself and as a concept. It is the studio’s property and how they choose to screen it and allow it to be reviewed is their business.
But when I was invited to a screening on Thursday this week, with the movie due out next Friday, and an embargo date of next Wednesday and a warning that the trades would be reviewing over the weekend (probably Friday, actually), I couldn’t quite find an excuse for indulging the studio with my participation in the farce.
It also seemed a good place to draw a line in the sand because the stakes are so small. This particular movie has already junketed. I’ve been looking forward to the film and think it could be one of the summer’s biggest hits. But I won’t go to the Thursday screening, read (or avoid) trade reviews over the weekend, then review on Wednesday. The 4 or 5 day spread is, simply, irrational and stupid. The movie is critic-proof anyway. And I don’t feel compelled to waste hours of my working life trying to manipulate the studio into letting ME review earlier or to break the ground for me and then the dozen people who will be angered if I get that advantage. It’s the least important issue here.
Meanwhile… Inception opens this week and WB tried their own hybrid process to the embargo situation. First, they junketed. And the studios have done a lot better with limiting the hum coming out of junkets. But in this case, Peter Travers, who was quoting for the studio, screwed the embargo all on his own. Still, the studio took the heat and set a screening when they were comfortable with reviews starting… which was still 10 days before opening. Then, confident with the film and still under fire, they moved the screening for an early review date up by 5 days. About a dozen outlets, including the trades and some non-critics, saw the film and agreed to wait 3 days, to a specific date and time of day, to review. Two days later, every other “major” in NY and LA was able to see the film and the embargo was pretty much busted. The first “backlash,” which was not backlash at all, but an opinion of the film that felt compelled to point out – as my review did – some of the silly overreaching in the first wave of post-Travers reviews. Meanwhile, other reviews have been slowly leaking out.
I think WB had good intentions on this one. They were trying to offer some parity, still keep the junket system of features and quote whoring intact, and to help their movie. But I’m not sure this approach worked either. I was not the only one who was a bit put off by the intensity of and the metaphors used by the positive wave from the first group of reviews… but I got hit by the brunt of some very real anger by a few of those writers, who took the questioning of the wave quite personally. And the silliest takes – comparing it to Kubrick, which is wrong in concept, more than as a question of Nolan’s skills vs the legend – will be slapped away in many of the reviews still to come this week, no doubt.
In any case, I am not sure I have The Answer. it has been fairly pointed out that I have been the beneficiary of “special rules” through much of my online career and haven’t always complained in the midst of being allowed to write when others were not. But things change. For a long time, it was just about getting access as a web-based writer. Then there was a comfort hammock… and that comfort is still offered much of the time. But I am much more concerned now with the playing field being fair, overall, and with the idea of studios making active choices instead of just reacting to anger or frustration when one of these situations goes awry.
The confusion between The Work and the Release Date Of The Work has become a horrifying cacophony… or, if you will, caca phony. This is not just in criticism, but in all entertainment coverage. The freaky sense of entitlement runs in every direction. Studios allowing only the people they control who will deliver only the coverage they want – a junket – is actually reasonable to me. But quotes from junkets should signal the end of any embargo. There are enough people who will LOVE any movie that it is abusive to the notion of criticism for each studio to keep a passel of shills in their back pockets to be used at their own (in)discretion while silencing thsoe who aren’t aren’t eating free food, traveling, or feeling overly generous after spending time with talent that keeps them in their jobs. (I am NOT saying that all junketeers are whores or anything less than thoughtful. But some are. And the system is manipulative by design.)
And once the curtain goes up for reviews that the studios does not, in some way, control, all bets should be off. There is so much ego involved, but in the end, it’s not an ego issue… it is a business issue. And every time Columbia or whomever decides that “the trades can go days early,” they are directly damaging my business because they are giving the trades an unearned competitive advantage. Does it make or break my business or anyone else’s? No. But covering releases is a cooperative venture and if one side is getting all the benefits and controls it on whims, it’s not much of a relationship.
it’s a hard problem… because we all really want to be first. But the deep bowing over “first,” as embodied dramatically in the Miramax crapfest the last few days, is bad news and leads to horrible journalism.
Poll follows… not including “don’t care” because I know many of you think this is all masturbation… got it.
