University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Academy award campaigns: the evolution of PR and the film industry

(USC Thesis Other)

Academy award campaigns: the evolution of PR and the film industry

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ACADEMY AWARD CAMPAIGNS: THE EVOLUTION OF PR AND THE FILM INDUSTRY by Emily Benedict A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS (STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS) May 2012 Copyright 2012 Emily Benedict ii Dedication I would not have been able to complete this thesis without the steadfast support of my family and friends. I thank you for listening when I needed to work out my thoughts, for encouraging me when I needed a push, and standing with me as I embark on the next phase of my life. iii Acknowledgements Writing this thesis was not a singular effort. Without the selfless assistance of the following individuals, my thesis would still be just an idea in my head. First, Jennifer Floto, my advisor and constant source of support and encouragement during the thesis process as well as throughout my entire time here at USC. She was the first to get excited about my topic, and her sheer enthusiasm helped to power the remainder of my journey. Second, I would like to thank Scott Feinberg, Paul Pflug and Steve Pond for their unparalleled knowledge and contribution to my thesis. I truly appreciated each of them taking time out of their busiest season of the year to sit down and share their insights with me. Finally, I would like to thank the remaining members of my thesis committee, Joe Saltzman and Jon Kotler, for their support and essential feedback throughout this process. iv Table of Contents: Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii List of Figures vi Abstract vii Introduction 1 Chapter One: The Birth of an Organization 4 Chapter Two: The First Ceremony 7 Chapter Three: Who is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? 10 Chapter Four: Voting 17 Chapter Five: What is Oscar Season? 19 Chapter Six: Importance of Film Festivals 22 Chapter Seven: Road to the Oscars 24 Chapter Eight: History of Oscar Campaigns 28 Chapter Nine: The Weinstein Way 37 Chapter Ten: Tightening the Rules 41 Chapter Eleven: So You’ve Got A Contender 46 Chapter Twelve: What’s in an Oscar Campaign? 49 Chapter Thirteen: Bringing in Some Help 55 Chapter Fourteen: When Nominees Don’t Play by the Rules 62 Chapter Fifteen: Badmouthing the Competition 66 Chapter Sixteen: Evolution of Award Season Journalism 69 v Chapter Seventeen: Rise of the Oscar Blog 72 Chapter Eighteen: The Future of Campaigning 75 Conclusion: Why Do They Do It? 79 Bibliography 81 vi List of Figures Figure 1: Deadline Hollywood: Melissa Leo “For Your Consideration” Ads 63 Figure 2: Content Analysis: Melissa Leo Headline Coverage 64 vii Abstract This paper examines the evolution, strategy and practice of entertainment public relations surrounding the Academy Awards. More specifically, it addresses the art and practice of award season “campaigning.” The purpose of this paper is to not only track the progression of entertainment public relations as it relates to the Academy Awards, but to also highlight how nearly every facet of the film industry as a whole has been transformed with the proliferation of award season campaigning. Another aim is to highlight the current best practices of those employed as award season consultants and strategists. The key issues examined in this paper include the evolution of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the emergence of award season campaigning, as well as the art and strategy of modern campaigning. Results reveal key individuals whose approaches to campaigning have gone on to become industry-wide best practices. Further examination has also revealed how ancillary entertainment businesses, such as award season journalism, have evolved due to the emergence and propagation of campaigning. The paper’s conclusion highlights the unknown future of campaigning due to the continuing modification of regulations by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The paper also concludes that the perception of campaigning continues to be in question as critics, experts and insiders determine if the practice helps or hurts the industry as a whole. 1 Introduction “Did I really earn this or did I just wear y’all down?” Asked Sandra Bullock during her Best Actress acceptance speech at the 2010 Academy Awards. The audience laughed, partly (or mostly, as some would say) because it was true. The industry-wide chuckle was not at Bullock’s individual expense, but at the state of the film industry as a whole. An industry that found itself asking the question, “Has campaigning for the Oscars truly taken over and perhaps gone too far?” These watershed moments for the industry are nothing new, but it brings campaigning, a side of the business typically shrouded in secrecy, out from behind the curtain to reveal who is really pulling Oscar’s strings. But my fascination with film, the Oscars and campaigning started way before Bullock stepped onto center stage that night. As a child who grew up with eyes glued to the television and movie screen; and who spent hours past her bedtime immersing herself in everything Oscar; in some ways the glossy glamour of Hollywood and its golden apex brought me to where I am today. It took years of watching award shows and only one step onto a studio lot to know I was hooked. There has never been anything else in my life that I have felt more passionate about. Courtship by other professions and pleas by family and friends to stay in my sleepy upstate New York town weren’t enough to overcome my Hollywood ambition. Never one to be in front of the camera, or even operating one, I found my way to entertainment public relations – the people who 2 throughout my life had been unknowingly feeding my appetite for press, appearances and good ol’ Hollywood behind-the-scenes gossip. But as I grew older I became more and more aware of how the business behind my favorite night of the year, “The Oscars,” really worked. I heard about insane campaign budgets, strategies and the grind of the season. I became insatiable in my quest to understand where the idea of campaigning came from, the key players and why people put so much time, effort and money into a race where nothing can be guaranteed. I used the opportunity of my graduate thesis to further whet my appetite for all things Oscar, and as I delved into this fascinating realm, I learned that without the artful practice of public relations the entertainment industry would only be a shadow of what it is today. I employed research and first-hand accounts to gather the behind-the-scenes story of how movies become Oscar contenders. I dove into the strategy behind how films are marketed, publicized and eventually singled out for nominations. I learned of the furious work that goes on during the blistering weeks from September through February when studio heads, publicists and specialized award season consultants furiously mastermind ways to get their films and clients that top position on an Academy member’s ballot. I was informed of how some studio campaign budgets have rivaled those of presidential candidates during an election year, and how the mudslinging found in professional politics is just as prevalent in a seemingly innocuous Oscar campaign. I was dazzled by how ancillary film businesses such as public relations and journalism have transformed as the Oscar gleam has grown brighter each and every decade since the association’s inception. 3 Did finding out the truth (which wasn’t so easy since Oscar campaign work is an illusively mysterious business) help or hurt my perception of the industry I’ve grown to love so much? It’s hard to say. While I was never naïve enough to believe that business wasn’t behind some of my favorite Oscar-winning films like Funny Girl, Good Will Hunting or Out of Africa, I was more surprised than anything at the mind-boggling amount of strategy, timing, patience, persistence and, above all, luck, that is needed to come out on the winning side of the most elusive man in town, Oscar. 4 Chapter One: The Birth of an Organization The 1920s were bursting with the spirit of revolution. Global revolution followed international conflict and a world war; American economic power, unknowingly poised for upheaval; and in a tiny section of Southern California, “Hollywood,” the land of motion pictures, was beginning to transform. For the film industry, the 1920s saw unimaginable growth with “Hollywood producing more than 500 feature-length films a year for a weekly audience of one hundred million cinemagoers paying an average twenty-five cents each in twenty-three thousand theatres across the country” (Holden 86). Along with substantial growth in output, Hollywood was undergoing a technology transformation as well. In 1927, Warner Bros. Studio released the first movie with sound accompanying the motion picture, The Jazz Singer. But before the birth of the “talkie,” whispers around town hinted to the major Hollywood players that a momentous change was ahead of them – and not just in how pictures were made, but with who made them. The 1920s signaled the tidal change of unionization within the film industry. In November 1926, the Studio Basic Agreement (known as SBA) became the law of Hollywood. “A contract signed by nine Hollywood studios and five labor unions, the climax of a ten-year struggle to unionize the craft side of the industry…provided contractual protection for stagehands, carpenters, electricians, painters and musicians” (Holden 85). Studio heads throughout Hollywood knew that with the technical side of the business first to unionize, it would only be a matter of time before branches like actors, writers, directors and producers would join together to strengthen their ranks and reinforce their contractual bargaining ability. Perhaps recognizing the roadblocks it 5 would cause if he had to struggle to negotiate with each individual branch as he had done with the technical branch, film impresario Louis B. Mayer, studio head of Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer, crafted a novel idea, albeit a selfish one – to start his own organization. In early January 1927, Mayer tested his idea of a unifying organization with other Hollywood key players including actor Conrad Nagel, director Fred Niblo and producer Fred Beetson. “Mayer sowed in his guests’ minds the notion of a ‘mutually beneficial’ organization to unite the interests of the disparate groups who made up the movie industry” (Holden 86). While on the outside the organization sounded like a harmonious joining of forces between those interconnected within the industry; on the inside, the organization was just a front for studio executives, like Mayer, to keep industry groups from organizing themselves and to firmly retain the power of the studio heads. The ultimate showman, Mayer, “Made it sound like a private club for the film world’s elite, and his handpicked guests endorsed the plan enthusiastically” (Holden 86). Word spread around town of Mayer’s idea, and a week later “on January 11, 1927, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, the International Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was born (though the word ‘International’ was subsequently dropped from its title)” (Holden 87). The meeting at the Ambassador Hotel was comprised of 36 members of the film community who attended by invitation only, each representing various creative factions. They are now recognized as “the Academy’s founding members” (Holden 87). They included pioneers like Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, Cecil B. de Mille, Sid Grauman, Irving Thalberg, and Jack and Harry Warner (Holden 87). Within a few 6 months, members (who by this time had grown to over 300) agreed on the following tenets for the organization: • The Academy will take aggressive action in meeting outside attacks that are unjust. • It will promote harmony and solidarity among the membership and among the different branches. • It will reconcile internal differences that may exist or arise. • It will adopt such ways and means as are proper to further the welfare and protect the honor and good repute of the profession. • It will encourage the improvement and advancement of the arts and sciences of the profession by the interchange of constructive ideas and by awards of merit for distinctive achievements. • It will take steps to develop greater power and influence of the screen. • The Academy proposes to do for the motion picture profession in all its branches what other great national and international bodies have done for other arts and sciences and industries. (Levy, All About Oscar 41) Nestled among the several goals for the organization, including mediating differences, developing power and advancement of the arts, was the establishment of “awards of merit for distinctive achievement” – nearly hidden in bylaw five, “sounding very much like an afterthought, lies the birth of the most potent instrument of publicity and self-promotion any industry ever devised for itself; the Oscar” (Holden 89). While still years away from any incarnation of a major ceremony distinguishing achievement in film, the seeds of Oscar had been planted, and it was only a matter of time before they began to take hold. But to Mayer’s credit, his original hope for the Academy was to keep a collective organization at bay, and he was ultimately successful. “For all of its limitations – most notably the lack of a binding enforcement procedure for its labor codes – [the Academy] managed to forestall serious labor organizing among the Hollywood artists for over five years” (Holden 90). 7 Chapter Two: The First Ceremony It wasn’t until the summer of 1928 that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) embarked on the event originally conceived in the organization’s bylaws to distinguish industry achievement. The developing organization saw issuing awards as a way to “shore up its growing status in the movie community rather than to reward talent or excite the movie going public” (Holden 91). To help gain credibility as an organization among its varied types of industry members and representatives, award categories in each respective branch were created. “Twelve categories: Production, Artistic Quality of Production, Actor, Actress, Director, Comedy Director, Cinematography, Adaptation, Original Story and Title Writing” (Holden 91) were established. Eligibility dates were set and AMPAS organizers asked for suggestions of films to be nominated for each individual category. But questions for the organization lingered – how would they get members to vote? How would they convince the community that the awards matter? The Academy solved it with a simple answer – it just needed a public relations strategy. The Academy’s rule book hyped the new awards into something that sounded worth winning: ‘All members of the Academy are urged as a special duty and privilege to fill in their nominations for the Academy Awards of Merit with full recognition of the importance and responsibility of the act. Academy Awards of Merit should be considered the highest distinction attainable in the motion picture profession and only by the impartial justice and wisdom displayed by the membership in making their nominations will this desired result be possible (Holden 92). By employing terms like “privilege,” “distinction” and “wisdom,” the Academy, once again, played into the vanity of its members by bestowing on them the honor of hand- selecting films of merit. It enshrined in each member a sense of duty, power and status. 8 This brazen use of public relations also established the elite nature of the organization – and began transforming it into something industry professionals desperately desired to join. Louis B. Mayer provided the ultimate “soundbite” regarding the purpose of the awards to ensure their place within the community for years to come, “The awards have a dual purpose. One is that we want to recognize fine achievements, and the other is that we want to inspire those others to give finer achievements tomorrow” (Holden 92). Results of the arduous nomination process and subsequent final voting procedures conducted by a “central board of judges,” comprised of a representative from each voting branch (actors, directors, writers, producers, technicians) were released on February 16, 1929. With no multi-page spread in the trades or flourishing announcement on the radio, the winners’ names were simply printed in the Academy’s own publication, The Academy Bulletin, two days after the winners were personally notified. “The awards would not be presented until the Academy’s anniversary dinner at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel on May 16, 1929” (Holden 93). Described by a guest at the inaugural event, “It was a private affair – no television, of course, no radio even – just a group of friends giving each other a party” (Holden 93). Among the winners feted at that night’s ceremony included Wings and Sunrise for Best Pictures; Janet Gaynor as Best Actress for her roles in Seventh Heaven, Street Angel, and Sunrise; and Emil Jannings for his roles in The Way of All Flesh and The Last Command. The original ceremony marked a number of “firsts” for the organization and the awards it bestowed. “It was the first and only year the Academy simultaneously recognized two best pictures and the only time winners were acknowledged for more than one movie” (Pawlak xvii). It was also the occasion where 9 the Academy honored Warner Bros. for its advancement of film technology with special recognition for The Jazz Singer which heralded a new age of moviemaking. It’s doubtful that any of the original members, or even Mayer himself, could have foreseen the gargantuan event the Academy Awards would turn into a few decades later. But the foundation of the organization set by the original members still provides the lifeblood of the organization today – it is still the Academy’s purpose to advance the art and science of moviemaking as well as continue to inspire extraordinary film creation for generations to come. It is in the area of bestowing “awards of merit” that it has exceeded organizational expectations, becoming as Charles Champlin, long-time entertainment editor of the Los Angeles Times put it, “the tail that wags the Academy” (Holden 89). 10 Chapter Three: Who is the Academy Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? During the very first meeting of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1927 there were 36 Hollywood heavyweights who became the founding members representing five original branches of the organization. 