How Much Would You Pay to Interview Brad Pitt?

COURTESY OF VARIETY

Image a courtesy of news.com.au

We all know that press junkets are an essential part of a mainstream film's promotion. All the clips that you see on Access Hollywood or E! of journalists interviewing stars in their upcoming films or television shows has been a common and even expected part of a studio's marketing/promotional budget. An actor typically sits in a room all day getting interviewed by journalists from all over, who are reeled in and out of the room, one after another. The day may conclude with an appearance on Dave Letterman, followed by one on Regis and Kelly the next morning, and then it's back to a room with more interviews.

However, things are a little different in the realm of independent films that debut in film festivals. According to Variety, "sales agents and distributors typically agree to share the costs of staging a film junket at a film fest." With the addition of the current recession, studios are trying to find more ways to cut costs. Among them are passing this cost to the journalists themselves. While the act is more prevalent in smaller territories, there is a lot of debate as to what this means.

The always controversial Michael Moore claimed that"If I find out a distributor of my film is asking for money from journalists, they'll never distribute any of my films again." Why is he so upset? For one, while journalists from major media outlets such as Entertainment Tonight may be able to afford paying $2,200 to interview Nicholas Cage, those from smaller outlets or even freelance journalists will not.

I may be wrong in my assumptions, but this seems to give the studios more power. It seems to me that most of these journalists who get to interview the actors are also invited to screenings of the film. This may not always be the case, but assuming that it is, the studios can in a sense decide who sees and reviews their films. When you watch entertainment news, you always here that "Extra has the exclusive interview with so-and-so about this-and-that." It's clear to me that these media outlets have to maintain a generally good relationship with the studios in order to be able to grant them this exclusive access. This also means that these outlets are less willing to ask questions that are more out-of-the-box or risque (in the sense that there are certain questions that are "prohibited") and are less inclined to give scathing reviews. A lot of the times, it seems to me that it is the smaller outlets can afford to be the ones who are more honest in their reviews and the behaviors and attitudes of the film's stars. If they can exclude some of these freelance writers, they can also avoid their negative reviews.

On the other side, when studios pay for the junket, journalists claim that they fear that this access comes with "strings attached." They may force the journalist to interview the entire cast when maybe he or she only wants to interview one. If journalists cover the costs for their interviews, they may feel more inclined to ask the questions they want without fear. While certain journalists are griping, others are accepting reality: "We need these interviews and it's the only way to get them," said one journalist on the Lido. "It's really a question of who we're getting. I'm not sure about $1,500 to interview Michael Shannon, but I'd happily pay $5,000 to get a slot with Brad Pitt."

It's be interesting to hear what the actors themselves think of having a price put on them for interviews. As an actor, would you feel comfortable knowing that someone just shelled out $2000 to spend 5-10 minutes with you?

To read the full article, visit Variety.com.