February 23, 2004

I feel a bit like a John after watching that last episode of Sex & The City… you know, the one that should have been called Sex Feet Under?

It was a night for televised disappointments. The SAG Awards were just boring enough (I won’t gloat about my Johnny Depp call) until Sean Astin took a group win and turned it into a very personal moment… too personal for John Rhys-Davies, who physically assaulted Astin in order to try to stop him in a way that seemed jovial. The message was about runaway production – also oddly inappropriate after winning for a movie shot in New Zealand – but behind the effort was something far more personal… Astin has been dealing with his mother’s very serious illness throughout the last months of the awards season. Patty Duke was once the head of SAG, so you can see how he may have felt the need to invoke her spirit on a night that is about marketing more than anything else. That said, it was not a great moment for anyone.

Meanwhile, back at The Sorrow & The City, the 45-minute finale was reminiscent of another closer that turned out to be one of the show’s worst episodes ever, Seinfeld. All of a sudden, the show was some other thing, with completely different rhythms than any other episode. There is Sarah Jessica Parker playing a Parisian-bound Chaplin and all three other women suddenly living a turgid melodrama. The big surprise ending turned out to have two breasts involved - though that was no surprise – and all four characters pretty much where they have been over and over and over again through the series. I guess that any real surprises would have been irritating, feeling like a different kind of scam. But so much drama leading to so little movement… just bad writing. Is there anything to really suggest that Carrie and Mr. John Big can make it, other than the fact that they can share a plastic surgeon now?

Anyway…

There have been a few people pushing the notion that BAFTA and SAG are going to influence the Oscars this more significantly this year than in the past. I say, “Hogwash.”

I’ve been writing about Johnny Depp’s ability to come from behind in the acting race for weeks (I guess I’m gloating now) and moved him up to #2 on my prediction charts last week, without SAG’s help, thanks. Charlize Theron, Tim Robbins, Renee Zellweger? They’ve been top of the lists for months now.

And exactly what effect are the BAFTAs supposed to have? Scarlett Johansson, Bill Nighy, foreign language winner In This World, screenwriter Tom McCarthy, and editor Sarah Flack are not Oscar nominated. Best Picture and Screenplay for Lord of the Rings: Return of The King and Bill Murray and Renee Zellweger aren’t close to being anything surprising.

Yes, if Peter Weir wins Best Director, we will all die of shock and point to the BAFTAs. But that’s the only really interesting win there. M&C:FSOTW should win Best Sound for a singular achievement. Who should win for editing in a kinda' surprise? City of God. No BAFTA nominations.

In any case, if you are looking to spin SAG and BAFTA into Oscar significance, you are going to have to find a different year. As I wrote, the only Oscar win that could come close to being evidence would be Weir. And if you are still hanging on to The Pianist from last year… it was the movie, Focus’ Oscar publicity machine and a Miramax backlash that won that race, not the BAFTA wins, which were a result of said efforts, not the progenitor.

Anyway…

Early reviews of The Passion of the Christ seem to be loaded with puns and clever quips. So…

TOP TWENTY CLEVER NAMES YOU CAN EXPECT TO SEE FOR THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST IN THE NEXT WEEK

20. Gone With The Whip
19. The Jews Are My Co-Pilate
18. Crucify Me If You Can
17. Crucifying Tiger, Hitting Dragon
16. How To Kill A God In 12 Hours
15. What Juden Want
14. Bethlehem Jones & The Temple Of Jews
13. Kill Christ, Volume 1
12. We Were Sinners
11. Beat The Messiah
10. Jerusalem Short Cuts
9. Mad Mel: Beyond The Dome Of The Rock
8. As Gored As It Gets
7. The Last Abrasion Of Christ
6. Jews
5. The First Lives Club
4. My Big Fat Roman Crucifixion
3. How The Jews Stole Christmas
2. There’s Something About Martyr
1. Lethal Whippin’

Anyway…

I find myself on the unpopular side of two events in Hollywood these days. The first is the situation at Disney, where I have lost any way to support, intellectually, Roy Disney or Comcast’s assault on Michael Eisner. It’s odd, because I hardly see Eisner as The Great Executive. There is zero question that the losses of Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg hurt the company and Eisner’s unwillingness to get serious about a plan of succession, much less the much needed empowerment of division heads to make decisions that Eisner might not like, is a serious problem for the company.

However, what I keep reading as the key to the “turnaround” that Disney and then Comcast promised are ABC doing better and Disney Animation rebuilding its overwhelming superiority. Never mind that I believe that budget cutting would have to be a part of the Comcast plan for the company… the idea that any business man has the keys to improved performance of artistic enterprises is an inherent absurdity.

The irony is that Disney’s power base, family product released under the Disney banner, has never been stronger. Disney does incredibly well in that area under Dick Cook and Eisner, embracing the legacy of Uncle Walt to a “T.”

The New York Times Magazine’s smoochy story on Roy Disney made an interesting point by mistake. The power of the Katzenberg-powered Disney animation revival was the rebirth of a movie genre that had long been dead… the musical. Disney animation (sans Pixar) has “never been the same” since The Lion King. Is it a coincidence that the film, until this year, the highest grossing animated movie ever, was the last animated Disney film with nearly that many songs?

Pixar’s legacy is launching computer animation that really took viewers to new places. DreamWorks caught the wave with Shrek. But one has to wonder how long Pixar can keep pumping out hits, as creativity seems to be a bit cyclical. The Incredibles looks like great fun, but Boundin is not killing me. Not to mention the fact that Pixar has not had the pressure of producing 2 animated films every year, as Disney does. (If they're smart, they won’t try.)

