October 9, 2003

I write tonight in a nearly giddy mood. It’s happened before, but it does seem strange, given that I just came out of DreamWorks new capital-D Drama, House of Sand & Fog.

Of course, the buzz kill remains the ongoing (boring!) discussion about screeners. The fad of the day, prompted by some really sloppy reporting by The New York Times’ Laura Holson, is to assume that the screeners are coming back. Holson’s piece was made even worse by an irresponsibly inaccurate headline – “Oscar Voters May Get DVD's After All.” And the nearly giddy “we’ll get those money grubbers” gang keeps misstating facts with an acuity that suggests intent.

(Note: Late Thursday Night, the following was added to the Holson story – “Correction: Oct. 10, 2003, Friday - A headline in Business Day yesterday about the ban on sending DVD's or videotapes to Academy Award voters — a measure meant to deter unlawful duplication — referred incorrectly to a compromise being considered by Jack Valenti, chief lobbyist for the movie trade group. It would allow electronically marked videotapes to be sent, but not DVD's.”)

Let me say again… I am against the ban. At the very least, the action came too late and in the midst of an already difficult short Oscar season.

However, this thing has gotten way out of hand. The argument that the independent film business, currently experiencing one of its best ever years, with Focus going strong in just its second year, Searchlight getting more attention this summer than most majors and Warners getting into the business. One has to laugh at the notion that Miramax is an indie at all anymore, acting a lot more like a content provider like Jerry Bruckheimer or Imagine Entertainment, with two films that represent a marketing-included investment of over $100 million apiece.

When I read stuff like, “If the major studios don't want to send out tapes, fine, but they shouldn't penalize other people,” I just have to sit there, stunned. What other people? The majors that own “art” arms, own those arms. They are a part of the majors. The acquisition heavy Sony Classics, UA and Paramount Classics may be more independent in some ways than the others, since they don’t spend as much. But, in the end, the financial partnership is there and being a signatory is part of the price. All the buzz about non-signatories being pressured into not sending DVDs is a game by the “dependants,” who are pulling out every stop to pressure their bosses.

But far more telling to me than the mystery reports that Valenti is bending is the fact that only three of the “dependents” bothered to show up for the conference call with Valenti – Sony Classics, Focus and Miramax. Bingham Ray, who was said just days ago to be the most aggravated didn’t make the call and someone from his office obviously sent in that correction to Variety.

People “in the know” want to tell you that the Coalition Of The Unsending is cracking, but when only three of the six “dependants” turn up for the conference call, who is cracking?

But the biggest point of all to be is the most simple: ego. In today’s Variety, David Rooney finally picked up on the fact that very few people deeply involved with Fox or WB are speaking up against the ban. Barry Meyer and Tom Rothman are using up political currency to keep their people in line. It is pressure, but when the top guys have to exert pressure, there is a price.

Putting this thing together and stealing away the screeners (cue the dramatic music!) in the middle of the night was a terribly clever (or evil – your call) way of stifling debate and required the tactic – not passing, not unthought out, not fanciful – agreement of the top dogs at the seven MPAA studios and DreamWorks.

Now, think… how often have you heard any of these guys eat crow in public? How many of these guys have you ever heard giving up an unpopular position because of press pressure? What other studio chieftain is going to explain to Barry Meyer why he gets to be known as an industry cuckold for the rest of his career? “You know, it’s funny, Bar, but the film critics really want their screeners, so, you know, you have to admit you are wrong about piracy and send out screeners, k?”

And when exactly did you last see Jack Valenti eating a steaming bowl of shit in public?

There is the remote possibility that the ulterior motive here was always to get rid of DVD screeners and to make people happy to get the inferior videotapes. It is possible. But not likely.

But beyond that, there seems to be a distinct lack of understanding about powerful people. I don’t know many of them who are good about admitting they made a mistake, much less being humiliated. And the more public pressure, the more likely they are to stick to their guns. Because if you let the crowd decide for you once you’ve taken a public position, you will never have your power taken seriously again.

There was a time in this town when people were afraid to say a bad word about Mike Ovitz in a deli, lest word get back to him. His company went wrong and now he gets mocked so often that it isn’t even fun to mock him anymore.

Ride out the bitching and moaning and the awards season will come. And some “indie” movies will get nominations. And everyone who is out there screaming right now will call it either “a one-year-fluke response” or a backlash. And next year, when it happens again… well…

I do believe that the threat of piracy in film is a little hyperstated at the moment. And I do believe that there are only a handful of movies that could really be hurt financially by screeners going out. And again, the timing really sucks for everyone. But the hype has become akin to comparing a grease fire in your favorite Village burger joint to 9/11.

Some of us, who really do use the screeners as a business tool, will really miss them. A handful of movies will have to be that much more clever to get noticed. Critics groups will continue to give year-end awards in mid-December, claiming not to be trying to influence the Oscars while bitching about the screener ban. Gee, if they moved their vote three weeks, they could see almost everything on a big screen… wow… how horrible that idea is! And the vast majority of people who are used to getting screeners will be really pissed off about losing their entitlement, all the while pointing at European voters and elderly members who use walkers.

