Sender: |
|
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: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|