November 22, 2002

Some weeks you are just ready to see end.  This was one of those…

Myopia is a real problem in a life of examination.  Knowing where the finger needs to be pointed often leads, when we are honest, to pointing it right back at ourselves.  So I enter this house of mirrors today, I’m still feeling a little skittish, even after taking the whole week to find some perspective.

But I decided to bore you all with my take on this infantile saga after I had my movie-writer-idiot thermometer top out today.  I have defended the L.A. Times’ Kevin Thomas against cheap attacks, like the one in the late great New Times L.A. earlier this year.  But Thursday morning, he earned a place in the Pantheon of The Flaming Asshole. 

There was a screening of a tiny Zeitgeist release called To End All Wars.  Turns out that I had seen it before at a film festival, but I stayed and watched it to the end, not wanting to give anyone any ammo for attack.

Kevin was on time, about a minute before the 11 a.m. scheduled start.  The publicist was nowhere to be found.  And he had a fit.  The producer was there and was gently trying to intro the movie.  But Kevin wasn’t listening.  “Where’s the publicist?!?!”  The producer meekly explained that the publicist was supposed to be there, but maybe she was stuck in traffic and… “I’m Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times and I was promised that there would be notes here when I arrived!!!”  The producer apologized and explained.  “Well start the film,” Kevin screeched, “This is a professional situation!”  The producer said that we should get started because there was a screening right after this one and … “No!  I want you to call that publicist before you start the screening!” 

Just then, Ron Brewington turns around (talk about your ghosts of columns past) and tells Kevin to, “Shut up!”  And then they got into it.  I thought for a second there that Ron was going to get up and beat Kevin.  But the exchange just got a little more heated.  “I’m not going to shut up!”  “Who cares… ‘I am from the L.A. Times’… who cares?!  What’s new?!” 

The film started.  About five minutes in, a young publicist (who coincidentally looked excruciatingly cute wandering around in the dark)  delivered notes to each of us in the room, trying not to interrupt the viewing experience. 

After the film ended and I sat through most of the credits, I left.  Kevin sat with his feet up in the upholstered seats on Jimmy Stewart 24 and looked old and cranky and smug.  I like it better when I was defending him.

But I also knew that something has to be in the air this week.  So one more story…

THE MIRAMAX OSCAR MOVIE STORY

It all started on an exhausted Sunday night, fresh out of a very pleasant weekend.  GoldDerby.com master Tom O’Neil decided to go after Fox News’ Roger Friedman and used comments from my column to heat up the rhetoric in the attack.  Unfortunately, O’Neil misrepresented the detail of my comments, but not enough to complain.  Besides, people were finding it amusing.  O’Neil’s outrage, expressed far more aggressively on this issue than I ever have in my column, was raised over a Friday, 11/15 review by Friedman of Miramax’s Gangs of New York, which at that point had only been screened for press in New York on Thursday the 14^th and 15^th.

What struck me odd immediately was that O’Neil himself released a hysterically positive assessment of Gangs’ Oscar chances just minutes after releasing his diatribe against Friedman.  What made sense about all of it was that Friedman is seen as a Miramax flunkie, whether he likes it or not.  For his part, Roger vehemently denies any Miramax connection whatsoever and then occasionally drops a fact that suggests that he is a liar or in denial…. more on that later.  But even while Roger says that he is just doing his job and trying to get stories first, he was unable to cite, and I was unable to find, a single example of Friedman breaking the first review on any movie that wasn’t distributed by Miramax. 

 

For the sake of perspective, I will risk immodesty by noting that this column has broken the first review of major releases from no less than four major studios in the eight months since April of this year alone.  It is a part of what a small group of us do, more often than not, with the cooperation of the studios.  There is also a big market for escaped information… one I try to stay away from.  I’m not doing a filmmaker any favor by exposing his or her work before it is ready and if I am secretly doing it in their behest, I will eventually be exposed as a shill and then I am no good to anyone. 

 

But I digress…

I dropped a note to Tom O’Neil late Sunday night and he responded that his Gangs rave was “just reporting on the news I'm hearing about it, that's all.”  By Thursday morning, Tom had exposed the truth… he was lying… if not by commission then certainly by active omission.  But more on that later.

TUESDAY - After a media flurry on this conflict, Roger Friedman wrote a piece about the dust-up.  Friedman mixed honesty (“This is a gossip column.”) with propagandistic, self-aggrandizing spin (attacking the unnamed O’Neil’s site and perhaps this site you are now reading as, “not run by a sanctioned news-gathering organization.”  Ooohhhh!!!  That hurts!)  What makes Friedman think that his readers are well-served by his personal feelings about film, I do not know.  There is a real conversation to be had about the hypocrisy of movie reviews in gossip columns and the studio system’s embrace of them.  I can’t claim the purely high road here, as The Hot Button has bent traditional column structure into my personal vision of a pretzel and I have asked people to work with me and to go for the ride. 

Bur Friedman’s “snarky” piece kept zeroing in on two issues of little relevance.  1) The lack of “a sanctioned news gathering organization” overseeing the sites.  2) That no one called him to ask for his side of the story.

This is my philosophy.  If you print it, you have to live with what you printed.  Not what you intended, not your positive thoughts… your record is in black and white.  As I wrote before, Roger Friedman’s record is in black & white.  To be fair to him, it is possible that he only gets early access to Miramax product because of the NYC-centric nature of that company and he is based in NYC.  But Friedman’s representations that he led the way with negative reviews of Full Frontal and Comedian are simply false. 

His “review” of Full Frontal came on August 16, after the film failed to ignite the box office.  And it was nasty.  However, it also spun a myth about the film that made Miramax look almost victimized.  He wrote:  “ "Soderberg (sic) experimented too much and too much inside for even the insiders. No one wants to be that inside during the summer," says a Miramax source, who indicated that the studio has pretty much abandoned the film.”  The truth was that Soderbergh wanted to release the film quietly in the spring and that the studio pushed to make a big deal out of it and its non-existent connection to the 13^th anniversary (???) of Sex, Lies & Videotape.  Roger also closed by giving a bright note with Spy Kids 2, “a bona-fide hit.” 

Please note that may of us saw Full Frontal more than three weeks before its release, in mid-July.  I saw it on July 24.  And like a legitimate journalist, I held my negative review under standard embargo rules, while still managing to defend Soderbergh against unwarranted personal attacks, much like the one Friedman eventually ran.  You might also note that the campaign to get The Quiet American released by Miramax started in this column on August 8 and Jeffrey Wells’ column in August 9, about a month before Toronto.  That’s early.

Likewise, Friedman’s October 10 pan of Comedian was not way in advance, but in that case, the day before the film’s release in New York and Los Angeles, beaten into the news by reviews in weeklies and other outlets.   And, as pans go, it was pretty gentle.  He wanted to see the stuff on the cutting room floor and he closes, “Even if Comedian is not the best film of the year, it shows that Jerry wears well on the big screen.”  Well!!! 

TUESDAY - After Friedman’s in-column response to the Sunday release, Tom O’Neil spoke to Friedman and wrote another piece.  This time, he printed Friedman’s claim that he had seen Gangs of New York though non-Miramax sources and that Friedman’s first-break “review” of Chicago did come from a Miramax screening.  He added that  Liz Smith, Cindy Adams and Andy Jones had also been allowed to see Chicago by Miramax for unembargoed review.  And then, he closed by claiming that Miramax spokesperson Cynthia Swartz told him that there was a partial embargo on Chicago screenings that did not include Friedman, Smith, Adams and Jones.

Something was wrong.  There had been no Chicago “review” – and we know what a Liz Smith review looks like after Monday’s suck-up to The Hours – in Liz Smith, Cindy Adams or Andy Jones’ columns.  All three have referred to the takes of others on Chicago, particularly Patrick Goldstein’s LA Times piece from last month.  Smith apparently did see the movie in anticipation of a tush-smush on Zeta-Jones and Zellweger… but not the other two.

WEDNESDAY – Friedman and I talk.  He tells me his story.  Well… first he screams a lot.  Then, he tells me his story.  Roger wants to be first.  That’s his priority.  He’s just a working stiff and he’s just trying to get his work done.

 

Later, Jeffrey Wells would make his contribution to this cluster fuck.  Jeff was quick to jump all over Roger Friedman in his Wednesday column at Film Anus…. uh, Movie Poop Shoot. 

 

Jeffrey did find a first-break review by Friedman.  Of Frida.  A rave from an “early rough-cut screening.”  He also talked to Miramax’s Cynthia Swartz… and the stories didn’t quite match, including his claim that Swartz said that there was no embargo in effect on the Chicago and Gangs screenings.  Jeffrey being Jeffrey, he ran comments on Gangs of New York from a source/hack/long-lead journalist who saw the film in New York and liked it…if not enough to avoid damning it with faint praise.

 

Also, The New York Observer did a cover story on the movie… so they must have seen it months ago.

 

Had enough?  I thought I had taken all I could.  And then….

 

THURSDAY – Another Tom O’Neil column… apologizing to Friedman and trying to clean up the mess.  And that’s when he dropped it… Tom O’Neil had seen Gangs of New York in one of the New York screenings a week before.  His “I hear” review was a lie.  He saw it.  This was his personal opinion. 

 

Unfortunately, Tom also continued to muddle the story, bouncing back and forth between facts and fictions that he was a part of creating along the way.

 

Here’s the simple story:  Friedman got his hands on a version of Gangs of New York.  He says he loved it.  He says that he wants to be first all the time and that when he heard about the NYC screenings that took place while he was in L.A., he ran his review so as not to be scooped by a leak from the screenings.  Why he didn’t run his review back when he saw the film first, I don’t know.  He claims that there are no embargoes on him and that he has no working relationship with Miramax.  Yet when he walked into a Chicago screening as a +1… less than 75 people have seen it… no one stopped him or called him to ask him not to write about it.  That’s what he claims.  Miramax begrudgingly admits that they knew he saw the film on their watch.  So where is the line between complicity and independence?

 

Tom O’Neil was asked to see Gangs, as he says on his site, by the studio, in hopes of getting smart Oscar feedback.  The knowledge that he was invited by the studio was embargoed, but his review obviously was not.  I would call that double dealing on both sides. 

 

Then came the question… why is Miramax being so precious with Gangs?  It’s not like the film is a slam dunk.  They have had two screenings in NY and one in LA so far and the critical arguments are already revving up, on both the positive and negative sides.  And the soldiers are non-critics.  Moreover, the soldiers are not taken seriously as film experts.  Tom O’Neill, to give him his due, knows a lot about the Oscar game.  But why would a studio hide a movie that needs as much support as it can get.  Gangs of New York is not Catch Me If You Can, a movie that can rest on an inevitable $150 million-plus box office haul if Oscar leaves it a bridesmaid.  You can say that it’s too early to start the debate on Gangs, but it has started and the studio has no control, so long as people are whispering.  And it sure isn’t too early for Catch Me If You Can, which will start screening in earnest in the second week of December, just before it junkets.  Their team is on with Barbara Walters on tonight’s 20/20.

 

POST SCRIPT - There is another complication in this scenario.  I have seen Chicago.  Miramax didn’t want me to see Chicago, but I have seen it.  And because I actually believe that there are standards in criticism, I am planning to hold my review until I can see the film in a proper screening. 

 

I know.  Crazy! 

 

The fact is, I’m currently holding reviews for pretty much every studio in town except for DreamWorks and Sony, though I suppose that I would still be holding on Adaptation if I didn’t love it... I do.  And I guess that today is the day to run a review of The Emperor’s Club.  (It sucks.)  But I won’t.  That takes Universal off the list.  But there are another half dozen films that I’m not writing about.  Some studios have been more explicit about what they expect than others.  But this is the game.  We all play it to one degree or another. 

 

Then there is the other reality… we all chat.  Only two studio publicists were ever smart enough to say to me, “Okay, so you won’t write if you don’t like it… but you can’t tell all your colleagues that you hate it either.”  And I agreed.  But that doesn’t stop very many writers and editors from gabbing.  Most of the talk deserves disregard at the best and disdain at the worst.  But it does happen.  And it does shape opinion.  I’m out of the battle for Gangs of New York until Miramax allows me to come off the bench.  I don’t know how you feel, but I’d want me as an ally. 

 

And so it goes… I self-embargo because I believe it to be the right thing.  Miramax keeps me out of Gangs because… well, I still haven’t heard an answer better than, “You don’t HAVE to be in the very first screening in L.A., do you?”   Uh, yes.  But that’s not the point. 

 

I fear that Miramax is being a little too precious with Gangs for their own good.  A few years back, I felt the same way about a movie that I considered a legit Oscar contender, Gus Van Sant’s Finding Forrester.  But the Oscar engine stalled because Sony, which blamed Van Sant for their actions, wouldn’t let the buzz begin.  I hope not.  Because it always comes down to one thing for me… the movie.  And Scorsese, no matter how brilliant his film, will need all the support he can get for Gangs.  Entertainment journalism is truly a trickle-down game.  But right now, the only trickles they have working publicly are ones just valuable enough to be at home on an alley wall. 

 

Tom O’Neil will go on being a top Oscar prognosticator… and I will never read him again without wondering what’s true and what’s spin.  Roger Friedman will keep writing his column and the proof will be in the pudding.  And Jeffrey will keep in being Jeffrey.

 

And me… I’ll try to forget.   I’ll try to stop allowing myself to get sucked into this idiocy.  It’s all so interior.  Come December 17, all bets are off and then again on January 16, after the Globes and then again when the nominations happen.  The problem is, there are certain films that I really, really want to support.  I’m looking forward to Catch, but nothing I could ever do would help or hurt that film.  Same with the Sandy Bullock movie and Star Trek and Maid In Manhattan, etc, etc, etc.  But Gangs?  I want to get my back into it and push… assuming that I feel about it as I feel about most of Scorsese’s work.  If not, not.  And now…

 

Where are my notes?!?!?!?!?!  Don’t you know who I am?!?!?!

 

Tee- hee.

P.S.:  I haven’t included any of the relevant links because… fuck `em.  Enough already.  Too much.  Let’s move along.  Nothing to see here…

WEEKEND PREVIEW:  It’s another not very complex weekend at the box office.  Bond and Potter and everyone else.  There are six films losing more than 500 screens each, with the high low being I Spy, which loses 1076 screens this week.  Ouch. 

Far From Heaven, like Frida, continues to add a couple hundred screens each weekend.  And there are five new openers that I don’t expect in the Top Ten.  Universal’s The Emperor’s Club opens on a modest 809 screens.  Miramax opens The Quiet American on 13.  Paramount Classics puts Just A Kiss on 4.  Sony Classics opens the new Almodovar, Talk To Her, on 2 screens.  And MGM/UA gets Personal Velocity on 2.

WEEKEND GUESSTIMATES

Die Another Day – 3314 venues – new - $57.8 million
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets – 3682 venues – off 53 percent - $41.5 million
Friday After Next – 1616 venues – new - $14.8 million
The Santa Clause 2 – 3251 venues – off 43 percent - $8.6 million
8 Mile – 2587 venues – off 58 percent - $8.1 million
The Ring – 2628 venues – off 43 percent - $6.1 million
Half Past Dead – 2113 venues – off 48 percent - $4.1 million 
My Big Fat Greek Wedding – 1586 venues – off 28 percent - $3.9 million
Frida – 794 venues – up 10 percent - $3.2 million
Jackass: The Movie – 1522 venues – off 53 percent - $1.8 million

READER OF THE DAY:  Paulie Donuts writes:  “It's funny. I agree with you 95% of the time when it comes to movies, but I only feel compelled to write to you when I disagree. In this case, I found Die Another Day to be a massive bore. It does get off to a good start. I like the hovercraft scene. But other than that, the fencing duel, a few good one-liners and the attractive women, I found very little to admire (though it's miles better than XXX). The action is way overcooked and the CGI is awful, especially the scene you're talking about (Bond surfing with the parachute in Iceland). I didn't care for Tamahori's direction. I didn't think he handled the action scenes well. Zao is ok but Gustav bored me. Still, for about 90 minutes it's moderately entertaining. And then the last 30, well, they feel like 30 days. How many endings are there? At least three. It just goes on forever. The

pacing is incredibly off. I walked out disappointed.  I'm with David Ansen on this one. Bond has become boring. Then again, Michael Madsen, one of my all-time favorites, is actually in a movie that's getting a wide release and not going straight-to-Cinemax late night or video. So it can't be all bad.

E ME:  Let me know what you think of Bond, et al.  And how will you relax this weekend?