..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

October 4, 2003

From The Chicago Film Critics

OUR STATEMENT RE: THE SCREENER BAN
(sent to trade publications today)

The Chicago Film Critics Association strongly opposes the current MPAA screener ban, one of the most ill-advised and potentially destructive ideas to emerge from Hollywood since the blacklist.

The major motion picture studios, responding to the lobbying of MPA head Jack Valenti, have agreed to halt the distribution of "screeners"-advanced tapes or DVDs of films supplied to Academy voters, critics and other trade groups during the always-hectic awards season. For the vast majority of the public, this decision will mean nothing. For those in the industry, however, this seems a notion conceived in desperation, implemented in chaos, and ultimately deleterious to the very art and industry it purports to support.

Screeners have become popular as studios, both majors and independents, have used them to expose their films, especially smaller titles often overlooked amidst the hype of big-ticket blockbusters. Screeners have proven to be very effective. The awards of many films such as "The English Patient" and "Shakespeare in Love" can be largely credited to the awareness created by the tapes. However, the MPAA has decided to overlook these great benefits and to focus instead, dubiously and myopically, on the dangers of film piracy.

This assertion is ridiculous. Although the studios have attempted to cast blame for the piracy on some journalists and Academy members, they have never proven that such activity is truly widespread. They may even realize that the more urgent piracy comes from opening-weekend crowds bearing tiny camcorders or, as in the "Hulk," from in-house employees. By outlawing
these screeners, the MPAA reduces the ability of many journalists to effectively do their jobs and Academy members to cast informed votes. There are far better ways of combating piracy without banning screeners, such as by encoding the tape image with an ID number in the black bars at the bottom of the screen, or by more closely monitoring the on-line auctions. The refusal to consider such alternatives indicates the piracy issue may be a smokescreen to combat an entirely different "problem." Recently, the Oscars and the critics awards have been dominated not by big-studio offerings, but by films from smaller studios. Last year, if you factor out quasi-major Miramax, many of the top Oscars (the Best Director, Actor and Adapted Screenplay nods for "The Pianist" and the Original Screenplay for "Talk to Her") went to indie studios whose films got wider exposure solely because of the availability of screeners. It should be obvious that the ban will hurt these smaller companies that will now struggle to get their films seen by voters, far more than the bigger ones- that have the resources for elaborate ad campaigns and can more easily block-book the limited
screening-room time slots.

Piracy of Hollywood films is a serious crime, costing the studios millions of dollars and hurting people who work in the industry. The Chicago Film Critics Association supports the MPAA anti-piracy efforts. One of our requirements for membership is a pledge never to sell or copy screeners, press kits, CDs or any other items received in the course of work. However, the MPAA "solution" is silly and ineffective. It fails to adequately address the fundamental issues of piracy and dubiously places blame on journalists and Academy members. The ban may seriously damage the ability of both critics and Academy voters to recognize award-worthy films, and of filmmakers to make them. Until MPAA officials can come up with a fair and workable solution, the studios should drop this ill-conceived crusade and concentrate on more important goals, such as making good movies.

The Chicago Film Critics Board of Directors