Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University
Communication Faculty Publications Department of Communication
Summer 2004
A Big Fat Indie Success Story? Press Discourses Surrounding the Making and Marketing of a "Hollywood" Movie
Alisa Perren Georgia State University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_facpub
Part of the Communication Commons
Recommended Citation Perren, Alisa, "A Big Fat Indie Success Story? Press Discourses Surrounding the Making and Marketing of a "Hollywood" Movie" (2004). Communication Faculty Publications. 3. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_facpub/3
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Big Fat Indie Success Story? Press Discourses Surrounding the Making and Marketing of a "Hollywood" Movie
ALISA PERREN
DURING THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 2002, neWS- a number of inaccuracies and misperceptions papers and magazines across North America about the operations ofthe contemporary prominently featured articles about the surpris- media industries. These stories have had the ing box office performance of My Big Fat Greek effect of constructing—and reinforcing—certain Wedding. The publications wrote ofa low-bud- mythologies about the dichotomies between get romantic comedy—a movie with neither "Hollywood" and "independent" films, as well Hollywood stars nor special effects—that defied as between the film and television industries. the odds to become the highest grossing in- These dichotomies, in turn, obscure the inter- dependent film of all time. According to these connectedness and fluidity within the contem- sources, the film reputedly "sent a message" porary film and television industries. to Hollywood, challenging the way the industry In this article, I dissect three primary claims does business (Holden Ei). Whether the publi- made in mainstream publications about My cation was People or the New York Times or the Big Fat Greek Wedding. First, by examining Winnipeg Free Press, the story was shockingly the film's production, distribution, and ex- similar: a young woman, writer-actress Nia hibition history, I complicate assertions that Vardalos—and a tittle movie—defied the odds the film can be labeled "the most successful to make good (and make money). This was the independent of all time." Second, I challenge American dream in action. the assumption that films such as My Big Fat As attractive and compelling as this story Greek Wedding are rarely made anymore by may be, it is neither accurate nor complete. In Hollywood. I suggest that such arguments are fact, the film's development, production, and based on narrow definitions of Hollywood and distribution were far more complicated than its product. Third, I problematize the declara- most journalistic tales have suggested. In this tions that My Big Fat Greek Wedditig represents paper, I provide an alternate perspective on the a triumph in innovative "grassroots" marketing production and distribution of My Big Fat Greek tactics and appealing to groups from the "bot- Wedding. I argue that the standard accounts tom up." In place of such a perspective, I main- provided by most media outlets have not only tain that the tactics employed in selling the constructed partial stories about the film, but film are representative of long-standing tactics even more importantly, they have reinforced employed by niche marketers. After surveying these dominant claims, I ALISA PERREN is a visiting assistant professor in propose that the film's financial success should the Communication Studies Department at North- not be interpreted as evidence that Hollywood eastern University. She has published articles on the film and television industries in Filtn Quarterly, has lost its way, but rather as proof of the ex- The Television History Book (BFI, 2003), and the istence and effectiveness of specific business forthcoming Sage Handbook of Media Studies (U practices and aesthetic parameters within the of Texas). contemporary media industries. Ultimately, I
18 JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2OO4 encourage media analysts to cease from view- Premiere. Second, I situate these articles within ing My Big Fat Greek Wedding as an example the context of research on the structure, con- of one woman and one film defying the odds, duct, and performance ofthe entertainment instead, we should consider this film as an industries. This knowledge comes from two example of the uniformity of journalistic dis- main sources: work on media industry econom- courses, the complexity ofthe operations of ics conducted by such scholars as Douglas contemporary Hollywood, and the continuing Gomery, Alan Albarran, and Barry Litman; and ideological power ofthe so-called American trade books targeted to aspiring media mak- dream. ers and industry employees, such as Gregory Goodell's independent Feature Film Production Questions of Methodology: How Do and Dov Simen's From Reel to Deal. While the former sources provide a theoretical framework We Analyze the Contemporary Media from which to analyze the contemporary media Industries? industries, the latter enable one to understand Before establishing and challenging several key the standard working methods and normative claims about the making and marketing of My practices of today's Hollywood, Cumulatively, Big Fat Greek Wedding, it is important to note these materials provide a context within which the methodological difficulties of conducting a the journalistic materials can be placed. study such as this in the first place. In writing By situating the journalistic sources within this article, I have faced an issue encountered this larger context, it becomes clear that such by many contemporary media analysts. Namely, discourses are every bit as ideological as the how can I critique the discourses generated by media products generated by the media com- the mainstream press about the entertainment panies themselves. In this essay, I explore industries at the same time that I rely heavily and challenge the main claims made by the on these same sources to construct my argu- mainstream press about the production and ment? Or, put another way, how can one effec- distribution of/MyS/g Fat Greek Wedding. In the tively conduct an analysis ofthe contemporary process, one can see not only the uniformity of media industries? Whereas industry historians the arguments made in popular magazines and can often refer to a wide range of archival docu- newspapers, but also the extent to which these ments, due to legal and proprietary concerns, sources serve as a primary means by which mis- analysts ofthe contemporary media industries conceptions about the structure, conduct, and are often limited in their access to corporate performance of Hollywood are perpetuated. materials. Thus much oftheir information must come from trade documents and mainstream Challenging the Dominant Claims publications, with interviews serving as a means of supplementing knowledge and check- Claim #i: My Big Fat Greek Wedding is ing facts. the highest-grossing independent pirn of There are two main ways in which I have all time tried to overcome these methodological chal- lenges. First, I have looked to a wide range of Today Ms. Vardalos is having the last laugh, and it is news reports to confirm my information. Among louder and richer than she ever dreamed. The movie the sources consulted for this article include she wrote and starred in. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, is the hit ofthe summer and one ofthe most profitable industry trade journals Variety, Hollywood independent films ever made. Reporter, and Advertising Age; a broad array The New York Times of newspapers ranging from the Los Angeles Times to the New York Times to the London Wedding has broken several box-office records and is Guardian; and several magazines and specialty on its way to breaking more, tt has far surpassed the publications such as Salon.com, People, and Dollars mom earned by previous indie champ The
lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56,2 / SUMMER 2OO4 Blair Witch Project in 1999. it's also the highest-gross- This company can be identified as "indepen- ing movie never to have reached number one on the dent" inasmuch as it lacks affiliations with weekly box-office chart, though it's been in the top 10 the Hollywood majors. However, it has a rich since July. ltS4,ooo% return ranks itwith Star Wars and Gone with the Wind among the most profitable source of support in its cofounder. Norm Waitt, movies of all time, tn America, it's the fourth-highest who is also a cofounder ofthe computer hard- grossing movie of 2002 and is closing in on Austin ware company. Gateway, The other half of the Powers in Goldmember and Signs,,, production money came from HBO-one ofthe The Guardian most lucrative subsidiaries of the AOLTime Warner empire. Defining a film as "independent" has never The way HBO became involved in the devel- been easy. In recentyears, as independent opment of My Big Fat Greek Wedding is telling. films have become more popular (and more The project was originally brought to HBO by commercially viable), it has become even more Tom Hanks andhis wife, Rita Wilson, After Wil- of a challenge, and different analysts use differ- son saw the stage version of My Big Fat Greek ent criteria to ascertain whether or not a media Wedding, she wanted to be involved in the product is independent. Among these are: a play's transformation into film. She and Hanks film's source of financing; the industrial affilia- subsequently approached HBO—with whom tions ofthe film's distributor (Prince xviii; Wyatt Hanks already had a successful relationship 75); the sites in which the film is exhibited through his producing and directing roles in (Gomery); the status ofthe talent in relation the HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon to Hollywood (Kleinhans 308-09); and the (1998) and Band of Brothers (2001), The cable "spirit" ofthe film (usually interpreted to mean channel continued its relationship with Hanks' its aesthetic or generic ties to commercial or production company, Playtone, by providing alternative media traditions),' In applying any 2,5 million dollars in production money "as a of these criteria to /Wy Big Fat Greek Wedding, favor" (Eller, "Jitters" Ci), we can see the film's claim of "independence" HBO's involvement should be underscored is tenuous at best. for a number of reasons. First, this financing First there is the matter of production money. history demonstrates the importance of rela- Clearly we are not talking about a "guerilla" tionships between top Hollywood talent and production in the mold of El /Vlariachi (1992) or large media conglomerates in jump-starting the Clerks (1994)—movies produced for a few thou- project. Second, it reinforces that from the out- sand dollars each. Yet we are also not talking set there was the involvement of a Hollywood about an "ultra-low" budget production either major—by way of a subsidiary company—in (Broderick 46), The film's five-million-dollar a so-called independent project. Third, HBO budget is relatively average for a low-budget obtained specific rights—domestic cable and film in contemporary Hollywood (Matsumoto), video-that affected the film's attractiveness Given the high costs of shooting movies these to theatrical distributors. In the contemporary days—costs that include the expenses of film media marketplace, the Hollywood "majors" stock and processing, labor rates, and location (generally defined at the time ofthe film's expenses-it is extremely difficult to shoot on release as AOLTime Warner, Viacom, Disney, film (as opposed to digital video) for less than Vivendi-Universal, News Corp, and Sony) a million dollars. Yet, as noted above, we aren't typically expect to obtain a minimum number talking about a million dollars—we are talking of rights to projects they agree to distribute about several million, secured from established domestically,^ These include (again at a mini- companies with strong ties to Hollywood, mum) domestic theatrical and domestic video Two companies cofinanced the film,^ Gold rights, "domestic" meaning the United States Circle Films provided the first half of the money and Canada, Increasingly, companies pursue in exchange for the foreign rights to the film. "all domestic rights"—meaning pay cable, pay-
lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56,2 / SUMMER 2OO4 per-view, basic cable, and syndication, often available hurt the project from the start. There in perpetuity. And it is not uncommon these was, of course, the possibility that a theatrical days to seek "worldwide" rights also. The ma- distribution division within AOLTime Warner jors can demand these kinds of deals in large would take on the project, keeping it "in the part because of the continuing glut in product family." Yet although many media analysts in the wake of the independent boom of the argue that consolidation and synergies have 1990s. In addition, these companies have generated large, menacing, and impenetrable their own niche-oriented distribution arms that media empires, in most cases, divisions within pursue projects from the script stage (which conglomerates retain a degree of autonomy in guarantees they retain all rights to the project). their development and acquisition of product. Further, they have a numberof deals with es- In fact, there is often competition between divi- tablished producers. These deals ensure that sions of conglomerates; in-fighting and bidding a regular supply of product will be developed wars are not uncommon. "in-house," thereby diminishing the majors' The theatrical distribution divisions at AOL interest in outside material, unless it can be Time Warner that might have acquired My Big obtained on highly favorable terms. Fat Greek Wedding include Warner Bros., New It is important to understand both the Line, and Fine Line. Vet My Big Fat Greek Wed- majors' current bargaining position and the ding's subject matter and style did not fit with contemporary rights scenario in order to com- the kinds of films pursued by these divisions. prehend the initial lack of interest on the part Like the other majors, Warner Bros.' theatri- of distributors in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. cal label is interested in high concept "event" Given the fact that foreign, domestic video, films—films based on "presold" material and television rights had already been sold, it (books, video games, etc.), and/or films with is not surprising that the majors passed on the lots of effects and well-known actors.^ In gen- project from the outset. This is not merely greed eral. New Line focuses on projects targeted at on the part of the studios, however. Launching the African American market (AH about the Ben- movies theatrically is an expensive proposi- jamins [2000], Friday after Next [2002]) or the tion these days. Regardless of the "negative teen and young adult markets {Blade II [2002], cost" of the project (i.e., the budget), "P and A" Mr. Deeds [2002]). And of course, the company costs (striking the "prints" and "advertising" also has developed its own franchises of late, the film) are often exorbitant. It is not unusual including the Austin Powers [1997,1999, 2002], for marketing costs to account for at least 40 Rush Hour [1998, 2001], and Lord of the Rings percent of the overall expense of making and [2001, 2002, 2003] series. More specialized releasing a film into theaters.* Much of this ex- fare at this time was left to New Line's spin-off pense is due to the high cost of advertising on company. Fine Line Pictures, developed in the television—tapping into the variety of cable and early 1990s to tap into the same market being broadcast channels and time slots necessary pursued by Miramax and Sony Pictures Clas- to build awareness of the project. Given the sics. By the early 2000s, however. Fine Line's economics of today's Hollywood, most films do activities were being substantially scaled back not make back their money until they move out (Eller, "Niche" Ci).« of theaters and into video. Only rarely will a film What becomes apparent is that each of the make a profit theatrically; more frequently, the- various AOLTime Warner theatrical distribution atrical distribution is perceived by the industry divisions has a "profile" for the types of films as a means of "establishing a brand" for future it considers commercially viable. My Big Fat revenue streams such as video and pay cable. Greek Wedding did not fit those profiles. To be Thus the fact that My Big Fat Greek Wedding a Warner Bros, film, it needed a star—Julia Rob- had a low budget is only meaningful to distribu- erts or at least Jennifer Lopez; to be a Fine Line tors up to a point. The limited number of rights film, it needed some sex, some violence—or a
lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004 few subtitles. At the very least, it needed to be with the Ned Beatty-LievSchreiber drama "dark." Too commercial in genre and style to Spring Forward (1999). Following that, IFC Films be labeled independent and travel the festival released a number of critically praised but route to success, but too lacking in stars to be low-earning projects, such as Happy Accidents promoted as an "event," Wedding was a film (2000), The Business of Strangers (2001), and the executives did not know how to distribute. Go Tigers! (2001). Two thousand two proved to Thus it was a combination of aesthetic and be a banner year for the company, as it not only industrial factors that made the film unattractive played a role in the release of My Big Fat Greek to top theatrical distributors. The nonmajors Wedding but was also involved with the North had mixed feelings about the film as well, as American distribution of the highly praised noted by Premiere's Fred Schruers in an article (and high earning) Spanish-language film, / Tu on the decision by Lion's Gate, the film's origi- Mama Tambien. Together, these films signified nal distributor, to drop it even after positive test IFC Film's move up to the status of major player screenings (42). Ultimately IFC Films acquired in the low-budget film world. the movie on what the majors would consider Although "independent" was part of IFC's unfavorable terms for a distributor. When the name, this does not suggest the company was majors agree to distribute a film, it is not unusu- without strong conglomerate ties. IFC may have al for them to receive between 25 and 50 per- been a relatively new entrant into the theatri- cent of the money back from the box office. After cal film world, but it was co-owned by several the exhibitortakes its share (typically about 50 of the wealthiest media companies in North percent of the grosses), the rest of the returns America. Along with cable channels AMC, WE: (called "rentals") go back to distributors. From Women's Entertainment, and muchmusic usa, this money, on average, 10 percent covers P and IFC was a division of Rainbow Media Holdings A costs and 15 percent is charged by the distrib- (at the time of the film's release, a joint venture utor as a fee for its services. The remaining 25 of Cablevision Systems Corporation, General percent goes to the financier. In contemporary Electric/NBC, and MGM). Considering its power- Hollywood, the financier is often the studio as ful corporate owners, it becomes clear that the well, meaning that it is not uncommon for all of "independent" in "Independent Film Channel" the rentals to go back to the distributor. is more of a brand name than a description of This was not the case for My Big Fat