October 4, 2004

The "big story" of the moment is often the story that someone decides to sell. This last week, Harvey Weinstein decided to sell the story of Miramax to every media suck-up he could find and so far, it's going great.

The most thorough piece so far is Seth Mnookin's New York Magazine story that opens by mocking Harvey's claim that his blood sugar was responsible for his "old" behavior, but then spends paragraph after paragraph indulging the notion. Far worse, however is Mnookin's thorough, balanced approach to telling the Miramax/Disney story... followed by selling the Miramax line about 86% of the way.

Mnookin particularly has the knives out for Zenia Mucha, who is never named but is the only Disney spokeswoman who would have been in the position to talk to Seth on this and who has been responding to the same Miramax spin - up until this, mostly from mysteriously off-the-record insiders - for more than six months. Over and over, he quotes the conversations of process, contentious as they were, between himself and Ms. Mucha, as though they were a) on the record and b) at all relevant to his story.

We in the media have to balance, especially in entertainment coverage, between what is news and what is off-the-record process. That line is being crossed by outlets like The New York Times and now, New York Magazine, more often in a given month now than it was once crossed in a given year in the recent past. I wish I could tell you where it was going. But it seems that every week now, it becomes less and less about corporate news handling and journalism and more and more a power game between the parent and the child… which side fills which slot being debatable in many cases as well.

Personally, I am embarrassed for both sides. For instance, Mucha was as right that Disney having to prove to Seth Mnookin that Miramax was hiding their funding of Fahrenheit 9/11 from their corporate parent by showing him private corporate documents is absurd. And Miramax was wrong for leaking Mnookin allegedly accurate private documents to make their case. For one thing, this is not Watergate, Mnookin is not Woodward or Bernstein and trying to prove a negative - which is one of Harvey Weinstein's most ingenious methods of spinning - is impossible. But more importantly, the issue that Mnookin is so judiciously investigating is utterly irrelevant at this point in time.

Nevermind that Mnookin's story is, as he suggests, the trouble between Disney and Miramax is, "characterized by vicious off-the-record sniping and occasional barely hidden salvos."

In this case, Harvey Weinstein is the SwiftBoatVetForTruth and Disney is John Kerry. Only the people who were actually there know what really happened. Like reports submitted for commendations in wartime, movie business paperwork is often worth no more than the paper it's photocopied on. But by being the accuser in a story that the accused maintains is not even worth discussion as an issue, Weinstein trumps Disney in the press every single time on this issue, his veracity a non-issue.

People assume that Disney must have known and been attentive to exactly what Miramax was doing with their money, even if the cost of F9/11 represented just .9% of the Dependent's annual budget… or less than the Oscar-run ad budget for Gangs of New York that resulted in so many nominations. And, of course, it is hard for Disney, as a major corporation, to admit that they weren't paying attention or, conversely, that they were and just didn't think about it until the film was done and they were being baited into being the sucker in one of the greatest grassroots marketing efforts ever. And surely, they could never admit that getting into it with Weinstein over the film and trying to stop him from funding it just as the heat was about to rise in the Roy Disney/Stanley Gold battle was a different form of publicity suicide altogether, though in retrospect, perhaps preferable.

And on the flip side, people want to buy the underdog story. Getting behind Miramax on F9/11 means a chance to kick George W. Bush in the male parts once again… another chance to mock a bad run of movies at Disney even though 2003 was one of the most profitable movie years any studio has every had… another chance to pillory Eisner who, despite Mnookin's claim that he "isn't particularly skilled at the public-relations game," has beaten back the media's arrogant assurances that he was all over and vulnerable to the Weinsteins of the world and has taken such clear control of his exit strategy that he has even Disney and Gold tied up in rhetorical knots.

Is either side of the story completely true? Of course not. But Mnookin, intrepid journalist that he is here, takes sides quite clearly, after paying lightweight homage to any troubling questions that linger. In a classic turn, Mnookin offers that "Eisner became convinced that Weinstein was more interested in making tent-pole movies, $70 million, $80 million, even $100 million features with high risk and comparatively low reward." Despite "one movie executive" and one "former Miramax exec" agreeing, Mnookin puts this on Eisner's plate throughout the story. Not only that, he mentions only Gangs of New York and Cold Mountain as big budget disappointments and leaves out films like the still unreleased The Great Raid, the now-two-Oscar-season-dumped An Unfinished Life, the huge budget on Kill Bill that can now be explained away as two movies, The Human Stain, Duplex, The Four Feathers, Kate & Leopold and The Shipping News… all in the last three years. Even Hero was an eight-figure debacle until heavy advertising and Quentin Tarantino's name turned that two-years-unreleased frown upside down.

