August 12, 2004

Ain't It The New York Times?

There are some readers who do not care about the state of movie journalism or film criticism these days. This is one of those days where you might want to just click over to MCN and read someone else's stories.

As I was reading through Sharon Waxman's latest New York Times story, which focuses on controversy around Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, this phrase in paragraph three hit me like a ton of bricks…

"…some religious scholars and interfaith activists who were provided a copy of the script by The New York Times questioned the wisdom of…"

At that moment, I thought to myself, "Has there been any controversy around Kingdom of Heaven?" You may agree with my opinions or dismiss them. But I do know what is floating in the ether from journalists and around the web. I spend all day pretty much every day gathering that kind of information. And the answer to my self-posed question was a resounding "No."

But now it is going to have to be a resounding "yes," because The New York Times went way out of its way to create a controversy around a film that is still not finished, is nine months from release, and does not, as The Passion of The Christ did, center around major religious, or even historical, figures, with the thin exception of Tiberias.

This is the second groundbreaking crossing of the ethical line by The New York Times in the last five years. The first one was Bernard Weinraub's "everyone's talking" story about American Beauty that quoted an anonymous IMBd review of the film while falsely claiming that all of Hollywood was abuzz about the film, which had then been seen by just a handful of people outside of two test screenings. The practice of legitimate outlets quoting anonymous web reviews as support of the journalistic hypothesis seemed all but impossible back when it happened. It has since become, horrifyingly, one of the most popular acts of non-journalism in the game.

Is it coincidence that both the American Beauty story and Ms. Waxman's smoking script piece today were both published in the journalistic dog days of August or that both stories seemed intent on creating news rather than reporting it? Perhaps.

I called people at Fox to discuss the story after a brief, non-starting conversation with Ms. Waxman. Like Ms. Waxman, I have relationships at every studio that are both on and off the record. No one at Fox wanted to come close to confronting any of their issues with this story - with which they cooperated hoping to make the best of an impending confrontation - on the record or even on background. After all, this is The New York Times.

But I will say this about that… it is a very difficult position in which to be, knowing how tenuous my relationships with studios execs can be depending on what I write, listening to studios about how other journalists behave. People I trust tell me things - and don't think that this is specific to Waxman or to Fox or to this story - that just blow me away. I know many of the bad behaviors that studios engage in and am infuriated by them too. But we, the journalists, are supposed to be wearing the white hats in our run-ins with the corporate culture, aren't we? We are supposed to be seekers of a higher truth, no? And we are supposed to report news, not create it, right?

All I can say about Fox is that they saw it coming, they have numerous problems with the approach to and execution of the piece, and they will never go on the record or even close to the record criticizing any reporter for the New York Times. It is bad for business. It is ironic that there is pleading from inside of the studio that released the Star Wars films - "Help us, Cieply-Wan… you're our only hope."

But regardless of what Fox thinks or what Waxman thinks, there is a simple fact that sticks out of this story like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. The New York Times… the paper of record… illegally obtained and distributed a draft of a screenplay that either Ms. Waxman or one of her editors determined might be controversial and distributed it in order to fill the journalistic void caused by the absolute silence around this film. I guess the Bush Administration would call that a "preemptive strike."

Then there is the issue of when a newspaper does a preemptive spike of a story. Ms. Waxman's story gets points for not being a one-sided diatribe against the film or studio. But how could it be? There is no "there" there in the arguments that there is a major Passion-esque controversy to come. Laila al-Qatami, a spokeswoman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, is against the film on principle, objecting to "just the concept of a movie about the Crusades." And Christy Lohr, the coordinator of the Multifaith Ministry Education Consortium in New York condemns the film she hasn't seen as a marketing ploy, commenting, "I think they enjoy stirring up a hornets' nest."

Funny, that is clearly a more accurate depiction of the New York Times in this case than it would ever be of Ridley Scott, whose honest passion for this project was clear to me when I spent an hour with him in Toronto last September. And would anyone really suggest that any historical events should be off-limit to artists?

Ms. Waxman's third and final "oooh, there's trouble" created source is Khaled Abu el-Fadl, "a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies Islamic law." Mr. Abu el-Fadl "believe(s) this movie teaches people to hate Muslims." He makes essentially the same arguments that some Jewish political groups made about The Passion of The Christ before it came out and did more than triple what observers expected at the box office. The New York Times crusaded against that film, but as of this date, I don't believe there has been a single anti-Semitic hate crime reported as a result of the film.

Oops… I wrote "crusade." Ms. Waxman explains how loaded that word is now because George Bush used it three years ago in reference to 9/11. Can you fell that ever handy journalistic crutch of "It's a 9/11 thang!" coming on?

Ms. Waxman also drags Warner Bros. and Alan Horn, who decided not to co-finance the film with Fox, into it. Check out the language here:

"Executives at Warner Brothers read the script and declined to share the financing of the movie with Fox, but Alan Horn, president of Warner Brothers, said the refusal had nothing to do with the topic. He said the studio had other period epics on its slate."

Do you, as I do, get the impression that the phrase "he said" leaves some doubt about the veracity or at least the sincerity of what Horn said? The reporting is simple. In 13 months, starting last December, Warner Bros. will have released three period epics that cost over $100 million each (almost $500 million total between then) - The Last Samurai, Troy and Alexander, plus owning a 50% stake in the now-Miramax release of The Aviator, which is also a period film costing over $100 million.

But I keep digressing…

What really disturbs me as precedence in this story is seeing the New York Times chasing controversy that has not been created by political groups, as with the ADL and others complaining from early on about The Passion of The Christ. In fact, it is the news organization leading these groups to the controversy in this case. And, in doing so, the paper used an often-condemned internet tactic, the dissemination and discussion of a screenplay draft followed by heated discussion that is then reported as though it is news.

The danger is not that Kingdom of Heaven will be hurt or that I will cancel my (already-lapsed) NYT subscription. The danger is in what is next… other papers… papers that are not as careful as the Times… reporters who are not as talented as Ms. Waxman… misunderstanding that there is no honor in creating news to report.

Ain't It Cool News has always claimed that it was all okay because they weren't really journalists. Recently, attorneys for Drew "Moriarty" McWeeny had a website shut down for publishing his work without acquiring the rights first. He would argue that AICN has not been in the business of publishing copyrighted work. I would argue that AICN is completely about the distribution and discussion of illegally acquired materials from the film business. But still… "we're not journalists."

What is the New York Times' excuse this morning?

I sure hope it's not "might makes right." I seem to recall that we were supposed to learn the futility and moral ambiguity of that attitude from looking back at history. You know, ugly moments like the Crusades.

"'I think its going to cause a firestorm of criticism and free publicity in the op-ed pages,' said Christy Lohr." Ah… finally someone who knows the difference between and op-ed and a news story!

E ME.