It’s Fall Preview day… all 4000 words-plus of it.  So I’m going to take it a little easy on the column.

AND THE DATE IS:  It’s official.  Oscar is moving to February in 2004.  According to the NY Times’ Rick Lyman, the Academy will announce its nominees in the last week of January.  The Golden Globes are traditionally held on the third Sunday of January.  Will Oscar voting close before the Globes, as I have predicted?  Well, Oscar voting now closes two weeks before nominations are announced, which right now means that nomination voting closes 10 days after the Globes happen.  But if that two-weeks between the close of voting and nomination announcements is to remain in place, voting will have to close on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 in order to be announced on Tuesday, January 27.  That would be, unless The Golden Globes move, the Wednesday before Globes award show, effectively removing the idea that Globe winners influence Oscar nominations.  Hmmmm… (Story here.)

ONCE UPON A DREAM:  In a moment worthy of Roger Ebert, Disney will present a restored print of Sleeping Beauty in 70mm Technorama later this month at the Los Angeles’ El Capitan theater.  (Story here.)

SPEAKING OF ROGER:  I was pleasantly surprised to find that Richard Roeper and I agree on something.  As it turned out, it was something pretty controversial… the public identification of alleged rape victims.  (Story is here.)

THE HEAT IS ON:  Spider-Man is massive, but does that mean that Tobey Maguire is worth eight figures in a non-Spidey role?  Remember, the industry doesn’t pay people for the quality of their acting, but for their ability to draw a crowd.  And I have to say, right off the bat, Tobey Maguire in the true life story of a jockey… sounds like it will gross $12 million total.  Of course, I am being a little facetious.  This is a Gary Ross film and Maguire’s first non-web role should draw enough lookie-loos to make this bet by Universal pay off.  Or not.  No one really knows.  But if I were Maguire’s team, I would not be going with the “gotta get to $15 million” strategy.  It could get ugly in a hurry.  Maguire is a great actor.   If I were his people, I would be looking for a $5 million check – already a new level – and a great backend deal.  That way, he could not lose.  But it’s not my money, now is it?  (Story is here.)

BART & OTHER 4 LETTER WORDS:  Peter Bart is wondering aloud about the ongoing degrading of the PG-13 versus the R.  I’m not sure that I buy his hinted-at conspiracy theory… moral standards change and that is part of why the ratings system works.  I’m far more concerned about the variation of reaction to sex versus violence, the power game that ratings negotiations have become and the deeply misguided NC-17.  (Story is here.)

PREMIE PREMIERE:  There was an interesting story last week in the L.A Times, reprinted from the Chicago Tribune, about a story in the New York Post.  Cutting to the chase, the Post broke what has been standard operating procedure of decades and sent a critic to review the out-of-town run of a show heading towards Broadway.  I see a bit of a connection to the idea – which I have always been strongly against – of test screening reviews.  Judge for yourself.  (Story is here.)   And then read the Newsday story.

DIGI-MON-MON-MON:  A reader wrote in about a WGA Magazine interview with director Bernard Rose.  He has some interesting things to say, though I think he completely misses the boat regarding our digital future.  The ability to make cheap films will not change one thing… it will always cost a fortune to distribute anything shown on a public screen.  There will, I expect, eventually be networks of full-length features that are available to niche audiences.  But the idea that bog movies will ever be the province of the guy or gal cutting in their living room… assuming that you aren’t Robert Rodriguez with a $35 million budget for your “breakthrough”… just isn’t realistic… at least not more than once.  (Story is here.)

And now…. The Fall Preview!!!

READER OF THE DAY:  Re; Monday’s column, KENNY G’S BROTHER RICK writes:  “I completely agree with you in your assessment of Neil Gabler's article. I'm not usually one to watch movies several times -- I have too good a memory and get bored when I know what's coming up next -- but there are certain films (Moulin Rouge, Pulp Fiction, etc.) that I can watch over and over. The vibrancy of the directors' work in those films is what prompts me to return to the well so many times over. I haven't seen a film as many times in one year as I've seen Moulin Rouge since I was 6. It's not because the film has so many labyrinthine twists that I require multiple viewings to discern what's going on. What was going to happen was somewhat predictable the first time I saw it; hell, we're told in the opening 10 minutes that Satine is going to die. But despite that, it's rapturously engaging because... well, I've never been able to quite put my finger on why that movie has such an effect on me, I just know that it does, and that's enough for me.

I'm still sometimes susceptible to looking down on a person's opinion if it differs from mine on a particular movie, thinking them to be an idiot if they dismiss, for instance, Eyes Wide Shut as pretentious trash. While I realize that doing this is hubristic, I still contend that there are certain films that are objectively great. The primary film in this argument would have to be Citizen Kane. I've gotten into debates with a few people in my age group (I'm 22) who dislike Citizen Kane and don't see what the fuss is about. What's worse, these are people who are aspiring filmmakers themselves! I can understand not being engaged (perhaps "entertained" would be more appropriate) by Citizen Kane -- I've always respected its artistry, but only recently have I come to rank it among my favorites -- but to be so audacious as to question its technical innovations and wonder why it's held in such a high regard must be an admission of only one thing: ignorance of cinematic history.”

But SOUTH SIDE PAULIE says:  “I think there's some truth in what Gabler writes.  Everyone agrees that Hollywood films have become smoothly made corporate products since the great corporate capitalization of Hollywood since the 1970's.  It's just a question of whether you think corporate products are any more or less "real" than hand crafted ones.  Are Air Jordans more valuable to you than Guatemalan Birkenstocks made out of old jeep tires?  Some say yes, some say no.  McDonalds hamburgers are made in a very precise, reproducible way so that the mere smell of them (or the sight of the Golden Arches) triggers a highly predictable response - you either see the sign and smell the grease and say "Hey, I must have a Big Mac," or you say "Hideous corporate rain-forest depleting, artery-clogging nightmare."  There are many more of the former than the latter, of course.  But the response is immediate and visceral either way.  That's exactly what the McDonalds corporation wants. They don't want you to THINK about whether or not you need a hamburger.  The same is true with Hollywood films.  Just put the stars' names up there, put a John Williams score on it, design the one sheet correctly, plug it on MTV at the right time, and boom - you've got $50 million in one weekend.  Is that good or bad in a deep, moral sense?  That's up to each viewer to decide.  Gabler thinks it's bad, perhaps even evil.  He may be right – it certainly doesn't make for interesting cinema very often.  But occasionally it does.  We Americans want an instant emotional response - we love rollercoasters, Hollywood films and McDonalds cheeseburgers.  We don't want to NOT know what we're getting when we sit down to eat or sit down to see a movie.  We want what we want.  Is that good or bad?  It's up to you, the diner/viewer.  Me, I like a little mystery when I go to see a movie – I don't want it predigested for me.  When I go to a movie I don't want my preconceived expectations fulfilled.  I have no doubt that most Adam Sandler fans do.  That's their choice.  I want to be surprised.  Some viewers hate to be surprised.  Those are the viewers Gabler is talking about, I think.”

And ALLI JOSEPH IN REVERSE writes:  “First of all, I wish this discussion, about the 'programming' of young audience's response patterns to entertainment, was being had more often. Thank you (and Neil Gabler) for addressing the topic.

The only rule in entertainment that has stood the test of time is: whatever works is right. The definition of "whatever works" changes with every generation (just look at music!).

Television tends to start a young person's entertainment code-building. So the generation that watched "I Love Lucy" and "Gunsmoke" enjoyed movies like "The Russians Are Coming" and "The Magnificent Seven". Today's movie-going generation has been programmed by MTV, which has trained them to perceive energy and flair for substance, and by Vince McMahon (WWE) who has powerfully infected the culture with the virus of "fake reality as entertainment", which has spawned a new television genre from "The Osbournes" to "Survivor"...that generation now enjoys movies like "The Scorpion King" and "The Blair Witch Project".It's hardly an exact science, but there's no reason not to analyze all of this, and there's no reason not to pass judgment on it. I personally think it's awful! Much of entertainment lately is as empty as the heads of the viewers who lap it up.

So 'high-falutin' Neal Gabler" is right, but so is 'populist Dave Poland.' The irony is that in the final analysis, it doesn't matter what any of us think, because in the strange "democracy" of entertainment, the majority is ALWAYS right.”

E ME: You must know the drill by now, no?  

Tomorrow, I’m going to try to get together a spoiler-heavy package on Signs for the many of you who have written in and want to discuss (and disgust) the film.