Gross Behaviour - by Leonard Klady

Un-leveling the Playing Field

Last week, following a screening of Intolerable Cruelty, I ran into a couple of brethren from the Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. After a few pleasantries were exchanged about us and the film just viewed, the discussion naturally segued into life without screeners.

I'm not about to moan and wail about the poor critic who subsists on a diet of three to 10 movies a week. It is a privileged existence, especially if it provides three squares. However, I'm also not about to dismiss screeners as a sop. They serve a real purpose, especially as we enter deeper and deeper into award's season.

Last Friday, two films received a national release in America. Additionally, five other films debuted in exclusive runs in Los Angeles and/or New York. In the present distribution climate, it rates as an average volume week.

Of those seven titles, I managed to catch four prior to their release and will try to catch up to one of the remaining three in the coming weeks. Ordinarily, I might call the distributor of the catch up title and ask him to send a screener but have now been made acutely aware that that particular option has been removed when it comes to films released by member companies of the MPAA and their affiliates. So, my custom of late night and weekend remedial home screenings will be significantly altered.

At another recent screening, the Los Angeles Weekly's Ella Taylor groaned about the recent screener ban and wondered aloud whether she would be able to vote in good conscience when LAFCA holds its awards meeting in December. Taylor, who has a young child, had mapped out a screening schedule that would include a sizeable number of home viewing sessions for movies scheduled to open commercially between Thanksgiving and December 31. It would be a shame if she felt compelled to absent herself from the process because of a combination of quality time at home and babysitter availability that would fall short of her seeing a handful of important late year releases.

It occurred to me that with the abbreviated award's season and the Oscar schedule pushed forward by four to five weeks, that the potential influence of high profile film critics and reviewer organizations could be at an unprecedented high. Whereas members of the various critical awards groups don't have to alter a traditionally harried year end schedule (albeit without the screener assist), members of the Academy and the guilds will be receiving nomination ballots practically at the first of the year and expected to make up their minds about the annual bests by January 17.

Traditionally, the Academy has held its tongue about virtually all things Oscar. However, for whatever reason, spokespeople in the past have noted that a vast majority of its membership returns completed ballots within 72 hours of receipt. If that habit is maintained given the shortened schedule, members of the film industry will likely be influenced in making last minute screening selections by the winner's slate announced by the National Board of Review, the Los Angeles and New York Critics Circles and the nomination list for the Golden Globes. There will also be considerable sway from ramped up marketing campaigns for the highest profile releases in trade and conventional newspaper, television and on-line outlets.

The scenario was inevitable whether screeners were a part of the equation or not. The Academy had already altered its screener policy to allow for their dissemination at any time of the year rather than the prior stipulation that they were not to be mailed prior to November 1. However, the prospect of receiving movies on tape in October was rendered moot by the MPAA decision last week. The current heated dialogue on the issue can only intensify once non-member companies begin to send out the likes of Whale Rider, Girl with a Pearl Earring and Shattered Glass.

The terrain of Kudosland has been altered to a point where familiar landmarks have been rendered unrecognizable. There will always exist a degree of tyranny about awards and prizes, whether they are conferred by a handful of people or a group comprised of several thousand members. Bias, friendship and outside influences have impact upon selections and the decision to fill in or forego one's ballot cannot be discounted. But the new wrinkle in film awards is shaping up to be about getting tushes in seats. The so-called smaller pictures were able to do that in the past decade by sending out VHS copies to film critics and industry professionals.

In the new era, indies can still do the mailers but the specialized divisions of the studios cannot and don't generally have the war chest for exhaustive screening schedules wherever Academy members reside. Even if they did, screening room space is at capacity and the window of opportunity has been whittled down considerably.

