"Starving and Desperate"?

email this story
read comments (13)
post a comment

There are only four leap-out portions in David Segal's 8.15 N.Y. Times piece about the convulsive goings-on at the Weinstein Co. ("Weinsteins Struggle to Regain Their Golden Touch").

The first is a vague hint that Segal may have seen Nine or Nowhere Boy or Youth in Revolt...maybe. But that's all she wrote because he cops out and doesn't identify which of the six completed Weinstein Co. films he was shown, which strikes me as a very candy-assed, needlessly covert way to go. Not even hints, for Chrissake.

Harvey and Bob Weinstein "were downright generous with me when it came to screening their coming movies," he writes. "In fact, they shared as much of their slate as was ready -- six movies in all, as well as ads, DVDs and rough cuts of unfinished products."

Think of it...a major August 2009 piece about the Weinsteins and not even a slight intimation about whether or not Nine has that schwing? No backstage gossip of any kind? No discussion about how it might play for Joe and Sheila Popcorn in Jacksonville? No acknowledgement or argument that this ambitious Rob Marshall Oscar-bait musical is or isn't the big make-or-breaker?

The second is Harvey telling Segal that "the ship's riding on the slate" and that "if by February, when we release Hoodwinked 2" -- he playfully thumps a hand on the table, dramatizing the sound of failure -- "I'll be driving you, or making cheap hamburgers, or selling trailers or refrigerators or something. If the slate works, we're right back to plan." Any time a big-wheel talks about flipping burgers...well, draw your own conclusions.

The third stand-out is a little tingle-hint about Youth in Revolt, which will show at the Toronto Film Festival. Segal begins by talking about how he "got a hint of [Bob Weinstein's] attention to detail at a recent test screening of Youth in Revolt, a teenage comedy in the vein of Juno. The director, Miguel Arteta, said that for weeks he and Bob had lengthy back-and-forths over seemingly minor decisions, like this one: Does the last scene of the film need a voice-over?

"Bob said yes. Mr. Arteta said no. Bob's version screened on this particular night in an East Village theater in New York, and afterward, a focus group of 20 audience members were peppered with questions. Among them: How many of you liked the voice-over in the last scene? Every hand but one went up.

"Unbeknownst to the attendees, Mr. Arteta sat two rows away, and after that vote, he turned to Bob, who sat at the rear of the theater, offering him a grateful, smiling shrug that said, 'You were right.'"

What does this tell us? It tells me that Youth in Revolt may have issues. Any film that needs a line or two of narration....well, you know what they say. It's not just Segal's article telling me this. It's also Michael Cera, the most inert and unassertive one-trick-pony in the film business right now, being the star.

The fourth stand-out is a quote from longtime Weinstein Co. lover/supporter (and my former boss) Kevin Smith. "They had impeccable taste when they were hungry," Smith tells Segal. "The problem is that they're not really hungry anymore. They're starving and desperate." Yikes.

That said, I'm very keen on seeing the Weinstein slate and can't wait, especially, to see The Road and Nowhere Boy and, yes, Nine.

Russkis<< previous | next >>Tree-Tasting Time

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 15, 2009 at 4:17 PM

comment #1

Myles says ...

I love how Kevin Smith blames the BO of Zack and Miri on Harvey and Bob. Yeah, it was the marketing, Kevin. It had nothing to do with the movie being boring as hell.

Posted by Myles at August 15, 2009 6:03 PM

comment #2

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I kinda liked Z&M. It kinda jumps the shark once it starts going down the whole "romance" route (which admittedly is only about halfway through), but there's some really good stuff there with the Star Wars porno/10 year high school reunion.

Dude can actually still write some funny scenes, which I was kind of doubting given his previous three films.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at August 15, 2009 6:19 PM

comment #3

DeeZee says ...

Myles: Or the lack of nudity.

Posted by DeeZee at August 15, 2009 6:50 PM

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

you have a film with Traci Lords & Katie Morgan with no girl-girl. what's the point? Give the people what they want.

and who puts out Halloween 2 two months before Halloween? It'll be in the buck theaters by Oct. 31.. Why not put out a Christmas film in July?

Posted by corey3rd at August 15, 2009 8:51 PM

comment #5

Manitoba says ...

corey3rd's crack about opening a Christmas film in July, reminded me of the case of the original Miracle on 34th Street. Darryl Zanuck's 20th Century Fox scheduled it for release in the summer of 1947. To quote from the two-disc DVD re. the opening at New York's Roxy Theatre, near Times Square: "Six months later as the holiday season arrived, the surprise hit was still playing and the New York Times was calling it one of the year's top ten movies."

Posted by Manitoba at August 16, 2009 12:06 AM

comment #6

Joe Popcorn says ...

Don't forget me and Sheila's number one son - Eric Lloyd Popcorn. We call him Eloy for short...

Posted by Joe Popcorn at August 16, 2009 3:37 AM

comment #7

Brendan says ...

I still have nightmares about how bad that "The Road" trailer was. They better not shit on that film anymore then that bloody trailer. Get it out, let it breathe, and I hope/wish/prey "The Road" is half as good as the book.

Posted by Brendan at August 16, 2009 4:39 AM

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

But back in '47, films had a longer first run time since they weren't released on 4,000 screens at once. Probably made sense to get a long lead time.

Also Fox marketed the film in May without any references that it's a Christmas film. The original poster makes it look not like holiday film - just a little girl being too close to a guy in a suit with a beard.

Posted by corey3rd at August 16, 2009 7:44 AM

comment #9

Gaydos says ...

Guess folks had better things to do on the weekend, but still kind of shocked that no one here has vetted this piece for all the mistakes and strange shadings/rewritings of history contained within.

Posted by Gaydos at August 16, 2009 9:28 AM

comment #10

EdHavens says ...

Who needs to vet an article that's already been written and vetted at least a dozen times before? Especially when The Los Angeles Times had a similar and better informed article by Joe Flint in the Business section the very same day as the New York Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-weinstein15-2009aug15,0,4803745.story).

Anyone who regularly visits HE already knows the kinds of troubles the Weinsteins are currently in, and they also know much of what has been written to date about them and their company is equal parts reporting and baseless speculation.

Posted by EdHavens at August 16, 2009 2:32 PM

comment #11

Phatang! says ...

The more alarming part of the voice over story is that Arteta yielded the point so completely on the basis of the 20 person test audience. They all liked the voice over? Did they see the alternate version? This is the tyranny of the test audience. Executives take them too literally, and kiss-ass directors yield their creative opinions to that of randomly selected people.

Posted by Phatang! at August 16, 2009 3:06 PM

comment #12