Advertising & Blogging: Influencing This Year’s Oscars

As Oscar season is slowly approaching, I have decided to peruse the blogosphere for some new insight into the race itself, including not just which pictures should be considered, but also the sources of influence on the nomination process of the Academy Awards. The nominations for the Academy Awards are voted on by over fifty members of the Academy, ranging from filmmakers to studio and network executives to financiers to film writers and others working within the cinematic infrastructure. In the past, voting has usually been influenced primarily by the amount of campaigning within trade publications such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter; it is not enough for a film to simply be excellent. Similar to a Presidential campaign (see this year’s race), the value of the candidate can only be realized and recognized with extreme advertising efforts, despite actual raw talent. However, as Patrick Goldstein, film writer for the Los Angeles Times’ Calendar section, explains in a post entitled “Variety’s Oscar ads going…going…gone,” trade publications such as Variety have recently experienced a plummeting of Oscar ad campaigns, despite past data that strongly suggests that the nomination of a film depends highly on the amount of campaigning done on the studio’s end. Goldstein even quotes studio mogul Harvey Weinstein saying “If you don’t pay for that big upfront Oscar campaign, you end up paying at the box office.” So, if print advertisements in trade publications aren’t influencing the nominations, what are? Steven Zeitchik, writer for The Hollywood Reporter, recently wrote an article on his Risky Biz Blog entitled “Do Oscar bloggers matter?”, which obviously poses the question as to whether Oscar bloggers are influencing this year’s nomination process or not. Surprisingly, it seems that bloggers feel like they have little to no power, whereas film writers (including Patrick Goldstein) feel like bloggers have “hijacked” the Oscars, and its nomination process. I have commented on both articles, and have placed them below, along with a link to the article itself, for your convenience.

“Variety’s Oscar ads going…going…gone” by Patrick Goldstein
Comment:
Thank you, Mr. Goldstein, for your informative post on the recent disappearance of Oscar ads in Variety magazine. To tell you the truth, I was very surprised to see that ad campaigns have decreased recently, and did not realize that until you pointed it out. I share your belief that the best movies will receive nominations regardless of our current economic situation, and was surprised to read Mr. Weinstein’s response. However, I would like to see at least some statistical data that might back his claim. I feel like there will always be films that can garner enough publicity and hype to earn a nomination. Regarding your response, I too will be curious to see the money spent on advertising for “The Reader”, and its correlation to the speculated number of nominations it will receive. I also agree, especially as a graduating senior who hopes to work in the entertainment industry, that it is extremely frivolous and narcissistic for studios to gratuitously spend millions of dollars on Oscar campaigns for for films like “The Dark Knight”. Is it really too much to ask the Academy to vote on films based on merit, and save companies millions of dollars on advertisement campaigns while simultaneously maintaining thousands of jobs? Why is Bart so opposed to this method? I’m shocked to hear that someone as esteemed as Peter Bart would be so blindly devoted to the Oscar campaigning process. The only counterargument to our belief is that Oscar campaigning could potentially shine light on a film to members of the Academy who had not previously seen or heard of a particular film. While I understand this viewpoint, I would respond by arguing that Oscar campaigning usually means the film has already received enough attention to be in the public eye, and members of the Academy who haven’t heard of a film by that point probably don’t deserve to be on the Academy. Nominating a film is a privilege, not a right, and Oscar campaigning seems to be the easy way out for nominators to quickly filter their choices.

“Do Oscar bloggers matter?” by Steven Zeitchik
Comment:
Thank you Mr. Zeitchik for your article on the presence and influence of bloggers in the confused and muddled up Oscar race of 2008. I think most would agree that it is quite bizarre that it is the bloggers who do not feel like they are influencing anybody, and the film critics who believe bloggers like us have apparently “hijacked” the Oscars. I think you pose a decent argument for the potential victory for either Sean Penn or “Milk”, due to the uncanny resemblance and relevance to the current protests and publicity over Proposition 8 in California. As for the debate as to whether or not bloggers have influenced the Oscar race, while blogging may not directly influence voting this year, considering the influence blogs have now, in terms of when movies are screened, how competitors and print media review the films, and how movies are positioned, one can only imagine the influence blogging will have in even three years. I think real world events will always affect one or two films when the timing is right, but they will just affect those couple films. I believe blogging will certainly surpass real world events, and as we can see from the increasing popularity of online media and content distribution, and that the Internet is the future and publications will become less and less necessary, blogging will ultimately have a greater impact on the Oscar nominations than the millions of dollars studios put into advertisements and campaigns. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it bloggers who originally proposed the honorary nomination of Heath Ledger after his death? If Ledger is nominated, I believe it will be because of bloggers. While it is unfortunate that there is even the debate as to whether blogging or Oscar campaigns will influence Academy members more, it is a reality, and I believe blogging has the greater influence, with campaigning as a clear second, and current realities such as Obama’s victory or Proposition 8 in third. Thank you very much for your post, I look forward to a follow up on this topic when nominations are within weeks of being publicized.

Wise Guys: Are Mob Movies Finally Making a Comeback?

What happened to the gangster film? Is it me or are mob movies not what they used to be anymore? It seems as though throughout my entire childhood I was raised on some of the best films, let alone mob movies, ever. From 1990 to 2000, Hollywood saw an extreme surplus of this genre starting with Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas in 1990, and ending with Analyze This in 1999. In between, we saw amazing films such as Reservoir Dogs in 1992, A Bronx Tale in 1993, Pulp Fiction in 1994, The Usual Suspects in 1995, Fargo in 1996, Donnie Brasco in 1997, and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels in 1998. Along with many other films such as Jackie Brown, Dick Tracy, and Carlito’s Way, it seemed as though every year in the 1990’s, audiences were blessed with at least one amazing gangster film. With the exception of The Departed, which won Best Picture in 2006, and few others, audiences have not seen many gangster films since 2000. As 2008 comes to a close, and with one more year left in the decade, it appears as though the 2000’s will not be known for its gangster films. However, after some research, I believe the 2010’s could potentially be the decade mob movies come back in full force.

Recently, producers Michael Shamberg and Stacey Sher have acquired the rights to a book written by Joaquin “Jack” Garcia, the title character to the film Making Jack Falcone, which will be produced by Paramount Pictures. The film follows Jack Garcia, a Cuban-American FBI agent who went undercover and infiltrated the Gambino crime family, coming within weeks of being a made man. Steven Soderbergh is set to direct, and he will be working again with a great writer named Peter Buchman, who wrote Soderbergh’s latest project, Che. Buchman was quoted saying that Falcone will be “a perfect vehicle for an actor with shape shifting tendencies; this is a mob man, after all, who moved fluidly not only between scenes but ethnicities.” The Hollywood Reporter also notes, “Paramount has several mob and undercover projects in development, including an undercover prison tale to be penned by William Monahan.” One of these “several” projects includes I Heard You Paint Houses, which be helmed by the master of the modern gangster film, Martin Scorsese, and will star Robert De Niro. This film will mark Scorsese and De Niro’s first partnership in a gangster film since Casino. The film is an adaptation, based on the book of the same name about infamous hitman Frank “the Irishman” Sheeran, who “is reputed to have carried out more than 25 mob murders”, including the death of the Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. Steve Zaillian, who is responsible for mob movies such as American Gangster and Gangs of New York, will write the film. I believe that if I Heard You Paint Houses and Making Jack Falcone are successful, which they probably will be, they will be the catalyst that brings back the gangster genre. However, the increase in mob films will not be caused only by audience demand.

In my first post, “2009 Oscars: Why They’re Going to be ‘Revolutionary’”, I briefly discussed what was known as “response films” of the 1930s, which were made as a “response” to something awful in America, most notably The Great Depression. As it so happens, most of these films were gangster films. The 1930’s saw a surplus of gangster films such as Little Caesar in 1930, The Public Enemy in 1931, Scarface: The Shame of a Nation in 1932, and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse in 1933. I believe one of the reasons Hollywood is about to see more and more gangster films is because Hollywood is finally “responding” to the chaos that has amassed in the last eight years. Films have always been a commentary on American lifestyle, capitalism, and the current establishment. However, when the economic or social climate becomes abysmal, particular films are made to distract audiences from their current woes, especially gangster films. Now, one may of course question the validity of this theory, stating that the surplus of gangster or mob films of the 1990s as well as the 1970s (The Godfather, Serpico, Get Carter) were not in response to anything in particular. I happen to agree. The reason audiences saw so many gangster films in the 1970s and 1990s were because these were both decades in which all genres, not just the gangster film, were reinvented. The 1970s marked the beginning of modern films, and the 1990s marked the beginning of what film historians call post-modernism. However, in the upcoming years, the gangster genre, and all other genres, will not be reinvented, and 2010 will not mark a new era in film history. It is this reason that leads me to believe even more that the upcoming increase in gangster films will be because they are in response to the economic and political turmoil that America is currently facing. Audiences simply prefer it, and Hollywood subconsciously responds. Of course, it will be impossible to tell if this theory is true until the next decade comes to a close. However, after Making Jack Falcone and I Heard You Paint Houses are released, I recommend you keep an eye on the gangster films that are being picked up by studios and production companies alike. It’s time for the gangster to make a comeback in Hollywood, and that time is coming incredibly soon.