85 years later, the Academy has metastasized to nearly 6,000 members representing 15 individual branches. Aside from the obvious increase in membership, the swelling of the represented branches signifies the “increasing specialization of the industry and has resulted in a more complex structure.” (Levy, All About Oscar 46) The five original Academy branches included actors, writers, directors, producers and technicians; today, the 15 branches include those five, but now represent craftsmen like cinematographers, public relations representatives and makeup artists. One thing that hasn’t changed regarding the Academy’s membership is its “by invitation only” status. Harkening to Louis B. Mayer’s original desire to create an elite organization in Hollywood, the invitation-only mantra has made Academy membership one of the most desired clubs in town. Workers in the film community are considered for membership when they have “accomplished distinguished work or acquired distinguished standing in, or made valuable contributions to the production branches of the motion picture industry, directly or indirectly, and who is in good moral and personal standing” (Levy, All About Oscar 46). There are a multiple ways a member of the film community can gain an invitation to join the Academy. First, when a person receives a nomination for an Academy Award, he/she in turn receives an invitation to join the Academy as well. While the Board of Governors has the power to review selected invitees, “The Academy 11 has seldom used its right to withhold a invitation to a nominee.” (Levy, Oscar Fever 22). Aside from receiving an actual nomination, each branch’s rules for Academy membership vary. “In most branches it is necessary to have several film credits, a few years [of] experience, and sponsorship by two established members.” (Levy, Oscar Fever 22). When invitations are sent and accepted, Academy membership is for life. While there are varying degrees of membership (Active and Associate) that have different representation and voting regulations, membership in the Academy has exponentially grown since the organization’s creation in 1927. “The annual net gain growth is estimated at about 150 members.” (Levy, All About Oscar 46). When compared to other film organizations throughout Hollywood, the Academy’s membership is much smaller than its counterparts – once again, representing an effort to maintain its elite nature. For instance, compared to one of the well-known organizations in Hollywood, the Screen Actors Guild, the Academy’s “acting branch amounts to just two percent of the Screen Actor’s Guild membership.” (Levy, Oscar Fever 22) Proponents of the Academy’s strict membership structure continue to defend it, saying, By democratizing its structure, by opening it to a larger number of industry workers, [it] will defeat the original purpose of being an elite organization with the most accomplished film artists. The Academy was never meant to be an egalitarian organization representing all film artists (Levy, Oscar Fever 22). The population and demographic makeup of each of the 15 branches has always produced critique and criticism. For example, the acting branch of the Academy has routinely been the largest branch representing at times close to 1,500 members. The implications of the acting branch’s membership size difference compared to other 12 branches “means that the Best Picture nominees are often movies that flaunt strong acting or include so many films that are about showbiz or entertainment (A Star is Born, Funny Girl, Tootsie, Shakespeare in Love, Moulin Rouge, etc.)” (Levy, All About Oscar 48). It is no surprise that actors value their craft and select films that highlight their fellow actors’ strengths, but because of the size of the branch, its biases carry tremendous influence. On the flip side, those branches with fewer members have even greater nominating power because it takes a smaller majority of votes to select nomination candidates. For example, the Directors Branch only represents 367 members, “thus, 20 or 30 members of the Directors Branch can nominate a director.” But even though the branch maintains substantial power within its own ranks, when viewed against a faction like the Actors Branch, its relative size means its individual choices for categories like Best Picture carry little weight. Beyond the mathematical implications of the various branches’ sizes, the demographic makeup of all the branches garner the most criticism from Academy insiders and outsiders. The first critique lies in the age gap that has formed between both Academy members and those currently involved in the filmmaking process; and the even larger gap between members and the movie-going public. Comparing the age of Academy members versus the age of those writing, directing and acting in today’s films “suggests a generation gap with both sociological and artistic implications.” (Levy, All About Oscar 48). Because of the Academy’s life membership, the average age of members tends to skew older, and has been estimated somewhere around 57 (Pond, 13 “Good Morning Oscar”). This older demographic also complicates things when compared with the average age of the everyday moviegoer. “There is at least one generation difference between Academy members and active filmmakers (those nominated for awards), and two generations between Academy members and the average filmgoers.” (Levy, All About Oscar 48). Using that comparison, today’s filmmakers like Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception) or Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Young Adult) are being considered by members of the Academy who were responsible for films like Patton and Tora! Tora! Tora! While excellent films in their own right, those that acted, wrote and directed those films, unless they are still actively working in the industry, have less of a connection to today’s visual capabilities, or writing, directing and acting styles. This built-in conservative bias in the Academy vote, which is reflected in the kinds of movies that win Best Picture, is almost inescapable. Indeed, most of the Best Picture winners are soft, noble, middlebrow movies that reflect the dominant culture, steering clear of provocative issues or innovative experimental styles. (All About Oscar 48) For example, in 2008 Christopher Nolan’s film The Dark Knight was one of the most critically acclaimed and financially successful films of the year (a rare combination). The movie raked in over a billion dollars worldwide. It received praise for all aspects of the film including directing, acting and writing, and was considered to have a high production value. One reviewer from The Hollywood Reporter went so far as to say there was “A bit of Hamlet in this Batman” (Honeycutt, “The Dark Knight Reviews”). While the film landed on countless “2008 Top Ten Lists,” one notable exception was that year’s Academy Awards. While receiving a few nominations (Best Supporting Actor, which the 14 late Heath Ledger won, and Art Direction), The Dark Knight was absent from both Best Picture and Best Director categories. That year’s Best Picture went to the film Slumdog Millionaire, a fine film, but one that reflected more of the conservative Academy voting style. The Dark Knight truly personified the filmmaking trends and cultural zeitgeist of that year, but the aging Academy membership didn’t acknowledge that notoriety. While the Academy has taken steps to admit younger members to help offset the age trend, it has not been successful in fending off the well-known conservative nature of the entire organization. Another criticism of the Academy’s demographic structure is in the relative disproportionate gender representation throughout the various branches. “With the exception of the Actors Branch, which consists of equal proportions of men and women, the other branches are still male-dominated.” (Levy, All About Oscar 48). Branches like Directors and Cinematographers are considered the most gender unequal with only a scant number of women within their ranks. While during the last few years the Academy has taken strides to highlight women’s achievement in film beyond acting, such as 2009’s Kathryn Bigelow who became the first woman to be named Best Director for her film The Hurt Locker, the gender inequality is still rampant. Until the day comes that the Kathryn Bigelows are not referred to as “female directors” but just “directors” will true equality within the film industry be reached. But overall, it is unknown what true effect gender has on the voting process, “due to the balloting’s secret nature it’s impossible to asses the differences between the male and female choices. But one can assume that because the Actors Branch consists of both male and female members, the nominated 15 performances are more balanced.”(Levy, All About Oscar 49). This leaves the 21 out of the remaining 25 categories subject to gender discrimination. As the Academy is making strides in addressing age and gender discrimination within the organization, it has also been trying to proactively address the ethnic minority inequalities that exist within the Academy as well. For example, out of 2018 total nominations in acting and directing categories from 1927-2012, only 63 nominations belonged to African American actors, representing just 3.12% of total performance and directing nominations (with the percentages even smaller for other minorities). (Agg Data, “Oscar Nominees and Winners”). Hollywood insiders point to the current environment within the industry as a root cause of the misrepresentation. Famed African American director and Academy member, John Singleton says, “It’s more difficult than ever to get a picture made with any serious subject matter – let alone an ethnic-themed one.” (Belloni, Kilday, “Whitest Oscars”). While in recent years there has been an uptick in minorities gracing the Oscar stage (Mo’Nique, Gabourey Sidibe, Morgan Freeman, etc.), there are still a disproportionate number of white actors versus minority actors. Speaking of the “lack of black contenders, one member of Hollywood’s black community said, ‘It feels kind of circumstantial. Maybe you could get some studio people to address it, but then there are no black studio executives, which is another story.’” (Belloni, Kilday, “Whitest Oscars”). While Hollywood recognizes that “minority actors are certainly finding work: they were featured prominently in nearly half of 2010’s top 20- domestic grossers,” unfortunately these movies “aren’t the kind of movies that generally win the Academy’s respect.” (Belloni, Kilday, “Whitest Oscars”) The Academy’s 16 president, Tom Sherak has addressed the issue by saying, “My hope is that we get more ethnicity in the Academy,” but goes on to say that is in the hands of the studios to create these opportunities, “you can only work with what is given to you. There has to be something you are able to vote for.” (Belloni, Kilday, “Whitest Oscars”). Akin to the struggles with age and gender within the Academy, the ethnic minority struggle for equality has been arduously slow – but 2012 represents another banner year for minorities as actresses like Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer have joined the ranks as nominees and will only continue to strengthen the role of minorities within the entertainment industry one nomination at a time. 17 Chapter Four: Voting For Academy members, the yearly process of nominating films and voting on the final ballot is one of the most influential, exciting and exhilarating aspects of membership. The Academy has a tried and tested process of whittling down the preferences of its nearly 6,000 members to a select few. Before any film can be considered for a given year’s Academy Award, it must meet the strict eligibility rules laid out by AMPAS. According to the Academy’s official rules, an eligible film must conform to the following guidelines: • The film must be feature length (over 40 minutes) • The film must be publicly exhibited by means of a 35mm or 70mm film with digital and audio specifications. • The film must be for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County. • The film must be released for a qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days. • The film can only be advertised and exploited during its Los Angeles County run in a manner considered normal and customary to the industry. • The film must fit (be released) within the award year deadlines between January 1 st and December 31 st of that year. (AMPAS, “Rules & Eligibility”) According to a December 2011 AMPAS press release, there were 265 feature films being considered for the 2011-2012 Academy Awards season (The Deadline Team, “Oscars”). Once the eligible films are established, it is up to Academy members to pare the selection down to its official nominees. According to the AMPAS voting regulations, in any given year, nomination ballots are sent out to Academy members in late December after the films are considered to meet the eligibility requirements and are approved. The nomination process is unique because each branch is only responsible for nominating representatives from that sector – actor members only vote on acting performances, 18 sound editor members for sound editing, and so on. All members of the Academy can vote to nominate Best Picture candidates. The nomination ballots are sent to the accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers the following January to determine the five nominees in each category (for Best Picture there can be up to 10 nominees). Once the nominations are announced in January, final ballots are mailed to Academy members who have until the Tuesday prior to Oscar Sunday to return their ballots. During the final balloting process, members may vote in all categories. The only categories with specific regulations are animated short film, live-action short film, documentary feature, documentary short subject and foreign-language film. These feature the disclaimer that Academy members must be able to prove that they have seen the eligible films before they can vote in those categories. Through a complex mathematical tabulating process, the majority holder in each category is confirmed as the winner, with the final results revealed on “Oscar Night.” 19 Chapter Five: What is Oscar Season? It’s no secret that over the last few decades the film industry has developed a pattern of which types of films get released and when - early spring contains films you probably don’t remember, the summer is for blockbusters, October is for frightening flicks, and leading up to the holiday season and early into the new year you will find cinemas jam-packed with films included on Academy Award nomination ballots. This isn’t a trend that happened by chance – the so-called “back loading” of award film fare is a calculated maneuver strategically determined by studios months in advance of a film’s release. It’s no mistake that in most cases films that end up getting the most attention around the award season have been released somewhere between September and December 31. September-November corresponds with some high profile and influential film festivals (Toronto, Venice, etc.) that signal the start of the early award season. December 31 reflects the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ cut-off date for a film’s eligibility for an Oscar for that year. Studios tend to hold films with the best chance at Academy Award season success until this time to ensure that the film’s press coverage is favorable and abundant, and to encourage as many voting members as possible to see it on the big screen. During award season, the press has a voracious appetite for noteworthy films and voting members of the Academy (as well as members of other guilds and associations) are eager to compile their list of best performances - in January 2012, there were 190 Oscar-related articles alone that ran in the Los Angeles Times. Therefore, award consultants and publicists have found it most advantageous for 20 their films to be released when both the press and their target audience are in a state of rapt attention. While the tail end of the year is annually consumed by award season bait, it doesn’t mean that films released earlier in the year aren’t as well made or as worthy of admiration. In fact, the 2011 award season contender, The Help, was released in August of 2011; and at the 82 nd Academy Awards, The Hurt Locker, released in June 2009, won Best Picture of the year. Although releasing a film during the so-called “Oscar season” helps, it doesn’t necessarily mean an award-worthy film can’t have screened earlier in the year. But the difficult part of championing films from earlier in the year is that it takes more work and a louder public relations push to bring a movie back into the spotlight once it has run its course. The film has already told its story, gotten its press and had an audience. On the upside, releasing a film earlier in the year gives more potential award voters a chance to see the film whether at the theater or once it has been released on DVD. One could posit that if you need to convince nearly 6,000 people to see your film among hundreds of other contenders, it is logical to give them as much time as possible to do so. During this year’s Oscar race, the powerhouse comedy Bridesmaids has been able to stay relevant and atop several critics’ choice lists even though it was released way back in May 2011. In fact, in February 2012 Bridesmaids was declared the “No. 1 most ordered VOD (video on demand) of all time, with over 4.8 million rentals in just over four months of release.” (Flemming, “Bridesmaids”). While the 4.8 million rentals refers to a general public statistic, it still represents viewership (Academy or otherwise) that can only be attained by a film released earlier in the year. 21 Once the December 31 deadline passes the Oscar season is in full swing. Even before this date, studio award strategists and public relations consultants have been working furiously to keep their respective films in consideration and top of mind. They court Academy members, guild members and association members to attend everything from screenings, film-related events, soirees and question and answer interviews with filmmakers and performers - all in the hope that these efforts will make enough of an impact with Academy voters to implore them to cast their nominating vote that film’s way come January. Films vie for the same audience and column inches, boosting Oscar season far beyond the distribution of a little gold statue; it has become a full-fledged, money-churning, film industry machine. 22 Chapter Six: Importance of Film Festivals Film festivals have become a crucial element in the business of filmmaking over the last decade. Because many film deals are made at said festivals, Hollywood studio players visit various events around the world to discover films they believe would fit within the studio’s slate and vision. Smaller studios like Focus Features, Fox Searchlight and Summit Entertainment regularly use the film festival circuit to round out their slates of films produced and financed in-house. In 2010, Focus Features executives attended the Sundance Film Festival and acquired the rights to the future Oscar nominated film, The Kids Are All Right, starring Annette Bening and Julianne Moore. Summit Entertainment acquired future Best Picture winner, The Hurt Locker, at the Toronto International Film Festival. While film festivals are the springboards for independent films to find a larger audience, such events also play an important role in the Oscar race – they are the place where “buzz” is born. While festivals are held throughout the year, their timing plays an important part in the festival’s role in the Oscar race. For example, early festivals in the award season, like the Toronto International Film Festival held in September, helps build buzz for both performers and films. While festivals held later in the season, like the AFI Film Festival held in November, serve as campaign stops where films can gain publicity and build Oscar momentum. Those held later in the year, like the London Film Festival and the New York Film Festival, also help to clarify Oscar contenders and separate potential nominees from long shots. Each of these events are heavily covered by film industry trade journalists and attended by industry insiders, adding immense credibility to 23 the films that garner the most buzz and critical praise. Film festivals are an important bellwether not only as a mining ground for undiscovered films, but also as a coveted indicator and starting point of the Oscar race. In addition to selective timing, aggressive publicity strategies and key positioning at film festivals, there is another group who attend film festivals that heavily influences the entire Oscar season: key industry insiders. These are players whose presence alone at a film event can begin to garner buzz. Harvey Weinstein is one of those players. Known throughout the industry as an executive who adroitly plays the Oscar campaign game, whispers surrounding his deal making throughout the 2011 Cannes Film Festival instantly catapulted the discussed film towards Oscar contention. The Iron Lady, starring perennial Oscar favorite Meryl Streep, was already poised to top of many 2011 Best Actress lists, but with the acquisition of the film’s distribution rights by Weinstein, it instantly landed on the Oscar campaign fast track. 