Four For Friday - Pressure
I don't think people realize just how much money the federal government contributes to the financing of movies. It can be in the tens of millions of dollars in direct aid and then a priceless amount of indirect aid such as being allowed to film permit and cost free on government lands and in buildings owned by the government. Often times that access comes with a price. Such was the case a few years ago when it came to Oscar time. There was a movie which had been raking up awards at every award show. It was an unstoppable force. The thing is though, when it came to the Academy Awards, the fix was in. No, no one at the accounting firm did anything shady, although, now that I think about it, that would probably be the easiest way to make sure things went according to plan and would require much less work.
Instead, what happened was a group of politicians who chaired committees that are the biggest givers of money to movie and television productions sent out a missive to studio heads and several hundred top directors and producers. Pass the word. Make sure you and the people who work for you do not vote for this movie to win. Apparently, because the movie cast a certain governmental department in a bad light, the politicians were not happy. They also believed that insiders from the department that was portrayed so poorly were the ones who leaked all the details. The message was clear. If the movie wins any awards we will blame you for the win and the money tree will dry up. Now, obviously it would not be just one company or producer or director at fault, but the message was clear and the word spread. A movie which had been hauling in awards, won just one minor Oscar despite all their nominations. Business in Hollywood continued as usual.
Posted by ent lawyer at 10:10 AM
https://www.reuters.com/article/entertainment-us-oscars-zero/zero-dark-thirty-fails-at-oscars-amid-political-fallout-idUSBRE91O07S20130225
Kathryn Bigelow’s follow-up to The Hurt Locker was Zero Dark Thirty, a spellbinding geo-thriller dramatizing the decade-long manhunt—and eventual assassination of—9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden. It was the most critically acclaimed film of the year, but even before it was released, pundits began weighing in claiming that it promoted torture—excuse me, “enhanced interrogation techniques.” New York Times columnist Frank Bruni even penned an op-ed deriding it with the opening line, “I’m betting that Dick Cheney will love the new movie Zero Dark Thirty.” Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, a former journalist, claimed the contrary, but their voices weren’t loud enough. So, despite being the most critically acclaimed film of the year, it only managed to rack up four Oscar nominations—snubbing Bigelow for Best Director—and only took home one, for Best Sound Editing. Of course, it would later be revealed that the filmmakers engaged in some shady dealings with the CIA.
"Early signs of trouble came in mid-December when leading U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin, both Democrats, and John McCain, the Republicans’ 2008 presidential candidate, sent a letter to movie studio Sony Pictures, castigating the film.
They called the film “grossly inaccurate and misleading” for suggesting torture helped the U.S. track the al Qaeda leader to a Pakistani compound, where he was killed in 2011.
Three weeks later, the film’s director, Kathryn Bigelow, was omitted from the Oscar’s Best Director shortlist,
In January, Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan pointed the finger at Washington, writing: “Chalk up this year’s nominations as a victory for the bullying power of the United States Senate and an undeserved loss for Kathryn Bigelow.”