Sunday night’s Oscar ceremony will be the most expensive privately funded bonanza of all time. The prize-giving event itself has been both remodelled and drastically cut in length in an attempt to shore up falling television ratings, but the promotional expenditure surrounding the annual awards has spiralled out of control.
Backers of front-running films such as Martin Scorsese’s The Aviator and Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby have spent an estimated $15-million on lobbying for votes — more than the entire production budget for some of their rivals.
The producers of two of the other films still in the final race to the line at the Kodak Theatre have publicly called a halt, demanding that some limits be imposed on campaign budgets.
Richard Gladstein, producer of best picture nominee Finding Neverland, starring Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet, has urged restraint.
”Once you’ve been nominated, that’s the place to stop,” he said on Saturday.
Michael London, the producer of Sideways, the bitter-sweet story of two men finding themselves on a wine-tasting trip and a popular outsider in the race for an Oscar, also believes spending should be restricted.
”Someone needs to rein in the whole system,” London told The Los Angeles Times this weekend. ”The only answer is that everyone join together and take up something like the salary cap in sports or campaign contributions in political campaigns. The time and money that goes into these campaigns is disproportionate to the budgets of the films.”
Sideways is thought to have spent $10-million on campaigning for the crucial votes of members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, although this figure is disputed by the studio behind the film.
Both Miramax and Warner Brothers, the companies behind The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby respectively, claim they spent only $4-million on their Oscar drives, but this excludes all the cash spent on the theatrical releases of the films as the awards season opened.
About a third of the money is spent on straight advertising in trade journals and newspapers, with another 25% going on the DVDs sent out to each of the 5 808 Academy members. A four-page advertisement in Variety costs $137 660, while a three-day colour advertising campaign in The Los Angeles Times could cost as much as $255 727.
These 21st-century excesses are conventionally blamed on Harvey Weinstein, the powerful co-chairman of Miramax, but this year even he is preaching restraint.
”We’ve learnt you don’t have to spend,” Weinstein has said. ”It really is the movie that counts.”
Ironically, an Oscar win would mean more financially to the smaller films in the contest — films such as Sideways or Vera Drake — than it would to Miramax spectaculars such as The Aviator.
Fine Line Features, the company behind Mike Leigh’s Vera Drake, which has Imelda Staunton nominated in the best actress category, has played host to a hundred screenings for women’s groups. Staunton was also taken to the party for a new Kevin Costner film and touted around the press. The actress claims to be happy to oblige.
”I love talking about the film,” she said. ”It’s the best thing I’ll ever do. And it will all be over in 15 minutes, won’t it? Then I’ll never have to talk about it again.”
The other David competing in this Goliath-sized spending spree is Hotel Rwanda, with British star Sophie Okonedo nominated in the best supporting actress category. MGM studios are spending just more than $1-million on the title.
All this money contrasts starkly with the decline in public interest in awards ceremonies — though South African audiences will be tuning in to see whether Darrell Roodt’s Yesterday takes the prize in the best foreign film category.
The American audience for the Golden Globes was down a hefty 37%. In answer to this, the producer of the Oscar’s TV show Gil Cates has made innovations this year, with new presenter Chris Rock handing over the awards for 10 categories as winners sit at their tables.
”I try to explain that walking down the aisle is not what it’s about, winning the award is what it’s about,” Cates has said. ”The changes are for the good of the show. But we’ll see. If after the show there are more nays than yeas, we won’t do it again.” — Guardian Unlimited Â