June 24, 2003

I have now seen the Wild Wild West of 2003…. 

I am not going to name the film or write any more about it for now, but… it’s breathtaking!  And here is what I anticipate from the critical community -- bland, slightly negative posturing.  Why?  Because anything that is this far away from what virtually any member of the community of critics can say they have a hands-on relationship with (Luke Y. Thompson being the exception) is too much of a risk to dare to take on in a straightforward attack.  It is much easier to go after a wounded Eddie Murphy or an overreaching Ang Lee.  What critics do not understand, when we expect to understand, we tend to eviscerate.  What critics do not understand, when we expect not to understand, we tend to mildly embrace… we start taking the temperature of the room… we try not to sound unhip.   Could you get an unhipper group together than a room of film critics?

Crap is crap is crap.  Some crap calls for people to be thrown out of their respective guilds.  Michael Bay may not know what story he should be telling all the time, but he sure knows how to tell a story.  (I am looking forward to Bad Boys as a return to Bay’s less self-important, big bang style.)  But being a visualist does not necessarily make you a storyteller.  At least the Tarsems and Kinka Ushers of the world know how to find a moment or two that offer something more to you than last week’s beer commercials.  Not everyone has even that going for them. 

There will be a few critics who slice and dice this film.  (My scalpel is going to the sharpener today.)  But you are going to see a far nicer set of reviews than it deserves. 

Wild Wild West had a $50 million long weekend then limped to a $114 million domestic total.  That was four years and a few more weeks of expected theatrical playtime than now.  $125.3 million domestic is well within range.  Maybe $140 million.  Literally an embarrassment of riches.

Said Ken Turan in 1999, “Like the curious children they often resemble, filmmakers can be fatally distracted by toys. Big, expensive toys that are no doubt enormous fun to play with in person but don't register quite the same way on screen. Toys like the ones that dominate and finally destroy Wild Wild West. Few things are potentially more dangerous to the health of a studio picture than giving a director and a star enough rope to hang themselves.”

And this from Janet Maslin, also on Wild Wild West:  “Ruled by increasingly ghoulish special effects, it leaves reality so far behind that its storytelling would be arbitrary even by comic-book standards.”

Plagiarism would never be more appropriate. 

THE IFP/LOS ANGELES FILM FESTIVAL:  This year, this festival, in just its second year under the ownership of the IFP, decided to put it right on the line… they want to grow into a festival of major importance.  But they still have to answer the key question that has made every major festival major… what is the central purpose of the festival?

Sundance has a lot of stuff going on that is great, but really has nothing to do with why people tramp out to Park City every year… like the Native American section.  Toronto has a lot of Canadian film that can be excellent, but is rarely given a lot of media attention.  At Cannes, the hype and the market are more important than the actual awards.

So how will the LAFF define itself? 

I couldn’t tell this year.  There was a good party on opening night and a great party on closing night.  The social events during the week were great fun.  And the outdoor screenings at Ford Amphitheater were well attended and well loved. 

But the movie story was a little more blurry.  Lion’s Gate, Fox Searchlight and Miramax dominated the non-competitive entries.  The Audience Award for Best Narrative Feature award was given to The Magdalene Sisters.  Now, if you read this column daily, you know that I consider this one of the very best films due into theaters this year.  I could have told you that the film would win any audience award possible before the festival opened, just from looking at the schedule.  But does Miramax need the accolade as much as, say, any of the 12 narrative features that don’t have distribution?  A jury award is cool, but an audience award tells potential distributors that audiences are embracing the movie. 

Opening the festival was The Cooler, a Showtime-feature-quality turned Sundance darling turned Lion’s Gate theatrical release.  With The Magdalene Sisters and Thirteen and even something like The Mayor of Sunset Strip in the festival, why choose The Cooler?  It seems obvious.  William H. Macy, Alec Baldwin, Maria Bello and Ron Livingston were all at the premiere.  Sundance has become known for opening with mediocrity, almost throwing a bone to the locals.  But they can afford the distraction. 

Likewise, the closer was another Sundance competitor, Camp.  This great film idea gone flat offered the prospect of the young, hyper-talented cast coming to perform live at the closing party.  And they were great.  The party itself, held on the lawn next to the Wadsworth theater, was a dream.  But does the festival want to be known for its parties – which is exactly what the previous incarnation of the film became known for – or for its films? 

