February 17, 2004

You know, The Passion of the Christ could really help The Jew…

Any by “The Jew,” I mean Adam Sandler, of course. There is little doubt that 50 First Dates is going to win next weekend’s box office derby. And it is equally clear that it will not win in its third weekend. Mel Gibson’s new film will win that weekend by much the same margin that 50 First Dates won this weekend.

However, with a serious, heavy political film opening on a Wednesday - not unlike the “hood movies” that started opening on Wednesdays out of a fear of violence from gang members attending weekend shows – there will surely be a split between the holy palmed and the hairy palmed moviegoer. Of course, Searchlight's Club Dredd will be the perfect movie for self-loving boys who can’t get dates. But the movie most likely to help you get lucky on Saturday night will remain 50 First Dates. (Men who are with women who repeat the phrase “Nobody puts baby in the corner” over and over when drunk might try Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights. But the only sex that is likely to come of that ticket purchase is guilt sex after your significant other realizes what she’s put you through.)

SPEAKING OF THE JEWS: I spent much of the weekend trying to keep Roger Friedman’s misleading stories about The Passion of the Christ’s distribution pattern from getting any traction by writing factual rebuttals on Movie City News. I was not alone, as I received a lot of e-mail from people who wrote FoxNews.com and the few media outlets that picked up Friedman’s blatantly false and recklessly unresearched claims. And I think the lie has been shouted down… except for the few e-mails I’ve gotten from people who have spoken to people who commented on hearing and believing the lie in their local media.

But the ongoing media saga of The Passion of The Christ is quite illuminating, apart from The Friedman Follies. In the end, the traditional media games played in the name of “covering” the most popular movies in release are in full bloom. The only difference between the media frenzy here and on something like, say, The Matrix Reloaded, is that this director who doesn’t want to talk to the press about his movie talks to the press constantly.

They got the cover of Newsweek… the cover of Entertainment Weekly… a Primetime special on ABC… constant coverage in the New York Times, even if it is negative most of the time… etc, etc, etc.

There is always a reason to cover any movie, no matter what the politics. Crucifixion… frontal nudity… Tom Cruise… it all ends up being very much the same, doesn’t it?

JUST WONDERING: Does is strike you as spectacularly unfair that the TV mini-series “Kingdom Hospital” is being called “Stephen King’s Kingdom Hospital” without any mention of Lars von Trier or his mini-series “The Kingdom?”

RUNAWAY PRODUCTION: Who spiked the drinks of the L.A. Times’ John Horn and Patrick Goldstein and made them believe that it was time for a campaign to get the government involved in runaway production?

In point of fact, the only effective result of the “Internet campaign urging people to avoid seeing” Cold Mountain was to get John Horn to write a story about it. As someone who works on the internet and who searches for and links to interesting stories every day as editor of Movie City News, Horn’s story was the first I heard of the effort by the Film and Television Action Committee (FTAC)… and except for people talking about the Horn article, it was the last I heard of it. … until Patrick’s story ran today. The idea that this issue can affect Oscar voting is laughable.

There is no question that the runaway production issue is a real one for Hollywood unions and workers. But as usual, those who wish to fight the battles are targeting the wrong people for blame. There is virtually no motivation for the United States or California to create tax incentives to keep production in the Los Angeles area or even in the United States. The amount of dollars expended for actual product that is moving out of the country is less than $5 billion a year. The loss in tax revenues is not enough to get the government motivated. Moreover, the idea that the government should give tax breaks to rich people and corporations in a high-risk business in order to create more work for around 10,000 highly paid workers… uh, right.

Patrick was somewhat restrained in his commentary and showed a sense of balance, but then falls into traps, like comparing piracy and runaway production… one of which could kill the film business and the other which is causing limited employment amongst a relatively small group of union workers. Hypocrisy or not, studios who “pay stars $20 million to perform in their films” and unions that “enforce restrictions that prohibit actors from flying coach, directors from driving themselves to work and cinematographers from operating a camera without having a camera operator paid to stand by” are responsible for their excesses, but these are not causes of runaway production. It’s about saving on the margins, not about spending on the big ticket items, though it is becoming more about larger and larger movies which mean that small percentage savings are adding up to big dollars in a low-profit-margin business.

Moreover, if this issue is really about movies being made in America, I have to walk away from the fight. Why should Hollywood be isolationist? Why should I, a liberal, support that? Remember, the first great screaming about runaway production came when Dino DeLaurentiis built his facility in right-to-work North Carolina and others started shooting in right-to-work Florida. Canada and its restrictive tax credits came next. And now, Eastern Europe has become a hot location. It’s not about being a loyal American. And if cities could only play themselves, Los Angeles really would be out of the film business. It is about a pool of workers in this town and their best interests… which they have every right to fight for… but call a spade a spade.

Runaway production is about jobs. The people in this industry who suffer from runaway production are the industry’s middle class. Feeling it are the middle level actors and extras, the union guys and gals who are spending months waiting for work and both writers and directors who are squeezed out by the rules that Canada and some other countries enforce to make films eligible for tax incentives. But the notion that the government can fix the problem is wacky and - dare I say it - plays right into the hands of right wingers who claim the left is all about taxing and spending. I know that I am incredibly anxious to pay my share of 5% of Russell Crowe’s salary.

