Thursday, 4 January 2001

YESTERDAY’S RANT

Leave it to me to leave out a central argument in my column about film criticism yesterday I was writing under the influence of a powerful headache.

My central premise, the reason I wanted to write on the subject in the first place, is that criticism has been turned upside down by the marketing and by the Internet.... because it makes everyone their own film critic. But it is not, as so many suggest, an issue of either democracy or anarchy. It is false democracy. The game is to give audiences the illusion that they have enough information to make an informed decision about a movie without the "word of mouth" that a critic, in his or her essence, provides. A "first look" in this business is a first look at the marketing campaign... that’s all. But if they can get you to bite on the trailer, the first look, the print ad, or the 30-second spots, they don’t need critics on any level and neither do you... so you think. This problem has become so prevalent that we now find ourselves analyzing trailers and ads as though they were the films themselves. Yes, I’m guilty. But that’s a part of my job here in this unique forum. But I’m just the tip of the iceberg. "Regular" people are constantly discussing this trailer or this ad as they make their moviegoing plans. What they are discussing is a piece of advertising, a form of art in and of itself, but not the art that they are considering paying to see.

And there is very little anarchy at all, ever. If fact, some studios have mastered the art of offering up the image of anarchy when all that you are really getting is a different kind of marketing. The "anarchist" is usually the first one to be swayed by ambition. And since the audience for what is typically perceived as "the cutting edge" is already made up of frequent moviegoers, the only real influence these "anarchists" can have is negative. Of course, not on high, wanna-see films. At that point, all bets are off. But on middling films, early negative buzz can have an effect, not so much on consumers, but on the media, which is always looking for a new angle, regardless of its legitimacy. And so studios make precautionary runs at those who they feel can hurt them, trying more to avoid the negative than to encourage the positive.

So where does this leave the legit film critic? They might be a little pliable, but the assumption within the industry is that they are going to offer their real opinion on the release date of the movie -- that is, too late to actually affect the opening weekend after weeks of advertising, often disguised as criticism. The key moviegoers, the ones who will go to movies on an opening weekend, have already decided what they are or are not going to see before the Friday morning paper hits the doorstep or the weekend episode of Ebert & Roeper airs.

In the new millennium, the business life cycle of a movie is less than a year. In this era, the bottom line of a studio release can be estimated within about 15 percent after the first 10 days of a film’s release... not just domestic box office, but foreign, video, DVD, pay-per-view, pay-cable, basic-cable, and network re-runs. If critics don’t really fit into the beginning of the cycle, where do they fit in? And if the role of the critic is a big blur to everyone, including the critics themselves, how does the group overcome the lack of definition? How do we set goals for ourselves? How do we know what is "right"?

All critics out there will have answers to these questions that they themselves are absolutely clear about. But only one in every 100 will match someone else’s. And so, once again, we are left to our own definitions of our roles, city by city, paper by paper, web site by web site, movie by movie. And for all the charm that a backroom conversation amongst peers has, the lack of even the kind of "tribes" that marked the 1970s critical community is a sign of danger.

Is film criticism dead? Not yet. But as I wrote yesterday, it is going to take the passion of a new generation that is willing to fight for a seat at the table... not just to do their jobs but to rage at the sky in search of a higher calling. Mind you, this is not meant to dismiss the efforts or passions of the many critics working today who care deeply, but who find themselves caught in the whirlwind. I am calling for a revolution that will demand more than would ever be fair to expect from any group. At least, that is, until it is a true matter of survival. Perhaps, say, 2005?

ROTD FOLLOW-UP: Big Ed picked up a theme from yesterday’s column that I think is worth exploring here. He wrote -- "Right time frame, wrong TV program. The real huge change was the debut of Entertainment Tonight in 1980, the first program to marry editorial content to the publicity flacks working directly for the studios. In the program’s early days, Leonard Maltin was on board as resident film critic. He was able to give bad movies the bad reviews they deserved. As the program grew more successful in the ratings and more dependent on the studios to provide movie-star interviews to fill up that air time, the reviews became more infrequent until they eventually disappeared altogether. E.T. is more responsible than anything else for the replacement of serious film criticism on television with the mass-media junket-interview/hype that clutters local newscasts today.

"Ebert’s show is just about the only place you can still get a serious discussion of films on television. Every week, they review a film that seldom opens in my market (Providence, RI). The real reason the blockbuster mentality has such an iron grip on the business is because a bunch of financially strapped (and bankrupt) national theater chains will not spare even one screen for anything that isn’t a sure thing for a Big Weekend."

Interesting, Ed. I would suggest that Siskel & Ebert made E.T. possible and that the inclusion of Maltin was a direct reflection of the show they were trying to emulate in some ways. But indeed, E.T.’s success and eventual willingness to allow marketing to supercede journalism was a significant moment. A major part of that choice by the powers at E.T. was the need to film time. Two and a half hours a week might not seem like a lot to you, but in an industry where very little real news ever takes place, it is a lot of grist through the mill. And as E.T. faced competition, the need to generate exclusives, which was never going to be done with reporting, lowered the journalistic bar even more.

As for exhibitors extending the blockbuster mentality, you are simply wrong. Sorry. A big reason why the theaters are in financial trouble is the blockbuster mentality. If your 12-plex wants Mission: Impossible 2, you will have the film on six screens on opening weekend or you will not have the film. And you will make almost no money on the sale of tickets until weekend four or five, by which time, under current conditions, ticket sales will have dropped around 85 percent from that opening weekend. But Mission: Impossible was the hit in the scenario. Look at Battlefield Earth. Not only would a 12-plex be looking at, say, three or four screens minimally to get the Travolta movie, but those screens would likely be untouchable for three to four weekends. By weekend three, you had two or three screens that couldn’t dump this film, generating an income of 50 percent of a $323 per screen for your theater... and those screens were dead during the Memorial Day Weekend mass movie attack. Would a Billy Eliot generate more than $500 total for a screen in Rhode Island almost any weekend of the year? You betcha. But it’s not that simple, for the exhibitors, the studios or for you, as a consumer.

A DIFFERENT KIND OF LOSS: Ray Walston is dead. I grew up on "Uncle Martin" on My Favorite Martian. I loved him in Damn Yankees!. His turn as Popeye’s pop, Poopdeck Pappy, is one of my favorite performances ever. For me, there was also a bit of personal history. When I was but a pup of 19, I tried to hire Walston to be in an Off-Broadway show I was producing. The reason it failed to come together was simple. Walston had prioritized spending time with his ailing sister. I didn’t know what to expect, but my conversations were a joy, even if I never got the chance to work with the man. I was thrilled when he made a career comeback on Picket Fences. I’ll always remember that voice... he will be missed.

READER OF THE DAY: C. W. & The Dixie Dance Kings writes -- "I know you touched on this in your column/rant on film criticism, but personally, I think that an even bigger factor in why the opening weekend is so important is video rentals. There are some movies that I go to opening night (or weekend) because I really want to see them. Then, there are a few that I may go see the following week. But more often than not, after a week or so of release, I just shrug and put it on my mental list of DVDs to rent. Because after a week or two, there are more movies out, and then there are just too many, and some get shuffled off to video. But then, that’s just me."

And J. T. Superstar writes -- "I think one factor that’s easy to overlook is the influence of local reviewers. While they may be of little use to the studios’ national campaigns -- except for the quote whores -- local reviewers with steady followings may well still have some effect on film word-of-mouth.

Moreover, I think the main remaining effect of critics is when they have something resembling a consensus. If a prospective viewer can tell a friend, "Geez, every review of that film says it sucks," that’s an important piece of word-of-mouthage. I don’t know how many people can name their local newspaper’s film reviewer, but I bet a lot more read those local reviews nonetheless and try to correlate them to what they see on Ebert or hear from friends."

E ME: The argument continues... good thing, since there is no news and virtually no new films to write about.