24 Chapter Seven: Road to the Oscars With the Academy Awards widely acknowledged as the longstanding pinnacle of film industry success, other organizations now wade into “Oscar Season” by holding preliminary award celebrations that lead up to the Academy’s big show. The various awards held by critics groups, industry guilds and associations not only allow organizations to take advantage of award season press, buzz, advertising opportunities and televised events, they also serve the important purpose of being inescapable influencers of Academy members. Paul Pflug of Principal Communications Group describes the race as “being built on a series of awards leading up to the Academy Awards that help create momentum and shape perception” (“Business of Awards”). While organizations like the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild of America, the Producers Guild of America, the Writers Guild of America, the Hollywood Foreign Press, the National Board of Review, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, and the Broadcast Critics Association dole out awards for films and acting performances, they represent more than just a seemingly unending conga line of industry self-congratulatory pats on the back. Exposure and visibility (whether through nominations or an actual win) at these awards will hopefully resonate with the members of each respective organization that also happen to be AMPAS members. For example, the Screen Actors Guild Awards represent a major milestone on the road to the Oscar because the guild “represents nearly 120,000 actors who work in motion pictures, television, commercials, industrials, video games, Internet and all new media formats;” (SAG, “About Us”). This massive guild overlaps with the nearly 1,500 members of the 25 largest branch in the Academy, the acting branch. It is not surprising that the winners of the SAG Award for Best Actor and the Academy Award for Best Actor are often the same. And it is no coincidence that the SAG Awards are held before final ballots for the Academy Awards are due. A key win at any of the major precursory awards can spell success down the Oscar road. And these critics groups, organizations and associations revel in the idea of predicting future Oscar winners. For example, there are over 25 critics groups alone that issue awards each year (Harris, “Inside”). While they each hold different levels of prestige and importance, a win and nomination in any category for a film or acting performance just adds to the tally, strengthens the film’s or actor’s Oscar chances, and keeps it in the conversation. During the 2010 Oscar race, for example, The Messenger made an impact at the American Film Institute’s yearly luncheon. “The Messenger, which had grossed only about $800,000 (during the 2009-2010 season), was probably the least-seen movie that had a shot at a Best Picture nomination.” But because of a well-placed film clip during the ceremony, the tide changed for this little film, and people began to talk about the film and its star, Woody Harrelson. “For movies without a huge campaign budget, that kind of break is critical: Actors for the Academy’s largest branch, and a talked-about performance like Harrelson’s can lead voters to watch the DVD and perhaps consider other long-shot choices – like the screenplay or even the film itself” (Harris, “Inside”). Leading up to the Oscars, award ceremonies also tend to provide the sometimes necessary jolt in categories that have up until that moment been perceived as a “lock.” Nobody (including the Academy) wants an award show where everyone in the audience 26 knows who is going to take home the top prize before they even reach their seats. The marquee pre-Oscar awards often provide just the shakeup a category needs to make it a real “race.” Once again, during the 2010 race, Meryl Streep, the almost yearly Oscar contender, was praised and lauded for her uncanny portrayal of legendary chef, Julia Child, in her film Julie & Julia. At the 2010 Broadcast Film Critics Association Critics’ Choice Awards (which were broadcast on VH1 that year), Streep expectantly won the award for Best Actress; but a shakeup was in the air when none other than America’s- sweetheart-turned-potential-Oscar-nominee, Sandra Bullock, tied with Streep to also win Best Actress. Spectators in the room said, “It’s a shocker, and a sleepy race wakes up” (Harris, “Inside”). It was a story that couldn’t have been written better if Hollywood tried – the venerable grand dame of the acting world sharing the stage with the popcorn populist rom-com queen. With video footage of Streep and Bullock onstage swapping faux verbal jabs and a kiss about to go viral on the Internet, Bullock suddenly became a serious challenger. “Bullock, who has never come anywhere near an Oscar nomination…gives the kind of emotive, funny, ingratiating speech that makes people say, ‘Maybe she should win,’ just because it seems like fun.” (Harris, “Inside”) This is where an Oscar race is born. The Hollywood Foreign Press’ Golden Globe Awards are known as one of the most high-profile event to precede the Oscar. With a splashy televised network celebration, a glittering red carpet, and lavish late-night after parties, “The Globes” are among the last best hope for a film or actor to make an impactful appearance. With Academy Award ballot due dates changing throughout the last several years, the Golden 27 Globes have wavered back and forth from an inside Oscar predictor to a grand but insignificant party at the end of a long season. On the surface the Golden Globes and the Hollywood Foreign Press (HFPA) appear to strive to be in lock-step with the Academy, but the association has been riddled with allegations questioning the ethics of the mysterious organization. Membership in the HFPA is made up of “81 voting members who are for the most part obscure foreign entertainment journalists.” (Goldstein, Rainey, “Golden Globes”) 28 Chapter Eight: History of Oscar Campaigns Ask any Hollywood insider about the history of Academy Award campaigning and he or she will no doubt point to the 1990s when Harvey Weinstein and his band of public relations strategists changed the way the awards business was run in Hollywood. While Weinstein certainly changed the game, he by no means invented it. Award campaigning, in some form, has been in existence since the Academy itself was founded. The history of campaigning is filled with raised eyebrows, deserving performances, questionable choices, big budgets and undeniable glory – all in the name of Oscar. In the 1920s and ‘30s studio politics were the name of the game when it came to the Academy Awards. MGM, Paramount, Twentieth Century-Fox, Warner Bros., Columbia, RKO, United Artists and Universal were the players and each measured success by its accumulated Academy Award tally for nominations and wins. While the prestige of the Academy Award didn’t take hold until a few years after the organization was formed, that didn’t stop studios from keeping track of the score. It was no coincidence that MGM led the race for nominations considering Mayer’s personal stake in the success of the organization. “In Oscar’s first twelve years (from 1927/1928 to 1939), of the 102 Best Picture nominees, 28 were produced by MGM.” (Levy, Oscar Fever 298). And MGM’s success didn’t stop at nominations; they also led studios in the coveted prize of Best Picture wins. “Of the first twelve Best Pictures, MGM made four: The Broadway Melody (1928/1929), Grand Hotel (1931/1932), Mutiny on the Bounty 1935), and The Great Ziegfeld (1936)” (Levy, Oscar Fever 298). While MGM representatives denounced that the studio’s success had to do with anything other than its 29 production of top-quality films, there was strategy employed in what types of films were released. “MGM’s defenders claim that in the 1930s the studio produced more films than any other studio, and that MGM made better films. What they mean is that MGM actually made films that were more suitable for winning Oscars.” (Levy, Oscar Fever 298). While the notion of an “Oscar season” has emerged over the last few decades, there is no doubt that even during the days of old Hollywood studio chiefs were paying attention to what kinds of films they were creating, and their chances at Oscar gold. But even back then, it wasn’t enough to have made an Oscar-worthy film, you also had to get people to vote for it. While today’s Academy Award voting is regulated by rigorous rules of order, back in the early days, voting was about relationships with the major studios, where the majority blocks of voting members were housed. Bigger studios dominated the Academy Awards because they had more employees, produced more films and had the opportunity for their voting members to vote singularly (and basically blindly) for their own studio. According to legendary actress, Joan Crawford, “You’d have to be a ninny to vote against the studio that has your contract and produces your pictures.” (Levy, Oscar Fever 301). Supporting your own studio, and thus, securing your employment, was a common practice among all studios around Hollywood. Workers placed in the nomination and final ballots films and performers of their own studios. To ensure nominations for their colleagues, their names were listed as first choice, followed by unlikely candidates from other studios, thus guaranteeing that there would be no serious competition. (Levy, Oscar Fever 301). Even Hollywood’s most legendary players felt the power of the studio-voting scheme, and realized what could happen by not complying. Young director Frank Capra was 30 rising through the ranks while working for Columbia, a relatively small studio in comparison to the likes of MGM and Paramount. Bolstered by what he thought was his winning picture, Ladies of Leisure, Capra “assured his Columbia boss that he would get nominations for his Barbara Stanwyck comedy; he was therefore vastly disappointed when the film was ignored by the Academy.” (Levy, Oscar Fever 299). Capra worked at a studio that simply lacked clout and voting prowess. He said of the defeat, “The major studios had the votes. I had my freedom, but all the honors went to those who worked for the Establishment.” (Levy, Oscar Fever 299). While Capra went onto to Oscar success with his later films, his first run-in with the “establishment” no doubt informed him how the rigors of studio politics accompany creative work. Peter Bart, famed former editor- in-chief of Variety, put it best when he said of voting procedure in the early days of the Academy, “If you were an Academy member, do you vote for what you really believe represents the best work in each category, even if it’s an Australian or Italian movie, and, as such, a blunt indictment of Hollywood – and your employer?” (Levy, Oscar Fever 301). Most members didn’t, and this practice of block voting continued until the studio system dissolved in the mid-twentieth century. While today’s award campaign tactics include webcasted question and answer interviews with movie stars and celebratory nights honoring actors at the likes of Lincoln Center, advertisements in trade publications have been the lifeblood of campaigning since the early days. Ads purchased by studios, actors and filmmakers are a colorful and direct way to remind Academy voters of self- proclaimed commendable performances throughout the year. Trades like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter were (and still are) 31 the go-to destination for placement of award ad campaigns due to their film industry- focused audience that includes Academy members. While today’s ad campaigns crisscross between newspapers, magazines, television and online websites (and are increasingly more expensive), ads have long been an Academy mainstay. Veteran award season journalist Steve Pond recalls trade ads appearing as far back as 1935 when they were a campaign tactic for films like, Ah, Wilderness (Pond, Interview). The Hollywood Reporter chief awards journalist, Scott Feinberg, recalls former studio press agent Walter Seltzer as a pioneer in the ad campaign game having worked on films like 1935’s Mutiny on the Bounty (Nelson, “Walter Seltzer”). But film placement in the trades truly skyrocketed from a studio publicity department tactic in the ‘20s and ‘30s to a part of an Oscar strategy in the ‘40s. In fact, one press agent at Warner Bros. agreed to start the buzz himself – essentially creating the very first Oscar campaign. It was 1945 and the press agent was Henry Rogers, who was working on behalf of Joan Crawford’s upcoming film, Mildred Pierce. Rogers’ cohort in the burgeoning campaign was the producer, Jerry Wald, who was on the set and was seeing first-hand Crawford’s magnetic performance unfold. Upon recognizing Crawford’s shot at Academy recognition, even at this early stage of production, Wald phoned Rogers and had the following groundbreaking conversation: “Why don’t you start a campaign for Joan to win the Oscar?” “But Jerry, the picture is just starting,” noted Rogers. “So?” “So how would I go about it?” “It’s simple. Call up Hedda Hopper and tell her, ‘Joan Crawford is giving such a strong performance in Mildred Pierce that her fellow-workers are already predicting she’ll win the Oscar for it.’” “Jerry, you’re full of shit.” 32 “Possibly. But it might work. What have you got to lose?” (Levy, Oscar Fever 305) Rogers went to work and “kept Crawford in the gossip columns and in front of voters” (Pond, Interview). Word of her performance traveled like wildfire, working so well that Wald’s industry friends notified him about the buzz that was revolving around his film’s star. One night, Wald called Rogers, triumphantly announcing, “I think we’ve got it made.” Wald had just heard from producer Hal Willis that “it looks like Joan Crawford has a good chance to win the Oscar. I don’t know where I heard it,” Wallis said. “I may have read it somewhere.” (Levy, Oscar Fever 305) After that simple phone call to a trade gossip columnist, Oscar campaigning would never be the same. Oscar historians can’t say whether Crawford would’ve been successful garnering an Oscar nomination without the campaign work of her publicist and producer, but the chatter regarding her performance made the film highly anticipated and definitely created a fervor surrounding the film that wouldn’t have been there without the work of Rogers and Wald. “That’s exactly what Rogers and the studio wanted, to create a favorable public opinion for Crawford. It helped, of course, that the film opened to quite good reviews” (Levy, And The Winner Is 297). The 1940s didn’t just signal the start of more aggressive campaigning by studio publicity departments, it also heralded the beginning of actors financing their own Oscar campaigns, an oftentimes unfavorable practice that has continued into the second decade of the 21 st century. The legendary Rosalind Russell was not above the pressure to secure an Oscar nomination, and with “one of the biggest and most expensive efforts by an actress for herself, Rosalind Russell, reportedly spent over ten thousand dollars in 1948 to 33 get a best actress nomination for Mourning Becomes Electra” (Levy, And The Winner Is 297). Also receiving studio campaign support, “Russell received a nomination but not the award, which some attribute to over-saturating the voters with publicity” (Levy, And The Winner Is 297). “Conventional Oscar wisdom says that you have to show that you want it, but you can’t appear desperate” (Pond, Interview). Campaigning increased as the industry stepped into the 1960s with overblown stunts and ads becoming commonplace, and lesser films being heralded over those more deserving. In what is known as perhaps the most “famously excessive” campaign by actor, Chill Wills, is his campaign for a nomination for his work on The Alamo in 1961 (Pond, Interview). Wills took his Best Supporting Actor ad campaign over the top with the following ads printed and distributed throughout town, “‘We of The Alamo cast are praying harder than the real Texans prayed for their lives at the Alamo, for Chill Wills to win the Oscar.’” (Levy, And The Winner Is 299). Wills’ tactics were so brazen and cringe-worthy, he was “publicly chastised by the film’s star, John Wayne (whose own campaign was over-the-top by the standards of the day)” (Pond, Interview). These moves caused the Academy to issue a stern “statement of policy: ‘to call the attention of all potential nominees the importance of maintaining a standard of dignity in any and all media of advertising. Regrettably,” the Academy stated, “in past years a few resorted in outright, excessive and vulgar solicitation of votes,” which became, “a serious embarrassment to the Academy and to our industry” (Levy, And The Winner Is 300). Despite its efforts to uphold high ethical standards, Academy members continued to push the envelope throughout the ‘60s. “Advertising campaigns for unworthy films reached their peak, resulting in a severe decline in the 34 Academy’s public credibility” (Levy, And The Winner Is 300). The 1960s heralded the era of the big, expensive “blockbusters” with films like The Sound of Music paving the way for money and star power to rule the box office. The chiefs at Twentieth Century- Fox tried to capitalize on the same success with their other films throughout the decade (Levy, And The Winner Is 301). “Its executives were determined to win nominations and awards at all costs, for such clunkers as The Sand Pebbles in 1966, Doctor Dolittle in 1967, and Hello, Dolly! In 1969” (Levy, And The Winner Is 301). Fox’s publicity department upped the campaign ante by using tactics such as “special screenings, fancy banquets with wonderful menus, and letters and pictures to each member. This studio managed to get multiple nominations for each of the aforementioned movies, which was enough to repudiate the Oscar’s prestige in the public eye” (Levy, And The Winner Is 301). No longer was the Academy the champion of the industry’s best and brightest, campaigning had brought the organization down into the mud where “it showed that the most dismal films can get nominations, granted they are big-budget, star-studded, and most important of all, ‘sold’ and ‘marketed’ by the ‘right’ campaigns” (Levy, And The Winner Is 301). The Academy had reached a low point, perhaps the lowest since its inception, and it had campaigning (and those who abused it) to blame. The excessive ‘60s laid the foundation in AMPAS to further and more aggressively regulate the undesirable marketing tactics that had become an all too commonplace around Hollywood. Rules and regulations that even up until the current race in 2011 are still being modified and reviewed to ensure that the Oscar process is fair, balanced and based, above all, on merit. 35 But to say the 1960s were all about excessive campaigning would be a mistake; the decade also highlighted the brighter side of award campaigning by illustrating the power of a campaign run strategically to help audiences discover a smaller film that was still worthy of attention. In 1968, Rachel, Rachel, directed by Paul Newman and starring his wife, Joanne Woodward, was considered a more “specialized film that would not have withstood a chance to get nominated” without the help of campaigning. Warren Cowan, another top player in the entertainment publicity industry (and eventual partner of Henry Rogers) took the highly personal film under his wing and began to campaign. Due to the film’s specialization and lack of sizable budget, Cowan used the basic strategies of getting free exposure for the artists in newspapers, magazines, and talks shows, and of course, advertisements in trade magazines. But he also set up private screenings for eight or ten ‘opinion-maker’ columnists, public relations men who would get the word-of-mouth going (Levy, And The Winner Is 301). While still employing traditional tactics of trade ads and visibility in the press, Cowan ensured that the film was positioned correctly with the right audience, the “opinion- maker columnists” who would be able to generate the most impactful buzz regarding the film. Imploring both Newman and Woodward to do more public outreach and press (which they generally disdained), the director-actress couple successfully walked the fine line of strategic and influential exposure (Levy, And The Winner Is 302). Perhaps the biggest honor for Rachel, Rachel was not winning the Oscar (which it didn’t), but just being nominated – which for a “specialized” film was no small feat. (Levy, And The Winner Is 302). 36 Campaigning persisted throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s without much change in the strategies and tactics employed by studios and publicists over the previous decades. No longer were campaigns confined to the pages of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter – appearances and corresponding articles in magazines like Time and Life offered more in- depth looks into the actor, the film and the craft. Television became a player and talk show couches like Johnny Carson’s became coveted campaign stops for hopeful films and performers. While the audience (the Academy voter) never changed, the amount of members and ways to reach them did. With more opportunities (and more competition), campaigning became more aggressive than ever before – especially when the new guy arrived on the block. Earlier the author noted entertainment industry kingpin Harvey Weinstein - by the early 1990s he and his company Miramax, proved they were here to play. 37 Chapter Nine: The Weinstein Way “Unabashed,” “aggressive” and “pioneer” are used by industry insiders to describe Harvey Weinstein, former head of Miramax and current head of The Weinstein Company; and how in the 1990s he altered the way award season campaigning was done. Before Weinstein, publicists largely placed blind faith in the Academy voters’ ability to view the films, follow the media coverage and cast their votes. Publicists were, essentially, running their campaigns on hope. Once he arrived on the scene, Weinstein developed bold campaign strategies and tactics that did more to completely transform the Academy Awards than any other man since Louis B. Mayer himself. Miramax, founded in 1979 by brothers Bob and Harvey Weinstein (Miramax, “About”) saw early success in the 1990s with films like My Left Foot, The Crying Game, and Pulp Fiction. (Pond, Interview). With those smaller, specialized films, the Weinsteins, most notably Harvey, began to see the benefit and necessity of a strategic award season campaign to lift his films above the increasing clutter and noise of others. What made Weinstein different was the way that he approached nominations and Oscar success, Scott Feinberg of The Hollywood Reporter said, “He changed the game forever because he introduced the unabashed sort of approach to being very open about wanting it” (Feinberg, Interview). Weinstein’s success stems from his passion for film, his ability to recognize Oscar-worthy projects and his ability to campaign for them in a more personal way than what was seen before the 1990s. It may seem like a simple equation, but in a town where Oscar races can change with the drop of a single guild nomination, Weinstein’s 38 astonishing record speaks for itself: “During his 15 or so years running Miramax, Weinstein amassed an astonishing 249 Oscar nominations and 60 wins, including three best picture victories – for The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love and Chicago” (Goldstein, “24 Frames”). Weinstein’s reputation as an Oscar-minting studio head became a key ingredient to his business model, “When they (Miramax) started having success, they were able to use that as a way to lure actors and directors to work for them” (Pond, Interview). Weinstein’s passion and encyclopedia-like knowledge of film is the core of his Oscar intuition, He arguably has more passion for movies than any other player in the game. Weinstein knows a good movie when he sees one. Even better, he’s willing to take a risk on a shot in the dark, as with The Artist, a silent movie filmed in black and white that presented far too much of a marketing challenge for most mere mortals (Goldstein, “24 Frames”). Weinstein carefully calculates how an audience will respond to his films, how favorably the press will view them, and most importantly, how each will stand up to Oscar voters. He collects a portfolio of potential Oscar films, obsessively monitoring the early reaction from pundits, critics and Academy members, knowing that most of the movies will eventually fall by the waist-side. If the Milwaukee Journal critic is lukewarm about one of his potential Oscar favorites, Weinstein, a voracious reader, is the first to know it. As one marketing rival put it, ‘Harvey is totally unsentimental – he buys the most ponies, feeds them the best hay and then sends the ones who won’t make it to the finish line to the glue factory (Goldstein, “24 Frames”). Once a film makes it past Weinstein’s threshold, it receives the full backing of his band of publicists and award season consultants (both at Miramax and now at his current studio, The Weinstein Company). Weinstein and his award season team then go to work 39 as a “political” campaign-like strike force practicing the art of “retail” politics – one vote at a time (Pflug, “Business of Awards”). Weinstein’s approach to getting personal with voters is through direct and high profile tactics. Steve Pond said of Weinstein’s strategy, Miramax employed a large group of publicists, many of whom are still in the Oscar-campaign business, and pioneered aggressive advertising, screenings and other tactics that were often frowned-upon by the Academy (such as setting up phone banks to call voters, and occasionally bad-mouthing the competition) (Pond, Interview). While some of the tactics aren’t above-board (and harkened back to the campaigning circus that overshadowed the 1960s), others are highly successful. For example, for the 1999 campaign for Life is Beautiful, Miramax, “Blanketed the trade newspapers with glossy front-page wrappers. The studio bought pricey television advertising in New York and Los Angeles – where most Oscar voters live – and ran full-page ads in the Los Angeles and New York Times” (Waxman, “Oscars – Already?”). In addition, “Independent publicists hired every Oscar season by Miramax set up dinner parties for multiple nominee Roberto Benigni, a relative unknown in Hollywood, with influential Academy members such as Kirk Douglas, Elizabeth Taylor and Jack Lemmon, ahead of nominations” (Waxman, “Oscars – Already?”). Each year, and with each Weinstein nominee, scads of stories denounce his blatant campaign tactics (with occasional ire over anonymous competitor badmouthing). Weinstein points to his success record and writes the rest off to jealousy, “What can I say,” Weinstein responds, “When you’re Billy the Kid and people around you die of natural causes, everyone thinks you shot them” (Goldstein, “24 Frames”). 40 While Weinstein’s success can be attributed to his overall cache of high profile wins, it was one particular race in 1998 that solidified him as the new campaign baron in town. That season was dominated by two stories: the cinematic and genre-defining brilliance of Steven Spielberg’s/DreamWorks’ World War II drama, Saving Private Ryan; and Miramax’s fanciful re-imagination of the story of how Shakespeare wrote his most famous play, Romeo and Juliet, with a gender-bending breakout performance by, Gwyneth Paltrow. According to Paul Pflug, the buzz around Hollywood was that, “both films were good, but most believed Saving Private Ryan was a better film” (“Business of Awards”). Seeing a campaign fight ahead of him, Weinstein pulled out all the stops and in an epic “watershed” (Pflug, Interview) moment, Shakespeare in Love performed an epic coup d’état and defeated Saving Private Ryan for the Best Picture of the Year Oscar and almost immediately “triggered an uproar inside the film community over the campaign waged on its behalf” (Waxman, “Oscars – Already?”). Even with all of the uproar surrounding Weinstein’s infamous campaign tactics, today, studio heads and publicists mimic Weinstein’s approach. This industry-wide mindset has collectively created what is the most competitive, saturated and vibrant market for award campaigning ever known – all thanks to one man, his love of movies and unwavering and unending pursuit of the Oscar. 41 Chapter Ten: Tightening the Rules Campaigning has become such a prevalent part of each year’s award season AMPAS executives issued separate regulations on how campaigns should be appropriately and fairly run. The regulations enforce campaign activity intended for Academy members involving screenings, mailing, events, screeners, lobbying as well as strict rules regarding conduct when it comes to a film and its competitors. During the 2010 award season, award campaigning hit a fevered pitch with studios and publicists holding nothing back when it came to the promotion of their films as the best performances of the year. While AMPAS’ promotional regulations were nothing new, award publicists and consultants had become very adept at exposing loopholes in the rulebook and bending the rules in their favor. For example, awards journalist for the popular industry blog Deadline Hollywood, Pete Hammond noted, “Academy members were not permitted to attend screenings that had receptions attached. Consultants got around this by inviting guild members who also happened to hold an Academy card (clever consultants)” (Hammond, “Oscars’ New Rules”). Hoping to lure Academy members with star power, parties became bigger, bolder and as one consultant put it, “out of control” (Kilday, “Academy Issues New Rules”). One example was Sony Pictures’ party to gain support for its much-buzzed film, The Social Network. Sony Pictures threw a spare-no-expense bash at Spago, ostensibly to celebrate the DVD and Blu-ray release of The Social Network but also to court voters during a neck-and-neck race for best picture…Most DVD launch parties don’t feature guests like Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Scott Rudin, Michael De Luca, David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin (Kilday, “Academy Issues New Rules”). 42 Another fashionable campaign tactic that hit new heights in 2010 was the “third party endorser” trend (Kilday, “Academy Issues New Rules”). This included “a well- liked Hollywood figure who would host a reception honoring a close friend whose movie just happened to be in contention for awards” (Kilday, “Academy Issues New Rules). Consultants deduced that they could have an event honoring, for example Javier Bardem, but the event would get more coverage (and Academy member attendance) if someone like Bardem’s friend, Julia Roberts, were to the throw the bash for him instead – which she did during the 2010 race (Kilday, “Academy Issues New Rules). On the sidelines AMPAS leaders watched as press and media coverage of these events were splashed about everywhere from major media outlets to the blogosphere. Always insisting their award be based on merit, superficially, the awards seemed to be more about who could run a better campaign. Finally, in September 2011, AMPAS released a revision to its promotion regulations. In defense of the new regulations, Academy COO Ric Robertson said, It’s really a perception problem for us. The Oscars are about what our members see on screen and think is quality work. To the extent that the public dialog about the Oscars is who threw a good party or ran a successful campaign versus the quality of the work, that’s off-point for us. We want people to be talking about the work (Kilday, “Academy Issues New Rules”). The new regulations limit the amount of campaigning that goes on after the nominations are handed out in January. Up until that time, the race itself is wide open. For example, “Oscar consultants can now freely invite members to Q&A screenings in the pre- nomination period, even hold food and cocktail receptions….after the nominations are out, members can only go to Q&As, not receptions” (Hammond, “Oscars’ New Rules”). 43 The rule reinforces Robertson’s position on the work (the film) being the center of attention during the post-nomination process, not the party thrown on its behalf. Consultants and studios are still encouraged to hold screenings and Q&A events to promote the quality of the film as well as to get as many Academy members as possible to see the film, as it was intended, on the big screen, and not on a DVD screener at home – a priority goal for the Academy (and filmmakers, as well). Other new guidelines include, “between the nomination announcements and the final vote, Academy members may not be invited to or attend any non-screening event that promotes or honors a nominated movie or individual. Nominees themselves are also prohibited from attending such events” (Kilday, “Academy Issues New Rules”). Therefore events honoring individuals in years past, for example “An Evening with Jeff Bridges at Lincoln Center” (Harris, “Inside”) (that just happened to be held when Bridges was in contention for his work on the film, Crazy Heart), which was a clever disguise for a campaign event, will no longer be permitted once nominations are announced. One exemption to the above regulations on non-screening events include “ceremonies held by guilds, critics’ groups and other organizations” (Kilday, “Academy Issues New Rules). This permits attendance at the Golden Globes or the Screen Actors Guild Awards, which sometimes fall after nominations are announced, where specific films or nominees are honored for their work. In a most interesting use of other ceremonies as a campaign event is the 2011 Kennedy Center Honors, which were broadcast by CBS. Meryl Streep was honored (deservedly) with the country’s highest honor for her work in the arts, but there was no mistaking the work of The Weinstein 44 Company (the film’s studio) behind the scenes. Streep’s most recent film, The Iron Lady, was prominently mentioned in not only her career’s introductory speech by Tracey Ullman, but also within her montage of notable screen appearances, as well as in a strategically placed commercial during the show’s break – all of this hype before the film was even released just smelled of Oscar campaigning. AMPAS executives continue to vigorously enforce other regulations regarding mailings and screeners sent to Academy members by highlighting what can and cannot appear on the mailings as well as the packaging of the screeners. For example, on a screener DVD a studio may only include the title of the film and a simple list of what categories the film and its performers are in consideration for. This move is intended to level the playing field among contenders. Scott Feinberg puts it in perspective by saying, If you’re The Dark Knight, which had your movie come out in the summer, you can’t just take a few of the zillions of Blu-rays that you have produced and just send those to Academy members because that gives you an unfair leg-up on a movie that was not as widely seen or did not have a huge press or advertising budget (Feinberg, Interview). Finally, AMPAS regulations include a statement about negative campaigning. AMPAS says, Ads, mailings, websites, social media (e.g. Facebook and Twitter) or any other forms of public communication by anyone directly associated with an eligible film attempting to promote a particular film or achievement by casting a negative or derogatory light on a competing film or achievement will not be tolerated. In particular, any tactic that singles out ‘the competition’ by name or title is expressly forbidden (AMPAS, “Regulations”). While AMPAS was applauded for its inclusion of social media on its list of regulated campaign activities, other industry insiders believe the regulations leave too 45 much room for interpretation by eager consultants. Scott Feinberg says, “What I fear is that by putting some of these rules in place all they’re going to do is drive the dirty campaigning more underground” (Feinberg, Interview). 46 Chapter Eleven: So You’ve Got A Contender Jeff Robinov, President of Warner Bros., recently said at an entertainment conference discussing the state of the film industry, “Every time we’ve gone out to make an Academy movie, we’ve failed” (Finke, “Movie Moguls Talked”). Robinov’s statement is shared among studio chiefs around Hollywood who insist that the desire to make quality films is first and foremost a priority – not winning awards. So if studio heads don’t go into producing a film with a mindset that it’s going to be an awards contender, how do they choose which films will get their campaign support? Industry insiders employ multiple approaches for selecting potential Oscar contenders. Managing Partner of Principal Communications Group, Paul Pflug, says, “There are a lot of reasons that movies get campaigns” (Interview). For some studios, the star or director can elevate the movie into contender status. If actors like Meryl Streep or Colin Firth are in a film, it is very likely to receive award season attention. But it isn’t just actors that make a film a contender – associations with respected writers, directors and producers can ensure a level of quality and credibility Academy members gravitate towards. For Paramount studio chief, Brad Grey, it was the perfect mix of director and producer that made his studio’s film, True Grit, stand out as a potential award season contender in his mind. “You bet on Joel and Ethan (Coen). And then you add to that the fact that Scott Rudin is, to my mind, one of the great producers that the industry has. So that’s a hell of a combination” (Finke, “Brad Grey Q&A”). But putting together the perfect blend of filmmakers and talent does not always guarantee award success. The mystery factor in every film’s life cycle is how the 47 audience is going to respond to a film. Paul Pflug asserts, “Each film has its own life, but most films you know before you release it that you have something that could be Academy-worthy” (Interview). One of the biggest films in 2010 was Sony’s, The Social Network. Co-head of the studio, Amy Pascal, didn’t truly know how the film would be received until it was viewed and began building Oscar buzz, This was a $40 million movie that was about a bunch of really cool dudes at Harvard creating Facebook. Never once until people started seeing the movie did we think about it as that kind of movie. Never. I mean, we didn’t make it because of that (Finke, “Amy Pascal Q&A”). Pascal underlines the point that when putting together the various pieces of a film, studio execs can only hope that the movie is positioned correctly for the audience to embrace the filmmaker’s and studio’s vision. Other members of Hollywood believe that movies with the strongest message emerge as contenders and, therefore, receive campaign support. Ryan Kavanaugh, CEO of Relativity Media, which produced the 2010 award-winning film, The Fighter, has a very strong opinion on what makes an Oscar contender, “To me, an Oscar movie has to have some type of emotional pull” (Finke, “Ryan Kavanaugh Q&A”). This approach suggests that those films that have the clearest, and most relatable, message will have the most appeal to Academy voters. Kavanaugh dissects some of the 2010 Best Picture nominees and explains how it was the message that got the attention of Oscar voters and inherently jumpstarted their Oscar campaigns, But whether it’s The King’s Speech that really delivers the message of taking a problem and turning it into a triumph. Or The Social Network, which obviously was relevant about how the entire world changed and how we got there. And The Fighter, which is about overcoming the impossible (Finke, “Ryan Kavanaugh Q&A”). 48 Through this logic, it’s not hard to see why films that contain messages that appeal to Academy voters would be easy choices for studios to back with campaign funding and support. Some studio heads, like Paramount’s Grey, are also quick to point out that above all else, they are in this business to make money – and if campaigning helps to benefit the film’s ultimate bottom line, then it is a quality investment. Grey says, We were marketing our movies to make money, we weren’t marketing our movies to get nominations…we’re going to support pictures in the Oscar campaign financially and every other which way because it’s a great part of our business. It’s obviously a part of the culture of our business, but even more for us on an economic basis it makes complete sense (Finke, “Brad Grey Q&A”). And whether studio chiefs admit it or not, it’s not always just an honor to be nominated. Rich Ross, chairman of The Walt Disney Studios, plainly states, “I do believe part of our job is to win Oscars” (Finke, “Rich Ross Q&A”). 49 Chapter Twelve: What’s in an Oscar Campaign? With the short-term major goal of getting Academy members to see a film, award publicists and consultants employ the following tactics to create awareness, buzz and momentum that drives viewers to a film. Screenings Screenings are the most obvious and actively used tactic by award publicists. By offering literally hundreds of screenings of the film throughout award season, publicists eliminate the excuse that voters couldn’t see the film on the big screen. Today, screenings go beyond just the typical showings in Los Angeles and New York where the majority of the Academy members are located – they now go a step further. Paul Pflug spoke of the emergence of additional and unconventional opportunities to get viewers, “Movies are shown at every possible venue you can imagine from set screenings in private rooms, to home screenings (known as the ‘Bel Air Circuit’) to getaway destinations such as Maui and Aspen during the holidays (a key voting time)” (“Business of Awards”). Publicists are literally willing to take the movie to wherever Academy members gather to ensure they view the film. Screeners A screener is a DVD or digital copy of a film sent directly to voters (in accordance with strict Academy rules) to view at their leisure. “No one can work and see all of them, so screeners are a must,” says Pflug (“Business of Awards). 2011 marked another milestone for the Academy when it announced in its promotional regulations that studios can now offer Academy members the opportunity to digitally download films in 50 contention as opposed to physically sending them a copy of the film. Digital downloads are a step in the right direction with their tougher controls on piracy – a rampant problem with the distribution of physical DVD screeners. Q&A Sessions Known as the “single most occurring event during award season” (Pflug, “Business of Awards), question and answer sessions with filmmakers and on-screen talent are a way publicists bring the story of the film off the screen and directly to Academy members sitting in the audience. Usually moderated by an influential journalist or blogger, Q&A sessions are designed to make the filmmaking process a more personal experience. According to Pflug, Q&As can “raise the credibility of the film and the filmmakers when you know the whole story” (“Business of Awards). So whether it’s a director explaining the use of a specific shot in a critical scene, or an actor divulging the nuances of a character, the Q&A truly celebrates the craft of filmmaking and those who are best at practicing it. Talent Appearances Another way for filmmakers and talent to celebrate their work is through appearances on venues like talk shows, newsmagazines or variety shows. A stop on David Letterman’s “Late Show” couch, or a quick dance with Ellen on her soundstage are now common practices. What also helps is that each of the major stops on the talk show circuit garner millions of viewers not only during their designated broadcast timeslot, but also digitally through replays of interviews online. These venues are the perfect opportunity for visibility for both the actor and the film – and if the audience sees 51 something they like from either the actor or the film clip, it could be just enough to get that Academy member to the theater or to insert that screener in their DVD player. Appearances on newsmagazines like 60 Minutes, 20/20 or Nightline cater to a different audience but are still incredibly influential. Whether it be a through a 2009 in- depth look into the Tuohy family, the real-life subjects of the Oscar nominated film, The Blind Side (in which Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of the Tuohy matriarch won her a Best Actress Oscar); or a more intimate one-on-one discussion with an actor about a role, newsmagazines are a colorful and more exploratory version of an on-stage Q&A. One example that exposed a sought-after back-story was the 2010 Nightline interview with nominee Michelle Williams. “She came out of hiding to protest Blue Valentine’s NC-17 rating, compare her sex scenes to Portman (a fellow nominee) and break her silence about the emotional toll of Heath Ledger’s overdose” (Appelo, “The 2011 Oscar Campaign”). Not only did Williams provide personal anecdotes on her nominated film, she answered the question about Heath Ledger that everyone was dying to hear – which instantly made her interview a must-watch event. Another popular late-night stop on the campaign road is the zeitgeist-poking weekend staple, Saturday Night Live. For those who don’t wish to be subjected to the sometimes superficial (and oftentimes monotonous) questions lobbed by journalists and talk show hosts, a quick stop on SNL could be just the ticket to instant (and viral) visibility. For example, during the 2010 campaign Jeff Bridges and Jesse Eisenberg, both key contenders in the Best Actor and Best Picture races, stepped onto the stage in Studio 8H in Rockefeller Plaza and made a statement. For Jeff Bridges, he “dueted on ‘Silver 52 Bells’ with the Cookie Monster, a bit that went viral;” while Jesse Eisenberg got his chance to confront the buzz surrounding the public interest engulfing his portrayal of the larger-than-life Internet pioneer, Mark Zuckerberg (Appelo, “The 2011 Oscar Campaign”). SNL staged a “mutually awkward meet-up” that on the surface showed just how good Eisenberg’s portrayal was (Appelo, “The 2011 Oscar Campaign”). Press Television and the Internet are not the only places to turn to find thoughtful and interesting snapshots of films and talent in the Oscar race. Features in traditional press outlets like newspapers, magazines and trade publications are a sought after and integral part to any Oscar campaign. Whether it’s a feature article in the Los Angeles Times, like the article on Glenn Close and her long- awaited personal triumph for her passion project, Albert Nobbs; or Meryl Streep’s cover in Vogue with an accompanying article on her latest transformation into Margaret Thatcher; to a profile by The Hollywood Reporter on the prolific and mysterious super-producer, Scott Rudin (Appelo, “The 2011 Oscar Campaign”); key press appearances have the ability to go more in-depth than any talk show, newsmagazine or appearance has physical time to do. Special Broadcast Programming For the night-owl Oscar crowd, it’s not uncommon to find special programming shown late night (after the talk shows) during Oscar season. This is an unconventional tactic used to increase air-time visibility of a movie by showing, for example, featurettes on movies in contention that explore the behind-the-scenes story of a film. 53 Ads Television and print advertisements for films and talent are the oldest tactics on hand for an Oscar campaigner. “For Your Consideration” has become a term that is synonymous with Oscar season as it often sits atop ads for films and performances in all categories. These ads can appear anywhere from the pages of trade publications, to blogs, to billboards along Sunset Boulevard. When other forms of campaigning lose their timeliness, campaign advertisements can be seen virtually until the end of the race, Television appearances by nominees peaked the weak after ballots went out, when, conventional wisdom has it, most Academy members do their voting. But print ads, especially for Best Picture contenders, will remain at a near hysterical pitch until the voting deadline (McNamara, “You Thought Political Campaigns Were Tough”). Ads, Remind voters that the actors are not the characters they play and that a lot of effort went into making the film. That is why Oscar ads for Transamerica showed two images of Best Actress nominee Felicity Huffman. One as a gleaming movie star, the other as a troubled transgender woman (McNamara, “You Thought Political Campaigns Were Tough”). The ad space in traditional print and magazine outlets that cover the Oscar race has exploded in cost over the last decade as film competition has become more aggressive and the season has been shortened. For example, according to Scott Feinberg, a full-page Oscar ad in the New York Times “is something obscene like $100,000” (Interview). Parties, Receptions and Celebrations Events are Hollywood’s tried-and-true method for a chance to mingle among the industry elite. Parties and receptions are just another way for publicists to get voters out of their houses to participate in the Oscar process. During the 2010 race, the Inception 54 DVD release party was one of the only places voters could catch a glimpse of the film’s director, Christopher Nolan (Appelo, “The 2011 Oscar Campaign”). And it was the much buzzed about DVD release party turned cast and crew soiree for The Social Network; and the Arianna Huffington bash for The King’s Speech that led many insiders and journalists to wonder if the celebrations were going just a little too far (Kilday, “Academy Issues New Rules”). More than an article or TV appearance, the chance for a voter to meet or be in the same room with a contender could be just enough of a push the film needs to get that person’s vote. Publicists count on the personal touch of parties, which accounts for the exponentially large increase of celebrations (on both coasts) over the last two decades. All the “other” stuff Some unconventional methods of increasing visibility include books based on a film, or unique tchotchkes (promotional items) that show the film in an entirely new light, “Babel sent out a coffee-table book; Little Miss Sunshine, toy Volkswagen buses and cupcakes” (McNamara, “You Thought Political Campaigns Were Tough”). This “other stuff” has a “whatever it takes” quality that could either be seen as endearing or construed as a last-ditch effort. 55 Chapter Thirteen: Bringing in Some Help While publicity has been a part of the film industry since the dawn of the studio system, the emergence of the award season publicist is a phenomenon that has only emerged in the last two decades. A film publicist is integral for introducing the press and the public at large to her/his films through appearances, premieres and (hopefully) favorable press. The engine behind the film’s momentum speeding towards opening weekend, the film publicist must navigate the crowded waters of competition and column inches. The film publicist’s strategy relies on artfully maintained relationships with the press – relationships with those that hold the key to unlock and exponentially increase coveted “buzz.” While buzz that a film is a potential Oscar contender is certainly a helpful marketing tool for a film publicist, it isn’t necessarily the end goal. While nominations are certainly desirable, a positive end result to a film publicist’s efforts comes in the form of earnings, grosses and position on the weekend box office. The award season publicist goes one step further: this is the person who thrives on Oscar buzz; a person who hears early whispers of contention and reacts like a long- distance runner upon hearing the starter gun’s blast. As Oscar campaigning emerged as a viable and necessary route toward Academy gold in the ‘90s, a new public relations industry was born as well. Studios expanded publicity departments to include this new breed of publicist, PR agencies developed additional positions, and entirely new companies were formed just to accommodate the demand for this service. Like the film publicist, the award season publicist relies on relationships with the press to help steer through the ebb and flow of Oscar season; but the award publicist must take a step further 56 and masterfully conquer the complicated system of Oscar voters – their ultimate audience and most important relationship. An award publicist must strategize and create an approach to reach Academy voters that balances timing, risks of over or under exposure, participation (filmmakers, talent, etc.), as well as noise from other films executed within a very small window. With dozens of highly experienced award publicists all furiously practicing their skills at the exact same time and using similar tactics, it’s not hard to imagine the heightened chaos that ensues during Oscar season. New York Magazine journalist Mark Harris sees yearly “nominees emerge from a combination of good planning, a good movie, and good luck” (“Inside”). While it is true that a confluence of singular events must converge to result in a small number of performances to receive nominations out of hundreds in consideration; Harris also points out that “an eminently praiseworthy performance is crucial,” while it is also, “not enough” (“Inside”). These days, to get an Academy voter to check the box next to your great film instead of someone else’s great film, you must campaign to tell them why - and this involves strategy. In Harris’ first-hand account of Oscar season titled, “Inside the singular hysteria of the Academy Awards race” written for New York Magazine in 2010, he illuminates some of the strategies employed by award season publicists to distinguish their films from the pack. Harris believes that like a polished film storyline, Oscar “narratives” are used to frame a campaign’s story to put it in perspective for Academy voters (“Inside”). The reason these “narratives” are successful is because “a good Oscar narrative makes voters 57 feel that, by writing a name on a ballot, they’re completing a satisfying plotline” (Harris, “Inside”). A strategic award season publicist understands the value of the narrative because it makes the Academy voter part of the process and an active and integral part of the lifecycle of the film. For the same reasons campaign tactics like Q&As and star- studded receptions are successful, narrative strategies also make Oscar voters feel like they are involved and that they are the bridge that leads a film or performance to gold. Harris points out that when it comes to selecting a narrative for a campaign strategy, most seasoned professionals know that “only a few of these stories are effective, and every campaign season, movies scramble to own them and the best are used year after year” (“Inside”). The following are tried-and-true narratives that have been applied to films in the past, and that could be even be applied to this year’s contentious Oscar race: “The Little Movie That Could: the tale of a low budget indie, a David among studio Goliaths, that often appeals to voters who hate Hollywood’s bigger-is-better aesthetic” (Harris, “Inside”). Harris puts such films as Little Miss Sunshine, Juno and Slumdog Millionaire into this category (“Inside”). This year I believe this narrative belongs to The Artist. While not necessarily a traditional low budget indie flick, as it was distributed by The Weinstein Company, it certainly is a little movie that is bowling over its competition – and the part that makes it even more of “David” than even the films before it is that it’s filmed in black and white and is silent. This little but grand film is playing to the nostalgia voters feel towards Hollywood gone by. In a world marred by conflict, adversary and no easy solutions, The Artist harkens to an easier time – the true definition of an escape. When 58 Hollywood heard that Harvey Weinstein was making a silent movie, many questioned if he had finally lost it, but as it turns out, it has become exactly what Hollywood was looking for. “The Movie That Speaks to This Moment” (Harris, “Inside”) Oscar contenders are often films that magnify the stories of our time. Films that we can look back on and remember what was important, confusing, or relevant to us at that exact moment. It’s the zeitgeist narrative that attracts voters as a historical recollection of our collective consciousness; it is a way to stand in support of a social issue; or a way to remember where we’ve been and where we’re going. Harris includes movies like Milk, Up in the Air, and The Hurt Locker in this narrative, (“Inside”) while 2010’s The Social Network also fits perfectly into this storyline. In this year’s race, films like The Ides of March and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close are prime candidates for this narrative as one reflects the toxic and intoxicating world of American politics among the backdrop of an actual heated presidential campaign season; while the other deals with the all too raw emotion associated with 9/11. “The Chance to Make History” (Harris, “Inside”) The title is self explanatory, but this narrative isn’t a storyline that can be used every year. Like breaking an Olympic record, the chance only comes around every so often. Harris gives the perfect example of The Hurt Locker fitting into this category due to the fact that its director, Kathryn Bigelow, had the chance to be the first female to ever win the Best Director Oscar (which she did). 59 “The Popular Favorite” (Harris, “Inside”) Over the years James Cameron has become the king of “The Popular Favorite” narrative. With Titanic and Avatar, Cameron’s campaigns were missions to show that films could be blockbusters and still be Oscar contenders. A popular story often publicized during Oscar season is that the films that end up Best Picture nominees (and winners) are not necessarily the films that the general movie-going public support with their ticket dollars. The Dark Knight not receiving a nomination in 2008 is perhaps the most blatant example of a public outcry and disagreement with the Academy. Many industry experts pinpoint that moment when the Academy decided to reconsider and increase the number of Best Picture slots from five to 10 (a rule that has since been modified). Harris asserts that actors can also grab their own narratives to help lead voters towards awarding them individual honors. Some popular favorites include: “The Foreigner We’re Discerning Enough to Single Out” (Harris, “Inside”) Harris aptly puts Christoph Waltz from Inglourious Basterds in this category (“Inside”); while previous actors like Roberto Benigni and Marion Cotillard are other lucky foreigners to bask in the Oscar spotlight. This year, French actor Jean Dujardin (known as the French George Clooney) is hoping to ride his foreign appeal from his work in The Artist towards an Oscar nomination that would most likely pit him against his greatest competitor, the real George Clooney. 60 “The Cinderella Story/The Kid With the Future” (Harris, “Inside”) While separate narratives, they are often associated with performances that are surprising and seemingly out of nowhere as well as young performers that should be on Hollywood’s radar. Harris’ example of “The Cinderella Story” was Gabourey Sidibe and her incomparable performance in the nominated film, Precious (“Inside”). What made Sidibe’s performance ascend to new heights with voters was the fact that this was her first real acting job, ever. Actors that have emerged as “The Kid(s) With the Future” include Up In The Air’s Anna Kendrick (Harris, “Inside”); while this year’s performers to watch include The Descendant’s Shailene Woodley and Moneyball’s Jonah Hill. “It’s Time” Mark Harris concludes that this narrative might just be “the only bulletproof” narrative (“Inside”). Given only to the actor with a deep resume who voters feel has in effect paid his/her dues and deserves to be recognized. Harris points out Jeff Bridges took his “It’s Time” Oscar for his performance in the 2009 film, Crazy Heart (“Inside”). Colin Firth, who was up against Bridges in the Oscar race that year, was another actor who was considered for the “It’s Time” narrative, but only one actor can truly embody this storyline during any given year. Firth would have to wait until the next season to take ownership of this narrative. Another enduring example of “It’s Time” was during the 1986 season when Paul Newman finally took home an Academy Award for his work in The Color of Money. When compared to his other nominated films like Cool Hand Luke, Hud or The Hustler, The Color of Money may have not been his strongest performance, but Academy voters agreed it was his time to be honored. 