Hollywood Trades are Clearly in the Tank for Frost/Nixon

Posted by Neil Miller (neil@filmschoolrejects.com) on December 19, 2008

variety-frostnixon

The photo above comes to us from The New York Times’ David Carr, known more fondly as The Bagger. In one of his updates today, Carr points out that both Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have been doing what they always do, allowing their covers to be used for big, loud “For Your Consideration” advertisements. But over the past two weeks, both THR and Daily Variety have been taken over by Universal and Imagine Entertainment’s Frost/Nixon, a serious Best Picture candidate.

As many of you may or may not know, it is customary for studios to throw large amounts of money at campaigns for their Oscar hopefuls. And as Nikki Finke pointed out yesterday, even though studios are in the midst of laying off large portions of their employees, they have continued to buy up FYC ad spots all over the place. The most egregious offender seems to be Paramount, who on the day Viacom took a hatchet to its staffing board, Paramount had a color gatefold ad in Variety for The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button. Cost: $250,000, or as Finke points out “about 5 assistants’ salaries.”

But while many industry pundits, especially Ms. Finke, are calling on studios to be less showy during the economic crisis, my concern turns to the fairness of the Oscar race. The folks who read these trade papers are most often industry workers that make up the Academy. And as we’ve found so often in the box office world, good marketing can deliver results for a subpar movie. This is why Spider-Man 3 made so much on opening weekend, despite being the weakest of its franchise. That said, I’m always weary that films such as Slumdog Millionaire will somehow be overlooked because of a great marketing campaign in support of Benjamin Button or Frost/Nixon. Not to say that those movies aren’t deserving, but they should win on their merits as good films, not the merits of their publicity departments. My hope is that all of the organic buzz generated by Slumdog will be enough to carry it to a Best Picture win. But I suppose we’ll see.

Do you think that “For Your Consideration” advertising is a fair practice? Should the movie with the most money behind it have the best chance at Oscar gold?


Read more articles by Neil Miller

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Oscar Beat '08, Site Features, , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Liberal media Trade publications and MSM Papers all over a movie critical of a Republican President who faced impeachment?? I find that hard to believe.

    How much do you want to bet that a movie never garners the same type of coverage of Clinton and the Lewenski scandel and his lying to a Fedral Judge, thus causing impeachment to be attempted, something that never happened to Nixon?
  • I'd actually bet that it would. A film based on that would be freaking awesome.
  • Ok there is one person, now we have to find backing for this script I have.
  • I think that film would suck.

    (Waits a beat.)

    Clinton lying about sex was more salacious, but utterly inoffensive and excusable as it wasn't anybody's business. Nixon broke laws that actually matter. And no, I'm neither a liberal nor a democrat.
  • Marketing of a movie to possibly affect the Oscar race doesn't start at Oscar time. A film's marketing budget from the very beginning plays a huge part as well. So if you're going to say that studios shouldn't be allowed to put out "For Your Consideration" ads then where do you stop? A movie in the public eye is still in the industry's eye... so the movie with the most money behind it will always have a better chance.
    Unless your little movie comes out at the end of the year, is really really good, and gets some buzz behind it early...
  • Come on, Hunter. That's absurd even for you. This trend of buying the Oscars started in earnest - or ramped up - about a decade ago, and it's changed the game ever since. Hand shaking in back rooms turned into massive campaigns where the dollar is king. It's hurt the awards to such a degree that the public can even tell that it's basically rigged. Simply put, buying the Oscars has delegitamized the whole show.

    Also, Nixon is far more interesting than Clinton.

    Also, also, "in the tank?" Someone read Wonkette! Kudos, Neil.
  • Well I'm a staunch Democrat and I think there's a story there that while salacious would be hilarious.
blog comments powered by Disqus