There is no solution to runaway production. And there should be no solution to runaway production. There should be a solution to unemployment in this industry amongst highly trained, highly skilled workers in a period in which there are enough jobs, though they are being exported for financial reasons. The solution is not in the government, but in the unions themselves. If SAG, DGA and WGA support one another in this effort, much of runaway production as we know it would end because the incentive to run away will end.

If SAG held tight and demanded a change in the next contract that countermanded, as an example, the Canadian incentives that demand a certain percentage of the cast be Canadian in order to get tax credits up there, using the leading actors as the battering ram, it would force Canada’s hand.

If movie stars can’t come to Toronto to work while 7 of the next 10 actors are Canadian by contract, there will be no star-driven movies shooting in Canada unless the Canadians agree to change the rules. If the rule is changed, the American employment issue is solved, as producers lose the ability to say “we had no choice” and market pressures will rule the day.

If DGA says that union directors cannot work in Canada so long as there are any restrictions on the nationality of the screenwriters on the project, that takes care of the WGA problem, where on low-end productions, you can’t have a writer and a director from America and still get your tax credits.

The WGA has the least power in this game, as screenwriters are the most easily screwed in the Canadian tax credit game.

What has changed in the last few years is that more and more big studio films have taken to the road. But that issue is not so much about exporting jobs to another country. We are in a transitional period, as the loonie gets stronger against the dollar, eliminating some percentage of the advantage of going to Canada. And as these big shows go to Canada and elsewhere, a bigger percentage of the production team is traveling, eliminating another percentage of the advantage. But when a movie like Cold Mountain reports a savings of 15-20% by producing 85% of the movie in Romania… how can a producer turn that down?

The problem with runaway production is that it being controlled by the marketplace. Jobs are being lost here and that is very sad. But letting the free market control industry is at the core of America. Only real market forces – not government incentives – can reverse the trend.

READER OF THE DAY: SANTA ROSA JOE writes: “I smelled bullshit in Friedman's story based on his own presumptions. "The Passion of the Christ" was selling tickets at my local five-screen multiplex (Rialto Cinemas--www.realtocinemas.com--located in Santa Rosa, CA) for showings beginning Feb. 25th. Why I make this an issue is that this theater is what one would call an "art house", playing plenty of diverse movies from all over the world.

More to the point its a theater that has special showings (for as long as I can remember) each week of films of particular interests, including annual series of films devoted to Jewish heritage and homosexual-theme stories. It's what I'd call a liberal theater, sometimes playing movies that may be seen in only a dozen (sometimes less) theaters across America in a week. Yet "The Passion of the Christ" was booked to be played at the theater (I myself can account for when I first saw it advertised as coming soon to the theater being last week) before Friedman's bullshit column went to press last Friday. The theater was listed on the film's website when I checked last Friday as well, so it could have been booked well in advance. Opening at the theater this Friday (showing for, I'd imagine, at least a couple of weeks, based on the theater's showcase routine) is the NC-17 film "The Dreamers"--which might be playing along side "The Passion of the Christ" in the multiplex for a couple of weeks (maybe longer).

Looking at the booking of my local theater I can't imagine just what the Friedman was possessed by (other than ignorance to investigate beyond a flawed website) to make such an accusation that Newmarket and Gibson are in great fear of showing this film in areas where objections seem likely. >From my viewpoint it seems the filmmakers and distributors want this film to be considered and argued by plenty of diverse minds. The media might be looking negatively at how Gibson was only screening it for those involved in Christianity worship but plenty of stories were written about how he really wanted their feedback on the movie, to judge how it could be interpreted from a like-minded individual (I've read stories of Christians who've read the script or seen the movie be fearful of the implications of anti-Semitism because of the movie and how Gibson, after screenings, have asked the Christians in attendance how to shape the film further to avoid anti-Semitism.

I can't judge the film and its convictions until I see it for myself. Gibson has been advocating he doesn't promote such so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt (despite his political beliefs and such the Gibson seems to be really respected in Hollywood by those who don't subscribe to many of his beliefs, so in my naive assessment he can't mean harm). Then I may have a different opinion on him after I see that interview with him and Diane Sawyer tonight.

But regardless I want to consider "The Passion of the Christ" for what it is just as it's my belief that the makers of the movie want others to experience, consider and argue the film having seen it for themselves, and also promote that they really mean no harm in making and distributing this movie. Friedman though is completely inconsiderate and has been nothing but harm to journalism.”

POWDER SPRINGS ETERNAL writes: “I wrote Fox News (I hope others have as well) calling on them to live up to

there 'Fair and Balanced' reputation. (Which by the way they rarely do) Monday's article was also a disgrace.

More importantly is this slander campaign against 'The Passion Of The Christ' being motivated by the Miramax stake in 'Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights' which they co-financed? A good US run for 'DD:HN' would give the movie traction overseas and on DVD. Amazing that Friedman's article came mere days after the high tracking numbers for 'The Passion...' were leaked.

Before the end of the week expect Friedman's modestly glowing review for 'DD:HN'.

Back To 'Passion'. Friedman is implicitly trying to stir up the film as a Racist Event Movie, thus anyone who attends is anti-Semitic. A true Christian loves all Jews and people of other faiths as much as the people they attend church with. In fact, true Christians are taught that Jews are the chosen ones and to have the utmost respect and love for them, period, no qualifiers or other conditions necessary.

E ME: I can feel the Passion burnout coming… can you?