Archive for the 'film' Category

Are movie bloggers trading puff pieces in exchange for access to studios?

For my latest article for The Next Web I interviewed several movie critics about whether industry blogs are too acquiescent to the major movie studios:

Abaius said that the way the studios treat you depends largely on the size of your audience. Sites like Deadline.com and The Wrap and trade publications like Variety and the Hollywood Reporter get fed much more access than smaller publications like Film School Rejects, which averages about 2 million uniques a month. Still, Abaius does get at least some access. “We’ve been on set visits, get press releases, get interviews and access to special events and that sort of thing, but I’ve never felt like I’ve had to ‘play a game’ or ‘play by the rules’ or anything like that. We’ve always shared an opinion, whether it’s good, bad, or ugly, and the studios and smaller filmmaking outlets have always seized it to give a solid amount of access.”

You can follow me on Twitter, fan me on Facebook, or go ahead and hire me.

Are movie review websites too acquiescent to the film industry?

In a defensive blog post this week, an editor at AOL’s Moviefone made one of those shocking admissions that rarely see the light of day. After TechCrunch accused a Moviefone writer of trying to pressure the tech site into “toning down” its coverage of a film it had reviewed, Moviefone’s Patricia Chui wrote, “the reality of our situation is that, as a movies site, we work with movie studios every day, and it is in our best interests to stay on good terms with them.”

Film industry media is fiercely competitive (the ongoing spitballs between The Wrap and Deadline.com are indicative of this) and are often accused of lying down and taking whatever morsels that are spoon fed to them by PR flaks. Angelina Jolie’s lawyer famously tried once to get journalists to sign a waver demanding “the interview may only be used to promote the Picture. … The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning or derogatory to Ms. Jolie.”

As a journalist myself I understand the fine line that others have to walk. Ideally, you wouldn’t have to play favors to gain access, and in some industries the access is easier to block off than others. With tech media, for instance, there are so many companies and players that being blocked off from a single PR rep still leaves you with much to cover. A good journalist will simply try to be fair as possible with the hope that a source will respect that fairness and not cut him off completely. And if the journalist is cut off, then he simply has to work his behind-the-scene sources to fill in the gap.

Of course the political press is often accused of this same acquiescence. When a Rolling Stone article got General McChrystal fired, Politico made a rare admission when it wrote:

And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.

TechCrunch was not happy with the Moviefone response, and has called for its editor to be fired.

You can follow me on Twitter, fan me on Facebook, or go ahead and hire me.

How a New York Times blog boosted the career of a filmmaker

Follow me on Twitter

How I got 39,000 views on a month-old documentary trailer in just a week

it might get loud trailerOne of the things I specialize in is getting video content to spread online. Last week I came across a YouTube trailer for a documentary called It Might Get Loud, and I wanted to see how much I could increase its view count after sending out only a few emails. I picked this trailer for three reasons:

1. It had already been uploaded on YouTube for about a month and so it no longer had the value of being new.

2. It was for a relatively small-release documentary, so it likely didn’t have a large marketing budget or widespread mainstream appeal.

3. There were many other competing versions of the same trailer on YouTube, the Apple website and the movie’s official website. This way I could keep track of how quickly other versions of the trailer were spreading without my help.

The version of the trailer I chose had 76,790 views a week ago when I started the experiment. It had been on the web for 27 days so in total averaged about 2,800 views a day. I began by spending a few hours seeding out the video to communities I thought would be receptive to it. One of the talents I have is using analytic search tools to identify specific micro niches of influential bloggers that are most likely to write about the content I’m pushing.

Within days, the trailer made it onto the Huffington Post and then less than 24 hours later on the front page of Digg. When I began the experiment, links and embeds on Twitter and in the blogosphere were about equally spread out across several versions of the trailer, but within four or five days, links to the trailer I was pushing far outnumbered all the others:

twitter it might get loud

By the end of the week I had the trailer up to 115,397 views, an increase of 38,607. The views-per-day count jumped up from 2,800 views a day to 5,515 views a day.

As a point of comparison, this version of the trailer had 36,346 views when I began my outreach, and by the end of the week was only up to 40,470 views, an increase of 4,124. Like all the other versions of the trailer on YouTube I was tracking, it actually had a decrease in the daily views, likely because it had already been on the web for so long.

This was a relatively niche small-release documentary and the trailer was a month old. Think of what I could do with your trailer or video if I had it on the day it launches.

Deadline Hollywood Daily acquired by media corporation

Back in July of last year I wrote about how independent film websites are becoming major competitors for the major trade mags, and today we find out that one is invited into the echelon of the big leagues.

MMC Acquires Deadline Hollywood Daily

Mail.com Media Corporation (MMC), the digital media company that owns and operates the Mail.com portal and email service as well as a growing portfolio of lifestyle brands, including HollywoodLife.com, MovieLine.com and OnCars.com, announced today its acquisition of the Internet’s highly respected and widely read website for original content about the infotainment industry DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com. MMC also begins a long-term partnership with former Newsweek and Los Angeles Times and New York Magazine writer/reporter Nikki Finke, the founder and writer of DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com and one of the foremost entertainment business journalists in the world.

Follow me on Twitter

PETA criticizes The Dark Knight for its treatment of animals

You can harm dozens of innocent bystanders but don’t lay a finger on a dog

bat dogNearly every Batman movie, comic book, and television show includes the obligatory references to bats. Directors can be forgiven if they dwell on the flying rodents, either in a literal sense (by giving them regular appearances in caves and flashbacks) or figuratively (personifying their traits and applying them to Bruce Wayne). But in the most recent film adaptation, The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan chose to give much more screen time to another animal: Dogs.

“The Joker’s just a mad dog. I want whoever let him off the leash,” District Attorney Harvey Dent says to crime boss Salvatore Maroni. In another scene the Joker threatens to feed a mobster to his own dogs, saying, “We’ll see how loyal a hungry dog is.” There are at least two instances in which Batman does battle with Rottweilers and after Lucius Fox designs a new bat suit Wayne asks him how well it will fend off dogs. In the final scene Batman is shown fleeing with a number of police dogs in pursuit.

I didn’t connect these dots at the time, but as I was walking out of the theater, a friend of mine — who happens to own a Rottweiler — said that her least favorite parts of the movie are when Batman fights the dogs. I asked her why so.

“Because they’re totally pushing a negative stereotype about Rottweilers,” she said. “They’re reinforcing the idea that they’re these vicious creatures.”

Apparently, she’s not the only one who felt this way. Yesterday, PETA — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals — posted an item on its website criticizing the movie for having its hero beat dogs. I spoke to the writer of that post, Christine Doré, in a brief phone interview today. She said that the film could have handled the scenes in a different way.

“Basically, while I personally thought it was a fantastic movie, it was a little disappointing, that part of it,” Doré said. “I think, you know, that it’s funny that this superhero genius that everyone loves, who has all these fantastic gadgets, who never uses guns, that he doesn’t have access to a tranquilizer or other deflecting device.”

I asked her to elaborate on this, but she then tried to reroute me through PETA’s official media department.

David J. Schwartz, film critic for Strange Horizons and author of Superpowers, a novel about a group of young superheros, called the dog beatings “uncool” in his blog while other reviewers argued that the animals were meant to symbolize obedience and loyalty.

Jim Henley is much more ambivalent on the issue. Henley writes about comic books for science fiction publisher Tor, and in a phone interview today he said that Batman’s combat with dogs was justified in this instance.

“Within the context of the movie, the context of the scene, it was an act of self defense,” he said. “My understanding of mainstream animal rights theory — which I’m not by any means completely hostile to — self defense is an understood concept. For instance, you’re allowed to shoot the wolf that’s about to eat your baby.”

He pointed out that the movie is murky as to whether any dogs actually die during the fights — they were typically thrown off camera, and in one instance over a railing — and that’s because directors are typically hesitant to show any graphic violence involving animals.

oskar“Americans are very sentimental about Spot,” Henley said. ” … You’ll see horror movies where people get disemboweled, have their heads sawed off, use staple guns to stick themselves to plaster board. My experience is that you don’t see any of that happen to animals onscreen. I’m happy not to see dogs tortured, but it’s interesting that you’ll see really bad things done to people, and not really bad things done to dogs. Even in The Dark Knight, there’s a reason why it’s a little unclear what happened to the dogs that Batman was fighting. They weren’t going to show the dogs splattering on the street or anything like that.”

I asked my Rottweiler-owner friend what she would have had Batman do in those situations.

“I just really think Batman should have had a gadget that releases treats and distracts dogs,” she said.

While this would certainly be cute, I’m not sure that it would fit the dark theme Nolan was going for.

Mocking the mockers: The ambiguity of a Youtube video

“This is too clever to have been done by creationists.”

I thought this while watching a nearly four minute Youtube video called “Beware the Believers” depicting a rapping Richard Dawkins and headband-wearing Christopher Hitchens. After a brief prologue in which an animated Dawkins introduces an audience to a “glorious age, the age of the machine,” it launches into biting lyrics that tear into the “appeal to authority” arguments often employed during evolution-versus-intelligent design debates. The cast of this music video is comprised of prominent atheists and scientists ranging from Charles Darwin to anthropologist Eugenie Scott, and if there’s one thing this lyrical group wants to convey to you, it’s that Dawkins “is smarter than you, he has a science degree.”
expelled richard dawkins
At surface level, the video is targeting the atheists and scientists it depicts. Creationists and religious apologists have long complained of the supposed elitism of prominent atheists, and here is a two-dimensional rendition of the alleged snobbery. With non-believers constantly using the word “irrational” to describe religious belief, it’s not too far-fetched to think the religious would strike back at the very university degrees that give many of these scientists their stature.

But seen another way, the video is mocking those very believers. The characters appearing in the piece are literally cut-out, enlarged heads bobbling to-and-fro over dancing real bodies — they’re essentially caricatures. Viewed in this light, the video is riffing on the often-bizarre paranoia of creationists who think “Big Science” is actively trying to suppress scientists who don’t subscribe to some kind of mainstream scientific doctrine, e.g. evolutionary theory. Given that a new documentary touting this very thesis, Expelled, was soon to be released, the video seemed an appropriate way to address this play-the-victim assertion.

The fact that the video was of unknown origin (the username of the person who uploaded it didn’t give any clue) further enhanced the ambiguity of its message. Perhaps because of this almost-perfect balance, the piece was widely linked across the web, making its way onto a number of extremely popular sites. Rather than being offended by the video, much of the online atheist community embraced it. As one Digg user put it, “Whether you’re a person of science, a person of faith or a mix of the two I think we can all agree that this is one catchy song. Kudos to the guy who made this, it’s hilarious.”

As the video spread, its origin remained a mystery. Many of those who viewed it — including me — thought it was too well written to have been created by the people behind Expelled. After all, movie critics have already eviscerated the film for its lack of originality, boring use of stock footage and overall failed attempts at humor. Clearly something as sharp and well-written as this couldn’t come from a Ben Stein cohort.

Well, it turns out we were wrong — somewhat.

PZ Myers, a biology professor and vocal atheist who appears in “Beware the Believers,” received an email this week from a man named Michael Edmondson who outed himself as one of the creators. “The intent of the video has been questioned a lot,” he wrote. “…I suppose the answer is that I tried to make something that was funny to me and It’s not really meant to convince anyone of anything.”
pz myers christopher hitchens expelled
Edmondson is a 27-year-old film school graduate living in Vancouver. He previously worked creating marketing videos for Electronic Arts but left the company in 2004 to start Float On Films and do work on the side as a photographer providing artwork for the hospitality industry. From late last summer until the end of last week, he had done contractual work for Premise Media, the producers for Expelled. He has a visual effects credit in the documentary and was one of the main players behind the Youtube video.

