I don’t know about you, but I don’t like having to wait until Christmas to see a good movie. But in 2003, I’m thinking things may be a little different.
The Academy, you see, has an experiment going. For the next two years, it will hold the Oscars a month earlier than usual. For the last 15 years or so, the event’s been scheduled during the last week of March. But next year, it will happen on Sunday, February 29, 2004.
To the casual moviegoer, it might sound like just a simple switch in schedule. But in a town where every Monday morning some studio claims a new kind of record–this week, Disney’s “Bringing Down the House” had “the third best March opening ever”–the new Oscar date has led to some serious rethinking about the way movies are released. And I’m hoping some of the changes will benefit moviegoers, as well.
Let’s talk first about the official reason the Oscars have been pushed up a month: the ratings slump. The show continues to draw fewer and fewer viewers. In 2002, the Oscars had an audience of 41.8 million in the U.S., the lowest numbers in 15 years. Why aren’t people watching? It’s certainly not because they’re less interested in movies, or movie stars. After all, last year box-office receipts broke new records worldwide. No, it’s more likely that Oscar ratings are falling because by the time the event finally comes around–a full three months into the next calendar year–movie fans already have seen their favorite actors win prizes and give speeches a handful of times at other televised awards shows (wearing a different outfit and hairstyle in each instance, naturally).
First come the People’s Choice Awards in January, followed by the Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards, the immensely popular Golden Globe Awards and finally, the Screen Actors Guild Awards. The Grammys, while focusing on music, also occur during this stretch. There’s also the separate directors, writers and producers guild galas–and while these three events aren’t televised, the results become fodder for entertainment columns in newspapers and paparazzi pictures from the red-carpet arrivals show up in many magazines.
All of this has seriously diluted the Oscar brand. Indeed, when Renee Zellweger won the SAG Award for best actress for “Chicago” last Sunday, she stood up from her table and shrieked, holding her face in the exact fashion she had at the Golden Globes on TV seven weeks earlier. Then she took the exact same giddy march to the podium and gave, of course, a similarly sweet, gracious acceptance speech. It was like watching a rerun. So really, how excited are supposed to get for Zellweger’s possible win at the Academy Awards on March 23?
There’s also a less official, more insidious reason for the switch in dates. In the last few years, Oscar season has become a relentless, sometimes ruthless race to the finish, much more about politics than picking the best in movies. Expensive “For Your Consideration” ads (often several pages long) clutter the industry trades Variety and the Hollywood Reporter from November through the end of March, and increasingly, The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, too. Last year, each studio spent $10 to $15 million just on Oscar campaigns.
The end result: a once joyous competition (remember “it’s an honor just being nominated”?) has become more like a war. You can’t just build up your own movie, you’ve got to take down the other guys as well. Last year’s Oscar season was particularly vicious, with Miramax and Universal in a protracted mud-slinging match over the inaccuracies in the latter studio’s “A Beautiful Mind.” At the Golden Globes, Miramax’s Harvey Weinstein publicly screamed at Universal studio chief Stacey Snider, saying he’d “bury” “A Beautiful Mind” if his studio continued to be identified in the press as the source of negative gossip. Is it a coincidence that the Academy voted to explore a shorter campaign season just months later?
Here’s why I like the Academy’s controversial idea and it’s very simple: it puts emphasis back on the movies, rather than on their marketing.
Let’s work backwards for a minute. With the Oscars being held on February 29, everything Oscar-related has to be moved up. The nominations–which traditionally are announced about six weeks before the event–will be revealed sometime in January, presumably. That means that the Oscar ballots have to go out to Academy members in early January, reportedly maybe as early next year as Jan. 2.
In that scenario, the studios simply can’t release everything in December. There wouldn’t be enough time for Academy members to see all the movies. Studios could mail Academy members as many screening DVDs and videocassettes as they’d like, but the industry folks just won’t be able to get through them all. And if studios send out the movies before they’re released domestically, the companies risk piracy.
The studios have no choice but to shuffle their release schedules. I’d hope execs see this as an opportunity not just to readjust their distribution plans, but to rethink them. My advice: Don’t just push everything up four weeks, making November “the new December.” Instead, try to space those suckers out a bit. Release more of your top-tier films across the whole calendar–even if you think a film’s Oscar-worthy. “Unfaithful” came out in May 2002 and Diane Lane got her Oscar nomination. “Road to Perdition” debuted at the beginning of the summer, and Academy voters didn’t forget Paul Newman’s riveting supporting role.
The Academy’s experiment does have its detractors. Some say a shorter Oscar season means box office revenue would drop, since there’s bound to be a couple less weeks between the nominations and the awards. Indeed, the first “Lord of the Rings” made $30 million between the day its 13 nominations were announced and the Oscars itself. Others say the competing televised awards shows will only steal more of the Oscars’s heat, because producers will squeeze them into two months instead of three. Many event planners have already nailed new dates in January and February 2004.
The greatest argument against the early Oscars, however, is that quality, smaller films released for Academy Award consideration won’t have the time to blossom that they have in years past. Audiences will always rush to see movies starring A-list talent, no matter what day they come out. Tom Cruise’s “The Last Samurai” won’t have any problem drawing crowds when it’s released on Dec. 5, 2003. Same goes for the final “Lord of the Rings” on Dec. 17. But will there be enough time for Academy members to discover smaller indies such as “Monster’s Ball” and “The Pianist”? Both debuted with little fanfare in December and through word-of-mouth gained momentum into Oscar season, then were rewarded with nominations in February.
But with less emphasis on December, hopefully Academy voters will keep their eyes open all year round. And if you’re a small studio sitting on a great indie, I’d suggest not staking everything on Oscar. There’s more to movies than an Academy Award. Release that gem in July.
Not surprisingly, most of the big studios haven’t complained about the date-change. Apparently, Hollywood execs are tired of the industry insanity from December through the last days of March as well. They’re game for the two-year experiment, especially if it fixes some of the defects in the system.
Check out the release schedule for late 2003 and you’ll see things are starting to look a little different. The Clint Eastwood-directed, Sean Penn-starring “Mystic River” is due Oct. 3. Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill” will debut Oct. 10. Julia Roberts’s “Mona Lisa Smile” hits theaters Nov. 21. Phew–I’m feeling less rushed already.