Greek its industrial relationships. While IFC Films was Wedding. In fact, IFC did not even handle P and not a major per se, its ties to corporate Hol- A (and thus stood to receive an even smaller lywood were far more complex than its name or percentage); those costs were borne by Gold advertisements might imply. Circle (Seiler 4D). IFC had what is called a "ser- Up to now, we have seen that My Big Fat vice deal," meaning that its sole responsibility Greek Wedding was produced and distributed was in handling the film's theatrical release. by some of the most powerful individuals and This arrangement meant that IFC's earnings on companies in Hollywood. While it had some the film would be small relative to the amount affiliations with the independent film world taken in by the producers/financiers (Eller, "Jil- (the movie wasn't directly released by a major ters" Cl).'' Given this scenario, it is once again studio), a number of media conglomerates and not surprising that most distributors were not industry players were involved with the making overeagerto secure rights to the film. and marketing of the film. Further, in terms of Yet IFC's motivations for acquiring My Big Fat style and genre, the film is anything but inde- Greek Wedding begin to make sense when we pendent. Indeed, My Big Fat Greek Wedding consider the status of the company's theatrical is interesting in how utterly unoriginal it is—in film division. Formed as a spin-off of the basic fact, as many critics noted, it seems more like cable station IFC (Independent Film Channel), a ninety-minute sitcom than a feature-length IFC Films began distributing films theatrically
lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2OO4 The only other link the film might have to the of clarity by media analysts about industrial world of independents would be the means by practices, and rapid institutional changes—that which it was exhibited. Yet in this arena as well, these days the label often confuses more than the film was hardly treated as an independent it clarifies. As the next section demonstrates, product. In fact, one of the most effective mar- the discourses surrounding "Hollywood" keting tactics used in selling the film was in similarly reinforce long-held cultural biases at opting to release it as if it were a commercial the same time that they hide the regular inter- film rather than an "indie" (Kinzer Ei; Schruers change between film and television production 42). As noted by USA Today, the "big inspira- and distribution. tion" of then IFC distribution and marketing head Bob Berney involved making Wedding Oaim #2: Wedding Is an example of the look like a major release from a major studio, kind of film that today can only be made not an art-house film "from a group of small outside of Hollywood companies that moviegoers have never heard What Makes a 'Big Fat' Film Hit? This Success is of; this entailed opening the film wide in a lim- All Greek to Hollywood ited number of cities, opting for theater chains Headline, The Boston Herald rather than art houses wherever possible, and running television spots on cable channels in Maybe 'Greek Wedding* Will Wake Up Hollywood the regions where the film was opening (Seiler Bigwigs 4D). The expenditures required to open the Headline, USA Today movie were anything but small—as the film's The story of My Big Fat Greek Wedding' has already marketers declared on more than one occasion, become a Hollywood myth—a tale (supposedly) of they spent eight million dollars to make the first artistic passion and creative purity trumping the sort nine million (Schruers 42). These release strate- of suffocating studio machinery most in evidence this gies, which blended the marketing and distri- time of year, when megabudget films with treacly bution techniques employed in the last decade emotions and fast-food tie-ins are rolled out. It's a myth illuminating simple truths about the role ser- by independents, specialized companies, and endipity can still play in the movies and other pop major studios, proved quite effective, generat- culture factories... ing nearly two hundred fifty million dollars at The San Francisco Chronicle the domestic box office. In this closer look at the exhibition of My Big "Hollywood" is often bandied about by jour- Fat Greek Wedding—much as with the inter- nalists with as little clarification as the label rogation of its production and distribution—we "independent" is. Writers often assume their can see the problematic nature of the "inde- readers understand what "Hollywood" means pendent" label. Like most projects coming out and thus take little, if any, time to explain the of Hollywood these days. Wedding was devel- word. In the studio era, "Hollywood" conjured oped through a complex set of relationships up images of movie stars, film moguls, and between producers, distributors, and media major motion picture studios. To some, the conglomerates. Labeling any of the individu- term implied (and continues to imply) glitz and als or companies involved "independent" has glamour; to others it refers to a cultural void. a number of ramifications. First, it obscures While in fact it refers to an actual locale in the the complex industrial and aesthetic nature of center of Los Angeles, few people mean this media products. Second, it turns media ana- when they speak dreamily—or critically—of Hol- lysts into tools of the marketing and publicity lywood. What is clear is that, in the past several machinery involved in selling movies. In sum, decades, the word has been used in a number "independent" has become so obscured in of contradictory and imprecise ways. the last decade—due to a combination of jour- As has been well documented by New Hol- nalistic hype in the "age of the indies," a lack lywood scholars in recent years, the motion
JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004 picture industry cannot be thought of as a lywood all the time. The key question is not distinctive entity any longer.' Since the studios whether such movies are made, but where were purchased in the i96os-and increasingly such movies are shown. As discussed briefly incorporated into large multinational conglom- above, the economics of the film business are erates—"Hollywood" has been more useful as such that two main types of movies are viewed a marketing tool than as an indicator of specific as viable for the theatrical marketplace: high- aesthetic characteristics or industrial, eco- concept event films and "edgy" niche films. The nomic, and cultural conditions. In order to chal- majors release the event films; specialty divi- lenge some of the erroneous claims about both sions within the majors release the niche films. My Big Fat Greek Wedding and the status of However, hundreds of films are made each year the film industry today, it is important to clarify that never receive a theatrical release. what I mean by "Hollywood." There are two main reasons why a movie When I refer to "Hollywood," I do not mean doesn't "open" in theaters. First, the producers autonomously functioning motion picture stu- may believe the genre, style, or lack of stars dios that generate movies for theatrical release. makes the movie better suited for a video or Such entities no longer exist—at least, they television release. These movies are often cre- no longer exist in isolation from a number of ated with a television market in mind from the related media industries, including television, outset. This is frequently the case with romantic video, and cable distribution. Thus, by "Hol- comedies. A number of television, video, and lywood" I mean a complex network of media cable distributors are interested in "premier- industries in which major entertainment con- ing" movies. Among the light-hearted projects glomerates exist at the center, financing prod- to go directly to television of late include the ucts intended for distribution via a number of Chazz Palminteri-directed Women v. Men "pipelines" around the world. The commercial (2002, Showtime), the Charlie Sheen vehicle products generated by "Hollywood" are gener- Good Advice (2001, HBO), and the Peter Bogda- ally either event-oriented projects designed to novich-directed A Saintly Switch (1999, ABC). cross over to a variety of demographic groups In some cases, movies that premiere on televi- and appeal to large numbers of people, or they sion in the U.S. open in theaters overseas. Such are niche-targeted projects aimed at specific was the case with the NBC miniseries Uprising groups. (2001), for example. The most important thing to note here is Second, for any number of reasons, the that "Hollywood" refers to both the film and producers or distributors may decide that a television industries. The case of My Big Fat movie intended to premiere in theaters should Greei< Wedding shows why we cannot speak go directly to television or video instead. They of Hollywood without speaking of both film could choose television because the movie and television. Further, this case study demon- does not test well with audiences, causing po- strates why we must view these two industries tential distributors to see a theatrical release as operating in relation to one another. If we too substantial an expense for too uncertain a perceive the two industries as fundamentally project. Controversial films sometimes end up interconnected in their modes of production, with a television premiere after initially being generic traits, and aesthetic characteristics, targeted for the theatrical market. Such was the then we can see the problematic nature of the case with The Beiiever (2001), a film about a argument that movies like My Big Fat Greek Jewish boy who becomes violently anti-Semitic. Wedding aren't made anymore—or at least, Although the movie won the Grand Jury Prize at aren't made within Hollywood. the Sundance Film Festival, it couldn't hold on In fact, movies like My Big Fat Greek Wed- to a distributor. Ultimately, Showtime picked up d/ng-innocuous romances and/or comedies the rights to the project and aired it with much featuring B or C-list talent-are made in Hol- fanfare and acclaim on its cable network.
lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2OO4 Oftentimes, even though a film tests well can) film criticism. While the auteur theory did with sample audiences, distributors remain much to legitimate and invigorate film studies, uncertain how to sell it. (This was almost the it had the unfortunate side effect of reinforcing case with My Big Fat Greek Wedding.) A theatri- the idea that television was the Other. Whereas cal release is also sometimes skipped due to film was represented as worthy of study, televi- producers' and filmmakers' perception that the sion was portrayed as a highly commercialized, film will "connect" better with television audi- creatively bankrupt medium—an opiate for the ences.'" For example, director Allison Anders masses. originally made Things Behind the Sun (2001) What is striking is the degree to which the with the theatrical audience in mind. However, auteurist perspective remains intact, in spite after meeting with different distributors, she of the dominance of high-concept, big-budget and the producers chose to release the film on motion pictures. The rise of "independent" cin- Showtime. Their decision was based in large ema in the 1990s played a substantial part in part on the belief that, although a theatrical keeping such discourses alive; such indie films release might bring the film more prestige, a were portrayed as "real" cinema, while event cable premiere would bring more eyeballs." films were dismissed as commercial Hollywood On the most basic level, this discussion product (again, in spite of the fact that both demonstrates that Hollywood has not stopped were frequently distributed by subsidiaries making movies like My Big Fat Greek Wedding. within the same conglomerates). Film schools, In actuality, such movies are regularly pro- specialty film publications, film festivals, and duced and distributed. What the industry—as regional film societies all strengthened these well as journalists and scholars—ftas done is distinctions. The tendency of mass media pub- perpetuate a vision of Hollywood as a movie lications to discuss the two media on different factory that releases films solely for theatrical pages further reinforced the biases. release. Such constructions obscure the fact Even as various factions have depicted films that motion pictures are made and distributed as aesthetically and generically distinctive, in a variety of other ways, ways that are often a number of groups have also portrayed the as profitable as (sometimes more than) the old motion picture industry as an isolated enter- factory method. The truth is that the industrial prise, operating separately from the television and aesthetic distinctions between film and business. Historically, film and television have television continue to blur, fueled in large part developed as separate industries in a number by the desire of media conglomerates to exploit of crucial ways. One central difference has been