Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Aiming for an Oscar oligopoly Another illustration of how being big pays off, and also how "anti-piracy" concerns in the media can be used by big studios to bully smaller, more innovative  firms. In the run-up to next year 's Academy awards, the Motion Picture Academy has announced that it is stopping the practice of having studies distribute DVDs or VCRs (so-called "screeners") of the candidate movies to voting members of the Academy. The declared reason is fear of piracy: some nefarious Academy members might make copies of the films (all of them released, by the way, to at least some theaters), and spoil things for everyone. As an article in the Guardian newspaper ("Celluloid cartel", 10/21/03) points out, this is utter nonsense. Academy members might well pirate films, but there are plenty of other ways to steal new video footage. Is it the Academy's idea that its members, all film professionals, are not to be trusted? And besides, they are putting the ban on all studios. That means if a smaller studio wants to take the risk of being pirated in return for building word-of-mouth, they can't. And that's what it all comes down to, according to article's author, Duncan Campbell: [T]he unofficial reason, as far as many in the film business are concerned, is to make sure that the smaller budget, independent films - such as Boys Don't Cry, In The Bedroom and so on that may only have a limited time to be seen at cinemas - do not steal the prizes from the big studios on Oscar night. Increasingly, those little films have been edging out the big boys for nominations. Nominations mean money, goes the argument, so it makes sense to make sure that not too many people vote for the minnows. If people don't get a chance to see them, how can they vote for them? As for the piracy, I have still to find anyone in the business that genuinely believes that ending the screeners will have any effect. A group of over 100 directors have written in variety to protest the policy, and the LA film Critics group are threatening not to hand out their own, pre-Oscar awards in protest. There's speculation the Academy management may have to back down, but it hasn't yet as I write. Some think that the big fear that is that the film Lost in Translation, a small independent film, might carry away several top prizes. In fact, some are terming it the "Sofia Coppola Rule," in honor of the film's director. That film is distributed by Fox's Focus Pictures, but was developed independently by Zoetrope Studios for a cost of $4 million dollars, lunch money for most Hollywood features. (It's already taken in over $20 million.) What this all boils down to is the big studios combining through the trade organization they dominate to shut out the little movies and to puff up their own mediocre big-name films. What's strange is that they already own or distribute many of the minor films (like Lost in Translation.). Not content with 90 percent of the business at the cineplexes, they want even more. As with the music industry, the cry of "piracy" is being used as an excuse for the inadequacies and complacencies of those running the movie studios. Oligopolies get to set the rules, and while Disney would rather win over Sony or Fox, what it really dreads is being upstaged by some company that poses a challenge, however small, to the existence of the big studios. 5:28:34 PM

comment []