In a 1.13.18 Globe and Mail piece, The Handmaid’s Tale author Margaret Atwood lamented to some extent the Robespierre-resembling tendencies of some of the #MeToo brigade. The article was titled “Am I a Bad Feminist?” Here’s an excerpt:

“There are, at present, three kinds of ‘witch’ language. (1) Calling someone a witch, as applied lavishly to Hillary Clinton during the recent election; (2) ‘Witchhunt,’ used to imply that someone is looking for something that doesn’t exist, and (3) The structure of the Salem witchcraft trials, in which you were guilty because accused. I was talking about the third use.

“This structure — guilty because accused — has applied in many more episodes in human history than Salem. It tends to kick in during the ‘Terror and Virtue’ phase of revolutions — something has gone wrong, and there must be a purge, as in the French Revolution, Stalin’s purges in the USSR, the Red Guard period in China, the reign of the Generals in Argentina and the early days of the Iranian Revolution.

“The list is long, and Left and Right have both indulged. Before ‘Terror and Virtue’ is over, a great many have fallen by the wayside. Note that I am not saying that there are no traitors or whatever the target group may be; simply that in such times, the usual rules of evidence are bypassed.

“Such things are always done in the name of ushering in a better world. Sometimes they do usher one in, for a time anyway. Sometimes they are used as an excuse for new forms of oppression. As for vigilante justice — condemnation without a trial – it begins as a response to a lack of justice — either the system is corrupt, as in prerevolutionary France, or there isn’t one, as in the Wild West — so people take things into their own hands.

Read more

Five days ago (1.10.18) “Yellow King Film Boy” posted an excerpt from a Gary Oldman interview. Stanley Kubrick‘s method of directing actors (“Do it again, please”) is alluded to,. Starting at 1:40 Oldman passes along a tale he’s heard about why Harvey Keitel walked off the set of Eyes Wide Shut.

Keitel had been hired to play the Sidney Pollack role (super-rich guy, one of the organizers of the secret orgy). As shooting happened between November ’96 to June ’98, Keitel’s departure was presumably sometime in early to mid ’97.

Keitel, says Oldman, was performing a bit in which he was just “walking through a door, and after 68 takes Keitel said, ‘I’m outta here, you’re fucking crazy…you’re fucking out of your mind.’ Because [Kubrick] would just say ‘do it again’…[he didn’t explain] what he was looking for, just ‘do it again’….I love Kubrick’s movies, but I don’t know how I would’ve worked with that.”

Oldman’s story is okay as far as it goes, but almost every actor who’s ever been in a Kubrick film has gone through this process of doing endless takes. Before signing on Keitel had to have heard about this tendency, so Oldman’s story makes Keitel seem like a guy with a short fuse and a temper.

The other story about why Keitel left Eyes Wide Shut is almost certainly bullshit, but it was passed along by director Lars von Trier, who was doing promotion for The Idiots at a Hotel du Cap press junket during the May 1998 Cannes Film Festival. The Danish director was chatting with a group of journalists in some cabana, and before passing along the Keitel story, which he got from a below-the-liner who had worked on Eyes Wide Shut before working for Von Trier, he told the journalists to shut off their tape recorders.

One of these journalists was F.X. Feeney, who told me the story a year or two later.

Read more

It sounds as if Aziz Ansari is another guy who should’ve thought twice before wearing a Time’s Up pin. He allegedly acted like an overly hormonal, overbearing asshole on a date last year with a woman who has gone public with a complaint about said behavior, on babe.net.

I wasn’t there and therefore know nothing, but there’s probably a little something to this. I’ve seen this kind of ardent behavior in bars and clubs. Guys who are determined to have it off with a girl they’ve nuzzled up to and are convinced the girl is equally interested, etc. I’ve never been that guy but I’ve seen it, and I’ve always felt sorry for the woman in each instance. Do I know for a fact that Ansari behaved as the woman in question asserts? Nope.

Ansari hasn’t been nailed in a Louis C.K. sense, but he’s certainly been bruised in a James Franco way. He needs to abase himself, grovel, atone, go to a clinic, etc. If I were in Franco’s shoes right now (not that I would be!) I would be thinking about sending Anzari a case of champagne, some fruit and a “thank you” note.

Read more

If I were Woody Allen I would re-dedicate myself to pushing on until I drop, if only to defy this Mark Harris prediction along with the Greta Gerwig/Rebecca Hall/Mira Sorvino chorus, which I’m sure is having its effect. I would (a) double down on my European financing options, (b) cast the best and bravest actors I can find, and (c) write a Crucible-like, On The Waterfront-ish allegory about a p.c. mob persecuting a woman who appears to be tainted on some level but isn’t in fact guilty of something she’s been accused of left and right. Allen needs to use this horror to propel his art, and (who knows?) go out on a bold note a la Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Yesterday’s “Oscar Bait Movie Is Over” piece, which arose from a discussion I had yesterday morning with Boston-based movie critic Jordan Ruimy, was easily one of the most revealing, finger-on-the-button sum-up pieces I’ve posted over the last year, if not the past two or three years.

Because while it began as a discussion of why The Post never got traction in the Oscar race, it wound up describing a major seismic shift in the way younger Oscar voters are seeing things now, as opposed to just five years ago when the old boomer-farty Oscar-worthy standards still applied.

Here are four comments, posted by Rosse Veneziano, filmklassik, Dr. New Jersey and Joe S. They re-articulate the basis thesis and sum it up nicely:

(1) RossoVeneziano: “There’s a new paradigm of Oscar baitness now, and The Post just doesn’t fit it. At all. Oscar-bait now means indie, socially relevant, ‘woke’ (or whatever new slang definition you wanna use for the same concept). Lady Bird and Get Out are 100% Oscar baits. No big-budget entertaining movie will ever win Best Picture again. Titanic today would never win. Never.