any and every distribution avenue. Yet if this the film industry's ability to "self-regulate," scenario holds true, it begs the question of who while the television industry has been subject continues to construct such rigid distinctions to substantial oversight by various federal between film and television—and why? entities, including the Federal Communica- Different groups employ two distinct dis- tions Commission. These divergent regulatory courses to distinguish between film and televi- histories have contributed to specific sets of sion. First, a number of media makers, critics, industrial structures, business practices, and and scholars have reinforced the notion that program development processes within the two film texts are "art" forms, which are some- media. However, whatever barriers were once how unique from (and inherently superior to) in place between the two media have eroded television. Motion pictures are represented as substantially over the last three decades. De- singular creations that stem from the individual regulation during the 1980s and 1990s enabled visions oftheir particular creators. Much of this a number of mergers and acquisitions, during distinction stems from the profound impact of the course of which film and television distribu- the auteur theory of cinema, popularized from tors became part of the same conglomerates. the 1950s onward in European (and later Ameri- As these film and television divisions were
lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004 incorporated into the same companies, creative discussion away from television both obscures talent and executive figures increasingly moved the economic, cultural, and aesthetic centrality between the two media. More and more, styles of television, and effectively takes talk of regu- and stories were shared in the name of synergy. lation off the table. And, most importantly for this discussion of My Bringing us back more directly to My Big Fat Big Fat Greek Wedding, product became more Greek Wedding, another interesting (and typi- fluid as well; movies were not destined either cally unmentioned) dimension of the movie's to film or television before the fact, as they had history was its formulation as a television se- been prior to the i98os.^^ ries long before the motion picture opened in In spite of the increasing convergence of theaters. The deal for the television series was business practices and industrial structures, struck with CBS back in October 2001—a few scholars, critics, and the industry itself often months after production wrapped but several did not acknowledge the overlap. In part this months prior to the movie's theatrical release. has to do with the longstanding cultural biases Another intriguing component of the deal in- toward the two media; it is also a function of volves the man who set up Vardalos's contract. the compartmentalization of work in a post- Her representative was Brad Grey, who, in ad- industrial society. Marketing has also played dition to negotiating the actress's deal, also an important role in reinforcing the divisions arranged to produce the show via his Brad Gray between film and television. In a media envi- Television division (in conjunction with Colum- ronment in which consumers can view movies bia TriStar TV and Playtone Prods.) (Adalian in a numberof different ways—at theaters, on 1). This is an important piece of information video, via satellite, not to mention on cable and because Brad Grey is one of the most promi- broadcast television—differentiation is cru- nent manager-producers in Hollywood. This cial. Much of this differentiation has occurred backstory not only reinforces yet another way through advertising that promotes specific in which film and television intersected early in programs, movies, and channels as superior the development of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, in some manner (e.g., "Not TV. It's HBO"). but also poses a challenge to the "Cinderella Promoting cultural hierarchies is a means of story" of Vardalos's success—a story repeated "branding," of distinguishing products in the many times after the movie became a phenom- marketplace and facilitating differentiation. enon. This Cinderella story was developed early There is another consequence of such meth- on as a way to market the film. Exploring the ods of differentiation. Pointing to the "unique- evolution of that story—as well as the broader ness" of film and television products reinforces strategies used to sell the film—enables me to the view that these are separate industries, challenge yet another misperception about the operating in nearly complete isolation from movie's success. each other. Such a construction furthers the interests of the conglomerates in two important Claim #3; Wedding is evidence of the ways. First, it shifts attention away from the success of grassroots marketing consolidation occurring within the media in- Guerilla Marketers of the Year; It's All Greek to Thee dustries. Second, this construction—in tandem Headline, Brandweek with the idea that film, not television, is the dominant economic and aesthetic form of Hol- The surprise summer hit'N\y Big Fat Greek Wedding' lywood—favors an understanding of the media was built with a grass-roots marketing program- industries in terms of a "film paradigm." This quite literally. "We gave out Frisbees at picnics," says Paula Silver, president of Beyond the Box Productions paradigm has significant regulatory implica- and marketing consultant for the film's producer. Play- tions: if film is thought to be the driver of media tone Pictures. "I went up to Seattle to a Greek dance industries, then those industries can more eas- festival to give out T-shirts." ily be spoken of as self-regulating. Shifting the Advertising Age