What is the future of animation? DreamWorks has a big slate of product, as does Disney and Pixar. DreamWorks seems to be moving in different directions, pushing more into current children’s literature than the others. Over The Hedge and Madagascar have a different look and texture than most of what we have seen before. We’ll see.

The thing for Disney to do is to find the next genius guy or gal who has vision… the next Chris Wedge or Brad Bird or Sylvain Chomet and to let them loose… give them a home. And get serious about bringing Broadway style musicals to the animated screen. There are not many new musicals coming these days, but where are the next Tim Burton animations or something led by Julie Taymor or a Sondheim animated musical or Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman’s animated musical? Or go backwards into the 50s greatest hits and build an animated review around it that doesn’t have the hard-R edge of Ralph Bakshi’s box office disappointments. They made the effort with Teacher’s Pet, but the “it was meant for TV” stigma overwhelmed excellent reviews.

The point is, artistic progress is about vision, not business acumen. Same with ABC. Is Susan Lyne the answer to that network’s problems? I don’t know. But she was a daring and interesting choice. And if they choose someone else, it should be someone else with a powerful and unique vision, not an urge to repeat the past. The biggest mistake Disney has made in the last two years was not playing hardball with Pixar – the sucker’s bet – but not funding Jerry Bruckheimer’s television efforts all the way. Time-Warner and Viacom are the billion dollar-plus benefactors of his highly commercial tastes. And had Disney simply funded his TV arm and thus, acquired CSI and the spin-offs, ABC would be in #1 instead of #3 or #4 and Michael Eisner would be unassailable.

Thing is, animation lives in time delay. It is a brutal business and there is a reason why no one else has ever really been able to touch Disney. The losers hurt too much and come too frequently. But in television, a network is always just two hits from the top of the heap. It can happen at any time. That fact leaves executives being too patient sometimes and not patient enough at others. And that insight is what makes the difference. Killing off Karen Sisco just as the show really found its voice was ABC’s biggest mistake last year. They expected too much at the start and didn’t work the show, which finally realized that it was a detective show about a sexy, uptight girl and her sexy, loose father around 6 episodes in and started improving exponentially.

But let’s look at Time-Warner, which has a half-ass network and seems satisfied to leave it that way. What’s up with that? No one screams and whines about that situation. Perception and reality.

The second issue is piracy. I am really concerned that the industry is moving too slowly to counter the digital future. Bot more on that tomorrow…

READER OF THE DAY: THE BRAZILIAN writes: “For the first time in a long time I have to disagree with you, about NYT's article on Roy Disney. I don't think Ms. Solomon merely "allowed Roy to define Eisner," as MCN headlined. Of course the core of the article is Roy's opinions, but she claims to have approached Eisner, who refused to give an interview. And what's even more important: she includes quotes from Walt Disney's executives criticizing Roy in a heavy manner.

Reading the article, I felt Roy had his points, but he wasn't totally reliable to talk about Eisner's management, since he's clearly not a very bright executive himself.

I think I know how you feel about this whole Roy-Eisner imbroglio, but I feel that lead on MCN was really biased. Just felt I should point that out.”

And this from THE HOBBETTE: “I know you must be getting sick of this subject, but I read an article on MSNBC’s website http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4339677/ that I wanted to comment on some of the points in the article. The article has not so much to do with the film and how Jews are portrayed, but rather the grassroots efforts by churches and ministers to get the word out and how blocks of tickets are being sold etc, etc. What got me specifically were two things and I will quote them from the article.

"Bob Siemon Designs, producer of millions of WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) bracelets, is selling “Passion” lapel pins, key rings and inch-long nail pendants. Already, it has distributed 1 million “Passion” witness cards, inscribed with scriptural verses, said Dwight Robinson, a spokesman for the Santa Ana., Calif.-based company.

The Christian Booksellers Association screened the film Feb. 5 at a meeting in Indianapolis, and displays of “Passion”-related books, jewelry, artwork and other items have begun appearing in member stores. The CBA Web site proclaims “Gibson’s Film May Be a Precursor to Revival.”

This movie is being merchandised like any big money blockbuster release (e.g. Star Wars) and this bothers me. Specifically this passage a several paragraphs down from the two above “Icon also has granted licenses for “Passion”-related merchandise, including a 160-page coffee-table book of movie stills, film-related framed art, and the International Bible Society’s New Testament with images from the movie.”

So now there will be New Testaments out there with stills from the movie instead of the usual art plates. Why don’t we have Bibles that have pictures from every movie ever made, like The Ten Commandments, you could have movie stills from that in the Book of Exodus. Something just doesn’t sit right with me on this. Maybe I am overreacting, but as I have written to you before, I am totally clear that this is a work of fiction based on one man’s interpretation of the Gospels. I think this kind of merchandising starts blurring that line, at least that is how I see.

The second part, is actually the last paragraph “A lot of Christians don’t go to movies because they’re not happy with the moral values that are being portrayed. There’s not enough wholesome films out there,” said Robinson of Bob Siemon Designs. “People are just waiting for that movie that they can go see.”

Since when is the torture of a man, a torture that most of us could never imagine and was probably even worse than depicted in this movie, make for a wholesome film? Just because it is about the last 12 hours of Christ’s life and is written in the Bible, doesn’t make it wholesome. Does this mean they will take their children to see this? Is this a family film? Although I have not seen the film yet and I do intend to see it, I do not see this as a wholesome film, not at all.

Rant over….”

E ME: How could anyone make jokes about a film as serious as The Passion of the Christ? But if you have anything funny to add…