 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|||||
WEEKEND REVIEW
Yawn.
I got to be right that Rat Race and not Captain Corelli’s Mandolin would be the top new film. Everyone on the planet had American Pie 2 (off 53 percent) and Rush Hour 2 (off 42 percent) in the top two slots. The Mandolin’s estimated $7.1 million start is ugly, but still $900,000 better than Bringing Out The Dead, Scorsese’s misunderstood, tiny masterpiece of 1999. American Outlaws was even uglier. Warner Bros. clearly knew, saving money by combining the premiere with the all-media screening. But $4.8 million means that the film will actually lose money, even with ancillaries. And note, Colin Farrell was just given a $5 million payday for his next film. What a bargain.
Ironically, the biggest disappointment was not a crappy opening for a movie that expected a crappy opening, but Miramax’s failure to figure out how to capitalize on across-the-board raves for The Others. They tried the Bridget Jones strategy, in which the studio built on a strong opening and added 610 screens in the second weekend, causing a drop of just 5 percent. In this case, they had a stronger first weekend ($14.1 million versus Bridget’s $10.7 million) and added 475 screens and still fell an estimated 23 percent. That’s certainly better than a lot of the films in this summer’s marketplace, but with great reviews, powerful buzz and a market that is light on the thriller genre, hopes for an $80 million-plus surprise smash have been diminished. They’ll just have to settle, it seems, for a surprise hit at around $60 million.
THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY: The Peter Bart story is , I guess not surprisingly, endlessly fascinating to me. First, there was Amy Wallace’s story for Los Angeles Magazine. Then Drudge’s break of the internal memo at Variety about Bart’s temporary leave. Then there was Bart nemesis David Robb’s coverage at Inside.com, which went up as a free story and mysteriously became a pay story, even though it was marked “Read For Free” on the site’s front page. (Could it be that the huge pageview spike caused by everyone in town having a particular interest on reading Robb on the subject made the Brill’s boys realize that they had the first Hollywood story in months that anyone would pay for? By Saturday morning, the story was back to actual free status. My bet is that Robb and Hindes went to the mattresses to keep this one available to as wide an audience as possible Hindes didn’t respond to a request for an explanation.) On Friday afternoon, The Hollywood Reporter headlined the story on their website, while Variety put up nothing. (To their credit, THR did post something on Anita Busch’s exit when it happened.) Then on Saturday, the Los Angeles and New York Times chimed in with their perspective.
Fascinating.
Robb noted Amy Wallace’s history at the L.A. Times on the top of the second paragraph of his piece. The L.A. Times didn’t mention this until paragraph 11, which obviously means it was not in the under-the-fold front page portion of the story. That’s the kind of disclosure issue that would have likely made it into Wallace’s piece.
The fact is, Wallace’s piece exists in an odd region north of being a signature column and south of being news. Bart set himself up for the fall, his publicist pitching a story to Wallace and Bart giving her access. If Bart hadn’t set this up, there is a good chance that none of the reportage that is getting Bart in deep trouble would ever see the light of day… there is no outlet for it. David Robb has never found an outlet to run with the “Peter Bart is selling scripts” story, outside of allegations stated in the “Peter Bart attends WGA member-only meeting” story. (I still feel strongly that this is the least of Bart’s problems. In corporate America today, legally actionable infractions are the only ones that get anyone fired. And please note… George Christy is still on payroll at The Hollywood Reporter and it is very unlikely he will ever be fired for his questionable activities. Too many people knew and looked the other way for too long… same with the “David Manning” scandal… same with Bart and virtually every entertainment outlet in town.) Likewise, outside of cocktail chat, no outlet has ever run anything serious about Bart’s dangerously loose tongue. Not even the L.A.Times in its series on Hollywood and the media, written by David Shaw (who also co-wrote the Bart piece on Saturday), which nearly deified then Hollywood Reporter editor and high end Bart-hater Anita Busch.
If you look closely at Wallace’s piece, the framework comes not from her on-the-record interviews with Bart, but from the conversations in the margins of those interviews. The piece leads with a conversation about the interview process, not with facts about Bart or his career. Editor Kit Rachlis even decided to highlight many of these off-center conversations with their own typeset. Now, from my bully pulpit, it would be hypocritical to say that reporting between the lines is unfair. On the other hand, I’m still trying to figure out what Bart’s religious background has to do with this profile… outside of the fact that he wants to control it. For me, Wallace’s reporting on where he came from smacks of, to use Bart’s term, “Gotcha” journalism.
This is a tone that reoccurs in the story. In the opening sentence, Wallace credits herself with getting Bart’s leg twitching. She repeatedly uses the phrase, “did no such thing,” sounding more like a scolding parent than an objective journalist. And there are “gotcha” calls on facts that Bart throws out in conversation that make Bart look bad without any effort to explain why the misstatements might be only marginal. For instance, when Bart says he “gave (Joe Roth) his first job,” Wallace explains that the film involved, Americathon, was Roth’s fourth film. Gotcha! However, she doesn’t bother to explain that the movie was, in fact , his first to be released by a major studio. Roth’s first two films were released by AIP and his third through Home Media Entertainment. Self-aggrandizing on Bart’s part, yes. A serious lie? No. And who amongst us wants to get into the tar pit of “he said/she said” on whether people were fired or quit? Does the Human Resources file tell the full story on any non-litigious acrimonious exit? Of course not. I’m not saying that Anita Busch and David Robb didn’t quit Variety. But is it possible that Bart felt he forced the exits? Possible? (“He did no such thing.”)
In the course of her investigation, if Bart didn’t want Wallace to know something, she would do her job, finding out the truth and confronting him with evidence. But is the confrontation itself news?
Wallace’s most egregious effort in this regard, in my opinion, is on Bart’s religion. The fact that Bart wants to keep his religious affiliations to himself is, I think, fair. And for Wallace to report that he wants to do that is fair. But Bart, with whom I disagree on soooo much, is not wrong in comparing the choice to put that in the story to outing. Wallace spends over a dozen paragraphs on Bart and his faith or lack thereof. Bart may be a lot of bad things. He may be a hater. But with the exception of the fact that it shows that he doesn’t like to be pinned down and that he is willing to say nasty things about people who want to discuss the issue publicly, nothing in this story suggests any relevance to his religious background.
And that’s not the only item like that. Did Bart tell Wallace that his slap at the L.A. Times’ Patrick Goldstein (a conflict that wasn’t mentioned in the Times coverage of the story) was off the record? I guess not. But is that the kind of thing that journalists say to one another – not specifically about Patrick – all the time, inherently understanding that our slaps at one another aren’t copy unless we decide to go public with them? Yes. Of course. Same with his shot at Charles Fleming.
Now, were Bart’s thoughts on the Christy incident at The Hollywood Reporter an appropriate conversation to print? More than that… in a profile of the leader of one of just two industry trades, his perspective is a necessity. Yet, Bart on the competition is not a significant part of the overall story. Bob Dowling, who fronts The Hollywood Reporter the same way Bart does Variety, is never mentioned, even dismissively. Nor is anyone at the L.A. Times, which has the Company Town section in news, which competes with the trades for stories. In fact, Bart doesn’t even comment on himself as a journalist. One can smell the ego all over his columns, but what does he have to say about it? What is he trying to accomplish with his glancing blows? Wallace never tells us.
I can make the argument for Wallace… it’s a profile. And I understand that. But it is more than that. There is some tough reporting here. Excellent, tough reporting. And when you start mixing your feelings about your subject with your facts, things get messy.
The major head turner of the piece is that given what Bart seems to be in trouble for, one would have to say that Wallace and Rachlis buried the lead(s). It’s eight pages of copy, a “continued” to the back of the book and another page before Wallace gets to Bart’s alleged slurs and Bart’s alleged screenplay sales. By then, to Wallace’s credit as a writer, you have spent enough time with Bart that you can practically hear the epithets slipping off his tongue. Same when he weasels away from his screenplay, his ego fighting his instincts of self-preservation that had him creating a defensible position on his wannabe screenwriting for years. (And for the record, I was informed by a WGA official that I could have gotten into the same WGA meeting that Bart did as a member who hasn’t been paid a screenwriter in over a decade.) Still, there is something vaguely smacking of the Feds getting a Mafioso on tax charges when they get frustrated, unable to get his prints on a murder weapon.
And now, it’s up to everyone else to spin the story. For David Robb at Inside.com, it’s about the script or scripts Bart may or may not have sold to studios during his tenure at Variety. Ironically, Robb’s almost singular focus on this issue – his issue – relegating the ethnic pejoratives that seem to be far more dangerous to Bart’s Variety career to the near-last paragraphs of his story (paragraphs 20-23, to be exact, in the 25 paragraph story), suggests that Bart’s sense that the well regarded labor reporter really does have, as Bart called it, “a fascination” with the screenplay issue. So much so that even though Bart’s alleged use of the word “fags” is mentioned, Robb, a guy who, remember, covers unions, doesn’t bother writing about the very specific allegation that bias against gay men affected Bart’s hiring decisions.
And with due respect to Robb and everyone at Inside.com, if they are going to link Bart’s “suspension” to the George Christy matter at The Hollywood Reporter, Robb should have at least mentioned that the Christy thing was not only Anita Busch’s reason to leave that paper, but that it was Robb’s as well. And they should be compelled to mention Dan Cox’s exit from Variety for slipping an internal memo to Inside.com regarding the Clinton/Credit Suisse/Front Row ugliness... another alleged ethical lapse involving a major trade journalist in recent months. Interestingly, Wallace avoids that firing as well, even though she uses the event to beat up on Bart. Certainly his firing of Cox reflects his hypersensitivity on the issue. Could it be because no one wants to hurt Cox? Admirable… in friends. But hypocritical when you are putting someone else under the microscope for related allegations.
(For the sake of full disclosure, I should point out that I was not happy with Inside.com’s finger-wagging coverage of my e-mail reportage of what turned out to be misinformation regarding the “David Manning” incident… sent out by e-mail, but never published in this column. And I suspected a bias against this column by former Inside Dope writer Josh Spector. Nonetheless, I think I have been as unbiased in my writing about Inside.com as possible, quite often complimenting and linking to their coverage during their brief heyday.)
The Los Angeles Times focused on the industry response to the “temporary leave,” headlining the page 19 continuation of the front page story, “BART: Hollywood Agog at Variety Editor’s Suspension.” However, Hollywood’s response was limited to a quote from Harvey Weinstein, who simply reiterates his comments from Wallace’s piece, two words from Pat Kingsley (“an institution,” describing Bart) and a “shocked” Sherry Lansing, who was apparently too shocked to give writers David Shaw and Rachel Abramowitz an actual quote. The only significant quotes from outside of the story came from the ADL and ACLU. More shock.
The New York Times focused on the Bart attributed “derogatory comments about blacks, Jews and gays.” In a brief piece, Bernard Weinraub did a really nice job of clarifying where all the players involved stand. Weinraub includes the script selling allegations as well as comments about excessive industry chumminess.
Anyway… all this written, Wallace has painted a mostly fair and quite complex portrait of Bart. It’s a portrait that I still think that Bart would enjoy for the most part. I don’t mind the first person journalism. Assuming the sourcing is there… and I do assume that… I have no problem with Wallace exposing Bart’s destructive, and ultimately self-destructive, verbalized biases. I do object to the focus on Bart’s religion. And I do object to journalist publicly exposing another journalist’s sidebar comments on a third journalist. Bart on the George Christy thing is not the same as Bart on Patrick Goldstein. One is comment on an industry story and the other is gossip.
But my biggest objection, in Wallace’s piece and in the coverage stemming from its ramifications is the in-town hypocrisy that always seems to rise up in these situations. I am long on the record as not being a fan of Bart’s column. He has set himself up as a target by exposing a raging ego, in print and in private. But the vast majority of what he does is not unusual. Biases and favors and line-crossing happens all the time at every outlet. Everyone has friends. Everyone has a bigger agenda than any one story.
It’s kind of like the last years of political coverage. Everyone “knows” that the political process is corrupt in many ways. Most of us sit back and let our deeper fears slide into our subconscious. Likewise, we all know that most of what runs as news in this business is publicity with various layers of purpose. Entertainment writers convince themselves that the favors they do are really just “choices” and that it all balances out in the end. But haven’t you noticed that virtually every time the reportage gets serious, the reaction is of nuclear proportions. That’s because pure truth is not something we see very often in this game. And it scares people shitty.
That brings another analogy to mind… entertainment journalism is like being an offensive lineman in football. For the most part, the only time an offensive lineman gets public attention is when he commits a holding penalty. But anyone who watches football closely knows that a holding penalty could be called on virtually every play. As a result, when holding is called, it is either for an truly overt penalty or you find yourself wondering why the ref decided to call a penalty at that particular moment.
Do Bart’s “sins” need to be penalized right now? Well, two, which were relegated to the back of the Amy Wallace story, seem to be serious enough to cause career-lethal damage. But the “sins” that garnered this comment by Wallace, which was highlighted by editor Rachlis - “If a reporter or an editor at a major daily newspaper flaunted the basic rules of journalism the way Bart does, they’d be shown the door.” – were not the ones we are all discussing. That comment was in the context of what I consider amongst the most innocuous of accusations, Bart, in an opinion column, being complimentary to people in the industry with whom he has ongoing relationships. One person is “scrupulous,” another “veteran” and the third, “one of the sharper young executives in town.” Beyond the personal conflict issue, Wallace doesn’t suggest that he is inaccurate in his characterizations. Nor does she suggest any quid pro quo or even a context in which these fairly innocuous compliments. The “sin” is in lack of disclosure. If that’s the deadliest sin, we can all start putting in “Hell” as the return address on our Christmas cards.
P.S. The grapevine has Anita Busch as a lead contender for Bart’s slot if Hollywood’s version of the grim reaper, a sharp-tongued phone call from Human Resources, comes for Pete. That would be a remarkable change indeed. Unlike being under Bob Dowling at The Hollywood Reporter, Busch would surely be unwilling to take the job unless the bosses agreed to give her near-complete autonomy. That would mean a harder edged outlet… perhaps the hardest edged industry trade in history. Could a trade newspaper survive that edge? I don’t know. And like it or not, Anita’s ascendance would lead to an “Is this the most hated woman in Hollywood?” story somewhere within 2 years. The difference is that despite a lot of enemies (and friends), Anita’s hands seem to be pretty damned clean. So, maybe she is the one to lead us all into the next generation of leadership in film journalism… maybe.
P.S.S. Read some rather blistering letters about the coverage of the coverage at Romanesko's MediaNews by clicking here.
BIG LIST O’ QUOTES: It’s here.
READER OF THE DAY: The Red Nosed Pundit writes: “Hey David P. -- since you asked, here's my take on the summer season: It stinks!
KISS THE DIRECTOR'S FEET, OR, WHY I GO TO THE MOVIES IN THE FIRST PLACE
Ghost WorldFUNNIEST MOVIE OF THE SUMMER (INTENTIONALLY):
MadeFUNNIEST MOVIE OF THE SUMMER (UNINTENTIONALLY):
BullyUNFUNNIEST MOVIE OF THE SUMMER (INTENTIONALLY):
O (Tim Blake Nelson)UNFUNNIEST MOVIES OF THE SUMMER (UNINTENTIONALLY):
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
Wet Hot American SummerWORTH RECOMMENDING TO MOM:
Sexy Beast
BrotherNEAR-GREAT FOREIGN FILMS ONLY NEW YORKERS WILL GET TO SEE:
The Vertical Ray of the Sun
The River
Himalaya
CureDECREASE YOUR STANDARDS, AND YOU'VE GOT DECENT HOLLYWOOD DIVERSION:
The Fast and the Furious
Baby Boy
The Score
The OthersCHECK YOUR HEAD BEFORE SEEING IT A SECOND TIME:
A.I. Artificial IntelligenceIF ONLY IT WAS AS GOOD AS ARMAGEDDON:
Pearl HarborIF ONLY IT WAS AS GOOD AS GONE IN 60 SECONDS:
SwordfishBIG STUDIO BULLSHIT:
Mummy Returns
America's Sweethearts
Scary Movie 2
Cats and Dogs
Jurassic Park III
Kiss of the Dragon
Evolution
Final FantasyART FOR ART'S SAKE, OR, WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE THE SHEER AWFULNESS:
LumumbaTHE BEST NYU TERM PAPER ON THINLY-VEILED RACISM WAITING TO HAPPEN:
Planet of the Apes, or Tim Burton's 21st Century BlackfaceA SLEDGEHAMMER TO THE BRAIN, AND AN OPEN INSULT TO JACQUES DEMY AND VINCENTE MINNELLI:
Moulin Rouge
Hedwig and the Angry InchBIGGEST "FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF GEORGE LUCAS" REVISIONIST HOAX:
1979's Apocalypse Now + 50 minutes of extra crap that ruin the movieIF YOU LIKED IT, YOU'VE SOLD YOUR SOUL:
Memento
Shrek
The Deep EndMOVIES I WOULD RATHER KILL MYSELF THAN WATCH:
Rush Hour 2 (First one = CRAP)
American Pie 2 (First one = CRAP)MOVIES ONLY ROGER EBERT WOULD BE DUMB ENOUGH TO LIKE, OR, LET'S OGLE A BIG-CHESTED ACTRESS AND CALL IT FILM CRITICISM:
Tomb Raider
Original SinIf Martin Scorsese and Michael Mann didn't have movies coming out this fall, I might not be here typing to you at this very hour!
And that, as they say, is that.”
E ME: I love it when the ROTD and I radically disagree on stuff… though the summer did suck. Your thoughts on that and business as usual are welcome (and are welcome, as usual). See you Wednesday with a new column.
