Thursday, 13 January 2000

HEAVY SITS THE CROWN: The L.A. Times broke a story on Wednesday that Joe Roth would soon be quitting his job as live-action production chief at Disney. In what is becoming a theme this week, the story brings up the issue of whether it's real or if it's pub-o-rex. And my questions stem mostly from what's missing from the story, not what's in the story. First, the placement of the story in the L.A. Times is a bit odd. It should have been on the Business section cover, but probably came in too late to make the section. So the Times put a small box on the front page and buried the story on page 19. Thus, I assume that Claudia Eller, the reporter, probably got a call on the story relatively late yesterday. That says to me - and mind you, this is speculative - that the decision was the result of a meeting late yesterday afternoon. It also says to me that Roth wanted the story to break immediately or he could have waited until daylight Wednesday and gotten across-the-industry-media-outlets coverage on Thursday.

What would I speculate happened in that meeting? Well, that's one of the real odd things about Claudia's piece. She's a thorough reporter, so I don't think it was a fluke, but Michael Eisner said just days ago that he was going to cut Roth's live-action budget by $100 million per annum as a cost-cutting move while leaving animation intact. For a guy on the edge, wouldn't that be enough to push you over when you just had a decent year with two $200 million movies? But that's not mentioned. What is mentioned is animation dude Peter Schneider's ascension despite no live-action experience. What is mentioned is how great Joe Roth is. What is mentioned is a perceived slap in the face to Roth in 1998's shareholder's letter.

So here's the question, made even more pertinent with Wall Street's perception that Disney is in play after the AOLTW merger/acquisition: Is this a cry for power or a real exit strategy? If Roth does leave, Disney's value likely goes down in a big way because a division that has been troubled becomes immediately perceived as a black hole, and Yahoo! or AT&T get a bargain for the dollar. Right now, Roth is the Sword of Damocles over Eisner's head. And Roth is not, according to many, above holding Eisner a Wall St. hostage. Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe Roth is just plain quitting and there will be interviews with him and Eisner that run this morning confirming that. But it could not come at a worse moment for Disney, and Roth has to know that. Perhaps this is punishment of Eisner by Roth coming from years of bitterness. Or maybe it's his way of saying, "Hands off my budget, save a buck on your f---ing parks and let me do my job or my exit will bury you!"

AND A NEW CROWN OWNER DEBUTS: I'll say this much for A.O. Scott and his first review for The New York Times...not many people would spend nearly 900 words on My Dog Skip. One rumor about Janet Maslin's exit from the Times was that she was writing too long. I don't know if it's true, but in his first time up to bat, Mr. Scott makes my writing style seem economical, and that ain't easy. I also have to wonder where Elvis Mitchell is. He has yet to review a movie, ceding two reviews this weekend to Lawrence Van Gelder, who given a three-man rotation, should never be needed to fill in again (no reflection on his work intended.) Could it be that Elvis was unwilling to start his New York Times career with a review of a hood-spliotation sequel (Next Friday) or a movie about a dead Jewish hero (The Life & Times of Hank Greenberg?) Maybe he's waiting for Supernova. Actually, I'm looking forward to reading some of Elvis' spicy commentary and, as I will with Scott, I will try to give him some time to settle in before firing up the barbecue. Of course, it would help if he started writing.

JUST WONDERING: Who does Angie Everhart's publicist think she is fooling by promoting the lie that her breasts are real and not enhanced. After a while in L.A., you become knowledgeable about bag jobs. She has a good breast job, but there is zero doubt...not her own. So what is this doing in a movie column? Well, they were on cable last night in a feature film. (Rationalization is my life!)

SPEAKING OF PORN STARS: Australia has decided not to grant an Iranian actress their version of asylum after she claimed to an Aussie court that her life was in danger because she appeared in Iranian X-rated movies. The woman, Fatemeh Moradgholi, has been trying to get asylum in Australia for 16 months, after her home in Iran was raided and her X-rated work was seized. The Aussie tribunal said that Moradgholi wasn't in any more danger than any other Iranian. But here's the kicker. In these X-rated movies...to quote Reuters..."she took off her outer clothes but kept her undergarments on, and did not touch and was not touched by anyone." Now that's kinky! The average Aussie teen has probably done more than that on the public beach in front of the lifeguard. Maybe with the lifeguard. If she fears for her life, Angie Everhart is in big, big trouble!

"Soderbergh Info, My Top Five Books & Readers Cast Ocean's 11?"