Thursday, 15 February 2001

THE TIMES, THEY ARE A WRITIN': I have been pleased to read each installment of David Shaw's L.A. Times series on the movie business and the media. (Check out www.latimes.com and scroll down for the latest). It is a very positive step that the Times is openly examining these issues, and today it examines its own coverage… looking forward to that. Also, I have been pleasantly surprised from the beginning that Patrick Goldstein has had the apparent freedom to write in a more aggressive way about the business than anyone other than Claudia Eller (now relegated to the business section) has in quite a while. (Goldstein's excellent follow-up with Barry Levinson on the controversy around An Everlasting Piece should still be available by clicking here. My only real objection is that he doesn't mention that The Big Tease was Warner Bros.' first-ever effort at a ultra-low budget film - $4 million – and that it sat in the can for over a year before they finally dumped it into theaters, suggesting that the problem was more than the insight of how to sell a small film.) Anyway, the direction has all been quite positive lately.

That said, one of the fascinating elements of the Shaw series is that as well researched as it is, it continues to perpetuate a number of industry myths and has started some new ones. One of the classics is that Ain't It Cool News had a real effect on Batman & Robin... a movie that opened to a $42.9 million 3-day weekend. Even Harry Knowles disavowals that one. Or the idea that denials about Mike DeLuca's exit from New Line were "lies," when anyone could get a straight answer from DeLuca, which was, essentially, "I have a contract and I haven't been told anything that says I won't be fulfilling it to its end." I think that clearly tells you that he knew that a firing was possible, but that he hadn't been told anything definitive. And, indeed, the DeLuca move, though a few days before the mass firings at New Line and all of AOL/T-W, was a decision made in line with the restructuring, not months before.

The new one is that Anita Busch took a brave stand when she attacked Fight Club in print. I do think that Anita has improved THR and I hold no animosity towards her. However, Anita came inches away from being fired on that story and was absolutely enraged by being called to task by me, in print and on the radio, for reaching beyond her appropriate place as a news editor. The reason it was such an issue was not the editorial that Anita wrote about the movie. By the time that ran, Fox's threatening stance had already passed. It was the supposed "news" story that suggested a level of unanimity of rage and anger about the picture on the evening of the premiere. There was certainly a large group of angry people, but there were a lot of supporters as well and they somehow never got quoted. Fox also stated at the time that Anita hadn't even seen the movie in its entirety, arriving late to the screening. To her credit, Anita told me that she went back and saw the picture again before writing her editorial... an editorial that was completely appropriate, however wrong-headed it might have been. I am a big John Horn fan, but what Anita got caught doing was not being fearless, but taking a cheap, personal shot inside what seemed to be a news story.

I am probably insane for reviving an issue that has been dormant for over a year... particularly one that really put me on Anita's s**t list. But as Mr. Shaw's pieces keep pointing out, it is hard to separate reality from fiction in the industry. And amongst those of us who cover the industry.

Which reminds me that Shaw completely misses a couple of issues regarding both Peter Bart and Anita. 1) Bart is well known to hate Inside.com, and the web in general, because so many of his reporters have been cherry picked by stock-option-waving dot-coms in the last two years. Two of his best, Andrew Hindes and Chris Petrikin, are now at Inside. This has a lot to do with his attitude about new media by the account of everyone who works for him. 2) Anita was, essentially, stolen by Variety at great expense and exited after various intense run-ins with Peter Bart. Then she was at Entertainment Weekly, which was not a good fit because of her hard-hitting style. And then, Bob Dowling took her back at THR after Alex Ben Block left for another job (before he started working for a now-deceased dot-com.) It seems that Anita has finally found the right job for her and her style. But it was not so cut and dried. Why this history didn't make this deeply reported piece, I don't know. But it is odd.

MASTURBATION AT INSIDE.COM: Just when I was saying that Variety hates Inside for all the wrong reasons, Inside writes something really, really stupid. It's bad enough that Inside is desperately trying to position its completely science-free Oscar tracking system as great inside info. I understand that… marketing is marketing. Stupid and worthless, but understandable. (By the way, the reportage of all the various elements, such as media mentions and the like, are of worth. It's the numbers that are unmitigated bulls**t.) So now, a day after the Oscar nods arrive, Inside is extrapolating numbers about the significance of Oscar campaign ad buys based on their Oscar tracking. To wit:

"As to effectiveness, Inside's Oscar tracker, which included a detailed tally of advertising page counts specifically geared toward ''consideration'' ads, delivers a mixed verdict.

When the tracker's positions, which proved 85 percent predictive of nominations, are recalculated with no advertising spending, most contenders remain in virtually the same place. In other words, the race is largely unaffected by advertising, to the extent that companies spend relatively matching amounts, thereby netting out their effect."

WHAT?!?!?! Who the hell are they trying to kid? Firstly, yesterday I got an Inside e-mail claiming that the "tracker's positions" were 90 percent effective. Today, it's 85 percent. But, more to the point, the idea that Oscar ads can be pegged as ineffectual based on a site's guesses at Oscar nominations and how they fell into place is absurd! Beyond absurd! Inside's Oscar tracker is a lot like the scoring on the TV show Whose Line Is It Anyway? It's like palm reading. Michael Cieply listens to the buzz, as we all do, and then assigns points that mysteriously end up matching popular opinion. Wow! Science.

Ads may be one of the least effectual ways of positioning a movie for Oscar. The reason I give so much credit to a consultant like Tony Angelotti is that the free press, which he pushes hard for in the name of his clients is, I think, a lot more valuable in the end. The reason ads are important is that they show Oscar voters that the studio is really behind the film. And that matters.

And by the way, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the Gladiator campaign was twice as expensive as the campaign for Chocolat or any other movie this year, even if it isn’t reflected in a count of ad buys in the trades. The entire DVD/Video release campaign was built around pushing for Oscar and it was quite effective. And quite arguably, for those who want it believe in fairies, it wasn't really an Oscar push. Put that in your science kit and smoke it.

READER OF THE DAY: Bri of The North: "From the misses in the best supporting actress, each woman (Zeta-Jones, Winslet, and Zhang) had either really big breasts or really small ones. Coincidence? I think not."

J writes: "Could you please explain what happened to Traffic?  It's just beginning to sink in just how much of a long-shot it seems to be.  You even mention that Soderbergh might be better off pushing for Erin Brokovich since it should be the film that will win best picture.  What a difference a month can make.

Traffic to me is the only choice out of the nominations.  It's just the type of grand sweeping drama that seems fitted for the history books.  Shows you what I know.  After I saw the movie the first time I was so ecstatic.  Traffic and Gladiator at the time were the only two films that ANYBODY would dare mention for a possible Oscar nom.  And with Gladiator being Gladiator (you could write a book about it's disappointing final hour alone) I figured Traffic would have an easy time with the opposition. 

Cut to Valentine's day.  Now Erin Brokovich has a better chance at the nom?  Depressing. 

Take a moment and think of any film with multiple story lines like Traffic.  Even the best ones are hurt by its weakest plot threads.  Magnolia had the Jason Robards (God rest his soul) "dying wish" thread.  Pulp Fiction had the Bruce Willis "watch" thread (despite the Christopher Walken monologue which is a classic).  Short Cuts had the Andie McDowell "kid in the hospital" thread.  I've seen Traffic now three times and for me there is not one weak plot thread.  There is never a moment where a scene cuts from one story to another and I sit there rolling my eyes because I know I have at least a few minutes before the film cuts back to more interesting material.  That in itself is a small miracle.

And think about the casting of Traffic?  There are many roles to be filled in that movie and can you think of one that was miscast?  I can only think of one and that would be Salma Hayek as the floozy girlfriend of the drug lord.  It's not that she was bad.  But it's the one time where I'm taken out of the film.  I can't help but think "Hey look, Salma Hayek.  Go figure."  Luckily it's two scenes and she's out.  Otherwise there isn't a miscast in the film. 

The other candidates?  Chocolat I just don't get.  I understand why it's nominated.  But it's not best picture material in my hillbilly mind. 

Gladiator is only good for demo-ing my home theater for sound.  Gladiator is an amazing looking film.  Gladiator is an amazing sounding film.  Technical awards were made for films like Gladiator. 

Crouching Tiger is a magical film.... the first time you see it.  I couldn't wait to see it again but when I did I noticed the film hit a brick wall for about twenty minutes in it's middle.  For me, the heart of the film lies with Chow Yun-Fat and Michelle Yeoh (no it's not blasphemy if I'm insane).  The moment the "comb-romance flashback" section of the film hits your thumb twitches.  Why?  Because normally you would be fast-forwarding this part.  It was cute the first time around.  Tedious each time thereafter.  With each time I see Crouching Tiger the magic diminishes just a wee bit more. 

Erin Brokovich is a fine movie.  But it doesn't have the pizzazz of Gladiator, the magic of Tiger, or the story and acting of Traffic.  So how could it be best picture?

Nothing will ever match the disappointment I felt the year Shakespeare in Love had it's named called for best picture.  This will surely be a runner up.  Traffic deserves to be seen and be remembered."

E ME: It's cranky Thursday here at The Hot Button. What are you cranky about?