Now, let it be said that other studios have had much worse disasters in this period, including Disney's current run. But the failure of The Alamo and Home on The Range does not wipe Miramax's recent history away either. And journalists have been suckered into the rosy macro picture of some deals without really thinking about the spin being offered. Last year's absurdity that "Majors are trying to kill the Oscar chances of their arthouse divisions" is about as real a story as Jack Valenti's job being primarily about the ratings board. If you can find me one person who knows anything about the film business - who isn't spinning for the Weinsteins - who would tell you that Miramax is in any way the same company it was and as strong a business model as it was five years ago, I will sever a body part. Dimension was modeled on the great old New Line business model that they abandoned for a while and are now moving back towards. When studios look to re-model or launch their Dependent art arms, they aren't citing Miramax as a model anymore (in no small part because, no matter how difficult, no one can match Harvey and Bob at the style they operated in and no one probably ever will), they are looking at Searchlight and Sony Classics. (Mark Gill seems to be leaning towards Focus but, like Miramax, that company is a kind of one-off, run by a hands-on filmmaker and distributor, and my guess is that Gill will be forced closer to SPC or Searchlight by this time next year and may want to after being weighted down by O.P.C… Other People's Crap films.)

Did Mnookin even bother to chart how Miramax's annual budget leapt over the last eleven years? Did he consider the staffing ebbs and flows that had nothing to do with the Disney renegotiation? Did he attempt to get a clearer picture of the profit and loss of Miramax in the last few years?

It sure reads to me like Seth got an "exclusive" sit down with Harvey (and another meal with Bob), who charmed the shit out of the reporter with by being the most left-wing Arnold-Schwarzenegger-like relentlessly honest-appearing guy in the world, and then got the stonewall from Disney's Zenia Mucha, who was mostly being asked to defend her company and trying not to fall into that trap in which any fact can be spun whichever way the alleged reporter of fact chooses to spin it. (Mnookin never reports that the dispute over Miramax's profitability in the last three years is built around payments to the Weinsteins ahead of any other line item - even though there is plenty of reporting on that both on and off-the-record.) The result is a well-reported and cleverly one-sided story about the victim Dependent whose Fiscal Sept 2003-Sept 2004 budget of $700 million was more than three times (if not four or five times) the budget of any other Dependent in the game and the evil emperor who is whining about an employee who has about a 10% winning track record with films that cost over $50 million but wants to focus primarily on those kinds of films.

Don't even get me started on Mnookin's smarmy asides suggesting that Disney is somehow trying to avoid its obligations to earmark its profits on F9/11 to charity… as though they were hoping that the Weinsteins and the media monkeys they so brilliantly control would forget and Disney would "get away" with millions.

Or would you like to discuss the journalism involved with presenting the outlook for an independent Weinstein company through the eyes of the contract negotiator they've employed, a filmmaker who has never worked for anyone else, lost money on his last film and is relentlessly (and honorably) loyal, and a "friend of the boys." Has Mnookin spent any time researching the unhappy history of every other $500 million production start-up from high-profile, experienced, winning producers in the past? Did he laugh out loud at the notion of Sony replacing Revolution Studios with a similar deal for Harvey & Bob? The Weinsteins in the overloaded and tight culture of Warner Bros? Liberal Weinstein at conservative and owner-operated Fox? Oy!

Mnookin taking the bait is not all that shocking. Harvey is smarter than Seth is. Harvey is smarter than most of us are. But the big question of the moment is what Harvey is after by going on the public attack right now, even if guys like Mnookin will let him get away with the silly lie that Weinstein is letting others do the talking for him, as though he doesn't know exactly what they'll say when he opens the door to the "reporter."

My guess is - and it can be little more than an educated guess - is that Harvey is trying to raise the Disney offer by $100 million or so a year. This story screams to me, a) Harvey isn't going anywhere, b) Harvey knows that it to his advantage to portray his relationship with Disney as personal, when most of the animus stems from dollars and sense and the ego scrapes that follow, c) Harvey wants the deal to close and is now doing all he can to pressure Disney into "not blowing this one."

Isn't it ironic that just this week, Bob Iger offered up his own little bit of media gamesmanship, taking the position publicly and nearly proudly that a Pixar renewal is "unlikely?" Is it a move to pay Pixar back for their public dismissal of Disney late last year? Is it a "We don't need you" negotiating tactic? Or could it just be a true statement of his opinion?

In any case, the Mnookin story comes the same week as a Sean Smith Newsweek piece that also continues the media obsession with the notion that "it's personal." What neither of these guys gets - and they are hardly alone - is that they are being played by a Miramax team that wants this to be seen as a foolhardy show of muscle by Eisner based on the unexpected success of Fahrenheit 9/11 a.k.a. a Harvey win as opposed to the reality, that while Weinstein does irritate the Disney folks mightily by being such an insistent outsider, the difference between a $450 million Miramax/Dimension annual budget and the current $700 million figure is two expensive and traditionally unsuccessful films a year. Kill Bill is the only big win Miramax has every had when investing more than $50 million into production… and that would have only been a moderate success had they not turned it into two films during post-production.

How about this? Miramax has had 11 Best Picture nominations in the eleven years they've been owned by Disney. How many of them have had budgets of over $50 million? Not a single one. In reverse order, the titles are Chicago, In The Bedroom, Chocolat, The Cider House Rules, Shakespeare in Love, Life is Beautiful, Good Will Hunting, The English Patient, Il Postino, Pulp Fiction and The Piano. If The Aviator make it this year, it will be the first film this expensive that Miramax has ever gotten to the promised land… and the vast majority of the cash expended and profit taken will not be from Miramax, even though they are releasing the film.

