Thursday, 24 February 2000

MEA CULPA MAXIMUS: Before I get started with anything new, let's fix a couple of mistakes I made in Tuesday's column. First, Ethan Embry is not in Boiler Room. Thomas Everett Scott is. Beyond all jokes about whether they are the same person, my apologies to both.

Next, a more serious matter. In all my love for Erin Brockovich (I'm going back tonight to see it again and to hopefully confirm my sanity), I forgot to mention the screenwriter, Susannah Grant. She is a young writer who received a Nicholl Fellowship in Screenwriting from the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences back in 1992. (Ironically enough, Universal repeats my error by not mentioning Ms. Grant on their temporary E.B. Website. We should both be embarrassed.) Rumor has it that the great Richard LaGravenese did a polish on the script as well. Great job by both. I do remember at one moment thinking, "Oops, I need to include the writer here." But I think I got distracted trying to make sure that LaGravenese was the script doctor and somehow shipped off the button without adding them. Shame on me and shame on any of us who praise directors or movie stars or producers without remembering how important screenwriters are.

And finally, I didn't credit Miramax with 2 Oscar® wins yesterday because someone had sent me a note about the whole thing and I didn't double-check. Duh. They won for The English Patient and for Shakespeare in Love. My apologies to everyone, especially Anthony Minghella, who did get screwed this year, in my humble opinion.

GOSSIPS: Mitchell Fink of the New York Daily News had a couple items that struck me earlier this week. First, there was Lauren Holly, asked about Jim Carrey's lack of an Oscar nomination for Man on the Moon, saying, "I haven't seen it. It's not even fair that I'm asked about Jim. I don't want to go there." Earth to Holly: Your marriage to Jim Carrey is the only reason anyone is asking you anything at this point. Next came the news that Tom Cruise is officially not campaigning for Oscar. Pat Kingsley told Fink, "Tom is not going to do anything in addition to what he's already done to promote Magnolia. He's done it. Anything more might be perceived as campaigning, and that he doesn't want to do." Interesting. And kind of a shame. It would be nice to see Cruise open up a little before he saves someone's life in a line for the Mission: Impossible 2 premiere and modestly declines to talk about it. Fink's personal assessment of Magnolia and New Line, I object to, however. He wrote about Cruise's Oscar nod, "(I)t means having to spend money to advertise the picture all over again. And in the case of 'Magnolia,' that is indeed a bitter pill for New Line to swallow, considering how badly the film tanked at the box office. It has brought in a shade over $20 million since its nationwide release in December." I have some problems with Magnolia and I still feel that P.T. Anderson could have helped himself with a significant cut for length, but the truth of Magnolia is that part of the reason the film "tanked" as badly as it did is that New Line didn't really support it full out after it was released. The film did quite well in its first three weeks of extremely limited release, did pretty well in its first wide week (1034 screens), held up pretty well for the next four weeks and then dropped screens by the ton in the weeks since. No wonder it dropped out. There is probably some money to get out of this film now that it has 3 Oscar nominations and a slew of other nods. Of course, Fink is right that Cruise could improve this picture exponentially if he would just do some promotion.

NOT SO FAST, MR. OVITZ: William Daniels seems to be getting a bit more comfortable in his presidential chair at SAG these days. After the Agents League of America (actually, the ATA) announced that SAG would be moving forward with plans to equalize the playing field for agents vs. managers, Daniels, on advice from many, said, "Whoa doggy" and decided to talk to some of the power players in the union about their points of view. According to Variety, the group that got together included Warren Beatty, Robert Culp, Holly Hunter, Charlton Heston, Rod Steiger, Jon Voight and Alfre Woodard. (Wow! That's a hell of a cocktail party!) And apparently, the meeting didn't end with any real conclusions.

However, the reality is that at some point, SAG and everyone else in town is either going to have to restrain the managers or loosen up the agents. Anyone who is remotely objective can see that the managers have blurred the lines beyond any recognition, including Mike Ovitz, but really led by Brad Grey, who is now blurring the line for producers too with some of his cross-promotional relationships that border on consumer abuse. (Not that we're not all headed in that direction via interactive TV anyway.) A big part of me screams that managers should be forced to choose, just as agents have been forced to choose for years, "do you want to be a talent handler or a producer?" I know that you are all responsible for everything and that if you didn't do everything for your clients, they would never work again. But make a choice. The other part of me sees an entire world, outside of Hollywood and in, breaking down barriers and merging to within an inch of sanity. So why should managers and agents be so restrained? But the fence sitting does have to end. Pick a side.

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON OVER AT SONY?: You know, people like to buzz about movies at Sony that have gone wrong. I know, I got on their case about Stuart Little coming in at near $100 million and the impossibility of its success. And they made it work. They deserve congratulations and I'm sure that the next time around, the cost will be under $50 million and that the movie will make mega-profits. But today, I'm a bit more worried about the things that haven't happened over there. First there was the Bond debacle. They haven't been able to get Men In Black II in production yet. Where's Spider-Man? Where's Memoirs of a Geisha? Where's Black Panther? Where are sequels to Air Force One, Anaconda, Bad Boys, Cliffhanger, The Craft or Zorro? And now, word comes that Ken Ralston has left Jumanji 2 while in pre-production. What is up with that?!?! They are telling people it's a happy split, but something is really wrong for an effects guy to be giving up his directing debut so late in the game. If the script isn't ready, something was already wrong and the studio should have either fixed it or not moved forward so aggressively. Thing is, none of these projects can be said to have lingered because of quality concerns, given some of the scripts that have been produced by Sony lately. Something isn't working over there.

GOOD NEWS AT SONY: After the project's sat around for about 7 years at Sony, they finally have the right director/star combo to make the Muhammad Ali biopic happen. Michael Mann is the perfect director for the film, less likely than most to oversentimentalize than almost any filmmaker out there. And Will Smith is about the only actor who can fit the bill. It took forever, but they got it right. So maybe there is hope.

READER OF THE DAY: Jeff on Jodie: "Hi there, I was just wondering about the news article I saw today from Variety about Jodie Foster appearing in a supporting part in The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys which will happen before shooting on Flora Plum. Granted, it's a supporting part and not a lead, but it bugs me because it seems to be a dis to the Hannibal crew- squeezing in an extra movie at the same time Claire Danes is supposedly out of school in order to act. If Jodie had wanted, she could have done Hannibal and Flora Plum in rapid succession. Instead, she's taking on extra work. It just bugs me because I wanted Hannibal to be as good as possible, and while I respect Jodie's artistic aspirations, I also feel that she owes a little something to the franchise and the fans who gave her a big hit."

And this from Chris: "Some late comments on the nominations...I really think that Matt Damon, not Jim Carrey, is the one that got gypped. Matt Damon's performance was probably the best I saw all year. In fact I think that The Talented Mr. Ripley got a raw deal overall. Five nominations isn't bad...but it didn't get any of the really big ones.

As for The Green Mile...I just don't get it. I did not like this film. I thought it was overly sentimental and I thought the characters were very flat. Obviously there are lots of people who really do love it but I'm still shocked that it was able to garner a Best Picture nomination without any support from a major acting category and without a nod for the director.

1999 was a fantastic year for movies, the best since 1994 in my mind. 1994 gave us three amazing films nominated for Best Picture...The Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show and Pulp Fiction. And they all lost to the mediocre Forrest Gump. Hopefully the mediocre films will not walk away with the statues this year. I'm pulling for American Beauty and The Insider, the two nominated films that are most deserving of the awards. As for the deserving films that were left un-nominated...The Talented Mr. Ripley, Eyes Wide Shut, Fight Club and The Straight Story. And there should be a special award for Go just because it was so much da** fun."

E ME: Should agents be freed or managers be restrained?