I think embargoes are not only outdated and just plain dumb, they’re also unfair. These studios set the embargo and there’s NO repercussion for breaking it. It happens with every single movie an embargo is set on. Then, people spend energy (and rightly so) getting pissed that *some* can set their own date to review while others are forced to adhere to what they were told.
If you see the movie, you should get to review it at your leisure. Period. I feel this way because if your site generates enough traffic or is thought of highly enough that you hit the junket and/or see a really early screening, then that respect should translate into you (or your site) being allowed to publish your thoughts.
There’s already a tiered system in effect for reviews where bigger sites and trades see it first, then it trickles down to smaller sites. That should be good enough.
Studios should never be allowed to set a critic’s agenda.
And there’s really only one way to take the power out of their hands.
It requires discipline. Ethics. Self-esteem. A sense of humor. And most of all… patience.
SIMPLY PUBLISH THE REVIEW THE DAY THE FILM IS RELEASED
Think about it —
– This way critics will have a more unbiased opinion from other voices (Armond White would be forced to publish on Saturdays!).
– Buzz-building by select journalists is unethical and unfair to films and studios and other journalists.
– Certain early criticisms (“Everything was great but the last shot!”) could effect how studios cut a film… which could violate a director’s vision.
– Reviewing a film before it is released is ALWAYS an act of ego. It has nothing to do with journalism.
The best and sanest critics still practice this. And the reason they do is because they’re the best and sanest critics.
If you internet guys want to be regarded as journalists, you have to start behaving like journalists.
Well said, Crow. Reviewing a movie before the putative audience can see it makes zero sense unless the point of the exercise is the equivalent of ‘FIRST!’ on a blog.
Crow… I’d be happy to roll with day-of-release, if the studios decided that was going to be the rule across the board.
But you’re also a bit full of shit… or just ignorant. (Anything that includes “ALWAYS” is almost always mistaken.)
Reviewing a film on the day of release has never been anything but a convention based on newspapers serving their readership on the day of release. The convention has nothing to do with journalism.
There are all kinds of reasons for reviewing a movie at some other time… just as there are all kinds of reasons why studios and producers show their movie some time other than 3 or 4 days before opening. Sure, there can be bad reasons for it. But at a festival, reviews can also get a movie that wouldn’t sell sold… or devalue a movie that has strong elements but isn’t good.
And of course, it has nothing to do with discipline… or self-esteem… or ethics… or a sense of humor. It has to do with what the market – in this case, the studios – will bear.
A reasonable set of rules that is remotely fair to the whole media and is enforced in a real way would work. It doesn’t have to be this black or white thing.
As far as I am concerned, studios should refuse to cooperate in any way with media outlets that publish or report on test screenings. They will do what they like, but they will be marginalized.
With test screenings as a non-issue, you get to professionals, who should be expected to act like professionals… or to lose their place at the table.
Consequences for the children.
And if a studio determined that all reviews running on opening day was best… great. No pre-release quotes. No Pete or Pete. Junkets for feature reporting only.
Great.
But by turning it into some judgment of the writers, you’re changing history. Opening day is tradition and print purpose, not morality.
What I want to know is what the point is of publishing a review a week in advance of the release date. Seriously, what does that achieve? Beyond proving to the world that “I saw it first!!!!” I mean. I have to agree with Crow that it’s essentially egotistical, since I doubt people will remember what any specific review said a week before they saw the movie. And that’s assuming people see it that quickly. Surely there are lots of people who might check RT, think “That movie looks interesting, I’ll check it out,” find that it’s not opening for a week, and then it’s a month later and they’ve forgotten about it.
I guess the real question isn’t about embaroges then, but “What audience do critics serve?” And if the answer isn’t “Their readers,” then we look up from our maps to find we have crossed the border into “What is the purpose of critics?” or maybe “Do critics matter?”
Dave, I can be full of shit. And I can be ignorant. But I think I have reason my side here.
“I’d be happy to roll with day-of-release, if the studios decided that was going to be the rule across the board.”
Why? Why should the standards of others dictate your own standards? I don’t think you believe that at all. The past several years of your existence has been obsessing over the collapse in standards. I want to believe that’s more than manic depression. Now it’s time to walk the walk. Be that good example. And be meek about it. Bitching and moaning doesn’t make you the good or the bad… it makes you the ugly, Tuco.
Anyway… why does getting an opinion out about a film have to be a competition? Ebert didn’t win a Pulitzer for being first out the box.
