SCREEN-L Archives

May 1998, Week 1

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 1 May 1998 11:59:46 -0500
Reply-To:
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization:
York University
From:
Darrell Varga <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
Leo Enticknap wrote:
 
> None of the publicity material for "The Sweet Hereafter" mentioned Egoyan's
>  nomination, nor did
> the occasion of its nomination prompt any more aggressive marketing on the
 part
>  of its
> distributor.  I would guess that the reason is that the kind of patron who
 comes
>  to see an Egoyan
> film couldn't give a four-x about the Oscars.  For the kind of patron who
 comes
>  to "Titanic", they
> indicate that the film has something special to offer.
>
 
I agree entirely that the Oscars are about making money but according to
a story in the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper published prior to the
awards, Egoyan's distributor spent over $750,000 in additional
advertising following the nomination--an unusually high amount for a
small budget Canadian film. This advertising was largely aimed at
academy voting members and, according to the story, went a long way in
increasing the film's popularity among the Beverly Hills country club
milieu. What was it Adorno said about art being the ultimate commodity?
 
Darrell Varga
York University
 
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite

ATOM RSS1 RSS2