Anne Thompson’s plug for Oscar Talk:
In Contention‘s Kris Tapley and I have actually seen most of the Oscar movies now, and even though we’re not supposed to write about all of them yet, we do talk about the sexy musical Nine, Clint Eastwood’s Invictus and the mixed reaction to Peter Jackson‘s The Lovely Bones. We also get into the rising fortunes of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds and the marketing behind the last movie to be unveiled in coming weeks, James Cameron’s Avatar.
Click on over to Anne’s site for the podcast.
Iggy in the comments section wanted to know why embargoes were important. There is only one reason I can think of: to calm throbbing egos bruised from the self-imposed hierarchy of the season. But I can actually think of one good reason – the hype has been known to destroy perfectly good Oscar contenders as voters reach for that which has not been hyped up to death. Keeping the blogs quiet helps to calm the chatter somewhat. That’s one reason. Another is that, in my experience, those who write the reviews for the big sites can sometimes react off of what the early-screening folks write. Perhaps it isn’t something can be proved, but it has long since been something I sense. What gets lost in all of this? You be the judge.
Steve Pond sees it slightly differently over at The Wrap.
33 Responses for "Embargoes? We Don’t Need No Stinking Embargoes."
“But I can actually think of one good reason – the hype has been known to destroy perfectly good Oscar contenders as voters reach for that which has not been hyped up to death. Keeping the blogs quiet helps to calm the chatter somewhat.”
I dunno. Embargoes don’t seem to quiet the blogs or calm the chatter from where I’m sitting — usually they result in a lot of cryptic comments and speculation. To use AD as an example, it’s been increasingly clear that you were pushing for Invictus since you referred to Anne Thompson “interestingly” putting it at the top of her predictions, after screenings started happening. Since then, we’ve had three Invictus-related posts. In all three, if we include your activity in the comments, you make a case for holding back out the gate with early negative responses against presumptive nominees. In the last one, you respond to Guy Lodge by saying it’s all films you’re talking about, but in your post on McCarthy’s review, you commented directly: ” Invictus is the film that some have their knives sharpened for – there is one every year.”
Why change your tune? I’m irritated by embargoes because they sanction exactly the kind of double talk you’ve engaged in here: people have the knives out for Invictus//of course I’m not protecting Invictus! No, you are, and Lodge was right to call it. And yes, it is fine for you to take a stance on a film, as you are not some omniscient, unmoved Oscar deity. And yes, you did it while under embargo. No, none of us are likely to sue you for it. Discussions are much more interesting and fair game when we can all agree on what we are talking about.
As for reaching to “what has not been hyped to death” — why is this a problem any more than embracing something that has been megahyped but still good is a problem? I tend to think it’s a good thing when people start thinking “Hey, wait a minute, I’ve only been considering 10 films and there are another 10 I really loved, and no one is talking about them. Maybe…” How is it a bad thing that someone, bored of talking about Invictus, might reach to, say, A Serious Man?
I still have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t see a double standard. I loved the movie; I’m not allowed to talk about the movie. There are mixed reviews so far. I sense that the bigger the movie, the higher the expectations, the sharper the knives. It wasn’t Invictus I was even talking about at all – it was The Lovely Bones, if you must know. The atmosphere I see of deciding the Oscar race long before the films hit the theaters is wrong and embarrassing. I am not holding myself up — if you read the last post I said I was including myself. What I meant by my Twitter post was that just because a small group of people get to see a movie early doesn’t mean that movie is bad — you have to know your source. If they hate every movie that you love how are you to trust their opinion on anything?
It could have been said about Nine, The Lovely Bones, Invictus and maybe Avatar if it gets the same treatment – almost identical responses by the same group of people. I am here to fight against that kind of groupthink. It is your choice to read my writing — although after what you wrote above I wonder why you come here at all.
“But I can actually think of one good reason – the hype has been known to destroy perfectly good Oscar contenders as voters reach for that which has not been hyped up to death. Keeping the blogs quiet helps to calm the chatter somewhat.”
Good point.
But take Nine, for example, it’s probably the most hyped movie of the season. We’ve been seeing pictures, teaser trailers, cover magazines, extra photoshoots, footage… you name it. And it’s been for months now. And then the screenings come and you can’t write a review. To follow your simile in the other thread, it’s like being in the middle of it and then the whatshisname stops to attend a phone call. Or even better, stops to make a phone call to make a third one jealous. It’s going to take really good skills to get you going again.
Right, well they’re caught in a pickle because the onliners demand that they be allowed to see the movie like the long lead critics. They demand to see it but in some cases can only be allowed to see it if they promise not to talk about it. The other stuff you see is promotional, nothing more. The end result being – how best can the studios position their film to make money? How best can they position it for Oscar? Turn the bloggers against you by withholding your seeing it and they may damage your film anyway. Embargoes are their way of doing damage control in either direction.