Netflix: Leading the Way in Content Distribution

It is quite possible that Netflix will single-handedly change the way we watch movies. Netflix Inc.'s online movie rental subscription service has garnered over 7.5 million subscribers who can choose from a DVD collection of over ninety thousand titles. As of late, Netflix is expanding much more than their subscriber base. Netflix Inc. is making significant joint-ventures with other companies, as well as developing its technology, in a major attempt to provide its subscribers with the capability to watch movies through different channels and mediums (not to mention the incentive for non-subscribers). As of one year ago, Netflix subscribers were able to rent movies through the mail, or stream a limited collection on only a PC. Earlier this year, Netflix introduced Roku, a box that allows subscribers to stream a similarly limited collection of titles through one’s television. The box is currently being sold for $99.99. While Roku was a major step in expanding its content distribution, the selection is limited, and both subscribers and business analysts alike have been wondering what Netflix’s next moves will be. Well, after a deal with Microsoft this summer, starting this fall, Netflix subscribers will be able to stream movies online through Microsoft’s Xbox 360 video game console. Netflix has also made a partnership with both LG and Samsung to develop and sell boxes similar to Roku, but with the technology that supports both HD and Blu-Ray content. While all of these advancements are quite significant, I believe the two most recent advancements in Netflix’s distribution mediums are also the best to date. This past Friday, Nexflix allowed subscribers to test and begin using their beta program that will allow Mac users to stream content online. Netflix also announced Thursday that it will begin a partnership with TiVo, Inc. to integrate the Netflix catalogue into its already wildly successful DVR boxes. This week, I have decided to sway away from Hollywood finance to comment on two separate articles written by fellow bloggers who have written about Netflix’s partnership with TiVo, and its inclusion of Mac computers into its online streaming capabilities. The first article, “Netflix Streaming Finally on Tivo”, written by Elaine Chow, examines and explains Netflix’s partnership with Tivo. The second article, “Netflix Opens Beta for Mac Movie-Streaming Service”, written by Gregg Keizer, quite obviously takes a look at the new beta that will allow Mac users to also stream the Netflix catalogue. For your convenience, I have posted both my comments and links to the original articles below.

“Netflix Streaming Finally on TiVo” by Elaine Chow
Comment:
Thank you Ms. Chow for your article explaining and examining the recent partnership between Netflix Inc. and TiVo Inc. First of all, it was very nice to immediately read what was most important: the TiVo products that would feature Netflix’s streaming service. Some questions I have is whether or not any of these products will feature Blu-Ray technology, and a possible estimate as to how much you think these products will cost. I particularly appreciated the inclusion of quotes from both companies’ CEOs. This venture solidifies an extremely powerful partnership between two very successful companies and was an incredibly strategic decision by both companies. Hearing what each executive had to say gave me a much better idea as to the vision and attitude of each CEO and their companies. As a Netflix customer, I am extremely excited for this new service, and believe this collaboration is the best alternative for subscribers to view content aside from Netflix’s mailing system. While online streaming to one’s computer is becoming increasingly more popular, I believe the DVR feature of the TiVo boxes will really differentiate this product from any of Netflix’s other partnerships, namely Microsoft, Samsung, and LG. As Reed Hasting, CEO of Netflix, quoted, Netflix fans are “avid movie watchers and this combination gives them immediate access” to the content available through TiVo and Netflix’s vast catalogue. I wonder, do you think this partnership will negatively affect the sales of the products that are being sold by Samsung and LG? I can’t help but think that even with Blu-Ray capabilities, the combination of TiVo’s amazing service and now a Netflix catalogue will surely weaken the sales of both companies. I would have liked to read some commentary on how this partnership will affect Netflix Inc.’s relationship with cable-service providers such as DirecTV or Time Warner, and how it will affect Netflix’s entry into that particular industry. Other than that, I thought this was a very enjoyable and informative article, and I also appreciated the references to other articles. Thank you again for your article.

“Netflix Opens Beta for Mac Movie-Streaming Service” by Gregg Keizer
Comment:
Mr. Keizer, your article explaining Netflix’s technology developments and their relationship with certain companies is very interesting. I believe Netflix Inc.’s ability to provide subscribers who also own Apple computers with their on demand online streaming service is an incredibly significant development in Netflix’s overall strategy to expand its distribution methods for current subscribers. I think we can both agree that streaming online seems to be the next method of viewing content, and I don’t think Netflix would be able to continue to grow and remain profitable without being able to provide all computer owners with that basic service, regardless of whether it is a Mac or PC. This technology seems to be a great incentive for Mac owners who are not yet subscribers of Netflix. As a Mac owner with a Netflix account, I have been waiting patiently for the ability to stream content through my computer, and I can almost guarantee that I will renew my subscription for at least another year due to these constant improvements in Netflix’s service. I would have liked a little bit more explanation as to what Silverlight 2.0 was, and how Mac users could download that program. While I was thoroughly informed, I was still left a little confused as to where one could download the Silverlight program and how it streams Netflix’s content. I think a link might help readers who don’t already have the program. I also would have liked a little more explanation as to why Netflix went with Microsoft’s streaming technology instead of Apple’s. I think that is a very interesting topic, and I’m glad you brought it up in your article. However, you only touch briefly on Apple’s anti piracy software and why they refused to share it with Netflix. Do you think Netflix’s deal with Microsoft will prevent any future partnerships between Netflix and Apple? Overall, I appreciate the article, and think you provided readers, especially Mac owners, with much more excitement about Netflix Inc.’s future strategic decisions.