Update: Late Monday, Tone Madison announced that its disagreement with the Wisconsin Film Festival over coverage of the festival’s films had been “smoothed over” and that it planned to continue its coverage. A festival staffer “made a good-faith effort” to clarify the festivals concerns, wrote site editor Scott Gordon.
He wrote that despite what the publication was previously told “there are no rules” regarding previewing films” but “guidelines.” And he wrote that the festival “has asked us to consider giving readers more of a heads-up about possible spoilers, which we’ll consider.”
Over the weekend the publication announced a boycott of the festival over its media rules.
Events leading to that decision are chronicled below.
———
The Wisconsin Film Festival seems content to be the Madison Film Festival by another name.
It never encouraged coverage when I worked at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, although I did apply for and receive press credentials a few times.
This year the festival runs April 9 through 16 and its schedule is, again, a diverse collection of independent, narrative, documentary and Wisconsin centric films.
It also includes a 100th birthday anniversary tribute to Kenosha native Orson Welles.
The festival is a collaboration between the University of Wisconsin-Madison Arts Institute and UW Department of Communication Arts faculty.
But in a long essay Scott Gordon, a site editor of the Tone Madison, explains that because of the festival’s media policies the publication will not be covering this year’s festival.
The music and culture publication objects to the festival’s policy that to “obtain advance screeners, the press will agree to only publish capsule reviews/previews of these films, to appear no earlier than one week prior to the festival’s start.”
Since many of its films are unlikely to play commercially elsewhere the media policy cited by Tone is confusing. Don’t such films want coverage? Shouldn’t the festival be thrilled to be in the spotlight?
I’ve heard similar requests over the years as well, generally from distributors, and agreed to them on a case by case basis. It usually applied when a film expected wider distribution and asked reviews to be held until its release.
Case in point: Seeing “Jimi: All Is By My Side,” in advance of an interview with filmmaker John Ridley to be published during the Milwaukee Film Festival but with the review not running until it opened theatrically a few weeks later.
The MFF is extremely generous in offering screeners for preview and happy for the coverage. Though in my experience festivals impose all manner of restrictions regarding accreditation and coverage.
And embargoes are a film industry standard. Almost every invitation to attend an advance screening of a studio film comes with a warning to hold reviews until a film’s release date, although posting reviews online early is common and screenings are often held the day before a film formally opens.
There is an inside-the-bubble/tempest-in-a-teapot quality to the publication’s complaint.
In an email one exhibitor, not for attribution, called them “spoiled crying babies. The notion of running only a capsule review and having constraints on when it runs IS pretty widely accepted. Advance access to a film is not in the bill of rights.”
The exhibitor’s concerns are steeped in that industry’s concern over slumping attendance and fears that festivals can hurt a film’s later box office.
But the festival is being incredibly short-sighted and high-handed in its demands.
The fact that, according to Tone, the festival issued this directive after the fact gives them no leverage at all. And Tone notes that links to full reviews of films on the festival’s own website contradicts its concerns.
In the end more coverage is better than none.
And both sides should do what they can to encourage it.
Update: In an email Gordon wrote that he wanted to “clarify … that I don’t feel inherently entitled to advance access to films, and that I realize some events and specific distributors only offer that access with strings attached. I’ve never pitched a fit just because I couldn’t get access to a particular film or event. A lot of years I’ve just bought tickets to WFF screenings rather than apply for a press pass.”
He knows “some distributors … have a capsules-only rule and I don’t complain about it” because it’s out of the festivals’ hands and and “leaves us with dozens of things” to cover.
“My issue here is that this is a big change in WFF policy, and it should have been communicated clearly and ahead of time. If it hadn’t been so abrupt, I wouldn’t have as much cause for complaint”
The fact that “these constraints being widely accepted … doesn’t justify enforcing (them) abruptly and inconsistently, and I also think our media culture is getting a bit spineless in letting the people we cover call the shots. Journalists increasingly operate on the assumption that ‘accepted in the industry we cover’ equals right, and that has discouraging implications, to say the least.
Of course, I can’t deny that it’s a tempest in a teapot, as so many things in Madison are. What I’m hoping is that we can get back on track with our WFF coverage. WFF is one of my favorite things to attend and cover all year.”
Posted by