..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

October 20, 2003

Why Does The Screener Ban Hurt Me?
by David Poland

The title might lead you to believe that this is a piece about how much I will miss awards screeners. It is not... though I will. Just 32 hours or so after the Los Angeles Film Critics Association decided to cancel their annual film awards unless the screener ban was overturned, my mind has turned away from the very real professional loss of not having screeners that I share with others like Bob Koehler and Michael Wilmington and to the personal losses that this war of toy soldiers is beginning to claim.

I live in an unusual space in this industry. I am a film critic. And I am also an industry analyst. I understand the art and I understand the business. Moreover, I care about the art and I care about the business.

I am very happy living between these worlds. It is the choice I have made. When a nasty family squabble like this, which is really what this screener debate is, occurs, I try to appreciate both sides. In this case, the studios who voted for this ban are not a bunch of fat cats in a smoky back room, conspiring to destroy the very segment of the “independent” business that they built with their companies' faith, effort and cash. And those who fight against the ban are not a bunch of self-serving fools, more interested in having free movies at home than they are in the long-term health of the industry.

There are elements of both of these descriptions that fit some of the people on either side. And there are a million more shades of gray in between. Yet somehow, people have felt the need to take sides. And once they have taken their side, the ferocity of the rhetoric has gotten well out of hand.

Over the weekend, I got some e-mail from LAFCA members who felt that this move to cancel the awards was a mistake. The e-mails were calm and even a little bemused. On Sunday, I had an e-mail exchange with a member of LAFCA who felt that, “The MPAA are a bunch of cheap thugs. One uses whatever one has at one's disposal to oppose thuggery.” The exchange then spiraled into an accusation that I was some sort of right-wing fascist since I dared to question LAFCA’s move.

And that’s where we seem to be now.

There are members of LAFCA whom I honor and treasure, some of whom I have never even met. I do not think them fools. I do not think them disreputable. But I do think that they became a mob on Saturday afternoon.

The group’s public argument that they need, as professional film critics, awards screeners in order to do their jobs, is indefensible. Film critics did their jobs for well over 80 years without screeners. They can do their jobs without screeners now. Most of these critics will have Top Ten lists, regardless of screeners. And no city in the world offers more access to the American-made films that will dominate the awards season.

Clearly, the purpose of this move by LAFCA was to take a strong stand and to influence the situation. I believe that an extended talk with any one member of this group would leave you with a slightly different read of why the move makes sense to them. There is the “cheap thugs” argument, while others truly fear the lost opportunity of having screeners for review, while others still believe that the quality of lower budgeted films will suffer from the MPAA’s ban.

The trouble with this is that one “solution” does not fit every ill to which this group wishes to speak. And so, the “solution” must be an extreme one, allowing for little debate. No awards without screeners.

Ironically, the MPAA also came to an extreme “solution” as well. No screeners at all. And no debate.

Like peas in a pod.

But what concerns me is the increasing feeling of “us vs. them” that becomes inevitable as the “solution” becomes codified. Instead of fighting for a goal, people start fighting for the “solution.” Given that LAFCA's choice (Or "LAFCA's Choice," if you prefer higher drama) was far from an obvious one, there will be plenty who disagree with it… even if they agree that the screener ban is a poor choice by the MPAA. Yet, to be against this no screener/no awards threat, one might well be colored as a supporter of the MPAA, with the many ramifications of that association held against you… even if it’s not true.

In reality, there is no winning side or losing side here, regardless of whether the ban stands or falls. Yet the temptation to root for one side or the other like a sporting event is powerful. Such is the nature of forcing people to take sides rather than to encourage and open and complete debate of the situation and its implications.

So many subjective arguments here are being presented as objective facts. When these “facts” are confronted, more and more I am finding that the response is hostility, not discussion… as though the passion for the belief cannot withstand a discussion of facts.

Screeners have been imbued with a significance, whether as the root of all evil or as the savior of the indies, this is simply beyond all sanity. While I respect all of the feelings around these positions, I have no respect for the simplification that has dominated this debate on both sides.

It is hard to hate what you really understand. It is unfortunate that both sides in the debate have focused more on “winning” than on understanding. Now we find ourselves fighting over the fighting, the real conversation about the screener ban floating off in the distance.