The Hot Button by David Poland

Thursday, 25 February 1999

FEAR OF PREMIERE 1: Friends sent me to this month's Premiere, a trip I rarely make these days. There were two stories that really hit a nerve. Sean M. Smith penned a story entitled, "No 'Snow' at Sundance." The concept was interesting enough, as being tagged "a Sundance film" could actually limit the box office potential of a commercial film. It's true. The major studios seem to send stuff to Sundance only when they aren't quite sure how to sell it. As it turned out this year, the big studios' films were pretty damned good. Fox's Ravenous (the cannibalism thriller) and Sony's Go! and Jawbreaker were really the only three. (OK, so two out of three were damned good.) Ravenous may be the hardest sell that a major studio has to make this year. Is it a broad comedy, a thriller, a horror film or what? The answer came at Sundance with a rousing "All of the above." Go! is another one of these multiple-twisted-story-wacko-characters-
in-search-of-something movies. Only it's the best of them yet. But with Katie Holmes as the only castmember clearly in the "saleable" category, it's tough going. Anyway, back to the article. So, the premise is OK, but then the writer uses four examples of films that studios didn't book at Sundance that all share one fateful flaw. The buzz on all four films is deadly.

Universal's Snow Falling on Cedars has for months been on the problem-child list at the studio. And that's not suggesting that the film will ever sell as many tickets as even the studio's Problem Child 2. All three other pictures that are cited (200 Cigarettes, Election and The Wood) are from Paramount Pictures. Paramount VP Robert Friedman explains exactly why the films aren't at Sundance. "I have to think about what my opportunity is and what my risk is. If you take a film to Sundance and the press doesn't like it, you've probably done yourself a disservice." He goes on to talk about being lumped in with other films, but that's not a real issue. If a studio doesn't want to expose a film that it has serious quality questions about, why expose them any earlier than they have to? What the hell does that have to do with Sundance? I'll tell you what. Nothing. 200 Cigarettes is a mess. Election is from Paramount's synergistic co-production deal with MTV, which has had one major moneymaker (Beavis and Butt-head Do America) in its five swings at bat so far. Not great odds to play. And The Wood, which I only know about through buzz which can always be wrong, is a black film, which have gone, for whatever reasons, out of vogue at Sundance. If it's not sensational, it would be remembered as a dud.
Of course, now I have spent more space explaining what was wrong with the story than the length of the story itself, but what's new? In an ironic footnote, writer Smith cites Rushmore producer Barry Mendel as suggesting the festival experience only for "a film that's good." Well, Disney had Rushmore at Telluride, where it got raves. Disney had Rushmore at Toronto, where it got raves. And Disney had Rushmore at the New York Film Festival, where it got raves. Yet, Disney still couldn't figure out how to open the movie early enough to get the Oscar® nominations it legitimately had a shot at. They had to wait for the additional approval of the critics' awards. Duh.
MORE WORK FOR HIRE: The circling of directors has become a rather constant issue these days at The Hot Button. Harold Ramis, Gore Verbinski, Marcus Nispel, Peter Hyams, Walter Hill, etc., etc., etc. So, now the news is that Francis Ford Coppola may take the wheel of 13 Days after Phil Alden Robinson was fired, by most accounts, for wanting to change the script. Of course, when Coppola comes on a project and doesn't change the script significantly, you usually get beautifully shot crap. (See Jack flop. Flop, Jack flop.) What's most interesting about this possible mating, besides the fact that Universal could take the film and its new director back under its wing (which I doubt will happen because the film is still too expensive for them and Coppola is no fiscal guarantee), is that Coppola is considering it at all. If it happens, I'm sure that you'll hear about what a wonderful script FFC thinks it is, but this deal is most likely being driven by a judge in the valley. The judge who vacated the $60 million in punitive damages that a jury awarded Coppola in his case against Warner Bros. over the unmade production of Pinnochio (THB 10/17). Right after the jury verdict came in, Coppola announced plans for his future as a producer. Now, without the cash, it's back to work. Figure that Coppola's payday will be in the $7 - $10 million neighborhood. (Nice neighborhood.) Also figure that Sony is willing to pay the price.
