Georgia State University Georgia State University

ScholarWorks @ 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 A Big Fat Indie Success Story? Press Discourses Surrounding the

Making and Marketing of a "Hollywood" Movie Making and Marketing of a "Hollywood" Movie

Alisa Perren Georgia State University, aperren@gsu.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_facpub

Part of the Communication Commons

Recommended Citation 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 scholarworks@gsu.edu.

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-

papers and magazines across North Americaprominently featured articles about the surpris-ing box office performance of My Big Fat GreekWedding. The publications wrote ofa low-bud-get romantic comedy—a movie with neitherHollywood stars nor special effects—that defiedthe odds to become the highest grossing in-dependent film of all time. According to thesesources, the film reputedly "sent a message"to Hollywood, challenging the way the industrydoes business (Holden Ei). Whether the publi-cation was People or the New York Times or theWinnipeg Free Press, the story was shockinglysimilar: a young woman, writer-actress NiaVardalos—and a tittle movie—defied the oddsto make good (and make money). This was theAmerican dream in action.

As attractive and compelling as this storymay be, it is neither accurate nor complete. Infact, the film's development, production, anddistribution were far more complicated thanmost journalistic tales have suggested. In thispaper, I provide an alternate perspective on theproduction and distribution of My Big Fat GreekWedding. I argue that the standard accountsprovided by most media outlets have not onlyconstructed partial stories about the film, buteven more importantly, they have reinforced

ALISA PERREN is a visiting assistant professor inthe Communication Studies Department at North-eastern University. She has published articles onthe film and television industries in Filtn Quarterly,The Television History Book (BFI, 2003), and theforthcoming Sage Handbook of Media Studies (Uof Texas).

a number of inaccuracies and misperceptionsabout the operations ofthe contemporarymedia industries. These stories have had theeffect of constructing—and reinforcing—certainmythologies about the dichotomies between"Hollywood" and "independent" films, as wellas between the film and television industries.These dichotomies, in turn, obscure the inter-connectedness and fluidity within the contem-porary film and television industries.

In this article, I dissect three primary claimsmade in mainstream publications about MyBig Fat Greek Wedding. First, by examiningthe film's production, distribution, and ex-hibition history, I complicate assertions thatthe film can be labeled "the most successfulindependent of all time." Second, I challengethe assumption that films such as My Big FatGreek Wedding are rarely made anymore byHollywood. I suggest that such arguments arebased on narrow definitions of Hollywood andits product. Third, I problematize the declara-tions that My Big Fat Greek Wedditig representsa triumph in innovative "grassroots" marketingtactics and appealing to groups from the "bot-tom up." In place of such a perspective, I main-tain that the tactics employed in selling thefilm are representative of long-standing tacticsemployed by niche marketers.

After surveying these dominant claims, Ipropose that the film's financial success shouldnot be interpreted as evidence that Hollywoodhas lost its way, but rather as proof of the ex-istence and effectiveness of specific businesspractices and aesthetic parameters within thecontemporary media industries. Ultimately, I

18 JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2OO4

encourage media analysts to cease from view-ing My Big Fat Greek Wedding as an exampleof one woman and one film defying the odds,instead, we should consider this film as anexample of the uniformity of journalistic dis-courses, the complexity ofthe operations ofcontemporary Hollywood, and the continuingideological power ofthe so-called Americandream.

Questions of Methodology: How DoWe Analyze the Contemporary MediaIndustries?

Before establishing and challenging several keyclaims about the making and marketing of MyBig Fat Greek Wedding, it is important to notethe methodological difficulties of conducting astudy such as this in the first place. In writingthis article, I have faced an issue encounteredby many contemporary media analysts. Namely,how can I critique the discourses generated bythe mainstream press about the entertainmentindustries at the same time that I rely heavilyon these same sources to construct my argu-ment? Or, put another way, how can one effec-tively conduct an analysis ofthe contemporarymedia industries? Whereas industry historianscan often refer to a wide range of archival docu-ments, due to legal and proprietary concerns,analysts ofthe contemporary media industriesare often limited in their access to corporatematerials. Thus much oftheir information mustcome from trade documents and mainstreampublications, with interviews serving as ameans of supplementing knowledge and check-ing facts.

There are two main ways in which I havetried to overcome these methodological chal-lenges. First, I have looked to a wide range ofnews reports to confirm my information. Amongthe sources consulted for this article includeindustry trade journals Variety, HollywoodReporter, and Advertising Age; a broad arrayof newspapers ranging from the Los AngelesTimes to the New York Times to the LondonGuardian; and several magazines and specialtypublications such as Salon.com, People, and

Premiere. Second, I situate these articles withinthe context of research on the structure, con-duct, and performance ofthe entertainmentindustries. This knowledge comes from twomain sources: work on media industry econom-ics conducted by such scholars as DouglasGomery, Alan Albarran, and Barry Litman; andtrade books targeted to aspiring media mak-ers and industry employees, such as GregoryGoodell's independent Feature Film Productionand Dov Simen's From Reel to Deal. While theformer sources provide a theoretical frameworkfrom which to analyze the contemporary mediaindustries, the latter enable one to understandthe standard working methods and normativepractices of today's Hollywood, Cumulatively,these materials provide a context within whichthe journalistic materials can be placed.

By situating the journalistic sources withinthis larger context, it becomes clear that suchdiscourses are every bit as ideological as themedia products generated by the media com-panies themselves. In this essay, I exploreand challenge the main claims made by themainstream press about the production anddistribution of/MyS/g Fat Greek Wedding. In theprocess, one can see not only the uniformity ofthe arguments made in popular magazines andnewspapers, but also the extent to which thesesources serve as a primary means by which mis-conceptions about the structure, conduct, andperformance of Hollywood are perpetuated.

Challenging the Dominant Claims

Claim #i: My Big Fat Greek Wedding isthe highest-grossing independent pirn ofall time

Today Ms. Vardalos is having the last laugh, and it islouder and richer than she ever dreamed. The movieshe wrote and starred in. My Big Fat Greek Wedding,is the hit ofthe summer and one ofthe most profitableindependent films ever made.

The New York Times

Wedding has broken several box-office records and ison its way to breaking more, tt has far surpassed theDollars 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-ing movie never to have reached number one on theweekly box-office chart, though it's been in the top 10since July. ltS4,ooo% return ranks itwith Star Warsand Gone with the Wind among the most profitablemovies of all time, tn America, it's the fourth-highestgrossing movie of 2002 and is closing in on AustinPowers in Goldmember and Signs,,,

The Guardian

Defining a film as "independent" has neverbeen easy. In recentyears, as independentfilms have become more popular (and morecommercially viable), it has become even moreof a challenge, and different analysts use differ-ent criteria to ascertain whether or not a mediaproduct is independent. Among these are: afilm's source of financing; the industrial affilia-tions ofthe film's distributor (Prince xviii; Wyatt75); the sites in which the film is exhibited(Gomery); the status ofthe talent in relationto Hollywood (Kleinhans 308-09); and the"spirit" ofthe film (usually interpreted to meanits aesthetic or generic ties to commercial oralternative media traditions),' In applying anyof these criteria to /Wy Big Fat Greek Wedding,we can see the film's claim of "independence"is tenuous at best.

First there is the matter of production money.Clearly we are not talking about a "guerilla"production in the mold of El /Vlariachi (1992) orClerks (1994)—movies produced for a few thou-sand dollars each. Yet we are also not talkingabout an "ultra-low" budget production either(Broderick 46), The film's five-million-dollarbudget is relatively average for a low-budgetfilm in contemporary Hollywood (Matsumoto),Given the high costs of shooting movies thesedays—costs that include the expenses of filmstock and processing, labor rates, and locationexpenses-it is extremely difficult to shoot onfilm (as opposed to digital video) for less thana million dollars. Yet, as noted above, we aren'ttalking about a million dollars—we are talkingabout several million, secured from establishedcompanies with strong ties to Hollywood,

Two companies cofinanced the film,^ GoldCircle Films provided the first half of the moneyin exchange for the foreign rights to the film.

This company can be identified as "indepen-dent" inasmuch as it lacks affiliations withthe Hollywood majors. However, it has a richsource of support in its cofounder. Norm Waitt,who is also a cofounder ofthe computer hard-ware company. Gateway, The other half of theproduction money came from HBO-one ofthemost lucrative subsidiaries of the AOLTimeWarner empire.

The way HBO became involved in the devel-opment of My Big Fat Greek Wedding is telling.The project was originally brought to HBO byTom Hanks andhis wife, Rita Wilson, After Wil-son saw the stage version of My Big Fat GreekWedding, she wanted to be involved in theplay's transformation into film. She and Hankssubsequently approached HBO—with whomHanks already had a successful relationshipthrough his producing and directing roles inthe HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon(1998) and Band of Brothers (2001), The cablechannel continued its relationship with Hanks'production company, Playtone, by providing2,5 million dollars in production money "as afavor" (Eller, "Jitters" Ci),

HBO's involvement should be underscoredfor a number of reasons. First, this financinghistory demonstrates the importance of rela-tionships between top Hollywood talent andlarge media conglomerates in jump-starting theproject. Second, it reinforces that from the out-set there was the involvement of a Hollywoodmajor—by way of a subsidiary company—ina so-called independent project. Third, HBOobtained specific rights—domestic cable andvideo-that affected the film's attractivenessto theatrical distributors. In the contemporarymedia marketplace, the Hollywood "majors"(generally defined at the time ofthe film'srelease as AOLTime Warner, Viacom, Disney,Vivendi-Universal, News Corp, and Sony)typically expect to obtain a minimum numberof rights to projects they agree to distributedomestically,^ These include (again at a mini-mum) domestic theatrical and domestic videorights, "domestic" meaning the United Statesand Canada, Increasingly, companies pursue"all domestic rights"—meaning pay cable, pay-

lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56,2 / SUMMER 2OO4

per-view, basic cable, and syndication, oftenin perpetuity. And it is not uncommon thesedays to seek "worldwide" rights also. The ma-jors can demand these kinds of deals in largepart because of the continuing glut in productin the wake of the independent boom of the1990s. In addition, these companies havetheir own niche-oriented distribution arms thatpursue projects from the script stage (whichguarantees they retain all rights to the project).Further, they have a numberof deals with es-tablished producers. These deals ensure thata regular supply of product will be developed"in-house," thereby diminishing the majors'interest in outside material, unless it can beobtained on highly favorable terms.

It is important to understand both themajors' current bargaining position and thecontemporary rights scenario in order to com-prehend the initial lack of interest on the partof distributors in My Big Fat Greek Wedding.Given the fact that foreign, domestic video,and television rights had already been sold, itis not surprising that the majors passed on theproject from the outset. This is not merely greedon the part of the studios, however. Launchingmovies theatrically is an expensive proposi-tion these days. Regardless of the "negativecost" of the project (i.e., the budget), "P and A"costs (striking the "prints" and "advertising"the film) are often exorbitant. It is not unusualfor marketing costs to account for at least 40percent of the overall expense of making andreleasing a film into theaters.* Much of this ex-pense is due to the high cost of advertising ontelevision—tapping into the variety of cable andbroadcast channels and time slots necessaryto build awareness of the project. Given theeconomics of today's Hollywood, most films donot make back their money until they move outof theaters and into video. Only rarely will a filmmake a profit theatrically; more frequently, the-atrical distribution is perceived by the industryas a means of "establishing a brand" for futurerevenue streams such as video and pay cable.

Thus the fact that My Big Fat Greek Weddinghad a low budget is only meaningful to distribu-tors up to a point. The limited number of rights

available hurt the project from the start. Therewas, of course, the possibility that a theatricaldistribution division within AOLTime Warnerwould take on the project, keeping it "in thefamily." Yet although many media analystsargue that consolidation and synergies havegenerated large, menacing, and impenetrablemedia empires, in most cases, divisions withinconglomerates retain a degree of autonomy intheir development and acquisition of product.In fact, there is often competition between divi-sions of conglomerates; in-fighting and biddingwars are not uncommon.

