October 8, 2003

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. And then there are lies posing as statistics, brought to life by stunning professional ignorance, whether intentional or coincidental. Such is the province of Roger Friedman, internet gossip and a suck-up of the highest order.

In his Tuesday column, he spins one brief comment from Howard Stringer into some sort of confirmation of all of the paranoid spin passing for a revolution in New York’s indie scene this week. But that attempt to find a new chink in the MPAA ban’s armor is not a major issue… it’s just another bit of hyperactivity in a world of media hyperactivity on this issue.

What is bothering me the most today is the remarkable lack of straightforward facts on our way to Spin City. For instance, why is it that Norman Jewison is being touted as a legendary director – which he is – re: his letter to Valenti, without any mention that he has a vested interest in screeners going out this year, with Sony Classics positioning their one feature Oscar hopeful, his Michael Caine-starring film The Statement, as a December release… probably too late to get traction on its own without screeners? I’m not saying that Jewison doesn’t deserve to have a voice. But give me the whole picture.

Friedman goes to town with his unsubstantiated, but “there is no question” analysis of the wins of Oscar screeners past. He starts with Sony Classics, citing Talk To Her, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Winged Migration. Can you spot the spin?

Talk To Her was probably helped by screeners. But Sony Classic did screen the hell out of it and it was, according to the MCN nationwide poll of Top Ten Lists, the third best-reviewed movie of last year.

Winged Migration’s nomination was not helped by screeners, since documentaries are nominated by committee, not by general vote.

Crouching Tiger had already been a box office phenomenon in the U.S., grossing more than $70 million by the time it was nominated by the Academy. That was about where Gangs of New York was when nominated last year and many multiples more than The Hours or The Pianist were at when nominated.

But there’s more…

After spinning some coast-vs-coast conspiring, Friedman cites 1986’s nomination of The Mission as an indication of big studio nomination control. We could start denuding Friedman’s passionate attack on the film by pointing out that the film had won the Palm D’Or at Cannes, like The Pianist did last year. It was also nominated for five Golden Globes and 11 BAFTA awards, including one for some hack writer than no one could respect, name of Robert Bolt. (It would prove to be Bolt’s final screenplay.)

But more to the point, Friedman completely disregards the rest of the nominees in 1986 year, including the winner, Platoon… released by a true independent (Hemdale/Orion) a couple of years before Miramax really broke through into worldwide notoriety with The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover. And, keep in mind, Sundance wasn’t even Sundance until 1985. The independent movement was in its infancy.

What were the other fat, bloated studio films that dominated the Oscars before Friedman’s indie heroes saved the world? Children of A Lesser God (Paramount), Hannah & Her Sisters (also Orion), and Room With A View (indie releaser Cinecom)

No screeners. I guess that explains all those crappy, puffy Hollywood titles.

Friedman then zooms along to the one great indie year at the Oscars, 1996. The English Patient, Shine, Fargo, Secrets & Lies and Columbia’s Jerry Maguire.

With no disrespect to any of the films, let’s take a closer look. The English Patient was then Miramax’s most expensive effort by far… $27 million. (This year’s Miramax entry was budgeted at triple that figure and, unlike English Patient, is all on Miramax’s dime.) Shine was a pick-up by Fine Line, the New Line dependant. Fargo was released by what was then a Universal subsidiary, Gramercy Pictures. Secrets & Lies was released by October Films, which was then run by Bingham Ray, John Schmidt and Amir Malin. Universal would buy that indie too, just a few months after the Oscars were awarded.

Shine, Fargo and Secrets & Lies were all budgeted at under $10 million. And indeed, it was a year of victory for the indies. Were screeners at the core of this success? I don’t think so. Great promotion ruled the day.

In 1997, three of the five Best Picture nominees were studio movies, regardless of Friedman’s effort to turn the ham-fisted handling of L.A. Confidential into some sort of indie/screener phenom. Miramax’s Good Will Hunting was nominated, but it sure looked like a major studio film and was sold as such. Fox Searchlight had The Full Monty that year, that dependant’s one great Oscar triumph.

