20 February 2001

West Cost Editor Anne Thompson is next with a profile of Bevan & Fellner's Working Title Films, which is too long in coming and is well worth the read. The piece's relevance kind of hinges on O Brother , Where Art Thou? and the delayed Captain Corelli's Mandolin, but that's the downside of a monthly… slow response to change. Nothing any editor can do about that.

A great story called "Click and Drag, Nip and Tuck" speaks to very specific edits made by CG that now allow moviemakers to virtually airbrush their films. One of the best things about the story is that they use specific examples that have supporting information about why the changes were made. And they all make sense. The only thing I was missing was the idea that this could mark the end of the Vaselined lens that has become the regular domain of aging stars. I thought Vittorio Storaro did an Oscar-worthy job of shooting Warren Beatty in Bulworth without the gauze and still making Beatty look as beautiful as ever. That process will be even easier now.

Libby Gelman-Waxner lives on.

Michael Cristofer's piece on Cornell Woolrich is the kind of cineaste surprise that should make the magazine at least once an issue. I'm sure it is one of the least well-read things in the magazine. But the effort is admirable. The next section, In The Works, is pretty good. It is a little Maxim-y, but well reported and more "inside baseball" than anything you would find in EW. The piece on Equilibrium made me want to see the movie and that's not small feat. Five pages of Movie GQ follow. Yawn.

The Penelope Cruz cover story is, as so much writing about Cruz is, a journalistic wet spot. How many times can we read the same thing? How many writers can continue to type with a hard on?

The story of Jon Johansen, the kid who got around the DVD codes, was a lot better. It had the edge that the subject brought it. It doesn't quite take the next step, which is to ask the hard questions about how today's society perceives copyright and its moral issues. But it was a sharp, crisp look at a story that isn't explored often enough in movie coverage outside of newspapers.

The photo essay about last year's Oscars, led by the image of a workman who looks like he is about to "go Clinton" on a giant Oscar statue, is cute, but somehow feels out of time. But it's nothing in comparison to "Arnold The Barbarian." I don't know what to tell you… it feels like a cheap shot. Everyone has known that Arnold's health has been bad for a long time and that he's covered up every story. I think that most people know that the guy is a loud, brash, self-involved muscle man. He also happens to be one of the greatest self-promoters in the history of the film business. But now, he's been on a tough run. Apparently, Premiere feels that they won't feel the need to have him do a cover story ever again. And so, they attack.

The truth is, this piece is like a bookend to the Penelope Cruz piece. Her story is about why everyone wants to grab her and his story is about whether he grabbed everyone who didn't want to be grabbed. Neither is worthy of the rest of the Premiere effort. Neither really matters. And neither really tells us anything in a real clear way. Second by second analysis of Arnold getting physical with a chat hostess who does her show on a bed… shocking! Arnold garbs a woman around the back and his hand takes hold just below her breast… scandal!! One of the world’s biggest movie stars tries to squash a tell-all book… remarkable!!! Not every major star is like this, but there isn't anyone out there, except perhaps Tom Hanks, who doesn't have a load of embarrassing stories floating around out there. Why is Premiere writing about Arnold being a male chauvinist pig instead of writing about John Travolta being a "food pig" with massive on-set catering bills that are more over the run of a film than many of his co-stars are paid overall? Well, Travolta isn't quite as vulnerable these days.

Next, a strong interview piece with Chris Rock. A look at storyboards from Hannibal that's interesting, though Jill Bernstein doesn't get as much room for copy as your average DVD extra. And Final Cut is kind of traditional back-of-the-book stuff, but again, with a focus on the visual over the written. Formula 101, sadly, misses the mark by a mile. Down on Earth = Heaven Can Wait + some jokes about a white guy acting black… but otherwise, it's word for word, down to Jennifer Coolidge's Dyan Cannon near-imitation.

There is no doubt that this is a first step in the evolution of Premiere under Michael Solomon. It's actually quite amazing how sharp the contrast is in one issue's time. As I've written, there is a lot to like. Solomon hasn't really found signature writers yet and that would help, but the content is clearly searching for new angles. Good. Even on the Schwarzenegger story, the change is clear. In the old days, the story would have lead with Schwarzenegger's political aspirations. Now, it leads with sex. Not so good. But clear.

The new design looks fantastic. The graphic images are absolutely memorable. The style is compelling. But here is the rub… everyone seems to be going down this style road these days. And Maxim is the only magazine that is gaining because of it. Movieline has remade itself in recent years as a higher gloss gossip sheet. Premiere still has more depth than Movieline and much more style than EW. But how many copies will flashy covers and cool graphics sell? We'll see. I'm a little worried that the magazine is moving from a niche that got worn out and too relaxed about defining itself to a niche that is way too popular for any magazine to break out of. But what do I know? I hope it goes well because the slot Premiere has held, between EW and Film Comment, is a valuable one that I embrace excitedly when it is going well. Here comes the future…

THE UGLY: Variety ran as story that Woody Allen's next movie girlfriend will be Debra Messing. She's 32. He's 65. Do the math. I'll be in the other room, vomiting.

BAD AD WATCH: I finally saw a blown up version of the Saving Silverman ad with Neil Diamond making the "Home Alone" face. Even so, I couldn't make it out as Diamond until I saw the "Neil Diamond was actually used in the making of his movie" tag next to him. Note to Sony: "No music mega-stars were hurt during the making of this film" still isn't all that funny, but it is funnier… I think.

READER OF THE DAY: BP writes: "You know, the scene with all the mirrors, each reflecting off the other.

The movie industry is often described, as is art in general, as 'holding a mirror up to life'. Then of course there are the movie critics. So you've got somebody commenting on the world, and then somebody commenting on how well they do that.

Now, we've got David Shaw's series, commenting on how well the commenters' comment. And you, commenting on how well he does that.

And now me, commenting on your comments on his comments.

How tight will the spiral get?"

E ME: Good question. What do the rest of you think?