Thursday, 8 February 2001

DINO DUNDER: Poor Dino De Laurentiis. Not only did he forget that he might want to work with Jodie Foster again some day, but he announced to the world that he really didn't understand the character of Clarice Starling in his new film, Hannibal… or the age of Jodie Foster (38) or Julianne Moore (40). He told the press, "I have to be honest here. When I read the book, even before I started to think about who would be the director, I said, 'Jodie Foster, she's wrong for Starling here.' Because [the character is] more mature a woman, 10 years later. She's supposed to be near 40 years old, different job, full of sex appeal. I don't think Jodie Foster - she's a good actress - has all these qualities to play Starling." Goofball. Hannibal is not attracted to Clarice because she is sexy. He wants her brain and morality. And that's true whether you like the movie or not.

GODZILLA MEETS MOTHRA: Just when you thought it was safe to spend all your time worrying about Disney and AOL/Time-Warner… It's been talked about for a long time, but Rupert Murdoch's European-based Sky Global Network is about to merge with America's DirecTV and, along with it, gain control over 10 million TVs in the United States. And that number is growing. Like AOL/Time-Warner, News Corp (better known to most of you as Fox) will now have power at almost every level of the entertainment cycle… from production to distribution to exhibition to network television to cable television to the "wire" that brings their product – and the product of others – into a large percentage of homes worldwide. The one area that neither News Corp or AOL/Time-Warner or Disney, for that matter, do not control is video rental distribution and sales. The fourth major entertainment empire, Viacom, owns Blockbuster. But while Disney owns ABC and Viacom owns CBS, AOL/Time-Warner owns no broadcast network. Fox owns a broadcast network (Fox) and now the "wire," like AOL/Time –Warner. I know… it's all quite circular.

What does this mean to you at home? Well, the same fight that Disney had with Time-Warner over carriage of ABC on (then) Time-Warner cable outlets in New York, is a fight that can now rage on the satellite. So as a for instance, DirecTV now carries local TV channels in many cities. In Los Angeles, they started by carrying ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX only. Recently, they added Disney-owned local channel 9, because the station carries Lakers home games, and Channel 5, which broadcasts the teen-popular WB network. Channel 13, which is a UPN station, remains unavailable. I have both cable and the satellite access to local channels. I almost never watch Channel 13 anymore. It's just not convenient. That's the power that Rupert Murdoch now wields. He can give better station placement for the Fox cable nets, FX, Fox Movie Channel and Fox News Network. He can package the Disney stations in an extra-pay segment instead of as part of the basic package, as DirecTV currently has Oxygen, Lifetime Movie Network (owned by Disney), the Biography Channel and others.

But let's go beyond the traditional complications. Murdoch now has the widest international reach into households. If he wants to go day-and-date with a feature film release and satellite pay-per-view on a worldwide basis, he is better positioned than anyone to do that. DirecTV already offers an integrated Tivo box with the satellite. One of the things that has kept pay-per-view from blossoming is that you can't control when you see the film. With Tivo you can. And all Murdoch has to do is to send the signal over the satellite at any time of day and with Tivo, a viewer has a digital copy of the film that can be watched, started, stopped and rewound over and over. And if Murdoch wants to keep the box from allowing the pay-per-viewer from running off a copy to video, they can do that too. (Of course, some will break every rule… but those people do not drive the overall business.)

What else? Well, there is a group of cable networks currently up for sale. AOL/Time-Warner has passed and so has Barry Diller. But now that News Corp has the method by which to build networks by taking advantage of the DirecTV viewership and other worldwide distribution, why not buy them? Murdoch could create a "free" tier of programming and place the Viacom, Disney and AOL/Time-Warner networks on a slightly more expensive tier. Will that affect the bottom line for each? Of course.

And of course there will be big fights about fairness. But we are at the start of a Republican administration and a worldwide recession. Will the government want to get in the way of business growth? Probably not. The game will not be allowed to become monopolistic, but Fox will be allowed, as the others will, to play with the margins… literally and figuratively.

JUST WONDERING: How would you feel if a division of an internet concern so large that its leader ended up on the cover of Time Magazine asked you to help finance their work on "the honor system?" Mind you, you still get to see all the banners for which the company is paid millions of dollars each month. To find out more, check out "The Ugly" in tomorrow's THB.

ABOUT THE MEXICAN: A friend who worked on The Mexican asked me on Wednesday to investigate further before suggesting that something might be wrong with the film. I did, and what DreamWorks told me was that the print is simply not ready as re-shoots are in the midst of being integrated and that, in fact, they don't expect to have a final print ready for the upcoming junket. The press is always suspicious about a film that is not being shown everywhere without restraint. And when it is a Julia Roberts/Brad Pitt film, the idea that protecting the opening weekend may be the real priority is something that's very tempting to believe. But DreamWorks says it just isn't true and there is no real evidence to suggest otherwise. The studio does admit that this is one quirky comedy. But that may qualify it as one of my favorites. I certainly have all the hope in the world for Gore Verbinski's second major release. We'll all know for sure in just a few weeks.

NEW SITES: Two other roughcuteers have started their own websites this week. You can check out Heather Feher's work at openotherend.com. And Meghan McCarthy will be continuing the work of Civilian Voices (As we will here at the soon-to-be-renamed davidpoland.com). Her site is seespotthink.com. Check them out.

AW SHOOT: Dale Evans is dead. She was 88. Her husband, Roy Rogers, passed away a few years ago. There is no truth to the rumor that she will be stuffed and placed on the already stuffed Trigger in perpetuity. She had a long, happy life. She will be missed.

BATTLING FOR POSITION: Fox recently moved the highly anticipated Moulin Rouge to May 4, joining Columbia's The New Guy and Warner Bros.' The Heist. (If you thought that Dimension would actually get around to finally releasing Texas Rangers… well, don't bet your last dollar.) So what does Universal do? They move The Mummy 2, the first summer mega-movie, from May 11 to May 4. OUCH! The battle is on and Pearl Harbor may seem tame by comparison. One thing to keep in mind. The willingness of studios to abandon summer may well be enhanced by the threat of the strike and the promise of lame content overloading theaters as early as October.

READER OF THE DAY: B Canadian writes: "I read your comments today on Hannibal with great interest. Pretty brave to put out serious and negative criticism on the film before it is available. This may sound paradoxical, but your concerns might entice me more to see the film. If what you say about the film is that is cold and emotionally stifling then I may find it more interesting than Silence.

I'm in that very small group that prefers Manhunter to Silence. At the time it came out, Michael Mann was seen only as the Miami Vice producer-director, someone interested in surface visuals, languid atmosphere, ambiguous morals and rock music. But if you go back to Thief, a very underrated film, you can see the career arc that runs up to The Insider, which is a triumph on every level--even with Al Pacino in it. Manhunter is right in the middle of this group, and William Petersen is fantastic, and criminally underused since then. That film's Hannibal Lecter is a measured, equally intelligent and reservedly disturbing figure. There's a reason Anthony Hopkins is embarrassed that he will forever be associated with or mistaken for Dr. Lecter. Even as Titus Andronicus he couldn't quite get out from under it.

Therefore, I think Michael Mann would have been an optimal figure to direct Hannibal, though frankly, he'd have to step down a notch to do it. After The Insider, serious reconsideration of his career is warranted, and Manhunter in particular. He is exceptionally good at capturing subjective experience, and the subjective perception of evil is far more alarming than watching Jodie Foster play haunted house in the killer's basement.

And if Hannibal is not the success it could be, then maybe there's a reason. Besides, the story should be emotionally cold and disturbing--it's about evil for godsakes. One of my chief criticisms of Silence is that it is too juiced up and put toward a thriller plotline. Boffo box-office, but not a study in the mindset of evil and the sane mind trying to understand the insane. Besides, Tom Noonan is far more scary as Manhunter's serial killer than a hammy, slurpy Anthony Hopkins, who probably wishes he were back playing C.S.Lewis in Shadowlands."

E ME: Well… I love Manhunter and Thief as well. And I am happy to have everyone see Hannibal. There has never been a Ridley Scott film that wasn't worth seeing, if only for the brilliance of his craftsmanship. And he certainly reaches past that often enough. There are those who will love Hannibal. And I want to hear from you all too. In the meantime, do you fear the mega-corporatization of entertainment?