The Circuit

And if they stop booking gay movies, they loose more revenue. The more revenue they loose over this boycott, the more likely they will have to give in and provide the same benefits to their GLBT employees they do to their straight ones.

Posted by: John | 11/24/2008 8:32:36 AM

Bob - I think we simply disagree on the weight of the casual moviegoer, not the choir. I don't think anything should stand in the way of this film doing well on a limited run. It even needs the votes of people in Abilene, Texas who just want to see the new Sean Penn flick and who's knowledge of the issues may no further than the confusing images of this boycott movement -- "No Milk."

Posted by: Michael Jones | 11/23/2008 2:19:02 PM

I think the main point of the blog entry was that the Justin Green campaign''s imagery is poorly crafted. The logo clearly says no Milk. Nowhere in the logo is the word Cinemark. Even as Green says himself, people click on the image - meaning the image is the salient part. Even on the website the word Milk is the biggest word on the page and bigger than Cinemark. Wouldn''t it be easier to say No Cinemark? Liberals could learn a lot from the failure of Kerry to beat Bush. Simple messages work best. Green''s simple message says exactly opposite of what he wanted to say. You boycotters should be thanking MJ as he is actually clarifying your position.

I agree with MJ. The fallout of the misguided message has long-run implications. If people who had planned to go to see Milk at a Cinemark theater are faced with protestors, they may go to another theater to see it, or they may go to another movie. In some cases, Cinemark holds a local monopoly, so they can not go see Milk somehwere else. Every dollar taken away from Milk, regardless of where it is showing, reduces the chance of future high-profile films showing GLBT issues in a positive way to be made. Some argue that though the religiousos who protested Last Temptation of Christ increased the attention and hence short-run viewership of the film, the long-run viewership was diminished because Blockbuster refused to carry the film for fear of boycotts. Again, in the case of Milk, if the message is not clearly about Cinemark, and not the film, its future viewership may be diminished, as may be other GLBT films.

In general, Cinemark is a strange target to pick. $10,000 is not that much for a CEO who makes so much money. In 2007 his total compensation was $7.9 million. That''s in one year. $10,000 is about one tenth of one percent of his before tax income. I would bet that positive things, like Milk, help the GLBT activists more than negative things like boycotts.

Posted by: Surefire | 11/23/2008 12:38:28 PM

Last comment and a swear you can have the final word. You say: "Any other limited release I'd agree -- go see it somewhere else. "Milk" should be seen anywhere it's playing." THAT's confusing. How is seeing it "somewhere else" not seeing it? Do you thing ANYONE who cares enough to participate in this boycott will NOT see the movie as soon as it opens? I think they will, just "somewhere else." Buying a $10 ticket at theater B rather than theater A is still sending $10 to the film's makers. How's that confusing?

Posted by: Bob | 11/23/2008 11:30:58 AM

Still seems like shooting the hostage to get to the target. Too much margin for error. Any other limited release I'd agree -- go see it somewhere else. "Milk" should be seen anywhere it's playing. Good people were behind it, its message is vital, it needs to be seen. Granted it's my opinion, but the cost/benefit of a "Milk" boycott doesn't add up and has led to an unfocused, dangerously confusing message.

Posted by: Michael Jones | 11/23/2008 10:47:42 AM

Michael-- You might be right, but I doubt it, and if it does hurt the film, it will be, I'd suspect by a very small amount. What are the stats in terms of film earnings based on people wandering into a movie just because it was at their usual theater, had a nice looking poster, and was about to start? I would imagine if Cinemark closes the movie after just a couple of weeks because of the boycott that type of ticket sale would be the only one to be affected. (At the same time the film will stay longer at the other theaters giving their "let's-see-what's-playing-next"-type more of an opportunity to see it.)
What it comes down to, I think, is making people realize that it's not good for business in this country to disenfranchise a huge percentage of its consumers. If big-business, for want of a better word realizes this, things will change pretty quickly.