26 JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004 Journalists told two main Cinderella stories ment for the power of "grassroots" marketing about My Big Fat Greek Wedding. First, there strategies—sales techniques aimed at specific was the tale of Nia Vardalos herself.'' This ver- communities on a small scale. In launching sion was offered up to the press from the very the film, this was certainly one crucial tactic; first public screening, in July 2001 (Hoffman Ri). marketers did indeed begin their promotions In this narrative, Vardalos was just a "girl from by targeting Greek communities in major cities Winnipeg" who, through hard work and come- such as Seattle, New York, and Philadelphia dic skill, managed to hit the jackpot. This story and in key regions such as Michigan and New portrayed a struggling actress who, through a Jersey. Marketers placed flyers and posters at little luck and a tot of talent, was able to get her Greek churches, dances, and ethnic festivals. autobiographical story of cross-cultural court- In addition, Greek community leaders were ship into the right hands—Tom Hanks's hands, recruited to attend advance screenings (Matsu- to be precise. moto). However, although the Greek population Vardalos's rise to prominence was not quite was one ofthe first to be pursued by the film's as dramatic as was often depicted; she did not marketers, it was by no means the only one.'* come "out of nowhere." In fact, her resume Using "grassroots" techniques to sell me- included an extended stint with Second City, dia products is not new; in fact, such strate- one of the premiere comedy troupes in North gies have been employed by advertisers for America. Vardalos was just one in a string of decades.'' During the 1990s, this practice actor-comedians who emerged from this troupe became an art form in the hands of specialized to attain success in the entertainment industry film companies, with Miramax leading the way (other Second City alumni include Dan Aykroyd, in developing innovative sales strategies. Yet Bill Murray, Gitda Radner, John Candy, Eugene labeling My Big Fat Greek Wedding an example Levy, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Martin Short, Shel- ofthe power of grassroots marketing is not ley Long, Mike Myers, Chris Farley, and Greek only an exaggeration, it is a misrepresenta- Wedding co-star Andrea Martin). By the time tion. While such strategies were a component she made My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Vardalos ofthe film's success, they were by no means was no stranger to the low-budget film world; the primary or sole means by which non-Greek she appeared in several supporting roles in audiences became aware ofthe movie. After romantic comedies over the years, including initial audience response to the film proved en- Men Seeking Women (1997) and Meet Prince couraging. Gold Circle committed a significant Charming (1999). In addition, she performed amount of money to advertising. In keeping on several sitcoms during the 1990s, including with Berney's strategy of making the film look the following ABC series: Two Guys, A Girl and like a major release from a major studio (rather a Pizza Place; It's Like, You Know...; High inci- than an art-house film). Gold Circle invested in dent; Common Law; and Boy Meets World. saturation advertising in the areas where the The second fairy tale involves the film itself. film was playing. This included print advertise- This is the story of the "little film that could"—a ments as well as local cable television spots. small movie, with neither stars nor explosions, As awareness ofthe film continued to expand. that, through an ambitious, grassroots market- Gold Circle sought a broader audience via ing campaign, took the box office by storm and traditional niche-marketing methods. Women outperformed the studios' summer event films. were pursued more heavily via television spots Whereas Vardalos's Cinderella story was spun on Oprah and Live with Regis and Kelly as well by public relations and marketing staff from the as a number of Lifetime cable programs. Point- outset, this second fairy tale developed over of-purchase promotions were established with many months as a result of the film's surprising consumer stores Things Remembered and Bed, box office success. Bath and Beyond; at the same time. Bride's The crucial element of this story is its argu- magazine ran a My Big Fat Greek Wedding
JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004 sweepstakes. By September 2002, Gold Circle strated, Hollywood's hands are all over this had invested close to twenty million dollars in film, throughout the production, distribution, marketing the movie (Eller, "Jilters" Ci). While and exhibition processes. The majors didn't this was not the forty million typically spent by want the film initially because the majors didn't major studios on the marketing of event films, need it; because of the way rights were sold off it was still substantially more than the claims of in advance, the film was not considered worth "grassroots promotion" imply. the investment.''There were specific reasons Cumulatively, this analysis of the release of why the film seemed somewhat different from My Big Fat Greek Wedding suggests that while the other films playing in movie theaters at the marketers used a variety of inventive methods time: namely, most standard generic romantic to sell the film, their primary achievement was comedies with no stars (and no "edge") don't In targeting specific audiences via established receive theatrical distribution in North America. media (especially television) rather than in However, they are regularly found on video generating widespread interest via grassroots shelves and aired on television. Specific In- marketing tactics. Their most original decision dustrial factors—including strong connections was to position the film as simultaneously to prominent Hollywood talent—enabled the commercial and independent. The film was movie to play at theaters, whereas others like it "independent" to the extent that it was por- have not. trayed as "not Hollywood"—a singular product An industrial analysis of My Big Fat Greek of the enthusiasm and vision of one young Wedding shows the extent to which the rules of Greek woman who, through hard work and contemporary Hollywood have been institution- perseverance, made the industry take notice. At alized and formalized: certain types of movies the same time, marketers wisely veered away go to theaters; others don't. The distribution from the established means of distributing art- path a particular film takes is based predomi- house or "indie" films; the film appeared at a nantly on its mixture of style, tone, genre, and limited number of festivals, opened at few art talent. Favorable critical response or prominent houses, and depended minimally on positive media coverage is important inasmuch as it critical response. In sum, the distribution of My adds to a movie's public profile; while bad re- Big Fat Greek Wedding involved a blending of views will typically not hurt a film, good reviews the marketing practices employed by the Holly- or extensive publicity (due to controversy, the wood majors and their specialty, niche-oriented presence of a major star, etc.) can positively