October 7 , 2004

I keep waiting for this news lull to end... but it doesn't. Everyone is chugging along with work, prepping releases, starting their Oscar fires (or in Miramax's case, using the bellows to maintain Neverland, which still has mind-boggling frontrunner status for just one reason… it was the front runner.) and shifting around billions… but still… no news.

How is this possible? Well, seems to me that the consolidation of the industry has no small part to do with it. The cards are being held closer to the chest… films are being finished closer and closer to release dates… key buzz companies, like Miramax, are intentionally slowing their pulses, like Derek Flint lying in wait to come out of the freezer refreshed and ready to take on armies single-handedly.

In a strange way, because almost every company is in play in some way or another, there is actually less to talk about, once you've talked about all those companies in play. Corporate movements are glacial and update stories are boring, boring, boring (as you are about to find out).

The DreamWorks Animation IPO is moving forward… what happens to live action after that? I don't know. A handful of people at that company know, but it won't be news until they play their next card and then we reporters will all fly about in a tizzy, desperate to beat one another to the "get," reporting and misreporting for a week or two in a flurry of "I heard first" activity.

Chris McGurk maneuvered the price of MGM in the media for months and months before a deal was finally done… a deal that was always going to get done, but that was strung along until the last $100 million of cash was thrown in for fear of losing the deal altogether.

What is left to write about Paramount? Tom Freston stirred things up last week, but didn't mention Sherry Lansing's name, much less threaten her, and then, in a minor reversal, gave a show of support to Vitale & Dinerstein at Classics. You won't have a conversation in this town right now that doesn't end up back at Sherry Lansing's self-imposed exit date from the studio. But we're all just jerking around until she makes a decision about her future. If she goes, expect a massive overhaul of the company… but not until she goes. Again… more gossip.

Speculation that NBC would nose further into Universal after a bad summer was quelled by The Bourne Supremacy and now by all the Ray talk. (The Wimbledon write-down was penciled in months before the film was released and the sad answer to "why release a tennis movie in September?" was probably, "because there's less P&A to lose.") Suddenly, Universal is the most stable studio in town and even if the in-house beloved Friday Night Lights doesn't get box office traction and Ray turns out to be a one-man awards show, the expectations for their Focking holiday movie are through the roof. All of which means… no news.

Fox had a weird summer, with lots of $20 million launches, huge numbers for some terrible movies, and few financial troubles, even of the glow of success was, like The Day After Tomorrow, not terribly bright. The studio will be mute during awards season, though it hopes for some fall success. Taxi will probably not be on that list of successes but the investment wasn't big enough to actually force any news. Robots, Star Wars and The Fantastic Four should keep the home fires burning bright for a while longer… certainly long enough to keep any news from happening.

Disney will keep getting attacked by journalists who are embarrassed by their doom & gloom stories and line-crossing predictions of Eisner's demise in the last 18 months. ABC had four of the top ten shows this week. The Incredibles is said to be… well, that's too obvious, isn't it? And in spite of not-great trailers, the testing on National Treasure is claimed within the studio walls to be through the roof. Disney Hong Kong is moving forward, EuroDisney has been restructured financially, and the domestic theme parks should see better results the further we get away from 9/11. Even The Roy & Stan Show put itself on hiatus. And as you know, good news is no news at all in this game.

Sony has some transition coming, but not right now. The MGM integration will be a news story… eventually. The Revolution demise discussion will be televised, but not for another six to eight months. Does anyone really care whether Closer and Spanglish break the studio's Oscar cold streak? (Put an $80 million gross for the first and $120m for the latter on the table now and you could probably get the studio to withdraw their Oscar eligibility in return.)

Lions Gate could shape into a takeover target (see: Time-Warner) this spring… but that's a long freaking way to go for a daily columnist. In the meanwhile, the most critical date in LGF's Oscar season is November 2, the date on which the ballots burn or freeze for F9/11. Sing out, Kevin!

All of which adds up to zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Especially for those of us who are on the crest of the Oscar season. Patrick Goldstein might be happy to get a call from Bob Redford a couple of weeks after The Motorcycle Diaries opens, but I feel like I loved, impregnated and birthed that film before the summer was over. I'll tell you something else… Clint Eastwood is not bringing Million Dollar Baby to the table in December because he isn't expecting nominations. But one of the reasons he is anticipating that opportunity is that things are so damned sluggish. Anyone who is willing to kick down the door, whether it's Kevin Spacey or Annette Bening or Imelda Staunton or Jesus Christ in freakin' Aramaic, has a press corps waiting, legs spread, for a story worth telling.

Anyone know what this is? Anyone? Anyone?

READER OF THE DAY: THE HISTORIAN (yes, an actual working historian in Illinois) writes: "Wonderful column on the need for biopics to work primarily as MOVIES. It's odd that not only do historians and history buffs overlook that in bashing movies that don't get "everything" accurate, but film critics and entertainment media--who should know better--often forget it too. To work, movies need a limited number of characters, a driving story line, one main "conflict", and a resolution. Obviously a movie will be "inaccurate" since real life is far more complicated and messy.

As a historical film critic, I find it useful to think of inaccuracies as falling into "little lies" and "big lies" categories. "Little lies" are fine if they serve to help the movie work, and/or if they serve to tell a "Big Truth" about the actual person. Example: getting rid of John Nash's extramarital affairs (gay and straight) in "A Beautiful Mind" was acceptable, because it served to highlight the truth of the love between Alicia Nash and her husband. Alicia is with John today, even though there were years when it was too painful to do so. The movie gives us enough of her despair, but stresses her steadfastness. It works. It's true.

On the other hand, some historical films tell "Big Lies" which are far more troubling. "The Patriot" for example, which shows sadistically evil British burning people alive in a church during the American Revolution. Ridiculous. The film also depicts the British treating black slaves worse than white plantation owners did. Complete misreading of history. Those "Big Lies" damage the film.

The tricky part, I guess is finding the line between Little lies and Big lies. That's where the discussion should center, not in whether there are ANY inaccuracies at all."

E-ME: Do you miss news... or should we talk about Rodney Dangerfield movies?