The Hot Button by David Poland

Weekend, 6-7 March 1999

NEWS BY THE NUMBERS

10. A SHADY DEAL: For those of you who bitched and moaned all the way through Patch Adams, bad news. The film's director, Tom Shadyac, just signed a three-picture, first look directing/producing deal with Universal in tandem with a music producing deal. Numbers were not offered up, but it seems likely that the deal is in the $25 to $30 million range before gross points kick in. And who can argue with the studio for making this movie? Shadyac has made only four features. The first was his one "loser." Something called Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. The film only made $72 million in North America. Awww. But his other four films, The Nutty Professor ($130 domestic), Liar, Liar ($181 million domestic) and Patch Adams (over $120 million domestic to-date) made up for that. As directors go, you'd have to say that he is currently the King of Comedy.
It's easy to say that he has worked with the three biggest screen comedians of this era, but that would discount their missteps with other directors and the heights to which these films took these actors. One glitch. Shadyac made two of his four films for Imagine Entertainment, the most important supplier of product to Universal. (Imagine owner/operators Brian Grazer and Ron Howard still insist to me that they don't have any interest in taking over a studio that would require them to knock out a dozen or more films a year.) What happens when Shadyac gets involved with an Imagine project at Universal, which seems inevitable? Does Universal loan him out to themselves? Is his deal with Imagine preset by the deal with Universal? Etc, etc, etc. It's not the biggest issue right now, but by picture three, this deal could seem like small potatoes the way prices inflate in the movie game.
9. HUSH YOUR MOUTH: This is almost pure PR for this weekend, but I dig it so much that I don't care. The Detroit Institute of Arts is honoring Gordon Parks this week and that includes a showing of Shaft that the man himself, Richard Roundtree, will attend. (The press release describes the film by calling it, "Gordon Parks' popular 1971 film about a Harlem detective named John Shaft." Talk about understatement.) I didn't realize this, but Roundtree was a male model for Parks, who was better known at the time as a photographer (and maybe still is) and was hired by Parks for the role because Parks wanted an unknown "who could move through Harlem or the cafes of downtown Manhattan with equal ease." Again, I renew my plea for Taye Diggs to get the role of Shaft in the new feature, with all love to Samuel L. Jackson. Diggs fits the origins of the original casting as well as the role.
Anyway, tonight (March 6), Elvis Mitchell will host Roundtree and What it Is, What it Was authors Gerald Martinez, Andres Chavez and Diana Martinez (I love this book, which you read about in an old Working Hollywood by clicking here) in a discussion about the "blaxploitation" era at 6:00 p.m., followed by screenings of Shaft at 7:00 and 9:30, both hosted by Roundtree. On Sunday, the 7th, they'll show Parks' The Learning Tree and the documentaries Flavio and Diary of a Harlem Family, both based on some of Parks' work at Life Magazine. And on exhibition until April 25, the photo exhibition, "Half Past Autumn: The Art of Gordon Parks." If you are fortunate enough to be in Detroit this weekend, check it all out by calling 313-833-2323.
8. MAXING IN: Miramax is getting charitable. They are now offering a four-year, $100,000 scholarship for a student to attend four years of undergraduate film school at my alma mater, New York University's Tisch School of the Arts. I have not seen the fine print, but it probably includes a first-look deal, a period of work for Miramax after school and then turning over of your first born (or your sister, to Mr. Weinstein, if she is blonde and sexy). I'm only partially kidding. When Disney offered up an "ethnic diversity" program a few years ago (I don't know if it continues), the rules included that in return for your $30,000 a year "scholarship" at Disney, they owned everything you wrote that year and for two years after. In others words, if one candidate out of 10 wrote one commercial script in that period, the program would more than pay for itself. On the other hand, every foot in the door helps. The old catch-22. I shouldn't really be beating anyone up for offering a helping hand, but I always hate that fine print.
7. MORE MICKEY TO LOVE: According to Variety's Army Archerd, Michael Douglas has put on 15 pounds for his role in Wonder Boys, which is being directed by Curtis Hanson from a Steven Kloves script. One, they are going to have a hard time getting co-star Katie Holmes (who I'm sure will somehow be re-written to be his love interest) to put on 15 pounds to match him. Two, couldn't Kloves get a job on a film without "boys" in the title? Maybe he should have renamed Flesh and Bone, Flesh and Boys and strengthened his directing career. And three comes from Michael Douglas himself who told Archerd, "He's gonna die when he sees me," referring to his father, Kirk. That's not funny, Michael. A little too possible to be funny.
6. SPIRITED SPEAKER: John Waters will be the keynote speaker at the Independent Spirit Awards set for March 20. You just can't get any more indie than Waters, but someone had better tell him just what kind of "spirit" they are talking about before he gives his speech.
5. FROM THE SUBLIME TO THE JOEL SIEGEL: The issue of the aisle opposite Roger Ebert continues to be on people's minds. With thanks to all of you who have written suggesting I should be sent to Chicago, thanks, but don't expect Roger, Disney or anyone else to even consider it. Who they have considered makes one wonder whether Roger actually does have any say. Tom Shales was, in my mind's eye, a disaster. I don't care if the guy has reviewed movies on NPR, his first video pick was for reruns of a TV show. Bzzt! The next two guys up are, alternatively, interesting and absurd. Interesting is Elvis Mitchell, who despite being a bit pretentious these days, is always good for some insight you haven't thought of before. I'm always happy to see him in the mix, be it at Sundance or on Siskel & Ebert. When Elvis leaves the auditorium, it will be ABC's Joel Siegel, the man who brought quote whoring to its highest level. (As I recall, he was the direct inspiration for the late Spy magazine's Blurb-O-Matic, many years ago.) If I'm Roger Ebert, that's the moment I walk off the show. Siegel may be a great guy, but as a film critic, he should offer "one tongue up" instead of a thumb, because he'll slurp up almost anything.
4. THAT GIANT SUCKING SOUND: Perhaps the best two-hour movie to be seen this week was Monica Lewinsky's interview with Barbara Walters on "20/20." I must say, I did not have high expectations, but I found it compelling from beginning to end. Not as compelling as a Brit journalist who called it "pure televisual Viagra," but compelled nonetheless. I still got the feeling she was lying every once in a while. She does a little thing where she looks away when she's lying then looks back at whom she's talking to near the end of the sentence. And she did it in some odd spots. Oh, well. The massive 33.4 rating and 48 share was also astounding, especially as the media is shoving the story down America's throat. Right? With those kinds of TV numbers and a strong performance by Lewinsky, this could now move out of TV moviedom and into the realm of feature film. The only question is whether Shannen Doherty is willing to put on the weight.
3. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY: Mike Ovitz' Artists Management Group (It's kind of becoming like Diana Ross and The Supremes, though the other players are undoubtedly massive contributors to Ovitz' empire) seems to be marching in a direction that obviously concerns agents, but now actually concerns me. (As though that were the most important thing.) According to the trades, rumors about AMG getting into the distribution business on top of their clear move toward being a mini-studio, have been confirmed by their circling of former New Line distribution topper Mitch Goldman. Whether Goldman joins up or not, the idea itself is scary. The issue of conflict of interest with clients as managers/producers is already a fairly daunting thicket. (Just ask Garry Shandling and Brad Grey.) But add onto that financing and distribution and you've got an abyss into which people (read: clients) will inevitably get sucked. (And you thought that was always a good thing!)
Stars used to line up to join CAA because they could package deals with studios that were above the fray. But the studios ultimately had to decide what combinations were workable. For a while, CAA decided for them, but the studios eventually got hold of themselves to a great degree. But, here, the packaging entity will also be the one with financial risk. AMG client X may love AMG client Martin Scorsese and want to work with him, but Scorsese still hasn't had a $100 million picture, while AMG client G has had four of them. If you are Mike Ovitz and the amount of your money can theoretically be tripled because client G is highly skilled but less demanding on a purely artistic basis than Scorsese, who do you pair up? And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Packaging TV, even as a manager, is less dangerous because the network is still in control. But being a studio inside a management firm? This is a bad, bad idea for everyone except the manager.
