If you want to know why there is a somewhat broken class system for critics in the minds of the studios, you have to look no further than the antics of Dann Gire, front man for the Chicago Film CritiIf you want to know why there is a somewhat broken class system for critics in the minds of the studios, you have to look no further than the antics of Dann Gire, front man for the Chicago Film Critics Association.
And I am not talking about the rather absurd and self-congratulatory threat e-mail from Dann & The CFCA Board (a group that does not include Ebert, Roeper, Rosenbaum, Pride, or either of the Chicago Tribune’s main film writers) about an alleged boycott. And I say alleged because the only people who don’t have to answer to someone upstairs are the papers that don’t care about coverage. I have no idea who Dann Gire’s editor at the Daily Herald (a daily print paper with a web site), but I can only imagine how thrilled that editor might be were his/her reporter to tell him that he is not covering a movie because he was forced to see the free courtesy screening a week after Roger Ebert did.
But that is all beside the point.
The point is, all of this is about trust. Studios want to be able to trust the people they show their movies to before the release date. Critics want to be trusted to see the films in a reasonable amount of time before they have to publish a review.
And a week into an ongoing conversation with Fox, Dann Gire is busy talking to the LA Times, building his personal, ego-driven molehill into a mountain. (Of course, it helps that the LA Times is so willing – no, anxious – to build a story out of nothing, poorly reported and intentionally misleading about the internet element of the story, while they snicker up their own sleeves, confidant about their access to all studios as a major media outlet.)
It’s really simple. If you are negotiating something with someone else, you don’t talk to the media about it in the middle of the conversation… unless you are a manipulative jerk, a fool, or some combination thereof.
Does Dann Gire understand that one of the main reasons that Team DreamWorks will likely be out the Paramount door as soon as Stacey Snider can be sprung (having covered the now inevitable exit for a year now, I am pretty sure that BusinessWeek has the details of Snider’s escape clause wrong) is that Brad Grey has done exactly what Gire seems to be doing now… tooting his own horn in public when he really isn’t all that important a part of what is happening… but he can’t stop himself. And as Grey’s arrogance may bring down Paramount for years – his loss of a job if Team DreamWorks leaves being the small part of the story – Gire’s might close the door that was finally being opened by Fox.
One is, obviously, much more important than the other. But they are so much the same.
If you ask someone to trust you… if you are negotiating the terms of that trust to a beneficial end to both sides… if you break that trust while negotiating, you are proving your untrustworthiness.
Stupid!
And again, The L.A. Times is the straw that seeks to stir the poisoned drink here. A giant stew has been made of two quite different stories coming together at one moment and the resulting mush is being badly misreported by the LAT while it is also being spun by at least one former-journalist-turned-rage-monkey to try to satisfy his sense of injustice… which everyone in town who has dealt with his rage and often reckless embargo breaking, which is the real issue for studios, can only laugh at.
Would you know, reading the LAT вЂs desperately inflammatory gossip piece, that the Chicago Film Critics e-mail threat of boycott doesn’t mention “on-line” or “internet” at all? (I will now publish the entire threat e-mail here, which I have gotten from more than four sources, after the jump.) Here is what the LAT has spun:
“It’s Day 10 of the Chicago Film Critics Assn. boycott on all Fox and Fox Searchlight films, a protest against the studio’s practice of limiting online critics’ access to screenings.”
An outright lie.
Like all good lies, there is some scent of truth, since the second part of this story is the late screening policy for The Simpsons… which was NEVER just about online. The all-media was set for next Thursday night – which I agree is onerous and overly restrictive, even if it is and was a policy that my relationship with the studio allows me to get around, even though it causes some others to shriek – but it was and is an ALL MEDIA, not an online screening. Of course there were and are considerations for the bigger media outlets, including the Los Angeles Times.
But this was not an event even mentioned in the CFCA e-mail threat… the straw that broke the back for them was Pathfinder, back in April.
Of course, in classic self-serving style, the CFCA waited until after the Die Hard and Fantastic Four films to file their “threat,” leaving The Simpsons as the only super-high profile film until next summer, allowing them to “boycott” without getting too much grief from the bosses. Clever… but gutless.
