For those who don’t know the inner workings regarding the relationship between studios and film critics, it’s an illuminating story. For those that do, it asks interesting questions about what that relationship means. To begin, the New York Film Critics Circle moved up their voting deadline so they could be first out the gate in trying to steer the awards race (a meaningless endeavor since last year showed that near-universal critical love for The Social Network wasn’t enough to beat out the Academy-friendly The King’s Speech). To accommodate this new deadline, Sony agreed to provide a last-minute screening of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. However, this screening was for voting purposes only. Reviews were embargoed until December 13th.
The New Yorker’s film critic David Denby broke this embargo and his review went online today. Unsurprisingly, Dragon Tattoo producer Scott Rudin wasn’t too pleased with this development and after the jump you’ll find the e-mail correspondence between the two.
[E-mails via The Playlist]
After Rudin’s initial e-mail chastising Denby for releasing the early review, Denby provided the following response:
Scott, I know Fincher was working on the picture up to the last minute, but the yearly schedule is gauged to have many big movies come out at the end of the year.
The system is destructive: Grown-ups are ignored for much of the year, cast out like downsized workers, and then given eight good movies all at once in the last five weeks of the year. A magazine like “The New Yorker” has to cope as best as it can with a nutty release schedule. It was not my intention to break the embargo, and I never would have done it with a negative review.
Let’s stop right there for a moment. Denby says it wasn’t his intention to break the embargo, but embargoes don’t break by accident. Sometimes that happens. A poorly though-out tweet sometimes qualifies as an unintentional embargo break. Writing a full review and then publishing it does not.
But here’s the kicker:
I never would have done it with a negative review. [emphasis mine]
That should be irrelevant. That attitude also speaks to a deep corruption of what being a film critic means. Some critics, like Denby, want to get out ahead and try to create buzz, and writing for a major publication gives him that power. However, Denby believes that since he’s creating positive buzz, breaking embargo shouldn’t be a problem. That decision says (at least to me anyway), “I’m not here to share my honest opinion and inform my readers; I’m here to help the studio sell their movie.” Unless Denby draws a paycheck from Sony, then why should he care if the review is positive or negative?
Denby continues:
But since I liked the movie, we came reluctantly to the decision to go with early publication for the following reasons, which I have also sent to Seth Fradkoff:
1) The jam-up of important films makes it very hard on magazines. We don’t want to run a bunch of tiny reviews at Christmas. That’s not what “The New Yorker” is about. Anthony and I don’t want to write them that way, and our readers don’t want to read them that way.
2) Like many weeklies, we do a double issue at the end of the year, at this crucial time. This exacerbates the problem.
3) The New York Film Critics Circle, in its wisdom, decided to move up its voting meeting, as you well know, to November 29, something Owen Gleiberman and I furiously opposed, getting nowhere. We thought the early date was idiotic, and we’re in favor of returning it to something like December 8 next year. In any case, the early vote forced the early screening of “Dragon Tattoo.” So we had a dilemma: What to put in the magazine on December 5? Certainly not “We Bought the Zoo,” or whatever it’s called. If we held everything serious, we would be coming out on Christmas-season movies until mid-January. We had to get something serious in the magazine. So reluctantly, we went early with “Dragon,” which I called “mesmerizing.” I apologize for the breach of the embargo. It won’t happen again. But this was a special case brought on by year-end madness.
This reads like an excuse masquerading as protest. It’s not Denby’s fault he wrote a review when he said he wouldn’t. It’s the fault of his magazine’s print deadlines, and the New Yorker is running a double issue and it has to be filled with something! And the real villains are the New York Film Critics Circle for moving up the date in the first place!
But how is the NYFCC the villain? Let’s say they had moved the date to December 8th. Then Sony would feel no obligation to schedule a last-minute screening the day before the NYFCC voted, and Denby and the New Yorker would still be stuck trying to figure out what to put in their December 5th issue. He refuses to acknowledge “We Bought the Zoo or whatever it’s called” as a “serious movie” (even though the correct title is We Bought a Zoo, and Denby makes himself look ignorant as a result), so what can he do? He and The New Yorker “reluctantly” went with a Dragon Tattoo review.
But here’s the problem: He broke his word and then he blames a deadline and the NYFCC for forcing him into that position. Except Denby was never in that position. Why was it a Girl with the Dragon Tattoo review or nothing? He’s clearly hit upon an issue that would be interesting to his audience: voting deadlines, print deadlines, screening schedules, and how that affects coverage. Why not run that story instead of a positive Dragon Tattoo review (and if he had disliked the movie, what would he have done then?)
Rudin replies by calling Denby on his disingenuous excuses and makes the case clear-cut: Denby broke his word, and he won’t be invited to see any of Rudin’s films from now on. The New Yorker editorial staff, who must also take responsibility for Denby’s actions, should realize that losing the movies of a powerful producer like Rudin is more detrimental to the magazine in the long-run. Additionally, they could have put the shoe on the other foot and refused to review the movie, which would have been a genuine and thoughtful protest as opposed to what Denby is claiming.
Honest critics do not trade positive reviews for early screenings. We see movies early so we can review them before the release date and inform readers who are considering buying a ticket. I also see the merit in declining these screenings, paying to see the movie after it’s released, and then writing about it outside the bounds of a consumer-based deadline. However, I personally don’t have the funds to accommodate that approach, and our readers would most likely be uninterested in hearing about a movie they’ve already seen unless it’s become a serious cultural touchstone that demands further discussion.
Denby wasn’t making a statement on all embargoes. He was explaining why he felt justified on breaking this one. Rudin suggests that this damages his movies because now everyone will feel justified in breaking the embargo date, but I don’t think that will happen. Who wants to use Denby’s weak motives as cover?
Ryan Murphy Talks AMERICAN HORROR STORY: ASYLUM Season Finale, Season 3, and His Horror Movie THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN
January Jones Says She Doesn’t Think She’s in X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST
S.H.I.E.L.D. TV Series Pilot Begins Filming, Launches Social Network Accounts and Releases First Images
Director Jon M. Chu Talks G.I. JOE: RETALIATION, the Film’s 10-Minute Silent Sequence, Why the Release Date Was Delayed, Extra Channing Tatum, 3D, & More
Marvel Considering Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler for GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY? Wes Bentley and More Reportedly Added to Star-Lord Shortlist
in his review he says
”you can’t take your eyes off rooney mara”
and he also calls the film ”a bleak but mesmerizing work”
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2011/12/sneak-peek-at-david-denbys-embargo-breaking-dragon-tattoo-review/
here you go
Rudin can put his money where his mouth is, and REFUSE to work with Denby EVER again. Then he can be sure that no one will break the embargo.
BTW, I’m sure somewhere in whatever the critic signs there is a “punishment clause”. So if there isn’t a punishment, you can be sure that this is a publicity stunt, which I actually don’t mind. I enjoy less than traditional marketing, but I despise these citywide scavenger hunts.
I’m waiting for the day that the joke is on us. Well, I guess it already has been on us. People actually paid money to see Jackass…THREE! times.
Why didn’t you print Rudin’s responses and only Denby’s? I find that curious for a variety of reasons.
Let’s all relax…if we can…and stop acting like children arguing childish nonsense on the playground! It’s all just a silly game and one and all are playing only for themselves and their self-interest. That includes Matt taking (Denby) to task. One critic, not so well-known or respected, taking another much older and wiser to task I might add. Rudin played the game by wanting his film included in the critics assoc. awards game to hopefully win some and garner prestige and attention to his film. But to ask a critic to view a movie and not publish a review until he gives his okay? Like walking into the lion’s cage and telling said lion not to bite or eat him until he says it’s okay. Come on, children! It’s a game played for power and control and Rudin lost here. No awards were given to his film and lo and behold a critic actually published a review of said film. Big deal! It’s all so silly. Me, I could care less about their silly power and control games. I just look forward to seeing the film.
actually yes thats how it works. you do realize the critics see every movie (with exceptions of BAD BAD FILMS that the producers know are bad.) are seen weeks in advnace and not every movie is spoiled before the week of the release. specially magazines that happen monthly or weekly it pretty rotten when a review gets out too early. things like the Film Festivals dont count cause there are clauses that say even the the film comes out theatrically on this date the Festival is considered its premier and they can write freely. your an ass clown who knows nothing and likes biting at conspiricies that dont exist. this is the girst movie i can remember in recent times that has been spoiled this early by a major publication like the new Yorker. has nothing to do with anything but that the dude just broke a contract.
I already saw the film (original), and it was good. Not sure why they remade it, or what a new version with less interesting actors could add to the conversation. This one makes Hollywood look even more like ambulance chasers than usual. Come up with something original please.
If you haven’t seen the original, do yourself a favor and watch it before rewarding Hollywood for remaking a film that was already well made just a couple years ago. They can hype this all they want. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is not news.
i hate this “Realist” movement where people are hating remakes and calling for something original. number one the first movie wasnt original so pipe down. number two there are people that dont like foriegn films (as there are ppl in other countries that hate american movies) and we are actually the lowest remake and un originial movie makers in the world. Japan is known for their over adapting. people who dont like foriegn films or are un able to read captions (which move by quick in Dragon Tattoo should be allowed to see this story since its an amazing one. stop trying to say things that you think are important cause you think the world is gunna agree with you. technically the only ppl that agree will be your other “REALIST” cronies. the orignial was not a good movie it made the book look like a made for TV special. it wasn’t dark. it wasnt sexual. and Rapace was not that good in it. this cast is suited better adn the look is so much better. you need to judge a movie after seeing it.
Had a chance to read Rudin’s emails and have to agree with Matt. The Hollywood system can suck and be unfair with the manner in which it operates, but this comes down to a gentleman’s agreement and a man breaking his word.
Normally, I find Matt Goldberg’s articles to be painful and witless, but I think this is one of his better pieces of writing, perhaps because Goldberg seems to know what he is talking about in regards to embargos and screenings. Denby is one of the most painfully overrated critics working today. His prose is always mannered and overblown, and he often seems hypocritical about his position. He often criticises films for their lack of seriousness, but he once wrote “one of the extraordinary things about growing up French is that you can be absurd without ever quite knowing it,” an ill-founded and ignorant comment.
In regards to ip’s comment: “uhmm Matt, as i recall, when ‘We Bought a Zoo’ trailer came out, you ALREADY wrote it off.” Goldberg is expected to say nonsense like that, whilst Dneby works for The New Yorker, so the standards of integrity are – and should be – much, much higher.
Sorry, but I meant Pi, not “ip.”
uhmm Matt, as i recall, when ‘We Bought a Zoo’ trailer came out, you ALREADY wrote it off. Now Denby is a bad man for doing that right? LOL.
Integrity, and that ass clown has none apparently. Hope he is selling shoes for a living this time next year.
Matt, Matt, Matty, Matt Matt.
Taking a critic to task? The very fact that you of all critics would either have nothing more interesting to write or actually pretend to be incensed by the situation is entertainment for me, enough. Wait, did you – on your rickety soapbox – NOT get invited to the sneak preview? Is that what this is all about, then? The movie will be crap and anyone who goes all drooly over it (you know who you are and it’s your fault anyone cares about Terence Malick’s student film, Tree of Life) has no brain. There, I said it. The original was long, whiny and I seemed to be one of the few people with enough intelligence to be offended by the Scooby Doo reveal of the villain and his plans. Do I expect anything better of an American remake of a a movie that was dreary in its original language (no, I read subtitles, so stuff it)? Nope. Let’s remake something interesting, instead. Like maybe Barbarella.
And for the record, Denby was being deliberately obtuse about the “Zoo,” and in the context of his email, seemed to be making direct reference to the cliche, “bought the farm” as in, Cameron Crowe bought the farm (kicked the bucket, keeled over) [subtext: Crowe's career] with this movie.