June 2, 2004

Ya know, I'm already a little bored with this subject before I even start writing it… the question is whether you and millions of others have also had enough.

There is one clear reason for a three-studio alliance to put out Fahrenheit 9/11 (it's back to being "9/11" after being switched to "911" a few months back)… Harvey Weinstein wanted it that way. As reported here and on MCN what feels like a lifetime ago, Miramax's angle from the start of this whole mess was that the eventual release of the film would be a cooperative venture in the spirit, if in façade only, of the anti-screener ban coalition. See… it's about freedom of speech. Unfortunately, freedom of speech doesn't require telling the truth.

The funny thing is, I feel as though there is a degree of truth in the bull feces being spread by Lions Gate's Tom Ortenberg when he tells Variety, "It's about supporting free speech through the release of this film." I believe Tom believes that… kind of. But haven't we all gotten past the point where we can be suckered into believing that anyone was ever actually trying to silence Michael Moore?

And is there anyone who really believes that Miramax personnel won't be riding herd on real distributor Lions Gate and cash-only partner IFC, no matter what the agreement with Disney?

Then there is the big money question… is there really a cap on the Weinstein's profit on the film and if so, how much is it?

The bottom line still is… no major in town wanted to play. You can keep on kicking Disney around if you like, but no other major wanted in, before the film was made or afterwards. Perhaps the funniest notion - which points up just how desperate their business has become lately - is Alliance Atlantis taking Canadian distribution from Lions Gate since Michael Moore crapped all over the company during distribution of Bowling For Columbine, even though they financed the movie in whole before UA picked it up domestically.

And there is this… where do they think they are getting 1000 screens on June 25? About to be fed to the release date wolves are, it seems inevitably, IFC's The Intended and Miramax's Dear Frankie. I would be shocked if Miramax's move just last week of Zatoichi is not going to end up being a 9/11 placeholder. And still, is that 1000 screens? My guess would be that a sticking point in the potential deal with Universal for video rights to 9/11 is going to be screens released to the film from Universal's family film Two Brothers and/or Focus' Door In The Floor. Of course, you have to wonder whether Fox Searchlight and/or Warner Indie will "cooperate" by moving The Clearing or Before Sunset off the July 2 date with Moore's film sure to suck up a large percentage of indie dollars that weekend.

But my big interest, as the con continues, is whether hard core supporters of the Weinsteins and Moore through this… people who were willing to pillory Disney endlessly and throw around the First Amendment as though it were somehow being challenged… are going to be shy about continuing to embrace and promote the spin as it changes yet again. I am really looking forward to seeing the film and judging it as a film and not as a political statement. But you have to wonder, has Fahrenheit 9/11 jumped the shark before it has even gotten into theaters?

FAR MORE SERIOUS than the frivolous spin about 9/11 was Mel Karmazin's exit from Viacom. But who the hell knows what happens next there.

Karmazin has already pushed aside suggestions that he will be the man to replace Eisner, thought Roy Disney has already pricked up his mouse ears to suggest that the board interview him. Besides the fact that Roy would suggest that they interview Saddam Hussein for the job if he thought that he could beat the dictator rap and push Eisner out, Karmazin is still untested as a real authority in a company as large as Disney, since Redstone never really let him loose. He is already 60 years old, just two years younger than Eisner. He is not a part of the Disney family, which is more than a little significant, especially if the company is not looking for a massive change of tone, as they were when Eisner & Katzenberg first landed there. And, most significantly, the man who is given primary credit for turning CBS back into a powerhouse, Les Moonves, is still at Viacom. No one knows what Karmazin would do with a movie studio since he didn't have much influence over the situation at Paramount.

Sony is already a bit top heavy, though you can imagine that the company would have considered Karmazin seriously for a Lynton-like position back when they were creating Lynton's slot. Things won't be getting any less crowded if the MGM deal goes through and Chris McGurk joins the Sony family.

Fox has Peter Chernin and they don't want that to change.

Time-Warner could use Karmazin to ride herd over an entertainment division that seems to be out of balance these days. But it seems unlikely that Richard Parsons is going to let anyone other than himself pull Alan Horn's chain.

All of which brings us back to "Who the hell knows?"

Meanwhile, the Freston/Moonves co-leadership role is more than a little reminiscent of another group of TV-side execs who expanded their portfolio on Melrose a couple of decades ago… Diller, Eisner and Katzenberg. The empire they are being handed is a lot more expansive than Paramount was in the late 70s. But still…

READER OF THE DAY: CHIP'S PAL writes: "I'm really not sure why you're in such a snit about The Day After Tomorrow.

It's not just critics who think it's great crap--it's a bonafide
crowd-pleaser. The night I saw it in NYC, the audience was cheering and shrieking at all the right places, laughing at the bits of (yes, knowing) humor, abuzz on their way out.

No one was snoring."

But TO KOME writes: "I think your entire review of "The Day After Tomorrow" is right on. It echos everything I felt and said after leaving the movie. I felt very deceived. The previews make it look like, even with the sensational plot, the special effects are worthy of your $9.75 (not to mention two hours of your time). I walked out saying that Fox should give me back my money. I especially loved the quote: "The temperature is dropping 10 degrees per second!". They didn't
even TRY to make the story remotely believable. I'm sorry, but 20 minutes of special effects do not by a long shot make up for that pathetic excuse for a script and plot. People work hard for their money and for some (like all the teenagers and 20 somethings in the audience) the cost of a ticket is more than an hour's wages. Boy am I glad I saw awesome movies like "In America" and "City of God" recently because otherwise I might have never paid to see
a movie again."

While THE OTHER PMK says: "If the library was completely covered with ice, where was the fireplace smoke going? Shouldn't all the people inside be dead of carbon monoxide poisoning? And if the chimney WASN'T blocked, wouldn't Dennis Quaid have seen the smoke?"

THE UNKNOWN BOOKSHELF adds: "One day someone will write an insightful book on the political subtexts of the films of Roland Emmerich. Today is not that day and I'm not that author. It would be easy to condemn The Day After Tomorrow as leftist, anti-American propaganda except that Emmerich's last film, The Patriot, was rebuked as right-wing jingoism. The truth about both films, it seems to me, is somewhere in between.

Emmerich appears to have a love/hate relationship with America. Maybe he loves the idea of what America stands for, our right to freedom of expression but, like many Europeans nowadays, he also not so secretly desires to see America brought down a few notches. DAT isn't really about the environment gone wild; it's a European wet dream about seeing America humbled. Really, really humbled. That's all there is to it.

DAT never contemplates what would happen if northern countries did move in with their southern neighbors. The famine, disease, war and crime that would inevitably arise as a result. And imagine the damage it would do to the rainforests (or is everyone just gonna sleep in those nifty Ice Age-proof yellow tents like Dennis Quaid did)? Won't they need to cut down the precious trees in order to build new homes and businesses?

And wouldn't those survivors have died in the library chamber? Twelve or so people all breathing the same air with no ventilation for several days straight? How could the smoke from the fireplace escape if the roof and the vents are all covered under a ton of snow?

DAT was like an audience member on Oprah who stands up and spews such trite and insincere crowd-pleaser lines as, "You're beautiful. People should love and accept you for who you are!" It's all for cheap applause with little or no thought given to the true complexities of the matter.

I actually enjoy most of Roland Emmerich's movies but now -- like a comedian who wants to prove he can also do drama -- he wants to be seen as something more important. Fan to filmmaker: please just blow shite up and leave politics to C-SPAN.

P.S. I overheard one audience member utter as I was leaving, "Leave it to a German to make a movie where book burning is a good thing." OUCH!"

E ME: Do you know? And do you care?