January 6, 2004

24 hours since the last column… and still nothing really worth writing about…

Victoria Riskin’s situation at the WGA has gotten worse, but the reportage remains a bit unclear. According to Variety, Riskin was paid for an option on "Magic Town," but the amount of the deal was not for enough money to maintain “current member” status required to be eligible for election. But they also report that the crux of the issue might be the date of her reporting of the deal.

The New York Times’ Sharon Waxman adds that “Magic Town” was a script that Riskin’s father wrote many years ago and which was produced, directed by William Wyler and starring James Stewart. On theory is that the “rewrite” was really just a sham option to do a rewrite on the screenplay, intended only to qualify Riskin for election.

The Los Angeles Times’ James Bates and Michael Cieply add that “to run for office, a member must maintain that status for the year leading up to the election.” So the question I had, which is whether Riskin has done anything since the questionable option/rewrite, is irrelevant.

The one question that seems to really require thought by the board is whether Riskin mislead the nominating committee intentionally. If not, is it fair to disqualify Riskin because of a mistake of the staff. Or does any of this matter, since a union should not be led by someone who is not a working, current member? All perspective. Given the mess that the arbitration process remains, I would not rule out any decision.

Which brings me to the rather bizarre suit over The Last Samurai. Like the screener lawsuit, this is another attack on a deeply flawed system that is absolutely critical to the system working. Having been done out of a deserved credit myself via WGA arbitration, I understand the pain. These guys are suing over not being included, but even when included, the process of submitting screenplay drafts for arbitration, not knowing what others are doing, is very disconcerting. The system is unfair, unquantifiable and better than any alternative that I can think of.

I once thought that no studio or experienced producer would be stupid enough to make a movie without paying for the source material. On an $80 million-plus movie, how can a couple hundred thousand dollars be worth the risk that the writers will come back and bite you in the ass?

As it turns out, my first major story when I returned to Los Angeles in 1994, a newly minted film journalist, was about The Flintstones. You remember The Flintstones… 32 writers and none of them able to make the film work. But it was a big film and it turns out that it was a big ball of trouble.

I really need to re-report the entire thing to do it justice and not to be sued for libel, but I’ll give you the broad strokes. The film was based on a screenplay that the producers did not own, written by a young screenwriter who had become a major screenwriter by the time the film was made. He wanted his back-end money, a low six-figure payment, that was due if the movie was made and he got a credit. The massive arbitration mess caused by the 32 writers was a cute story, but the real story was that he thought the studio was avoiding him getting credit to avoid the back-end. But what they were really trying to avoid was him getting credit, since some corporation that had once bought the assets of the long-earlier sold companies that owned the script, might figure it out and sue. And the writer, who was unaware of the situation, could also have created a big problem.

The fear of discovery got so extreme that most of the 31 writers who were not this person (and I say “most of” because “all of” could get me sued and this is a decade cold story) were paid significant amounts, based on the presumed amount that they would make had they gotten credit, to skip arbitration. In the process of making these payments, the WGA arbitration process was delayed, apparently to accommodate this wheeling and dealing. I only got a percentage of the 32 to admit what had happened but, mysteriously, the group of people involved in the arbitration went from 32 to 3. Could it have gone on with WGA leadership knowing? I don’t believe so. They threatened to sue me too.

The story never got published, even though it was meticulously sourced and researched. It was the kind of story that would have toppled people in high places and simply embarrassed others. When I could not find placement for a wide array of bad reasons, I declared that I would never write about this stupid business again. Things changed. But the point of this look back at history was that even the smartest guys in the game could get themselves in trouble by not cleaning up their messes carefully enough.

The business arrogance of the guys who got the credit in The Last Samurai case – guys who always seem to win – is not so surprising that anyone would not believe it. (I should say, though, that I spent some time with Marshall Herskovitz this weekend and he seems like a straight shooter and a good guy, even if I don’t agree with his screenplay politics.) But at the same time, the hubris and the desperation for credit by the plaintiffs in this case do not endear them to me – or make me believe them – any more than it does for the defendants.

But the core problem is that the attack is now on the existing system, much like the screener ban fight. The trouble with that is that although our loving fantasies about wrongs being turned into rights is great, the real response to a loss in court that makes the existing system vulnerable is not for people in “the system” to suddenly do “the right thing.” What they tend to do is to close ranks and fight for the system.

I am a great believer in winning the war, not just the battles. When people start taking on “the system” in pursuit of what are truly personal interests, my bullshit detector starts flashing bright red. Consider it tripped.

By the way, the guy whose unowned script they were avoiding was one of the arbitration winners and got his back-end. I don’t think he ever got more than that. But one of the original players, who had been brought on for-hire, apparently managed to receive a nice cash settlement of his own for not blowing the whistle, even though he had no actual standing in terms of the ownership of the screenplay. Sharks must swim or die.

READER OF THE DAY: THE MAD ONE writes: “I see you listed "Dracula: Pages From a Virgin's Diary" as one of the 2003 movies you didn't get to see but wish you had. Don't bother. I was lured into seeing this movie by the rave reviews and the fact that I usually like vampire movies. It now has the distinction of being the worst movie I saw last year. The movie is a nearly unwatchable mess. It's a hodgepodge of genres, none of which work. It doesn't work as ballet; you really don't get to see enough of the dancing to appreciate it. It doesn't work as a vampire story; it's far too campy, stilted and predictable, without any sort of passion. It doesn't work as a re-imagining of Dracula. Many critics liked the film for its feminist elements or commentary on racism. I see what they're talking about, but those moments in the movie were very minor and subtle touches which didn't really go anywhere. The movie stuck far too faithfully to the story of Bram Stoker's Dracula to make any sort of new statement. It didn't even work as an artistic achievement. The director tries too hard to give the movie the look of an old silent film, to the extent of having poor picture quality, which flickers and frequently whites out. The effect is merely irritating and cheap. Sets and costumes also look cheap and campy. I might also add that the dancer who plays Lucy is poorly cast, and the movie spends way too much time on this part of the Dracula story before getting down to the more interesting material. The first half of the movie is a complete snooze. The ending is also a big disappointment, completely lacking in creativity and daring. About the only good thing I can say for this movie is that the actor who plays Dracula is good, but even then there wasn't enough of him in the film.

I recommend that you not waste your time on this one; there are many more worthy films out there!”

NOT DAVID GEFFEN writes: “Among "films you missed," Dark Blue was pretty solid; gets a little talky, and kind of preachy -- too much "telling," not "showing," and that Scott Speedman sucks outright. Still, a good cast, decent performances.

And Poolhall Junkies was enjoyable. Fluffy, but enjoyable.”

And SUN BOY writes: “An interesting list that I agree with in most areas. I just wanted to point out the absence of Whale Rider. I know it wasn't your favorite movie, but it does deserve to be mentioned as one of the better films of 2003. I'm sure it was just an oversight.”

E ME: Does it feel like the 2004 parade has started yet?

Monday - December 29 - The Movies You Didn't See, But Should Have
Tuesday, December 30 - The Ten Worst Films Of 2002
Wednesday, December 31 - The Best Films Of 2002
Friday, January 2– Reflections on a New Year