The theatrical distribution divisions at AOLTime Warner that might have acquired My BigFat Greek Wedding include Warner Bros., NewLine, and Fine Line. Vet My Big Fat Greek Wed-ding's subject matter and style did not fit withthe kinds of films pursued by these divisions.Like the other majors, Warner Bros.' theatri-cal label is interested in high concept "event"films—films based on "presold" material(books, video games, etc.), and/or films withlots of effects and well-known actors.^ In gen-eral. New Line focuses on projects targeted atthe African American market (AH about the Ben-jamins [2000], Friday after Next [2002]) or theteen and young adult markets {Blade II [2002],Mr. Deeds [2002]). And of course, the companyalso has developed its own franchises of late,including the Austin Powers [1997,1999, 2002],Rush Hour [1998, 2001], and Lord of the Rings[2001, 2002, 2003] series. More specializedfare at this time was left to New Line's spin-offcompany. Fine Line Pictures, developed in theearly 1990s to tap into the same market beingpursued by Miramax and Sony Pictures Clas-sics. By the early 2000s, however. Fine Line'sactivities were being substantially scaled back(Eller, "Niche" Ci).«

What becomes apparent is that each of thevarious AOLTime Warner theatrical distributiondivisions has a "profile" for the types of filmsit considers commercially viable. My Big FatGreek Wedding did not fit those profiles. To bea Warner Bros, film, it needed a star—Julia Rob-erts or at least Jennifer Lopez; to be a Fine Linefilm, 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"dark." Too commercial in genre and style tobe labeled independent and travel the festivalroute to success, but too lacking in stars to bepromoted as an "event," Wedding was a filmthe executives did not know how to distribute.

Thus it was a combination of aesthetic andindustrial factors that made the film unattractiveto top theatrical distributors. The nonmajorshad mixed feelings about the film as well, asnoted by Premiere's Fred Schruers in an articleon the decision by Lion's Gate, the film's origi-nal distributor, to drop it even after positive testscreenings (42). Ultimately IFC Films acquiredthe movie on what the majors would considerunfavorable terms for a distributor. When themajors agree to distribute a film, it is not unusu-al for them to receive between 25 and 50 per-cent of the money back from the box office. Afterthe exhibitortakes its share (typically about 50percent of the grosses), the rest of the returns(called "rentals") go back to distributors. Fromthis money, on average, 10 percent covers P andA costs and 15 percent is charged by the distrib-utor as a fee for its services. The remaining 25percent goes to the financier. In contemporaryHollywood, the financier is often the studio aswell, meaning that it is not uncommon for all ofthe rentals to go back to the distributor.

This was not the case for My Big Fat GreekWedding. In fact, IFC did not even handle P andA (and thus stood to receive an even smallerpercentage); those costs were borne by GoldCircle (Seiler 4D). IFC had what is called a "ser-vice deal," meaning that its sole responsibilitywas in handling the film's theatrical release.This arrangement meant that IFC's earnings onthe film would be small relative to the amounttaken in by the producers/financiers (Eller, "Jil-ters" Cl).'' Given this scenario, it is once againnot surprising that most distributors were notovereagerto secure rights to the film.

Yet IFC's motivations for acquiring My Big FatGreek Wedding begin to make sense when weconsider the status of the company's theatricalfilm division. Formed as a spin-off of the basiccable station IFC (Independent Film Channel),IFC Films began distributing films theatrically

with the Ned Beatty-LievSchreiber dramaSpring Forward (1999). Following that, IFC Filmsreleased a number of critically praised butlow-earning projects, such as Happy Accidents(2000), The Business of Strangers (2001), andGo Tigers! (2001). Two thousand two proved tobe a banner year for the company, as it not onlyplayed a role in the release of My Big Fat GreekWedding but was also involved with the NorthAmerican distribution of the highly praised(and high earning) Spanish-language film, / TuMama Tambien. Together, these films signifiedIFC Film's move up to the status of major playerin the low-budget film world.

Although "independent" was part of IFC'sname, this does not suggest the company waswithout strong conglomerate ties. IFC may havebeen a relatively new entrant into the theatri-cal film world, but it was co-owned by severalof the wealthiest media companies in NorthAmerica. Along with cable channels AMC, WE:Women's Entertainment, and muchmusic usa,IFC was a division of Rainbow Media Holdings(at the time of the film's release, a joint ventureof Cablevision Systems Corporation, GeneralElectric/NBC, and MGM). Considering its power-ful corporate owners, it becomes clear that the"independent" in "Independent Film Channel"is more of a brand name than a description ofits industrial relationships. While IFC Films wasnot a major per se, its ties to corporate Hol-lywood were far more complex than its name oradvertisements might imply.

Up to now, we have seen that My Big FatGreek Wedding was produced and distributedby some of the most powerful individuals andcompanies in Hollywood. While it had someaffiliations with the independent film world(the movie wasn't directly released by a majorstudio), a number of media conglomerates andindustry players were involved with the makingand marketing of the film. Further, in terms ofstyle and genre, the film is anything but inde-pendent. Indeed, My Big Fat Greek Weddingis interesting in how utterly unoriginal it is—infact, as many critics noted, it seems more likea ninety-minute sitcom than a feature-length

lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2OO4

The only other link the film might have to theworld of independents would be the means bywhich it was exhibited. Yet in this arena as well,the film was hardly treated as an independentproduct. In fact, one of the most effective mar-keting tactics used in selling the film was inopting to release it as if it were a commercialfilm rather than an "indie" (Kinzer Ei; Schruers42). As noted by USA Today, the "big inspira-tion" of then IFC distribution and marketinghead Bob Berney involved making Weddinglook like a major release from a major studio,not an art-house film "from a group of smallcompanies that moviegoers have never heardo f ; this entailed opening the film wide in a lim-ited number of cities, opting for theater chainsrather than art houses wherever possible, andrunning television spots on cable channels inthe regions where the film was opening (Seiler4D). The expenditures required to open themovie were anything but small—as the film'smarketers declared on more than one occasion,they spent eight million dollars to make the firstnine million (Schruers 42). These release strate-gies, which blended the marketing and distri-bution techniques employed in the last decadeby independents, specialized companies, andmajor studios, proved quite effective, generat-ing nearly two hundred fifty million dollars atthe domestic box office.