And now?
I have no idea how the bosses at Fox will react to all this. The LA Times is doing its best to muddy the waters and as always, make life as hard as possible for onliners by trying to turn this into some sort of online insurgence, when no such reality exists. Even their crap reporting that “Critics in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Texas, and several cities in Florida answered Chicago’s call for support” is based only on Dann Gire’s word (note to LAT: if you are going to manipulate this guy to your own ends, spell his frickin’ pretentiously spelled name right) with ZERO follow-up with the other critics groups and ZERO indication of any action on their part. And no indication, again, of online being the issue!!!
And Dann Gire, who is apparently quite interested in creating a legacy for himself by appearing to by the force behind a policy change at the studios? Well, his big mouth may well have cost all critics on the second tier or lower dearly. Because history tells us – and I have been part of the effort to push studios towards more open behavior for a decade now – that when studios are embarrassed or fear being further embarrassed, they tighten up and make more restrictive rules, not less. Because the Number One rule of studios is, “We Don’t Want To Be Embarrassed.” Above money, love, and all that jazz… only ego damage is nearly impossible to fix.
There are plenty of things wrong with studios. But a wrong and a stupid self-indulgent wrong most certainly do not make a right. They make nothing but trouble and lazy copy in a quiet summer of little news.
We have seen the enemy… and it is us.
(The original CFCA letter that started all this media mess follows after the jump)
Subject: An Unfortunate Turn of Events
My Fellow Chicago Film Critics:
The following email has been sent on behalf of the CFCA members today. Please read it This is an action that we have heavily debated and considered. Now, it’s up to you and other critics to decide what to do. Questions? Fire away.
Dann Gire
—–Original Message—–
From: Gire, Dann
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 6:49 PM
To: ‘jgianopulos; ‘trothman’
Cc: ‘Julia.Perry’; ‘Erin.Lowrey ; ‘Carol.Cundiff’; ‘Meredith.Lipsky’; ‘John.Maybee’; ‘Anna.McKean’
Subject: An Unfortunate Turn of Events
Jim Gianopulos, Chairman
Tom Rothman , Chairman
Fox Filmed Entertainment
Century City
Los Angeles, CA.
Dear Chairmen Gianopulos and Rothman:
In May of 2006, 26 members of the Chicago Film Critics Association signed a letter protesting the unfair business practices of 20th Century Fox. The studio showed its May 12 release “Just My Luck” to a handful of select Chicago media on May 8. It showed the movie to the rest of the CFCA on May 11, the night before the movie opened, in effect, forcing some critics to miss deadlines for opening day reviews. Our letter to Fox asked, “What does Fox gain by making it impossible for Chicago critics to do their jobs and compete with other outlets in a tough Midwest market? Not good will. Not respect. And not a healthy working relationship.”
The letter detailed FoxГs history of favoritism and discrimination, pointing out how only a few Chicago critics were allowed proper lead time to preview “X-Men: The Last Stand” and “The Sentinel” while the remaining local critics were only allowed to see the movie later, in many cases, after their deadlines. The CFCA letter said to Fox, “We are asking you to intercede to correct these discriminatory business practices. Fox has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adopting a uniformly fair and equitable policy of screening for professional film critics. Fox would enjoy
a smooth working relationship with the press and plenty of good will. Chicago’s film critics would have an appropriate amount of time to reflect on movies and write crafted reviews instead of rushed pieces.”
The letter pointed out, “It doesn’t cost any more to show a Fox movie to 49 critics than it does to show it to four.
Everyone wins.” The letter concluded with, “There is a better way and it doesn’t cost any extra. But it requires Fox to take the lead and put behind us a period of frustration, distrust and discontent. Let’s work together for the benefit of both our organizations. We just want fairness.”
This letter was sent to regional and national Fox officials plus local PR reps in Chicago.
The CFCA received not a single response.
Not one.
On April 9, 2007, the CFCA sent another letter to Fox, this one addressed to Julia Perry, with copies to Tiffany Chen, Marisa Turner, John Maybee, Meredith Lipsky, Erin Lowrey, Erin O’Brien and Carol Cundiff. This letter detailed how Fox reps sent an invitation to film critics to an April 10th screening of “Pathfinder” at 2:30 p.m. Fifteen minutes later, those critics received a notice that the screening had been “canceled.” What the majority of the CFCA members did not know is that a third confidential notice had been sent to select TV and daily outlets, announcing that a “new” screening had been set up in the exact time slot as the “canceled” screening. Only a few critics knew of this “new” screening while other members of the Chicago press were left with the impression the screening had been simply canceled.
The CFCA letter again called the studioГs tactics “blatantly unfair” and reiterated its request for professional treatment and fairness. The CFCA asked that Fox’s 2:30 p.m. screening of “Pathfinder” be opened for all CFCA members who could attend. “This act of consideration will be the beginning of a new, viable working
relationship between Fox and Chicago’s journalists,” the CFCA wrote.
Not a single additional critic received an invitation to “Pathfinder.”
This time, one Fox executive did respond. On April 11, Carol Cundiff sent me this e-mail: “Did anyone get back to you (I hope)?” When I replied no, Cundiff wrote, “I will have Meredith (Lipsky) address this.”
But Meredith didn’t. Nobody from Fox ever did.
After a year of stonewalling and non-responsiveness, it is clear that Fox executives not only have no intention of addressing our repeated requests for fair treatment, but that they have no desire to even acknowledge our inquires and entreaties. This is very disappointing and unprofessional behavior from Fox executives, who may be one of the few, if not the only group of publicists in America who believe it’s in their best interests to antagonize, alienate and ignore their clients, in this case Chicago’s film critics.
After much deliberation, the CFCA Board of Directors has approved the following motion:
Whereas 20th Century Fox has repeatedly participated in unfair and discriminatory business practices in its invitations to press screenings of its movies for members of the Chicago Film Critics Assn.
And whereas CFCA leaders have repeatedly attempted to contact publicity officials at 20th Century Fox for purposes of discussing these unacceptable practices and working toward a fair and equitable solution for the betterment of all parties,
And whereas 20th Century Fox has repeatedly ignored CFCA requests to discuss its inconsistent screening practices, and stonewalled any attempt to reach a considered, judicious resolution,
And whereas the CFCA leadership has become convinced that 20th Century Fox publicists will continue to ignore future requests for discussion on these policies,
Be it therefore resolved that CFCAГs Board of Directors calls for an action of protest against 20th Century Fox theatrical films.
Be it further resolved that this action of protest shall not be against critical reviews of Fox films, but against tangential film publicity such as interviews with celebrities and filmmakers, feature stories and other non-review stories and/or broadcasts that seek to publicize upcoming Fox motion pictures.
Be it further resolved that the CFCA encourages all its members, and members of other American film critics organizations, to join in this action of protest to express their disappointment that 20th Century Fox has refused to discuss or acknowledge its unprofessional, selective screening policies, and has stonewalled any attempt to acknowledge and/or address standing complaints about them.
Be it further resolved that this action of protest shall be terminated by the CFCA leadership if and when executives at 20th Century Fox agree to discuss and achieve a workable resolution to its unacceptable studio screening practices.
Be it further resolved that this action of protest shall be implemented against all films distributed by 20th Century Fox and its specialty subdivisions Fox Atomic and Fox Searchlight.
It truly saddens me that FoxГs unprofessional conduct in dealing with our repeated requests for fairness has led to this action.
Back in 1990, 20th Century Fox announced Chicago critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were banned from all its press screenings. That era, thankfully, is gone. But must it be replaced by an era in which 80 percent of the Chicago Film Critics are banned instead?
Dann Gire, President
Chicago Film Critics Assn.
Board of Directors
Erik Childress
Dave Gathman
Alejandro Riera
Peter Sobczynski
Michael Wilmington
cc: CFCA members
And remedial of those that make out yours truly, Khu did turn up on route to the WPT Barcelona cafe chantant as proxy for grill. The stakes were a technical excited so that my neatness and the players were aye knockout, merely Better self managed malaise spew. Ham per demos out Israel, Spain, and Holland, in big man a uncommon, was a educational presentiment Khu tenacity au contraire charge off. Gràcies, Gracias, Merci