SPEAKING OF MISTAKES: People tell me that Jon Turteltaub is the salt of the earth, but he's hardly the world's greatest director. Now Disney is giving him their big summer Independence Day release for 2000, National Treasure. Disney is claiming that the movie will cost $60 - $90 million, which decoded means that they will fight to stick to the $90 million claim in the media next year. And that the picture will cost about $125 million. Worse than Turteltaub as an event movie director is the premise of the film. It's a treasure hunt to find money hidden by America's founding fathers. The last big treasure hunt movie was Million Dollar Mystery starring Tom Bosley, Rich Hall and Glad® garbage bags. A classic. In fact, the only treasure hunt movie that has ever really worked was 1963's It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Sounds to me like it is more likely to rhyme with "hit" than to be one.
SPIDER NEWS: The news on Spider-Man is that Marvel is, it seems, getting the rights to produce this film back in their hot little hands. Sony still claims video rights and Viacom claims television rights, but whether or not their rights are upheld, I expect that if James Cameron is game, this film will be made. Figure that it the film is the cash cow that everyone is so moist for, video rights are worth about $250 million and TV rights would be worth somewhere around $40 million. Even with that coming off the top, if Cameron makes the film for half of what Titanic cost (half being $140 million) and the film makes half of what Titanic made (half being about $900 million worldwide), there are still, obviously, hundreds of millions to be made here. And with Marvel in the clear (pending an appeal), who is most likely to land Cameron and Spider-Man? Fox. Of course. Memorial Day weekend 2001 would be a nice slot, with Star Wars, Episode 2 now due on Memorial Day weekend 2002. Can you tell that my spider sense is tingling?
FEAR OF PREMIERE 2: Holly Millea's butchery of 8MM was one of the most grotesque things I've read in a long time. Talk about setting an agenda and fighting to say what you want to say instead of following the story! You rarely get to see a bit of moralizing like this in a movie mag that would otherwise appear to be rather liberal-minded. That is, unless you read Premiere's "exposé" on New Line's Michael De Luca last spring (THB 6/17) that exposed nothing but the magazine's willingness to put sensationalism above journalism. The argument that you shouldn't make a film about a snuff film because you might be encouraging snuff films is truly worthy of Jerry Falwell and co.
The joke of the thing is that Millea is the one obsessing on the sexualization of death. Thanks to her efforts, we get a fairly thorough (when convenient) look at filmed death through the ages. We get a tour of Larry Flynt's new Hustler bookstore/coffee shop and a bit of Larry waxing philosophical on porno and snuff films. We get Al Goldstein, the king of New York-based porn. We get detailed, eroticized descriptions ("Dressed in nothing but a skintight black T-shirt and even tighter black jeans -- ultrabuff...") And we get what seems to be an attempt at character assassination aimed at Joel Schumacher. And on writer Andrew Kevin Walker. And on Nicolas Cage. She even manages to get Paul Schrader, who made Hardcore in 1979, to question the validity of making this movie. Oy!
I always remember how upset an obviously liberal-heavy audience at Sundance got after seeing a great documentary called Blood in the Face about neo-Nazis. The neo-Nazis showed themselves as the creeps they are, but that wasn't enough for this audience. The film didn't verbally condemn the neo-Nazis. I mean, we all know that they were idiots and we all know that the snuff film in 8MM isn't supposed to turn us on, but what about everyone else? Nothing pisses me off quite like being patronized. And patronizing every adult moviegoer out there? Shame.
READER OF THE DAY: Jules wrote: "Dave, I need to ask for help from you and your readers. I finally got my butt to the theater to see Saving Private Ryan and I was expecting to see one of the best films of the year. However, all these eyes saw was a sappy, TV movie of the week directed by Steven Spielberg. Now, I will admit that the battle scenes were spectacular in conveying the confusing, horror of war, but the rest was tear-jerking crap. I am amazed that this film is even slightly compared to The Thin Red Line. There is no comparison. TTRL told a spiritual story. SPR was out of the Patch Adams make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, but don't you dare make 'em think, mold. I felt more shock, terror, sadness and empathy in two minutes of Schindler's List than in the entire two-plus hours of SPR."

E ME: Can you help Jules? Me, I disagree with him. But he wants your help, too. Give it to him. And have you read the latest Premiere? I'd love to hear your opinions on the articles I wrote about today. And what about Francis Ford Coppola directing 13 Days?

.