Another slooooowwww news week…

ANOTHER COLUMN:  I rediscovered Ron Grover’s Power Lunch, an entertainment industry column in Business Week, and was duly impressed.  He covers a wide range of industry subjects as he hunkers down each week.  His July 15 column about the prospective partners/owners of a spun-off Universal movie and TV division was terrific, though I must admit a couple of his possible struck me as unrealistic.  At this point, the idea of MGM or DreamWorks acquiring Universal would be something like AOL buying Time-Warner.  I’m sure that Universal would love DreamWorks to operate as the resurrection of Spielberg’s previous production company, Amblin.  And who wouldn’t like to have MGM’s library, which, besides Bond, is their only viable asset right now?  But neither company has the financial backing to make a deal that leaves them in control of the estimated $20 billion asset.  And the acquisition that Universal needs, NBC, should be prioritized over either deal.  The problem right now is finding someone who is willing to pay a premium for entertainment companies in a tough market, who also has deep enough pockets to support these companies properly.  Giancarlo Paretti need not apply.    (P.S.  Did anyone notice that there was a Detective Paretti in MGM’s The Thomas Crown Affair?)  In any case, here is a link to Grover’s home page.  You’ll find a number of titles well worth reading.

PSYCHO TALE:  Los Angeles New Times’ Tony Ortega does a bang up job on the Michael Jackson/Sony/Gay Porn Guy/Charity Record fiasco that has gotten so much ink lately.  Ortega does exactly what you want a weekly to do… he finds the depth of the story that has been screaming in headlines for weeks.  Great read.  Right here.

AND THE REST:  In honor of the lack of news, I’m going to dedicate the rest of today’s column to three hot ROTD issues; Joel Reese’s Harrison Ford piece (which has now mysteriously disappeared off the Daily Herald’s website), The THB Book Club and the last of the insights into the last 20 minutes of Minority Report.

KORINE PAUL writes:  “Wow.  Ford does have a history of being less than verbose with the press, but what Joel Reese describes is pretty depressing.  I would love to give Harrison Ford the benefit of the doubt here (after all, I am a 27 year old female - he's amazingly sexy!).   On the one hand, he's an artist - shouldn't we have some respect for his life and his art?  Shouldn't he have a right to promote it however he wants?  Shouldn't he be allowed to have a shitty day where he doesn't want to talk to anyone, much less a journalist who can't remember the name of his last movie? 

On the other hand, I expect more from someone who makes $186,000 an hour, but this is a criticism I have of most celebrities.  People who whine about how hard it is, or how they wish people would just give them some privacy, or gripe about the junkets and the fans and won't give autographs - they get no sympathy from me.  You want privacy?  I've got an idea:  Don't be a movie star/pro basketball player/pop singer.  You signed up for this.  You are paid ridiculously well, especially considering there are people within 5 miles of any of your houses who are one paycheck away from homeless, and you have the guts to complain?  Being a celebrity is sort of like being a waitress - you're in the service industry.  The service you provide is you look glamorous, you make everything look easy and sexy and better than our lives; and when you slouch into a room and act like we are somehow crushing your will to live, that sort of ruins the effect.

OK, end of rant.  Maybe there's some kind of happy medium where he could at least pretend to give a crap about his movie, and we could cut him a little slack...

OR - and this is just really bitchy - maybe Calista has him on her diet, and his blood sugar is just REALLY REALLY low.”

WAY DOWN YONDER writes:  “I host a TV show about movies. And occasionally I have to do interviews with the directors and stars of the movies being released. My opinion about the Harrison Ford's interview "incident"? They didn't show him any respect. They forgot the title of one of his movies and then referred to it as "the Michelle Pfeiffer's movie". They only asked him dumb questions - and don't give me an answer like "the only dumb question is the one you don't ask". Those were very, very dumb questions, indeed!

When I'm about to interview someone, I study that person's career for hours. I prepare the questions carefully. I read them out loud so I can analyze if they SOUND ok. That's the least I can do in respect of the person I'm about to interview.

The way that guy wrote about the incident, it seems like he thinks: "Well, I'm helping him promote his movie, so he HAS to answer anything I ask. It his obligation!".  WRONG! The fault lies with the reporter, not with Ford. If he acted professionally, Ford probably wouldn't be so impatient. And if he was, well... it doesn't matter. The guy should have been professional about the matter. He had an obligation with his readers to be prepared to that interview - and he wasn't.

For all I care, he was a terrible journalist.”

THE SAGGING ONE writes:  “WOW!!  It's wonderful to actually hear a reporter who will be read by masses confirm what I always suspected--Harrison Ford is tired of his job and needs to get out of the business.  It clearly shows in his last roles--geez, just look at the entire film, "Random Hearts" and you'll see his interviewing charm in action...for 2 1/2 hours...

PEACE OUT writes:  “I love his conclusion: "at least act like you're interested.  You're the actor, right?"

Mr. Reese, when you know you've got 30 minutes to share with multiple interviewers questioning someone who absolutely qualifies as an A-list star, come up with some talking points, at the very least.  Fish-mouthing over the title of "What Lies Beneath"?  Anyone can blank out, but that's what your notebook is for.  You're the reporter.  Try to act like it.

You see this kind of thing in sports journalism all the time: superstar is anything from somewhat distant to a reporter they don't know to baring their teeth and growling as the reporter nears (depending on who you talk to) and they get trashed in print.  To draw another sports parallel, just as nobody goes to a ball game to watch the umpires, nobody cares if Mister Entertainment Writer wasn't treated solicitously.

I'd love to see a rule of thumb about this stuff: unless the celeb runs your kid down with his SUV, keep your personal life out of your piece.  I'm sure some writers have their subjects nailed when they call them jerks in print, and I'm sure others are being completely unfair.  Since I can't tell them apart, I don't believe any of it.

Hell, I might actually buy a ticket to K19 just to do my small part to give this jackass and his editor the raspberry.”

FOXY SWAMPAPATERA goes in a different direction, ripping another ROTD:  “You should keep in touch with No Name Jones, he/she is most probably headed for either a studio exec job or some sort of TV punditancy.  He/She is the type of person who feels very comfortable divining what total strangers' thoughts are by simple observation. "The guy beside me kept looking at the screen as if Harrison Ford was a traitor and as if he was asking himself; 'How can "Mr. President", Indiana Jones; the man who has been the representation of American heroism and patriotism could be selling out like this?'" Who the hell are they, Miss Cleo??? I can tell when an audience is bored, thrilled, spellbound and leaving, but not exactly why without actually asking.

To me, this always shows someone either too lazy to actually poll others (none of those I have actually talked to had a problem with having to identify with the commie sailors. We all seem to have bigger problems with K:19 - The Career Ender  failure to build any sense of urgency or excitement, a common deficiency to Kathryn Bigelow vehicles) or wants to attribute less-than-flattering thoughts to hopelessly provincial, poor-dumb-dweebs of middle America (ie, heaven forbid that we think that No Name Jones isn't sophisticated enough to handle the reverse sympathies the film demands). Or perhaps you hid the name because Jones is actually Miss Cleo. Hmmmmm.... “

(DAVID NOTE:  I make up tags for ROTDs about 95 percent of the time… standard operating THB procedure.  I don’t feel the need to self-aggrandize by exposing “name” readers and people sometimes don’t realize that they don’t really want to be exposed, shredding others.  I still get a bunch of readers who want to express opinions but who do not want to be published under any name.)

Finally on Ford, THE CAPTAIN offers a less specific perspective: “In talking to friends and co-workers about movies and in particular about Harrison Ford, the general consensus I get is that most are very leery now about spending money on his movies. This comes after being burned by such cinematic travesties as 'Sabrina', 'Six Days Seven Nights', 'Random Hearts', and the over-rated 'What Lies Beneath'. No one I know has the slightest desire to see 'K-19'. Harrison really needs 'Indiana Jones 4' or to star in a high quality film before then to get his career back on track. It's hard to believe he turned down the Michael Douglas role in 'Traffic’ to make ‘K-19’!”

THB BOOK CLUB:  I’m going to run three of the recommendation letters from three rare contributors –

PAN’S NEMESIS writes:  “The book club is a rad idea, and I'm sure a resource like this will prove invaluable for aspiring movie journalists such as myself. There has to be some good reason why you left off Francois Truffaut's essential Hitchcock interview book, so I'm guessing that recommending that (as well as Cameron Crowe's "Conversations With Wilder") would be rather pointless.

But how 'bout Bruce Campbell's "If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B-Movie Actor"?

I know it's relatively recent, and probably wouldn't qualify as "essential," but it's a great light read and gives a wonderful grunt's-eye view of the business from a guy who's been in the trenches for more then twenty years now.

FIVE S-ES writes: “Two obvious choices, and one not so obvious. The obvious choices-

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood by Peter Biskind.

I read this several years ago and could not put it down. At the time my knowledge of 1970's was superficial and limited to the a few of the paragons of the decade (eg. The Godfather, Rocky, Taxi Driver). After reading this book I couldn't wait to rent McCabe and Mrs. Miller, The Last Picture Show, Five Easy Pieces, etc. An excellent read that contains insights into the movie industry in general, and of course 1970's cinema (I never knew that it took months before many major films expanded beyond New York or LA). The book is also replete with lascivious tales and boorish behavior of the actors (eg. Dennis Hopper).

The American Cinema: Directors and Directions 1929-1968 by Andrew Sarris. 

What else can I say, it's in the pantheon of movie books. Sarris analyzes the way I wish I could analyze film. One of my great wishes is for him or some other elite critic to publish a similar version of this classic that compiles directors from 1969-2001.

Not so obvious

TLA Film and Video Guides: The Discerning Film Lover's Guide. 

I was given the 1998-1999 version as a Christmas gift. I refer to it only a daily basis, and that's no exaggeration. The latest version is the 2002 version. One note, the 1998-1999 version includes an excellent page near the end that ranks the top fifteen movies of each decade through the 1960's. The list is course the opinion of the editors.”

ALL DAY, EVERY DAY writes:  “There are the two books that immediately spring to mind.  Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind--I absolutely loved this book, and found it riveting. However, I am unaware as to the truth of some of the reported events in it.  On Amazon, I believe, there was a remark doubting its veracity--or something anyway.  As someone who finds solace and escape from today's film climate in films from the 70s (and earlier), I thought this book was great.

Dark Knights and Holy Fools --Bob McGuane--(I think that's the author's name).  This oversized book, which overflows with illustrations, discusses the life and career of Terry Gilliam in depth.  Every chapter is about a specific film or event, and begins with an analysis of the film's production history, themes, etc, then segues into interviews with Gilliam himself.   As an inveterate fan of (almost) all things Gilliam, I've read this book several times.”

MINORITY REPORT:  Now, the final raft of arguments about the last part of Minority Report.  And the last part means SPOILERS!!!  That’s right, if you don’t like SPOILERS, stay far, far away.

 

One last warning – SPOILERS AHOY!

 

TO WOO FENG writes:  “Please inform your readers that when Lara Anderton throws down the bag that holds John's eyes, there is only one eye left in the bag in the film's final act.  Also, while the dream theory is a possibility, even if "80%" of the film's viewers didn't pick up on it, it doesn't really matter that in the original script, there was an added line of prologue that was "There were a lot of murders when Pre-Crime was abandoned."  I mean, crime would obviously peak when they couldn't be stopped ahead of time, lol.”

ZB2002 writes:  “While I still think what happens after Anderton gets haloed really does happen, I think that the ending is not the upbeat ending that people think it is. While we see Pre-Crime ended, the Pre-Cogs living in an isolated cabin, and John and Laura back together, what it doesn't show or tell us is the effects of shutting Pre-Crime down. By that, I mean, that the murder rate goes from 0 to where it was before Pre-Crime was initiated. Basically, it is like Pre-Crime never happened. As for Eggs a la Stephen's theory about the third act, hopefully Spielberg will sit down and do a commentary for this, much like Ridley Scott is doing a commentary for the Bladerunner SE DVD.”

READER OF THE DAY:  K-MO writes:  “ASSUMING 200 million dollars for XXX?!?

It does look like it could be a winner (COULD be) but that's a big assumption for any movie.  August is the summer dead zone.  The month in the summer that traditionally only has one major breakout hit.  I grant that XXX has the potential to be that movie.  But it could be Signs or something off the radar like a Sixth Sense type deal. (C'mon, even starring Bruce Willis, no one saw The Sixth Sense coming)

But I digress...

My point is that I thought you were on somewhat shaky ground calling XXX a "sure bet" to make a hundred mil.  To assume two hundred mil in your analysis of Sony's summer puts you in earthquake country (to continue the metaphor).  I'll go on record as the party pooper and predict that XXX will do mediocre business making not much more-if not a whole lot less-than the $75 mil domestic breakeven you mentioned.

But hey, like any armchair analyst, I'm wrong at least as often as I'm right.  I'll just be very curious to see the grosses.”

E ME:  Sony is pushing $30 million as the opening weekend target for XXX, which would likely leads to $120 million or less.  I personally believe that anything under $40 million by August 11 will be disappointing for the studio… even with Signs opening huge the weekend before and Blue Crush the weekend after.  I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the film, which I think is fair.  And I think it is unfair to even joke about XXX not doing as much as $75 million.  That would be the biggest shock of the summer.

So, Harrison did a great interview with Sydney Pollack on The Charlie Rose Show (Charlie is still out on heart attack leave), though I thought that Pollack was actually a little over-prepared.  I have sat in that room with him and found that he doesn’t suffer fools well and that he only gets excited by certain questions.  He didn’t much care for being challenged, though compared to Tommy Lee Jones, he is a breeze.  I found the Joel Reese article to be more than a little petulant and childish.  Roundtables aren’t fun, but business is business and no one owes anything to anyone in this game.  More “journalists” should remember that before puckering up and sucking the buttocks of celebs and studios in order to keep the wheels of the gravy train greased. 

I forgot about both Hitchcock/Truffaut and the Crowe/Wilder books… that’s all.  I’m a little iffy on Raging Bulls.  I wasn’t there and I can point out a lot of false/misleading information. 

I wonder what a sign of a blue XXX crush would look like.