MPAA Petition

I wrote a petition for members of moviegoing public to sign if they feel that the MPAA ban on sending "for your consideration" screeners to Academy members is wrong:

http://www.petitiononline.com/Valenti/petition.html
_______________________________________________________

Here's an article that will help you understand the situation, plus I encourage you to read an earlier thread on the MPAA ban here on this board.

Oscar's rule change a reel pain
By Christopher Kelly
Star-Telegram Film Critic

For the past two weeks, Hollywood has been immersed in a controversy so picayune-sounding that you've probably ignored all the ink that's been spilled already. Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America, persuaded the heads of the seven major studios to stop sending out "Academy screeners" as part of their Oscar campaigns. Valenti thinks this will help combat piracy. But actors, directors, writers and the heads of the smaller film companies (most of which are owned or affiliated with one of the Big Seven) are in an uproar about it.

Here's a guide to the controversy, and why even those who aren't in the movie business should care about it.

1. What the heck is an "Academy screener" anyway?

These are videocassette or DVD copies of movies that are sent to Oscar voters for awards consideration. Often these movies are still in theaters -- or haven't even been released yet -- when screeners are shipped out, beginning in late November. Although I don't vote for the Oscars, the studios also send me (and hundreds of other critics) Academy screeners, for consideration for top-10 lists and critics awards.

2. Can't voters just get off their lazy backsides and go to the theaters like everybody else to see these movies?

Well, yes. But cut a beleaguered movie-watcher some slack. Between mid-November and the end of the year, there are probably 50 movies vying for Oscar attention. Add in the Oscar candidates earlier in the year that you might have missed -- and, basically, something has got to give. Most Oscar voters (members of the Academy) have day jobs, not to mention families, which makes it difficult to head out every night to see a movie. Opponents of the ban argue that voters will now home in on only the year's biggest, gotta-see-'em-on-the-big-screen releases and that the smaller pictures will fall to the wayside.

3. But if the buzz on a picture is good, won't voters go out and see it, now matter how obscure or offbeat the movie?

In theory, yes. In practice, screeners are probably more responsible for creating that buzz than anything else. I'll speak from personal experience: Two years ago, I wouldn't have seen Gosford Park in time to compile my year-end 10-best list had a video not arrived in my mail the day before my deadline. I watched the movie that afternoon -- and I ended up ranking it very high on my list. The reason I missed the Gosford Park press screening? I was at another screening that day, of the much-more-hyped, and sorely disappointing, Ali.

4. Who stands to lose the biggest without the help of screeners this year?

Peter Sarsgaard gives a major performance in the upcoming Shattered Glass, playing New Republic editor Charles Lane. But are a lot of voters really going to head out of their houses to see a quiet, low-key drama about fallen journalist Stephen Glass? It's not just the little movies that suffer, either. Jamie Lee Curtis has been talked up as a potential nominee, for Freaky Friday. A lot of voters probably dismissed the movie as slight family fare during its initial theatrical run. Without screeners, they'll have to attend special screenings set up by the studio or schlep out to the video store -- both reasonable options, but it's a heck of a lot easier if the video just shows up in your mailbox.

5. Are the independent studios' claims legitimate, that this is all a smokescreen so that the Oscars -- which in recent years have been won by smaller studios, like Miramax (Chicago, Shakespeare in Love) and Focus (The Pianist) -- will once again be bestowed on big-budget Hollywood movies?

That interpretation strikes me as a little paranoid and convenient -- there really is no doubt that millions of dollars are being lost because of pirated videocassettes and DVDs. But there's also no denying that the smaller movies suffer from this decision -- and that it could affect the kinds of movies people are willing to make. Awards translate into box-office dollars. The very potential of winning awards encourages financiers to take chances on smaller projects. As producer Ted Hope told USA Today, "We were able to get In the Bedroom financed because we thought it would deliver Oscar-worthy performances." Translation: No chance for awards means no In the Bedroom, period.

6. What's the solution?

It seems pretty obvious -- lift the ban. Yes, the studios are losing millions on pirated copies of their movies. But if that's the tradeoff for making certain that as many different kinds of films as possible are seen and talked about, it's a reasonable one. (That, and I missed Matchstick Men in theaters and I was really, really looking forward to getting my screener.)