TNMC
This site’s design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
Psychotic Reactions
-- John Shea
8 October, 2003
Howdy folks. It's been a while since I've written one of these. At this point I'm half afraid to look at my email and all the complaints about my laziness. In my defense, I'm working on some other things for the website that you can't see just yet. But you will eventually. I've been a little oblivious to the movie world while I work on the site's guts but it was impossible to miss the furor that erupted over the MPAA's decision to put an end to the use of screeners. Jack Valenti, the MPAA head, decreed that no longer would the studios be allowed to send screening copies of Oscar hopeful films to Academy members and critics. Why? A number of these screeners have been copied and offered up for free on the internet. Thus Valenti claims that he wants to put a big dent in piracy. Is that really what he wants though?
Certainly, the screeners are a source of illegal copies of movies. AT&T recently released a study they conducted that showed a significant percentage of bootleg movies were coming from within the studio system. Valenti obviously latched on to that detail and used it to slam the door shut on screeners. The problem though is that he clarified his position, a clarification that raised the specter of conspiracy. This is the memo that was sent out on the subject:
"Questions by some of the companies' subsidiaries have been quoted in the newspapers. It has been reported that some subsidiaries believe it is ok to send out screeners if the film has been released in home video form. This is incorrect. The policy is - no screeners of any kind are allowed to be sent out. Once an exemption is made, the barn door is wide open. I hope you will instruct your subsidiaries that no screeners are to be mailed, whether they have been released in home video/DVD or not."
Why on Earth would it be unacceptable to send out screening copies of movies already released to video? If piracy is really what this move is meant to stop, then screeners shouldn't be considered a threat as the films are already readily available to be copied. In fact, screening copies would be considered inferior as they are often branded with "Property of" captions during the movie. So the question is why the move?
The easy guess is that the studios wanted to minimize competition for awards from indie films. Little films like American Splendor and Lost in Translation are going to have a hell of a time getting attention without the use of screeners. At the same time, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King should have a pretty easy time of it. A big budget leviathan like that will have no trouble getting attention and should be well viewed by Academy members. When you look at it like that, it seems obvious Valenti has it out for the indies.
Unfortunately, that doesn't really hold up under close examination. Many of the so called indies are really dependents of larger studios. Miramax, Fox Searchlight, Sony Classics and Fine Line are all subsidiaries of major studios. They have more funds than the true indies but still not much to work with. They too will be hurt by the lack of screeners. So how do you explain a move that seems to be so financially damaging? The MPAA is not just the ratings board. It is the movie industry's lobby group. It is charged with protecting the industry from all threats. Based on that an attack on the indies would seem reasonable but an attack on its own subsidiaries would not.
So the only conclusion that I can draw from this decision is that Valenti and the MPAA have made a colossal blunder. He has made a knee jerk reaction to an issue they've been busily whipping themselves into a Chicken Little frenzy over for months now. He and the studios actually believe they can thwart bootleggers by cutting off one of their own best marketing tools. Screeners help critics and Academy members see all the potential candidates for awards and honors. The Academy is made up of people who work in the industry. These are busy people who simply do not have the time to get to every available film. Valenti calls them lazy. The respected director Norman Jewison (Moonstruck, The Hurricane) had this response for him:
Dear Jack,
When every Academy member can view all the films in contention, then it's a fair and even playing field. However, when the small independent film, which depends on it's artistic appeal rather than wide commercial distribution by an MPA member - is now denied access the playing field becomes unfair and uneven.
Piracy to a small independent film seeking an audience is simply good word of mouth. Artistic accomplishments in film should not be compromised in an effort to protect the interests of the major studios.
Jack, I understand your struggle against the very real problem of piracy in film, but I don't agree with this action directed towards members of the academy.
Sincerely,
Norman
The frenzy of awards season means that an unrealistic number of movies are released in the last quarter of the year. In 1989, when screeners first appeared, 37 movies were released in November and December. In 2002, that number leaped to 87. Even professional critics, who are payed to watch movies for a living, cannot get to all of these films in time if they were forced to attend screenings. But they could watch a number of them at home and thus dramatically increase the attention given to serious films.
Valenti's decision smacks of short sighted thinking. The only move I could consider more short sighted would be this:
It was announced today that the MPAA had ordered that in order to fight piracy, movies would no longer be released to the public. From now on, movie patrons would still be charged the usual ticket price and concession costs. The main difference would be that upon entering the theater, an usher would read this statement: "The film you expected to see will not be released to prevent it falling into the hands of pirates for distribution on the internet. We assure you though that the movie you expected to see was very cool. It would have rocked. Trust us."
I wrote an article demanding Valenti's ouster from the MPAA a while back and this only confirms my belief that he needs to go. An industry leader that pushes policies intended to treat customers and critics like criminals is wildly out of touch. This sort of behavior is rapidly killing the music industry. Rather than learn from the RIAA's mistakes, Valenti intends to expand on them. The studios need to settle on a replacement for Valenti with extreme haste before his piracy fueled paranoia devastates the industry.
- Email Me
What do you think? Talk about it on the Forums