2. ANOTHER PROBLEM IN PARADISE: On the other side of the AMG moon, potential "client G," Richard Donner, has signed on with ICM for agent representation while being "managed" by Ovitz at AMG. What's most significant there is that he is the third person who has signed at ICM who would likely be at CAA had they not banned their clients from having AMG as a manager. This, too, is a very tangled web. Is ICM taking on clients that it won't have to do a lot of work for, knowing that Ovitz and Co. will make most of the decisions? Is it just for the commissions? The power of having the names in-house? If ICM thinks this is all above-board, what will happen when major conflicts arise? For instance, say ICM wants to package a movie, but AMG wants more of its talent in the package, what happens if they "let" ICM use someone they share, who, theoretically, ICM has at least equal control? On the flip side, is AMG asking their clients to sign with agencies so that there won't be too much scrutiny of AMG?
1. LOOK OUT, HERE COMES THAT SPIDER-MAN: I'm amazed at how quiet the Spider-Man deal between Sony and Marvel has left people. One reader thought I wasn't clear enough, so let me reiterate. I am all for a Jim Cameron Spider-Man movie. And I don't believe for one second that Sony made the deal they did so they could give Spider-Man to Devlin-Emmerich (not that there's anything wrong with that). It strikes me odd that the Devlin-Emmerich duo has become such a boogieman at Sony and are now rumored to make every picture that Sony sniffs around that involves more than 30 seconds of CG. It's unfair to Devlin and Emmerich and it's a real distraction from the projects that their names get linked to in the rumor sheets.
The current, massively inflated value of the Spider-Man live action rights is based only on the idea that Jim Cameron will make the movie. On their own, without Cameron's interest, the rights value drops by more than half. Period. This is not a slam on Spidey, just a reality. As great as Marvel is -- and they were my preferred read in my comic book days -- they have never had a breakout film. The Hulk did great on TV, but that's pretty much it. Only Superman and Batman have really hit it big on the silver screen. And both of those franchises are "broken." (I'm talking superheroes and massive franchise-type success, so Men in Black and Blade don't qualify.)
The genius of Cameron, who is one of maybe a half-dozen working directors with the truly golden touch, makes Spider-Man the hottest non-Star Wars project on earth. Without him, it's just another shot in the dark that will sit around hoping that someone writes a screenplay that satisfies the executives who just don't get comic books, so you end up with David Hasselhoff in tights. And nobody wants that. (This is the space where my young editor, Jennifer, offers disagreement with that statement. OK. A few people would like that, but not in a public theater.) [Jennifer Note: I hope you didn't just suggest that I would be interested in seeing David Hasselhoff in tights.]
READER OF THE DAY: Kevin responds to Friday's ROTD: "Is Dove wrong? Kind of. I don't know if this is a huge step forward for feminism. Julia (Roberts) was the top female salary winner for a long time (even when she couldn't find a hit to save her life). Sure, Meg (Ryan) and Demi (Moore) are going to ask for it. Heck, they may even get $20, but, Julia's jump in salary means that Tom Cruise, Jim Carrey or Harrison Ford can safely ask for $30 million. All three have had more blockbusters than Julia and all three usually can open a film. Julia has never done anything even remarkably close. Outside Pretty Woman, My Best Friend's Wedding was her only other hit. Mary Reilly, Something to Talk About, I Love Trouble, etc. were all big paydays... for Julia. I've never understood her mystique or why Hollywood loves her. Unless she's Hasselhoff-huge overseas, she can't open an envelope.
"But the studios give her the money. She's going to make $20 mil for a film that'll be lucky to gross half that. A Civil Action, a movie with an all-star cast, a lot of critical kudos, and a best-selling book behind it, had a bitch of a time finding an audience. She's making this much cash because the producers know they're gonna have an uphill battle finding an audience. They need a name. Any name. Forget the female vs. male salary issue. Hollywood is all perception. A star could be strung out of their minds, but if the movie hits, I want what he's having. It is virtually impossible to find anyone who can open a film, much less a female star. There's a handful of stars whose drawing power warrants this much cash, and they're all male. It's sad, but guys want to see guys on screen, and girls want to see guys on screen (Generalization Alert). Julia's had two out-of-this-world hits, only one since becoming a star."

E ME: Now it's your turn to pick a side, any side.