Reviews are not breaking news. They’re breaking opinion.
A credible writer/critic/blogger can break an opinion any time they want. And the readership and influence won’t change. [If you had the choice between an Inception review by Harry Knowles a month before release and one by the ghost of Pauline Kael a month after, which one would you choose? (Even Knowles would choose Kael!)]
I see your point about festivals. Each critic has to feel their way around that mine field. The best festival coverage I read every year are by the less hysterical writers. The ones not looking to make it about them… or Oscar advertising sales down the line. And remember: While a festival may be a market, it’s not a release.
Let’s be adults here.
Enjoying the debate.
Blackcloud my local film critic just penned a piece about why his profession still matters (basically he argued that they help little movies). At times it pertains to more than just indie fare. It is $11 to see a movie at my local AMC. The cost and the lack of time makes me much choosier about what I see. Had Predators received reviews similar to AVP or AVP:R, I never would have paid to see it in theaters. I read some reviews (including a three-star one from the aforementioned critic) and figured I would like it, which I did.
At the risk of respectfully disagreeing with some of what’s been said above, WB’s decision to lift their embargo on Monday, July 5 meant that anyone who saw the movie before that time was allowed to write about it. The decision for some outlets to proceed with reviews and others to hold them was motivated by, presumably, the opportunity to direct some traffic to a site be being one of the first to write about the film, whether that reaction was positive or negative. WB is under no obligation to show the movie to anyone prior to release, but the fact that there were more than 100 reporters at the press conferences and yet only a handful of reviews speaks to the fact that there COULD HAVE BEEN a wider variety of reactions, but those who felt most strongly about it – and in this case, positively – were eager to get their thoughts out there.
Whether these early reviews were “rightly” or “wrongly” effusive is subjective, at least to the extent that those opinions were defended and supported by thoughtful, measured analysis, even if terms like “masterpiece” and “Kubrickian” were dropped amidst that analysis. That those critics included that language doesn’t mean that they didn’t mean it, or didn’t support it, but I think that the blowback from your Twitter comments was in direct response to the suggestion that there was some agreement, even unspoken, that we all would like and support the film, when in fact few of us discussed it with one another before writing our individual pieces. And no matter what our reaction was, and much like the backlash to the negative backlash, it’s short-sighted and disrespectful to assume that people’s reactions are insincere or motivated by some secret impulse or complicity rather than their honest feelings. And to dismiss, even obliquely, a writer’s opinion, while suggesting that someone else’s is more right, accurate, or honest is going to piss them off.
Whether that was your intention or not, and I’m not suggesting that it was, it’s not unreasonable for some of those critics to assume that the tweets you posted about “groupthink” meant to imply that they didn’t offer honest reactions and reviews to Inception, whereas you would have one with unassailable integrity, and more importantly accuracy. What I’ve found among all of the reviews of Inception both positive and negative is that one’s experience of watching it and one’s interpretation of that experience is essential to that reaction. And that may simply be true of all movies, but I don’t think it’s any less honest for someone to have been engaged by the story and characters and plot details than it was to highlight their shortcomings. Nor is it more “accurate” to criticize the film for a certain tone the reviewer considered dyspeptic, if someone conversely thought it was affirming, hopeful, exciting, or yes, even Kubrickian. (Which, by the way, doesn’t mean that Nolan is Kubrick, but it’s perfectly appropriate to observe, at least to the reviewer in question, that a new film evokes the tone or feeling that they got from another filmmaker’s movies.)
Ultimately, I think embargoes are irrelevant. Not in the sense that they shouldn’t be honored, because I adamantly do in all cases, both personally and professionally, but in the sense that a writer should be able to post his or her thoughts about a movie whenever he or she is ready, and readers have the right to read that or not read it until they have seen the movie in question themselves. But please don’t misunderstand that I’m writing this from any place of anger; but as a person whose insights and observations about the industry are rich, important, and engaging, to oversimplify the reactions of colleagues, or dismiss them out of hand, only validates the ongoing argument that film critics are useless, unimportant, and not worth taking seriously as writers or analysts.
The ethics here don’t seem complicated. If you agree to an embargo date in exchange for admittance to a screening, you should keep your word. If you don’t make any kind of agreement, you should be able to publish your opinion whenever you want to.
