Thursday, 8 July 1999

ALL THE NEWS, FIT OR NOT: Once again, The New York Times has been played for a sucker by a studio. Maybe this is Bernie Weinraub's revenge on his editors, who very publicly moved him to the TV beat months ago to avoid a conflict with his wife (Amy Pascal of Sony), and have kept him writing movie stories ever since. DreamWorks very clearly placed an ad, I , uh, mean story with Weinraub for American Beauty in last week's paper (I'd link for you, but I can't.) Weinraub's article claimed that the film was the most talked about film in Hollywood. Bzzt! I guess if it was really so talked about, he could have gotten a quote, even a background quote, from someone who was not involved in the project. No such luck. For "confirmation," our intrepid reporter from The New York Times (The New York FREAKING Times!) quoted an anonymous review from a San Francisco test screening. What a steaming load of excrement! Of course, I also forgot to write about my own spin on why DreamWorks placed the story. Some are saying that it's because they are so high on the film. Yeah right. Can you say "diversionary tactic?"

Yes, Steven & Co. learned from their buddy, President Slick Willie Clinton, who will soon be explaining his NY/Washington separation from his wife as having "not separated from that woman (wag, wag)." The end of the DreamWorks studio is a much bigger story here in L.A. than anywhere else, but we have suffered four years of whining, fighting, pleading and in-fighting just so the boys could decide that their $200 million loan ($200 million? They each have bigger checking account balances!) didn't have the right terms. But was Bernie Weinraub talking about (A) the deal hitting the skids and what that really means for the studio, or (B) about a movie that's not opening until October, that is going to be a bitch to sell with no box office draw stars in it, and the false hope of Oscars that is proven by a non-holiday release date? (B)." At least the L.A. Times is intentionally misleading, and everyone knows that they will eat at the trough of the industry. The New York Times has long had a history of hiring a lot of low-end freelancers for movie features, but Bernie Weinraub knows better and has become quite unreliable this year, from the Adrien Brody feature, to mistakes in his Sundance reporting, to this. I'd really love to know who Bernie thinks wrote the "review" on the Internet Movie Database. If that thing wasn't written by a DreamWorks or other American Beauty-associated publicist than this piece was.

DREAMWORKS THEORIES CONTINUED: The current rage is the idea that DreamWorks will team with Universal. The only problem there is that it's an old story that didn't make sense six months ago, so why will it make sense now? However, I would say that a deal like that is DreamWorks' best chance to stay together. The eternal question must be: What's in it for Steven? Taking over Universal would give Katzenberg & Geffen a lot more to do, but what's the upside for the one guy who can deliver an audience on his own? The reason the trio started DreamWorks was, it seems, to do things the way they wanted to do them. Smaller slates, more democratic publicity, idiosyncratic films. Taking Universal over would mean bigger slates, bigger budgets, bigger publicity and Edgar Bronfman Jr. looking over their shoulder. What's the upside?

DOWNSIZING @ MGM/UA FORMER STUDIO: As Chris McGurk was making another smart move to get MGM out of the studio business and into its new form as a production company/film library powerhouse/Bond Film maker, he made a point of telling the L.A. Times that MGM was not shifting away from doing its own marketing & distribution. That may be true on some level, but they are shifting away from making any movies on their own, so what will they market? And the deal they just struck, to co-produce a few films a year with Miramax, gives a good look at where all this is going. The two companies will share projects in the $25 million range. In other words, almost no downside for MGM or Miramax. Neither side will have to, in theory, invest more than $30 million total in production and P&A. Neither side will take a loss given the ancillary value of films that have had a studio release, regardless of success or quality. And there is tons of upside One big hit could pay for the entire cost of the eight-picture-long deal. Clearly, Miramax's marketing department is on the highest level (when it chooses to be) while MGM has a hard time opening any movie that doesn't have naked women swinging from guns in the titles. After already announcing that UA will be made into an arthouse arm with budgets likely to be under $15 million, we are well on the way to an MGM/UA annual slate of 15 pictures with a total cost of under $500 million to the "studio" in total, with one of them being a $150 million Bond movie. That's less than what Fox spends at Fox 2000 alone. Cha-ching, yes. But a "major studio?" No.

"THE ELIZABETHAN ERA": Speaking of Miramax, Shannon Elizabeth, who bares most in American Pie, is in this month's Playboy Magazine. So where does this fit into Harvey Weinstein's game plan? Hmmm. Producer...Babe Hound... Babe Hound...Producer. Gee, hard to figure why a studio that makes art films would need a three-picture deal when taking off her clothes is likely her greatest skill. Don't get me wrong. She's GREAT at that. And I'm sure she's a wonderful person. But while you might think Harvey is the sucker for doing this deal, I bet he's hoping that it's the other way around.

JUST WONDERING: Does this analysis make me a misogynist? Or am I a misweinraubist too?

MOUTH CLOSED SHUT: Pssst. The first screening of Eyes Wide Shut is this Thursday. I won't be there. The second screening of Eyes Wide Shut is on Saturday. I won't be there either. The trades, a number of major publications and one Internet scribe will print their reviews on Monday. I still will not have seen the movie. That's all I'm going to say on this subject until next week. Next button.

PAGE TWO: "Un-site-ly Mess, The Gods Of Indecisiveness And Mediocrity Overwhelms Failure"