I interviewed Edmondson this week and asked him how “Beware the Believers” came about. “Originally it was a six minute piece to be used within the film Expelled,” he told me. “It told the story of the ‘rise of the Machine’ (darwinism). When I had arrived the script was already written having passed through three sets of hands of writers directly or loosely connected to the film…In the editing room for Expelled the production team decided the film had taken a different direction in tone than expected and that the unfinished animation no longer fit the film.”

It was the producers who decided to shift the video online and make it a separate entity, with the hopes of it becoming a “viral piece,” as Edmondson put it. A person named Matt Chandler was brought in to write the lyrics. “Matt and I each wrote a version of the lyrics,” he said. “My version was the requested 90 seconds and well received. Matt’s was five minutes long but very layered and smart so we went with Matt’s and trimmed it to three minutes.”

To save time, he set up a blue screen in his kitchen and performed the dancing rather than animating the bodies of each character. It took him over seven months to complete, “worked on intermittently between other projects and tasks.”

Which brings me to the nagging question about the video’s origin: Was the creator — Edmondson — sympathetic to the Expelled thesis (that intelligent design is a legitimate theory and should be taught in the classroom), or was this a fly-by paid-for-hire production? To make matters even more confusing, at nearly the same time he outed himself Edmondson released a “sequel” to “Beware the Believers” in which Ben Stein is wearing a shirt that has the words “Poe’s Law” written on it. For those not familiar with it, Poe’s Law states that it is impossible to make a parody of fundamentalism without it being interchangeable with the real thing.

But which “fundamentalists” are being parodied here, the intelligent design proponents or the scientists?
expelled ben stein
I tried to get a reading on Edmondson’s leanings on this matter, asking him if he was sympathetic to Expelled’s cause. “The video wasn’t just meant to be funny. I think it has something to say,” he replied. “It was meant to spark debate and bring attention to the issue…What I meant was that the animation was not intended to convince people of anything. I hope no one over five years old learns really important things about the world through the song and dance of cartoon characters. In the second video there appears the text ‘In Vitro Vertas.’ It means ‘the truth is in the test tube.’ I think that is a true statement for this issue. If intelligent design is true the truth will eventually come out through the science. I think the film has a viewpoint that has the right to be heard.”

I pressed further, asking if the “Poe’s Law” written on Stein’s shirt meant that he was intentionally mocking the intelligent design promoters. “No… but yes,” he said. “Like many things we included in the videos what you see has everything to do with what you bring to it and can be interpreted a few different ways. A person’s world view colours how they see the world and these animations. We knew some people would see it that way. The animations make fun of everyone.”

Myers, who’s featured in both “Beware the Believers” and Expelled, seemed to agree with this notion, calling the video “equal opportunity mockery.”

“It’s a video that used wit and humor and irreverence and knowledge of contemporary attitudes that earned the attention given to it, no matter what view point it might have been pushing,” he told me in an interview this week.

I asked the biology professor about the possibility that Edmondson had crossed enemy lines to help out the Expelled people (it should be noted that I asked this question before I had been able to interview Edmondson). After all, many of Myers’s blog commenters had accused Edmondson of being just as guilty as the Expelled creators because he had helped out in the marketing.

“Most people don’t see the ‘enemy lines as sharply as an educated scientist or an ignorant creationist would,” Myers said. “To most people, the lines are pretty blurry and uncertain (although a little more education in biology would certainly help open their eyes), and the battle isn’t as clearly laid out as the actual participants see it. It seems to me that Edmondson is an artist who is playing around right on that boundary, and not so much an active transgressor.”

Besides, he said, the video “was an absolutely horrible piece of marketing.”

“It wouldn’t be a draw to Expelled‘s target audience, nor would it persuade critics to go see the movie,” he explained. “The Expelled producers wasted their money on it, if they thought they were getting a marketing tool. I hope Edmondson got paid a LOT of the creationists’ money.”

Sadly, when I asked Edmondson how much he got paid to produce the video, it was the one question he neglected to answer.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin