How to read a Disney corporate "statement'

The official announcement on the cancellation of the syndicated film review program "At the Movies" is one of the more classic pieces of corporate-speak I've had the privilege to read in quite some time. Here's the statement in full:

After 24 seasons with us in national syndication, the highly regarded movie review show "At the Movies" (formerly known as "Siskel & Ebert" and "Ebert & Roeper") will air its last original broadcast the weekend of August 14, 2010.This was a very difficult decision, especially considering the program's rich history and iconic status within the entertainment industry, but from a business perspective it became clear this weekly, half-hour, broadcast syndication series was no longer sustainable. We gratefully acknowledge the outstanding work of the program's current co-hosts A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips and top-notch production staff, and it is with heartfelt appreciation that we extend very special thanks to the two brilliant, visionary and incomparable critics that started it all, Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel.

Connoisseurs of the idiom will of course revel in the concentration of the standard-issue weasel words and phrases. For those lucky enough to have had little or no exposure to the argot, here are some translations.

"Highly regarded"="Christ, this show gets lousy ratings."

"This was a very difficult decision"="This was pretty much the easiest decision I/we have ever made, ever."

"Rich history and iconic status"="Holy fuck, is this show STILL ON THE AIR? And we're still paying for it?"

"From a business perspective"="Even if the thing IS relatively inexpensive to produce, it's still eating into profits."

"No longer sustainable"=See "From a business perspective."

"We extend very special thanks"="We are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of executives removed from the clowns who green-lit this antique in the first place."

Don't get me wrong; I suppose the decision "makes sense" from the aforementioned "business perspective." I've enjoyed the episodes of "At The Movies" that I've seen, and, friendly relations with both fellows aside, I have much professional admiration for Scott and Phillips; they're knowledgeable, engaging, and they both know how to use the word "existential" correctly in a sentence (that is: rarely, if at all), all that sort of thing. But in the Changing Media Landscape, such as it is, critics and critical thought have become less, shall we say, telegenic, and...oh, my, I don't believe any of us are here for a rehashing of stuff that's being so thoroughly rehashed time and time again, and I'm certainly not the ideal person to contemplate the fact that in some respects the "A Couple Of White Middle-Aged Guys Sitting Around Talking About Movies" model maybe is, well, a little antique, so I'm going to leave this at that. 

Comments

[Zach]

Glenn -

Thanks for a good AM laff. While I can't claim to have much of a dog in this fight - I enjoy Scott's writing, but I haven't seen the show, not being a cable subscriber - it's always fun to see corporate doubletalk exploded and ridiculed.

On a related note, is it me, or has the buzzword "sustainable" become unfortunately debased as of late?

[Phil G]

Nice piece and right on the money. I wonder how many people it took to write that thing? Since the announcement is so obviously reeks of bullshit, I also wonder why they even bother?

[bstrong]

This is very sad. I've lately been enjoying the show's online video archive too. I grew up watching this show. When it was still called "Sneak Previews" I used to watch it on Los Angeles's local PBS affiliate. This was back in the early 1980s. I first discovered my own nascent critical sensibility when I realized I agreed mostly with Siskel and almost never with Ebert, and I would or would not see movies based on their opinions—e.g. if Ebert hated it and Siskel liked it, well that settled it.

[bill]

I'm not happy on this. I was really growing to enjoy the show again. Elsewhere on-line, I've read people complaining that the show was dumped at absolutely ridiculous hours, like 3:00 or 5:00 AM. While this is no doubt true in many markets, where I live the show aired every Sunday at 12:30 in the afternoon, which is a pretty great time (for one thing, it came on just before football, when football was on). So I was a regular viewer. Not no mo', I guess.

[bill]

"...happy ON this?" Whatever.

[James]

LOL, so true!

[Stephanie]

I also grew up watching this show, which was at its best in the PBS days. Haven't watched it for years and that mostly by accident, although I did tune in to see Scott and Phillips' debut.

[APM]

Honestly, as corporate press releases go, this one is pretty no-nonsense. Especially compared to the Variety internal memo leaked a few weeks ago.

[jim emerson]

In my introduction to the first edition of Microsoft Cinemania that I edited ('96), I mentioned that I never really took Roger Ebert seriously as a movie critic until I had the opportunity to read his actual, full-length reviews. Don't get me wrong: I was thoroughly entertained by "Siskel & Ebert," but I (and most of my critical colleagues) took it as seriously as "Entertainment Tonight." It was the best of what it was, for what it was. How much can you say about a movie in a paragraph crafted for television, with a few seconds of back-and forth? AO Scott and Michael Phillips carried on admirably. But the format is so 1980s I can't say I will miss it. Honestly, I never watched it regularly once the '90s began...

[John Keefer]

So this may leave a movie-show gap in the collective unconscious. I propose a video essay show, much more modern, hosted/narrated by Matt Zoller Seitz. Guest commentators could de-construct/appreciate their favorite films as well. It raise awareness of older classics and have opportunities for more crowd pleasing fair, running the gamut from that best of the eighties tribute to the modern blockbuster to his more recent profile on The Prowler.

I smell a Cable Ace award...

...oh wait.

[dogandpony]

I checked out after Eve's Bayou (Disney) got Roger's best film of the year.

[Ryan Kelly]

DisneyCo is my sworn enemy, so I love this.

[Peter]

I would agree to Ryan Kelly. I love this. I will gladly offer a security fence to protect this site.

[Stephanie]

"How much can you say about a movie in a paragraph crafted for television, with a few seconds of back-and forth?"

I remember some pretty good back-and-forths in the olden days. The format was a novelty in its time and there were some lively discussions.