{"id":11182,"date":"2019-03-19T15:21:51","date_gmt":"2019-03-19T14:21:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/proacomunicacion.es\/?p=11182"},"modified":"2019-03-19T15:21:51","modified_gmt":"2019-03-19T14:21:51","slug":"a-checkmate-to-king-steven-spielberg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/proacomunicacion.es\/en\/a-checkmate-to-king-steven-spielberg\/","title":{"rendered":"A Checkmate to King Steven Spielberg"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
That every communication campaign has to be sustained over time proves something.<\/span> The peculiarities of each sector or company determine a specific strategy and, however, the common denominator of communication is time and dedication, in addition to of course, professionalism.<\/span> In a world focused on results, communication and reputation advocate firm results, but not necessarily immediate ones.<\/span> Exercising influence is not easy, it requires time, planning and strategy.<\/span> However, losing it requires only a single publication.<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Just a week ago, we were thinking of writing a piece about the controversy that arose between Steven Spielberg and Netflix following the alleged statements of the director’s confidant. According to Indiewire<\/strong>, a spokesman for his field said<\/a>: \u00abSteven has a very strong opinion on the differences between cinema and streaming. He would like others to join his campaign when it arises. We’ll see what happens.\u00bb The ‘campaign’ to which he referred to proposed the possibility that films produced by Netflix would not be represented at the Oscars. Automatically, the news was published in countless national and international media. Each and every one of them alluded to the words of the director’s close source to justify headlines like: \u00abSteven Spielberg charges Netflix and reopens the debate about streaming\u00bb, \u00abSpielberg’s attack on Netflix movies\u00bb, or even \u00abSteven Spielberg is working to make movies like ‘Rome’ never reach the Oscars in the future.\u00bb<\/p>\n

The incident would have elevated the text that would’ve published in Proa Comunicaci\u00f3n towards the debate between the cinema and streaming platforms, fully reaching the plane of a cinematographic praxis that is redefining itself. The article would have reflected different currents of opinion that would have served to provide arguments to those who have yet to form a clear opinion about the issue, but it would’ve done nothing more than stoke some doubts that are nonetheless healthy to formulate. However, we don’t consider it imperative or crucial because of the scarce connection it would have with the field of communication, being a mere article oriented on audiovisual consumption trends.<\/p>\n

Apart from a series of timid responses from second and third tier actors (see Charlie Hunnam), Alfonso Cuar\u00f3n, winner of the Oscar for Best Director for ‘Roma’, published a reflection on distribution models, supposedly in response to Spielberg. The main conclusion was: \u00abWe need more diversity in the way we release our films,\u00bb a correct and elegant answer. Netflix, on the other hand, replied to Spielberg through Twitter:<\/p>\n

\n

We love cinema. Here are some things we also love:<\/p>\n

-Access for people who can’t always afford, or live in towns without, theaters
\n-Letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time
\n-Giving filmmakers more ways to share art<\/p>\n

These things are not mutually exclusive.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Netflix Film (@NetflixFilm) 4 de marzo de 2019<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n