Oh, it's a good show. But follow the frickin' money! And try not to get distracted by the M&M story… you're sitting across the table from The Mighty Oz and he didn't come out from behind the curtain for his health.

READER OF THE DAY: 46 ON THE DOT writes: "Congrats on surviving to forty. I'd give a lot to be 40 again and know what I know today (hmm-that and 30 would be even cooler...oh, hell). Just be thankful you are doing something you love-many others are not so fortunate as we.

I am SO sick of critics saying that the 70's was the Golden Age of
filmmaking. You (and your colleagues) are remembering a few great
flicks and forgetting a huge pile of crap. The golden age of film is
NOW. Yeah there's a COLOSSAL amount of crap released-but today if a gifted writer or director can imagine it with time care and money
ANYTHING can be brought to the screen. THE LORD OF THE RINGS is the supreme example of this. THE MATRIX is the coolest (not the best-the coolest) film ever made. I thought SKY CAPTAIN might top it but it didn't quite get there. On the opposite end of the scale we get
exquisite gems like BEFORE SUNSET and camcorder/Final Cut Pro successes like OPEN WATER.

It's the same with tv-it wasn't better THEN it's better NOW. For every
THE APPRENTICE there is a THE WIRE. BUFFY, SOUTH PARK, THE SIMPSONS, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION-tv just doesn't get any better. My DIRECTiVo groans under the weight of shows I make it record-and there is far more good stuff on than I have time to watch."

FRANCE 28 writes: "I wanted to point out Soy Cuba is not a documentary. It's interesting to compare it with The Battle of Algiers to see how they both outsmart base propaganda while being funded by newly established commie governments.

You write ' I appreciate all that it did' about Godard: yeah I'll barely go beyond appreciation for that complacent 'auteur.' And I live in Paris, you know.

My 1976 Favorites:
Marathon man (the landmark political thriller imo)
Assault on Precinct 13 (some tired French guy has just remade it)
Taxi Driver
Mr Klein
Police Python 357 (that's not a sequel! just a gun's name like magnum .44)"

MB48 writes: "in my birth year of 1956 I would rate these films as my faves ...

The Girl Can't Help It
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Searchers
The Killing
followed by Beyond A Resonable Doubt; The Wrong Man; Bigger Than Life; Seven Men From Now; and Giant"

CB31 writes: "I was born in 1973, and THE EXORCIST is not only my favorite movie of that year, but my favorite of all time. I usually split my choices into my "favorites" and the "best", but THE EXORCIST lands at the top of both lists for me."

HS47 adds: "I'm so lucky to have a thoroughly conventional, thoroughly wonderful choice for the best picture of the year in which I was born.

1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai

Movie's don't get much better than that one.

And honorable mention to three films that between them didn't merit a single Oscar nomination: Paths of Glory, Sweet Smell of Success and A Face in the Crowd."

And 10/03BUT 23 writes: "I just discovered we share the same birthday, but I'm only turning 23 this year. Having not seen everything from 1981, I'll offer you only four films from 1981 that are my favorites.

4. Coupe de Torchon - Bertran Tavernier's dark comedy that just keeps getting darker. Phillipe Noiret delivers a great performance as a small town sheriff in Africa laughed at and disrepected by everyone, including his wife. We feel sympathy for him, until he starts handing out a more brutal kind of justice. Tavernier always pushed the envelope with his films and this is one of his best.

3. Body Heat - the start of the great Lawrence Kasdan's career that saw such great films as The Big Chill, Silverado, The Accidental Tourist and Grand Canyon to follow. This is still my favorite. A remake of the great Billy Wilder film Double Indemnity, with William Hurt giving one of his best performances as a dimwitted private eye seduced by the femme fatale Kathleen Turner (never better) into killing her husband. A classic.

2. Raiders of the Lost Ark - For most people, this would be #1, but I like my choice. But Raiders is one of the all time classic adventure stories. Harrison Ford is great. Karen Allen is great. The action, the humor all top notch. My only complaint about the film is how many crappy copycats were made out of it.

1. Atlantic City - One of Louis Malle's best films, and he made a lot of great ones. Henry Fonda won the Oscar that year for On Golden Pond, but Burt Lancaster was the Hollywood legend that deserved it. A low level gangster now fallen to the level of taking care of an old woman (the great Kate Reid), Lancaster finally gets his big moment when he gets involved with a much younger woman, played by Susan Sarandon. The greatest moment in the film is when Lancaster finally shoots someone. The look of joy on his face is priceless. He's finally living the life he has told everyone he did. Lancaster's performance is one of the best in movie history. Atlantic City is a masterpiece.

P.S. This was the year that Chariots of Fire won the best picture Oscar. I don't know about you, but I disliked that movie immensely. It always makes me angry that a bad film won the best picture oscar in my year of birth."

E-ME: What are your favorite films from the year of your birth?