61 While a film publicist’s strategy relies on the greater narrative to frame the film or actor’s campaign, he or she must also consider timing when pursuing various campaign tactics in support of the overall narrative. Paul Pflug believes the most important part of the timing of a campaign is “pacing – you don’t want to peak too early where voters tire of your property because it is over exposed” before it counts (“Business of Awards”). Award publicists strive to find the illusive timing sweet spot by avoiding getting too much buzz and attention early in the season or a late surge that is too little, too late. Peaking within the weeks that nomination ballots are out to voters is the most desired time frame and takes incredible amounts of planning, foresight, and as Mark Harris puts it, luck. 62 Chapter Fourteen: When Nominees Don’t Play by the Rules Hollywood is full of unwritten rules that must be observed or the perpetrator can expect a wallop of industry backlash to follow. Rules like, “don’t publicly badmouth your writers,” or “don’t forget to thank your agent” are a few of the many mantras one must remember when working in this town. Oscar season is no different. The primary rule that must be obeyed by any Oscar contender is best put by award season journalist Steve Pond, “Conventional Oscar wisdom says that you have to appear to show that you want it, but you can’t appear desperate” (Interview). Basically, you have to appear to want Oscar attention, but you can’t want it too much. How this translates into Oscar strategy is through visibility – you simply must be part of the Oscar season process. Successful Oscar visibility is a grind, but a road that must be taken. This includes attending the aforementioned Q&As, parties, receptions; appearing on everything from TV talk shows to showing up on the red carpet of critic and guild awards. Minimal campaigning works for a select few, as Pond points out, You can win with minimal campaigning, if your film or performance is undeniable. Christian Bale did it last year (for his role in The Fighter). Mo’Nique did it the year before (for her role in Precious). Meryl Streep might do it this year (for her role in The Iron Lady) (Interview). So with the ultimate unwritten rule in Academy Award campaigning manifesting itself first in artful visibility, it is also blatant as it warns Oscar seekers of the perils of self-promotion. You can’t want it too much, they say, so many of those who have broken this rule have found themselves on the wrong side of Oscar backlash. Perhaps the most recent and most publicized unwritten rule-breaker in the last few years was Melissa Leo, Best Supporting Actress nominee for her role as manipulating matriarch, Alice Ward in 63 The Fighter. With the movie and its performers being wholeheartedly supported by parent studio, Paramount, during the 2010 Oscar season, it came as a quite a surprise when Leo took it upon herself to take out “For Your Consideration Ads” on behalf of herself. Almost instantly excoriated by the press for her tactless maneuver, the headlines alone put Leo’s chances (which were once considered a lock) in jeopardy. Figure 1. Deadline Hollywood: Melissa Leo “For Your Consideration” Ads (February 4, 2011) Figure 2. Content Analysis: Melissa Leo Headline Coverage 64 Outlet Headline Dealine.com "Melissa Leo Goes Rogue With Her Own Personal Campaign Ads" The Hollywood Reporter "Melissa Leo on Her Controversial Ads: The Oscars Are About 'Pimping Yourself Out' Movieline.com "Melissa Leo Likes Herself! She Really, Really Likes Herself!" Guardian.co.uk "Melissa Leo Takes the Low Road to Success" LA Times "Will Melissa Leo's Personal Ads Backfire?" New York Observer "Can Melissa Leo's Ads Win- Or Lose- An Oscar?" New York Times "Oscar Campaigning Gets Personal" LA Times "Melissa Leo and those odd Oscar Ads" The Daily Beast "Melissa Leo Breaks Oscar Silence" GoldDerby.com "Melissa Leo Ignites Firestorm of Controversy" TheWrap.com "Bening Steps Up, Leo Stumbles - Uncertainty in Oscar's Actress Races?" Entertainment Weekly "What Is Melissa Leo Asking Us to 'Consider…'?" Entertainment Weekly "Did Melissa Leo Torpedo Her Campaign?" Huffington Post "Did Melissa Leo Ruin Her Chances?" Huffington Post "Melissa Leo Changes Her Story On Oscar Ads" Screened.com "Melissa Leo Ruffling Feathers with Oscar Ads" Popeater.com "Melissa Leo Rolls Out 'Consider' Ads in Time for the Oscars" Telegraph.co.uk "Oscar nominee Melissa Leo 'pimps' herself for award" ScottFeinberg.com "In Defense of My Friend, Melissa Leo" Table 1 “Content Analysis: Melissa Leo Coverage” 65 Terms like “rogue,” “torpedo” and “pimp” are not words you necessarily want associated with your Oscar campaign. Journalists questioned Leo’s motive when she had the win all but sewn up prior to her ads being taken out. In fact, the ads were so out of the blue that a studio source intimated to Deadline Hollywood’s award journalist, Pete Hammond, that, “Paramount and Relativity were completely unaware of the ad until seeing it in print themselves.” (Hammond, “Melissa Leo”). Leo defended her move by saying, I took matters into my own hands. I knew what I was doing and told my representation how earnest I was about this idea. I had never heard of any actor taking out an ad as themselves and I wanted to give it a shot (Hammond, “Melissa Leo”). While Leo’s campaigning ultimately did not affect her Oscar outcome (she took home the trophy that year), Deadline Hollywood’s Hammond points out a few examples of Oscar self promotion resulting in the loss of a race. He first notes that “Oscar consultants have long thought that personal campaigns send the wrong message or come off as overkill” (Hammond, “Melissa Leo”). Hammond’s examples of self promotion backlash that ultimately led to an actor/actress losing out on the Oscar include Diana Ross’ personal ad campaign taken out on her behalf by Berry Gordy for her 1972 film, Lady Sings the Blues; and actress Margaret Avery’s overwhelmingly criticized personal ad taken out for her performance in, The Color Purple in 1985 (“Melissa Leo”). 66 Chapter Fifteen: Badmouthing the Competition Rule 16 of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Regulations Concerning the Promotion of Films Eligible for the Academy Awards states: Ads, mailings, websites, social media (e.g. Facebook and Twitter) or any other forms of public communication by anyone directly associated with an eligible film attempting to promote a particular film or achievement by casting a negative or derogatory light on a competing film or achievement will not be tolerated. In particular, any tactic that singles out ‘the competition’ by name or title is expressly forbidden (AMPAS, “Regulations”). Just because the rules prohibit it, doesn’t mean badmouthing doesn’t occur during Oscar season. Studio chiefs blatantly deny the prevalence of badmouthing or trash talking during campaigning. Tom Rothman, head of Fox Searchlight proclaims, “I don’t think it happens…I think it’s incredibly overblown and irrelevant…We’re never engaged in it, and I don’t think the vast, vast majority of people engage in it” (Finke, “Tom Rothman Q&A”). Paramount’s Brad Grey goes on to deny his studio’s participation in campaign viciousness, “We don’t do it and we won’t do it and that’s it. You’re not going to see it coming out of Paramount. And I only have admiration for all the other folks in the Oscar race this year.” (Finke, “Brad Grey Q&A”). Of course that’s what they’re going to say, one might think; and that’s exactly what some award season journalists have set out to expose. Studio chiefs may be in denial, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are legit examples of campaign sabotaging occurring throughout Oscar season. Veteran Hollywood journalist Nikki Finke, who runs the industry blog Deadline Hollywood, has written extensively on this industry practice. Some of the more famous examples of Oscar season badmouthing date back to ‘90s when more aggressive campaign practices came into play. When campaigning emerged as a game-changing 67 necessity in the ‘90s evidenced by the film Shakespeare in Love overtaking what was supposed to be a sure-fire Best Picture win for Saving Private Ryan, journalists like Finke pointed to some of the tactics the studio behind Shakespeare in Love (Miramax) employed. She reports, there was “studio badmouthing of heavyweight Saving Private Ryan to better the Oscar chances of lightweight Shakespeare in Love” (Finke, “Oscar Campaign Badmouthing”). As the years progressed the whispering comments behind closed doors became nastier and more pointed. Finke looked back to the A Beautiful Mind campaign and how it became a target; there was “planting of ‘He’s an anti-Semite and adulterer’ allegations against the schizophrenic Princeton professor who was the sympathetic subject of biopic” (Finke, “Oscar Campaign Badmouthing”). More recently, eventual Best Picture winner Slumdog Millionaire got hit with allegations that the “filmmakers callously exploited locals” (Finke, “Oscar Campaign Badmouthing”) to discredit a film that had the legs to seemingly go all the way. Perhaps one of the cruelest and more sadistic examples of campaign badmouthing was in 2003 when Roman Polanski, a famed director who had fled the United States after he allegedly raped a young girl, was further exposed just as his film The Pianist was rising to the top of the Best Picture pile. One journalist chronicled the debatable coincidence of events, Shortly before Oscar voting ended Tuesday, long-sealed 26-year old grand-jury transcripts detailing accusations that Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13- year old girl surfaced on the Internet. Polanski directed The Pianist, the film many consider to have the best chances of wresting the best-picture award from Chicago, the odds-on favorite (Harrison, “Has Oscar Lost Its Gleam?”). 68 When putting it all in campaign perspective, it is interesting to look back on damaging press stories that emerged during Oscar seasons and then analyze them to realize they had to be planted by opposing film camps. Recalling when Avatar was barraged with stories during the Oscar race that the film’s 3D “makes moviegoers nauseated” (Finke, “Oscar Campaign Badmouthing”); or that the director of the Best Picture-nominated film, Precious, Lee Daniels, was “shooting his mouth off” and went on tirades of “crazy talk about racism during interviews” while he was on the campaign circuit for his film Precious (Finke, “Oscar Campaign Badmouthing”); all are stories to be examined. In the 2009 race, the Los Angeles Times ran the story a producer of The Hurt Locker who had exchanged prohibited communication. The producer, Nicolas Chartier, sent emails to “some Academy members asking for their support for The Hurt Locker,” saying it was, “not a $500 million film – an obvious reference to the blockbuster best- picture contender Avatar” (Germain, “Hurt Locker”). The Los Angeles Times posted other, more brazen emails sent by the producer calling out his film’s competition by name, “(Chartier) asked Oscar voters to rank The Hurt Locker at No. 1 and Avatar at No. 10 among the year’s expanded best picture lineup of 10 films” (Germain, “Hurt Locker”). The emails were more than enough for the Academy to step in and punish Chartier for his blatant violation of campaign rules. In fact, he was banned entirely from attending the Oscar ceremony that year (Germain, “Hurt Locker”). 69 Chapter Sixteen: Evolution of Award Season Journalism It’s hard to discern which ancillary business to the film industry has transformed more with the increased flurry of campaigning over the last two decades: journalism or public relations. While public relations, especially the award season specialists, have emerged as major players within Oscar season, award season journalism has completely transformed itself since the Academy’s inception. Analysis of headlines and articles appearing in Variety, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times since the first Oscar ceremony in 1929 highlights an impressive recollection of how the film industry, specifically the Academy Awards, has been slowly but surely interjected into our everyday lives. After the first ceremony in 1929, you would be hard pressed to find a mention the awards anywhere but in the industry trade Variety – where it didn’t appear until six days later, and was buried on page four. Recognized only as a member’s “meeting,” it was the first and only headlining mention of the Academy in the three publications until the mid-1930s. The 1930s and ‘40s saw the papers of record on both coasts jumping on the Academy Award reporting bandwagon. The headlines on all three publications during this time tended to focus on the acting Oscar winners and not the films. It was the era of the incomparable movie star – the studio system created larger-than-life personalities and the headlines reflected what the audience was yearning to read about. Academy Awards reporting during the war-torn 1940s did its best to offer bits of escapism through Oscar related pieces, but it was hard to ignore what was happening to the world in the background. During the 1943 ceremony, a letter from President 70 Roosevelt was read aloud by actor Donald Crisp citing the “tremendous power of the movies had been turned into an effective war instrument without the slightest resort to the totalitarian methods of our enemies” (“Film: ‘Oscar’ Prize for ‘Mrs. Miniver’”). Academy Award reporting in the 1950s and 1960s recalled the incredible industry-wide transformation that mimicked the issues relevant to the world-at-large – including the emergence of television as the new medium, civil rights, as well as the commercialization of worldwide fashion. The Academy Awards’ jump from a radio address to television broadcast was perhaps the impetus that changed the ceremony from that point forward. Suddenly movie stars weren’t an entity confined to the audience’s local movie theater or fan magazines, but now an unscripted part of their personal lives. It was a chance to catch a glimpse of an actor in a “normal” moment and thereby increase the interest in everything about the stars – from their clothes, to their cars, to their dates. The New York Times cited in 1958 the role television now played in the industry, “It cost the movie industry $850 thousand to stage the affair in the manner of a television spectacular, which the National Broadcasting Channel serviced to 179 stations and a home audience estimate at more than 50 million” (Pryor, “’River Kwai’”). Academy Award reporting in the 1960s was overshadowed by the civil rights revolution occurring across the United States. While the 1963 headline and a few short lines appeared in a small box on the front page of the New York Times with an unassuming font size and without a picture, it in no way diminished the power of what had just occurred for the civil rights movement during that year’s ceremony. The headline said, “Motion-picture history was made tonight at the Santa Monica Civic 71 Auditorium when Sidney Poitier became the first Negro to win an Oscar for best performance by an actor” (Schumach, “Poitier Wins Oscar”). Academy Award reporting saw fashion introduced into American households as it started to play a bigger role in the award ceremony. Fashion appeared in a 1959 Academy Award New York Times article commenting, “Fashions from Paris, New York and Hollywood walked right into American living rooms last night as a sizeable segment of the country’s population watched the telecast of the Academy Awards presentations” (Robertson, “Oscar Fete”). The late 1970s and 1980s introduced the public to Academy Award articles that uncovered the emergence of the concept vaguely known as campaigning. George C. Scott publicly voiced his opposition to the direction the industry was moving toward with the onslaught of campaigning, the New York Times recalled, “George C. Scott who played the title role (Patton), won the Oscar as best actor, even though he said repeatedly that he would not accept the award. But the Academy gave it to him anyway” (Roberts, “George C. Scott”). In the late 1980s, today’s big name Oscar campaign players, like producer Scott Rudin, were rising stars and were starting to comment on the record about how Oscar was changing with campaigning. The 1990s was the era when Academy Award journalism officially transformed as newspapers devoted entire sections to the Oscars and covered angles on the awards, actors, filmmakers, politics and fashion. It became a vital cog in the campaign machine due to its reach as well as potential influence. Award journalism would make another seismic shift again as the new century brought along a new tool to be wielded by Oscar campaigners – the Internet. 72 Chapter Seventeen: Rise of the Oscar Blog What is perhaps the most influential journalistic evolution in Academy Awards reporting over the last century, the Internet has truly transformed the Oscar race. Today, credible Oscar bloggers are as influential and important to a film’s campaign as an article in The Hollywood Reporter or Variety. Courted and wooed as much as any traditional reporter, the Oscar blogger’s influence defies ideas of circulation and limited audience. It is a medium that can be accessed by everyone and its weight knows no bounds as it informs Oscar voters, industry insiders and the general public alike. Cynthia Swartz, noted Oscar campaign public relations specialist, noted the change in the way Oscar reporting was done, “I noticed a shift to digital six to seven years ago. Movie City News was an early Oscar blog and the blogger was quoted in an article in USA Today and it made him legitimate” (Pflug, “Business of Awards”). With the mainstream news media giving the Oscar blogger credibility by using it as a trusted source, the blogosphere exploded seemingly overnight with bloggers covering the Oscar season. Much like their traditional print counterparts, Oscar blogs became new avenues for award publicists to employ campaign tactics, like placing “For Your Consideration” ads directly on the sites. As the blogs became sources of information for potential Academy voters, the blogs also became in-play entities for award campaigners. Seasoned award journalist Steve Pond recalls how much his job as a journalist has changed since the rise of the digital era, As the center of gravity in entertainment journalism has shifted to the web, and the Oscar blog has become a staple of many outlets, those of us who work as awards bloggers are deluged with pitches, interview possibilities, early screenings and other opportunities in a way we never were even a few years ago (Interview). 73 But Pond also warns of the perils of combining online entertainment journalism and Oscar campaigning, Partly, that means I can see more films earlier, get more information, and talk to more contenders than I could have in the past. But it also means my job has changed in that I have to be more skeptical about those opportunities, and more analytical about the campaigning that is going on (Pond, Interview). With the increased opportunities afforded to journalists, a new level of judgment on the industry (and even cynicism) is now more present than ever before. Scott Feinberg, award season journalist for The Hollywood Reporter, came into the industry at a time when the Internet had already staked its claim on Oscar season. But even within the last decade, Feinberg has noticed even more subtle changes in the way he practices journalism. He says, I was hired by the Los Angeles Times, which had decided to try as the industry’s hometown paper, to devote a lot of coverage to the awards race year-round; also partly because it generates a lot of revenue in ad sales from Oscar ads (Feinberg, Interview). While Oscar ads have been a part of the industry for decades, the Internet shift meant an increased flurry of money being transacted around town for coveted ad space in any form from print to online. Feinberg highlights the monetary heights some studios and award publicists will scale to grab that desirable ad space, A full-page ad, or the cover of The Hollywood Reporter where they’ll now sell ads, that’s very valued real estate where people will pay a lot of money for that. The same as a full-page ad in the New York Times which is something obscene like $100,000 for one full page ad; because they (studios) know the value for having it there (Feinberg, Interview). But as it has always been the strategy, studios and publicists know the influence these publications and online sites have on Academy voters – and these outlets are simply 74 cashing in on demand. Feinberg says, “It’s not like the studios are being charitable, it’s because they feel that it’s going to effectively help their movies reach people who are either voters or tastemakers and might keep their movies in the discussion” (Interview). Feinberg, like his counterpart Steve Pond, believes his type of award season journalism has become incredibly influential, and that it has eclipsed the power of some of the most highly respected traditional media outlets in the world. Feinberg says, “It became clear that Oscar blogs that were really done seriously by people who were known in the industry could have equal or greater value to studios than the Boston Globe or somewhere that is a mainstream newspaper but does not directly seek out or effectively reach people who actually matter and who vote in the award season process, it’s not a local issue” (Feinberg, Interview). 75 Chapter Eighteen: The Future of Campaigning So where does award season campaigning progress past 2012? It broke barriers as aggressive campaigning shifted from a frowned upon tactic to necessary industry practice in the 1990s; it has endured and thrived in the shift from traditional journalism to the online frontier; and its budgets have ballooned and estimated at times to be anywhere from “$5 to $25 million” (Spines, “What Price Oscar Glory”) in the last five years. Some believe that budgets will fluctuate, while others believe it will be more of a change within the Academy organization itself that will dictate how campaigning is conducted in the future. Paul Pflug sees budgets as one of the biggest changes in campaigning in the future, he says, “I personally see it leveling off. We’re getting to a tipping point that’s going to tip us back into more conservative territory. I think it’s a sign that the industry is realizing how this looks to the outside world” (Interview). While budgets are rarely revealed outside inner studio circles, it has not gone unnoticed by award season journalists the sheer amount a campaign must cost due to depth and breadth of activity occurring each and every season with multiple contenders. In November 2011, Los Angeles Times journalist, Patrick Goldstein, proposed what could be a revolutionary idea that could curb out-of-control spending, a “luxury tax” (“Is It Time For A Luxury Tax?”). Goldstein explains, If a studio’s expenditures soar over a certain ceiling – I’ll leave it to the Academy to decide what’s an appropriate number – the studio would pay a luxury tax that would go to a good cause, whether it’s helping to fund the Academy’s ambitious museum project or providing film school scholarships for underprivileged kids (“Is It Time For A Luxury Tax?”). 76 Goldstein further believes it will help make the race a fair fight for every film in contention, By publicly identifying the biggest spenders, a luxury tax could serve as a disincentive for crass studio excess. It might also help level the Oscar playing field. The vast majority of recent Oscar Best Picture nominees have been films that were either financed by a major studio or one of its specialty film divisions, which, if necessary, can draw on the resources of the parent conglomerate (“Is It Time For A Luxury Tax?”). The way the current spending system is set up, Goldstein is implying that technically, Oscars can be “bought.” This is a notion that the Academy continues to fight and honestly needs to take control of to retain credibility. Goldstein signals the Academy to look at other organizations that have imposed luxury taxes on its members with positive results, he says, It’s no pie-in-the-sky theory. In fact, it’s exactly the way business is run today in Major League Baseball, the great American pastime. Any team whose payroll goes over the luxury cap limit pays a percentage of the amount it went over the cap, the penalty increasing each year the team topped the cap (“Is It Time For A Luxury Tax?”). Goldstein points out how the baseball luxury cap has been a proven leveler as teams once considered unstoppable due to massive bank accounts are no longer able to purchase wins without paying a price (“Is It Time For A Luxury Tax?”). An idea the Academy should seriously think about employing if it wishes to save its image and credibility as a pure, uninfluenced, art form-driven organization. Feinberg and Pond don’t propose theories as how to best change the way campaigning is done during Oscar season, but do point towards the Academy as the sole force behind any real chance of change. Scott Feinberg worries that the most recent amendments to the Academy’s rules on campaigning are going to have a negative effect 77 on future races, specifically the clause in the regulations that prohibits any discussion about other films in contention. Feinberg says, To me the First Amendment trumps any Academy rule, and yet the Academy is saying that if you tweet something negative about a film that is the in the race you will face serious repercussions up to and possibly including being expelled from the Academy (Interview). Uneasy with the idea that Academy has that much control over speech, Feinberg worries how it will negatively affect campaigning and perhaps make it dirtier (and more untraceable) than it has ever been. He says, “What I fear is that by putting some of these rules in place all they’re going to do is drive the dirty campaigning more underground” (Interview). Like Patrick Goldstein’s proposal on luxury tax and how it will in effect bring campaign practices (budgets) out into the open, Feinberg believes that if the Academy lessened its hold on such dangerous campaign rules, it could make campaigning a more open and honest practice. “I think that you still have to allow freedom of speech and expression and all of that, but somehow maintain tastefulness – that’s always been the challenge here and I think it’s going to remain a challenge.” (Interview). Pond is a bit more cynical when it comes to the results of any future rule changes imposed by the Academy to control campaigning. But he does go on to say that he wouldn’t be surprised to see the Academy make an example out of a film in the near future and use fear as a weapon against aggressive campaign practices. He says, Companies will always push the rules as far as they can, and the Academy will continue to sanction the ones who go too far. I wouldn’t be surprised if, within the next five years, the Academy exercises the ‘nuclear option’ and disqualify a film that campaigns too aggressively; they’ve threatened to do that in the past, and it might have a chilling effect on other potential offenders (Interview). 78 Due to the craftiness and guile inherent to award season publicists, Pond can’t think of any tactic but one that would stop campaigners from pushing the boundaries, “I think we’ll continue to have an uneasy détente between AMPAS, which would just as soon have no Oscar campaigning at all, and the people who’ve built a lucrative industry on that campaigning” (Interview). So other than banishing campaigning all together – which would never pass due to the massive amounts of revenue generated from the practice, Pond doesn’t see much change in the future. Whether it’s capping budgets or modifying promotional rules, industry insiders recognize that due to the current aggressive nature of campaigning that something needs to change. The fact that no one can pinpoint exactly what that change needs to be means that we are no closer to leveling the playing field than we were during the early days of Oscar where the establishment studio system reigned supreme and those in lesser positions were left behind. 79 Conclusion: Why Do They Do It? When putting it all in perspective: the history, the players, the process, the rules and regulations, the good and bad press, the badmouthing and the astronomical budgets, it begs the questions, ”why do they do it?” Why has campaigning taken such a strong hold of the film industry? Many insiders point to the obvious driving force behind any movement – money. Of course Oscar buzz helps increase ticket sales for movies up for consideration that are still in the theater, and it certainly helps DVD sales for those nominees and winners out on the market; but the amount of money received on the backend of an Oscar campaign has never been proven to be enough of an incentive to justify the incredible amount of time, energy and funds that are poured into various Oscar races throughout the season. Paul Pflug entertains the idea of what the studio, actor or filmmaker gains (other than money) with Oscar attention, “They each gain different things. A studio gains credibility and the ability to attract projects that may not have come their way ahead of time. An actor obviously becomes a very in-demand commodity, same thing for a director. It allows actors/directors and sometimes producers to make other movies that they may not have been able to get made because there wasn’t an appetite for that, but since they have this leverage of the Oscar, their movies look a little different to buyers and such” (Pflug, Interview). Credibility is the key – with an Oscar nomination, or better yet, a win, nominees and winners can continue on with their career, no matter what choices they make in the future, with the title before their name, “Academy Award Nominee/Winner.” They will have made history; they will have publicly proven that their work is valuable; but is that enough to warrant all of that extra push? 80 While giving a lecture in the business of the entertainment industry, Paul Pflug briefly touched on what I believe is the hidden motivation behind every single Oscar campaigner and voter. Pflug said that the idea of campaigning for something is inherently “American.” There is no truer statement. As Americans we celebrate the idea of being the “first” and the “best” at anything we do. We rank, poll and publicize all things bearing the auspicious title of number one. We as Americans like to back winners; we want to be associated with success. This drive and desire to support people and products that by comparison are better than the rest is as American as one can get. As an Oscar voter, one desires and revels in the act of being courted and given the hefty responsibility to choose which film, performers and filmmakers will be remembered as the best. It is not a decision that is made lightly – so Oscar campaigns over the years have started earlier and lasted longer. And much like a voter wouldn’t cast and waste a vote on a presidential candidate who has dropped out of the race, film contenders are whittled down to a manageable number. And when the race is over and the winner has been chosen, whether you’re a card-carrying Academy member, or a person who filled out an Oscar pool at work, you want to be able to say that you voted for a winner; that you were discerning enough to know the best when it was presented to you. We, as Americans, like to back winners and we like to do it publicly; and if there is any question about that just take a look at presidential elections, Super Bowls, World Series and NBA Championships. 81 Bibliography Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. "Regulations Concerning the Promotion of Films Eligible for the 84th Academy Awards." Oscars.org. Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012. <http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/ rules/regulations.html>. Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. "Rules & Eligibility for the Academy Awards." Oscars.org. 19 Dec. 2011. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. <http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/index.html>. Appelo, Tim. "The 2011 Oscar Campaign-O-Meter." The Hollywood Reporter 25 Feb. 2011: 60-61. Print. Belloni, Matthew, and Gregg Kilday. "Whitest Oscars in 10 Years?" The Hollywood Reporter. 7 Jan. 2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/whitest-oscars-10-years-28551>. Brown, Peter H., and Jim Pinkston. Oscar Dearest: Six Decades of Scandal, Politics, and Greed behind Hollywood's Academy Awards, 1927-1986. New York: Perennial Library, 1987. Print. The Deadline Team. "OSCARS: 265 Feature Films In Contention." Deadline.com. 19 Dec. 2011. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. <http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/oscars-265- feature-films-in-contention/>. Feinberg, Scott. Personal Interview. 27 Dec. 2011. "Film 'Oscar' Prize for 'Mrs. Miniver'" New York Times 4 Mar. 1943: 14. Print. Finke, Nikki. "Movie Moguls Talked, Joked, Mused About Oscars At Deadline’s ‘The Contenders’ Event." Deadline.com. 10 Dec. 2011. Web. 5 Jan. 2012. <http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/movie-moguls-talked-joked-mused-about- oscars-at-deadline-hollywoods-the-contenders/>. Finke, Nikki. "Oscar Campaign Badmouthing Has Begun!" Deadline.com. 15 Dec. 2009. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.deadline.com/2009/12/the-oscar-badmouthing- has-begun/>. Finke, Nikki. "OSCAR MOGULS: Amy Pascal Q&A." Deadline.com. 13 Feb. 2011. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/oscar-moguls-amy-pascal- qa/>. 82 Finke, Nikki. "OSCAR MOGULS: Brad Grey Q&A." Deadline.com. 13 Feb. 2011. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/oscar-moguls-brad-grey-qa/>. Finke, Nikki. "OSCAR MOGULS: Rich Ross Q&A." Deadline.com. 15 Feb. 2011. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/oscar-moguls-rich-ross-qa/>. Finke, Nikki. "OSCAR MOGULS: Ryan Kavanaugh Q&A." Deadline.com. 15 Feb. 2011. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/oscar-moguls-ryan- kavanaugh-qa/>. Finke, Nikki. "OSCAR MOGULS: Tom Rothman Q&A." Deadline.com. 13 Feb. 2011. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/oscar-moguls-tom- rothman-qa/>. Fleming, Mike. "‘Bridesmaids’ Most Popular VOD Of All Time." Deadline.com. 8 Feb. 2012. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. <http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/bridesmaids-most- popular-vod-of-all-time/>. Germain, David. "'Hurt Locker' Producer Nicolas Chartier BARRED From Oscars." The Huffington Post. Associated Press, 03 Feb. 2010. Web. 22 Jan. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/hurt-locker-producer- nico_n_483402.html>. Goldstein, Patrick, and James Rainey. "Golden Globes: Is the Media Too Obsessed with a Second-rate Awards Show?" Los Angeles Times. 15 Dec. 2010. Web. 5 Jan. 2012. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/12/golden-globes- is-the-media-too-obsessed-with-a-second-rate-awards- show.html?utm_source=feedburner>. Goldstein, Patrick. "24 Frames: Why Is Harvey Weinstein the Ultimate Oscar Campaigner?” Los Angeles Times. 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/12/the-awards-artist-why-is- harvey-weinstein-the-ultimate-oscar-campaigner-.html>. Goldstein, Patrick. "The Oscar Race: Is It Time for a Luxury Tax on Studio Spending?" Los Angeles Times. 29 Nov. 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/11/the-oscar-race-is-it-time-for-a- luxury-tax-on-studio-spending.html>. Hammond, Pete. "HAMMOND: Will Oscars' New Rules Actually Increase The Campaign Frenzy?" Deadeline.com. 21 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012. <http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/hammond-will-oscars-new-rules-actually- increase-the-campaign-frenzy/>. 83 Hammond, Pete. "OSCAR: Melissa Leo Goes Rogue With Her Own Personal Campaign Ads." Deadline.com. 4 Feb. 2011. Web. 5 June 2012. <http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/oscar-melissa-leo-goes-rogue-with-her-own- personal-campaign-ads/>. Harris, Mark. "New York Magazine." Inside the Singular Hysteria of the Brutal Academy Awards Race --. 7 Feb. 2010. Web. 5 Jan. 2012. <http://nymag.com/movies/features/63661/>. Harrison, Eric. "Has Oscar Lost Its Gleam?" The Houston Chronicle 23 Mar. 2003: 12. Print. Holden, Anthony. Behind the Oscar: The Secret History of the Academy Awards. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. Print. Honeycutt, Kirk. "The Dark Knight Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More at Metacritic." Metacritic. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. <http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-dark- knight>. Kilday, Gregg. "Academy Issues New Rules Restricting Oscar Campaigning at Panels and Receptions." The Hollywood Reporter. 21 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012. <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/academy-awards-oscar-party-rules- 238604>. Levy, Emanuel. All about Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards. New York: Continuum, 2003. Print. Levy, Emanuel. And the Winner Is--: The History and Politics of the Oscar Awards. New York: Ungar, 1987. Print. Levy, Emanuel. Oscar Fever: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards. New York: Continuum, 2001. Print. McNamara, Mary. "You Thought Political Campaigns Were Tough." Los Angeles Times. 19 Feb. 2007. Web. 11 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/19/entertainment/et-campaigns19/2>. Miramax Film Corporation. “About.” FundingUniverse.com. Web. 11 Jan. 2012. <http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Miramax-Film- Corporation-company-History.html>. 84 Nelson, Valerie J. "Walter Seltzer Dies at 96; Former Hollywood Press Agent Made a Successful Leap to Producing." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Feb. 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/20/local/la-me- seltzer-20110220>. "Oscar Nominees and Winners." AggData. Web. <http://www.aggdata.com/awards/oscar>. Pawlak, Debra Ann. Bringing up Oscar: The Story of the Men and Women Who Founded the Academy. New York: Pegasus, 2011. Print. Pflug, Paul. “The Business of Awards.” Navigating the Entertainment Industry. University of Southern California, November 2011. Presentation. Pflug, Paul. Personal Interview. 29 Nov. 2011. Pond, Steve. The Big Show: High times and Dirty Dealings Backstage at the Academy Awards. New York: Faber and Faber, 2005. Print. Pond, Steve. “Good Morning Oscar, February 25: Thanks But No Thanks, Gervais.” TheWrap.com. 25 Feb. 2011. Web. 12. Feb. 2012. <http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/good-morning-oscar-february-25- thanks-no-thanks-gervais-25028>. Pond, Steve. Personal Interview. 27 Dec. 2011. Pryor, Thomas M. "'River Kwai' and Guinness Win Film 'Oscars'" New York Times 26 Mar. 1958: 39. Print. Roberts, Steven V. "George C. Scott and 'Patton' Win Oscars." New York Times 15 Apr. 1971: 22. Print. Robertson, Nan. "'Oscar' Fete Is Big One For Fashion." New York Times 7 Apr. 1959: 37. Print. Schumach, Murray. "Poitier Wins Oscar As Best Film Actor." New York Times 13 Apr. 1963: 1. Print. Screen Actors Guild. "About Us." Screen Actors Guild. 22 Dec. 2011. Web. 22 Dec. 2011. <http://www.sag.org/content/about-us>. Spines, Christine. "What Price Oscar Glory?" Entertainment Weekly 16 Feb. 2007: 7-8. Print. 85 Waxman, Sharon. "Oscar Campaigns Are Filled with a Few Big Spenders." The Washington Post 15 Mar. 1999, Arts & Entertainment sec.: C5. Print. Welkos, Robert W. "Oscars -- Already?; Studio Campaigns Gear up." Chicago Sun- Times 10 Oct. 1999, Sunday, Late Sports Final Edition ed., Show sec.: 7. Print.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This paper examines the evolution, strategy and practice of entertainment public relations surrounding the Academy Awards. More specifically, it addresses the art and practice of award season “campaigning.” The purpose of this paper is to not only track the progression of entertainment public relations as it relates to the Academy Awards, but to also highlight how nearly every facet of the film industry as a whole has been transformed with the proliferation of award season campaigning. Another aim is to highlight the current best practices of those employed as award season consultants and strategists. The key issues examined in this paper include the evolution of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the emergence of award season campaigning, as well as the art and strategy of modern campaigning. Results reveal key individuals whose approaches to campaigning have gone on to become industry-wide best practices. Further examination has also revealed how ancillary entertainment businesses, such as award season journalism, have evolved due to the emergence and propagation of campaigning. The paper’s conclusion highlights the unknown future of campaigning due to the continuing modification of regulations by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The paper also concludes that the perception of campaigning continues to be in question as critics, experts and insiders determine if the practice helps or hurts the industry as a whole.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evolution in the processed foods industry: exploring the impact of the health foods movement