Is there honestly any more to the question than that? We can whine about the studios making different deals for different outlets, but that doesn’t change the ethics on the reviewer’s side any. If you gave your word, keep your word, period.
Todd: Great post there.
The infantile need to be FIRST is a symptom of uber-web-capitalism, an accelerated culture that doesn’t think beyond what comes after FIRST.
Todd… appreciate the tone, but I have to disagree.
The drama started long before I used the phrase “groupthink,” which also is most certainly not a claim of any conspiracy.
No doubt, the anger was about old issues and presumptions about my attitude about the individuals who got so angry.
I wrote: “I’m sure that Inception will be THE studio movie for adults this summer… but when everyone starts drooling like this, I get nervous.”
It was that simple. And with that, Jeremy and Drew lost their shit.
After that, I was fencing with multiple people and responding to accusations and anger. Is Twitter the best place to discuss a fairly complicated idea like groupthink? No. And when I wrote a longer piece. I was accused of trying to avoid the conversation.
I NEVER said that any opinion was disingenuous. I didn’t bring up any specific review. I don’t CARE who likes it or doesn’t like it. I didn’t even have an opinion for myself at the time, except that the intensity of the responses were so overwhelming as to make one wonder.
I don’t think there IS a right or wrong answer to ANY movie. I love Speed Racer, but I certainly understand why so many people hate it. And I understand what the Inception LOVERS love and what the haters HATE… and most of it is around either buying or not buying the emotional content of the film.
And let me be clear… I do believe that groupthink occurs. I don’t think it requires a cabal or a conspiracy. Sometimes, it leads to extra positive reviews and sometimes to extra negative reviews. Sometimes, it’s a geek thing and sometimes it’s an elitist thing. Sometimes, it’s critics looking for something in the summer not to hate. Sometimes it’s talent that critics generally like to root for. Sometimes it’s Avatar, in which the criticism was blinded – both ways – by the spectacle of the truly new.
And it is not reasonable of you to suggest that people do not sway with the situation. Inception was being very tightly held and when Peter Travers smashed the embargo… well, it was a mixed bag. “Who cares… he’s Maria Salas with a better jobm,” is one response. Another is, “How could WB tell us we can’t be trusted to see the movie and this guy gets to write a full review, knowing it will be quoted immediately?”
The rest of the junketeers, including you, I assume, held tight. Fair? Not so much.
Next was the First Wave screening. Great. Again, a very specific embargo… but the embargo would be before any more critics’ screenings. Okay. Being invited to be in the First Wave does mean something to some people. I am not saying the reviews changed, consciously or unconsciously. But with a dozen or so reviews coming… and feeling good about the film… and assuming those around you, including The Geeks, would feel good about the movie… how do you stand out? Extreme comments.
Did Drew go extreme? No. And I never said he did. And I hadn’t read his review when this all hot the fan. I still haven’t read Jeremy’s review. I have read Devin’s review… but Devin being extreme is par for the course.
Thing is, I didn’t accuse anyone of being turned by the circumstances of the screening or the embargo or whatever… doesn’t mean some were not… doesn’t mean some were.
None of the specific reviews meant a damned thing when I tweeted. The issue of groupthink was not the issue when I tweeted. It was a wave with some very high peaks. When that happens, I am always wondering… and with good reason… we should all be at least that suspicious of what seems to be a singular voice about any piece of art.
And Sam… fair enough… the problem is that the studios change their word on the issue endlessly and with no response. An agreement requires two sides.
Those guys’ reactions may or may not have had to do with old issues, be they their own or with you, but I was only trying to point out that suggesting (again, even obliquely) that the relative unity of a reaction is insulting to people who believe in their integrity as strongly as you do yours. And this applies just the same to the first wave of pans, which were considered reactionary or as backlash to the wave of positive reviews. I assume you would agree that they are no less right or honest because they happened to review the film after this massive wave of positivity, right?
Whether you believe in their integrity or not, most critics would defend that their reactions and opinions are fully sincere and not influenced or driven by anything but themselves. And as you reiterate in your response above, you responded directly to the overall positivity of all of the reviews, not one or two, and that’s exactly what may have frustrated the writers who got upset. I certainly don’t like when my opinion is dismissed as fanboy gushing because I put a lot of time and thought into my writing, as they do, and it’s not fair for someone who considers themselves “above all of that” (and I don’t mean you) to dismiss those reviews out of hand just because we work for sites they don’t know, or don’t like, or our names aren’t immediately recognizable. Even if you hate me, disagree with me, whatever, I’d prefer if you do it because you read my writing and react to the arguments in full, not just the pull quote I put up on Rotten Tomatoes. And I may be presumptuous on their part but I think that’s how these colleagues who felt slighted feel about their reviews as well.
