The Hot Button by David Poland

Wednesday, 24 February 1999

RANTING & RAVING

I'm starting to write today's column at 2:06 a.m. on Monday night. And it's not because of my busy schedule. Today was a nice slow day. I even got to watch tonight's cunning, Ling-less episode of "Ally McBeal." Primetime TV. That's a rarity in my life these days. Anyway, I went to bed early (for me) and looked forward to a good night's sleep before a full day tomorrow. But I couldn't sleep. Why? I got an e-mail just before I turned off the computer for the night. It said only: "Do you ever credit the trade papers from which you steal most of your information?" Hmmm. I responded right away, as I do to almost all of my negative mail, explaining that this is not a column about breaking news. But that word "steal" stuck in my craw. I tried to figure out who it could be that wrote the note. I couldn't. And I tossed and turned. Am I a thief of information?
Well, the answer is no. This column was designed from the start to be a reflection of the news and not the home of much breaking news. I credit exclusives and I credit quotes and the rest is based on the same wire reports that get picked up (not "stolen") by every newspaper in America. Anyway, I am pretty sure that the e-mail came from a Daily Variety employee who thought he was being anonymous by not signing the letter and by using his AOL account. Whatever. I don't know if there is a subject that I obsess on more in this column than the drawing of moral lines in show business and its coverage. Negative mail forces me to re-examine my own choices when readers question them. And I do. I have my small bit of power from this bully pulpit and I want, I admit, more. The benefits that I can obtain are nice, but the real joy will be having the power to support movies that need a champion. And I believe in what I am doing here, so I believe that I will obtain that power. It's important that I not get lost in that pursuit. One Hot Button regular wrote this week, concerned that I was slamming 20 Dates for personal reasons. Whether true or not (I'll review the film again on Friday), these issues are always worth examining.
Enough of my issues. Let's talk blacklist. OK, it's a big leap, but with the slow leak of buzz over the Elia Kazan honorary Oscar® still buzzing, is there a right answer to the musical question, "How do you solve a problem like Elia?" I think the vast majority of us can agree what the measure of a man (or woman) was when confronted by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Kazan went the other way. Maybe his choice was sincere and maybe it was not, but he is blamed by many for not only naming names, but for giving ongoing life to McCarthyism. But where was the huge wave of rage when the award was announced? There was none. Just a small ripple, particularly in one beautifully written piece by Kazan's friend, actor Alan Garfield, who treasured his friendship but still condemned the Academy's choice. (I'd love to have you read the piece, but the L.A. Times would charge you for it.) Will there be a huge wave of protest on the night of the Academy Awards? I doubt it. Anti-Kazan-Award folks are asking that people simply sit on their hands when Kazan is presented. But at the Academy Awards, clapping is an involuntary reaction. Why is that action brave and honorable when the people who would be holding their applause haven't attacked the Academy's choice up until that moment? It's as if the organizers of this "protest" are already conceding the fact that no one cares enough to really fight this fight.
There is all this talk about not wanting to upset the evening because it is so important to the industry. Bull! That's exactly why true moral outrage has a place at an event like this! If you really believe it, fight. My God, there was more outcry in Hollywood in support of Bill Clinton abusing the memory of the horror of true McCarthyism by coining the fallacious phrase "Sexual McCarthyism," than there is against an honorary award for a willing participant in the actual hearings! I say, put Pete Rose in the Baseball Hall of Fame. At least that hall is all about performance. Compared to some of the already enshrined members of that institution, Rose smells like his name. But Kazan's is an award of honor. A choice to pick one man out of thousands for a special award. Previous honorees include Fred Astaire, Greta Garbo, Buster Keaton, Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa, Kirk Douglas and Stanley Donen. That's pretty good company for a guy who many feel stabbed Hollywood in the back. Shouldn't there be a battle worthy of saving honor? Even affable Army Archerd of Variety felt compelled to question the wisdom of this choice.
Is an industry where passions run this high saving face by remaining quiet and looking forward to an episode of "Nightline" and a couple of ads in the trades seems, to quote a friend, like "chickensh--" to me. On the other hand, I am a bit embarrassed to admit that this issue doesn't push my personal Hot Button. For me, like for, I think, most of America, this feels like an internal fight at the world's most prestigious country club. I know that I'm wrong. I know that Kazan's actions have historical significance, even more so than any of his movies, as great as they are. But I have other atrocities on my mind. That man who was dragged behind a car until his body broke into pieces scattered on the road. It makes me sick to just type that. The horror that we are still capable of visiting on other human beings. I only wish it was unbelievable. The point is, I will fight my own battles. Does it make me a less honorable man for not fighting this fight, too? Are the men and women organizing this hand-sitting protest less honorable for not burning a likeness of Kazan in effigy in front of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion? Is Karl Malden's career forever tarnished by his support of his friend inside the walls of the Academy?
