It was late January 1969, and the winter chill outside Duke's office still hasn't passed.
Ithaca had successfully coasted through 1968 thanks to the Night of the Living Dead.
But success, always came with a price tag.
In this case, a massive wave of outrage from some people in Hollywood and some moralizing critics.
The initial reviews of Night of the Living Dead had been mixed, often focusing on the film's grainy, low-budget look.
But as the movie continued its low-key, high-profit run in drive-ins and late-night city theaters.
The exact venues Duke and Goldberg had targeted the tone of the criticism shifted from aesthetic to moral and regulatory.
The Motion Picture Association of America or also refered to as the MPAA was the newly formed body that issued ratings for films.
Duke knew that the MPAA rating system would act as a sort of gatekeeper for major distribution and help cement the position of the major studios in comparison to the Mini Majors.
Hollywood and Jack Valenti, planned to use the MPAA as essential for regulating content and maintaining social order, particularly after the recent abolition of the restrictive Hays Code.
In the press, Ithaca, a small, virtually unknown company on the big studio map, had released Night of the Living Dead without bothering to submit it for an MPAA rating.
But in reality, Night of the Living Dead was released in October before the MPAA rating system was even formally formed in november.
Ithaca just bypassed them and negotiated directly with Drive-ins without consulting with them first.
This technical evasion of the rating system was standard for low-budget exploitation films, even when the Hayes Code was in place.
Of course, now when the film started making serious money and drawing large, young audiences, the press went ballistic.
The New York Post ran a piece titled, "An Studio Irresponsibility," accusing Duke's company of letting "uncensored gore" get to minors and "deliberately bypassing the moral safeguards of the new ratings system."
Another review from a Boston critic sneered "This so-called film, released by a fly-by-night operation that seems more invested in comic books and rock music than filmmaking, is a stain on the new ratings structure."
The attack being focused on the lack of an MPAA rating was proof of an attack on the profitable Drive-In strategy.
Appealing to Drive Ins was the strategy that companies like American International Pictures(AIP) or Allied Artists International were using to keep themselves on the market.
Of course it made sense to attack Drive ins cause they were the place were foreign films were played the most.
Duke called David Chen and Goldberg into his office.
Chen was, predictably, concerned about the optics.
"Duke, the financial reports are great, but the press is getting nasty," Chen said, tapping a stack of clippings.
"Our banks need to be convinced if we want more loans, they read the Post. They see 'irresponsible,' 'filth,' 'uncensored.'"
"It makes us look like a riskier investment than we already are."
Goldberg, however, was grinning. He saw an opportunity handed to them on a silver platter.
"Chen, you're looking at bad press, but this is free advertising," Goldberg countered, pulling out a handful of the same articles.
Duke signaled for calm, his hands flat on the desk. "Goldberg is right about the principle, Chen. But your concern about the banks is valid. We need to manage this perception gap."
"The defense is simple," Duke explained, leaning forward. "We don't deny the controversy, we'll embrace it. When they accuse us of avoiding censorship, we simply say 'Ithaca supports creative freedom.'"
Goldberg immediately understood the focus of the pivot.
He now needed to execute a low-cost, high-impact marketing campaign that turned the criticism into publicity that drove people into the cinema.
After a discussion, they assembled a plan.
Goldberg was to send immediate, short-form press releases to youth publications and fan magazines. The focus wasn't on the film, but on talking about the censoring.
Goldberg even assembled a quote to explain in short words the crux of the problem.
"Hollywood is afraid and censoring films they can't control. Night of the Living Dead is rated by its audience, not by an anonymous committee. Ithaca will always stand on the side of the filmmaker."
Ithaca would start to subtly imply their support for an independent voice.
This was to create a cohesive, anti-establishment brand identity for the entire company.
Duke even instructed Goldberg to purchase small, but highly visible ads in the actual newspapers that had published the articles.
The ad would not defend the film, it would simply feature a graphic image from the movie and a single line of text, "Censored by Hollywood. Seen by Millions. See why they're afraid."
"This does two things, Chen," Duke summarized, watching his finance chief absorb the plan.
"First, it tells the youth audience we are their studio. The MPAA backlash is the best possible certification we could have for Easy Rider. Second, it gives us a high-minded defense for the banks."
Duke knew the old bankers wouldn't care about zombies or teenagers. They only cared about money, stability and public image.
"When we go to Wall Street, we don't mention zombies," Duke instructed Chen. "We mention the Paris Review , and we mention the creative integrity of the directors we back."
Duke planned to leverage the Pimpleton interview to create a sophisticated, intellectual counter-narrative.
"We frame the MPAA issue as a fight against creative stagnation," Duke explained.
Chen, ever the pragmatist, saw the logic. "So, we should use the profitability of the film to silence the bankers criticism, and we use the 'creative freedom' argument to silence the publics criticism."
"Exactly," Duke affirmed.
The meeting ended with a renewed sense of purpose.
The bad press was now officially part of the branding.
---
After turning the MPAA's pearl-clutching over Night of the Living Dead into a twisted form of free advertising, Duke knew he had to address the problems the controversy created.
Sure, the teenagers loved that Ithaca was sticking it to the censors, but the old bankers on Wall Street didn't invest in controversy and gore unless the returns were big.
This brought us to Pimpleton and The Paris Review.
The Paris Review was the strangest asset on Ithaca's books.
It was a quarterly literary magazine famous for publishing brilliant fiction, poetry, and those lengthy, prestigious "Writers at Work" interviews that every serious author hoped to grace.
It was an antithesis of everything else Ithaca owned it was high-brow, it was French-titled, and crucially, it actively lost money.
(Somebody said that i should start giving little explanations about things from back then.)
Duke and David Chen took a trip the next day to the Review's small, quiet, and slightly dusty Manhattan office, which smelled faintly of old paper.
The meeting started with Pimpleton offering a chilly welcome, completely ignoring Chen.
"Mr. Hauser," Pimpleton said, adjusting his glasses. "I assume this urgent meeting is not about telling me to focus on prestige, I have heard that the Parent Association apparently hated your horror movie."
Pimpleton was referencing the Night of the Living Dead controversy and, by extension, the terrible press Duke was getting.
Duke smiled, completely unfazed. "Your yearly budget is not as secure as you think, Pimpleton."
Chen, ever the pragmatist, slid a copy of a major financial magazine Fortune across the table.
"We are a company that plans to expand and maybe we'll be seeking debt refinancing soon, Mr. Pimpleton. We need a symbol of stability."
Duke took over, his voice respectful but firm. He didn't ask Pimpleton to compromise the Paris Review for now.
"Your magazine is one of the most respected literary quarterly in the country, Pimpleton," Duke began. "When I walk into that Wall Street boardroom, the bankers will look at the Easy Rider revenue, and the Marvel revenue, which they'll dismiss since Hollywood is well known for scamming."
"And how, precisely, am I involved in anything that you just said?" Pimpleton asked dryly.
"By using your prestige as a shield," Duke replied. "I need you to participate in a piece of media that frames the Review, and by extension, Ithaca, as a reliable company."
"We want Fortune or Forbes to run an exclusive feature on 'The Unexpected Patrons of American Letters.'"
"It will be an interview with you, talking about the importance of patronizing american art, and how Ithaca's commercial success funds the literary mission."
This was the strategic brilliance of the asset, Pimpleton's elitism was a key.
He would fiercely defend the Review's intellectual purpose, and in doing so, he would automatically grant legitimacy to the corporate structure that funded him.
Pimpleton was clearly intrigued by the idea of being hailed as a champion of high culture in a major financial publication, but he remained resistant to associating the Review with the rest of Ithaca's portfolio.
"I can discuss finance and literature, Mr. Hauser," Pimpleton conceded grudgingly. "But I will not endorse vulgar entertainment."
"If i do this I demand that I maintain a distance from commercial endeavors particularly those low-budget horror films you release without proper... certification."
Duke anticipated this.
He had noticed that Plimpleton was resisting the changes they had asked on the magazine.
But they now needed the Review's prestige.
He needed a direct way to counter the Night of the Living Dead blowback, and he needed it to come from an intellectual source.
"I agree completely, Pimpleton. Your piece will be strictly about literary matters but you will have to defend and help build up our directors," Duke assured him.
"However, I have one non-negotiable request that involves your editorial column."
Pimpleton responded quick. "My column is filled."
"I'm not asking," Duke said calmly. "I simply need you to commission a special feature for the next issue, an interview with a filmmaker who is challenging the traditional norms of storytelling."
Duke paused, letting the weight of the request settle. "I want The Paris Review to feature an exclusive 'Filmmakers at Work' interview with George A. Romero."
The request hit Pimpleton with the force of an actual zombie.
Romero, the director of Night of the Living Dead, was currently the target of every major conservative critic in the country.
"Duke! That is... youre crazy!" Pimpleton said pushing his glasses up his nose.
"Am I?" Duke challenged, leaning over the table.
"He's a talented young filmmaker who used a very low budget and a crew of unknowns to craft a film that tackles themes of societal collapse, consumerism, and even racial tension."
Duke pressed his case, using Pimpleton's own intellectual snobbery against him.
"Pimpleton, some of the greatest literary figures like Dostoevsky were all considered scandalous and vulgar in their time. If you run an interview with Romero—conducted with the rigor and intellectual depth of your 'Writers at Work' series, you'll be ahead of the curve."
Duke knew that by elevating Romero, Pimpleton would be placing himself in the position of the intellectual gatekeeper who saw the "art" beneath the "gore."
He would be seen as the sophisticated patron who recognized a horror icon before anyone else.
Finally, Pimpleton let out a weary sigh of defeat. "I will first check out the movie, but i don't promise anything."
"Understood," Duke confirmed, securing the win. "In return, I'll guarantee your budget is the safest asset in this entire company."
Duke stood up, shaking Pimpleton's hand with a warmth that completely belied the coercion involved.
The mission was accomplished.
The bad press over the zombies was about to be countered by a highbrow debate over whether the zombies were, in fact, social commentary.
And bad press over the rating was going to be attacked with talks about censorship.
---
I wrote 5 chapters today so things are organized now