Techtite.com Editorial : My Two Bits, V2

While California was busy promoting Governor recalls, very little seems to be said about the MPAA Screener Ban; so little, in fact, some people may not even know what I'm talking about. Here's the deal: every year since VHS became a household word, Academy voters have been sent "screener" tapes of films which wanted to be considered for Oscar nomination. These screeners allow an Academy voter to see low-budget or "indie" films, that would've been nearly impossible to see otherwise. Many films in recent years would not have received a single Oscar, if not for screener tapes.

However, it's a hard truth of marketing that anything given for "free" is rarely respected. It has been alleged that some Academy voters take these free tapes and give them, just as freely, to friends. These friends then give it to other friends, and so on. Why not? The original tape was given for free; why wouldn't the recipient think nothing about "spreading the love"...? Trouble is: eventually, these tapes end up on the black market, as a "free" movie. This is losing the movie studios millions; perhaps billions, in the long run.

Now, it's important to note that the label of blame has been volleyed back and forth on this matter, and to me, one source hasn't gotten its due. If screeners are not simply a cheap publicity stunt --"cheap," as in: a means to get your movie an Oscar, without the need of any major publicity campaign-- then why not pay the extra money, to make a screener copy-protected? Add macrovision, DVD "security keys," or whatever else it takes to make sure that the movie isn't copied. MPAA is happy; you're happy, end of problem. If it costs more to do this; tough. The MPAA has their copy protection; screeners are still allowed. It's a good compromise.

However, people who like screeners apparently like cheap screeners --i.e., no copy protection whatsoever-- and that is half the problem. As a result, MPAA chief Jack Valenti has ordered a "screener ban"; no screener tapes allowed. An official statement, as of the posting of this editorial, states among other things that Valenti "welcomes the exchange of thoughts and ideas on the critical issue of combating piracy. [However] the screener policy remains as it was originally announced." For movie pirates, the party's over.

The problem is: this could mean the party is over for independent film directors as well; a possibility that has at least 140 directors reeling (pun not intended). Several directors even wrote an open letter to Valenti, which they posted as an ad in a recent issue of Daily Variety. "It has been said that we in the film industry are honor-bound to go along with this ban," the letter stated, adding that "We believe that as filmmakers, we are honor-bound to oppose it. We ask that the MPAA repeal its decision..."

Why are so many directors so upset? Well, see, that's the rub with the Screener Ban; while it is intended from its very core to protect director's works from theft, it also comes at a price. No more screener tapes means Academy voters can no longer see an indie film easily. Much like Joe Public, they will have to go look for it in their local theater...presuming it's even there. My opinion on this matter is admittedly cynical, when this means the typical Hollywood Academy Snob must go to a theater to see a movie. However, for films released only in select theaters, this is not that easy.

This would have a "ripple" effect as well. Most often, the only way such low-budget, barely-distributed films are given the rights for DVD distribution, is if they are nominated for an Academy Award. In other words, if a film made only half a million at the box office, it will rarely be considered worthy for DVD, unless the distributor can put "Nominated for Best Picture!" on the front cover of the box. Trouble is: in order to get such nominations, the voters will need to have seen the film. What's worse: while the typical Academy voter can simply rent a video like we all do, they cannot rent most indie films, because most indies have yet to get a video distribution deal; a deal almost solely dependant on an Oscar nomination...which, again, is not possible without the Academy Voters seeing the film. Confusing, isn't it?

Of course, any "bad" idea also has its perks. No more screeners also means: no more "Indie Oscars!" How annoying has it been for the past, say, 10 years, to have as much as half of the Oscar nominees be films nobody's ever heard of? Back in a year like 1977, the Best Picture marquee was filled with blockbuster titles which everyone had seen that year: Annie Hall, Star Wars, The Turning Point, Julia, The Goodbye Girl. Compare that to the Best Picture roster of 1999: Elizabeth, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Life Is Beautiful, and Shakespeare in Love. While these were all good films, only Saving Private Ryan was a big box office draw; yet it lost to Shakespeare in Love. Could this be because of freebie screeners for that movie? Two guesses. No screeners means: the best, most widely seen, "theater blockbuster" wins. Isn't that for the best...?

It's hard to not be smug, and praise the screener ban for its "residual" benefits, as well. It can be said that Roberto Benigni's chance to make a spectacle of himself at the Oscars in '99, was thanks to screeners given to Academy voters. Wouldn't the lack of Benigni balancing on theater chairs be a good thing...? Even better: pompous blowhards like Michael Moore --who clearly have no respect for Oscar Night at all-- would be less likely to be invited to the Oscars, just so they can make a total jackass of themselves. No Michael Moore on Oscar night...? Suddenly, the screener ban is looking better and better.

This is the real question here: is the screener ban unfair? This is an unfair question, since the very concept of "screeners" is unfair. Every time a screener gets an indie film nominated for Oscars, a more worthy nominee is bumped. Gee, I just loved how Peter Jackson was snubbed at this year's Oscar ceremony, just so Pedro what's-his-name could get a Best Director nomination. If it seemed totally callous to Academy Voters, for the director of an epic film like Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers to not get a best director nomination, that's because it was. There are many ways to make me see Pedro's nifty, natty little film; snubbing Peter Jackson was not one of them.

What's worse: this snub was merely the tip of the iceberg this year: a chilly glacier of nomination snafus, irrefutably caused by screeners. How else can you explain why Oscar snubbed Steven Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can, yet nominated The Hours as Best Picture? Look at the numbers, plain and simple: Rotten Tomatoes, for all movie critics surveyed, gave The Hours a favor rating of 79%. While this would give the film a "C+" grade in any typical high school, that's hardly the grade of an award-caliber movie, is it? Shouldn't Best Picture be a film that received a 97% favor rating from critics? It's hard to not see the truth: while screeners get underdogs noticed, they also lead to some very unfair snubs.

Yes, there is the typical neo-hippie on the internet, claiming that blockbuster movies do not deserve Oscars, insisting that such movies are blockbusters simply because the theater patrons are "swayed by hype." That's just unfair bias talking. While people do go to certain movies only because of hype, they go to see films over and over again, because they liked the movie. Catch Me If You Can, FYI, received 164 million in the U.S. alone. That should be a major red light to the Academy that they really screwed up in their ballots this year. Aren't such popular movies the ones Oscar was intended for...? I think so. There are many, many good things that can result from screener tapes. Until the good outweighs the bad...good riddance.

Agree? Disagree?

...or perhaps just agree to disagree? Feel free to give your own "two bits," via Techtite's Letters page. Editorial Submissions are also allowed. Editorials do not have to agree with the views of other editorials at Techtite.com, though they must be relevant to entertainment topics of this web site (movies, TV, games). Thanks.

This page's entire content, except for thumbnail photos of products mentioned, was created by Techtite, copyright 2003; all rights reserved. Pictures of product(s) are only for the purpose of review, and by no means are meant to imply any association with Techtite.com and the distributors of that product. For further legalese, click here.

Screening the Screener Ban