There have been numerous examples cited of movies whose fortunes changed considerably for the better as a result of awards and nominations. One that comes to mind is Gods and Monsters, an unusual drama about the last days of Frankenstein director James Whale starring Ian McKellen and directed and written for the screen by Bill Condon. The film - co-financed by the Showtime Network - was named best picture of the year by the National Board of Review in early December 1998 and there's no question that the acknowledgement ramped up its profile and opened many new commercial doors. It would go on to receive awards and nominations and sustained theatrical box office leading up to the Oscars and win one statuette for Condon's adapted script among its three Academy nominations.

Looking back in the rearview mirror, the crazy quilt of craft and commerce as it pertains to Gods and Monsters seems ultra frantic. There's no question that the choice of the film was bold and a bit of grandstanding. It also thrust it into the spotlight and elevated it to a level of award discussion that even good reviews and aggressive campaigning could not have achieved. That profile meant a lot more people caught it in theaters and international sales ballooned. The film was recognized for its art and that became the difference between a success d'estime and a commercial hit on its own terms.

The history of Oscar winners and nominees is largely an achievement record of the Hollywood mainstream that constitutes its membership. Prior to 1969, the only foreign-language film to receive a best picture nomination was Grande Illusion in 1938 and the instances of nominees and winners in other categories were extremely rare. The tote board for films and individuals for work outside the studio system was also extremely limited though anything resembling a true alternative to the majors in the U.S. was no more than anecdotal prior to 1979. Nonetheless the award had enormous cache and served as one of the best promotional devices to bolster the financial prospects for the community's serious pictures.

While independent and international productions such as Atlantic City, Das Boat and Tender Mercies figured prominently in the new era, it wasn't until 1983 that a film released outside the studio system was nominated in one of the eight artistic categories (Fanny and Alexander for original screenplay and direction) and two years later Island Pictures would secure a best picture nomination for Kiss of the Spider Woman and Oscar prizes for actor William Hurt (Spider Woman) and actress Geraldine Page (The Trip to Bountiful).

The advent of screeners in the late 1980s truly opened up the field beginning with a best picture nomination for My Left Foot and two statuettes in acting categories for its cast. In the subsequent decade performances by 37 actors, 18 writers and 10 directors would be cited for work in independently produced and released movies and that doesn't include such studio acquired titles as Leaving Las Vegas, Shine and The English Patient. In 1996, winners of seven of the top eight categories were from films developed outside the studio system.

It would be a lamentable situation if the absence of screeners resulted in worthy work being overlooked by the Academy Awards. While the organization has to date taken a position of Omerta on screeners, someone inside has to be wondering how the 20% of its members that live outside Los Angeles and New York will see several of the year's most significant movies prior to the close of nominations. The concern has to be that the exclusion of quality work on a technicality diminishes the prestige of the award. It's a tough pill to take after swallowing the hard truth that all those other awards leading up to Oscars in March eventually made the big prize seem a tad anti-climactic.

In all likelihood the various critical awards that are announced in December will continue to reflect the totality of American movie going options (at least in the big cities). From experience, I can vouch for the terrible rush to judgment sometimes involved in selecting outstanding achievement in mid-December. However, there's no denying that both majors and indies work diligently to ensure that voting members of critic's organization have many options to see both the sacred and arcane in an admittedly teeming dance card.

We've not nearly begun to hear anything approaching a resolution to the issue of screeners. However, in little more than a week since the official announcement, its focus has shifted increasingly away from its link to piracy. Articles quickly articulated that the technical means of distributing and policing these tapes exists and works if one wants to pay the freight and monitor the situation. I'm not certain this avenue was fully explored by the studio reps to the MPAA and can say without hesitation that these same people skimmed over the possibility that the dicta would create rancorous divisions in all sectors of the business.

If the message the majors wanted to send to Capitol Hill that it was doing its part at home by eliminating this tiny leak in the dike, the handling of the situation has created one awfully sooty backfire. It's the sort of gross miscalculation - a la D.C.'s recent, seemingly vindictive intelligence breaches - that can result in prompt regime changes.