|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |||||
January 28, 2003
Well, it’s been quite a day!
Turns out that my ISP, a little tiny company known as SBC Global, isn’t getting me my e-mail because this worm that’s gone around in the last week has attacked them. So, my apologies if your e-mail is among the many I’ve heard about that have bounced back. It will be fixed. If you want to reach me in the next couple of days, I would cc to thehotbutton@yahoo.com, which I will check daily until this settles in… then, I will forget the address again.
Today is the last day before the Oscar polls close. I’m not going to do any last minute campaigning here, except to say: Vote With Your Heart.
And… there is no other news, really.
The lovely and talented Patrick Goldstein wrote a piece today that calls a recent ratings decision, “another nail in the coffin for a ratings board that has shown itself to be wildly out of touch with parental standards and totally capricious in its judgments.” Must be pretty serious!
He was writing about Kangaroo Jack receiving a PG instead of a PG-13.
Please, allow me to be the first to say, “What the fuck?!?!”
Should Billy Elliot have been rated R last year? Probably not. Is the NC-17 a devastating failure? Absolutely. Is there a real problem with the MPAA giving violent elements a wider berth than sexual elements? Yup.
So let’s go to war over Kangaroo Jack getting a PG instead of a PG-13! Jokes less crude than shown in Super Bowl commercials yesterday… Estella Warren in a wet t-shirt that most E! hosts would wear to a funeral… cartoon villains doing cartoon violence! Quick, call the cops!!!
Would I give Kangaroo Jack a PG-13 instead of a PG? Yes. Sure. Right on. But do I really think there was anything in the film on the level of what appeared in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the movie that inspired the creation of the PG-13? Nope. Kate Capshaw in the white shirt in the water pit…. that had some serious sexual subtext. Children under 12 in serious danger of physical violence? Not in Kangaroo Jack. A real sense of death? Nope.
My longtime e-mail pal Peter Greene wrote Patrick about the issue. I respect both men. And I am certainly vulnerable to the “you’re not a parent” charge. But I am an active participant in the lives of my nephews and nieces and I really do understand the concern. Are we really talking about a movie that we’d be uncomfortable taking a 12-year-old to? An 11-year-old? 10? 9? Yeah, I can see that some of this material might make the unsuspecting parent of a 5-year-old uncomfortable. But more so than Harry Potter?
I am also a little distressed to see that Patrick didn’t do all of his homework. For instance, he cites Snow Dog as a model for the release and mentions that Kangaroo Jack’s kangaroo only talks once, in a dream sequence. This makes it sound like they are unfairly bouncing off Snow Dogs. But, as any parent with a kid who’s gotten their hands on a Snow Dogs DVD knows, the dogs in Snow Dogs, featured in their commercials, don’t talk except in a dream sequence either.
Likewise, before smearing Rob Reiner for his Castle Rock partnership, why not examine the current state of that union. Not only did Jerry Bruckheimer control the project, but Reiner’s first directing project in four years, Loosely Based On A True Love Story, involves no Castle Rock money at all. The company has only four titles scheduled for 2003, K.J., Chris Guest’s A Mighty Wind, Larry Kasden’s Dreamcatcher and Barry Levinson’s Envy. Except for K-Jack, these titles are Castle Rock classics, basically cleaning out the closet of older relationships with Guest, Stephen King and Larry David.
Anyway, I’ve sucked up around 600 words with a discussion of an absurdity. Getting seriously upset about Kangaroo Jack’s PG rating rates right up there with screaming at the theater manager because they only sell Pepsi, not Coke or Twizzlers instead of Red Vines. Please! If you cared about your kids, you wouldn’t be taking them to see crap that you know will be crap like Kangaroo Jack anyway!
Tick, tick, tick…
Like I said, nothing to do… but waltz…
The Peter Bart gay bias suit might get interesting. It was my belief two Augusts ago that the only way that Bart would lose his position with Variety was to be sued for the biases portrayed by Amy Wallace’s Los Angeles Magazine article. And no doubt, that magazine article – and the failure to claim it was all a lie – will be Exhibit A in this legal case, if it ever goes to trial. Homophobia is unfortunate, but should not be held as illegal. But if Bart actually said that he wouldn’t hire gay men, regardless of the reason, this could mark the end of Bart’s reign. If they can’t prove that Ramin Zahed really deserved to be dumped and that his dismissal in “reconfiguring” his group was coincidental to his homosexuality, it could be ugly. This is one case in which Bart will be held guilty until proven innocent. Not fair, perhaps. But real.
Tick, tick, tick…
Roger Friedman may keep the shine on Harvey Weinstein’s shoes glowing by using his tongue, but he’s not pissing in the wind with his report that Miramax and Rob Marshall are gearing up (not Gere-ing up) for a big screen version of Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd. A couple of problems. 1) Can they get the rights from Sondheim? 2) Is there any indication that Marshall has the filmic skills to bring across a period opera?
But I have two words of advice for anyone who is looking for the next big star to do the next big musical: Russell Crowe.
What shows would I suggest as good candidates to be transferred to the big screen? Well, a lot depends on the director. Sondheim probably has the best modern catalog of films for modern directors. But none of them are “traditional” Broadway shows. Tim Burton was born to make Sweeney Todd. Spielberg could make a beautiful version of Pacific Overtures. Zemackis’ Into The Woods would be a winner. Soderbergh’s Assassins would be very interesting. Sunday in the Park With George should not be attempted. I would give George Clooney Follies in a second, though the movie would be too inside to ever do much business. And I would love to see Spike Lee’s take on West Side Story. He could make that work. And I am one of the people who really liked his musical, School Daze.
Beyond Sondheim, a new version of Rogers & Hammerstein’s most challenging work, Carousel, would be interesting. A modern version of High Society, complete with Cole Porter score, would be as fresh now as it was when it was The Philadelphia Story. A film version of the musical of La Cage Aux Foilles might take off. And while Singin’ In The Rain should never be considered, Comden & Green’s On the Town would be a good, fun, ensemble film that would convert easily to modern day without changing anything other than the orchestrations.
Tick, tick, tick…
Okay. I give up. See you tomorrow.
READER OF THE DAY: Hello Mr. Poland,
I am just a 14 year-old kid who decided to have some fun on the internet and look up his name... as it turns out I found you so I decided to write you and just tell you that we have the same name.
Your friend,
David PolandE ME: Dear David Poland,
I think we’ll both be happier if you just become Frank or Bill or Roland. My lawyer will soon be in touch.
P.S. Does anyone really care about the Kangaroo Jack rating?
