'Reel politics' permeate runup to Oscars

In an industry that is famously liberal, many here feel guilty that more African-Americans don't have gold statuettes on their mantelpieces. With African-American director Spike Lee and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume weighing in on the debate, the Oscar race has only intensified.

The result: more spending by studios to push their nominees and more spin and counterspin. The whole affair is prompting Mr. Crowe to speak out.

"I think we ought to examine the amount of money we are spending on these [Oscar] campaigns," said Crowe backstage at a recent awards show. "As soon as it costs that much money, that takes people to a different place. This is supposed to be about the joy of filmmaking, about celebration and it shouldn't get into these kind of politics."

Studios are spending a reported 20 percent more than last year on Oscar-promotion campaigns that typically run around $15 million. For example, trade publications have come packaged with color pullouts and inserts that include DVDs with outtakes from nominated films.

Analysts say that the spending blitz dates back to 1998 when Dreamwork's "Saving Private Ryan," an early favorite for Best Picture that year, was beaten out by a strong, PR blitz by Miramax's "Shakespeare in Love." The same studios had Best Picture nominees last year, and this.

Whether the motives are personal or economic, it is clear that an Oscar win can result in tens of millions more for a film still in the theaters. One example is 1999's "Best Picture," "American Beauty" which earned $33 million more during the nomination process (from $75 million to $108 million), and then another $22 million after the awards, reaching $130 million, domestic gross.

Studios are also are making sure their highly favored nominees miss no chance for exposure. In particular, "Best Actress" nominees Sissy Spacek (for "In the Bedroom") and Ms. Berry (for "Monster's Ball") have been particularly visible.

Besides parading nominees nonstop onto shows from "Leno" and "Letterman," to "Good Morning, America," it also means pitching stories to national periodicals by making nominees available to reporters.

"It's unbelievable how visible the top nominees have become on mainstream shows and feature articles," says Dave Karger, a critic and analyst for Entertainment Weekly magazine. "Publicists are jockeying for space and air time for their clients with an energy and tenacity that is almost unimaginable."

On the heels of skate-judge scandals in Utah, the growing cinematic realpolitik is disturbing to some, and to others it's just a healthy sign that this year's Oscar race is that close. Even though the academy has 5,700 members, some analysts say the top awards could be decided by as little as half-a-dozen votes.

"Four of the five pictures nominated for Best Picture are strong potentials so the vote will be so fragmented that just a few votes will make the difference," says Martin Grove, columnist for Hollywood Reporter Online.

Besides "neck-and-neck" Oscar tallies which could be closer than the Florida 2000 face-off between Bush and Gore, other political analogies are everywhere.

From mainstream papers such as USA Today, to trade press such as Hollywood Reporter, media outlets are recounting who is up and who is down, based upon an emerging set of "polls" in the form of pre-Oscar award shows that allegedly define "front runners" and "dark horses."

But if all this generates more wattage and higher stakes by Oscar time, that's just show biz, say many observers.

"This isn't shocking really, it's reality," says Lisa Schwarzbaum, movie critic for Entertainment Weekly. "Oscars have always been about more than 'pure' artistic merit. With thousands of people voting, each with personal agendas and interests, what wins is inevitably a mix of merit, zeitgeist and odds. What's shifted in recent years is the degree to which the campaigning has become visible."

Page: 1 | 2