Finding The Embargo Line For Ourselves
Variety did a piece on the issue with Justin Chang and Peter Debruge. Mostly, it’s fine.
But I take exception to two notions offered by Debruge.
As trade critics, we are in the very privileged — and precarious — position of writing the first reviews out of the gate on most films, often days or weeks before movies open. That’s a tradition that goes back decades (owing to Variety’s role in helping exhibitors decide which films to program), back before our reviews were quoted and disseminated by blogs and aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes.
Actually, Variety took the step of pushing their content, including reviews, to Reuters long before Rotten Tomatoes and blogging took hold of things. And it would be completely false to suggest in any way that Variety was not extremely aggressive about its competitive position with review dates from the very earliest days of the web. Tradition, shamdition.,, it was about being FIRST!, just like every other “blog.”
Now for my opinion… there is ZERO reason to continue the tradition of Variety or The Hollywood Reporter getting first position on reviewing anything. It’s silly. These outlets are in direct and undeniable competition with all of us in the media, online and off, and offer nothing more – aside from some quality critics compared to some outlets, but not all – than any other outlet.
And…
The latest wrinkle has been the rise of special treatment for Oscar bloggers — an embargo-bending practice that Rudin himself instigated last year, when he showed both “The Social Network” and “True Grit” to awards-season pundits first, inviting them to run their (predictably positive) reactions before showing the films to print critics. The practice continues this year, with awards columnists given express permission to gush about “Young Adult,” “Hugo,” and “The Iron Lady” before critics are allowed to weigh in.
Well, let’s be clear. The first review for The Social Network came from Film Comment, released online, a couple of weeks before any of the “pundits” even saw the film. And the same day that “the pundits” had access to the film, the trades both had access to the film and there was no variation on embargoes.
And as for True Grit, also a bit of self-serving spin. Yes, the gamesmanship was greater on how that film was shown. Personally, I waiting for a second screening before reviewing and ran my review a week after Debruge’s. But more to the point, the “pundits” were not remotely unanimous or primarily positive. The “pundits” mostly dismissed the film, actually. The difference in review dates for “pundits” and the trades were a day or two. And in the end, the RT score on the film was 96% positive. So bad example of manipulation, Mr. Debruge. It’s kind of funny how the trades going second, a couple of days after the “pundits” is a crime, but The Trades demanding to be first on every film is just “tradition,” even though they are out selling their stuff asap.
As for this year, Young Adult was first-reviewed by The Minneapolis StarTribune, not pundits. The film played in promo events in 5 venues around the country before it got to LA… and then played in the same screening that also included the trades and the LA Times, amongst others.
Hugo premiered at The New York Film Festival and was pointedly NOT shown to the “pundits” in LA at the same time. And it received a massive tongue bath from the crew at Film Comment in the process.
When it was shown in LA, also unfinished, everyone in the 800 seat auditorium was asked not to run full reviews, but was free to write something about the film. Is this a game? Yes. Does it have much of anything to do with manipulating “the pundits?” No. And Variety reviewed out of that same screening… on the same review date everyone else was given… apparently without ever going back to see the finished print.
The Iron Lady had a 4 pundit screening, yes… and paid a price (much the same way a movie sometimes does when they set the trade review date and then make everyone else hold for a few days). I missed it because I was busy during those early screening times, but was surprised to see any reviews out of what was described to me as an off-the-record screening. But I think the movie got dismissed by the one legitimate writer who saw it and wrote about it that day… unfairly, in my view. That’s the double-edged sword when it comes to stunting.
This is a complex situation. I believe in embargoes being evenly set and screenings alike. I feel no need to review before Variety or anyone else. And I don’t feel any other publication should be given the right to review before me. Roll ’em out… set a date… be serious about penalizing those who break embargo… free the horses when it’s time.
(By the way, people outside of LA and NY would suggest that I should get my head out my butt, as they are not only less likely to see a film early, but most of the time, more strictly embargoed than anyone on the coasts.)