Posted by: Bob | 11/22/2008 5:02:28 PM

Bob - Point taken, though if he cared enough to give almost 10 grand, I doubt he'd really care what it cost him. Again, it's who the boycott hurts the most. Any way I look it, "Milk" has more to lose, especially if its national per-screen average is affected by low turnout at Cinemark theaters. In a limited run, every screen counts.

Posted by: Michael Jones | 11/22/2008 4:24:18 PM

Link to the pic fixed. Apologies.

Justin - My concern with your approach is that it could directly affect the people that need to see the movie most -- not the choir like you or I. It's the casual, "let's go see what's playing" crowd that matter here, some of whom could be the 3 percent of the California population that passed the law. Any reason for them not to see this film, any deterrent whatsoever, simply doesn't make sense. Pack the theaters. No matter where it's playing. Its importance outweighs your rage and mine.

As for the comments that I missed the qualifications of this protest -- "go somewhere else, if you can" and failing to somehow included the entire logo -- let me simply point out: The logo is comprised of the very large word "MILK" with a red slash through it. Many writers in the Variety newsroom were confused by your email. Yes, there is a message problem.

Posted by: Michael Jones | 11/22/2008 4:23:52 PM

The boycott of "Milk" at Cinemark is based more on emotion than on reason. First, Milk is not going to be a blockbuster, so lowering admissions for an already underperformer is not a big deal. Second, if you still go to Cinemark for another movie there will be no effect on the company. Third, Milk will likely only produce profit for a theater if it has a long run because theaters make profits on ticket sales only after many weeks (due to the sliding scale of revenue sharing). If you go see Milk somewhere else you will make it more advantageous for Cinemark to hold on and wait till the boycott starts to fizzle out.

The thing is that the CEO is clearly hedging his bets. He screens a film that will likely be a positive boost for gay rights but at the same time contributes to anti-gay rights political actions. If the gay rights movement is strong enough and Prop 8 fails then he will likely make more money. On the other hand if the gay rights movement is not that strong he will be happy in his moral sense of justice but will suffer from lower profits for his firm. Its an insurance contract and the premium he pays is the loss in revenue from lower Cinemark profits. However, it is likely that he will never suffer a loss in his moral sense since Prop 8 passed. This is the same argument that says you should bet against your team or for war activists to invest in Raytheon (though they never do because there is a notion of 'bad' money). The only way the gay activists will hurt the CEO is if they exact a larger premium than expected on the CEO. Boycotting Milk won't do this. Instead the CEO will just stop exhibiting Milk all together. The money he loses won't be much because the boycott is already going strong, but in addition, he won't be screening a pro-gay rights film in places like Texas and Colorado and he can justify it by saying that there was low attendance.

Boycotting all of Cinemark makes more sense, if you think that this will matter. My sense is that it won't simply because California is more progressive than most states and they voted to disallow gay marriage. What do you think Joe Sixpack in Plano, TX cares about gay rights? Do you think he won't see a movie because someone says the CEO donated $10,000 to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign?

Posted by: Tinasky | 11/22/2008 4:09:28 PM

Is Variety being a bit sneaky in regards to its own views of the boycott of No MILK for Cinemark?

The above logo is linked to an outside page however it goes nowhere because both Variety and NoMilkForCinemark URLs are included in the referring link.

Links do not work that way guys - you should really fix it.

Yes, I see the text link to the site (and it works) but we all know most people click on images.

Posted by: Lika Starr | 11/22/2008 2:46:12 PM

Since Cinemark's CEO will have received dozens, if not hundreds, of emails and letters telling him that pro-gay ticket buyers WILL be seeing "Milk", just not at his theaters, it's impossible to conclude that he'd look at his theater's low grosses for the film after the opening weekend and conclude "that no one cares enough about GLBT rights to see a movie about it." Rather, he'll immediately compare Cinemark's per-screen average on the film for the weekend with the nationwide per-screen average (which "Variety" is kind enough to report each week), and he'll be able to calculate EXACTLY how much money his $9,999 donation has cost his business.

