Tuesday, 24 October 2000

BEATING A DEAD COW: You've probably read about some of the big lawsuits over the years regarding actors who bailed out on projects and caused financial problems. The most famous was Kim Basinger dumping the movie Boxing Helena. It's a very strange deal, since very few deals actually get signed on paper before a movie starts shooting. So, everyone is subject to the vagaries of oral agreements. But with a star like Kim Basinger, you can get financing for an indie, no problem. Without her, you may be in trouble. And now, Vince Offer, producer/writer/director of The Underground Comedy Movie, is putting Anna Nicole Smith in that category. Wow! Quite a compliment for a seemingly psychotic, drug-addled professional naked person whose biggest claim to fame is her effort to screw (literally) an old billionaire out of half his money a few months before his death. Offer replaced Smith with Gena Lee Nolin, who would seem to be an equal name to Smith's and the film even got the surprise benefit of an Oscar® nod for Michael Clarke Duncan. But here is Offer, suing Anna Nicole Smith for pulling out. (Or is it for not giving him a chance to?) The theory is that he is hoping that she will pay him off, not wanting any more complications as she fights for the dead man's wallet with his family. But what a bizarre legal proceeding. I can only imagine what the damages are based on...failure to have the opportunity to see Ms. Smith naked and drooling on set...failure to end up in a sexual situation with Ms. Smith without her awareness...failure to entice investors with the prospect of sex with Ms. Smith even though she had no intention of engaging in such activities. The one thing he can't remotely suggest is that the film would have made more money without her in the movie.

LEO GETS SPANKED: England's Guardian and Observer have become one of America's film business watcher's favorite places to check up on the latest gossip. And so, here is a story from their Website, that would be pretty iffy for this column, except for the fact that it seem to have a happy ending. The story is that Leo DiCaprio has been so busy finding new ways to wear himself out with girlfriend/model Gisele Bundchen, that he was arriving to Scorsese's Gangs of New York set not quite ready for work. According to this report, Scorsese's response, after putting up with DiCaprio's late arrivals in bad shape for a while, was a public shredding, in front of cast and crew. Cool. Another reason to love Scorsese. Word is that DiCaprio has returned to the straight and narrow, finding a workable schedule for the curves...of Ms. Bundchen. (The story Is here.)

GENERAL ERECT-RIC: Perhaps prompted by the Scooby Doo story last week (AVN Awards, here I come!), I was sent a fascinating article from The New York Times on the porn business and its rather clear connections to the major corporations. As ever, you can only read it if you've signed up for your free New York Times online subscription. If you have click here.

THE WAH! BEFORE THE MOVIE BEGINS: A terrific bit of reporting by Inside.com's newest addition, Andrew Hindes, who seems to be the first to get the story that Cinemark will not be running trailers for R-rated movies before PG-13 rated movies of any kind. Some theater chains already refuse to run trailers for R-rated movies before PG-13 movies that are aimed towards a younger audience...you may have heard of this, it's called taking responsibility without a constitutionally unacceptable gun to your head. But Cinemark and the studios it deals with and adults who go to see PG-13 rated movies are clearly the latest victims of the WAH! (War Against Hollywood!) Hindes does an excellent job of getting to the underlying point of the story -- if studios can't use trailers for R-rated movies before more popular PG-13 rated movies, how much does this emasculate one of their key marketing tools and how does this ripple through the entire marketing system? How much more pressure will there be to make adult themes movies into exercises in cutting for a PG-13? How much pressure will there be on the MPAA to continue to expand the boundaries of the PG-13? And doesn't anyone care about building a ratings system that actually works for ALL filmmakers and not just for the safest fare? Gore and Lieberman clearly do not. Nor do Republican politicians. And slowly we slip into the abyss, screaming that we want more challenging films, but forcing filmmakers to either cut back to a PG-13 or to go completely wild to get attention with an R or screaming at people like David Fincher when "we" feel he's gone too far...the whole thing just gets worse and worse. (The Inside.com story is here.)

