November 20, 2003

Whose hypocrisy is it anyway?

Maybe I don’t hate to say, “I told you so,” quite enough. But there in today’s Variety you will find ICM’s Jeff Berg being shocked… shocked! ... that the New York Post chose to review – whether they call it a review or not – The Passion of Christ off of a bootleg tape. There are so many angles of hypocrisy here that I barely know where to start. But I have to start somewhere…

Mel Gibson has been using the media to position his movie in an aggressive, clearly political, way for months. He has not had quiet “friends & family” screenings looking for insight on how to improve the film. He and his team have sought out politically friendly journalists to spin the story in the media in the direction that makes him most comfortable.

That’s not to say that I believe that the film is a problem for Jews. As I have written repeatedly, I have no problem with Gibson or any other filmmakers making any statement with their work that they choose. On top of that, I have no way of making what I consider an objective opinion without seeing the film. And Gibson has the right to do whatever he wishes with his film.

But every action has a reaction.

It is Gibson’s actions that have turned this from a debate about a movie into a debate about politics. There would have been a political debate. But by joining the fray himself, he can no longer make an argument about his artistic rights with the purity he had a year ago.

Will The Passion of Christ become the dominant story at Sundance this year? Well, that’s up to Mel, I guess. I would love for the film to make a run at this year’s Oscars. Why not? An addition like that could make this one of the most exciting, most competitive years for Oscar in history.

But long before Mel Gibson and The Passion of Christ, Hollywood started winking at all of this kind of pre-judgment of the work. Yes, most people in the business actually hate the test screening reviews and the screenplay analysis, draft by draft and the second-guessing by internet folks with no stake in the work except their own amusement. But still, even the smartest of them have given a nod to that side of the web and joined into that game, whether by fake reviews sent to sites or sending prints to Austin for Harry Knowles or knowingly embracing websters who write under assumed names or using gossip columnists to put out non-review reviews into the marketplace without any concern about the rules of embargo usually kept in place.

Every time I bring up one of these choices, I get accused of jealousy or bitterness or some kind of personal frustration. But what I keep saying – and am still saying – is that there are consequences to lowering the bar. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

While we were giggling over Ron Howard & Co. going public with their motivation for having Harry Knowles on the set of The Grinch, what we were forgetting was that very other producer in town got the message… bring Knowles in under the tent and he will not be a problem. The point here is not to rehash old crap about Harry, but to point out the trendy nature of this business. One person can get away with playing the rumor mill, but soon it becomes the standard and everyone wants to be spun.

The Internet is just a part of it. In the flap last week about a New York Times reporter lifting a paragraph from a website which had lifted the paragraph from a book, neither the paper of record or the web site of the damned has credited its source. We’re in the year of Jayson Blair, yet there it is.

“More damaging for the industry is the idea of a major metropolitan newspaper reviewing a film three months before its theatrical release. It is unprecedented,” said Jeff Berg to Variety. But it’s not. Not even close.

It was the very same NYT reporter who plagiarized a website last week who first quoted an anonymous web-based review in a story about a movie, leading to wholesale quoting of unfactcheckable website comments and reviews in every major news outlet in the country.

But I don’t blame him. I blame his editors. It is their job to set standards. And they simply have not done so.

It wasn’t that long ago that it was important when Time Magazine and Newsweek put a movie on the cover. But both have become just another cover on the newsstand, fighting for a hot selling cover the same as every other rag. Why? Because they have come to hold themselves so cheap.

Six weeks ago, Roger Friedman, who has no standing as a film critic, broke the embargo on Kill Bill, forcing Miramax to loosen the embargo on his Internet competition, including myself. But has he stopped getting access? Of course not. Another hack gossip broke the embargo on a major studio film a few months back. He’s back at early screenings again. Just days ago, Liz Smith broke the embargo on The Last Samurai, in more detail than I think I have ever seen in her column. Is she in trouble? God no! I’m guessing she’ll get more access to Tom Cruise than anyone else.

Who deserves control when they are constantly changing the rules? And does the failure of consistency change the idea of commanding respect into one where the only option is to demand respect? And doesn’t being in that adversarial position make every sphincter in the room a little tighter?

Even Variety is to blame. For what possible reason do the trades still have different embargo dates than any other media? The tradition from the past comes from the trades being a company-town-only newspaper. But that is no longer the case. Variety reviews go on the web, same as everyone else.

As far as I’m concerned, if a studio allows anyone to run a review that is not bound by agreement to be positive, the embargo should be over. If a studio allows a major media outlet to run a review that will inevitably be positive, based on that outlet, the embargo should be over. The very first day that a studio runs pull quotes on a movie, the embargo should be over.

Of course, this too causes changes. Perhaps rules like that would lead to fewer and fewer early screenings. But that too has a negative effect - as long lead press, which really doesn’t need to see the movies but gets away with it based on tradition as well, becomes the arbiter of the quality of work, even if those seeing the movie have no status whatsoever as critical judges.

Everyone knows what junketeers quote. But the studios keep quoting them. Peter Travers’ deal with Rolling Stone breaks “Berg’s Rule,” but its an effective tool, so everyone just looks the other way. The newest trend is presenting feature quotes as review quotes. It is, in every way, a lie. But people just yawn and move along.

In the end, this is all about control. I still defy anyone to point to a film that suffered a significance box office impact from Ain’t It Cool News reviews. But the feeling of being out of control that a test screening review gives to the studios has led to new limits on test screenings - which has hurt movie after movie after movie. The reviews didn’t do nearly the damage that the reaction to those reviews has.

Would Jeff Berg be hitting the roof if the New York Post said conclusively that The Passion of Christ was not anti-Semitic? (Rhetorical question.)

Where was Jeff Berg when Ebert & The Other Guy started doing early reviews every single week?

Where is Jeff Berg when Newsweek or Time runs a review early because they made a deal with the studio?

Or is it some kind of “three month rule?” “We know what you are, we’re just negotiating price now,” as the old joke goes about the woman who would give up her virtue for a million dollars but not for five bucks.

Don’t even get me started on the hypocrisy of arguing that screeners are critical to being able to vote for awards when none of these critics groups (save the BFCA finals & Oscar docs & foreign language) have ever required that members see all the finalists - much less every film – in order to vote.

Consistency is hard. I know. But inconsistency leads to a sick combination of anarchy and obsequiousness. And to a lot of outrage that just can’t be taken seriously.

READER OF THE DAY: JOE E writes: “I went to an advance screening of In America last night. Jim Sheridan was in attendance as was Djimon Hounsou, some Q & A followed the film.

The film is about loving and losing. Loving those you hold dear, and the pain of letting go those that are lost. Djimon Hounsou has remarkably very small amount of screen time in the film. But his impression on the film is miles deep. He is fiercely intimidating at first, then becomes the symbol of friendship and understanding. I have no idea whether or not this film will win any trophies or not. And that's part of what I love about it, that's not its goal. Far too often films seem to carry a huge burden of taking itself very seriously, or Directors and Writers have the notion of making a statement or being extravagant or a glamorous actor who looks rugged and carries an accent to prove his/her worth. Not here. This is a tiny movie with a big heart. It's not out to deepen anyone's pocketbook or put some more golden statues on the mantle, it exists to share a story. Haven't seen one of those in awhile.

E ME: I saw The Missing for the third time last night and it just keeps getting better. I am looking forward to seeing In America again tonight. It occurred to me as I was watching The Missing that the idea of seeing film multiple times may be a generational one, started in my generation with the birth of HBO and cable and taken another big step by the DVD generation. Thoughts?