PLAYING THE WRONG TUNE : Miramax’s Heavy-Handed Marketing of No. 1 (Sorta) ‘Piano’ Has Critics Steamed

If a little movie company can claim to have rewritten the book on how to make a mountain out of an art-house picture, it’s Miramax Films.

In 1992, it was so successful in creating a buzz over “The Crying Game,” “Enchanted April” and “Passion Fish” that the independent distributor actually garnered more Oscar nominations for its pictures than any major Hollywood studio. (The company has since been acquired by Disney.)

But Miramax’s marketing practices (which a handful of other studios have also appropriated) are starting to irritate many of the very same people who’ve long championed its releases and helped make them hits--the critics. And the movie in question is “The Piano.”

On the day following the announcement of the New York Film Critics Circle awards, Miramax’s ad for “The Piano” in the New York Times ran with a headline “Winner! Best Picture” followed in tiny type and in parentheses by “runner up.”

Marshall Fine, president of the 27-member New York critics group and critic for Gannett Suburban Newspapers, called Miramax and complained. Miramax, he said, ran similar misleading ads the previous year with “The Crying Game” and no one commented, but this year, many of the New York critics decided that they wanted to make the distributor aware its advertising practice wasn’t appreciated.

The New York critics had in fact awarded “Schindler’s List” its award for best picture of 1993, though it did give top awards to “The Piano” in the actress, director and screenplay categories.

Miramax changed the “Piano” ad the following week by removing references to the New York film critics altogether, but leaving an accolade for “best picture”--again with “(runner up)” in small type--from the Los Angeles Film Critics, which also gave “Schindler’s List” its top prize and also acknowledged publicly that “The Piano” had received the second highest number of votes.

Henry Sheehan, president of the L.A. group and critic for the Orange County Register, said he had been unaware of the ads until someone at Universal Pictures, the producers of Steven Spielberg’s Holocaust movie “Schindler’s List,” called to complain to him.

Sheehan said he then called Miramax and asked that its ads be not so misleading. The L.A. critics had given New Zealand director Jane Campion’s movie five awards: director, actress and screenplay and ties for first place in the best supporting actress and cinematography categories.

“This prize mongering is unseemly,” he said. “(Miramax) has a good picture, it’s got plenty of awards . . . this gimme, gimme, gimme stuff reflects poorly, I think.”

The most recent ad says “Best Picture, L.A. Film Critics Assn. (runner up)”--omitting the word “winner.”

In a written statement, Miramax said, “After hearing that Universal was unhapy with the ads, we voluntarily changed the ads and deleted the word ‘winner’ and called the New York and Los Angeles Film Critics to let them know. . . . We note, however, that other film companies, including TriStar, New Line/Fine Line and Savoy continue to use the word ‘winner’ and the New York Film Critics Circle runner-up status in their ads.”

In fact, just as Miramax was coming under fire for its practices, other studios were jumping on their advertising bandwagon. Fine Line Features, distributors of Robert Altman’s “Short Cuts,” for example, is using the technique. (Sheehan says it has gone even further--by inventing a new category, “best adapted screenplay,” an award the group does not have.)

Ira Deutchman, president of Fine Line, acknowledged that his company intentionally ripped off Miramax’s idea, which he admitted was unseemly but effective, but had not received any complaining phone calls from critics--yet. “If anybody asks us to stop, we’ll be glad to,” he said.