In this closer look at the exhibition of My BigFat Greek Wedding—much as with the inter-rogation of its production and distribution—wecan see the problematic nature of the "inde-pendent" label. Like most projects coming outof Hollywood these days. Wedding was devel-oped through a complex set of relationshipsbetween producers, distributors, and mediaconglomerates. Labeling any of the individu-als or companies involved "independent" hasa number of ramifications. First, it obscuresthe complex industrial and aesthetic nature ofmedia products. Second, it turns media ana-lysts into tools of the marketing and publicitymachinery involved in selling movies. In sum,"independent" has become so obscured inthe last decade—due to a combination of jour-nalistic hype in the "age of the indies," a lack

of clarity by media analysts about industrialpractices, and rapid institutional changes—thatthese days the label often confuses more thanit clarifies. As the next section demonstrates,the discourses surrounding "Hollywood"similarly reinforce long-held cultural biases atthe same time that they hide the regular inter-change between film and television productionand distribution.

Oaim #2: Wedding Is an example of thekind of film that today can only be madeoutside of Hollywood

What Makes a 'Big Fat' Film Hit? This Success isAll Greek to Hollywood

Headline, The Boston Herald

Maybe 'Greek Wedding* Will Wake Up Hollywood

Bigwigs

Headline, USA Today

The story of My Big Fat Greek Wedding' has alreadybecome a Hollywood myth—a tale (supposedly) ofartistic passion and creative purity trumping the sortof suffocating studio machinery most in evidence thistime of year, when megabudget films with treaclyemotions and fast-food tie-ins are rolled out. It's amyth illuminating simple truths about the role ser-endipity can still play in the movies and other popculture factories...

The San Francisco Chronicle

"Hollywood" is often bandied about by jour-nalists with as little clarification as the label"independent" is. Writers often assume theirreaders understand what "Hollywood" meansand thus take little, if any, time to explain theword. In the studio era, "Hollywood" conjuredup images of movie stars, film moguls, andmajor motion picture studios. To some, theterm implied (and continues to imply) glitz andglamour; to others it refers to a cultural void.While in fact it refers to an actual locale in thecenter of Los Angeles, few people mean thiswhen they speak dreamily—or critically—of Hol-lywood. What is clear is that, in the past severaldecades, the word has been used in a numberof contradictory and imprecise ways.

As has been well documented by New Hol-lywood scholars in recent years, the motion

JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004

picture industry cannot be thought of as adistinctive entity any longer.' Since the studioswere purchased in the i96os-and increasinglyincorporated into large multinational conglom-erates—"Hollywood" has been more useful asa marketing tool than as an indicator of specificaesthetic characteristics or industrial, eco-nomic, and cultural conditions. In order to chal-lenge some of the erroneous claims about bothMy Big Fat Greek Wedding and the status ofthe film industry today, it is important to clarifywhat I mean by "Hollywood."

When I refer to "Hollywood," I do not meanautonomously functioning motion picture stu-dios that generate movies for theatrical release.Such entities no longer exist—at least, theyno longer exist in isolation from a number ofrelated media industries, including television,video, and cable distribution. Thus, by "Hol-lywood" I mean a complex network of mediaindustries in which major entertainment con-glomerates exist at the center, financing prod-ucts intended for distribution via a number of"pipelines" around the world. The commercialproducts generated by "Hollywood" are gener-ally either event-oriented projects designed tocross over to a variety of demographic groupsand appeal to large numbers of people, or theyare niche-targeted projects aimed at specificgroups.

The most important thing to note here isthat "Hollywood" refers to both the film andtelevision industries. The case of My Big FatGreei< Wedding shows why we cannot speakof Hollywood without speaking of both filmand television. Further, this case study demon-strates why we must view these two industriesoperating in relation to one another. If weperceive the two industries as fundamentallyinterconnected in their modes of production,generic traits, and aesthetic characteristics,then we can see the problematic nature of theargument that movies like My Big Fat GreekWedding aren't made anymore—or at least,aren't made within Hollywood.

In fact, movies like My Big Fat Greek Wed-d/ng-innocuous romances and/or comediesfeaturing B or C-list talent-are made in Hol-

lywood all the time. The key question is notwhether such movies are made, but wheresuch movies are shown. As discussed brieflyabove, the economics of the film business aresuch that two main types of movies are viewedas viable for the theatrical marketplace: high-concept event films and "edgy" niche films. Themajors release the event films; specialty divi-sions within the majors release the niche films.However, hundreds of films are made each yearthat never receive a theatrical release.

There are two main reasons why a moviedoesn't "open" in theaters. First, the producersmay believe the genre, style, or lack of starsmakes the movie better suited for a video ortelevision release. These movies are often cre-ated with a television market in mind from theoutset. This is frequently the case with romanticcomedies. A number of television, video, andcable distributors are interested in "premier-ing" movies. Among the light-hearted projectsto go directly to television of late include theChazz Palminteri-directed Women v. Men(2002, Showtime), the Charlie Sheen vehicleGood Advice (2001, HBO), and the Peter Bogda-novich-directed A Saintly Switch (1999, ABC).In some cases, movies that premiere on televi-sion in the U.S. open in theaters overseas. Suchwas the case with the NBC miniseries Uprising(2001), for example.

Second, for any number of reasons, theproducers or distributors may decide that amovie intended to premiere in theaters shouldgo directly to television or video instead. Theycould choose television because the moviedoes not test well with audiences, causing po-tential distributors to see a theatrical release astoo substantial an expense for too uncertain aproject. Controversial films sometimes end upwith a television premiere after initially beingtargeted for the theatrical market. Such was thecase with The Beiiever (2001), a film about aJewish boy who becomes violently anti-Semitic.Although the movie won the Grand Jury Prize atthe Sundance Film Festival, it couldn't hold onto a distributor. Ultimately, Showtime picked upthe rights to the project and aired it with muchfanfare and acclaim on its cable network.

lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2OO4

Oftentimes, even though a film tests wellwith sample audiences, distributors remainuncertain how to sell it. (This was almost thecase with My Big Fat Greek Wedding.) A theatri-cal release is also sometimes skipped due toproducers' and filmmakers' perception that thefilm will "connect" better with television audi-ences.'" For example, director Allison Andersoriginally made Things Behind the Sun (2001)with the theatrical audience in mind. However,after meeting with different distributors, sheand the producers chose to release the film onShowtime. Their decision was based in largepart on the belief that, although a theatricalrelease might bring the film more prestige, acable premiere would bring more eyeballs."