In 1998, the battle that has dominated attention on the Oscar landscape ever since began; Miramax vs. DreamWorks, Round 1, which went to Miramax, outselling the lightweight Shakespeare in Love over Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. Oscar would never be quite the same… not because indies had come of age, but because Harvey Weinstein announced to the world that he would do and spend almost anything to win Oscars for his movies, willing to take on the biggest players in Hollywood.

Back on the attack, Friedman offers: “Valenti is acting as if there are huge lines to buy the kind of in-theatre videos Kramer wanted to make on Seinfeld, with people's heads bobbing up in the picture, or with grainy, milky images.”

Not in America. But to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars in Asia. And, missing the point yet again, this fight for those who believe in it, is precisely about the fact that those crappy video’d films are not as good as the digital quality DVDs that studios release as awards screeners.

There is nothing wrong with being anti screener ban. I am anti screener ban. But you lose whatever small moral high ground there is here by lying, whether by commission or omission, to make your point.

Meanwhile, studios are making the adjustment to the change in the rules, whether they like it or not. DreamWorks and Fox Searchlight have made special arrangements for their top candidates. Expect the same from other studios, one of which will be booking screenings every single day for almost two complete months before nomination ballots are due. I still feel that the late announcement of this ban has created an unfair array of awards season troubles. But while some studios bitch and moan, others move forward. Welcome to show biz.

ROY TROUBLE: That tiger didn’t just rip at Roy’s throat, but he may have put one studio behind the 8-ball as well. DreamWorks and NBC were well into pre-production for a season of the CG-animated Father of the Pride, a series about a family of anthropomorphic lions, who just happen to live and work with Sigfried & Roy.

No one knows what to expect, as Roy’s recovery or troubles will either make or break the comedic value of the show. The running gag about the tiger being too rough on Roy is either going to be adorable or deplorable. No doubt, DreamWorks will do the honorable thing.

READER OF THE DAY: Two unnamed pro critics go head-to-head on Kill Bill…

FIRST – “Read your "Kill Bill" column this morning. Bravo to you for having the guts to point out how fully unclothed Emperor Tarantino really is. Throughout "Kill Bill," I recognized all the talent and skill on display - and fervently wished they weren't in service to the same old philosophy - "blood and guts are so much fun it doesn't matter how or why it's getting spilled" - that ruined "Pulp Fiction" for me too. Stick to your guns ... or, in this case, your samurai sword!

SECOND – “The artistry is in the way the film is shot, edited and lit. I wouldn't call the movie a remake of grindhouse flicks with nothing new to add ... I think, taken together, the whole adds up to something that is uniquely Tarantino. The finale, The House of Blue Leaves, is a tremendous achievement in the way it combines all the elements of cinema into a thrilling, imaginative sustained fight that actually moves the story along. I would pay to see that scene again.

Stop comparing the critical response to this movie to Charlie's Angels. Nobody was raving about CA the way they are Kill Bill, and for obvious reasons. If there was a movie the critics went easy on because they (we) were trying to seem "hip," it was "The Matrix Reloaded." That partly explains why the sequel was better reviewed than the first movie, even though it was inferior in every way.

As for how critics would respond to Vol. 1 if we didn't know there was a volume 2 ... well, how would have critics responded to Reloaded if they didn't know there was a Revolutions? It's a silly question. You respond to the reality. And, if it was a newcomer, I'd be equally impressed, because I don't have any stake in Tarantino's career. As for whether the movie is worth twice as much as any other movie this year ... I'm not sure what you mean by that one. I think the admission price is the same. And I don't think too many people will be disappointed by paying it.”

AND the wackiest screener idea yet: “So about this screener stuff. Has anyone suggested dusting off the old Betamax players of the 1980s? I mean no one but their Uncle Todd has them anymore and if you revamp the industry with them then piracy will be next to impossible because, hey, who has a Betamax, right? And remember the little plastic tabs on cassettes that prevent them from being taped over? Well what's to say there can't be one that prevents them from being taped?

Can you imagine? Cassettes coming back to save us all!”

E ME: Hopefully, Hollywood will find something else to talk about soon…