It Shouldn’t Happen To A Film Journalist
Editor-at-Large JAMIE GRAHAM lifts the lid on film journalism.
As I write this column, a storm is brewing between film studios and critics, with Variety and Indiewire penning articles on the bone of contention and Twitter aflame. What has caused this contretemps? Studios’ withdrawal of digital screening links, a provision that has, for the past 17 months, allowed journalists to continue the service of reviewing new releases while cinemas were shuttered. Or, at certain times, open, but a worrying proposition to some.
With many people now fully vaccinated and cinemas returning to something like the old normal, the studios have restarted in-person screenings in central London, a move that has seen screening links begin to disappear. The reasons given are that the studios believe in the theatrical experience, and the filmmaker wants everyone to see their movie on the biggest screen possible. It is actually the same reason, and fully understandable – especially if the film is a $200m blockbuster that will lose its impact if viewed alone at home, its effects less special, its scale diminished, its finely calibrated sound design mashed and muzzled, and with no laughing, gasping audience to create a palpable energy in the room.
VENTING SPLEEN
I get it. I am obsessed with cinema and cinemas – the medium itself and the temples that provide it under the best possible conditions. To me, watching a movie in a state-of I the-art multiplex or a characterful independent cinema is life at its finest. It is my happy place, my passion, my religion.
But with the Delta variant swirling and some people not yet ready to sit in busy theatres where most don’t wear masks, why should the studios make film journalists do it? In my case,
I am immunocompromised, having lost my spleen in a car crash when I was five. I have been advised to continue to shield as there is not yet data to know if the vaccines offer any protection to people like me, and I will be at high risk should I catch Covid. have, naturally, made the studios aware of my condition, and they have largely been understanding, continuing to provide links that are no longer afforded to all. But twice I have been forced to travel on a busy train an hour into London to watch a film I had to see in order to complete interviews (the anxiety was such that I won’t be doing it again). And just yesterday I received an email from a major studio that read, “I am sorry to hear you are unable to attend screenings but we are unable to supply links for any of our titles.”
HELLO, GOODBYE
What that means is I can’t do my job, and already I’ve lost three big reviews and a couple of features – a couple of weeks’ work – because of this inflexibility. Given the last 17 months have proved that secure links can be provided and piracy has not been an issue, it is, in my opinion, an unconscionable stance, and such a non-inclusive policy is not a good look. And it’s not just me and the other journalists I know with medical conditions, as digital screeners also allowed for greater diversity in film writing, opening doors to those who don’t live in London and can’t attend physical screenings – people from marginalised communities or with childcare issues or with disabilities, say. To slam the door in their faces is thoughtless at best, cruel at worst.
What studios need to realise is that film critics adore movies and 95 per cent of them will always choose the physical screening. But there must be the option for those who can’t. It’s really not hard. We all want to embrace the theatrical experience but people’s health is more important, and a little empathy is all it takes.
Jamie will return next issue… For more misadventures, follow: @jamie_graham9 on Twitter.
‘DIGITAL SCREENERS ALSO ALLOWED FOR GREATER DIVERSITY IN FILM WRITING’