In the last installment of "Film Critics and the Film Industry," film critics were examined in the context of the movie industry's advertising campaigns. Now, in part two of this series, the critics react to the film industry's screening snubs with tepid results.
The release of "Aeon Flux" in December 2005 altered critics' stance against the film industry. Like several films before it, "Aeon Flux" was not prescreened for critics. But instead of continuing to ignore the industry's decision to pass up the press screening ritual, critics bit back.
Newspapers sent their better-known critics to review "Aeon Flux," not because they wanted to inadvertently provide publicity for a film that didn't deserve it, but rather because they wanted to voice an opinion.
The Boston Globe's review, written by Wesley Morris, immediately addressed the prescreening issue.
"Paramount Pictures denied reviewers a chance to see ['Aeon Flux'] before it opened yesterday," Morris wrote. "Apparently, they were doing us a favor, and I'm pleased to pass the savings along: spend your money instead on the new DVD box set of the animated Peter Chung series on which the movie is based."
With the greater critical response to "Aeon Flux," a more obvious connection was established between the kinds of films that movie executives don't prescreen and the kinds of films that critics don't like.
Not long before "Aeon Flux" was released in theaters, The Boston Globe ran a piece titled "Will 'Aeon Flux' be any good? Don't ask the film critics." The article looked into why a big budget movie starring an Academy Award-winning hottie like Charlize Theron wouldn't be shown to critics. Paramount would not respond to interview requests. Drew McWeeny, the West Coast editor of the Web site Ain't It Cool News, assured The Boston Globe that "Aeon Flux" had no potential value.
"They haven't done any test screenings, they haven't done any critics' screenings," McWeeny said. "['Aeon Flux'] will play out in a week and a half, and it'll be over. It's the sacrificial lamb this Christmas season."
Certain genre misfires, such as campy horror like "The Seed of Chucky" and irreverent comedy like "Man of the House," appear to be more susceptible to this trend, The Boston Globe reported.
Not only were these films likely to receive poor reviews, but they were also likely to be released without a large-scale advertising campaign. Their main audience, a niche demographic strongly devoted to the particular genre, would probably see the movie regardless of whether or not critics liked it.
This trend held up until the release of "The Da Vinci Code." Between the vast popularity of the its source material, a thriller novel by Dan Brown, and the controversy Brown's writing stirred up among religious circles, the buzz behind "The Da Vinci Code" had grown to astronomical proportions. And its distributor, Sony Pictures, wasn't about to let critics see whether it deserved all the hype.
Critics had one opportunity to see "The Da Vinci Code" before its official release--a screening at the Cannes Film Festival on the night before the film's release. This was obviously much too late for critics to meet their Friday issue deadlines, but they covered it anyway.
Now the question that begs answering is why critics care to review a gigantic blockbuster, especially if it's premiered without prescreening, when all seem to agree that their writings don't affect the public's perception of such a cinematic beast.
"The publicity machinery for commercial movies--the deceptive trailers, softball endorsements, talk-show interviews and banal feature stories--are designed to create a buzz that makes criticism irrelevant," Morris Dickstein, a film critic for Partisan Review, wrote in a feature for Cineaste.
This rule held true for "The Da Vinci Code." The New York Times reported that the film earned $231.8 million in its first week and stole the No. 2 spot for most money made during a worldwide opening.
"Part of Columbia Pictures' ingenious marketing strategy has been to encourage months of debate and speculation while not allowing anyone to see the picture until the very last minute," New York Times critic A.O. Scott wrote, "Thus, we have a flood of think pieces on everything from Jesus and Mary Magdalene's prenuptial agreement to the secret recipes of Opus Dei."
Because a film like "The Da Vinci Code" was so popular, editors probably expected a piece on it. Coverage would help sell papers, if nothing else. This explains why The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Washington Post all reviewed "The Da Vinci Code."
Even still, the critics writing for The Boston Globe, The Washington Post and The New York Times didn't show "The Da Vinci Code" an ounce of mercy. What's most perplexing about the coverage "The Da Vinci Code" received is not what these publications wrote about it. It's what another publication, The Chicago Sun-Times, decided to start writing about it.
Up until this point, The Sun-Times' main critic, Roger Ebert, hadn't acknowledged a film without first viewing a press screening. Ebert, perhaps more than any other active critic mentioned in this article, has the power to choose what films he covers. Curiously enough, Ebert's review of "The Da Vinci Code" read positively.
Check Monday's issue of The Eagle for part three of "Film Critics and the Film Industry," which will explore whether film critics are necessary in the modern film industry and other methods the industry uses to sidestep critics on the way to box office gold.
