The Girl With the Embargoed Reviews
Monday, December 5, 2011 at 8:00PM Mikael Blomkvist: What are you doing?
Lisbeth Salander: Reading the reviews.
Mikael: But they're embargoed!
Lisbeth: ...
Perhaps you've heard about the kerfuffle with the breaking of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo embargo? Usually these behind-the-scenes details are kept private but what happened was simply that David Denby ran his review of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo early since he works for a weekly magazine rather than a daily blog and according to this thorough roundup at The Hollywood Reporter he felt he had to cover some of the important Christmas movies early (space and time limitations) else wait til January for some of them. Sony got very very angry even though the review was positive and basically a love letter to Rooney Mara who I can confirm --- no wait, I can't... I'm under embargo! In the end this amounts to nothing so much as free publicity for Dragon Tattoo and free publicity for David Denby and The New Yorker so everyone wins... though you'll surely read differently elsewhere since people like to get on soapboxes about such things.
Scott Rudin claims that Denby will be banned from his future movies but embargos are broken every year and nothing happens to anyone who breaks them. The studios are so inconsistent about how they handle them from movie to movie -- and even often from journalist to journalist on the same movie -- that it's not always easy to take them seriously. I always obey them but this is only because I'm polite and from the Midwest. But I wish I didn't ;) Playing by the rules generally doesn't help you and you may have heard that 'there is no such thing as bad publicity'? You've heard it because it's true.
Reader Comments (28)
I already posted about this in the "War Horse" article, but to recap:
What exactly is the point of an embargo? They just seem so unnecessary to me. Are they afraid that the buzz is going to fade away before the movie opens? So we can't talk about it sixteen days before it opens, but we can at eight days? Is the official date the result of some complicated mathematical equation used to determine maximum buzz benefit?
But rules are rules. Denby agreed to the embargo, and he should have honored that agreement. Very unethical for a journalist (or anyone, really). I'm hardly rending my garments over the situation, though. I don't really care what Denby's "punishment" is. And anyone who knows anything about him should at least be slightly amused that just this once, Scott Rudin is on the losing end of someone's jerk move.
Yes, but you've also not said anything about The Iron Lady and War Horse (which I think is like "kind of" embargoed or something). Are you just taking your time to think about them or do you want to just not say anything yet?
Still no interest in this movie.
Sony and Rudin should probably remove the sticks up their asses.
I think that if there's a general consensus amongst critics that Mara is incredible then I wouldn't be surprised if she skyrockets herself out from amongst the perpetual Dark Horses (Jones, Dunst) and lands herself into the field of serious contenders, possibly taking out an Olsen or a Theron along the way. I sense that no matter how dark or alienating the film proves to be, widespread acclaim for her performance could work wonders, a la Portman last year.
james t -- as far as i know they're all embargoed but maybe i'm wrong. it is SERIOUSLY hard to keep track this year given all the screeners all the shifting rules and all the platform or one week qualifiers. NO CONSISTENCY EVER HERE.
I agree about Rudin being a drama queen, but there are some bloggers dropping hints that they will be writing lackluster reviews.
What's with all the talk of embargoes this year within the blog community? (I know this is the first time TFE has mentioned them and you're doing it only because it's news; I'm talking about other blogs here.) I've seen embargoes mentioned at least weekly for several months now. It's frustrating for readers to hear, "I've seen that highly anticipated film you want to know about but I can't tell you anything! Sorry!"
@Bia - Isn't that just Kris Tapley?
"I always obey them but this is only because I'm polite and from the Midwest." <3
I always thought embargoes were used for movies that were pretty bad, and the studio didn't want the reviews released until the movie had hit theaters.
Admittedly, I know nothing about how this works. That was just my impression.
Best Actress often seems like a category that gets all sealed up early in terms of nominees. Ironically, if Rooney Mara has a shot, it would seem better to get the word out quickly to get her in the conversation.
Steve -- agreed about best actress. Early birds often catch the worm there to be grossly cliché
As a journalist I'm with David Denby and The New Yorker.
We must be able to set the tempo due to relevance, timing or personal taste. Honestly, If we can't do that...
