Film writers from coast to coast - well at least Eugene at indieWIRE and MCN's David Poland (or as we call him in my household: the Elevator Man) - are agog at Harvey Weinstein's latest bit of bluster, namely his prediction of the consequences if a certain actress from a certain film is not invited to the Kodak Theatre next February. The film is Todd Haynes' Bob Dylan Biopic I'M NOT THERE and the actress is (likely to be nominated for ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE) Cate Blanchett:
“I may be jumping the gun,” Mr. Weinstein said, “but if Cate Blanchett doesn’t get nominated, I’ll shoot myself.”
Poland quickly posted at MCN:
The First Rooting Interest In Next Year's Oscars Established
But Poland also notes something else - the general tone of the NY Times article wherein Harvey makes this suicidal promise:
WeinsteinCo Opens A Movie In Exclusive Release (4 Screens)... Paper Of Record Gives Up 1100 Words Documenting This Earth-Shattering Event... Next, 2500 Words On Harvey Editing A Finished Film
The article in question is from John Anderson, an esteemed film writer by most people's estimation, who nonetheless has had a string of supremely questionable pieces this year. First was his PR promo for MANUFACTURING DISSENT, which swallowed wholesale the premise that two longtime documentary filmmakers were somehow unaware of the controversies surrounding Michael Moore's filmmaking (I wrote about it all here). Second was an unbelievable and bizarre attack piece against Jennifer Venditti's sensational BILLY THE KID, in which he wrote that:
(A)nything beyond a casual, surface reading of the film reveals an appallingly callous act of exploitation.
Numerous bloggers jumped on that piece, including Agnes Varnum, who responded to the above:
That is an alarming accusation, and one I feel compelled to rebut on behalf of Billy, if I may be so bold. Bear with me for a moment...
For Mr. Anderson to call Billy’s story a “freak-show” and say that films that chronicle such people “make audiences happy they’re not the subject of the film” says more to me about him as a viewer than it does about the movie or Billy.=
And now this article, in which a platform release is described as if it's the latest form of exhibition magic:
Imagine you’re a film distributor, handling an experimental movie by one of the country’s most iconoclastic directors. The subject is an enigmatic occasional recluse who is being portrayed by four actors, an actress and a 13-year-old boy. Where do you open that film?
If you’re very lucky, you get to book it at Film Forum, perhaps the most exclusive art-house cinema in Manhattan.
Now what do you do with a movie that stars Cate Blanchett, Richard Gere, Christian Bale and Heath Ledger; whose subject is Bob Dylan; and whose director is the Oscar-nominated Todd Haynes?
Same answer. Same film. Which is what’s making the planned Nov. 21 release of “I’m Not There,” Mr. Haynes’s rumination on Mr. Dylan’s lives and times, something of a curiosity.
In addition to Film Forum, the film’s distributor, the Weinstein Company, will be opening the movie in just three other theaters, one more in New York and two in Los Angeles, giving it the kind of debut that might be afforded a Mexican documentary.
First off, unless that Mexican documentary is directed by one of the Three Amigos, I doubt that it would get to open at Film Forum, Lincoln Plaza, the Arclight and the Landmark (ahem, not the Westside Pavilion any longer) simultaneously, but in any case, Anderson treats this release strategy like some kind of major revelation, as Poland rightly notes. How soon we forget that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN opened in only five theatres. Where was in depth NY Times piece about Focus' surprisingly slow rollout.
But, more to the point, I'm not the only one who has been wondering about John Anderson's judgment of late, and this article certainly isn't going to do anything to quell the questioning.
Comments