The truth is, the trades are at a big disadvantage having to compete with everyone releasing reviews on the same dates. Being first assures a certain number of eyeballs. Being in a pack means that only people who care about the specific outlet or critic will bother stopping to read the review. It’s no disrespect to Peter or Justin to say that no single critic actually connects with every reader. But if there is only one review, only one review matters. I understand fully why the trades have fought fiercely to keep that first review slot.
What is not addressed is the new game, really launched this season, and yes, heavily involving Scott Rudin… but he is hardly the only one. Studios and producers are going back to the “we want a wave of reviews during opening week.” So there are more and more cases where “you can write but not review” as they try to get two bites of the apple. This is too complicated. No one – not the studios nor the critics (pundit or not) – should be having it both ways.
I suggest the following standard…
If you show it at a festival, it’s available for review.
If you sneak it in public theaters, it’s available for review.
If you show the movie to any writer who is allowed to write about it in any format, it’s available for review from the day of the first written piece, review or feature.
If a publicist wants to show me or 100 writers a movie to get an opinion, it can be embargoed by agreement. But the minute any of us are allowed to offer any opinion on the movie, embargo is over.
If you show a movie to a critics group for awards consideration – or the NBR or HFPA or BFCA – the embargo is over.
====
The truth is, no one who is writing critically about a film should be spending the amount of time all of us end up spending trying to parse who reviews when, what is or is not a review, or where any of these lines are. We are not publicists. We are critics.
This is another reason why the NYFCC early voting date pisses me off. it makes them part of the problem, not critics simply responding to the work put in front of them. If you have to request an early screening before it is offered, you are overreaching.
This is all a work in progress for publicists. They don’t deserve to be raked over the coals any more than Scott Rudin… which is to say, not at all. They have a job to do. We in media have jobs to do. And it doesn’t help when Variety tries to throw other professionals under the bus for doing exactly what they do and try to do… worse, to use false information to do it.
But I like Peter Debruge (barely know Justin) and I think he/they are just trying to do their jobs too.
Critics are so busy competing for position that they don’t want to set real standards. Which sucks. And publicists are in the job of positioning their movies as effectively as possible. That’s just what it is.
Critics have to say “no” when offered opportunities that are unfair to other critics. Outlets (and “critics groups”) have to be direct and honest about who is a critic and who is a feature writer who has an opinion about movies. How to make that determination is not easy in some cases… but until critics and their outlets decide on a standard, we cannot expect studios and publicists to set the standard for us. And we can’t fairly blame them for playing games.
Let’s be honest. There are four classes of review now. 1. Quote Whore/Junketeer (which are not necessarily synonymous, but often are) 2. Trade reviews 3. Non-trade reviews by people with a relationship with the national level of the studios 4. Everyone else.
Time to rethink the whole thing. Seriously.
Studios want quotes from early, easy reviews. Let’s not fight it, but let’s not blur it with more serious criticism.
Will there be a wave of “more serious criticism” before opening week? Let’s not fight it. Let’s set a date for that.. for everyone who is going to be allowed to review on this schedule all year long. And if you break embargo once, you are out for 3 months. Twice, 6 months. Three times, a year. Four times, permanent ban by the studios. Go see movies in a movie theater if you want.
Then on opening week, review away. No more games with weeklies that publish on Wed or Thurs. But same embargo rules. No hopping from group to group.
But here’s the deal. If you are in Group A, you can’t call yourself a film critic. You are a feature writer. And the studios can’t call you a critic either. We all get to make choices in this world. If you want your name on a lot of ads in the weeks before opening, do what you must, but leave your claim of legitimacy at the door.
For Group B, if critics for the trades or major newspapers or magazines see it for Group B, even if hidden behind the excuse of Long Lead, all in Group B see the film. No games of picking which outlets see it when. Group B all has the same embargo date, so they all get to see the movie clean
Group C is simple. Review the week of release. Embargo is in effect. Show the movie. No forcing every critic into a room filled with laughers or gaspers. Respect people’s professionalism and show the movie and they will respect the rules too.