READER OF THE DAY: Not Walter, Dagmabit writes: "I sent a question to Mr. Ebert's Movie Answer Man yesterday, but I wake up today more determined to spread the word: the 'R' rating tries to ban children from seeing depictions of children who do not conform to the 'ideal.' Ebert asked why Almost Famous and Billy Elliot received restricted ratings. Obviously, even though William Miller rides the straight and narrow (save for the time he branches into three,) the character of Penny Lane abuses drugs and engages in a relationship NOT destined for the fairytale books. There is even a house party with drugs and alcohol thrown by TEENAGERS. Billy Elliot gets an 'R' for coarse language, but let us not forget that an issue in the film is the boy's sexuality, since he chooses ballet over boxing. He even has a gay best friend.

Do you think this doesn't factor into the MPAA decision making process?

Then why is Beautiful Thing rated 'R'? Number one MPAA warning: sexuality. Why is Get Real rated 'R'? It certainly has harsher suggestions of sex, so say one argues that it is necessary. Then why was even the movie's TRAILER, which depicted the two youths kissing, rated R? And why was Ma Vie en Rose rated 'R'? The MPAA claims 'brief coarse language.' Some character swears a bit in a foreign language once in the whole movie and that gives it an 'R' rating? Puh-leez. Try: young boy chooses to dress as a girl and has a crush on another boy.

Each one of these movies holds great lessons AND entertainment for an audience comprised of the lead character's peers. But because all deal with real-life issues the MPAA deems too sticky, they get saddled with an 'R' rating. My cousins do give their children permission to see certain 'R' films, and will often accompany them to the theater. That is good. But this is what the MPAA figures, I believe: Consider what would happen if a teen saw a PG-13 movie about two teenage boys in love, and went home to tell his/her mother about the show? Oooh, God forbid. I think these are good movies for school viewing. Consider the ruckus if I were a teacher who chose to screen one of these films in high school, and I was required to draft a plea for a parent signature stating that the child will watch a rated-R movie dealing with 'cross-dressing' and 'same sex preference.' (I would not need to ask for parental signature if the film was rated PG-13.) The MPAA is certainly rating these films on basis of political stigma rather than the lame bean counting of coarse language.

Sorry--this was going to be a short rant that I hoped you would address a bit, or research a bit. Now, you should probably ship it off to Civilian Voices. I am still interested in hearing what you and Ebert feel about this, because these movies' audiences are already endangered due to their inappropriate 'R' ratings, and will be even MORE so with the whole WAH! advertising battle. Are these movies we really want to keep teenagers from knowing about?

BTW, I have a great Hollywood costume. I'll be an MPAA rating, with a T-shirt stating: Rated R for sexual situations, drug use and profanity. Under 17 not admitted, unless really sexy. Sneak in! Damn, I'll be banned on the spot for target advertising, hehehe."

DAVID RESPONDS: I do not share Roger's concerns that Almost Famous or Billy Elliot are mis-rated. While both films have sweet spirits, Almost Famous has plenty of "adult content" and Billy Elliot has a whole lot of "f**ks." I don't think that the MPAA is disingenuous in this regard and I believe that there is nothing wrong with comprehendible boundaries for ratings. What I worry about more are the blurry lines. The MPAA, though they'll never admit it, negotiate details around ratings all the time. "If you cut this, you can keep this." Well, if the line is that malleable, then the system is flawed beyond respectability. And no doubt, there is an inherent bias against independent and non-English films when it comes to judgment. Anything in a language other than English is obviously "serious." There are worse censorship mechanisms in the world...lots of them. But what is so galling about the MPAA is the representation that the system works one way when, in reality, everyone who ever has anything to do with the ratings system, knows that there a personal, biased, political, arbitrary decisions made every day. And the MPAA doesn't pay the price for that. First, the organization footing the bill pays. Then, the filmmaker. Then, the audience. And finally, people who don't even know what's going on there, because they are missing the glory that free speech can bring (and the crap, to be fair) without even knowing what they were missing.

E ME: What happier news am I forgetting to write about?