Day and date

There's an article in today's New York Times, in which daily newspaper critics bemoan having to hold their reviews till opening day while bloggers start posting critiques minutes (maybe seconds, given their quality) after the screenings conclude, sometimes weeks in advance. This despite publicist-mandated embargoes, which exist largely to be ignored in the blogosphere.

I'm sitting on a review of the screen-to-stage-and back again Hairspray, which opens July 20. It's embargoed till the week of the 16th, but the trades and I assume blogs have already had their (largely positive) say. As a small fish in the infinite pond of the Internet, I could probably add a few words, without repercussion (that is, the risk of being embargoed from the advance screenings). But a deal's a deal, and the more professional blogs adhere to that same standard. Plus, there's not all that much buzz yet about the film; best to hang onto it till closer to the opening, rather than call "first" without anyone to pay attention to its existence. (Like my weeks-old mini-review of Rescue Dawn, which I had reasons to publish when I did. The film opened today. But the currency of my musings was spent as soon as successive entries pushed it lower on the blog chain.)

Something's got to give, and I imagine the gentleman's agreement between studios and scribes will change to some degree given the free-for-all online. But there's no changing one basic fact: People read daily newspapers to get their daily news. If a film opens July 20, they want to see the review on July 20, and not be referred back to a review that ran on June 15 when the movie was first press-screened. The day-and-date approach feels like the horse-and-buggy in our turbocharged times, but it still makes the most sense.