The Best Picture race for next year's Academy Awards just got a little thinner. Martin Scorsese's highly anticipated new film ""Shutter Island"" had its release date pushed back from Oct. 2 to Feb. 19, 2010. Not only does this disqualify ""Island"" for the 2009 awards, but it also gets a February release date, a month normally reserved for studio clunkers like ""Son of the Mask"" or ""Biker Boyz."" In fact, the four films released this year the weekend ""Island"" is set to debut were ""Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li,"" ""Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail,"" ""Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience"" and ""Fired Up."" If 2009 is any indication, the caliber of February film releases does not typically end up being Oscar-worthy, which leads to the question of why Paramount is delaying the release. The film is already completed, there is no cataclysmic event that should delay it (the terrorist-filled ""Collateral Damage"" was shelved for over a year after 9/11) and the stars haven't had any embarrassing public meltdowns; so why is ""Shutter Island"" being delayed? In short, the economy.
The official statement from Paramount's Brad Grey was brief: ""Our 2009 slate was greenlit in a very different economic climate and as a result we must remain flexible and willing to recalibrate and adapt to a changing environment."" Grey also refers to Scorsese as a ""personal friend"" and goes on to say that the film ""is a great anchor to lead off our 2010 slate and the shift in date is the best decision for the film, the studio and ultimately Viacom."" The truth of the matter is, even surefire hits like ""Island"" require money after the fact. It traditionally costs a studio almost $60 million to build a marketing campaign for an Oscar hopeful, and Paramount just doesn't have that kind of cash. Even with a critically acclaimed cast including Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Kingsley, Mark Ruffalo and Michelle Williams, the studio decided to push the film into 2010, when an Oscar marketing campaign wouldn't be necessary.
While there have been occasional exceptions (1991's ""Silence of the Lambs"" was released in February), the traditional time for Oscar hopefuls is December, so the films will stay fresh in Academy voters' minds. Condemning ""Shutter Island"" to a February release is an insult to anyone involved with the film.
Paramount has almost no blockbusters set for release in 2010—""Iron Man 2"" notwithstanding—and therefore shouldn't need to save money for big-budget ad campaigns in the summer of 2010. Considering the pedigree of Scorsese and the cast members and the relative lack of commercially successful Oscar contenders-the decision seems ludicrous. Paramount could be flushing a film on par with ""The Departed"" down the toilet. In these tough economic times, celebrating uniqueness and individuality in an industry bereft of new ideas should be a priority. Rather than ""Transformers 3"" or ""Pirates of the Caribbean 4"" or ""Friday the 13th Part 28,"" studio executives should move films like ""Shutter Island"" into the spotlight. Even if a big-budget sequel is a safer money-making bet, relegating a film like ""Shutter Island"" to the doldrums of February film is an affront not only to filmmakers, but to the American audience at large.
Think the Jonas Brothers movie is a cinematic achievement comparable to ""Citizen Kane""? Miss when Kevin's column was called Citizen Slane instead of Dr. Slanelove? E-mail him at kevslane@gmail.com.