Awards Daily, for the most part, is in the Oscar watching business but it’s also in the advocacy business. We tend to put the best feet forward for the various films out there, whether they are advertising with us or not. So I’m called out for positive Invictus coverage but not positive Avatar coverage….
Well that’s a rude response. I come here because I’m interested in Oscars, follow them religiously, and enjoy discussing them with other people. Your response is like saying “I don’t know why you watch CNN or write in the forums there at all” to someone who has problems with Wolf Blitzer’s news reportage. CNN is still CNN whether you always agree with Blitzer or not.
“I still have no idea what you’re talking about.” What is “still” in reference to? And what did I write that was so incoherent? You responded to pretty much every part of my comment except the part about smaller movies getting a piece of the pie as people get bored of frontrunners; was that when I started speaking Yoruban and became unintelligible? I don’t think anyone has said “I have no idea what you’re talking about” to me since high school, and it was rude then, too.
I try to quote specific things I disagree with because not everything I say is meant as a big thumbs down to you as a person, in general, so why make your response about me as a person, in general? I’m sure your site stats will tell you I’m a pretty obsessive regular, and sometimes I’m even starshine and rainbows. (And I recall being a pretty staunch defender, in your camp, of Benjamin Button.)
So now that that’s said…
“What I meant by my Twitter post was that just because a small group of people get to see a movie early doesn’t mean that movie is bad — you have to know your source.”
I’m not sure what you mean here — who is making the claim that a movie must be bad just because someone has seen it early? And who are the dubious sources you have in mind? If we’re talking about The Lovely Bones, I’m guessing you mean people like Xan Brooks and McCarthy/Honeycutt? I’d venture enough people have read their earlier reviews to get a sense of what they like, no? But if you mean Invictus, I’m guessing you’re referring to the new Huffington Post writer who gave it a 6 despite not being a recognizable critic?
I guess I’m just not seeing the wave of early bad buzz for films like TLB or Invictus from people who *don’t* already know those sources well enough. Or, to put it in a less convoluted way, the people who take stock in the bad Variety review for the former probably read Variety regularly enough to have an idea about what that pan means.
Every movie bar one has been damaged by pre-release Oscar forecasting. Which makes Warners decision to keep their big winter release totally out of the reach of Oscar bloggers a very smart move indeed, and one likely to pay extremely handsome dividends. When the dust settles at the end of December and there’s just one big fat studio hit left standing, one fresh in the minds the public, the industry and Academy voters, the signs are increasingly likely that the name of that movie will be SHERLOCK HOLMES.
While I’m not sure Holmes is a clear Oscar player, I think you’re right Hunter. It’s sort of in the Gran Torino slot, if it can be called that — anticipated but hushed up, then revealed as a major box office player while the others are punching it out in more critical forums.
I actually like the Karl Pilkington cryptic clue dance bloggers sometimes play when they can’t officially review a film.
At the end of the day for embargoes to work it requires everyone to play nice. But with so many sites competing for the same audience or to be part of a timely conversation (I won’t dare say be first, heh), therein lies the rub.
Quiggles, I certainly did not attack you as a person – I just wondered out loud why you would bother if you believed that the speaker or writer was giving you back bullshit or doublespeak. And no, not Invictus – certainly not that HuffPo producer. The reaction to the movie will be what it is – my only point in the first place was to pay more attention to the measured, careful and well thought-out response than necessarily the FIRST out of the gate. Not unlike what David Poland wrote in his last Hot Blog item.
Let’s not forget that the very reason we have ten Best Picture nominees this year is because The Dark Knight was shut out last year. So where is this year’s big popcorn picture, one with critical and public acclaim, the one the ten was designed to make room for? Maybe it’s going to to be AVATAR. Maybe. But the Dark Knight was a Warners Picture. So is Sherlock Holmes. I feel a tsunami of Oscar campaigning for Holmes coming that would put Roland Emmerich to shame..
I think embargoes are there as a way for studios (and more importantly, studio’s marketing departments) controlling the “conversation” of their movie, because really reviews are another tool used to market movies. If they set an embargo date, they can coincide the flood of reviews (hopefully with many positive notices) with a new leg of the advertising campaign, a new TV spot or preview, a nice big color ad in the Sunday paper, etc. As someone who sees review embargoes all the time when reading about video games, this is the conclusion I’ve come to.
Hunter, I’m really excited to see Sherlock Holmes. It looks like a fun movie. But then I remember who directed it (I did love Snatch and Lock Stock…) and any thought of Oscar campaigns immediately disappears.
A good movie is all about the script. Some people think Ritchie wrote Sherlock Holmes, but he didn’t. It’s written by Anthony Peckham, the writer of Invictus.