In addition to the 12 narrative films in competition, there were 13 documentaries in competitions.  As with most festivals, the competition docs were better than the competition features, which are usually from new filmmakers. 

But let’s assume that LAFF will remain a local festival.  With 45 features that come to the festival with some outside credentials that are recognizable to potential ticket buyers, and with 25 in competition from unknown filmmakers, which section will dominate?  And if the festival is not really about new discoveries, despite its repetition of that theme, how will it grow?

You can find an array of things you want to see at most festivals.  The Bermuda International Film Festival, which I have attended for the last four years, has as much product as LAFF.  And frankly, it is just as interesting a line-up, if not more so.  This shocks me a little, since IFP is such an important organization in the independent film world. 

If IFP wants this festival to become important to a renewed indie movement, I suggest more competition-type films and less product from the distributing indies.  With due respect, I do not need to see films curated by Kasi Lemmons or Chen Kaige that have been around forever.  If I want to see a movie that Chen Kaige contributed to, it will be something that I have never heard of, not The Godfather, Part II. 

I live in Los Angeles.  I am around the film business.  I need someone to tell me, “You must see this film… it is a must!  And if you don’t see it here and now, you may never see it again!”  You could go see a film on every day of the eleven day festival and never see a single competition film and still have to make hard choices. 

Of course, the profile of the “discovery” films is also an issue.  And that will, hopefully, evolve in time.  The trick there will be to convince filmmakers that LAFF can be a legitimate alternative to Sundance.  

But in the meantime, I suggest that they look for a trademark for the festival… the hook.  That and a little patience, and who knows?

(To read about the award winners, click here.)

THE HOLYWOOD REPORTER KEY ART AWARDS:  I spent Friday night at the 32^nd Annual Key Art Awards, which are the awards for the best movie marketing materials of the year.  This is my second year in attendance at the awards that are marked by their laid-back attitude and raw, comic honesty about the awards, the work and the industry itself.

This year, the $150 a seat event outgrew the Wilshire Ebell theater and moved across the street to the International Cultural Center.  Sometimes, growth is not the best thing.

I really enjoyed last year’s show.  And I enjoyed this year’s show.  This is a universe of highly creative, savvy people, all in competition to get the biggest laughs from the hippest room in town.  But somehow, things felt a little tighter this year. 

Maybe it was Peter Adee, who has done a great job hosting the show for the past two years, having a job.  Still, that didn’t keep him from taking some quick shots at the limitations of his own company, MGM, or his former company, in the persona of Marc Shmuger.  (Wouldn’t it be ironic if MGM bought Universal?  Ah, Jonah eats the whale.) 

It could have been the overwhelming domination of Spider-Man (aka The Josh Goldstine Show) and Chicago, which seemed to win a lot more than they lost. 

Last year, I felt the presence of the veterans of the industry more.  I felt the personalities of the individual companies more.  And there seemed to be a tougher edge.  I can’t compare either show to the 30 previous outings, so I am flying a little blind. 

There was some talk about continuing to build the show, to make it an event for the public.  Not a good idea.  The charm of this event is the freedom of insiders to joke freely about one another without fear of media intrusion.  Nobody says anything that they wouldn’t say to one another’s face, as the other face is in the room.  But like the Golden Globes, a lot of the spontaneous fun becomes scripted when the media glare grows. 

Adee is a great host.  Celebrities with material as good as Kevin Smith’s are welcome.  Rob Schneider was flubbing in top form as well.  Sharon Stone looked great.  The special recognition of an overall film, Spider-Man in this inaugural year, obviously designed to bring some star power to the event, could be dumped before year two.  Besides the fact that it felt forced, it also was cream on top of cream, as the film took more awards than anyone else, in no small part for making more money than anyone else. 

Terry Curtin’s innovation of having a public vote for two categories on the web is an addition that should stay.  But 60,000 votes is a little lame.  We linked to the voting on MCN a couple of times, but a minimal barter deal for a quart page ad or something would have given the Key Art voting a near-permanent slot on various MCN pages.  Likewise, it should have turned up on AICN and all the other regular web stops for web surfers who might actually take the time to vote. 

My personal favorites were the wins for Adaptation.  Val Van Galder & Co. were accompanied by Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze, who came just to support the home team.  Gordon Paddison took home a little pyramid for the Lord of the Rings website.  Looking through the book of finalists, I noticed some Attack of the Clones billboards for European use during the World Cup, including one with Sam Jackson’s Mace Windu, light saver in hand, and the tag, “Our goalie uses the force.”  Cool.

I really did enjoy myself this year.  But I fear the ongoing growth of the event.  The intimacy is the magic. Maybe they should go to the Wadsworth next year and have an outdoor party like LAFF.  Two nights in a row in paradise.  That would be fun.

READER OF THE DAY:  SON OF SCORSESE writes:  “To steal a line from Bruce Springsteen (who most critics claimed was merely waxing Bob Dylan), I've been reluctantly walking into the theaters lately "with a boulder on my shoulder."  And indeed, "feeling kinda older."  But rather than being blinded by the light, I'm blinded by the bullshit you valiantly wade through week by week.  I must confess a curious sort of obsession with your column.  I check in daily, yet almost always leave the Hot Button torn between hope and despair.  My reaction was the same with "The Hulk."

Either Ang Lee didn't trust his audience, didn't trust his vision, didn't know what his vision was, or simply ran out of time.  I don't know, and really, it no longer matters.  What we have with the "Hulk" is a film that simultaneously insults the arthouse crowd's intelligence, and confuses the holy hell out of popcorn munchers.  As you dutifully pointed out, the film is easily fifteen minutes too long.  Nic Nolte is his father....we get it!  Bruce has something inside of him; something special....we get it!  Repression is tragic....we get it!  Had Lee dumped the tedious repetition of Banner's mysterious past, this thing would be much more streamlined.  In current form, once the door is finally kicked in and we find out what's on the other side, we're about to turn into the Hulk ourselves.

I appreciate what Lee was trying.  He wanted to add layers, he wanted to be dramatic, he saw the Hulk as a tragedy, not a superhero.  Fine, great, wonderful.  But what the hell is the point of the Hulk dogs then?  This film is at war with itself.  I wonder how much that is a reflection of the artist and the industry in which he works.

Back to the boulder on my shoulder....it is very heavy with negativity.  I recently finished reading "Getting Away With It," Steven Soderbergh's fascinating chronicle of finding his place in the "industry," while simultaneously discovering why Richard Lester just couldn't be a part of it anymore.  Again, I was filled with hope and despair.  Here we have Soderbergh, who after the book's publication went on to do The Limey, Erin Brockovich, Traffic, Ocean's Eleven, Full Frontal and Solaris!  Holy shit!  All within the studio system.  I mean....where to even begin!  How amazing a run is that?  And miracle of miracles, the Academy actually understood how brilliant this guy is and gave him the Oscar for "Traffic."  There is hope, right?  I don't know. 

I can still hear the echo from the collective thud Full Frontal and Solaris made at the box office, and reading about the insanity involved with Schizopolis and Gray's Anatomy, one has to wonder....what will become of his industry credibility, and are the studios really to blame?  I'm almost unable to drag myself to multiplexes anymore.  The collective ignorance and stupidity of the crowds is numbing, especially for someone such as myself who has been trying so hard to write something that will reach out from the screen and connect with these people.  How?  How does anything I want to show or say have a chance of connecting when 10 out of 10 people on the street can't even tell you who Soderbergh is, but can name for you, with relish, every detail of the latest reality show they've fallen under the spell of? 

I haven't even made a movie yet and I feel myself being further and further divided from that audience I can only imagine.  I see the weekly box office numbers, the way they're tabulated and drooled over....the way a movie is judged a success or a failure on its opening weekend.  What happened?  I'm just a young pup (to quote my father), so maybe I'm just spewing shit I don't have the first clue about, but in the old days, wasn't a film allowed to find its audience?  Now, there isn't much of a chance, if any. 

Those that get what I'm trying with my writing, well, they get it....it's preaching to the converted.  How do I reach that audience?  How do I get them to sit there and open their hearts when there are no guns, car chases, easily digestible jokes or bouncing tits to keep their attention?  Who wants to make movies that matter?  Who's going to take that risk when there's no guaranteed return or merchandising tie-ins?  But I think the most important question that I fear has an answer is: even if these high-minded bits o' cinema are made, who will go see them?  Does advertising really hold that much power?  Have I successfully painted my self-indulgent portrait of a frustrated artist yet?  Again, hope and despair.

I'm going to keep with it.  The pity-parties are fleeting.  Reading your column gives me that daily reminder that there are those of us out there who still believe in the power of film, even if the popcorn public is blind to it.”

E ME: Excelsior.