This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
When I was in school, we learned the word "embargo" in connection with trade laws, along with tariffs and such things as to interest economists and politicians but which have no bearing on my actual life.
Now, an embargo is a big sledgehammer being held over my head by a movie studio - and the ever-present threat that it will strike me down.
The mother of all embargoes - the 12:01 a.m. Saturday release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the final book in J.K. Rowling's series - was broken Wednesday afternoon, when both The Baltimore Sun and The New York Times posted book reviews. Fans criticized both papers for potentially spoiling their anticipation of the book, and possibly giving away "spoilers" about the book's plot.
Rowling responded with a short but angry statement: "I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children."
The Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, answered a torrent of angry fan e-mails Thursday with an online column that noted a copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was purchased at a Manhattan bookstore that had put the book on shelves ahead of the Saturday release.
The Sun got its copy through a newsroom staffer's relative, who ordered a copy that arrived early, according to the industry publication Editor & Publisher.
"I think it's important to remember that there was never a contract or an agreement between The Times and Rowling or her publisher," Hoyt wrote. "The publisher set the release date unilaterally as part of the brilliant marketing campaign that has propelled the entire Harry Potter phenomenon. Neither The Times nor any other newspaper had an obligation to help enforce the release date."
Nor do movie critics like me have a contract with movie studios. But the studios do have the power over what movies they screen, and to whom.
Here's how studios have traditionally dealt with critics: They show a movie to us early, ahead of the movie's release - but under an embargo, a promise that we won't publish our review until the day the movie opens in theaters. The weapon the studios have to keep critics in line is the threat that embargo breakers would not get invited to future screenings.
Studios set the length of the leash, often based on how good a particular movie is and how much advance publicity the studios feel they need to get. A blockbuster film, which doesn't need critics to publicize it, may only get screened on the Tuesday or Wednesday before a Friday opening. But a little gem, a potential "critic's darling," may be screened a week or two ahead of the release date - often with the promise of interviewing the filmmakers or stars, a further cranking of the studio's publicity machine.
There is a caste system in all this. National critics, like Roger Ebert or anyone at The New York Times, may get to see a major film before a regional critic (like me). On the other hand, I and my counterpart at the Deseret Morning News, Jeff Vice, because of the size of our readership, often get invited to screenings while other Utah critics are shut out.
As with so much in modern life, though, the Internet is changing the rules of the game.
Last week, when Warner Bros. released "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," the movie based on Rowling's fifth book in the series, the studio urged critics to hold their reviews back until Wednesday - the date of the film's release. For many critics, going too much earlier wasn't an option, as the only screening was the previous Monday night.
But an interested public and itchy editors proved too much to resist. Some papers printed reviews Tuesday, and many who printed theirs in Wednesday's print editions posted them online Tuesday. (My review was one of them, though by the time it went up, at least 70 reviews by major critics had been posted already, based on my perusal of the review clearinghouse RottenTomatoes.com.)
Some studios are cracking down hard on embargo breakers, particularly those critics who primarily publish online. It's all a power game - both the critics and the studios want to control the flow of information, and each group needs the other to get what it wants.