Over the past couple of days you may have noticed a little bit of internet chatter revolving around Clayface, a review embargo, and a so-called breach of said embargo. For those not quite familiar with the situation, it goes as follows:
A review embargo was in place for comic book body horror movie, Clayface, which ran until 8pm on Wednesday 21st October. This means, online entertainment sites and news publications were asked not to release their reviews of said film until after this time.
However, reviews did pop up online ahead of this date, including one which gained the attention of a large number of people on X. The review wasn’t particularly favourable of the film (which is perfectly acceptable for the reviewer to have this opinion), and many social media users passed comment on the review and the fact it appeared ahead of reviews by many of the major entertainment publications.
Some people were unhappy this review appeared early, suggesting it went against the spirit of the embargo agreement, which other film reviewers were adhering to. For clarity, an embargo agreement is a sort of gentlemen’s agreement, whereby journalists agree not to publish ahead of a date set by the studio, PR company, etc.
These companies tend to invite members of the press, influencers, and so on, to special preview screenings, where they get early access to films ahead of the general public. The screenings tend to take place in London (although not always), and in thanks for seeing movies in advance, reviews are held back until the agreed embargo date.
Now, when it comes to Clayface, from my understanding, the reason this particular reviewer published early is because he had not entered into any such embargo agreement. He had not attended a press screening, and instead had attended a regular preview screening which took place at his local cinema.
Clayface isn’t officially released until Friday 23rd October. However, all the major cinema chains in the UK held a mystery horror movie screening on Monday, and the film that was shown was Clayface.
So, the reviewer at the centre of all this discussion went to his local cinema, paid to watch a mystery movie (not knowing for sure what it was going to be), ended up seeing Clayface, wrote a review and published it. And at no point during that screening was there any mention of the embargo or any kind of restrictions on reviewing the film online.
Not that there really could be. This was a public screening, which took place at multiple cinemas throughout the UK, was open to anyone aged 18 or over, and would have been watched by potentially thousands of people.
And how do I know this? Because I also attended one of these early preview screenings on Monday.
I didn’t know if the movie was going to be Clayface, although I suspected it might be. I just bought a ticket, showed up, and watched the film, just like everyone else in my screening.
I then wrote a review and published it on this blog. You may have noticed it on Monday night.
You may have also noticed that it briefly disappeared on Wednesday, only to reappear at 8pm. This was because I was asked to temporarily remove it until the embargo lifted.
Now, I should make this clear that I was contacted by a representative for Warner Bros. and asked very politely if I would take it down. There was no threat, no one was being arsey, no one was causing me trouble, it was very much a simple and polite request because of the embargo put in place for the media.
Was I obligated to remove it? No, but I did anyway, because I am aware other publications have been sitting on reviews for a while, waiting to publish but haven’t.
Would some of those publications give me the same consideration? Who can say? But this isn’t about what others would do, it’s what felt right to me, even though I’m a small operator and could really do with the early clicks.
I imagine many publishers were frustrated at seeing early reviews pop up online, when they were being asked to hold back, and I don’t blame them. Anyway, my review went down for a few hours, and then I put it back once the embargo was lifted.
Now, regardless of my decision to adhere to this, I was a little peeved about the general situation. I don’t work for Warner Bros., I wasn’t invited to a press screening of Clayface, I’ve never been invited to any of their screenings, and I paid to watch the movie with my own money and in my own time.
Sure, they had a press embargo in place until Wednesday (for those who got a free screening), but they also chose to screen the movie to the public on Monday. No one made the studio do this, it was a choice.
Presumably it was a choice made to drum up some positive word of mouth for the film. If not, why screen the film to horror fans at a mystery horror screening? The point is to get horror fans excited and for them to spread the word.
Incidentally, my review is positive. I have given Clayface a score of 4 out 5, I made it ‘Movie of the Week’ in my reviews round-up, and I’ll no doubt pick it up on disc when it gets a physical release.
But irrespective of this, let me just go back to the reviewer who published early and got a lot of flack online (which could have easily happened to me). To those saying he went against the spirit of an embargo I disagree.
He paid to see the film at a public screening. The issue here is the way this was handled by the studio.
If they didn’t want early reviews getting out, be it good or bad, then they should not show the movie to the public ahead of their self-imposed embargo. And to be clear, Warner Bros. could have brought the embargo forward – this happens quite often.
If they decided to screen the movie to the public on Monday at 8pm, they should have allowed all of the journalists invited to a press screening to release their reviews at 8:01pm. It would merely involve a quick email to all associated parties on their contact sheet.
This situation is easily avoided. This was an error on the studio’s part – no one else.
But it’s not the only time this has happened. A couple of years ago, another studio (not Warner Bros.) held charity screenings for their film across an entire weekend, allowing thousands of people to see it a few days ahead of an embargo date.
I published a review of the film, after attending one of these public charity screenings (which I paid for), I was contacted by the PR company representing the film, and I was asked to take down the review. The email on that particular occasion was firmer in tone – possibly because my review was less than complimentary about the film (it was poor).
Anyway, I complied because I’m not an arsehole. But this was not a PR company I had worked with, they had not invited me to any of their screenings, and still to this day I’ve never been invited to anything they are involved with.
Cheeky? Absolutely.
I am perfectly fine with not being invited, as I am quite happy working to my own pace. Plus, I’m Manchester based and am unlikely to ever just nip down to London for a quick movie review. Who would in this economy?! Film reviewing ain’t the lucrative business it once was, believe me.
My point is, these things happen. Studios screen movies to select members of the press, set a review embargo date and ask them to sit on their reviews, then they hold special public preview screenings ahead of this date, and don’t see it as a problem.
Utter madness.
It’s not fair to those being asked to adhere to the embargo, and it’s not fair to those who paid to watch the film at a public screening. Studios and PR companies need to understand this, because they will lose goodwill from all involved if they don’t.
So, do I agree with embargoes? Yes, when handled correctly. And by this I mean when press are collectively invited to screenings, and for the privilege of seeing something early they agree to hold back their reviews.
But do I agree with embargoes once a film has been made available to the public? No.
If public, paid-for screenings take place, dates need to shift accordingly. If someone is paying to watch a film, then no one should be holding them to a publishing date further down the line, that they have a.) not agreed to, and b.) not even been made aware of.
—
—
Thank you for stopping by It’s A Stampede!. For more posts be sure to check out the recommended reads below.
Leave a Reply