A bad movie is all about the script as well. Some of the criticism I’ve heard about Invictus points squarely at its screenplay.
I guess I’m cautiously optimistic about Holmes being a good film but not so optimistic about Oscar. But hey, great reviews can change anything. Hopefully its not embargoed
I feel like its these five are locks:
1. Up in the Air
2. Precious
3. The Hurt Locker
4. An Education
5. Invictus
And then the rest will come from this group of seven. I think any two could miss out:
Avatar
A Serious Man
A Single Man
Inglourious Basterds
The Lovely Bones
Nine
Up
So out of the big four, one isn’t done being made yet and the other three all had “it’ll be nominated but it won’t win” receptions. I’m starting to believe Tom O’Neil more and more about Inglourious Basterds being the frontrunner or possibly Sherlock Holmes will slip in after all.
it’s funny…last year films like milk, doubt and revolutionary road were held back from film fests (toronto in particular) because the hype of every movie secreened in 2007 was too deafening and expectations were too high.
anyone remember atonement? a great film that probably would have received even more nominations if it wasn’t for the buzz. before it’s bow at tiff, people in the theatre kept on saying “this is going to win the oscar. except almost no one in north america had seen it yet.
i love this site and i love hype but my problem with too much hype and coverage on a movie like, say avatar is that no one writing these articles has seen it. i wasn’t really interested in it from the beginning but to be honest, all the coverage on this site has really made me want to avoid it even more. however, the excessive coverage of the hurt locker encouraged me to see it.
the reason why? everyone posting about the hurt locker had seen it.
i think bloggers should be able to talk about the movies when they see them…i just think studios are worried because of way too much pre-hype.
In my almost six years of film reviewing, I have only once had to agree to an embargo: that was this year when I saw Bruce Beresford’s Mao’s Last Dancer, as we were seeing it before its world premiere at Toronto. The embargo ended once the film premiered.
Like some people here, I get to see films before their cinema release, sometimes months in advance: The Road and Precious and A Single Man are not being released in Oz until Jan 28. Feb 4 and Feb 25 respectively. The Hurt Locker has now been moved back to March 18!
I may mention these films in passing to friends but I do not post my reviews for said films on my blog (which I only started recently) until closer to the release date (at least a week). The magazine I write for only publishes every two months so I sometimes feature brief long-lead reviews.
Obviously the media in Australia is insignificant to the studios’ Oscar hopes hence no embargoes. But it is true that knowing too much about a film, good or bad, especially so far in advance, impacts how you come to a film. I find the less I know or expect from a film, the more I enjoy it.
Once I finally see films that I have high expectations for – Precious, A Single Man, Up in the Air – my reaction has been: “oh, well, that was good . . . ”
Again, it’s not the film’s fault it failed to meet my expectations but such early word or buzz for a film really does it no favours. Campaign wise, yes; enjoyment wise, no.
I also appreciate that I am in a privileged position of seeing films before the general public and for free (I’m so glad I rarely have to pay; I pity those who have to take a family of four or more to the multiplex, ouch!) That privilege doesn’t mean I should give good reviews to bad films in return, but it also means that I should respect the distributors wishes when they ask that I not publish on a film before a certain time. It’s give and take.
“i love this site and i love hype but my problem with too much hype and coverage on a movie like, say avatar is that no one writing these articles has seen it.”
So one should should write an article on it? 60 Minutes, CNN, EW, Newsweek, Time, they shouldn’t cover Avatar because they havent seen it? I dont think that’s being realistic.
You can’t compare coverage for The Hurt Locker when it was in theatrical release to Avatar which doesn’t have its world premiere until December 10th.
In an unrelated topic, I just saw “At the Movies”, and A.O. Scott called “Where the Wild Things Are” his fifth favorite film of the decade. You read correctly. That’s some strong appraisal, no?
Where the Wild Things Are is actually my #1 of 2009 so far, so it was nice seeing it appear as A.O. Scott’s #5 of the decade.
I do think it has a slim shot of surprising people and slipping into the 10 BP nominees. It did only get a 74 BFCA rating and the reviews were a positive-mixed sort, but many of the people that gave it positive reviews loved it. And that’s the sort of passion that helps get films nominated.
I would be thrilled to see Where the Wild Things Are slip in for BP. Wild Things, Bright Star and Hurt Locker are my top 3 films for 2009. I doubt that any of them will be eclipsed by what’s still to come.
#1 “The atmosphere I see of deciding the Oscar race long before the films hit the theaters is wrong and embarrassing…What I meant by my Twitter post was that just because a small group of people get to see a movie early doesn’t mean that movie is bad
— you have to know your source. If they hate every movie that you love how are you to trust their opinion on anything?”
