I think I am allergic to the Avco…

There is a movie theater in LA known as the Avco, so named when Avco existed as company, but which was then bought by GCC which has since been bought by AMC.   And it seems like every time I go to a screening there, whether I like or dislike the film, I get a headache.  And it just occurred to me that it may be the theater.  Perhaps it is the air conditioning or something that gives me a sinus headache.  But I seem to get it every time I go there. 

And so, I am surviving today’s column as much as writing it. 

So I guess it’s appropriate to start with an attack on the column.  It came from “Stax” at IGN.   I really don’t want to waste too much time on this.  “Stax’s” complaints stem, he claims, from my 600-word story on the New York Times’ excellent piece on Superman and the WB exec mess last Thursday.  He spends 1200 words attacking me for the piece, claiming that web coverage of the story was equal to what was in the New York Times piece and that I was being high-handed and unfair.  Never mind that Moriarty at Ain’t It Cool hailed the story as the best in a decade about the development process two days after I wrote about it.   And never mind that Moriarty changed his position about the quality of the JJ Abrams script after reading, previously praising the script based on “inside” sources, which makes my point about the trouble web leaks.   

For the record, I think that Drew/Moriarty has been above reproach lately.  And I have had major issues with a few print outlets.  Yet, I am web basher. 

“Stax” argues, inaccurately, that major newspapers printing “news” from unnamed sources is the same as e-mail based rumors being printed.  There is a little truth to this, as in their haste to try to “keep up” with the web some editors have unfortunately allowed, or even encouraged, writers to break traditional news gathering rules, as in my oft-repeated whine about Bernard Weinraub quoting a review of American Beauty from a writer literally named “Anonymous” on IMDb.  But beyond those infractions, there are basic rules to a story like the one about the di Bonaventura firing.  And when the New York Times writes that an insider described the events of a meeting, you and I can be sure that the editor knows the name of the source and that it is not coming from a fourth-hand source at the water cooler.  Like I wrote, there are infractions off-line and on.  But the reason I take a guy like Tom King to such harsh task is that I feel he brings the standards on the Wall Street Journal down.  And I find that offensive and sad. 

There was one factual error in the piece, which has been kindly corrected by IGN editors.  I told them that I would take up the other issues I had with the piece with “Stax” himself.  He hasn’t bothered to respond to my e-mails.

Anyway, you can judge for yourself.  I probably should be honored to be attacked so vociferously.  I’m sure that some of you will agree with “Stax.”  I’m sure that some of you will not.  The story is here.

SPEAKING OF KING:  I don’t know how many people are still taking Tom King’s weekly WSJ column seriously, but he ticked me off again on Friday.  In a sexist, thoughtless, simple minded story, he found yet a new way to ghettoize actresses in Hollywood.  Tom can’t tell the difference between Julia Stiles, Erika Christensen, Kate Hudson, Kate Bosworth, Reese Witherspoon and Charlize Theron. 

Let’s do the easy part first.  Bosworth and Christensen have each been the lead in a total of one movie.  Both are beautiful and neither of them has played an objectified blonde in their big movies.

Charlize Theron has been a key part of the marketing effort, if not the lead, in thirteen movies since her breakout performance in 2 Days In The Valley six years ago.  She peaked as a box office draw with four movies in 1998 and 1999.

Kate Hudson has never opened a film.  She’s been a good actress, but there is no indication that she is box office.  And, indeed, she is still playing “the girl.” Albeit a more complex version of “the girl.”

Reese Witherspoon and Julia Stiles are actual box office stars… today.  Stiles has a real following among teenaged girls, her ascension beginning with 10 Things I Hate About You and continuing with Down To You and Save The Last Dance.   Her interest in making more complex, independent-minded films has slowed her a bit, but she is still a real commodity.  Reese Witherspoon has been less shy about movin’ on up.  After building a cable-viewing fan base with films like Fear, Freeway and Overnight Delivery, she moved into the studio world with solid work in Pleasantville, Cruel Intentions and Election. And when she hit a home run last year with Legally Blonde, she became a real-life movie star… aka “an opener.” 

And then there is Kirsten Dunst, whose success in Spider-Man is a nice asterisk for her career and will bring up her price.  But she was already a real opener before the Spidey attack… unlike the great actor/non-openers Tobey Maguire or Wilem Dafoe.  Like Witherspoon, she worked her way up the ladder.  She co-starred in studio films like Interview with the Vampire and Jumanji and Little Women and Small Soldiers.  Then she moved front and center on films like Dick, The Virgin Suicides and Drop Dead Gorgeous.  Then she proved that she was actually drawing an audience with films like Bring It On, crazy/beautiful and even Get Over It, which offered little more than cameo Kirsten. 

The thing that really ticks me off about King (whose column can be read here if you have a WSJ subscription)  is that he mixes and matches his attacks.  For the first time in a long time, there is a generation of young actresses who are not just playing “the girl.”  Even Hudson, who I have put in that category, played a character in Almost Famous who was more complex than the woman in that slot is normally expected to be. 

Of course, not every young starlet is going to become the next Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock.  But idiots were saying the same thing about those two when they were coming up.  I guess that if King were to take a look at all the cover boys and girls that Hollywood is trying to build into stars and didn’t take the tack of making this all about blonde women, I wouldn’t find the discussion so cheap and grossly unfair. 

Does King think that Edward Norton – a great actor – can draw as many dollars on an opening weekend as Witherspoon, Stiles or Dunst?  He can’t.  He never has.  Don’t even get me started on Matthew McConaughey or George Clooney or Val Kilmer or Chris O’Donnell or hey… why not attack Hugh Grant for the weak run of a great movie, About A Boy?  Or how about a note of apology for questioning Matt Damon’s draw in The Bourne Identity? 

Colin Farrell is getting more than double what Witherspoon is getting and he hasn’t been in a movie – not even one starring Bruce Willis – that could match the opening weekend of Legally Blonde.  The only two releases in which he was poster bait failed to gross as much, in domestic total combined, as the opening weekend of Legally Blonde.  Do you think he sold a single ticket to Minority Report? 

You can’t separate the blondes because you aren’t paying attention, King.  Audiences are.

COPY RIGHT?:  Copyright has been a big issue round these parts lately.   The goofy DGA lawsuit against Clean Flicks - goofy because the really have no standing to sue – was actually forced by Clean Flicks, which sued the DGA in anticipation of an eventual suit by the DGA.  The reason none of the directors have any real standing in these matters is that they are not the copyright owners and, like it or not, there are no artists rights laws in this country that give power to film directors. 

Meanwhile, up at Stanford, a guy named Larry Lessig is trying to change the whole profile of movie copyrights, which have been extended and extended and extended so that copyrights that would have passed by now are currently in force until 2040.  You can read the lengthy story here.

CORPORATE LINKS:  The ugliness goes on and on.  

There are a couple of god perspective pieces on AOL/Time-Warner, here and here.

The Telegragh takes on AOL/TW and Disney here.

And the reality of Vivendi, Universal and Barry Diller is on display here.  Not surprisingly, Barry is in more control than people realized and his ship is firmly, shockingly, in his control.

READER OF THE DAY:  JB writes:  “What is a "Hollywood Film"?

Very simply, it's a film I've heard of.

Less simply, if a film has a blitz of media attention, hype, and marketing attached to it; if it's being called an "Instant Classic" or "The Best 'whatever'", chances are it's a "Hollywood Film". But that's just me.”

HER CRISPINESS writes: “A Hollywood movie is about being BIG. It is full of BIG stars (or at least stars who seem like they’re going to be BIG), BIG action, BIG comedy, and BIG romance.  In a Hollywood movie, the good guys win and get the girl. These things are not necessarily bad, but when you do something BIG, it had better be good or it’s BIG and BAD. As someone once said, ‘Sometimes making things more beautiful doesn’t make them better.’ “

GOSH DARNED BROWN writes:  “A Hollywood film is any film where more money and creativity is spent on P&A than on the actual production itself. 'nuff said.”

And NOT MICHELLE covers the waterfront:  “"Trapped" is a rancid film that may have some camp appeal, but anyone interested in it in that sense won't shell out the bucks to see this stinker in the theater.  I understand why Stephen Holden favored snide comments and spoilers in his review.  If you're a critic, you've seen this film many, many times.  It still isn't any better.  Charlize Theron's career is in need of some rehab because she's done far too many of these ("Sweet November", "The Astronaut's Wife", "Reindeer Games", and the perptually non-released "Waking Up in Reno", which I assume to be terrible).  I think she has talent, but she hasn't made the best choices, especially if she left/turned down "Sweet Home Alabama" for "Trapped".  (BTW, "Sweet Home Alabama" is going to make Reese Witherspoon a mega-star.)

One other semi-related note to "Trapped"...  Did you see any of "24 Hours of Love", Courtney Love's live hosting gig on MTV2?  Some of it was hilarious, especially when she was talking about "Trapped" and kept referring to Charlize as "Chuckie".

As for the racial makeup of "Barbershop's" audience, I think the crossover may have started the opening weekend.  I have only anecdotal evidence, but when I saw it opening day, most of the audience was white.  Typically when I go to see so-called "black films", this isn't the case.  As for how studios handle these movies, I found it odd that "Barbershop" wasn't screened for critics here.  Could it be that since where I live isn't considered a "black" city, they didn't think it was worth bothering getting reviews in the Thursday alternaweeklies or Friday papers?  It's not as if the buzz wasn't good or that the reviews weren't there.  Some well placed reviews might have boosted the opening weekend even more.

"The Transporter" has a couple of good action pieces (a car chase, fight on an oil-slicked floor), but it's not terribly memorable or good enough to sustain itself for the running time.  Although the absence of dialogue isn't to the degree of "Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever", I don't doubt that dialogue has been pared to make it easier for dubbing and the overseas markets.  This screened the night before it was supposed to open, that is, until the release date was pushed into October.

Finally, a "Hollywood movie" is something that has been processed and test marketed to the point where it becomes a piece of machinery clicking through the standard gears rather than operating on passion and artistic belief.  That's not to say a "Hollywood movie" can't be good, but even the better ones leave the sneaking suspicion that they're not quite genuine.”

E ME:  Do you have a headache?