Oscar campaigns: Tales of the tapes
Delays, DVDs complicate screener strategy
This year, the annual flurry of videocassettes mailed to Oscar voters has seen some new wrinkles, thanks to delays and DVDs.
Some of the most anxiously awaited titles are not yet in voters' hands. Sony Pictures Classics is mailing "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" around Jan. 1; USA Films' "Traffic" went out Dec. 19. (Even voters who have received their copies of the latter may not have been able to watch the latter film: Though all studio reps insist that Acad screeners must be "perfect," a batch of the "Traffic" tapes were flawed.)
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences stipulates that studios can send either a DVD or a VHS tape, but not both. Studios ask Oscar voters their preference, and there has been a seismic shift this year.
"Last year, we had about 300 requests for DVDs," said Oscar consultant Judi Schwam, who is working on Warner Bros.' campaigns this year. "This year, the number is almost 2,400."
Filmmakers, while preferring that voters see their work on the bigscreen, also prefer DVD screeners over videotape.
The DVD flood is one of several reasons for the delays. Studio reps estimate that the usual production time for tapes is six to eight weeks. (That's why Universal's "Family Man" and "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" will not go out until early January.)
But DVD transfers take even longer. Warner Bros. sent out its December opener "Proof of Life" only in VHS.
"The technical branches were the first people to make those DVD requests," Schwam said. "They know what they're looking for, and listening to. It's got to be perfect."
Still, DVDs create headaches. Despite their visual and audio benefits, DVDs increase the risk of piracy, particularly with new films.
Paramount, for one, is only sending out videos this year.
"It takes a long time waiting for the filmmakers to sign off on the transfer," said one studio rep. "They spent all this time trying to get the movie perfect in the theaters, so you know they're going to be fussy about the transfer. They want it to look as good as it can."
"You really have to get a great transfer," said another studio PR rep. (Of course, most people asked not to be quoted: Oscar campaigns are more top secret than military campaigns.)
If an Oscar voter is watching a tape, "already they're not watching the film the way it's supposed to be seen, so you have to make sure it's perfect."
Oscar consultants estimate that the studio pays $2-$5 per videotape; DVD transfer costs are a little higher, partly due to startup costs (a DVD master costs approximately $10,000). The per-unit costs are about equal, however, since cassettes are heavier and cost more to mail.
Another rep estimates that it costs $10 per unit when packaging, labels and mailing are figured in.
Many videos are sent to all 5,600 Acad voters; in addition, titles are sent to members of BAFTA, the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. and voters of guild awards such as the SAG kudos. In addition, copies must be made in the PAL format for overseas voters.
Big pix not out yet
In addition to "Crouching Tiger" and "Grinch," other biggies have yet to be sent: Fox-DreamWorks' "Cast Away" will go out in early January.
Miramax's year-end release "Chocolat" was sent out Dec. 26 on VHS; the DVD will go out today, as will the company's "Malena" and "All the Pretty Horses" in both formats.
Fox's "Tigerland" was one of the first out, with a mid-November mailing. (In 1999, the Academy instituted a rule that no voter should get a screener before Nov. 15.) Also fast out of the gate were Paramount Classics' "Sunshine" and USA Films' "Nurse Betty."
But USA's strongest Oscar contender, "Traffic," was finished just in time to meet the Acad deadline of an end-of-December theatrical bow; that meant tapes were delayed until Dec. 19, a few days after the pic's New York preem.
Aside from production delays, there are other reasons studios are "late" in their mailings.
Bigscreen push
One studio Oscar campaigner says, "You don't send the screeners right out if the movie's in release. If voters have the cassette in their hands, they're less likely to go to a screening: Movies are made to be seen in theaters, and you want people to see it on the bigscreen. It's not a terrible thing to hold it back a bit."
One Oscar PR maven said, "More and more members are calling studios to request videotapes of new films in advance of the mailings -- in other words, they're waiting for the tapes rather than go to the theater, which no filmmaker prefers."
Some films look fine on video; others are hurt ("Cast Away," "Gladiator" and "Traffic" are frequently mentioned in the latter category).
It's rare for filmmakers to refuse mail-outs. Steven Spielberg gave a thumbs-down to video freebies of "Schindler's List," insisting that voters see the pic in theaters.
But most filmmakers don't want to risk that. "Videos help make decisions," insisted one campaign consultant. "They serve as a reminder, and let voters have a second viewing." On the other hand, recent screenings of "Erin Brockovich" and "Gladiator" are being well attended, even though both have been mailed out; evidently voters are choosing to see them on the bigscreen.
Speaking of the campaign for "Traffic," USA marketing exec veep Steve Flynn said: "We're not going to be at our widest point until ballots are in the hands of Academy members. You can't assume that they're going to run out to theaters and see it. Most ballots are filled out and returned in the first couple of weeks."
Acad voters estimate that they get 40-70 screeners each year. But the mail-outs don't always go to everyone.
Selective approach
One Oscar consultant says that campaigns are so expensive, studios are forced to be selective. Some pics go out to all branches. But studios send some smaller films just to acting, directing and writing branches, and ignore the technical wings. Conversely, some spectacles go out only to technicals.
A studio rep cautions, however, that they have to be careful with filmmaker politics. "We send out all our films to everyone. Otherwise, the filmmakers scream, 'Why would you not send it to those people?' You'd really be insulting a lot of people.' "
On the other hand, another Oscar consultant says the screaming doesn't matter.
"It's a marketing question. Is it worth spending additional money to get some nominations? In the filmmakers' opinion, of course. But for a businessman, it's hard to justify spending $50,000-$100,000 or more to get nominations in music, art direction and sound, knowing that you'll never get that money back, because wins (in some categories) won't increase a film's box office."
One studio worker sums it up with a laugh, then a sigh, then a shriek: "This whole thing is a huge order and an arduous process!"