PDF

Analyzing the decline of symphonic music in the United States: public relations strategies to attract Millennials

PDF

The food truck phenomenon: A successful blend of PR and social media

PDF

The missing link: the role of organizational culture in technology change management communication

PDF

Destination USA: marketing the United States as an international travel destination

PDF

The share factor: implications of global digital strategy for public relations

PDF

Selling the world: an exploration of the past, present and future of destination marketing

PDF

Trading places: an in-depth analysis of entertainment public relations practices within different socio-economic contexts

PDF

See it want it buy it: the changing face of the early adopter in high technology and the tech industry's targeted public relations campaigns

PDF

College athletic directors and reputational risk: the public relations imperative

PDF

Public relations vs. advertising for the big screen: the ever-growing role of strategic public relations in the effective marketing of theatrical motion picture releases

PDF

The development of Hollywood's relationship with the military: a guide for filmmakers and military entertainment liaison officers

PDF

The entertainment value in food and its value to the public relations industry

PDF

Public engagement, media relations and the future of the PR industry

PDF

How a strategic public relations campaign can enhance the reputation of China's financial public relations industry

PDF

Lights, camera, (call to) action: global public engagement in film launch campaigns

PDF

2011 National Football League lockout: messaging in the context of professional sports labor disputes

PDF

Effective Messaging in the LASIK Industry

PDF

Creating effective communication between travel industry service providers and disabled travelers

PDF

The visual literacy explosion: a brief history, relevant cases and commonly accepted practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Benedict, Emily (author)

Core Title Academy award campaigns: the evolution of PR and the film industry

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 05/01/2012

Defense Date 03/23/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Academy awards,Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,Entertainment,film,OAI-PMH Harvest,Oscars,Public Relations

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Floto, Jennifer D. (committee chair), Kotler, Jonathan (committee member), Saltzman, Joseph (committee member)

Creator Email benedict.emily@gmail.com,ebenedic@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-20125

Unique identifier UC11290082

Identifier usctheses-c3-20125 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BenedictEm-704.pdf

Dmrecord 20125

Document Type Thesis

Rights Benedict, Emily

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA