If you like movies and handicapping contests, there is no better time than Academy Award season. And if you happen to be in PR, as I am, it is interesting to follow news reports about all the behind-the-scenes marketing, maneuvering and gamesmanship that is done to try to influence the outcomes.
I enjoyed the show last night – I thought the hosts did a great job, and the quality of movies that were up for awards seemed to be better in general this year. I also enjoyed reading a couple of related articles in the New York Times.
The first article featured Times reviewer responses to reader questions about movies; one question, posed to Manohla Dargis, was about the Social Network vs. King's Speech – the answer highlighted the role of publicists and press in the Oscar race:
Q. What do you think accounts for the seismic shift from the total dominance of “The Social Network” on the awards circuit to “The King’s Speech” replacing it as the front-runner over the last few weeks?
MANOHLA DARGIS The idea that “The Social Network” was ever an authentic front-runner for best picture is a nice idea and a total media fabrication. Every year entertainment journalists, aided and abetted by movie publicists, try to spin some kind of drama out of what has become an interminable “awards season….” Two easy ways to stir up interest and trouble are to locate a villain (as in late 2001, when nasty chatter about “A Beautiful Mind” oozed into the mainstream) or create a media-friendly slugfest, as with last year’s trivializing battle of the exes (Kathryn Bigelow versus James Cameron). With no obvious villains available this year the, er, reigning narrative is that “The King’s Speech” has unexpectedly emerged as the one to beat at the Oscars…
The second article ("The Missing Guest at the Oscar Party") sadly reminded us that Ronnie Chasen, a publicist who would normally be there and working the room, was not because she met an untimely death last year.