“Because Oscars are the new Spirits. Technical, artistic achievement means squat for the new-generation Academy. Best Director is the ceiling. For Best Picture they want politically charged messages and they wanna take a stand, and identity politics definitely drives their votes.”

HE insertion: Hence the head-scratchy Get Out fervor.

“The Post has the message but lacks a crucial element: identity. New members vote FIRST for the person — the movie itself is secondary. A vote for Lady Bird is mainly a vote for Gerwig, a vote for a woman to win it all. No one sees Spielberg as a revolutionary icon as he’s just another rich white guy. Uncool.”

(2) filmklassik: “A bit cheeky to say ‘never ever again’ (because who the hell knows), but yeah, in this particular cultural moment it is all about Tribal Identity. And what’s disturbing is, we have a whole generation now for whom Tribal representation is, to use one critic’s word, numinous. The under-40 crowd has invested Race, Gender and Sexuality with a kind of cosmic significance. It doesn’t mean a lot to them — it means everything to them. Indeed, much of their conversation and writing seems to always come back to it.”

(3) Dr. New Jersey: “A difference is I don’t think anyone making Get Out was thinking ‘Hey, this is Oscar material’ while everyone making The Post was thinking that very thing.”

(4) JoeS: “In a way, that actually reinforces RossoVeneziano’s post. Nobody was thinking Best Picture when Get Out came out last February. But then the whole indie vibe took over the landscape and it was cool to inflate this pretty good horror flick with social commentary into the awards discussion.”

Never forget that the real cancer of American culture is not Donald Trump, not really. The consequences of a grotesque, dementia-afflicted sociopath in the Oval Office have been terrible all around, obviously, but the fundamental ground-level evil lies in that sad mass of rural, low-information lowlifes who voted him in.

They’re in great pain, yes, but they’ve demonstrated time and again they’d rather slit their throats than vote for their own interests. Democratic process- and institution-wise they’re emotionally disturbed sociopaths. They don’t give a damn about anything but how miserable they feel and how much they hate the economic and social realities of the 21st Century, and the great tribal loyalty they feel for that swaggering, bloviating, golf-obsessed turd — a guy who almost certainly smirks or shrugs his shoulders at their plight in private, and is playing them like a violin.

What do you do when cancer has invaded your body? Do you say “well, I may not like what this cancer is doing but I have to at least respect it…we live in a Democratic system, after all, and cancer cells have as much right to live and thrive as I do”? Or do you get chemotherapy and radiation and surgically remove the damn tumor?

The Salt Lake Tribune‘s Sean Means has finally nailed it down. The location of Park City’s all-new Ray theatre is the site of that big sports-equipment store (Sports Authority) that was there for years, a stone’s throw from the Holiday Cinemas.

The Ray’s upper floor is the location of a new Dolby-fied 500-seat theater. It’ll be roughly the seating capacity of the Library theatre and The MARC. The bottom floor will be for virtual reality razmatazz (i.e., VR, “augmented” whatever-the-fuck reality, mixed bullshit reality and outside-your-mind artificial bullshit intelligence).

Ray is located just across the parking lot from the “Yarrow” hotel, which of course has been called the Doubletree for the last couple of years. The 295-seat Park Avenue theatre, which is mainly for press screenings, is located inside that drafty establishment.

HE’s headline notwithstanding, the Ray is not named for the late Aldo Ray, a hot actor in the early to mid ’50s who was much loved by Harry Cohn. .

Read more

Mark Wahlberg got the message — Twitter and the media-industry world had decided over the last two or three days that he had acted like a huge asshole for greedily exploiting the last-minute preparation to re-shoot All The Money in the World last November, and in so doing snagging a $1.5 million payday while costar Michelle Willams got zip.

And so he and his agency, William Morris Endeavor, have coughed up a $2 million donation in Williams’ name to the Time’s Up legal defense fund — essentially a “we’re sorry, will you forgive us?” gesture backed by serious dough.

I think Wahlberg has done the right thing here. He’s still who he is and many of his movies still suck eggs, but he’s stood up and atoned for his greedhead move and so has WME. Let it go.

“Over the last few days my reshoot fee for All the Money in the World has become an important topic of conversation,” Wahlberg said in a statement. “I 100% support the fight for fair pay and I’m donating the $1.5M to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund in Michelle Williams’ name.”

Joe Berkowitz‘s “Time’s Up, Woody,” an article that posted in yesterday (1.12) Fast Times, calls for a recognition of an ethical line in the sand. I’m speaking of a difference between supporting and applauding the #MeToo movement, which everyone favors, and rashly calling for the career death of an alleged predator who has never, in fact, been charged or even half-proven to be one.

I fully understand the impulse to stand with #MeToo and throw spears on its behalf, but when the facts don’t support your allegation or position, you spears are made of brittle clay and you’re standing on shaky ground.

This morning I sent the following to Berkowitz by email. I’m also posting it here:

“Joe — Based on what little I know about the Woody Allen case, it is my opinion that portions of what you wrote yesterday about Allen were sloppy, partly dishonest and ill-informed. Your piece also delivered a whiff of McCarthy-ism. You should really wade into the extensive, very exactingly researched Robert Weide defense that was posted in mid December.

“The Weide article is, by my sights, fair, balanced, scrupulous and very exacting. A significant part of what you wrote yesterday was not. IMHO portions of what you wrote yesterday were straight out of The Crucible.

“There’s also Weide’s 3-part Twitter response to “every low-information ‘expert’ who insists that #WoodyAllen married his daughter (adopted, step, or otherwise) or that she was underage when they got involved, or that he was ever a father figure to her. #IBelieveMoses,” not to mention his Twitter page for the latest slings and arrows. — Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere”