The New York Post’s Lou Lumenick writes up the only piece of news about the story that broke this morning, which was Sony announcing that the New Yorker’s David Denby was planning on breaking the imposed embargo on reviews for Dragon Tattoo. As far as we know, December 13 is the date any of us can write about it. However, once I heard Denby was going with his, I knew there would be no holding back the floodgates. Thompson on Hollywood’s Anne Thompson said on Twitter that once a major publication goes live with their reviews, all bets are off. Since I gave my word to the studio about it, I won’t yet name Rooney Mara’s Girl the performance of the year and I won’t get give my thoughts about this film. But if others break the embargo and Sony is okay with it I will post my early review.
In Lumenick’s piece he reveals that Entertainment Weekly’s Owen Gleiberman and New Yorker’s David Denby opposed the NYFCC date change (I happen to agree with them on that – was premature, a bad choice and unnecessary) and apparently in protest of that he is breaking the embargo. Of course, it isn’t going to really hurt Denby; “you can’t come to Vegas and talk to a guy like Moe Green like THAT!” Well of course you can, if you’re Michael Corleone. And if you’re a major film critic with the New Yorker you can do whatever the hell you please – Sony is still going to want you to review their films.
So, what else does Lumenick’s article reveal about Denby’s review? Good stuff:
Denby saw the film on Nov. 28, the day before the New York Film Critics Circle voted on its annual awards (“Dragon Tattoo” came away empty handed). Before the screening, Denby — supported by Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly — vehemently opposed the organization’s decision to vote on awards two weeks earlier than usual, and in several e-mails urged us to delay the vote until after we’d seen “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” a movie most of us haven’t even been invited to yet.
Did Denby jump the gun deliberately to make it harder for the NYFCC to see movies earlier (and vote earlier) next year? Given that the New Yorker often prints reviews well after every else, you really have to wonder.
As for Denby’s review, which apparently won’t go up online until tomorrow morning, I’d characterize it as positive to mixed, though he begins with a pull quote that Sony’s marketing department and awards spin doctors will find useful: “You can’t take your eyes off Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander…”
He concludes by stopping short of a money notice: “This is a bleak but mesmerizing piece of filmmaking; it offers a glancing, chilled view of a world in which brief moments of loyalty flicker between repeated acts of betrayal.”
Denby has problems with the source novel: “At heart, of course, the material is pulpy and sensational…There are certainly lurid moments, but I wouldn’t say that Fincher exploits the material.”
As soon as I can post my own review, I will.
I say just break the embargo, I’ve seen the 8 minute long trailer and the movie seems like it is very good, not quite a movie critic though.
quote tattoo
I couldn’t read the novels. Yes, in the minority again, but the truth is they are just too preposterously over-the-top for me. I live in the downtown eastside of Vancouver, where women went missing for over a decade while we clamoured for investigations into the missing women, only to be patronized by the very police force that should have been investigating. The horrifying truth when it came out was just that – horrifying (involving dildos on handguns and all sorts of stuff you don’t want to know about). The books seem to me to be a case of imposing art and convention on a subject that resists it heartily. It ends up looking like a re-fetishization – the Swedish films downplayed it with their pacing, but I’m very suspicious of all the comments about how “hot” the actress playing the lead female role is. It’s edging toward the distasteful to me.
Clearly, Sony felt it needed all the help it could get within the Awards area. The Academy clearly is not Fincher-friendly. And this is a very harsh movie, just judging by its’ trailers. De-saturated color palette. Every thing is grey, grey, grey.
And certainly Fincher can deliver a commercial thriller, which it seems he’s done. Awards are another story. The Millennium Trilogy won awards in Europe in many countries…
But the Academy gave it bupkiss.
So now we’ve got ANOTHER naked young girl in her ’20s. Something the Academy is prone, ney, OBLIGED to like. Or at least watch.
So Mara has that advantage. AMPAS members will pop this in their screeners.
I think they (the public) will go Mara crazy. Millions have read the book, for one, and this is a very unique – and powerful – female lead, the likes of which we have never seen before. Strong, very smart, damaged to the point of vengeful, and NOT reliant on looks. Perferct female lead for Fincher and Mara is going to kick ass – I can’t wait.
(Pulpy as they are, the damn books got me hooked and I’m just reading the third one. Love that character.)
If Mara really is THAT strong, how come (in spite of a “Breaktrough” win) she hasn’t been nominated for Best Actress in the first couple of critics awards? They all saw it the day before they voted. Is it just too soon after Noomi Rapace?
She should be winning awards then. Jennifer Lawrence got notices EVERYWHERE last year. The critics groups always seem to LOVE throwing awards to film that haven’t been shown yet just to say “hah, we saw it!”. But if the public go Mara crazy with magazines, interviews, copying the look in Christmas/January, they can’t ignore her.
It would be funny if BAFTA nominated her the year after they nominated Rapace for the exactly same role for a film with the exact same title (I’m afraid to call it a remake, cause the fanboys are ready to KILL whenever people call it a remake)… 🙂
For the people who responded to me, I STRONGLY disagree. For the umpteeth time, I know they have had screenings but it was not early enough and it is certaintly not enough time to beat the momentum established by the early favorites. War Horse, Albert Nobbs, and The Dangerous Method have had far less screenings compared to The Artist and The Dangerous Method which had many months to build up traction whereas the previous films I have mentioned only have had a month. It is bs to claim they have had chance to build up traction when these early Critics Choice awards clearly are favoring the nominees that have the hype right now.
The hype pendulum can swing and change dramatically throughout the last two months. Alot of the critics awards keep pushing it back so many of the later contenders are not getting the same traction because I think the December releases are being put on the backburner. It takes time to evaluate films properly by making comparisons. I find it hard to believe War Horse, Albert Nobbs, or The Dangerous Method are not favoring well with the critics or would not be well-received if these journalists would just give it a chance rather than lavishing all of the acclaim on their established favorites.
This awards race is a mess. The Indie Spirit nominations were haphazard with a lot of inconsistencies. It is not just the later releases but some of the earlier releases like TOL, Moneyball, and etc that are dying down on the radar because The Artist and The Descendants is currently dominating the zeitgeist unreasonably.
@Buzz: I agree. Why can’t it be like it used to? These award circles can’t force back studios to release their movies earlier. Many movies squeeze in distribution at the end of December. December used to be a key month and the deadline is at the end of December. They should wait until all of the movies in 2011 are done and over with to make their trends cemented for the award race. War Horse, The Dangerous Method, and Albert Nobbs have not had the chance to gear up their campaign strongly enough against The Artist and The Descendants who have had a strong Pr campaign for over three months. Earlier releases like Moneyball, TOL, HPDH2, Midnight in Paris are just starting to gear up their campaigns in December. A lot of actors’ and agencies have NOT ignited their campaign yet.
I am still contacting the organizations because Dec.13th is still way too early to announce The Critics Choice Nominations. It is also too early for the GG nominations. It has not been a fair or balanced movie campaign at all. The timing is just off and messy which has caused the
awards race to be imbalanced. I think it is a disaster and I know plenty of others who feel the same way.
The best thing is to wait and see the movie by yourself and make up your own mind – who cares which critic says this or that first?
Does Sony believe this will have an impact on the BO-success of the film? Don´t think so!
Colin Biggs
You are right…if Denby agreed to the embargo, he should have kept his word. My problem is with the whole embargo concept and this incident gave me opportunity to explain why. That’s all.
Damn. The full review did not survive the night – it has been taken down.
I stopped reading it. Too spoilery. But I usually avoid reviews in advance for just that reason. The drama made me click. lol
Thanks, Beth. Revealed nothing we already knew.
Here’s a link to the full review (I hope).
Denby review
Oh nevermind, it’s just an abstract
I am dumb, sorry guys
lol THAT’S the review people are going crazy over?
THAT?
The full review is a rave. But you have to be a New Yorker subscriber to read more than just the abstract.
How is that even a review? It is four or five sentences that vaguely describe it.
Does it matter? Denby loved the movie and praised Mara. Studio should just run with it and be happy.
The review that dare not speak its name is now online:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2011/12/12/111212crci_cinema_denby?mbid=social_retweet
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo starts off at BFCA with an 83.
Meanwhile, Extremely Loud has dropped all the way down to 75.
@phantom
I suppose my problem is with people whose word means nothing. At the end of the day if your word doesn’t mean anything, than you are worthless.
The simple question is, why would you show our film to anybody, especially a film critic, then demand that they not speak about it? The motive here is muddy to me.
Plus, I don’t see that anything is gained from an 11th hr showing and it will only hurt the film’s overall reception in the long run. Did Sony think that full appreciation would materialize overnight, after one rushed viewing? The result is, “I guess it wasn’t that good if it didn’t do better than that in the early awards.”
It’s chances now lie with some unrushed positive reviews and the possibility it will blow the shutters off the box office.
Buzz
Excellent point.
What is the problem of awarding films in January after all the films of the year are over and done with? If these critics groups followed the calendar year and did their awards then, this whole fiasco would never have happened. I don’t see why they felt the need to give it now, I understand it’s for influence to the Oscars, GG’s etc… but now, with this… they should really think about changing the game. What is the harm?
Colin Biggs
The studio wasn’t forced to do anything, they could have opted to miss out on the NYFCC – just like the Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close-people did – but clearly they didn’t want to start the Awards Season with that kind of disadvantage. The New York Film Critics Circle even postponed their awards announcement JUST to accomodate Sony. If they didn’t have something to gain, they wouldn’t show the film to critics two weeks before they are allowed to write about it. It’s not exactly a courtesy or the sole sign of respect towards critics, when they expect awards in return for the screening, is it ?
Having said that, if Denby agreed to the embargo, he should have kept his word. But that won’t change my opinion…I think embargo is completely unnecessary. If you don’t want critics to write about your film, don’t show it to them or at least not until you WANT them to write about it. The problem here was that they had to show it early on to qualify for the awards, but they only wanted their vote, not their professional opinion or at least not now…and that bothers me. That’s all.
I guess this would have been a more appropriate article to post in, lol
“BTW, I respect David Fincher as much as anybody but you guys realize that a Academy Award nomination for Girl with Dragon Tattoo isn’t a very sure thing, right? Even though many feel he got screwed over last year and the AMPAS is poised to give out one of their “make-up” awards. I mean this new films seems more in the vein of Se7en, Zodiac, Fight Club, The Game, Panic Room, etc…which total all of 2 nominations (editing for Se7en and sound effects editing for Fight Club) between them. Granted his last 2 films, Benjamin Button and Social Network were both big time players…so maybe the Academy has come around but will they embrace a film that is more similar to his work of old? I’m not so sure…”
Tess, most of the movies you mentioned have had a number of early screenings already. A Dangerous Method (which is in limited release right now), Carnage, and Albert Nobbs screened at numerous film festivals several months ago; War Horse surprise screenings have been popping up all over the country recently. There’s been plenty of time for critics to properly evaluate them. At this point, I think Dragon Tattoo is the only film that’s suffering due to the early announcements — and frankly, I think it’s Sony’s fault for waiting this long to start showing the movie. The other studios seem to be rolling with the punches just fine.
Also, it’s entirely possible that these aforementioned late contenders are having trouble building up traction because they weren’t well-received by the critics…
It is STUPID for the Critics Choice Award nominations to be announced this early. Dec. 13th is way too freaking soon. I also think the announcement for the GG’s should be postponed. I don’t understand why they keep pushing it back earlier every year since it screws up the race with the later releases that don’t have as much screenings to be at a disadvantage.
Perhaps they’re trying to force them into releasing movies earlier in the year so there’s more time to watch them all. Obviously it’s not working because I don’t remember a December glut like this before. But I kinda thought that was the reason they keep trying to move everything earlier. I maintain that the so-so ratings for awards shows is because normal TV watching folks don’t have a chance to catch up. If most awards bait came out earlier more people would see them, therefore more ratings for the broadcasts. Just a guess though.
@Phantom
They could have not seen it at all. That would be disrespect. Considering they forced Sony to play it earlier than anticipated as a pissing contest with NBR, it’s solely a one-way street.
Please visit the entry on site issues or the WAFCA nominees because I don’t want to be redundant but I think it is a significant issue.
It is STUPID for the Critics Choice Award nominations to be announced this early. Dec. 13th is way too freaking soon. I also think the announcement for the GG’s should be postponed. I don’t understand why they keep pushing it back earlier every year since it screws up the race with the later releases that don’t have as much screenings to be at a disadvantage.
Yes, War Horse and other movies have had limited screenings but it is usually a day or two before the award nominations are announced. That is NOT enough time to build up traction when compared to movies like The Artist and The Descendants which had numerous early screenings, are in theaters, and had the chance to build up PR hoopla. They should be announced at the end of Dec or better yet in January. Then the CC’s should be held at the end of January or later than that. I miss the old timeline.
It is too rushed with the early announcements in Dec with the critics not being able to evaluate the films properly. The films that are “in” now like Hugo, The Artist, The Descendants, and Shame just get more love by default because the late contenders don’t have the chance to leave their mark yet. It takes time and campaigning to build traction. The cutoff date for movies is Dec.30th. A lot studios squeeze in releases in Dec. In the Land of Blood and Honey is a wash-out unless it moves to 2012. I know a bunch were also attempting to squeeze in late in Dec but were forced to postpone to 2012 because these idiot awards keep pushing back their announcements too early which seems to favor the current zeitgeist which is NOT fair!
The Dangerous Method, Carnage, Albert Nobbs, War Horse, and possibly The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will be at a disadvantage with these early announcements because they do not have the same chance for buildup or acclaim or traction. I think I might even contact those organizations because it is plain stupidity for them to push back the date every year. Every year, they have done that, certain movies get left out or do not receive enough attention.
A bit off topic:
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN open is Los Angeles on Friday.
I could not find an ad for it in today’s Los Angeles Times.
I wonder if they have enough money to send dvds to academy voters.
Probably not.
How in hell can Tilda have a chance if many voters are not even aware of the movie?
Oscar, politics… it’s all about money
Colin Biggs
I might be wrong, but didn’t Denby saw the film at a special screening for the New York Film Critics Circle ? Because if he did, it was NOT a courtesy, it was a “please provide great early word for our film exactly the way we want you to, by awarding it in one/several/all of your categories BUT after giving us your vote, don’t you dare write a review until we tell you to” screening.
My problem with the whole story, that the studio is curently doing a lot of screenings for the critics groups so they could give them awards BUT they won’t even let these critics write reviews only when the studio decides it’s the right time ? It seems to me, that if Denby is accused of disrespecting the studio, it might be a two-way street.
I say screw it! Break the embargo!
BTW I saw Shame today and really liked the film. I was impressed by Fassbender in every sense of the word (yes I’m talking about his penis). Mulligan also did fantastic work in the film. Hope they are able to garner Oscar nominations.
@phantom
It’s not about providing early support for films, it’s about getting hits for their sites.
People like Denby see these films as a courtesy, not a right. Release the review when they suggest.
The publication that runs the review on Monday, clearly is aware of the embargo but they decided to ignore it, probably for publicity OR simply thinking they can get away with it. I’m with Nikki on this one, especially considering the film NEEDS some good early word ASAP, now that the Awards Season started … that is, IF the producers want awards and why wouldn’t they ? Another week of silence could result two other films getting stronger and closer to lock-status in the best picture race.
Every now and then, late entries make it (Million Dollar Baby, True Grit, The Fighter) and receive the oh-so-crucial best picture/best director nominations … but recently, those films were right up the Academy’s alley. A genre film, even an excellent one, NEEDS all the support it can get during the Awards Season…and the worst part about this story, that it seems to me, the studio has just turned down one of their supporters…David Denby.
Julia
Sasha has ALREADY seen ‘The Iron Lady’…
@Antoinette Because there are several awards before their release and for them to be eligible, they have to screen their movie to them. For example, the Critics Choice Award Nomination Announcement is on 12-13-11, which is before their release date.
Mulligan was equally good. It’s a bizarre and fascinating duet between those two. She is as committed as he is to the material. I’m so glad this movie was made.
JJ, what did you think of Mulligan’s performance? Was she good?
I don’t get embargoes anyway. Why don’t they just wait and show people the movie WHEN they want them to report on it? It seems silly to let people see it and then tell them they have to be quiet.
Lol. Saw Shame. Not, “was shame.” Freudian slippage? who knows.
P.S. just was Shame at the Arclight. Blown away by that film. Fassbender was spellbinding. I’d call that the performance of the year. Makes Clooney’s work seem sitcom-y and Pitt’s work a little too surface.
Ohhh, can’t wait for your review Sasha.
I’m glad Mara rose to the occasion. Because casting her was sort of ridiculous considering the non-performance she gave in the Nightmare on Elm Street remake and the perfunctory turn in The Social Network that any of those CW girls could have handled.
When will people start viewing the Daldry film? Does anyone know?
why is rooney mara being posed naked to promote the film always??? is that really necessary coz it looks cheap, at least for david fincher film.
Sasha,
Why are waiting to see if others break the embargo? Is it a case of safety in numbers? Surely once Denby’s review is out there, the dam has been broken and all things are fair in love and war.
I hear it opens with a 7-minute conversation between Lisbeth and a goth lesbian she’s breaking up with at a bar on the fringes of the University of Stockholm campus.
“I won’t yet name Rooney Mara’s Girl the performance of the year”
Take it Mara owned it then?
Early word all round looks like Mara has really impressed, the film is looking at positive (maybe not great) word….The review seems to have a problem with the novel not the film.
Knew this film would deliver
“I won’t yet name Rooney Mara’s Girl the performance of the year”
Because you haven’t seen Meryl’s Thatcher yet?
Anyway, “positive to mixed” probably wasn’t what Sony was hoping for from their first review.
This is all something of a shitstorm at the minute. It’ll be interesting to see what sort of an impact it has on the film’s chances, it could go either way. Or, indeed, we could all have forgotten about it by the time the film’s out…
“I won’t yet name Rooney Mara’s Girl the performance of the year” Hmm not yet… 🙂
It seems like the least Denby could have done is wait nine days. The New Yorker is never going to benefit that much from a review that is breaking embargo.
It will be interesting to see who jumps in the boat with him.