Posted by: Bob | 11/22/2008 1:23:09 PM

(continued)

but the rest of the logo - "for Cinemark" is conspicuously missing.)

As for the idea that we would better help our cause by filling Cinemark's theaters when this film opens - that is just absurd. (What if the CEO of Cinemark) "saw an incredible weekend for "Milk" on his Monday morning report? More incredible than any other opener that weekend?" - From a limited release film? Obviously this is impossible.

Posted by: Justin Green | 11/22/2008 12:38:21 PM

It seems to me that it is Variety with the message problem here. Not only did the email I sent include the letters to Focus, William Morris, AND the *Cinemark Board of Directors* - in their entirety - the subject line itself was "''Milk'' and the Boycott of Cinemark Theaters''".

In addition to that, this article has misrepresented our message by implying that we are boycotting the film itself, not the showings of "Milk" at Cinemark. (The author must have visited the website, in order to copy our "No Milk" logo

Posted by: Justin Green | 11/22/2008 12:37:22 PM

The boycott is all Cinemark theaters, not just Milk screenings at them. Boycotts are effective and a necessary tool in fighting for civil rights. Just ask Coors how effective out ban was on their product in our bars etc.

Posted by: Finn | 11/22/2008 1:03:16 AM

We are boycotting Cinemark-owned theaters. In fact, there is a protest of Cinemark-owned Evanston Century 12 & Cinearts 6 in Evanston, IL on Saturday, November 22 starting at 5 pm. This theater is located at 1715 Maple Ave (between Church St & Clark St). This location is within walking distance of the "Davis" Purple Line stop and the Davis St, Evanston stop on the Metra / Union Pacific North line.

There is nothing wrong with protesting. This country has been shaped by those who were willing to stand up for injustice and unfair treatment. Do we criticize The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. because his call to boycott the buses in Montgomery, Alabama hurt the people driving those buses? Do we criticize those who dumped tea into Boston Harbor because they hurt the merchants who would have sold that tea? To protest is to exercise the right of every American to free speech. At least that is one right they have not taken away from us, yet.

Posted by: Doug | 11/22/2008 12:00:36 AM

You write: "In the end, if the Prop 8-supporting CEO of Cinemark sees a bad weekend for "Milk," what will he really think? I'd venture that it'd just add fuel to his belief -- that no one cares enough about GLBT rights to see a movie about it."

I'd say the fact that he donated one dollar less than $10,000 suggests he was worried about having his support noticed and wanted to donate "under the radar" of the five-figure mark. This protest might well be his worst fears being confirmed. It didn't hurt "Brokeback Mountain" that Focus Films was a bit too optimistic and opened it in some places (Provo, UT for one) where it sold nary a single ticket. The fact that those empty theaters were balanced out by full theaters elsewhere proved the economic strength of gay films.

Nobody who takes part in this boycott will NOT see "Milk" because of it. They will just see it a few miles down the road.

Posted by: Bob | 11/21/2008 11:44:59 PM

You don't really stress the fact that the website is pretty clear in encouraging people to see "Milk," only to avoid Cinemark theater screenings IF POSSIBLE. In other words, by all means go but if you have a choice see it at a non-Cinemark. In my city, there are two big multiplexes, one Cinemark and one independent. I think it will send a pretty strong message if the one chain has sold out screenings, and the other is half empty. If it doesn't end up hurting the final boxoffice numbers, it's really hard to see how it hurts gay-themed cinema. (And if you know anything about the life of Harvey Milk, you know he'd approve.)

Posted by: Robert | 11/21/2008 11:09:17 PM

This whole boycott idea is so misguided. These protester are pretty silly.

Posted by: Don | 11/21/2008 7:53:23 PM

Completely agree. You boycott Cinemark overall, not just the "Milk" screenings. That will only convince their distribution execs not to book gay-friendly movies in the future. The campaign is mistargeted and shortsighted.

Posted by: greg | 11/21/2008 1:16:53 PM