Thursday, 25 March 1999

TICK, TICK, TICK: MGM hired an investment banker named Ken McCormick to, according to their press release, "help the studio find distribution partners." Uh-huh. They swear up and down that he's not going to be selling the studio (or parts of it) off. This is actually possible, as the now massive film and television library is incredibly valuable and almost nothing else at the studio is. As studio CEO Frank Mancuso said in the press release, "We seek to identify new and meaningful alternatives." Like reducing feature output to six films a year, plus a bi-annual Bond. Commerce, Arts, Commerce.

STAR POWER: The premiere of Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace is now officially set not to be set. As reported in this column on March 11 (THB 3/11), LucasFilm has decided to forgo the glitter of Hollywood and use the film's cache to generate millions for charity. Twelve cities will have charity premieres with tickets starting at $500. Los Angeles' charity is the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.

OBSERVE THIS: As I so often do, I want to focus your attention in the direction of The New York Observer. Frank DiGiacomo offers one of the saner pieces on Miramax and Oscarmania. And read the great Andrew Sarris on EDtv, True Crime and Forces of Nature. I apologize for not having enough time lately to read everything out there to find the best (and the worst) stuff for you. But if you have suggestions for me, they are always appreciated.

BACK AT YA: On Tuesday (THB 03/23), I questioned New Line's apparently soon-to-be completed deal to pick up Kevin Costner's Cuban Missile Crisis project 13 Days, with Francis Ford Coppola currently attached to direct. Tuesday night, I heard from New Line's Michael De Luca, whom I already respected quite a bit as studio head, particularly because of how he takes care of up-and-coming directors (the wacky Tony Kaye notwithstanding). He took the time (and showed the humility) to give some perspective on his decision for all of our benefits. As much as I feel like a name dropper printing it, this is a rare opportunity for all of us to see inside the process. So here goes:

STUDIO HEAD OF THE DAY: From Mike: "I don't look at the lack of awards we receive each year and let that determine how we pick movies. I try to identify fresh material and budget accordingly, depending on the risk factor. As long as I have Rush Hour, Blade, The Wedding Singer, and the like in the pipeline, I feel like I can take a few risks with things like Boogie Nights, Wag the Dog, or the films we had this fall, like (American History) X and Living Out Loud. I feel that it's essential for our company to keep taking risks with first-time directors and provocative material, because we don't traditionally play the big star game. (Pleasantville, by the way, will be profitable).

"13 Days is another wonderful script that I feel fulfills a yearning in this country for any revisiting of nostalgic heroism (Caryn James mentioned this in her NY Times year-end wrap up of the best in TV, citing "From the Earth to the Moon") in the impeachment/disgust era we now live in. A gamble, sure, but what isn't? I try to look for the reasons why something might be worth the risk. The bottom line is I only have my taste and my instinct to go by. I could never let whether we win any awards influence what kind of material moves me. I usually go by what I feel is marketable and what the quality of the material is. God knows I've been wrong. Really wrong. But so far it's worked more than it hasn't.

"Seven and Austin Powers were real question marks when they were in post, mostly thanks to low test scores, but we knew we had special films there. I felt the same way about X and Living Out Loud. Sometimes I'm right, and sometimes I miss it, but that's what keeps it exciting. Marrying creative enthusiasm with commercial considerations with any consistency is the goal of any studio head. I'm still working at it but it's the best job in the world."

BACK TO THE COLUMN: Given that there is almost no news on Planet Movie, other than daily deal making and production, I'm going to give the rest of this space to the last (I suspect) Oscar® letters of the season. Tomorrow, things should be back to normal, including a story about how Cruel Intentions changed my life. But before the Oscar letters, a couple of letters on reading screenplays before seeing the movie.

READERS OF THE DAY: From Bilge: "The problem with people reading scripts before seeing the film is that, it seems to me, these days everybody is an aspiring filmmaker. The way every 13-year-old once wanted his own band, these days every 15-40 year old is working on a script, reading about grosses, walking out of The Thin Red Line, ranting about plot points, etc. So, people feel that by reading the scripts, somehow they're in the know and privy to information that the great unwashed don't have access to. Silly, silly. I find myself guilty of this sometimes. I read the screenplays to Casino and Saving Private Ryan before they came out. I found that my knowledge interfered with my enjoyment of Casino (which I later watched again -- I think it's an overlooked masterpiece) and, ironically, my knowledge of SPR allowed me to appreciate Spielberg's direction better. He made that film about something -- the script was extremely humdrum and pointless.

"On the other hand, I also read the script for The Thin Red Line, which is so vastly different from the film it's ridiculous. It happens to be the only screenplay I've ever read that I would put up as a work of literature -- it's incredible. I loved the film, as well, but knowing the script (although I'd pretty much forgotten it by the time I saw the film) allowed me to understand some things about it that confused others. Many of the criticisms levelled at the film asked for elements that were actually in the script. So one could see that the removal of historical specificity from the final film was a conscious artistic choice, not a dumb oversight. So, I guess I'm torn. Sometimes, knowing the screenplay can help. But on the other hand, one has to respect a director's intentions. You're depriving the director of his/her most important function by reading a script beforehand -- you're 'seeing' the film before it's directed. How's that for messing with the auteur theory?"

