RANTING & RAVING

Before I get to the meat of today’s rant, a little housekeeping. 

First, I got a number of letters yesterday complaining that The Hot Button had become the real source of the Planet of the Apes spoiler because I wrote about what Drudge had written, giving it more context than Drudge’s headline.  I don’t really want to argue the point.  But I thought it should be acknowledged.  And I apologize if anyone felt that they were victimized by this column’s anger over the issue.  That said, I’d probably write about it again.   There were also letters pointing out the hypocrisy of Harry Knowles screaming about anyone else revealing a spoiler.  Generally, I have always found Ain’t It Cool pretty good about marking spoilers.  But the point is well taken… the entirety of the site’s fame is based on their choice to run premature information on films. 

Second, I did see Planet of the Apes Tuesday night and…. well… the drought of 2001 continues.  More specifics tomorrow or Friday.

Third, I’d like to challenge anyone on the planet to explain how the L.A. Times’ Richard Natale can get away with categorizing America’s Sweethearts as a “Mega-Moneymaker ($50 million or more in profit),” with an estimated production cost of $48 million and a projected domestic gross of $95 million, which doesn’t seem to take into account significant first-dollar gross players and a major marketing budget, while listing Legally Blonde as a “Moneymaker ($10 million or more in profit),” despite an estimated $18 million production cost, a projected $65 million domestic total with probably half the P&A of America’s Sweethearts and no gross percentage players (or less than 5 percent worth).  Let me re-set this… America’s Sweethearts, if Natale’s number are accurate, will be no less than $25 million in the hole after collecting only domestic rentals, yet is a “Mega Moneymaker.”  Legally Blonde will be in profit, given these numbers, after collecting only domestic rentals.  So, even if Blonde were to be behind America’s Sweethearts in foreign box office, say, $40 million to Sweethearts’ $100 million, it would be equally, if not more, profitable than America’s Sweethearts.  I’m not looking to be a pain in the ass to Sony or Joe Roth’s movie, but there is about zero chance for America’s Sweethearts to be a “Mega Moneymaker” before it adds home video, DVD and television sales to the number.  And no one else on that chart seems to get the benefit of that doubt.  `Nuff said.

And now…

After last Wednesday’s column on movies as product, I got an interesting e-mail asking what exactly I would want the movie world to look like, were I to have my druthers.  Would I want a movie world of all Mementos? 

Good question.  The answer to part two is “no.”  But what would I want the movie world to look like?  Hmmm…  To be honest, the thing that is so great about the world of movies is that it is not a world under my control.  The magic is in the sharing of experiences that surprise and push and draw me into thoughts beyond what I would normally have. 

There are things I would love to see.  I would like to see someone give Francis Coppola $200 million to make three of his own films in the next five years.  It sucks that he isn’t directing on a regular basis.  I want Terry Malick to direct again soon.  I’m looking forward to Tim Roth’s second film.  I’d love to see more small dramas in the marketplace.  Amongst commercial directors, I’ll go see anything from Soderbergh, Scorsese, Zemekis, Levinson, Burton, Cameron, Fincher, Luhrmann, The Brothers Scott, Petersen, The Farrellys, Van Sant, Leconte or Gilliam.   I’d like to see sex comedies with sex, horror films without irony and political dramas that really appreciate where we are these days.  I’d like to see John Leguizamo get some better roles.  I’d pay to see Robin Williams do a comedy that isn’t maudlin. 

How would I like to see the business work?  I’d like to see the industry go back to unofficial official rules keeping the video window at 8 months and the cable window at a year.  I’d like to see any multiplex over 8 screens commit at least one screen to revival house programming.  I’d like to see a major studio take its slate down to 8 films a year… and have 6 significant moneymakers.  I think that playdate agreements that commit exhibitors to anything specific beyond two weekends should be made illegal.  I would like to see someone pick up the distribution baton from The Shooting Gallery.  I’d be happy to pay a dollar more not to see commercials before my movie. 

I think that studios should take a more active interest in the critics they promote in their ads every week. I would like to see the junket system become smarter.  I imagine a world in which editors would know enough to get their writers off the junket circuit after two years.  I would like to see critics say “no” to pull quotes more often.  I think Roger Ebert should take Jack Valenti’s job if Bill Clinton doesn’t want it.  If entertainment writers actually wrote half of what they really think, entertainment journalism would be worth reading again.  (With due respect to Pauline Kael, I wish fewer of us whined about how much she is missed and started actually writing with her passion.) 

I’d like the movie business to be one of those rare places where only people who actually love what they do were allowed to have jobs.  I’d like to see actual opinions instead of stories about other people’s opinions.  I’d like movies to be reviewed when they are complete and test screenings used only to get a non-labeled feel for how a film is playing.  I’d like to go a day without discussing box office and I’d like the business to do the same.  I’d like every single person who writes about movies for a living to spend one full production on-set, working.  I want real butter on my popcorn, real beef in my hot dog and real matinee prices when I show up before 5 on a weekday. 

I want to be surprised.

I want to fall in love.

I want to be left speechless.

But if I can’t have that, I’ll take a good story, well told.  I’m a more forgiving critic than many of you seem to think… but obtain your own goals and you will have my admiration, even if they don’t match my tastes.  If you don’t know how to do complex, so simple.  Just tell your story.  And tell it well.  And I will be there with bells on.

READER OF THE D AY:  Not Fester writes: “I saw Larry Clark's "Bully" last night because I thought your comments on the film were interesting but I also read reviews that made him sound like a genius and since I didn't like "Kids" at all I thought he might have got it right with a second try.

In a world where people like my parents freak about the F-word and a glimpse at some hot chick's nipple but have no problem cheering on Chucky Norris on Saturday nights in his weekly kick-ass-a-thon with its dumb overly simplified moralizing, I thought your prudishness might be showing through. Boy was I wrong!

I remember puberty pretty well and for a long time I didn't think there could be such a thing as "gratuitous nudity" in a film until last night. "Bully" is perverted for no reason I could figure out except to satisfy Mr. Clark's old man obsession with young people's bodies. He seems to leer on the actors for no reason at all and even the younger, often shirtless, boys like Marty's brother came across as victims of some kind of unseemly voyeurism and I felt dirty for being a part of it. I'm about as far away from being a prude as you can but this movie just felt wrong. I'd heard about the now famous "crotch shot" and when it appeared it was so out of place and unnecessary that I felt like I had stumbled onto some perverted uncle's creepy home movie of my sister.

Nudity and sex have a valid place in films because art is about the human experience blah blah blah and artists describe experience and behavior but don't necessarily condone or advocate it. But if you use sex in something other than a porno then you better have a clear understanding of why it's there otherwise you end up with a movie like "Bully" that seems to have it there for all the wrong reasons.

I remember when me and my friends saw "Showgirls" because we thought it would be awesome to get to see the "Saved By The Bell" chick naked. The movie was so bad that there was nothing erotic about it at all. "Bully" is going to make me fantasize about Bijou Phillips wearing a head to toe parka for the rest of my life.

To Larry Clark: Dude! Your movie makes the prudes' views on sex in movies seem to make sense and I hate it when the prudes are right!”

E ME:  Tell me about your perfect movie world.