On the most basic level, this discussiondemonstrates that Hollywood has not stoppedmaking movies like My Big Fat Greek Wedding.In actuality, such movies are regularly pro-duced and distributed. What the industry—aswell as journalists and scholars—ftas done isperpetuate a vision of Hollywood as a moviefactory that releases films solely for theatricalrelease. Such constructions obscure the factthat motion pictures are made and distributedin a variety of other ways, ways that are oftenas profitable as (sometimes more than) the oldfactory method. The truth is that the industrialand aesthetic distinctions between film andtelevision continue to blur, fueled in large partby the desire of media conglomerates to exploitany and every distribution avenue. Yet if thisscenario holds true, it begs the question of whocontinues to construct such rigid distinctionsbetween film and television—and why?

Different groups employ two distinct dis-courses to distinguish between film and televi-sion. First, a number of media makers, critics,and scholars have reinforced the notion thatfilm texts are "art" forms, which are some-how unique from (and inherently superior to)television. Motion pictures are represented assingular creations that stem from the individualvisions oftheir particular creators. Much of thisdistinction stems from the profound impact ofthe auteur theory of cinema, popularized fromthe 1950s onward in European (and later Ameri-

can) film criticism. While the auteur theory didmuch to legitimate and invigorate film studies,it had the unfortunate side effect of reinforcingthe idea that television was the Other. Whereasfilm was represented as worthy of study, televi-sion was portrayed as a highly commercialized,creatively bankrupt medium—an opiate for themasses.

What is striking is the degree to which theauteurist perspective remains intact, in spiteof the dominance of high-concept, big-budgetmotion pictures. The rise of "independent" cin-ema in the 1990s played a substantial part inkeeping such discourses alive; such indie filmswere portrayed as "real" cinema, while eventfilms were dismissed as commercial Hollywoodproduct (again, in spite of the fact that bothwere frequently distributed by subsidiarieswithin the same conglomerates). Film schools,specialty film publications, film festivals, andregional film societies all strengthened thesedistinctions. The tendency of mass media pub-lications to discuss the two media on differentpages further reinforced the biases.

Even as various factions have depicted filmsas aesthetically and generically distinctive,a number of groups have also portrayed themotion picture industry as an isolated enter-prise, operating separately from the televisionbusiness. Historically, film and television havedeveloped as separate industries in a numberof crucial ways. One central difference has beenthe film industry's ability to "self-regulate,"while the television industry has been subjectto substantial oversight by various federalentities, including the Federal Communica-tions Commission. These divergent regulatoryhistories have contributed to specific sets ofindustrial structures, business practices, andprogram development processes within the twomedia. However, whatever barriers were oncein place between the two media have erodedsubstantially over the last three decades. De-regulation during the 1980s and 1990s enableda number of mergers and acquisitions, duringthe course of which film and television distribu-tors became part of the same conglomerates.As these film and television divisions were

lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004

incorporated into the same companies, creativetalent and executive figures increasingly movedbetween the two media. More and more, stylesand stories were shared in the name of synergy.And, most importantly for this discussion of MyBig Fat Greek Wedding, product became morefluid as well; movies were not destined eitherto film or television before the fact, as they hadbeen prior to the i98os.^^

In spite of the increasing convergence ofbusiness practices and industrial structures,scholars, critics, and the industry itself oftendid not acknowledge the overlap. In part thishas to do with the longstanding cultural biasestoward the two media; it is also a function ofthe compartmentalization of work in a post-industrial society. Marketing has also playedan important role in reinforcing the divisionsbetween film and television. In a media envi-ronment in which consumers can view moviesin a numberof different ways—at theaters, onvideo, via satellite, not to mention on cable andbroadcast television—differentiation is cru-cial. Much of this differentiation has occurredthrough advertising that promotes specificprograms, movies, and channels as superiorin some manner (e.g., "Not TV. It's HBO").Promoting cultural hierarchies is a means of"branding," of distinguishing products in themarketplace and facilitating differentiation.

There is another consequence of such meth-ods of differentiation. Pointing to the "unique-ness" of film and television products reinforcesthe view that these are separate industries,operating in nearly complete isolation fromeach other. Such a construction furthers theinterests of the conglomerates in two importantways. First, it shifts attention away from theconsolidation occurring within the media in-dustries. Second, this construction—in tandemwith the idea that film, not television, is thedominant economic and aesthetic form of Hol-lywood—favors an understanding of the mediaindustries in terms of a "film paradigm." Thisparadigm has significant regulatory implica-tions: if film is thought to be the driver of mediaindustries, then those industries can more eas-ily be spoken of as self-regulating. Shifting the

discussion away from television both obscuresthe economic, cultural, and aesthetic centralityof television, and effectively takes talk of regu-lation off the table.

Bringing us back more directly to My Big FatGreek Wedding, another interesting (and typi-cally unmentioned) dimension of the movie'shistory was its formulation as a television se-ries long before the motion picture opened intheaters. The deal for the television series wasstruck with CBS back in October 2001—a fewmonths after production wrapped but severalmonths prior to the movie's theatrical release.Another intriguing component of the deal in-volves the man who set up Vardalos's contract.Her representative was Brad Grey, who, in ad-dition to negotiating the actress's deal, alsoarranged to produce the show via his Brad GrayTelevision division (in conjunction with Colum-bia TriStar TV and Playtone Prods.) (Adalian1). This is an important piece of informationbecause Brad Grey is one of the most promi-nent manager-producers in Hollywood. Thisbackstory not only reinforces yet another wayin which film and television intersected early inthe development of My Big Fat Greek Wedding,but also poses a challenge to the "Cinderellastory" of Vardalos's success—a story repeatedmany times after the movie became a phenom-enon. This Cinderella story was developed earlyon as a way to market the film. Exploring theevolution of that story—as well as the broaderstrategies used to sell the film—enables me tochallenge yet another misperception about themovie's success.

Claim #3; Wedding is evidence of thesuccess of grassroots marketing

Guerilla Marketers of the Year; It's All Greek to Thee

Headline, Brandweek

The surprise summer hit'N\y Big Fat Greek Wedding'

was built with a grass-roots marketing program-

quite literally. "We gave out Frisbees at picnics," says

Paula Silver, president of Beyond the Box Productions

and marketing consultant for the film's producer. Play-

tone Pictures. "I went up to Seattle to a Greek dance

festival to give out T-shirts."

Advertising Age

26 JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004

Journalists told two main Cinderella storiesabout My Big Fat Greek Wedding. First, therewas the tale of Nia Vardalos herself.'' This ver-sion was offered up to the press from the veryfirst public screening, in July 2001 (Hoffman Ri).In this narrative, Vardalos was just a "girl fromWinnipeg" who, through hard work and come-dic skill, managed to hit the jackpot. This storyportrayed a struggling actress who, through alittle luck and a tot of talent, was able to get herautobiographical story of cross-cultural court-ship into the right hands—Tom Hanks's hands,to be precise.

Vardalos's rise to prominence was not quiteas dramatic as was often depicted; she did notcome "out of nowhere." In fact, her resumeincluded an extended stint with Second City,one of the premiere comedy troupes in NorthAmerica. Vardalos was just one in a string ofactor-comedians who emerged from this troupeto attain success in the entertainment industry(other Second City alumni include Dan Aykroyd,Bill Murray, Gitda Radner, John Candy, EugeneLevy, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Martin Short, Shel-ley Long, Mike Myers, Chris Farley, and GreekWedding co-star Andrea Martin). By the timeshe made My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Vardaloswas no stranger to the low-budget film world;she appeared in several supporting roles inromantic comedies over the years, includingMen Seeking Women (1997) and Meet PrinceCharming (1999). In addition, she performedon several sitcoms during the 1990s, includingthe following ABC series: Two Guys, A Girl anda Pizza Place; It's Like, You Know...; High inci-dent; Common Law; and Boy Meets World.

The second fairy tale involves the film itself.This is the story of the "little film that could"—asmall movie, with neither stars nor explosions,that, through an ambitious, grassroots market-ing campaign, took the box office by storm andoutperformed the studios' summer event films.Whereas Vardalos's Cinderella story was spunby public relations and marketing staff from theoutset, this second fairy tale developed overmany months as a result of the film's surprisingbox office success.

The crucial element of this story is its argu-

ment for the power of "grassroots" marketingstrategies—sales techniques aimed at specificcommunities on a small scale. In launchingthe film, this was certainly one crucial tactic;marketers did indeed begin their promotionsby targeting Greek communities in major citiessuch as Seattle, New York, and Philadelphiaand in key regions such as Michigan and NewJersey. Marketers placed flyers and posters atGreek churches, dances, and ethnic festivals.In addition, Greek community leaders wererecruited to attend advance screenings (Matsu-moto). However, although the Greek populationwas one ofthe first to be pursued by the film'smarketers, it was by no means the only one.'*

Using "grassroots" techniques to sell me-dia products is not new; in fact, such strate-gies have been employed by advertisers fordecades.'' During the 1990s, this practicebecame an art form in the hands of specializedfilm companies, with Miramax leading the wayin developing innovative sales strategies. Yetlabeling My Big Fat Greek Wedding an exampleofthe power of grassroots marketing is notonly an exaggeration, it is a misrepresenta-tion. While such strategies were a componentofthe film's success, they were by no meansthe primary or sole means by which non-Greekaudiences became aware ofthe movie. Afterinitial audience response to the film proved en-couraging. Gold Circle committed a significantamount of money to advertising. In keepingwith Berney's strategy of making the film looklike a major release from a major studio (ratherthan an art-house film). Gold Circle invested insaturation advertising in the areas where thefilm was playing. This included print advertise-ments as well as local cable television spots.As awareness ofthe film continued to expand.Gold Circle sought a broader audience viatraditional niche-marketing methods. Womenwere pursued more heavily via television spotson Oprah and Live with Regis and Kelly as wellas a number of Lifetime cable programs. Point-of-purchase promotions were established withconsumer stores Things Remembered and Bed,Bath and Beyond; at the same time. Bride'smagazine ran a My Big Fat Greek Wedding

JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004

sweepstakes. By September 2002, Gold Circlehad invested close to twenty million dollars inmarketing the movie (Eller, "Jilters" Ci). Whilethis was not the forty million typically spent bymajor studios on the marketing of event films,it was still substantially more than the claims of"grassroots promotion" imply.

Cumulatively, this analysis of the release ofMy Big Fat Greek Wedding suggests that whilemarketers used a variety of inventive methodsto sell the film, their primary achievement wasIn targeting specific audiences via establishedmedia (especially television) rather than ingenerating widespread interest via grassrootsmarketing tactics. Their most original decisionwas to position the film as simultaneouslycommercial and independent. The film was"independent" to the extent that it was por-trayed as "not Hollywood"—a singular productof the enthusiasm and vision of one youngGreek woman who, through hard work andperseverance, made the industry take notice. Atthe same time, marketers wisely veered awayfrom the established means of distributing art-house or "indie" films; the film appeared at alimited number of festivals, opened at few arthouses, and depended minimally on positivecritical response. In sum, the distribution of MyBig Fat Greek Wedding involved a blending ofthe marketing practices employed by the Holly-wood majors and their specialty, niche-orienteddivisions. Meanwhile, widespread journalisticcoverage marveling at the magical path to star-dom of both Vardalos and her movie providedthe film with the media coverage it was unableto attain via awards and critical prestige.

What a Greek Wedding Teaches Us:Lessons on the Practices and Productsof Contemporary Hollywood

Contrary to journalistic claims that My Big FatGreek Wedding shows that "Hollywood haslost its way," the film's success in fact dem-onstrates the clarity with which the Hollywoodsystem operates today. This film can be per-ceived as the exception which proves a numberof rules. As the above analysis has demon-

strated, Hollywood's hands are all over thisfilm, throughout the production, distribution,and exhibition processes. The majors didn'twant the film initially because the majors didn'tneed it; because of the way rights were sold offin advance, the film was not considered worththe investment.''There were specific reasonswhy the film seemed somewhat different fromthe other films playing in movie theaters at thetime: namely, most standard generic romanticcomedies with no stars (and no "edge") don'treceive theatrical distribution in North America.However, they are regularly found on videoshelves and aired on television. Specific In-dustrial factors—including strong connectionsto prominent Hollywood talent—enabled themovie to play at theaters, whereas others like ithave not.

An industrial analysis of My Big Fat GreekWedding shows the extent to which the rules ofcontemporary Hollywood have been institution-alized and formalized: certain types of moviesgo to theaters; others don't. The distributionpath a particular film takes is based predomi-nantly on its mixture of style, tone, genre, andtalent. Favorable critical response or prominentmedia coverage is important inasmuch as itadds to a movie's public profile; while bad re-views will typically not hurt a film, good reviewsor extensive publicity (due to controversy, thepresence of a major star, etc.) can positivelyimpact the product's box office success or rat-ings fortunes.

It is important to note, however, that al-though my analysis has placed the success ofMy Big Fat Greek Wedding within a particularinstitutional and industrial context, by nomeans can it explain why the movie resonatedwith audiences to the extent that it did. Thispoint reinforces why it is important to differenti-ate the production and distribution of a productfrom the reception of that product; discussingwhy and how a movie appears where it does isvery different from exploring what it means toany group or individual. One of the major prob-lems with much of the journalistic discourse isits inability to distinguish between productionand reception. In eliding the two, it obscures

28 lOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004

the distinctions between cause, context, andeffect, and thereby helps to perpetuate certainmisconceptions.

While the reasons for the appeal of Weddingconstitute a different study, it is worthwhile toconsider what the film's status as a culturalphenomenon might indicate. The movie wasreleased in 2002, when the fortunes oftheU.S. seemed on the decline. Stock prices weredropping, unemployment rising. The Internetbubble had burst. In the wake ofthe September11 terrorist attacks, a feeling of insecurity anduncertainty about the nation's fortunes andfuture seemed to prevail. In addition, whenMy Big Fat Greek Wedding was released, therewere few movies like it in theaters—comforting,genial, light-hearted stories that featured nor-mal, everyday people improving their individualfortunes (and physical appearances), findinglove, and discovering ways to relate to othercultures.'' A list ofthe top five films playing atthe beginning of July 2002 hints at why My BigFat Greek Wedding might have had the longev-ity it did: Mr. Deeds, Minority Report, Lilo andStitch, Scooby-Doo, and The Bourne Identity.Whereas these films appealed to rather specificdemographic groups (children, young men,etc.). My Big Fat Greek Wedding appealed tomultiple groups. It was truly a rare film, oneto which grandmothers, mothers, and grand-daughters could (and did) go together.

An analysis ofthe release of My Big FatGreek Wedding offers a compelling snapshoton the practices and processes of Hollywoodin the early 2000s. Several key lessons can bedrawn. First, the label "independent" needsto be analyzed more extensively. Studio and"independent" production and distributionprocesses continue to blend together. Theseare not distinctive enterprises, but interactiveones. Filmmakers cannot work "outside of Hol-lywood" and expect their products to be widelyreleased in theaters in the U.S. Second, weneed to look more closely at the interrelation-ships and interdependencies between the stu-dios and the independents and between thefilm and television industries. Understandingthe relationships between the various practi-

tioners and practices is crucial to an effectiveindustrial analysis. Third, we must understandhow "software" (the industry word for film andtelevision content) continues to be vital to thesuccess ofthe entertainment industry. Controlof software is crucialto the viability ofthe in-dustry—but this software must be accessibleto a company through as many distributionchannels as possible. It is not worthwhile forcompanies to invest time and money in "estab-lishing a brand" fora product if future rightsto that product are unavailable. Fourth, we cansee that while predicting box office successis extremely difficult (at best), there are waysto limit losses. To do so, the majors gener-ally release high-concept, big-budget, specialeffects-driven movies, while their specialtydivisions focus on low-budget, niche-orientedfilms with "edge."

As My Big Fat Greek Wedding goes on travel-ing through the system in various iterations—astelevision series, a video and DVD release, anda cable favorite—it is important to continueevaluating what the movie's success means forthe state ofthe film and television industries,as well as the status of media culture. In mak-ing such evaluations, we must also continue torecognize that the ideological power of journal-istic discourses can sometimes be as potent asthe ideologies ofthe media texts themselves.

NOTES

l.This auteur-orlented perspective is often favoredby popular trade press writers. See Lyons; Levy.

2. See Eller, "inters." The project was originally"discovered" by another production company, MPH.This company had produced Men Seeking Women,a film in which NIa Vardalos had a role. According tothe Los Angeles Times, the company's cofounder, JimMilio, had originally optioned My Big Fat Greek Wed-ding for five hundred dollars, then later renewed theoption for another five hundred. For a while the com-pany shopped the project around on its own, seekingfinancing of 1.5 million dollars. Ultimately it boughtthe property for sixty thousand dollars, only to sell itto HBO for 200 thousand dollars.

3. Since the release ofthe film. Time Warner hasremoved "AOL" from its name and Vivendi has negoti-ated the sale of Universal to General Electric/NBC.

4.The MPAA reports $31.01 as the average P andA cost for feature films distributed by its members In

JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2004

2001. For more figures, see <http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/20oiEconomic/sldoi6.html>.

5. For a discussion of high concept "event" films,see Schatz; Wyatt.

6. Fine Line's difficulties in the early 2ooos havebeen widely noted. Ultimately, Fine Line was phasedout and Warner Bros, developed a new niche divisionin its place. In 2003, Warner Independent Pictureswas officially launched, with former Miramax execu-tive Mark Gill as its head. See Eller, "Niche" Ci.

7. The Los Angeles Times reports that IFC was ini-tially paid a distribution fee of 200 thousand dollarsand, when the movie became a hit, the companygot a bonus of 300 thousand dollars. Though thecompany's final income has not been reported, it hasbeen acknowledged that the company "will see asignificant seven-figure sum." Compared to what themajors would get for distributing this film, this is stilla small amount. See Eller, "lilters" Ci.

8. For examples, see Harvey; Taylor; and Jacobsonand Puig.

9. Some of the most extensive examinations of therelationship between film and television can be foundin work by media economists and New Hollywoodscholars. For examples of the media economic ap-proach, see Compaine and Gomery; for the New Hol-lywood approach, see Schatz.

10. On occasion, a movie will garner enough pres-tige during its television airing to have a limited the-atrical run after the fact. Such was the case with TheLast Seduction (1994), which initially broadcast onHBO and went on to a successful theatrical run.

11.This observation came during a panel discus-sion, "The Basics of Distribution," at the South bySouthwest festival, Austin, TX, March 9-17, 2001.

i2.Thisisnotto say that all barriers and differenceshave eroded; rather, I am suggesting there is an in-creasing amount of overlap.

13.See Friedman; Schruers; and Seiler.14. With less than one half of 1 percent identifying

itself as Greek for the U.S. Census Bureau (1,175,591persons), this would be too narrow a demographicto target in isolation. Statistics at <http://factfinder.census.gov>.

15. For a discussion of the development of nichemarketing tactics, see Turow.

16. Only by earning the hundreds of millions ofdollars that it did earn—which, as the discussion ofthe discourses surrounding this film shows, is an ex-tremely rare occurrence—could the movie have been aworthwhile investment for a major studio, their spe-cialty divisions, or the top independent distributors.

17.Thanks to Caroline Frick for her input on thistopic.

REFERENCES

Adalian, josef. "Greek Piques Interest at Eye." DailyVariety 2 Oct. 2001:1.

Albarran, Alan B. Media Economics: UnderstandingMarkets, Industries, Concepts. Ames: Iowa StateP, 2002.

Broderick, Peter. "Ultra-Low Budget Filmmaking-The2002 All-Digital Model." Filmmaker 2002:46-^.

Compaine, Benjamin M., and Douglas Gomery. WhoOwns the Media? Competition and Concentration inthe Mass Media. Mahwah, NJ: L. Eribaum, 2000.

Eller, Claudia. "Jilters Regret Missing 'Wedding.'" LosAngeles Times 14 Sept. 2002: Ci.

. "Warner Bros. Tries to Get in on Niche Action."Los Angeles Times 3 Feb. 2003: Ci.

Friedman, Wayne. "Wedding Gets Big Fat Reception."Advertising Age 30 Sept. 2002: 55.

Gomery, Douglas. Shared Pleasures: A History ofMovie Presentation in the United States. Madison:U of Wisconsin P, 1992.

Goodell, Gregory. Independent Feature Film Produc-tion: A Complete Guide from Concept through Dis-tribution. New York: St. Martins, 1998.

Harvey, Dennis. "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Variety22 Apr. 2002: 30.

Hoffman, Tod. "Keeping My Big Fat Mouth Shut."Globe and Mail [Toronto] 24 July 2001: Ri.

Holden, Stephen. "Quality Films Brush Away Ruff."New York Times 30 Aug. 2002: Ei.

Jacobson, Harlan, and Claudia Eller. "'Wedding' Cel-ebration Has a Hitch." USA Today 9 Sept. 2002: lD.

Kinzer, Stephen. "An Indie Movie is Outlasting theBlockbusters." New York Times 29 Aug. 2002: Ei.

Kleinhans, Chuck. "Independent Features: Hopes andDreams." The New American Cinema. Ed. )on Lewis.Durham: Duke UP, 1998. 307-27.

Lee, John J. The Producer's Business Handbook. Bos-ton: Focal Press, 2000.

Levy, Emanuel. Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise ofAmerican Independent Film. New York: New YorkUP, 1999.

Litman, Barry R. The Motion Picture Mega-Industry.Boston: Allyn, 1998.

Lyons, Donald. Independent Visions: A Critical intro-duction to Recent American Film. New York: Bal-lantine, 1994.

Matsumoto, Jon. "State of the Art House: Hot MidwestExpansion Bolstering Indies." Hoiiywood Reporter29 Aug. 2002.

Motion Picture Association of America. US EconomicReview. 2001.15 Mar. 2003 <www.mpaa.org/useco-nomicreview/20oi/Economic>.

Oberg, Alcestis Cooky. "Maybe 'Greek Wedding' WillWake Up Hollywood Big Wigs." USA Today 12 Sept.2002:13A.

JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 5 6 . 2 / SUMMER 2OO4

Pmce,5tephen. A New Pot of Gold: tiotlywood underthe Electronic Rainbow, 1980-1989. Berkeley: U ofCalifornia P, 2000.

Schatz, Thomas. "The New Hollywood." Film TheoryGoes to the Movies. Eds. Jim Coliins, Hiiiary Radner,and Ava Preacher Collins. New York: Routledge,1993.8-36.

. "The Return ofthe Studio System." Conglomer-ates and the Media. Ed. Erik Barnouw et al. NewYork: New York P, 1997.73-106.

Schruers, Fred. "'Fat' City: The Inside Scoop behindMy Big Fat Greek Wedding and How It Became anIndie Breakout Miracle." Premiere Nov. 2002: 42+.

Seiler, Andy. "Their Big Fat Success Story." USA Today28 Aug. 2002: 4D.

Simens, Dov S-S. From Reel to Deal: Everything YouNeed to Create a Successful Independent Film. NewYork: Warner, 2002.

Stanley, T. L. "Guerilla Marketers ofthe Year; It's AllGreek to Thee." Brandweek 9 Dec. 2002: 21.

Sterngold, James. "My Big Fat Indie Payday." SanFrancisco Chronicle 17 Nov. 2002: D2.

Susman, Gary. "My Big Fat Greek Wallet." Guardian[London] 12 Nov. 2002:12.

Taylor, Charles. "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." Rev. ofMy Big Fat Greek Wedding, dir Nia Vardalos. 15 Mar.2002 <www.salon.com>.

Turow, Joseph. Breaking Up America: Advertisers andthe New Media World. Chicago: U of Chicago P,1997.

US Census Bureau. 15 Mar. 2003 <wvyw.factfinder.census.gov).

Verniere, James. "What Makes a 'Big Fat' Film Hit? ThisSuccess is All Greek to Hollywood." Boston Herald16 Sept. 2002: 33.

Wyatt, Justin. "The Formation ofthe 'Major Inde-pendent': Miramax, New Line, and the New Hol-lywood." Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. Eds.Steve Neale and Murray Smith. London: Routledge,1998.74-90-

. High Concept: Movies and Marketing in Holly-wood. Austin: U of Texas P, 1994.

JOURNAL OF FILM AND VIDEO 56.2 / SUMMER 2OO4