I’m sure there are variations on this that some are thinking of as they read. Fine. I have no objection to other ideas of how to delineate. My point is that it needs to be delineated. Things have changed and the old rules just don’t work anymore. I can work with restrictions, but working without any clear ones… ones that change week to week… sucks. And it sucks on both sides. Time to behave like adults BEFORE we behave like competitors.
“If you show it at a festival, it’s available for review.
If you sneak it in public theaters, it’s available for review.”
The fact that any studio thinks otherwise is still ridiculous to me. Only this year have I blatantly noticed them flying in the face of this. Once every last critic is laid off, and online reviews are all that’s left, it won’t be applicable. (I hope that day never comes, but it’s hard to be optimistic)
Otherwise, David, a whole lot of great suggestions that will never happen for mostly obvious reasons. Especially the one about studios making it clear the person they’re quoting isn’t a critic.
Again, not trying to be rude but….yeah, there are parts of my job that suck too. But I’m not thinking that anyone is interested in it, and I’m not writing column and column about it. The fact that this has been up since yesterday and there’s only one other comment must show that there’s a lack of strong interest here. The embargo situation obviously affects you, and the movie blogger world…but it doesn’t affect much else. Hearing people whine about when they can write about a movie and who wrote about it first, seems to me, perhaps one of the least important problems in the entire world.
And here is what I’ve hesitated to write for a long while—how important is it, really, for you to review any movie? There are some amazing film critics–some of whom write on your site…and I am sometimes curious as to what a few of them are going to say. But I’ve never counted you among those. I don’t feel that the world thinks of you as a movie critic. I think the perception is more of a movie blogger who would like to be a movie critic. I’ve never breathlessly awaited your reviews…and I’ve never had long conversations around the water cooler about what David Poland thought of a certain movie. Well..that’s not entirely true…and that might be part of the problem. For some of us, you’re always going to be the guy who thought Phantom of the Opera was gonna win best picture. Not that this was just a mis-call…but the movie turned out to be god-awful and more a candidate for a Razzie than an Oscar. Also, your writing is very serviceable for a blogger…but there’s not a single Poland line that I can quote from any review…nothing memorable. So do we, your readers, lose sleep over whether you get to review a movie first or second or eighteenth? Honestly, I feel that you are just lucky to be invited to those screenings at all.
Glamourboy… I am sick of writing about myself.
I don’t know you. You clearly don’t know me… or know much about what I write… or I’m not sure how you’d still be obsessing on one column I wrote 7 years ago (which, of course, you’ve misquoted and misinterpreted as a review when it was not a review at all).
So instead of insulting you or explaining why I have earned a status that you can’t comprehend, perhaps you can tell me… Why in God’s name would you read me?
You don’t like my criticism. You aren’t interested in my analysis of entertainment journalism. I don’t mean anything to the world in your view. So why are you wasting your time?
David Poland: He’s not your lover. He’s not your friend. He is something that you’ll never comprehend.
Well, Joe, I wouldn’t die for anybody on this blog.
But it is head-spinning sometimes to mean nothing and to be the town bully from minute to minute.
Maybe I should do a poll and gather my top 10 fuck-ups during 15 years of doing this… in honor of the 5th anniversary of Dreamgirls. (Of course, I still don’t see that as a real fuck up… and the 95% of people who thought the film would be nominated might feel the same way for themselves.)
Funny how no one ever writes in to tell me how many things I’ve been right about against a tide of people disagreeing with me.
OK, at the risk of sounding snarky at best, condescending at worst: In light of what you’ve written on this post, what do you see as your role in the scheme of things? Seriously: You have described the site as a “trade” on a least one occasion. But you also review movies. And yet you also offer commentary on the film business. And you do video interviews. And while it appears to rankle you whenever anyone refers to you as such — you’re a blogger. What do you see as your primary job? What would you — not Glamourboy, not me, but YOU — say is your official title? Because — again, seriously — that might go a long way toward indicating when you (or anyone else in roughly your same position) should be allowed to view a movie.