And from Moriarty of AICN, this POV: "Why do we read scripts ahead of time? Well, I can't answer that for anyone but myself. Even knowing Harry as well as I do, I can't answer for him. I know that for me, it goes back a long way to when I was kid living in Florida. It felt like I was on a different planet than Hollywood, and when details would leak about movies I was interested in, it was like getting a sip of ice water in the middle of a desert. When I finally moved to LA and started finding myself in the position to get my hands on a few scripts, I devoured them. Over time, though, I realized something. I really like the separate experience of reading a script. I write myself, and I frequently see something done well in a script, a technique or a way of handling something, that I've never seen before. More than that, though... I love the movies I play in my mind before I see the film. I don't make the mistake of comparing them, either, because the film someone else makes will ALWAYS lose. I just cherish the ability to have the experience the way I like it. That's just me, of course. 'Moriarty' out."

And now, Oscar stuff, starting with Robin: "If I were more paranoiac than I am, I'd be looking and listening to a raft of true weirdness lurking underneath the merely kooky stuff already commented on such as:

"1. The failure of Heche's mic during her narrative on the... hmm... technical awards.

"2. "That she repeated her lines -- with the same inflections and gestures -- WORD FOR WORD once she got to the podium.

"3. That no one has commented on the layers of Jim Carrey's meta-comedy -- the sublimity of his audaciousness in coming onstage and telling the truth (he was robbed) and letting everyone laugh at it. I'm reminded of something my old math professor once said, "Everyone at court laughs when the king and queen laugh, but only the jester really knows what's funny." To me, Carrey's fake tears were more poignant than the real ones sparkling on Paltrow's cheeks. And, in my opinion, Paltrow is more neo-Princess Grace than 'Little Gloria.'

"4. Whoopie's high-point -- her impromptu valedictory of Gene Siskel -- with a subtext that hinted that a large measure of the success of independent movies was spurred on by his and Roger Ebert's championing them for years before Miramax had the Disney money to promote itself -- her Statue of Liberty thumbs-up more than made up for her disco-drag.

"5. All the people dumping on Benigni should hark back to when Robin Williams hosted the Oscars -- now, THAT was hyper! (although I really loved his Sylvester Stallone Hamlet, 'Tuh be, or whut??', years before Dead Poets -- the true start of Shakespeare becoming accessible to the masses, and Robin Williams being accepted as an actor). [PS: I agree with you that Benigni's Night on Earth performance was great, but then again, so was he great in Down by Law. "I kill-ed a man" -- what a glorious line.]

"6. re: Kazan -- it probably put a kink in Marty's credibility to have to hug the guy, but he can make up for it by doing a blacklist montage of great directors and performers (and writers) for the Oscar 2000. If they can redeem Kazan via his art, they should do the same for all those whose careers were cut short by Kazan's and others' speaking out."

From Brigitta: "Hey, I read your remarks about the e-mail you received, and for whatever it's worth, I think Roberto and Gwyneth deserved their awards -- as much as any of the others would have if they had won it. I know that sounds weenie, but after all, if your performance got an Oscar nomination, it certainly deserves to win it. Think about it, of all of the thousands of performances every year, these are the five that are voted the best! As the cliché goes, there were no losers, all were winners. Just because my personal favorites didn't win, that's no reason to be catty or petty about it. And I agree that I thought Whoopie did a good job as host. (I suppose it's easier to be spiteful than open-minded.)"

From Australia Dave: "Maybe you were right about The Thin Red Line. It ages well in my mind. I'll give ya that one. Anyway, I saw the Oscars in Australia. I'll be brief: as expected, Whoopi told jokes that weren't funny six months ago (when did liberals become so uncool?)... sweet Gwyneth chopped onions on stage and made the night seem like Senior Prom (she should be smacked like that hysterical woman from Airplane or Cate Blanchett should have dumped pig's blood on her from above )... look for Val Kilmer to have a lifetime supply of Trigger-brand glue this spring... Chris Rock gets off the night's funniest one liner (to Whoopi: 'Thanks, Oprah') and then calls Kazan a 'rat' (showing more balls than losers Nolte or Harris)... Warren Beatty and Kurt Russell display how much better they are than the rat... a very deserving James Coburn brings his hot granddaughter to the show (right?)... Honorary doctor Robin Williams took up more time presenting an award than the winner gets to speak (When is he going to realize that his ad-libs sound ad-libbed?)... Sir Harvey officially brought an end to his little independent studio, making it a full-blown monster machine with his little purchase (and making it down right unlikable!)... and a whole group of people who stood next to a politician who does a good professional job but was a crappy person, arrogantly shunned a pitiful person who made several classic movies. Slip away, indeed. At least is wasn't boring, David."

Mod Rod: "I object to the reader earlier this week who referred to Roberto's jubilant display at the Oscars as 'Euro-dork' schtick. As I see it -- and a true cynic like himself cannot -- that was happiness, joy and a zest for life. I wish I could feel the same. I, for one, find his actions infectious and inspiring. P.S. I saw The Mod Squad last night. Surprisingly good."

---

E ME: It's time for us all to go back to the movies. Let's try a light topic for a day or two. Like, what's your favorite concession item (whether your waistline allows you to indulge or not) and why?