Sundance - Day Two

The story of Day One at Sundance?

Nesting.

There is already a sense that this year in Park City is going to be a bit blase. Harvey Weinstein's medical condition seems to be generating more buzz than any of the movies. Of course, to me, that is a blessing in disguise. Because the more this is a festival where any movie could be "the one," the more it's about movies and not publicists. (The word from a few who saw the festival's opener, What's Cooking, was…well, blase.)

Of course, no matter what you do, it's still like Satan's high school reunion, where you are forced to face the concentric rings of movie hell with nothing more than a parka and a cell phone as protection. I've spent some time lately in pointed discussions about my coverage of the Man on the Moon marketing problems. (Oddly enough, I really wish that the film had done better…two years' work written off completely in less than a month…I love this business!) So, who do I end up sitting with? Sharon Waxman, who wrote a major piece on Man and marketing for the Washington Post and Jeff Wells, who broke the phony poster story for Reel.com.

Alfre Woodard sat in a seat in which I could stare at her for the entire trip. I restrained myself. But there is something about a great actor that makes me just want to stare at them until I can see the light within. But that's the kind of thing that gets you taken off a plane by security. (Hmmm…an unintended Harvey Weinstein analogy…do you feel a theme coming on?)

The rental car company gave me a free upgrade to one of those SUVs that I bitch about daily in L.A. Here, it's a good thing to have. Unfortunately, there's barely a flake of snow on the ground. When the airline pilot announced that it was 50 degrees in Salt Lake City, I suddenly realized that all my sweaters were going to sit in the closet. And coming into Park City without the snow was a bit weird. I've never seen the ground here before. It's kind of like going to Maui and getting no sun. (Oops! That was last week's story.)

I did a live Yahoo! chat with Anthony Minghella, who just arrived back in L.A. in time for The Golden Globes this weekend. His first question to me, "Why are you doing a chat with me while you're at Sundance?" Good question. Fortunately, Minghella has become one of my favorite interviewees this year. A truly gentle man and obviously, smart as hell. His best exchange? When someone asked whether he was worried about being typed as a gay director because of Ripley, his answer was, "Why would that be a bad thing?" Unflinching. And by the way, he says that he last heard that Harvey was recovering nicely.

We snapped up the only chance to eat at the Riverhorse without a reservation. A good choice. The meat was better than I've had in L.A. in eons. Who sits directly opposite me at the next table? Stacey Sher, a producer of, what else, Man on the Moon. Who is seated behind me? Ian Holm, from Joe Gould's Secret, who only a few days ago was the focus of an intense pitch from a publicist friend. But that's not all.

From the Riverhorse to the Albertson's, the real hotbed of the early days of Sundance. Who's there? Kevin Smith, who was the subject of conversation in this column because of his views on Magnolia, expressed on his View Askew Website and the coarse reaction to his coarse comments. And though I decided not to strike up a conversation, the member of my posse (ha ha) who did was assured that Harvey Weinstein did not, in fact, have a heart attack which is being covered up.

Me? I paid for my groceries and came to my home away from home, whistling "It's A Small World" and getting ready to actually see some movies tomorrow. Hallelujah.

ROTDs Aplenty

A Pagan wrote about Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her: "I saw a test-screen in Santa Monica awhile ago...liked some parts, but not really the whole. It really doesn't tie together well. Liked the Kathy Baker and Holly Hunter segments best. Was tired by the last, which you say you responded to the best. Cameron Diaz wasn't recognizable at first (again). I like that about her.

Not necessarily a 'chick flick' thing, as my girlfriend seemed to enjoy it less than I...she was bored. But then, she's not a big film buff, either. True, this will play better to more women than men. Like the title...it's appropriate, as there ARE a lot of things you can tell just by looking at these characters... Liked little Mickey from "Seinfeld" in a romantic lead role."

Toni writes in about American Psycho: "Having LOVED the book, I can hardly wait for the movie, but I have to say I completely approve of its NC-17 rating. It would have to be, given the nature of the subject matter. This rating will hopefully insure that children will not be allowed to view this picture, which they most certainly should not watch. It is completely depraved and not something that impressionable kids should be seeing. Now, on the other hand, maybe us adults shouldn't either...but a little depravity never hurt ...."

The Wilter wrote: "I'm a regular reader, but I couldn't even finish the column today because of those DAMN IRRITATING animated snowflakes on the right hand side of the page. They were incredibly distracting and I hope you don't intend to use them for the rest of your time at Sundance. I enjoy reading your column, but not when it irritates my eyes."

Chan The Man writes: "You're right about movies being subjective. So are comedy, books, fashion, almost everything. But back to movies. For an example, I would point out Run Lola Run. You had crowed about this movie for months. When I finally rented it, I was expecting something great. Instead I couldn't wait until it ended. I thought of it as annoying, pretentious, and depressing. Not worth the $3.00 at Blockbuster. It had some innovations to be sure (I liked the animation the most) but I just didn't care about the characters. I actually wished Lola would have died all three times and maybe had her voicebox cut before she started screaming again. On the other hand, Life is Beautiful, which you respected but didn't love, made me cry three times. I loved that movie because I actually felt something deep down inside. People could disagree with me but that's life."

E-Man sent this in on chick flicks: "At any rate, as far as chick things go, I don't think it's only 'women's movies' that are being woefully inadequate as far as portraying solid characters and a true representation of their subject matter. Almost every film lately that's supposed to represent a specific demographics 'experience' has fallen short. Although I avoided them both, I'm sure Next Friday doesn't truthfully capture the 'Black experience' any more then Body Shots captures the 'Gen-X experience' (and it had the audacity of promoting that it did.)

I don't know why so many filmmakers have such difficulty getting their subjects on film in a satisfying way. Maybe they are just biting off more then they can chew, or perhaps the studios are not giving the filmmakers who can capture those experiences the platform to do that. I'm sure you've seen many examples at places like Sundance and Telluride that we haven't due to lack of distribution. Don't get me wrong, we have the gems like Boys Don't Cry and Guinevere and Fight Club but those are the exception to the rule."

LJ slammed me with: "Chick flicks serve as a counterbalance to the plethora of di** flicks produced each year. They may help you understand women better, so don't dismiss them."

The Mind Boggers wrote: "Yes, unfortunately, films have become marginalized into 'chick flicks' and 'di** flicks.' I might be wrong but it seems to me back in the '40s, '50s, even '60s and '70s films appealed more across gender lines and audiences were more mixed. What happened? The rise of special effects and action flix obviously played a part in skewing pix more toward men. But it's still amazing to me that in this day and age when women have made so many strides in so many areas, virtually none of that is reflected on film.

If I could sneak in another topic. I just read an interview with Geoff Gilmore who said that they were offering digital projection to filmmakers with digital films but that only a handful of digital films were submittted. He was surprised. So am I. Where's this digital revolution we've heard too much about?"

---

E ME: Are you surprised that the digital wave hasn't hit the Sundance shore with all the might of the media frenzy? Do you like the snowflakes? Would you want to see hermaphrodite flicks (No JLC jokes, thank you)?