Embargoes set the start date you can write about a movie, right? But there's no expiration date, so if you're against the studio policy, or the movie, or just want to make a statement of any kind you can publish your review two months later. If journalists and bloggers decided to do that with an awards contender, embargoes would be over before Mara could grow her eyebrows back. I know internet is very much about being first, but to get changes, some sacrifices are needed, I suppose.
Btw, having no clear frontrunner in the Best Actress race is the best possible scenario for Mara to get the last minute spot, unless it goes nc-17.
Peggy Sue--But as journalists, don't you agree that you still have to adhere to a code of ethics, and agreeing to a publication only to go back on your word violates that? To keep other people honest, journalists must stay honest themselves.
Imagine if you had promised a source anonymity, but then named them in your feature story anyway. Would anyone be standing in defense of that?
Sorry, agreeing to a publication *date*.
I already cant stand Rooney Mara. Already over her and the hype around her.
Iggy -- there's no expiration date but trust that it only hurts the journalists who aren't first. You can see it in which blogs get all the attention and it's always the people who make a point of being first or in the first wave. The internet is very "next week/month/year" focused as opposed to really digging into the now.
It's the New Yorker. Rudin won't keep the ban on Denby going on for long. He wants the New Yorker reviewing his films at all costs. All of this makes Denby look like an asshat, but Rudin will live.
In the age of Rotten Tomatoes, I don't see the relevance of embargoes for film reviews.
Lem -- but why does it make Denby look bad? I mean honestly. The New Yorker's movie page allows for TWO reviews each week. If the studios force all their movies into the same windows, what are publications supposed to do?
Liz -- An anonymous source is a whole different thing!
I think we're talking about movies reviews here not internal affairs. I mean, what's the point of attending a special screening if you can't write about it until they told you to?
I know it's pretty common these days but we should be honest with ourselves and accept that by doing that we are becoming publicists not journalists. There's a huge difference.
I don't understand the point of strictly forcing an embargo on a film that's adapted from a very well known novel which has already been made into a film. It's not like it's The Crying Game where half the fun was keeping the main plot point a secret (wow I am dating myself here)
I recommend Page One: Inside The New York Times. Very interesting. Deals with many of the issues we're discussing here.
Oh, I didn't mean to point at any difference between journalism and blogs. I meant to include both, but I forgot. Both suffer the consequences one way or another.
Peggy Sue--
An anonymous source is a whole different thing!
I think we're talking about movies reviews here not internal affairs.
But is that your choice to make? What if the anonymous source was regarding a seemingly unimportant topic, like the development of a new shampoo or something?
"Well, this topic is important enough to keep quiet on, but not this topic." Then you're getting into very sticky ethical areas. Who is to say that another reviewer can't say, "Well, Denby broke a rule. That means that I can break a rule too," and the rule they're referring to is to never accept money in exchange for a good review. Is that a bigger deal than breaking an embargo? Maybe to someone people, maybe not.
I just don't think, "Eh, it's a movie. So what?" is a valid excuse in this case.
He shouldn't have seen the film in advance if he couldn't agree to the embargo, Nathaniel. That's what.
LEM-- well, sure. I get that part. But journalists people break embargoes at least monthly and a lot of times the studios say nothing. Or they hold one group of journalists to one standard and other to another and it's just very hard to take seriously. It's funny to me that people are acting like David Denby is the first person ever to break his word on which date he'd publish something on when in fact it happens ALL THE TIME. And, maybe I'm cynical, but I'm willing to bet that some of the people chastising him publicly have done it themselves. especially because USUALLY when one person breaks the embargo everyone else follows on the grounds of "it was already broken!" but didn't those people also agree to the embargo?
so my point is 'people who live in glass houses...'
I know that this isn't the first time an embargo has been broken, and I doubt it'll be the last. But this is the one we're talking about right now, and the issues surrounding it ARE shady. That's why it's currently a thing. And once the other publications and bloggers come out of the woodwork following Denby's lead, then there's a new discussion to talk about. But for me, Denby should have kept his word. This knocks a lot ot people in the teeth mainly for his self-interests, and that makes him an ass in my book.