I’ll miss the screeners a lot. And I’ll be thrilled if somehow they get sent. But in the meantime… grow up, people. This is neither world hunger or brain surgery. It’s about going to the movies and awarding your favorites and watching them dress up on TV.

Meanwhile, the “insiders” claim that the ban will be over by next weekend. I’ll set the alarm.

HOUSE OF GOLD & BALD: So next time someone ask you, “Who do you think will be nominated for an Oscar this year,” you can say in a clear, unwavering voice, “Sir Ben Kingsley for House of Sand & Fog!”

Is it a guess? No. It is an inevitability. Kingsley gets to play one of the most tonally complex men you have ever seen in a movie and by the time the movie is over, you will feel 20 different ways about him. Director/screenwriter Vadim Perelman, screenwriter/novelist Andre Dubus III and Kingsley himself have crafted a character who manages to be an emotional Rorschach test throughout the film without ever making you feel like you are being played or that they are forcing the issue.

The other lead of the movie is Jennifer Connelly, who has become America’s answer to Catherine Deneuve. She’s like watching a piece of really moist chocolate fudge cake. No matter how grimy she gets, she is just breathtaking. It’s as though you can smell her hair and feel her skin as it crosses across your brain at 24 frames per second. Amazing. Yet, she can also act.

This may be her best work ever, playing a recovered addict, teetering on the edge of all the pain that cost her so much. She is a shattered woman, but she seems to be holding it together in an emotional patchwork. She has always been low key as an actress, but she just feels more and more confident and clear in her work, having to do less and less and getting more and more out of it.

About halfway though the movie, it occurred to me that Connolly should have been cast as Ava Gardner in The Aviator and that she probably would have turned it down if offered. But it would be nice to see her in that kind of role… the kind of role she got a lot when she was 20ish. To see her play a role that was about the power of beauty would be fascinating.

Here, Connelly plays a fairly normal woman, but Perelman doesn’t shy away from lingering on her body with all the love of a Playboy photographer. Yet, she remains more a challenging character than an object. One shot in particular, in a bathtub, is more beautiful and as loaded with subtext than you have any right to expect from a moment in the film where story seems like more than enough to chew on.

These two performances are so much of what House of Sand & Fog offers. (Shohreh Aghdashloo, as Kingsley’s character’s wife is also a real standout.) The story is about these two people, lost in transition. She is a young woman who has lost her husband, her father and barely managed to hold onto her sobriety, living in a twilight zone where she doesn’t even bother to open the mail. He is a family man, come to America to find post-Shah of Iran freedom and streets of gold. He finds mostly frustration. The house of sand & fog (quite literally) brings them into one another’s lives.

What is truly remarkable about this film, which is in some ways a kissing cousin to Mystic River and 21 Grams, is that the characters' behavior is all well motivated and can frustrate the hell out of you one second and make perfect sense the next… sometimes in reaction to the same behavior. It will force you to consider what you perceive as the same as you and what is different than you. And it will make you think about the things you hold dear and whether they actually hold you.

There will be more to write about House of Sand & Fog as we get closer. It doesn’t open until December 26.

It’s funny. When I first saw the one-sheet, I was not in love with it. It’s a bit silent movie horror. But after seeing the movie, it somehow fits perfectly.

READER OF THE DAY: I kind of off-handedly wondered, “Who gets killed first?”” yesterday. I was surprised by how many people answered. A sampling…

DOH!MZ writes: “oh please let it be chris columbus and brett ratner...tied to four horses and ripped asunder!!”

AFTER A writes: “Not that I would advocate murder in any way, but...McG. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying anybody should go out and whack the guy. Obviously only a sick bastard would do something so heinous as to off McG and spare us the gruesome spectacle of Charlie's Angels III and IV.

And absolutely no Superman fans should even entertain the notion of tossing McG off a tall building so as to remove any chance of his grubby little fingers getting all over the Man of Steel. Because that would be wrong. WRONG.

It would also be wrong to kill the following directors: Paul W.S. Anderson, Brett Ratner, and whoever was behind The Real Cancun."

LONG LASTING FIBS writes: “Adam Shankman! If not just for his work, but for a comment that he made in Variety a couple of months ago that his "movies are like television." Yeesh! Send him straight to hell to share a cell with Salieri who at least had the common sense to KNOW that he was mediocre!

Shankman and his ilk should be relegated to directing episodes of Reba.

Martin Brest can step up to the gallows next for his overly long ass movies.

Joel Schumacher would have been first at one time, but since Falling Down, he's at least made honest attempts at decent filmmaking and good storytelling. He can no longer be called Joel Schlockmeister.”

CUT TO HIM writes: “Easy one! Michael Bay. Chopped into little bits, just like one of his alleged movies. But if he's found that way, I had nothing to do with it. Followed by Ron Howard, drowned in sugar syrup.

Something I can't figure out: why are you lending credence to this Chainsaw Massacre remake? What's causing you to dignify it by acting as if it's a worthy endeavor rather than yet another unnecessary cash-in attempt?

E ME: Because it’s a good movie. It’s that simple. If it were a bad movie, I’d say that. Why should it matter if it’s a good remake or a good original?