divisions. Meanwhile, widespread journalistic impact the product's box office success or rat- coverage marveling at the magical path to star- ings fortunes. dom of both Vardalos and her movie provided It is important to note, however, that al- the film with the media coverage it was unable though my analysis has placed the success of to attain via awards and critical prestige. My Big Fat Greek Wedding within a particular institutional and industrial context, by no What a Greek Wedding Teaches Us: means can it explain why the movie resonated Lessons on the Practices and Products with audiences to the extent that it did. This of Contemporary Hollywood point reinforces why it is important to differenti- ate the production and distribution of a product Contrary to journalistic claims that My Big Fat from the reception of that product; discussing Greek Wedding shows that "Hollywood has why and how a movie appears where it does is lost its way," the film's success in fact dem- very different from exploring what it means to onstrates the clarity with which the Hollywood any group or individual. One of the major prob- system operates today. This film can be per- lems with much of the journalistic discourse is ceived as the exception which proves a number its inability to distinguish between production of rules. As the above analysis has demon- and reception. In eliding the two, it obscures
28 lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004 the distinctions between cause, context, and tioners and practices is crucial to an effective effect, and thereby helps to perpetuate certain industrial analysis. Third, we must understand misconceptions. how "software" (the industry word for film and While the reasons for the appeal of Wedding television content) continues to be vital to the constitute a different study, it is worthwhile to success ofthe entertainment industry. Control consider what the film's status as a cultural of software is crucialto the viability ofthe in- phenomenon might indicate. The movie was dustry—but this software must be accessible released in 2002, when the fortunes ofthe to a company through as many distribution U.S. seemed on the decline. Stock prices were channels as possible. It is not worthwhile for dropping, unemployment rising. The Internet companies to invest time and money in "estab- bubble had burst. In the wake ofthe September lishing a brand" fora product if future rights 11 terrorist attacks, a feeling of insecurity and to that product are unavailable. Fourth, we can uncertainty about the nation's fortunes and see that while predicting box office success future seemed to prevail. In addition, when is extremely difficult (at best), there are ways My Big Fat Greek Wedding was released, there to limit losses. To do so, the majors gener- were few movies like it in theaters—comforting, ally release high-concept, big-budget, special genial, light-hearted stories that featured nor- effects-driven movies, while their specialty mal, everyday people improving their individual divisions focus on low-budget, niche-oriented fortunes (and physical appearances), finding films with "edge." love, and discovering ways to relate to other As My Big Fat Greek Wedding goes on travel- cultures.'' A list ofthe top five films playing at ing through the system in various iterations—as the beginning of July 2002 hints at why My Big television series, a video and DVD release, and Fat Greek Wedding might have had the longev- a cable favorite—it is important to continue ity it did: Mr. Deeds, Minority Report, Lilo and evaluating what the movie's success means for Stitch, Scooby-Doo, and The Bourne Identity. the state ofthe film and television industries, Whereas these films appealed to rather specific as well as the status of media culture. In mak- demographic groups (children, young men, ing such evaluations, we must also continue to etc.). My Big Fat Greek Wedding appealed to recognize that the ideological power of journal- multiple groups. It was truly a rare film, one istic discourses can sometimes be as potent as to which grandmothers, mothers, and grand- the ideologies ofthe media texts themselves. daughters could (and did) go together. An analysis ofthe release of My Big Fat NOTES Greek Wedding offers a compelling snapshot l.This auteur-orlented perspective is often favored on the practices and processes of Hollywood by popular trade press writers. See Lyons; Levy. in the early 2000s. Several key lessons can be 2. See Eller, "inters." The project was originally "discovered" by another production company, MPH. drawn. First, the label "independent" needs This company had produced Men Seeking Women, to be analyzed more extensively. Studio and a film in which NIa Vardalos had a role. According to "independent" production and distribution the Los Angeles Times, the company's cofounder, Jim processes continue to blend together. These Milio, had originally optioned My Big Fat Greek Wed- ding for five hundred dollars, then later renewed the are not distinctive enterprises, but interactive option for another five hundred. For a while the com- ones. Filmmakers cannot work "outside of Hol- pany shopped the project around on its own, seeking lywood" and expect their products to be widely financing of 1.5 million dollars. Ultimately it bought released in theaters in the U.S. Second, we the property for sixty thousand dollars, only to sell it need to look more closely at the interrelation- to HBO for 200 thousand dollars. ships and interdependencies between the stu- 3. Since the release ofthe film. Time Warner has removed "AOL" from its name and Vivendi has negoti- dios and the independents and between the ated the sale of Universal to General Electric/NBC. film and television industries. Understanding 4.The MPAA reports $31.01 as the average P and the relationships between the various practi- A cost for feature films distributed by its members In
JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004 2001. For more figures, see
JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2OO4 Pmce,5tephen. A New Pot of Gold: tiotlywood under Susman, Gary. "My Big Fat Greek Wallet." Guardian the Electronic Rainbow, 1980-1989. Berkeley: U of [London] 12 Nov. 2002:12. California P, 2000. Taylor, Charles. "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Rev. of Schatz, Thomas. "The New Hollywood." Film Theory My Big Fat Greek Wedding, dir Nia Vardalos. 15 Mar. Goes to the Movies. Eds. Jim Coliins, Hiiiary Radner, 2002 JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2OO4