OK, so the same applies if they love every movie you hate, correct? You can`t trust them. And it`s wrong that Oscar race is decided long before films hit theaters both for positive and negative reviews, correct? I mean, it isn`t fair to label something bad ahead of time but isn`t fair equally to label something good either.Because, in both cases, it`s a minority that`s deciding while majority`s sitting in the dark waitinbg to accept whatever minority decided.
I`m just assuming you don`t feel this way just because your champion is not received as expected (with raves). IMO, this could’ve been seen coming from miles away because the book is utter crap. So damn if you improve on it (by trimming the fat that rabid fandom is now bitching about), damn if you cut and paste the book (and make shit movie that only rabid fans would love and nobody else). I`m sure it`s a good movie thanks to all those necessary changes but that it is now getting mixed reception is no surprise. It`s just the situation where 50% won`t be pleased and other 50% will be.
They’re afraid of bad reviews. They’re afraid of these year end “Hard Sell” movies losing money. And they have no faith in their own judgement of what’s good.
If they REALLY thought a film was good there wouldn’t be all this tap-dancing about the “Big Four.” I mean, really.
In the theatre it’s called Flop Sweat. You can see in the faces of actors like I saw it in Mel Brooks’ “Young Frankenstein” after the majorly bad reviews came out.
The forced smiles. They know they’re on a sinking ship, but they have to continue to be all EYES and TEETH! And they look like they’re sweating, when they should be having a good time…
Like all the PR peeps around TLB…
They, nobody, wants to be releasing a loser, esp. something touted as an Oscar hopeful. And every year the expectations are…diminished…when the films are actually, finally seen…
“Sherlock Holmes” by having no expectations whatsoever placed on it is yes, indeed, probably in as good a position as any this year, to surprise…Ditto “Brothers”
And BTW whatever happened to “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus”??? It’s opening, but nobody is even talking about it…
REALLY?! I haven’t seen “At the Movies” yet but I am seriously seriously surprised! In a good way though, hehe. I’m more surprised by the fact it was Scott and not Phillips, actually, as Phillips seemed to be the one more enthused with it (and declared it as his #1 of 2009… are both guys going to have it at the top by year’s end? WOW!).
From a marketing standpoint, the embargo is very simply enacted to create maximum public awareness at a time that will best profit the film.
In most distribution markets, embargoes are in place until the film opens in that market. The end result is a bunch of reviews/articles in as many local publications as possible at the exact same time– right when the film hits theaters.
I don’t know how they work it out for bloggers who aren’t based in a specific market. I’m not even sure that distributors know how to best work it out yet. But I’m sure the basic goal is the same: to achieve maximum buzz/awareness at a time that will bring in the most profit (and maybe awards traction).
@The Natural
So far Phillips and Scott’s top 10 of the decade have no overlap. If they are considering overlap (I assumed they weren’t, but I suppose it doesn’t make sense not to) then Phillips will probably have Where the Wild Things Are in his top 4.
I’m curious to see what Scott and Phillips had to say. I didn’t get to see the ep that it was on, but it should be online in a few days.
No, I mean at this point it’s looking like both guys will have “Wild Things” as #1 of this year, 2009. Unless Scott has another 2009 movie he likes better and that ends up further on his decade Top 10. Same goes for Phillips. Who knows!
See, I guess this decade list is assuming that they’ve already seen all of what 2009 has to offer. But since they started the list over a month ago, I doubt they saw all of 2009’s films.
EVERY YEAR IS DIFFERENT.
IN MY FARM, EVERYBODY IS PREDICTING “THE BLIND SIDE” TO GET PICTURE & ACTRESS NOMINATIONS
Why I cant see my comment? I was trying to put the GOLDEN SATELLITE AWARDS Nominees
http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards2009.shtml
@ Sasha
The only probably I have with embargoes is that they’re not effective. If you wanted to control for hype, then you would not release the cast, the plot synopsis, the director, the writer, or even the title. The anonymous producer would just announce that s/he’s releasing some movie next year. People get hyped for different reasons. the hype of the Dark Knight grew way before anyone started to write about it. I knew Nolan was directing it, and it’s a Batman movie. We don’t know why folks go crazy for films. Embargoes focus on one particular rationale, but there are many.
Do I really see it differently? I don’t know that I do.
You wrote about Todd McCarthy’s “Invictus” review, I assume, because you thought it was newsworthy. I wrote about that one, and the other reviews that had come out, for what I think were similar reasons. I certainly wasn’t trying to hurt (or help) the Oscar chances of a movie I won’t see for a couple more days. (The headline, by the way, was not my doing.)
When the Unseen Frontrunner (a ridiculous creature, of course) is finally seen, naturally people like me are interested in the first reactions. But in the long run, what Roger (or Manohla, or Kenny) thinks is going to mean more than what the embargo-breakers think. And when those other folks sound off, I’ll probably write about them, too.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.