If the question really is about the embargo, honoring it, or deciding what importance or value it has, it seems like the bottom line is that it really only matters when you’re on the losing side of it. I spent a week asking the publicists at Fox when I could run my review for Predators, just because I loved it and wanted it to do well. I was told opening day, and then a day or two before, a bunch of people posted theirs anyway. And you know what? That sucks. But my review is up and out there now and people can read it and I’m no more or less effusive than when I originally wanted to say I thought it was awesome fun. Also, the embargo date for Inception was after not only junket press and critics saw the film, but others as well, of which your earlier post indicated you were part of that group but elected not to watch it.
Just to be clear, I don’t think that you’re wrong and they’re right. I am only trying to point out the ways in which your writing on twitter and your subsequent Hot Blog entries MIGHT have offended them, which you may not have considered. Personally, I would have loved to have more mixed reactions to the film during that first wave, because it would have eliminated this whole discussion, and we’d just be here talking about the generally-polarizing responses to Inception. But just because there is an absence of those negative reviews does not mean that the positive ones are not to be trusted – UNLESS you care to go through them and specify what in them you feel is just trying to get quoted or noticed or just provoke “best movie evar” conversations. As you said above, “we should all be suspicious of what seems to be a singular voice about any piece of art.” The cumulative reaction isn’t a voice, and what rankled people was that you suggested it was, and therefore all of their singular voiced were ignored or dismissed.
Again, I don’t mean to take you to task, nor am I upset, but only to ask for some empathy towards folks who, in my opinion, are thoughtful talented people who work hard to do their jobs. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to challenge claims and observations in their (and our) reviews if you disagree with them, or even if you just think they’re throwing out the big words to get noticed. But doing it because their review appeared at the same time as someone else’s that said something vaguely similar in the pull-quote isn’t fair to the people who, just like you, spend a lot of time and effort crafting their reviews so that those “extreme” words aren’t just the movie-ad gibberish, but actually mean something, to them and to the people who read the whole review.
David: Change their mind how? Is it that they say you, specifically, get one date, then change their minds about that date later? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. In that case, I’d still say you’re honor-bound to stick to the original agreement (unless the studio releases you from that responsibility) but can merrily ignore any more restrictive measures the studio tries to impose after the fact.
But if the issue is that they tell you (this is a general “you” here, not you specifically) one date and someone else another date, I concede that that’s obnoxious on their part, but it doesn’t change the fact that you agreed to the date you got. You’re still honor-bound to keep your word.
“The drama started long before I used the phrase ‘groupthink.'”
If you call 18 minutes (literally) between saying that all the positives made you nervous and then accusing people of “overripe groupthink” a long time, ok.
The “who me?” thing you pull when people react to clearly condescending remarks is weak.
Sorry, Winston… 18 minutes of “Contrarianism at its most predictable. Perhaps if Fox were distibuting…” and followed by “Precisely the point. You’re “nervous” about a gang of early raves. It’s shitty. You’re pre-judging. Admit it already.” And Drew comments that don’t come up on Twitter at this point.
It didn’t require more than my first comment to engage the rage. And yeah… from that point on, it was reactive arguing. No matter how many times I stated my position, they knew better what I thought than I did.
And now, “Winston,” you do too.
SAM – To begin with, there are 3 or 4 or more different “embargo” dates on almost every movie. The dates also change. They change based on circumstance and whim. As a result, there is a sense of competition involved.
This is a business. And advantages in whatever – review release date, access, exclusives – are not meaningless. Would it be easier if everyone’s editor wanted reviews on Friday of opening. But not how it works. And people are under pressure. The anger at Variety, in years past, when someone was allowed to review before them makes my stated issues pale by comparison.
PS. It is not shocking that a 140 character tweet… and sometimes even a longer blog entry… can be misconstrued.
That is why I am always willing to engage.
But the idea that I am expect to admit that I meant something that someone else has extrapolated from what I wrote, even if it doesn’t represent what I think, is silly.