The Oscar Race: Is It Time for a 1)Luxury Tax on 2)Studio Spending?

When it comes to 3)big-time Oscar campaigns， 4)Warner Bros. is the 5)New York Yankees of the movie world. The studio spent a 6)jaw-dropping amount of money unsuccessfully pursuing a best picture 7)nomination for 8)The Dark Knight during the 2009 Oscar 9)derby. Now the studio is 10)pulling out all the stops for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2， the final 11)installment in the studio’s multi-billion-dollar Potter series.

Warners has even taken the 12)unprecedented step of running “for your consideration” ads for Hallows on L.A.-area video billboards. I found myself staring at one of them on a billboard 13)stationed above an 14)International House of Pancakes. In an era when Oscar ads are targeted to run in publications specifically 15)geared toward academy voters， I had to wonder—just how many academy members had I ever seen 16)tucking into the blueberry pancakes at IHOP?

When I asked Warners marketing chief Sue Kroll if the studio’s Hallows video campaign was too 17)lavish， she was 18)unapologetic. “You can call it lavish， but I think it’s simply a way of getting people， at a time when they are forming opinions， to think about our film，” she said. “Because Hallows came out in the summer of 2011， we wanted to remind people of the merits of the film.”

If you’re an Oscar 19)libertarian， you’re probably saying: So what? Why shouldn’t Warners be allowed to spend as much as it wants? I agree. But I think it’s time the academy， which is always passing rules to promote fairness， got serious about studio campaign spending. My modest proposal: a luxury tax.

If a studio’s expenditures 20)soar over a certain 21)ceiling， the studio would pay a luxury tax that would go to a good cause， whether it’s helping to fund the academy’s ambitious museum project or providing film school scholarships for 22)underprivileged kids.

By publicly identifying the biggest spenders， a luxury tax could serve as a 23)disincentive for 24)crass studio excess. It might also help 25)level the Oscar playing field. The vast majority of recent Oscar best picture 26)nominees have been films that were either financed by a major studio or one of its specialty film divisions， which， if necessary， can 27)draw on the resources of the 28)parent 29)conglomerate. Oscar insiders say that when it comes to 30)vaulting your film into the awards season conversation， money talks.

The academy itself has made it clear it wants a more level playing field. That’s the major 31)impetus behind a set of new rules announced earlier last year that put a squeeze on campaigning once the Oscar nominations were announced in late January. The academy felt the 32)extravagant parties and movie star screening appearances were giving studios an unfair competitive advantage.

Under President Tom Sherak， the academy has made a serious effort to change with the times. The results have largely been admirable. Even bolder moves may be coming， with insiders 33)buzzing about online voting and a plan to move the 2013 Oscars up into January.

A luxury tax would be another step in the right direction. It’s no 34)pie-in-sky theory. In fact， it’s exactly the way business is run today in 35)Major League Baseball， the great American pastime. Any team whose 36)payroll goes over the luxury 37)cap limit pays a percentage of the amount it went over the cap， the penalty increasing each year the team 38)topped the cap. The Yankees have 39)forked out roughly 95% of the tax payments， which MLB uses to fund player benefits and baseball programs in developing countries.

I suspect the academy would have 40)a host of concerns， starting with the fact that baseball 41)Commissioner Bud Selig has a lot more 42)sway over the 30 teams than Sherak has over the major studios. But if the academy can require studios to abide by all sorts of 43)arcane rules about campaigning and film 44)eligibility， surely it could 45)exercise similar control over the 46)budgetary excesses of Oscar campaigns. It may not be as easy to track ad buys as it is the number of appearances Leonardo DiCaprio makes at QA screenings， but it only took me a couple of email inquiries to get a range for the cost to buy a month’s worth of airplay at video billboards around town.

Money is what fuels the entire Oscar 47)merry-goround. I’m not enough of a 48)wacko idealist to try to make it disappear entirely， especially since some of that advertising money helps my own newspaper keep the lights on. But if the academy is changing its 49)rulebook to promote fairness， it should use its rulebook to remind the industry’s biggest spenders that when it comes to winning Oscars， the focus should be on the movies， not the money.

奧斯卡頒獎季：金錢永不眠

說起全球矚目的“申奧”活動，華納兄弟娛樂公司就相當于電影界的“洋基隊”——它奉行“金元”政策，揮金如土，2009年它為《蝙蝠俠：黑暗騎士》角逐“最佳影片”大肆宣傳，卻不幸敗北而歸。現在，華納兄弟把所有賭注壓在《哈利·波特與死亡圣器（下）》一片上——這是該公司天價投資的《波特》系列的最后一部。

華納兄弟甚至在洛杉磯地區的電視大屏幕上投放了一個空前未有的“供你參考”“申奧”廣告，為《哈利·波特與死亡圣器（下）》奧斯卡獲獎之路作鋪墊。當盯著國際松餅屋的電視大屏幕上那些“申奧”廣告時，我不禁在想，在這個年代，“申奧”廣告瞄準學院評委，卻在大眾視野范圍內播放——但又會有多少評委會在松餅屋大吃藍莓餡餅呢？

當我問華納兄弟的市場總監蘇·科羅爾這個“申奧”活動會不會太過奢侈時，她不置可否。“你可以稱其奢侈，不過我認為這只是‘俘獲人心’的一個方式，讓他們在做決定時可以想到我們的電影而已，”她說，“因為《哈利·波特與死亡圣器（下）》是2011年夏天上映的，我們只是希望人們別遺忘了這部電影的優點。”

如果你是“申奧”開明派，你很可能會說：那又怎樣？為什么華納兄弟不能隨自己心意花錢？我同意你的說法，但對于一向提倡公平公正的美國電影藝術與科學學院來說，他們得認真對待電影公司這樣的“宣傳”花費。我有一個小小的建議：開征“奢侈品稅”。

如果一家電影公司的花費超過某一個額度，那么該公司就得繳納“奢侈品稅”，將稅款投放到有意義的項目之上，可以是資助學院那龐大的博物館籌建計劃，或是給報讀影藝學校的貧困學生設立獎學金。……