5 March 2001

AXE AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE: Last Tuesday (THB 2/27), I mentioned Chris Petrikin's story on Variety's Front Row conference in New York and how his pals at Variety "did him a solid" by slipping him an internal memo that was floating around the trade magazine. On Wednesday of last week, eight-year Variety veteran Dan Cox was fired for allegedly being the guy with the fingerprints on the super-private fax to Petrikin. The New York Post puts the axe handle in the hands of Tad Smith, president of Variety's Media Group, but you can be sure that "ferreting out The Mole" was a team effort. Interestingly, as of Monday (March 5) afternoon, Inside.com, which surely knows everything there is to know on this story, has not written a word about the incident or their involvement. And I'm not chiding them for accepting news from an inside source. Not at all. I doubt that Chris or Dan thought for a second that this would lead to such a dire response. But even if Chris continues not to comment, even to his own outlet, they should be running the story. It is really important inside news that reflects quite dramatically on the battles in which entertainment journalists now engage daily. The irony being that our internal battles are generally far more serious than anything we cover. For the record, there was no note of the firing in The Hollywood Reporter or the L.A. Times either. (The New York Post's piece on the firing is here.)

SPEAKING OF INSIDE: Michael Cieply, a Hot Button whipping boy for his involvement in the absurd Inside Line project, did a great story on the Writer's Guild strike, looking beyond the surface and into an interesting area of internal conflict at the WGA. Read it here.)

JUST WONDERING: What can I say about The Farrelly Bros. doing a Three Stooges movie? "Jim Carrey IS Moe! Edward Norton IS Larry! Jack Black IS Curly! in The Three Stooges Meet Joe Lieberman! (with Gretchen Mol as Shemp)"

DISCUSSION DU JOUR: This came from 3 VW Bus: "Instead of continually harping on the Clintons and what they have done wrong, why don't you explore the sensationalist media circus that has erupted not only over the Clintons, but also over such ridiculous matters as the Orlando Sentinel's attempt to get Dale Earnhardt's autopsy photographs. This is not a public's right to know, or a freedom issue. It is just plain stupid."

My Response: You are right about any effort to print autopsy photos of anyone who is not a matter of public concern in terms of the nation's right to know. However, the fact that others have done wrong does not excuse The Clintons. The brazen acts of non-political self-indulgence by this president rises above (or below) the acts of any other president in the modern era, including JFK and his affairs and Richard Nixon and his political self-righteousness. Yes, there are always bad acts happening. Many have happened inside the Oval Office. But while I have no real objection to any Clinton acts that were political in nature (see: Susan McDougall), I have nothing but contempt for his behavior in the Marc Rich and Hugh Rodham-driven pardons. The idea that only the Republicans look for dirt is completely absurd. As the Democrats couldn't get traction with America on Iran/Contra, Republicans couldn't get traction on perjury. But what is so remarkable about the current rush is that it is led by Democrats, NOT Republicans. That's why Clinton now suddenly "wants to be a private citizen." This time, he needs people to forget, not forgive. And if the Orlando Sentinel runs autopsy photos of Dale Earnhardt, please let me know and I will blast them to high heaven. That is disgusting. However, trying to get them to let their medical investigators determine if the cause of death was preventable… that is not offensive to me at all.

READER OF THE DAY: CC, Not Pounder writes: "Dave-- Some things need to be aired and addressed about this incessant continuous whining drone about the quality of the year's films and Gladiator in particular.

This year, for all the media stories about the dearth of good films, has produced no less than eight viable contenders for Best Picture. The fact that ALMOST FAMOUS, CAST AWAY, BILLY ELLIOT were not nominated is sad because, in their own way, each were worthy of the coveted nomination based on historical evidence of what type of films get acknowledged by the Oscars. But it doesn't mean that those that received the nominations are unworthy.

CHOCOLAT? Not my favorite film but I can understand why the Academy would choose it to represent the best of the year: It's beautifully made, it's a sweet story and it feels like a Hollywood movie -- look at this in contrast to BILLY ELLIOT -- a story we've seen at least two times in the last decade -- the mines are closing and the plucky citizens have to find a way to let the beauty of their arts shine through and rise above (THE FULL MONTY got a BPic nod for that premise) and it's about a dancing boy. Ho-hum.

ERIN BROCKOVICH? A finely done bio pic that has something to say and is not just a love letter to itself as ALMOST FAMOUS is. Almost Famous makes the sin of overindulging Cameron Crowe's already over-inflated sense of self worth to a sweet but insignificant end. The script is a great slice of life and is justly honored, the Academy made the right decision by not giving him a Best Pic Nod.

TRAFFIC? One of the finest technically made films in the last decade. Brilliant, career best performances from several actors and a realistic portrayal of a problem for which there is no solution.

CAST AWAY? Why wasn't it nominated? Perhaps backlash over the last Zemeckis/Hanks collaboration that also make $200M+ and took home a boatload of Oscars.

CROUCHING TIGER? A fine film in any language. Not my fave but deserving of recognition.

The problem that everyone seems to have is GLADIATOR. Why? Does it not fulfill the classic type of Hollywood film? Epic? Sprawling? Significant Historical Era? Story of one person's struggle against forces much larger than himself?

Ben Hur? Braveheart? English Patient? The Last Emperor? Titanic? Out of Africa? Patton? Lawrence ofArabia?

And how about the Big Hollywood productions that were nominated that didn't win Best Picture? THE ROBE? THE 10 COMMANDMENTS? CLEOPATRA? DOCTOR ZHIVAGO? SAVING PRIVATE RYAN?

Whatever naysayers out there that say that Gladiator doesn't deserve to be nominated let alone win Best Picture are suffering some sort of lapse of memory of Hollywood's appreciation of what the medium exists for: to entertain. The Academy gives the award of Best Picture to what they consider to be the most entertaining picture of the year. The gross receipts alone puts Gladiator in the company of Dances With Wolves, Forrest Gump and Titanic for sheer audience appreciation...not to mention the meticulousness and precision of the final on-screen product.

Everyone has their favorites: Your choice of Quills as Best Picture is as defining of your personal taste as mine is defined by O Brother, Where Art Thou? as my favorite picture... the problem is that the academy voters (just like most of America) has tastes that are in the middle of the road. And isn't that what most awards do, is reward those individuals that make a real impression on the society at large either with pure entertainment or an important message?

Of the Best Picture contenders, Gladiator is certainly the most commercial AND the most successful of the field and is an achievement in filmmaking that is rarely attempted and even more rarely an exciting piece of cinema. It may bother you and your fellow critics (like little Jeffrey Wells) that Gladiator has received 12 nominations but nominations don't always translate into wins (The Color Purple? The Turning Point? 11 noms and NO WINS -- but would you deny their acclaim as being deserving of at least the nominations?)

Gladiator may eventually win none of their categories but in terms of technical accomplishment, compelling storytelling and pure motion picture quality; Gladiator got the nominations and acclaim it deserves. Get over it, you artsy-fartsy snobs, and just pray that your other nominations get what they deserve because at this point, other than Julia Roberts, it's anybody's game."

E ME: Took a long time to get to calling me an artsy fartsy snob. Ew. Time to let your voices be heard. T minus 12 days.