SCREEN-L Archives

May 1998, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Darrell Varga <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Fri, 1 May 1998 11:59:46 -0500
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
>  of its
> distributor.  I would guess that the reason is that the kind of patron who
>  to see an Egoyan
> film couldn't give a four-x about the Oscars.  For the kind of patron who
>  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