Gary Dretzka
Leonard Klady
David Poland
Ray Pride
Patricia Vidal

October 18, 2003

"Then must you speak
Of One that lov'd not wisely but too well."

Perhaps Shakespeare best described today's move by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association to cancel their annual movie awards unless the MPAA reverses itself on the screener ban. The decision is surely amongst the most foolhardy to hit Hollywood since the Chicago Film Critics obliquely compared the screener ban to the blacklist (the careful wording of the CFCA's statement aside). But I do not question the sincerity.

The bizarre part of the move by LAFCA is that it is probably the final nail in the coffin of any hope that the affiliated indies had of getting the MPAA to change course on the screener ban.

If there ever was any real possibility of the MPAA finding a compromise on the ban, it would have had to, as with all renegotiations with powerful people, include a comfortable route of retreat. Even Frankie Pentangeli was given the chance to take care of business himself after he backed off and "did the right thing."

The intention here was for LAFCA to send a strong message to the MPAA and to get other critics groups to join in on the fun. But what the LAFCA has done, unwittingly, is to back the MPAA into a corner with a threat. Now, if the MPAA makes a change, they will appear to some to have responded to that threat.

Even if a studio was leaning towards voting to change the ban, this move makes that choice virtually impossible. Because giving into the LAFCA adds a whole new layer to the shit sandwich that has to be eaten if MPAA is going to make a change. And every group that joins this movement - some LAFCAers are hoping that National Society of Film Critics will be next - adds another layer of excrement.

No one becomes a studio head by being an easy mark. And when you back a real fighter into a corner, you better be prepared for a mouthful of knuckles instead of an apology. The MPAA will not strike out against the critics. But they may kick them where they are vulnerable… in their illusions.

Of course, if I am wrong, and the MPAA announces a change next week, LAFCA will be seen by many as grandstanders, trying to build an image of power by riding on the coattails of the work done with the dependent indies since the ban was announced. I would disagree that the intent was such, but I might be lonely.

Also contributing to the devaluation of the LAFCA for now and forever will be the reason offered by the group for canceling the awards. As of this moment, they will be claiming that the lack of screeners will prevent the group from doing its job properly, making a vote unfair.

There are four groups for whom this argument does not hold enough water to drown an ant. LAFCA, New York Film Critics Circle, National Board of Review and The Hollywood Foreign Press Association. The latter two groups are, of course, laughably overserviced and indulged by the studios. The first two groups are made up of real working film critics in the only two markets in the country in which screenings are required in order to be considered for Oscar nominations. Of course, critics do not see every movie. But any non-MPAA signatory remains free to send screeners and any MPAA signatory will certainly do handstands to get members of these groups to see screenings of their films.

LAFCA members will counter that it is much more convenient to catch up at home. And surely it is. But that is beyond the point. One part of the trouble is the number of late season films that come up. However, LAFCA and NYFCC could alleviate that problem by simply moving their votes into 2004… you know, after the year they are discussing has actually ended.

Even more worrisome, what happens when almost every member of the LAFCA delivers a Top Ten list to their editors? Is the Top Ten list valid, while their vote would not? After all, they can't do their jobs without the screeners. Those Top Ten lists must be some wild guesses!

And then there is the great ironic sadness of all of this. If the ban does not get reversed and the LAFCA Awards do not happen, this group of esteemed critics will have done equal or greater damage to the Oscar prospects of the films they feel will be hurt by the ban than the screener ban itself will.

While people have convinced themselves that the screeners are absolutely critical in the pursuit of Oscar nominations, they forget that the screeners, however valued, are just one of the tools in the effort. Advertising, publicists, word-of-mouth and personal campaigning are just a few of the other tools that are, in reality, more important than the screeners. In fact, without these, the screeners for the likely-to-be-overlooked movies would just gather dust on the voters' shelves.

What is the other key tool that gets mentioned all the time as the awards season heats up? Critics awards. (DUH!) Every year, Oscar prognosticators like myself look to the major film critics groups to set the table for one or two films and the talent in them to make serious Oscar runs. Want to figure out how Y Tu Mama Tambien got a screenwriting nomination after being snubbed by Mexico as its Oscar representative? Critics awards. Diane Lane was legitimized as an Oscar candidate last year by awards from the NSFC and NYFCC. When did The Pianist really turn the corner last year? I don't think it was a coincidence that NSFC gave the film the three awards that The Academy did, even if Oscar strayed to Chicago for Best Picture.

I'm not saying that these critics awards are capital-e Everything either. But LAFCA awarded Pedro Almodovar as Best Director and set up the eventual nominations for directing and screenplay Oscars.

If Habla Con Ella screeners did put Pedro over the top last year, it was only because critics like the LAFCA motivated people to watch them… and, of course, to go to the real screenings. That opportunity is now lost…. unless the MPAA relents.

"Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

I hope they're proven righteous in their Dylan Thomasesque quest. Methinks they doth protest too much.

- by David Poland

E-Mail