Thanks to the Paul Edwards Show!
Posted on December 21, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Many thanks to the Paul Edwards Show for inviting me on this afternoon to talk about Christmas movies! It was a real pleasure.
Related Tags:
Four Questions for the Movie Mom
Posted on October 18, 2009 at 8:00 am
Thanks very much to Professor Michael Ebner and Ageless North Shore for inviting me to answer four very intriguing questions for its website.
Nell Minow: The Four Questions
Why is this profile different from all other profiles? Because today’s guest blogger is Professor Michael Ebner.
#1: Readers of your recent profile in The New Yorker learned much about the role of the Corporate Library and not nearly as much about your role as the Moviemom. Ageless North Shore would like to learn about the impulse that prompted you to assume the guise of Moviemom.
NM: I have always been interested in thinking about why things don’t work. And that is what links both of my jobs. Corporations and movies are both large, complex endeavors involving a lot of people and in general everyone inside and outside wants them to work. When they don’t, I like to try to figure out why not. It’s all just systems analysis.
And I have always, as long as I can remember, loved movies and remembered them easily. Everyone’s brain is Teflon for some things and Velcro for others. The things you can’t forget – that’s you speaking to yourself about what you should be doing. I always wanted a job where I could get paid for going to the movies. And I got my start as movie critic for the New Trier News.
2: It isn’t difficult to detect that your double identity — Corporate Library and Moviemom — play to the realities of the twenty-first century revolution in communication technologies. Ageless North Shore would like to inquire about the balance in your personal reading activities between print and online sources of news and information. More and more on-line? Still reading lots of hard copy? Struggling to achieve a balance?
NM: I love to read online and in print, books, magazines, newspapers. And I love audiobooks and podcasts as well. The most difficult challenge in reading books is the way that all of our other technologies bombard us, making it hard for me to read many chapters in one sitting as I used to. But I do it as often as I can. It’s one of the best things about plane and train rides!
#3 : Your father, the much-esteemed Newton N. Minow, during his term as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, excoriated commercial television programming. He famously invoked the term “the vast wasteland.” Ageless North Shore seeks your own take on contemporary American television from the vantage point of 2009. Better? Worse? Still a “vast wasteland?”
NM: I have a Dickensian “best of times, worst of times” sense about it. I both love and regret the fragmentation. I love the specialization, so that no matter what your interest you can find it on television. But we don’t come to school or work in the morning with the same shared experience any more. The best of television is better than it has ever been before. But the worst is horrifying and I believe destructive. And the mediocre is almost as bad.
Of all the changes since my childhood, I am most upset about the way television has invaded children’s lives. I wish I could eliminate television from all children’s bedrooms, from all meals, and from all but the longest car trips. Parents relinquish so many precious connections by permitting that kind of immersion in media.
#4: You spent your own formative years residing with your family in Glencoe and graduated from New Trier High School. Ageless North Shore seeks your reflections on the experience growing up in the northern suburbs? Was it a shaping influence? Alienating experience?
At New Trier, I had a radio program, I reviewed movies, and I dated David Apatoff. Forty years later, I review movies on the radio and am living happily ever after with David Apatoff. So, I’d call that a shaping influence!
Michael Ebner is the James D. Vail III Professor of History Emeritus at Lake Forest College, where he taught from 1974 to 2007. He is the author of the prizewinning Creating Chicago’s North Shore: A Suburban History (1988).
Michael Moore on God, Faith, and Capitalism
Posted on September 28, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Tomorrow night, I’ll be interviewing Michael Moore at a premiere screening of his new film, “Capitalism: A Love Story.” It comes 20 years after his “Roger & Me” changed the rules for documentaries in every category. He did not pretend to be balanced; he did not hesitate to be irreverent, even laugh-out-loud funny, and — related to the first two points — he shattered box office records. “Roger & Me” focused on the devastation in Moore’s home town of Flint, Michigan, in an economic downturn that seems modest by today’s standards. And Flint shows up again, in a twist that will give the audience goosebumps. Here is Moore on CNN this week. I’ll report on our session on Wednesday.
MPAA Trailer Rule Update
Posted on September 14, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Top entertainment reporter/commentator for the LA Times Patrick Goldstein wrote a terrific blog post about my story on the MPAA’s secret change to the rules governing the content of trailers, calling the consequences of this change “a whole new level of unintelligibility.” My story in the Chicago Sun-Times and commentary here got nice mentions in Christianity Today (thank you, Brandon Fibbs), Reel Fanatic (thank you, Keith Demko), and Movie Marketing Madness (thank you, Chris Thilk). And thanks to Kevin “BDK” McCarthy for inviting me to discuss this issue in his weekly podcast.
I heard from the MPAA, too. Elizabeth Kaltman, MPAA vice president for corporate communications, who was quoted in my article, wrote a comment here on my blog post. Here it is in full, followed by my response:
Ms. Minow got it wrong. The MPAA’s Advertising Administration has not eliminated restrictions on film advertising; rather, we have further enhanced the process to ensure appropriate content is put in front of the right audiences. To be clear, what this means is that the content of the trailer is appropriate for the audience viewing the trailer with the movie they have chosen to see.
The intent of the change from “All Audience” tags to “Appropriate Audience” tags is to indicate to the audience that we consider the placement of the advertising material is appropriate for that audience, but that it may not be appropriate for all audiences. This change allows distributors greater freedom to accurately target and promote their movies, while at the same time honoring our pledge to parents that stronger advertising material will not reach younger audiences.
As Ms. Minow accurately points out, the Advertising Administration goes to great lengths to limit access to content which is intended for mature audiences.
Over the course of many years we have received feedback from parents that content for some movies in a trailer with an “All Audiences” tag was misleading. This new change reflects the Advertising Administration’s increased vigilance to target advertising to appropriate audiences, in keeping with the purpose of ensuring that advertising content reflects the true spirit of the film.
First, I want to thank Ms. Kaltman, who was extremely helpful and responsive as I was writing my article. I appreciate the difficulty of her position. I know how hard it is to have to try to justify actions and positions like the ones taken by the MPAA here. I well understand the techniques of spin and distraction. I appreciate that she has tried her best, but her comment further reveals the failure of any credibility in the MPAA’s arguments. She is unable to dispute any of the facts or arguments I presented.
Ms. Kaltman begins by saying I am wrong, but she then explicitly or implicitly concedes every point I made. She says “To be clear, what this means is that the content of the trailer is appropriate for the audience viewing the trailer with the movie they have chosen to see.” Well, if some determination has been made about the content of the trailer, why not disclose it? Since a significant number of movie trailers are assigned to films by the theater manager, wouldn’t it be helpful to them as well as to parents to have enough information to be able to understand the basis for the “appropriate” determination? She does not respond to my point that a trailer with PG-13-level violence could be paired with a movie like this week’s “The Informant!” that is rated R for language only.
Significantly, Ms. Kaltman does not address the two most significant objections I made to the policy. The first is that the prevalence of trailers online, uncoupled from any “appropriate” feature films, makes it impossible to limit them to “appropriate” audiences. Aggregator sites like Yahoo! Movies, Apple Trailers, and YouTube show dozens of trailers that can be accessed by anyone, so there is not way to limit them to “appropriate” audiences. She says:
The intent of the change from “All Audience” tags to “Appropriate Audience” tags is to indicate to the audience that we consider the placement of the advertising material is appropriate for that audience, but that it may not be appropriate for all audiences. This change allows distributors greater freedom to accurately target and promote their movies, while at the same time honoring our pledge to parents that stronger advertising material will not reach younger audiences.
But she does not explain how to ensure that “stronger advertising material” that “may not be appropriate for all audiences” will “not reach younger audiences” when they can access the trailers online without any guidance for parents at the beginning of the trailer about the “stronger” material it contains.
My second objection is to the MPAA’s decision to make this change without any public announcement, explanation, or opportunity to comment. In what way is this “honoring our pledge to parents?”
Ms. Kaltman was unable to find a single factual error in what I wrote. She objects only to my characterization of the change in policy as “eliminating restrictions.” In her view they have “further enhanced the process.” I believe the dictionary supports my language. Material that previously was not permitted in a trailer is now permitted. That is what eliminating restrictions means. It is now harder to figure out whether a trailer contains material that may not be suitable for all audience members. That does not meet any definition of enhancing the process. Trying to sneak this change past parents is about as far from an enhancement as it is possible to be. I believe the MPAA knew they were doing something parents would not like and that is why they did not tell anyone.
I have written to the MPAA to ask them to reconsider this decision and to make a commitment to public disclosure of any further changes to the rules. I have also written to the Division of Advertising Practices at the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection to ask them to investigate whether this change violates the rules about marketing inappropriate films to underage children. I have asked for meetings with both, and will keep you posted on any replies.
‘Bizarre’ Profile in the Huffington Post
Posted on September 6, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Many thanks to my childhood pal Bob Elisberg for this charming profile of my “bizarre” life in the Huffington Post.