Out of curiosity Dave, how many reviews have you written this year? less than five I think, I’d be shocked if it was more than ten, once about every three months you post something on this blog with “Review:” as the header before listing the film title, otherwise your blog parses the goings on of this town. I’m not sure 6 or 7 reviews a year makes you a critic. If I recall correctly, back when the blog was the Hot Button you posted reviews regularly, but since you started blogging, you’ve stopped reviewing. Personally I’d like to read more of your reviews and don’t see why you don’t write at least one review a week when you’re going to all these screenings, if you’re not even reviewing should you even be complaining about embargoes since you’re almost never subject to them?
“if you’re not even reviewing should you even be complaining about embargoes since you’re almost never subject to them?”
If he didn’t complain about the embargoes, he’d have about 10 fewer articles/blogs to write per year…
Here we are… again… discussing me, as though I see myself as the story or everything is about me.
I am subject to the embargo discussion every time I see a movie outside of a film festival.
I write what I feel like writing. It’s changed annually. Generally speaking, I review something if I feel the urge to and do not if I don’t. I generally avoid smacking around small films because they don’t need the headache.
When I “should” see a movie is a completely ambiguous idea. My personal preference is to see a movie clean. I don’t much care anymore when I write, though when I am delayed from writing, it often leads to me not writing a review these days.
I don’t consider myself a standard bearer, in terms of how I deliver content, for any part of what I do. I am not a traditional anything as a journalist. I never have been.
I am interested in filmed entertainment. In the making of film, the business of film, and all that is associated with it. I’ve been paid as a journalist for about 20 years now, almost 17 of them as a full-time job. But I have never really wanted any job other than the ones I have created.
Thing is, I’m pretty sure that putting me in a box won’t improve the state of journalism, blogging, film criticism, interviewing, blogging, or chief editing a 24/7 news aggregation site. For better or for worse, things I do overlap with a lot of people, but there are almost no times when anyone is doing close to exactly what I do on a daily basis. That’s not meant to define how well I do all of it or any of it… i’m just saying that I’m just walking my own road.
I don’t expect to be anything but a work-in-progress. I didn’t know that 5 years ago, when I agreed to be talent, doing 5 minute improvised segments on camera every week, I’d end up producing over 100 hours a year of interviews with talent. When I started The Hot Button, I had no idea that blogging would happen and everyone would suddenly see themselves as an expert in everything. I had no idea when I started doing a weekly Oscar column that it would drive a business model that dozens of outlets have emulated and continue to try to emulate.
I want to be stimulated. And when I am not, I will do something else altogether. My value to others is unknowable, really. Some very powerful people are very serious about seeking my counsel and others have no idea who I am. Some think I am an idiot… others an important thinker. Some a barnacle on the hull of the movie business, others able to change their fates.
As I wrote before… nothing I do is so measured. The more time I think about what I do, the less I do and the less well I do it. I don’t care about making millions. I don’t care about how many comments or page views a blog entry generates. And I don’t count my reviews.
The one thing I do know is that if you want to know what I think about movies, you should be following me on Twitter too because if you don’t, you’re missing half my opinions or more these days.
And now, I will go have lunch. Please feel free to step up and hit the pinata, if you so wish. It will hurt. And if someone defends me, it will soothe. But neither is going to change my life or my work much anytime soon. When that change comes, I will be the one responsible for it. For better or worse.
“Here we are… again… discussing me, as though I see myself as the story or everything is about me.”
If it keeps happening…again…,maybe that should tell you something about the way you’re communicating things, rather than how we’re interpreting whatever you’re saying.
And now feel free to write several more hundred words about yourself, explaining why what you’re doing isn’t actually about yourself.
As a long-time daily visitor, I do not feel like there are too many stories about embargoes, and the great thing is one can pick and choose what they want to read. Imagine that. Plus it’s not as if DP is the only writer covering the industry discussing the issue.
“Some very powerful people are very serious about seeking my counsel and others have no idea who I am. ”
who are we talking about here ? actors / movie biz people ?
do you take any credit for any oscar wins last year ? one movie you really liked and helped out a lot more than other critics ?
movie reviews are now super easier to find then ever ..