I don't know.
The lines are foggy. Forget "don't judge lest ye be judged." This is "don't judge because how the heck can you figure out what three million things the other guy is thinking because you can sure as hell bet that he won't be thinking the same way that you will." Was the lack of a hew and cry over the absurdity of the Golden Globes something we should be proud of? As journalists or as members of this community? I think not. Is the ongoing ghettoization of documentaries by the Academy, which reflects the ghettoization of the form in theatrical distribution, something we should just roll our eyes over and not worry about until next year? Obviously not. How about the lack of VP-level executives of color in this city? How about kids in R-rated movies? TV shows as features? Objectifying actresses? Greed?
Where to start? What to fight? How to fight it? Aye, there's the rub. Should I have to tell you that I just quoted Shakespeare? Is that an affront to his memory or an insult for me to assume that you don't get it? Webs inside webs inside webs. We all have to make our choices. That much I feel sure of, but who am I to make your choice? Even if I'm right. Even if you're wrong. Odd words, I suppose, from a man who foists his judgments on the world six days a week. (No, I don't really rest my judgements or my ego on the seventh day.) But they are sincere. I can only provide a vision that I see clearly. And you get to make that choice of where you draw the lines of this column each time you read it. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it's brilliant. Sometimes it just rambles along. But as long as it brings some light to the subject, I feel I am doing my job.
F--k the Darkness. Live in the light.
READER OF THE DAY: From Master P (the other one): "I had a busy week, but I have been meaning to e-mail you. I just came back from the premiere of 20 Dates, and I would like to comment on the film and your reaction to it. As for the movie, I thought it was a cute date movie for single urban types between the agef of 25-35. The film drags considerably from the middle of the second act until the very end, where it's saved by a nice ending twist. It's worth no more than the price of a matinee or, realistically, a video rental. This aside, I thought your review of the film was way off base and incredibly mean-spirited. Weren't you the same person who e-mailed me and chalked up Janet Maslin's bad review of Message in a Bottle to not liking Kevin Costner. So people think you look like Myles. There are worse people to look like. [Editor's note: WCW's Disco Inferno.] Your review was the same type of review of Maslin's that you put down. I think it was very unfair of you to use your forum in such a manner, especially given your previous comments in your column and e-mails.
"I am not saying that you should have given the film a good review. Hey, I'm a close friend, and I thought it was just OK. However, your review of the film was not a real review and unfair to both the film and the filmmaker. In the future, if you are going to review a film, please review it for those qualities. I equate what you did to a baseball writer not voting for a MVP candidate because the player didn't treat him well.
"I recently also saw Go!. Contrary to your glowing review, I was disappointed in the film. While I thought there was some wonderful and fun parts to the film, ultimately the film fails because there is no one to care about. Do you or the audience even remotely care about any of these characters? It's not that they are bad people, it's just that the writer and director have not invested enough in them to make us care about what happens to them. Compare this film to Swingers. While Go! is technically light-years ahead of Swingers, it lacks the heart of Swingers. Go! just feels like late-teen and twentysomething schtick. Besides the Vegas trip was more interesting the last time.
"Finally, I noticed that Life is Beautiful recently surpassed Il Postino as the highest-grossing international film in history. Didn't you once mention in your column that Life is Beautiful is a box office disappointment. If so, I am sure there are plenty of other international film producers who wouldn't mind such a disappointment."

E ME: I still love Go!, a proper look at 20 Dates comes Friday (my objection to Maslin is that she has biases like all of us, but doesn't admit them. I do.) and LIB has cost Miramax more than the $11 million it's made in just P&A. It is, at this point, still a disappointment for Miramax financially. But Miramax is more interested in Oscar® nominations than money much of the time, so I'm sure they are thrilled with the film, even if it brings in significantly less profit for them than I Got the Hook Up. Where do you draw the line? Do you care about the Kazan controversy? So you just want us all to shut up so you can watch the movie?

.